Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[glass]

*Fails Will Save*

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

Well, your Will Save was several point higher than mine...


glass.

 

[glass]

The difference is that you see that there might be a different way of viewing the rules that might be from a different point of view. Glass, on the other hand, insists that HIS way is the ONLY WAY.

No I don't. I am reasonable in the literal sense of the word: If you can come up with a good enough argument, you can get me to change my position. You haven't.

I have been wrong before, and I probably will be again, but obviously I don't think I am wrong in this case. And I will continue to think that unless and until someone can show me different.


glass.

 

[glass]

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.

That quote is from the WotC website, right? In which case, I'll refer you to my earlier comment:

So, the final arbiters of D&D rules are webmasters? I'll stick with my PHB, thanks.

EDIT: Wow, six replies in a row.


glass.

 

[Gilwen]

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.

If that after dinner speech was given in an official capcity representing WOTC, then yes, granted though he should change the WOTC official dociuments to reflect that, but I am not getting into the arguement on how "official" a publicy produced WOTC document is.


Gil

 

[Borlon]

*Fails Will Save*

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

Well, your Will Save was several point higher than mine...


glass.

Hmmm. Failed six times in a row, I see.

But at least the thread topic had moved from the discussion about whether unarmed strikes were natural attacks. And it was being suggested that you were the lone voice of dissent; being a dissenter myself, I had to speak up. Though Artoomis doesn't think I am really in agreement with you that the yes position is baseless.

I think there is a difference between a rule being easy to misinterpret, and the rule being ambiguous. The fact that a rule is misinterpreted may be a good reason to think or say that the rule is ambiguous, but if, under close scrutiny, it turns out that the rule is quite precise, well, it isn't ambiguous after all.

I think that is what is happening with the ruling on INA. My position is that the rules are not ambiguous, but that they are being misinterpreted by the Yes side. I wonder if they would still be the Yes side if the FAQ had said that monks could not take INA? According to the terms of the argument the FAQ ruling shouldn't make a difference, since we are seeing whether it is consistent with the rest of the rules. But that's not the point. The point is that we are interpreting the rules differently, and some of us are saying there is no ambiguity in the rules, only a propensity to be misinterpreted.

We can't all be right. If the rules were ambiguous, each side could legitimately claim support for their position, but they would have to acknowledge the other side had support too. But by claiming that the rules are not ambiguous, we rule that out.

If I knew what was the basis of the misinterpretation, I could address it. But I don't know how Artoomis manages to come down on the opposite side from me in so many different rules issues. Perhaps the problem is with Artoomis (or with me!); I suppose the problem might be with the rules, and they *are* ambiguous, though I don't see it. But until I understand how Artoomis is getting those conclusions, I can't really say where the problem is.

I can just say that I don't see any ambiguity in the rules about monks and INA (though they are tricky to understand correctly), and I don't know where the variant answers are coming from.

[edit]By "ambiguity" I mean "underdetermined": the command "Give me the book on the table" is ambiguous/underdetermined if there are two books on the table; I won't know which one is meant, and so I might choose to bring the closer of the two. Someone else might choose differently; either choice might be justified. But a complicated instruction can be perfectly determinate, even if I misunderstand what is meant.[/edit]

 

[Artoomis]

...Perhaps the problem is with Artoomis (or with me!); I suppose the problem might be with the rules, and they *are* ambiguous, though I don't see it. But until I understand how Artoomis is getting those conclusions, I can't really say ...[/edit]

The rules indeed ARE ambiguous. Exactly when a monk's special attack counts as a natural weapon is NOT precisely defined. Or, if you like, whether or not is applies to a feat that gives a bonus of some type to a natural attack is not made competely clear if you get very, very technical. Splitting up whether it would count for the feat but not for the prerequisites of that feat is a rather hyper-technical argument.

I think BOTH sides have made legitimate, rules-based arguments -that, by it's very nature, makes the rule be amiguous, doesn't it?

How can the rule be clear if both sides to the agrument can make rules-based arguments that support their positions?

Now I, of course, think my way of looking at it is much better, but I do not discount your way as being a legitimate interpretation of the rules - I just think it's wrong way to look at it.

 

[FireLance]

I do feel somewhat miffed at the charge that I'm supporting a position that doesn't have a leg to stand on, since my arguments are based on the rules published by WotC. I'm fine if you don't agree with my arguments and interpretations, or if you don't accept them because the rules I cite aren't from the three core rulebooks. However, impying that there is no basis for what I'm saying seems to me to be questioning my integrity.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Off-Topic, sorry

 

[Anubis]

Big long post about legislation...

Apples and oranges. You're comparing two very different sets of circumstances. Legislation is one of three branches that operate under a separation of powers in a democracy. The core books, errata, and FAQ are sources of absolute law as would be the law of a, say, dictatorship.

There is no balance of powers in D&D. The designers worked together and created the system, therefore their word is bonded to that system. Their word is law, as that of a dictator. We may not always agree with the dictator, but if we live in his country, that is how we do things. If we want to play a different way using house rules, we either do it underground or in another country.

. . .

Okay this is asinine trying to compare D&D with politics on any level. I'll just give a touch of Occam's Razor and put this in the simplest possible terms:

The designers, hired by WoTC, designed the system.

The designers, as reps of WotC, are the experts on said system and the only ones who know the true intent behind every printed word therein.

As such, since the designers both created it, know it inside and out, and are officially handed the power by WotC with regards to what is and is not official, then any designer who builds an FAQ has just as much say as an editor who publishes errata. In fact, this is so true that WotC puts their stamp of approval on the FAQ and offers it direct from their web site.

So if the designers, the publishers, and the owners of the copyright all agree, that makes it official. Again, we don't have to follow the rules, when when someone asks the question "Can monks, by the official rules of D&D, take Improved Natural Attack?", then the only possible answer is "Yes." Why? Because WotC says so.

As for contradictions, well, let us remember that D&D is always a work in progress. When contradictions arise, the most recently published material takes precedence. In this case, that would be the FAQ. I apologize if this sounds mean, by the way, as it is not my intention. I just wanted to be as clear as possible.

 

[moritheil]

I do feel somewhat miffed at the charge that I'm supporting a position that doesn't have a leg to stand on, since my arguments are based on the rules published by WotC. I'm fine if you don't agree with my arguments and interpretations, or if you don't accept them because the rules I cite aren't from the three core rulebooks. However, impying that there is no basis for what I'm saying seems to me to be questioning my integrity.

You and anyone who has ever disagreed with saev or patryn. Some posters just feel the need to repeatedly insinuate that.