Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Camarath" data-source="post: 1243527" data-attributes="member: 11987">I am claiming that to alllow this you must go beyond the rules, and that, that means you are entering the realm of house rules. There are millions and millions of potional actions and situations that are not covered by the rules and to say that any solution you wish apply to any one of them is allowed by the rules because the rules do not cover it or explicitly disallow it is, IMO, foolish. There are also potentially millions of mechanisms and rulings do deal with each one of those situations. Such as in this situation one could allow Monks to use their natural weapons as monk weapons rather than unarmed strikes as you suggested. There is no way to objectively determine which solution the rules support and which solution the rules do not support because there is same amount of rule support for each option (i.e. none). Both solutions go beyond the rules as they are laid out. Going beyond the rules involves making new rules to cover what the existing rules do not. But in my opinion saying that the options available to a character using Unarmed Strike are limited to those spelled out in the rules does not require a new rule. Just as limiting the spell selection of a caster to those spells that appear on the caster's spell list does not involve creating a new rule it only involves remaining with in the existing rules.This situation only exists when you demand that the rules allow more than they say they allow because it is reasonable and logical that they should do so. Wile I agree that it is reasonable to allow the use of natural weapons with unarmed strikes, I believe that to do so you must add to the rules governing unarmed strikes because using natural weapons is not one of the existing options for unarmed strikes. Using the options spelled out in the rules is remaining within the bounds of the rules. Using options not spelled out in the rules is going beyond the bounds of the rules. I am of the opinion that if the rules do not expressly allow an option then by default they disallow that option in the abscence of a house rule. I believe you are saying that it is your opinion that unless the rules expressly disallow an option then by default they allow that option in the abscence of a house rule. This I believe is the core of our disagreement.edit: post subdivided for Caliban's comfort and convenience</blockquote>

Verification