Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[IcyCool]

ROFL.

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 doesn't, and I don't understand why you fail to see that. It is entirely possible for the FAQ to state that A and B are new rules changes. Later, A is published in either the Errata or a new core book. B, however, is not. Which of those is an actual rules change? The answer here, is A. B is not a rules change until it is either in the Errata or printed in the books.

The FAQ is about as reliable as a stopped clock. Not a good source for the current time, but it is right every once in a while.

 

[Pinotage]

The FAQ is about as reliable as a stopped clock. Not a good source for the current time, but it is right every once in a while.

That's a terrible understatement. Yes, the FAQ gets it wrong, but it's exactly the other way around from your sentences above. It gets it right far more often than wrong.

Retract, or the FAW will sue you!

Pinotage

 

[IcyCool]

That's a terrible understatement. Yes, the FAQ gets it wrong, but it's exactly the other way around from your sentences above. It gets it right far more often than wrong.

Retract, or the FAW will sue you!

Pinotage

Ahh, but you got the analogy, and that's all I was really shooting for!

And yes, the FAQ does get things right. I figure it's more like 50/50 though.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Retract, or the FAW will sue you!

Frequently Annoyed Whoos?

I know I should've burned Whooville to the ground!

 

[Artoomis]

*Fails Will Save*

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

First, glass is not alone. I don't think the Yes position has a leg to stand on...It is clear to me, though, that you are reading the rules according to different principles that I am, and I wish I knew what these principles were.

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.

You both think I'm worng, which I respect. I just don't respect a position that states that there is ONLY ONE WAY to look at the rules.

 

[Artoomis]

No, it doesn't, and I don't understand why you fail to see that. It is entirely possible for the FAQ to state that A and B are new rules changes. Later, A is published in either the Errata or a new core book. B, however, is not. Which of those is an actual rules change? The answer here, is A. B is not a rules change until it is either in the Errata or printed in the books.

The FAQ is about as reliable as a stopped clock. Not a good source for the current time, but it is right every once in a while.

The answer is BOTH A&B are rules changes if presented that way in the FAQ. If B does NOT get published and is retracted later, than it was a temporary rules change.

The real trick is to figure out WHICH items in the FAQ are intended as rules changes. Unfortunately, WotC does not make this clear in all cases, and that's what makes it hard to know what's an official rule and what is merely advice.

Now it's okay and very clear to say only the rurles plus errata are "offical," but that's not the way WotC treats it at all.

I don't know why YOU fail to see THAT. I am recognizing the reality of how WotC is doing business with the rules.

 

[jgsugden]

Folks. Its simple.

*The rules are not perfect.*

The designers apparently did not consider this interaction of feat and class. Accordingly, they had no great plan on if they should be allowed to work together.

Additionally, the fine details of the rules are not 100% consistent or clear regarding the minutia of this issue. As such, there is no completely clear answer to this issue.

As the sage is often full of $&*@, and his rulings have been known to conflict with the clearly written rules, we can take his guidance for a suggestion, but it certainly is not gospel.

In the end, each DM must decided if it works or not.

FWIW: It doesn't break the game and it makes an underpowered class slightly more powerful. Those are good things in my book and I allow it.

 

[Pinotage]

Frequently Annoyed Whoos?

I know I should've burned Whooville to the ground!

LOL! Frequently Asked Whats? Frequently Arrived Wheres? Frequently Addled Whens?

Pinotage

 

[Anubis]

When are people gonna understand that the FAQ and Errata have equal official weight? The designers have made it so by using that to publish pretty much all fixes. The Errata is old and no longer updates anywhere near as much. The designers are using the FAQ as a combination of Errata and clarifications.

If you don't wanna believe me, how about you ask the Sage? Hahaha. Ask Andy Collins, ask Skip Williams, ask anyone whose names appear in the design team section of the books. They'll tell you, just as they have been by publishing this stuff in the FAQ all this time.

I'll take the word of the designers over your unfounded arguments any day. After all, they wrote it, so their interpretations are automatically right. Of course we don't have to agree, but that's what house rules are for ya?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

When are people gonna understand that the FAQ and Errata have equal official weight?

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

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