Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Anubis]

Andy Collins from Dragon.

-Hyp.

I asked you this before and you never answered. When did Andy Collins become the Sage? I have several issues of Dragon from I think early 2004, and the author is listed as Skip Williams. Just curious as to when that happened, and you never answered me before.

I mean it still doesn't matter as far as the topic goes since Andy Collins is one of the designers as well, but I just wanna know when this change happened.

 

[FireLance]

Why is this debate still going even? We have not one, not two, but three official sources now (the RAW when by the most widely-accepted interpretation, Skip Williams from Dragon, and now the FAQ) stating monk's can take the feat.

The FAQ generally repeats Sage Advice from Dragon, so it's unclear whether it's one source or two.

 

[Pinotage]

I asked you this before and you never answered. When did Andy Collins become the Sage? I have several issues of Dragon from I think early 2004, and the author is listed as Skip Williams. Just curious as to when that happened, and you never answered me before.

Post #609.

Pinotage

 

[RigaMortus2]

Why is this debate still going even? We have not one, not two, but three official sources now (the RAW when by the most widely-accepted interpretation, Skip Williams from Dragon, and now the FAQ) stating monk's can take the feat.

Because the only "official" source that really matters has NOT been updated, and that is the errata. The PHB (as well as the other 2 Core books) is your first official source, and since it is not absolutely 100% clear in those primary sources whether a Monk can take INA, we look to the FAQ for the designers to answer what the "intent" was behind INA and Monks taking it. So what are we arguing at this point? Are we arguing the intent of Monks taking INA or are we arguing RAW whether Monks can take INA? Cause RAW is unclear and not updated in errata. Intent, well read the FAQ or Sage Advice for that...

 

[glass]

Why is this debate still going even? We have not one, not two, but three official sources now (the RAW when by the most widely-accepted interpretation, Skip Williams from Dragon, and now the FAQ) stating monk's can take the feat.

What the RAW says is the subject of this debate, so trying to use it as evidence for you position is begging the question. The other two are not the rules, so are irrelevant.

Any DM who says they can't take it, that is a house rule. Per the official rules, monks can take the feat.

Do you think if you keep reastating a position, that is a substitute for evidence?

Let it die already.

The thread necromancy came from your side of the debate not ours. I'd love to let it die, but as long as your side keep posting erroneous interpretations as facts, we have to keep calling you on it for the benefit of those new to the debate.


glass.

 

[Caliban]

I asked you this before and you never answered. When did Andy Collins become the Sage? I have several issues of Dragon from I think early 2004, and the author is listed as Skip Williams. Just curious as to when that happened, and you never answered me before.

I mean it still doesn't matter as far as the topic goes since Andy Collins is one of the designers as well, but I just wanna know when this change happened.

Dragon # 323, over a year ago. I answered this earlier in post 614, apparently you didn't bother to read it, just like you didn't bother to read Hypersmurfs response in post # 609.

 

[glass]

Because the only "official" source that really matters has NOT been updated, and that is the errata. The PHB (as well as the other 2 Core books) is your first official source, and since it is not absolutely 100% clear in those primary sources whether a Monk can take INA, we look to the FAQ for the designers to answer what the "intent" was behind INA and Monks taking it. So what are we arguing at this point? Are we arguing the intent of Monks taking INA or are we arguing RAW whether Monks can take INA? Cause RAW is unclear and not updated in errata. Intent, well read the FAQ or Sage Advice for that...

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.

 

[Fortain]

The thread necromancy came from your side of the debate not ours. I'd love to let it die, but as long as your side keep posting erroneous interpretations as facts, we have to keep calling you on it for the benefit of those new to the debate.
glass.

The reason I posted this, glass, was to show that the D&D FAQ (which, BTW, is endorsed by WotC, otherwise it wouldn't {A} be on their site, and {B} include the "Based on the original..." text that only WotC material has) now lists INS as a Monk-gainable feat. Now, we all know that the Sage can be wrong (look at the FAQ, page #18, first question), but there's no need to call it an "erroneous interpretation", since the only way it could be allowed on the WotC site, is for WotC to okay it. Also, the Sage admits he's wrong when he's wrong - again, see the above item on the FAQ. If there was a question about the Monk&INS debate between the Dragon magazine and the FAQ update, it would have been posted differently. Therefore, the FAQ is fact when it comes to rules interpretations, since the only possible way it could be on the FAQ is if WotC okayed it.

 

[glass]

The reason I posted this, glass, was to show that the D&D FAQ (which, BTW, is endorsed by WotC, otherwise it wouldn't {A} be on their site, and {B} include the "Based on the original..." text that only WotC material has) now lists INS as a Monk-gainable feat. Now, we all know that the Sage can be wrong (look at the FAQ, page #18, first question), but there's no need to call it an "erroneous interpretation", since the only way it could be allowed on the WotC site, is for WotC to okay it.

It can't be wrong because it's on the WotC site? So, the final arbiters of D&D rules are webmasters? I'll stick with my PHB, thanks.

Also, the Sage admits he's wrong when he's wrong - again, see the above item on the FAQ. If there was a question about the Monk&INS debate between the Dragon magazine and the FAQ update, it would have been posted differently. Therefore, the FAQ is fact when it comes to rules interpretations, since the only possible way it could be on the FAQ is if WotC okayed it.

So, the Sage can't be wrong, but when he is wrong he admits it? How does that work, exactly?

Plus, the fact that he has admitted he got something wrong, doesn't mean that he always admits when he gets it wrong. That would be quite a lot of admissions...

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.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, I am surprised this got resurrected.

As for errata vs. FAQ - I'm afraid that the FAQ acts as a virtual errata for WotC, not just interpretations. This is not according the their own original rules, but it's what has happened over the years. Some items from the FAQ (never published in errata) made it into the latest printing of the DMG/PHB. Sorry, but I cannot think of an example off-hand but I have actually seen at least one example of this.

Therefore, if errata can be used to support RAW arguments I suppose the FAQ can as well.

In this case, I (and others) have shown (repeatedly) how the rules as written (without errata or FAQ) support the position that monks can take INA - and how that position is closer to the rules as written than not allowing it by two completely independent streams of logic. I personally have also admitted that the minority view could also be valid, even if it really is not the correct position .

I have nothing new to add, really, except the comment about the FAQ being treated as a virtual errata list, which is unfortunate - it never should have evolved that way. The result is that it's a little hard, sometimes, to figure out if a particular FAQ item is:

1. An official clarification/interpretation.
2. Merely intended as good Advice.
3. An offical, actual rules change.

In this case, I think we are talking about an official clarification/interpretation because there are indeed two legitimate ways to view the rules so a judgement from the authoritative source was required.