Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[moritheil]

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.

Except that when the writers are writing the books, they are the dictators. When they are done writing the books, they are no longer the dictators; they have been deposed and forced into "retirement" by the new dictator (the Errata editor.)

This is more like the law of the Persians and the Medes - that which is written into law is law, even above the one who wrote it - than the law of an arbitrary military dictator, who changes everything on whim from one day to the next on his word alone.

 

[Legildur]

Apples and oranges. You're comparing two very different sets of circumstances. <snip> 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.

I here I thought I had clearly labeled it as an analogy.....

Just because something is published does not make it 'law' or 'rules' unless it follows the standards to be met in the relevant 'consitution'. In this case, WotC have not followed their own constitution in changing the rules.

Another analogy (I apologise in advance) is if the Prime Minister (or President in your case) issues a press release stating a policy position. Unless the correct protocols are adhered to and legislation passed by whatever legislative committee has the authority to do so, then the PM's (or President's) words are meaningless, except to give vague direction on future activities or intention of government.

In this case, no errata, no INA for monks. (but this conclusion is based on my interpretation that the RAW does not allow monks to take INA).

 

[Dinkeldog]

This might become one of my new interview questions when I'm considering playing with a DM for the first time.

 

[Artoomis]

I here I thought I had clearly labeled it as an analogy.....

Just because something is published does not make it 'law' or 'rules' unless it follows the standards to be met in the relevant 'consitution'. In this case, WotC have not followed their own constitution in changing the rules.

Another analogy (I apologise in advance) is if the Prime Minister (or President in your case) issues a press release stating a policy position. Unless the correct protocols are adhered to and legislation passed by whatever legislative committee has the authority to do so, then the PM's (or President's) words are meaningless, except to give vague direction on future activities or intention of government.

In this case, no errata, no INA for monks. (but this conclusion is based on my interpretation that the RAW does not allow monks to take INA).

Bad analogy. WotC is more like a dictatorship - they are not bound by a constitution. They get to decide whether the FAQ can include more than mere clarifications. See teh other thread on this topic.

In any case, it ought to be really, really clear by now that there is NOT general agreement on whether, by the RAW, monks can take INA. In fact, most folks agree with me that the RAW supports monks taking INA - which does not necessarily mean we am right, but it does mean our position cannot be simply swept away as being non-RAW.

Bottom line - it should be very, very clear by now that the issue of whether monks can take INA per RAW is not clear-cut, and therefore an excellent candidiate for clarification by WotC.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This might become one of my new interview questions when I'm considering playing with a DM for the first time.

And what answer would you be looking for?

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

Bad analogy. WotC is more like a dictatorship - they are not bound by a constitution. They get to decide whether the FAQ can include more than mere clarifications. See teh other thread on this topic.

Can you show me where in the RAW it says this?

I still hold to the "Law of the Persians and Medes" approach - the designers are not the ultimate authority; the RAW itself is.

 

[Artoomis]

Can you show me where in the RAW it says this?

I still hold to the "Law of the Persians and Medes" approach - the designers are not the ultimate authority; the RAW itself is.

You, know, I agree that the designers are not the ultimate authority. The publisher/owner fo D&D is the ultimate authority, though, and that's who puts out the FAQ and that's who stated that the FAQ will only not "cover errata found in the errata documents," leaving open the door to cover errata NOT found in the errata documents.

Having shown that the door is open, what remain is to show that they actually have done this, which I also have shown. Again, see the other thread, where I am going to repost this reponse for comments.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

I (and others) have stated it quite succinctly: The PHB contains explicit, RAW sections that say that unarmed strikes are natrual weapons. Subsequent publications do so as well. There is no RAW section in the PHB that contradicts that- I personaly went through the PHB glossary and combat sections to point that out. (Post #607.)

The best that can be said, PHB RAW is that certain sections explicitly refer to US as NA and other sections reveal inconsistencies- but no true contradictions.

I also pointed out that the language in the spells in the PHB changed from 3Ed to 3.5Ed into the more explicit language (one spell ADDED the language about US being NA) to illustrate that the 3.5Ed-itors clearly thought of US being NA at least part of the time during the revision. (Post #643)

Legildur
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.

