Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 3213359" data-attributes="member: 19675">It is, as explicitly stated in the feat, an additional attack of opportunity.  This is a mechanical description of an exception to a rule, not an alteration to the core definition of Attack of Opportunity.An enhancement bonus.  Yes, I know it enhances something that is not an ability, armor, or weapon- which is merely evidence that WotC does not use language with precision, but only the illusion of precision.In order, an armor bonus, a deflection bonus, and a shield bonus.A competence bonus.I'll counter with this question:  Why is the Feat that improves all of a PC's unarmed attacks called "Improved Unarmed Strike?"WotC is clearly being imprecise.We've had the discussion of WotC's imprecision before, H.- remember our discussion of whether the Whirling Blade (<a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170081" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170081</a>) spell was an Area spell (and thus alterable by the Metamagic feat "Sculpt Spell") or an Effect (thus, not subject)?  The spell had several characteristics of both types.  The only conclusion in that thread was that there was no hard and fast delineation between the 2 spell types.IOW, "Punt!"andSo you (and others) would rather believe that the glossary is incorrect, that Ki Strike is so horribly drafted  that it only meaningfully applies to a very narrow subset of what it purports to affect, and that the drafting differences between the language in the IUS Feat description & "Unarmed Attack" sections are omissions rather than further evidence of WotC's imprecise use of language?Even in the face of a CustServ response that says explicitly that they are conflating "unarmed strike" and "unarmed attack?"So be it.Our positions are essentially diametrically opposed.  The only way this could be decided difinitively is if one (or more) of the 3.X drafters dropped in and gave their opinion.I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.  A definition doesn't neccessarily describe how things work- I can look up "electron microscope" in my OED and find out what one is, but it won't tell me how to use one if I'm standing in front of one.A glossary is essentially an abbreviated dictionary, the entire purpose of which is to define terms used within a particular work.  Thus, the PHB's glossary is its repository of definitions.  The text elsewhere describes how the terms defined within it are used mechanically within the framework of the game system.</blockquote>

Verification