Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

When are you going to realize that they don't?

I'm still offering a lollipop, by the way.

Actually, I don't think they are equal weight, either. On the other hand, I do think that WotC does indeed publish rules changes in the FAQ that are then equal weight to the errata, but not everything in the FAQ is a rule change.

Basically, the FAQ needs to be read with a critical eye. Sometimes they intentionally print a rule change in there.

Note tha errata is supposed to be about typos minor corrections, NOT rule changes, but they most certainly changed an item creation rule in errata, - you know, the creator level thing.

The point being, of course, that WotC does not follow their own rules but seems to do whatever feels right at the time.

 

[Legildur]

<snip>After all, they wrote it, so their interpretations are automatically right.

Yes, yes, yes, I should have known... the FAQ ALWAYS gets it right... NEVER any errors or outright rules contradictions. Not even a single example .....<switches off brain as it is obviously no longer a requirement for D&D>

 

[Artoomis]

Yes, yes, yes, I should have known... the FAQ ALWAYS gets it right... NEVER any errors or outright rules contradictions. Not even a single example .....<switches off brain as it is obviously no longer a requirement for D&D>

Now, now - Anubis is right as far as knowing what is "official." Nothing stops you from doing whatever you want in your own game, of course.

 

[Legildur]

Now, now - Anubis is right as far as knowing what is "official." Nothing stops you from doing whatever you want in your own game, of course.

Mostly. Except that there is a published heirarchy of rules to be observed and their purposes. The FAQ (as observed by others) is creeping (well, running in some circumstances) outside its terms of reference.

And as the FAQ being rules, let me quote a little example from my own life, which can act as an analogy for the D&D rules set. My previous job for a number of years required, amongst other things, interpretation of legislation. Legislation, analagous to the core rule books, at times is found to have errors in it. Sometimes related legislation (non-core material) has an apparent impact on the core legislation - primary legislation trumps ancilliary legislation, just as core rules trump non-core where there is a conflict.

Corrections or variations (or amendments as their are known) to legislation is undertaken regularly and analagous to the errata.

Underneath the legislation in the heirarchy was a thing called 'the guide'. This was the policy interpretation of the legislation and analogous to the FAQ. And while the guide held a degree of status in a legal sense (much like the FAQ) no amount of commonsense or wishing would allow the guide to trump the legislation - a fact driven home several times in administrative appeals courts.

Often legislation and guide did not necessarily provide the authority, under law, to operate in the way it was planned or drafted. As a consequence, changes to the legislation and the guide were regularly undertaken to improve the clarity and hence operation of government policy.

If WotC want monks to be able to take Improved Natural Attack, then all they need to do is issue errata to that fact. It's pretty simple really. As it stands, I don't believe that by the RAW that a monk can take INA. And based on my real life experiences with legislation, polciy interpratation of legislation, and exposure to administrative (and higher) court decisions, no amount of berating by Anubis will change my mind on that.

However, what I am willing to concede is that given the stance by A designer, I believe that a 'beneficial interpretation' of the quoted clauses could be taken to allow a monk to take INA. That is, while the decision is not as per the rules, no appeals court would overturn the decision as the no-one is being hurt by it (except by maybe various opponents - who may then take out a writ much in the lines of what happened in a recent page of the Order of the Stick ).

 

[RigaMortus2]

How does Andy Collins know what intent of the person who wrote the monk's ability and the person who wrote the INA feat (who may be different people) was? Is he a mindreader?

And of course, that's assuming that there was any intent. IMO it is just as likely (at least) that the interaction was not considered at all, so there was no intent.

IOW, you can speculate about intent all you like, but in the end, the best guide for what the designers intended is what they wrote! And that's really all you can go on.


glass.

Because Andy Collins is a representative of WotC. Perhaps that wasn't the intent of the feat back when it is originally written, but according to Andy, it is now.

 

[Artoomis]

To further support my position on FAQ as source for rule chages (an errata source):

Do you have questions about the D&D game rules? Download the official FAQ that best suits your needs. Each FAQ is presented in PDF format so that you can download it, print it, and take it to your game. They feature a date code in the footer so you can always be sure that you have the most current version. (These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents.)

N0te that the only errata NOT found in the FAQ is that already posted in errata documents - WotC is letting us know they will use the FAQ as a souce for errata NOT found in the errata documents. And they do this. The problem, of course, is that they do not clearly label when a statement is to be considerd errata and when it is not.

 

[Artoomis]

See discussion of FAQ as errata

 

[glass]

Because Andy Collins is a representative of WotC. Perhaps that wasn't the intent of the feat back when it is originally written, but according to Andy, it is now.

So if Andy Collins says in an after dinner speach that a D&D rules is X, that is official errata? I'll stick to the actual errata, thankyou very much!


glass.

 

[glass]

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.

I would argue (and I have, several times) that the FAQ has never made rules changes, because it cannot make rules changes. It's not a case of not being allowed, it's a case of not having the power.

I can say 'I sentance you to 20 years in prison', but you're not going to be going. If a judge says it (in the proper circumstances) better start marking of the days. The judge has the power. I don't.

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

Whereas, if you stick to the Errata being errata and ignore the FAQ completely when it tries to act ultra vires, it's very easy to know what's what.


glass.

 

[glass]

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.

No, it means the published something in the FAQ that was either wrong, or a suggested variant rule, depending on how charitable you are feeling. I didn't become actual RAW until it was published in the book.

EDIT: Even your own paraphrase, 'Here's how the rule was meant to be written', acknowledges that that is not how the rule actually was written.


glass.