Even that isn't 100% the case: Often, in legislation as in RPG rules, subseqent (non-core) text is meant to supplant the original text.

Example: The Texas State Constitution has a section dealing with marital property rights. It has been changed many times- one section has been altered about 9 times in particular. The Texas Constitution wasn't re-issued in a new (Nth Edition) core form- we lawyers merely need to know where the new section is located OR must be able to trace it through the revisions.

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!

Not unless it gets adopted by WOTC. Otherwise, its just dicta- aka talk - and thus has no real force.

I wonder if they would still be the Yes side if the FAQ had said that monks could not take INA?

That would depend on what the FAQ actually said.

If it just said NO without a decent explanation, then I'd still be supporting Monks taking INA, because there are RAW sections that support that position. Example- WOTC's errata on M:TG occasionally made distinctions between IDENTICAL language on different cards because the cards, as written, led to potential game-breaking combinations. While it made no LINGUISTIC sense, it made sense for reasons of supporting their tournament environment. (IMHO, the better decision would have been to ban the offending cards from tournament play and re-issue the card with a different name and corrected text in the next release- like they had done with other cards.)

IF, on the other hand, the FAQ stated that the language in the PHB was an editing error- language that should have been excised when the PHB went to print, then I would have to accept that Monks don't get to take INA.

 

[Legildur]

Bad analogy. WotC is more like a dictatorship - they are not bound by a constitution. They get to decide whether the FAQ can include more than mere clarifications. See teh other thread on this topic.

You may think it is a bad analogy, but others have already contradicted your dictatorship equivalence statement. So I can't be too far off the track. And WotC do not appear to have taken a decision (at least little evidence to prove that). WotC may have become lazy in communicating possible changes to the rules, but they have not revised their heirarchy of rules sources or the purposes of the various elements of that heirarchy. And, like others in your other thread, I see how you interpreted a single sentence to mean that the FAQ includes errata, but I also drew a different conclusion to the same sentence. There is a possibility of that your conclusion exists, but the language used is incomplete, so it is unclear.

In any case, it ought to be really, really clear by now that there is NOT general agreement on whether, by the RAW, monks can take INA. etc

Full agreement with you on this one.

Bottom line - it should be very, very clear by now that the issue of whether monks can take INA per RAW is not clear-cut, and therefore an excellent candidiate for clarification by WotC.

Actually, I would say 'an excellent candidate for errata'.

 

[Borlon]

Hmmm. Alright. I take back what I said about the Yes side's position being baseless. There are areas where the rules are inconsistent, and if you pick and choose you can support the conclusion that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, and that feats are effects, and other dubious results.

I wouldn't resolve the inconsistencies that way, though. I still hold that humans do not have natural weapons. I would add, however, that unarmed attacks can be used as an alternative to, or in the absence of, a manufactured weapon. And since the use of fists, kicks, head-butts and so forth is analogous to what creatures with natural weapons do, the designers sometimes, on a case by case basis, allow these unarmed strikes to be enhanced with spells like magic fang. That's how I would resolve the various inconsistencies in the rules.

The issue I worry about is whether regular humans can qualify for feats, prestige classes or what not that require natural weapons as prerequisites. The Yes side would allow this, and I think this is a mistake. I would dearly like to block at the root any chain of logic that would allow Joe Commoner to take INA. The primary place in doing so is to break the link between benefiting from an effect that looks for X and qualifying for a prerequisite that looks for X. My "principle of prerequisite conversion" is a means of interpreting the monk's NWE rule to allow the benefit/prerequisite switch to be made. In the absence of a general rule associating unarmed strikes and natural weapons the PPC would not allow Joe Commoner to do the same.

Now the harm is not that obvious when it is just INA. But it is quite plausible that there could be other feats and prestige classes that are intended to enhance natural weapons that would be inappropriate for humans and demihumans. The best way to exclude humans and demihumans would be to add a "must have natural weapons" prerequisite. But this is useless if the Yes side is right.