Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

...In conclusion, there is every call to call it an 'erroneous interpretation', because IMO it doesn't follow from the RAW. Lots of people (even Andy Collins) making the same mistake doesn't mean it isn't a mistake.


glass.

And THAT is where you are wrong. It is NOT an erroneous interpretation. It is WotC (through Andy Collins) adopting one of two possible, legitimate, interpretations of RAW.

Now I still maintain that your interpretation is not correct, but I at least recognize that it is possible to legitimately draw your conclusion from the RAW.

Can you not do the same for my side of the argument?

 

[glass]

And THAT is where you are wrong. It is NOT an erroneous interpretation. It is WotC (through Andy Collins) adopting one of two possible, legitimate, interpretations of RAW.

I don't care what Andy Collins or WotC think. I care what the PHB says.

Now I still maintain that your interpretation is not correct, but I at least recognize that it is possible to legitimately draw your conclusion from the RAW. Can you not do the same for my side of the argument?

No I can't, because it isn't. There are some areas where there are grey areas of the rules with multiple valid interpretations. IMO, this isn't one of them.

I have presented extensive arguments in support of my position in this thread and others. You can't even keep one consistant position from one post to the next. Is it really surprising you have failed to convince me?


glass.

 

[IcyCool]

As for errata vs. FAQ - I'm afraid that the FAQ acts as a virtual errata for WotC, not just interpretations.

If I had that opinion, I'd be afraid too.

 

[Artoomis]

...

I have presented extensive arguments in support of my position in this thread and others. You can't even keep one consistant position from one post to the next. Is it really surprising you have failed to convince me?


glass.

First - my position has in fact been very, very consistent - except insofar as I did get convinced that there are TWO ways to support my view that the PHB supports INA being allowed for monks.

Second, it is not suprising I have not convinced you, as you have taken a position and refused to even admit that any other agurment has any validity at all. I am dissapointed that you cannot at least admit that the argument has two sides, or that the rule is in any way unclear.

That's kind of... sad, really. And unworthy of you, I think. Most everyone else (I think) either agrees with me or thinks I am wrong but can understand how my position is based upon RAW. Doesn't the fact that you think that you have the ONLY legitimate interpretation of the RAW make you kind of ... alone?

 

[Artoomis]

If I had that opinion, I'd be afraid too.

It's not opinion - it's fact. The FAQ does, in fact, change some rules and, in at least one case, a rule changed in the FAQ was published in a D&D book (PHB, I think) without ever making it into the "errata." This means the FAQ was used to actually publish a changed rule.

I don't like it, but that's the way it is. I once tried to argue that the FAQ could not, per WotC rules, publish any actual rule changes, but I was shown that they in fact DO publish rules changes in the FAQ and, further, I've been shown how, in at least one case, the rule change got published into the new printing of the core rulebook without ever being in errata.

That's NOT the way it was supposed to work, but it's what the've done, without doubt.

If the discussion on FAQ as errata contniues, I think it is off-topic and I'll start a new thread for it. Only if it looks like it will make for a good discussion on its own.

 

[glass]

It's not opinion - it's fact. The FAQ does, in fact, change some rules and, in at least one case, a rule changed in the FAQ was published in a D&D book (PHB, I think) without ever making it into the "errata." This means the FAQ was used to actually publish a changed rule.

It's not fact. The fact is, per the Errata rules, only the Errata can change the rules. The facts is, the FAQ doesn't change the rules, because it can't.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

It's not fact. The fact is, per the Errata rules, only the Errata can change the rules. The facts is, the FAQ doesn't change the rules, because it can't.


glass.

Well, you are correct that this is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.

In fact, it does not work that way. I wish it did, and it should, but it does not.

I just proved it, if you take my word about rule change in the FAQ that was never errata but published in the updated printing of a core rule book.

You can jump up and down and proclaim how the FAQ is not allowed to make rule changes all you want (I did, once), but the FACT is that it does do that - even though it shouldn't.

Because of this, it's difficult to know what's what, sometimes, as I stated above.

 

[IcyCool]

I just proved it, if you take my word about rule change in the FAQ that was never errata but published in the updated printing of a core rule book.

Actually, it doesn't look like you proved anything. The rule change wasn't a rule change until it was published in the updated printing of the core book.

 

[Artoomis]

Actually, it doesn't look like you proved anything. The rule change wasn't a rule change until it was published in the updated printing of the core book.

ROFL.

They published the FAQ that stated "here's how this rule was was meant to be written" or words to that effect. It was later published that way.

Does that not mean the FAQ published a rule change? Yep, it sure does.

Now I'll be the first to agree that the rule books plus errata SHOULD be the only true rule source, with the FAQ as clarifiaction/interpretation. I only wish WotC had followed their own rules for that, but they have not and they do, in fact, publish rules changes in the FAQ.

In truth, errata should be for actual errors ONLY and any actual rule CHANGES should be published another way - they seem to have chosen the FAQ for that - along with OTHER purposes for the FAQ, muddying up the waters for those who like precision.

WotC is really getting their act together and having customer service put out consistent messages on what the "offical" rules are and they are using the FAQ. The real trick is to seperate out an offical rule change from just advice, and they've made that difficult by mixing the two together in the same document without always making it clear which is which.

 

[Borlon]

Second, it is not suprising I have not convinced you, as you have taken a position and refused to even admit that any other agurment has any validity at all. I am dissapointed that you cannot at least admit that the argument has two sides, or that the rule is in any way unclear.

That's kind of... sad, really. And unworthy of you, I think. Most everyone else (I think) either agrees with me or thinks I am wrong but can understand how my position is based upon RAW. Doesn't the fact that you think that you have the ONLY legitimate interpretation of the RAW make you kind of ... alone?

*Fails Will Save*

Drat, here I am posting in this thread again...

First, glass is not alone. I don't think the Yes position has a leg to stand on. Now, maybe it's because I'm pure evil, but I find that almost every time you state a position on the rules, I disagree with you. Oddly, I tend to agree with Patryn of Elvenshae and Hypersmurf when they also post.

I conjecture that there is some kind of consistent rules posture that you take which is very different from what I (and some others) take. I have not been able to put it into words exactly. It may be that I am systematically misinterpreting the rules, and also what you are saying about the rules. I don't think so, but I can't account for your rules decisions and so I have to suspend judgement.

It is clear to me, though, that you are reading the rules according to different principles that I am, and I wish I knew what these principles were.