Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Caliban]

They're customer service. It's there job. Do you regularly practice being this crazy, Caliban?

Do you regularly make false statements about people who disagree with you?

And where is it stated that making rules interpretations is part of their job? Do you have anything to support your statements here?

Edit: hehe, You know, I decided to go see if I find an answer to this question, since you don't seem inclined to. I found an answer in about 2 minutes. Instead of attacking me, you could have tried answering the question. That would have been an intelligent debating tactic.


Apparently they are supposed to answer rules questions. Too bad they have been wrong so often in the past, as their credibility has been shot, at least on these boards. I still don't accept them as "official" as far as rules interpretations go, but trying to answer questions is indeed part of their job.


Maybe they are training their people better now, but I think that I have to see some non-contradictory answers before I'll believe that.

 

[Anubis]

The reason for my comments was because this is something that shouldn't even need to be looked up. Most of us knew it already, we figured it out through those things called common sense and logic. Heck, even Trevor said outright that answering rules questions was part of their job, as shown in my posting of the response, but you conveniently ignored that.

I felt no obligation to do any further work at it. I had already proved my point, and if you wanna ignore the obvious and not use your common sense or any form of logic, hey, that's your choice. I suppose everyone has the right to behave in such a manner.

Still, don't come here with that crap and put so much spin on things. I really think you just get off on arguing. We've proven our case many times over, and I've even pushed it as far as getting three reps, Andy Collins, and R&D involved. For the most part, my assumptions proved correct in most cases, and close enough to count in all the rest. That means that logic could have brought about these conclusions, which also means that your refusal to listen is either genuine lack of understanding or outright wanton arguing.

Yeah, I may take potshots at you, but you're taking plenty of potshots at Andy Collins and the customer service, so all's fair. At least their jobs allow them to make statements about the rules. You have no such power.

Given your beligerence, I may just be prone to dismiss everything you say from here on out. Your arguments and actions aren't productive. You dissed the Sage and customer service on so many occasions about mistakes, yet did nothing to even attempt to help fix them. At least I can say I've actually taken active steps to make everything clear. You've simply been thriving on the chaos. It ends. Now.

 

[glass]

I dont know how to be more clear than when the rules literally state something explicitly.

They literally do increase by one step. If you wish to say that one weapon does too much base damage vs another go right ahead, but that is a completely seperate arguement. Or even if a certain weapon does not increase properly according to other parts of the RAW, which is again a seperate arguement.

It's one 'step', but is not the same kind as the 'step' in the EWP example.

I am 1 unit from my desk drawers, the earth is 1 unit from the sun. But it's disingenuous to state that without mentioning that in first case that unit is a metre and in the second it's and AU.


glass.

 

[Egres]

Maybe they are training their people better now, but I think that I have to see some non-contradictory answers before I'll believe that.

They have stated that monks cannot benefit from INA on the WotC boards.

Just another proof that Caliban is absolutely right.

No one with a functioning brain trust CustServ.

 

[glass]

They're customer service. It's there job. Do you regularly practice being this crazy, Caliban?

Ad hominem attacks do not make your arguments seem any stronger. Actually they make them seem weaker, if that's possible.


glass.

 

[FireLance]

They have stated that monks cannot benefit from INA on the WotC boards.

For the record, who are "They" and when was the statement made?

 

[glass]

I had already proved my point, and if you wanna ignore the obvious and not use your common sense or any form of logic, hey, that's your choice. I suppose everyone has the right to behave in such a manner.

(Emphasis mine)

How does the expression go? 'You keep using that word; I do not think it mean what you think it means'.


glass.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Back in post #793 I asked Anubis and Caliban to stop argueing. Apparently that isn't on the cards, and I don't think this thread is going to reach the magic 1000 posts.

Because it is getting locked.

There is plenty of meat in the thread for people to chew over, but at this point I'm seeing pretty much entrenched positions and a lot more heat than light.

Discussions about FAQ vs errata vs customer service are continuing in this thread http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=153552, please feel free to join in there (although we don't want to see Monks and INA restarting again, please).

Regards