Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ah...I don't have Libris Mortis, and nobody's been interested in Savage Species but me, so I haven't cracked that one open in over a year.

My position:

1. Unarmed strikes are a subset of natural weapons with special rules. It seems to me that it is nonsensical to call my hands and feet "manufactured weapons."

2. A feat is an effect.

3. Yes, monks can take INA.

4. In any case, I don't think it is unbalancing.

 

[Anubis]

Well, since people still felt the previous answer I got was vague, I e-mailed WotC again asking the question directly. Here it is for you all:


Response (Zephreum H.) 10/26/2005 08:14 AM
Thank you for contacting us.

Yes the D&D FAQ is also a source for Errata. It is considered official for purposes regarding the rules of D&D.

Take Care!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Zephreum H.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/25/2005 09:03 PM
Some folks at a popular D&D web site continue to think that, after my previous two questions, that the FAQ is used only for clarifications. Seeing as several rules changes have been implemented in the FAQ, I have decided to follow through and try to get as direct an answer as I can on this subject. My question is simple:

Is the FAQ also a source of rules changes and errata?


There you have it, the bottom line. Now can we stop debating this ridiculous topic? It's over. WotC has spoken.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So - how many times are you going to post this exact same thing? I mean, seriously ...

Oh - and you're still wrong.

 

[Borlon]

It is really hard to keep these three threads distinct when the same material gets posted to all of them.

 

[Dimwhit]

It is really hard to keep these three threads distinct when the same material gets posted to all of them.

No doubt. We should just have them all merged into one mega thread and change the title to The Eternal (and Infernal) FAQ v ERRATA Thread.

 

[IcyCool]

Not the same thing at all. The FAQ is not gospel, and the rules are not holy writ, no matter how much you want to worship them.

You know, I wondered where you got this bit of strangeness, now I know. Then next time you send it my way, I'll be sure to remind you that it is Anubis you are angry at, and not me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Anubis- I think Patryn (and others) are in what has been called a "state of invincible ignorance"- No insult intended, y'all!

It simply means that you cannot convince them because you are citing a source that has proven itself fallible- even if that source claims to have access to the font of all wisdom, they need only point to past mistakes and ask "what if they're wrong again?" There is a point beyond which our knowledge of the facts and FAQ cannot go.

I would assume that ONLY some kind of statement by a true, originating source- eg. some/most/all of the 3.5 designers- that detailed why the language changed in 3.5 that is causing all of this folderol in this thread would be considered dispositve.

And maybe not even that would be effective.

 

[Artoomis]

It is really hard to keep these three threads distinct when the same material gets posted to all of them.

Sorry - I really tried to get all this FAQ vs. other rules stuff out of this thread. I really did. Really. No..., really!

 

[Infiniti2000]

Anubis- I think Patryn (and others) are in what has been called a "state of invincible ignorance"- No insult intended, y'all!

Yeah, because being called ignorant should not be taken as an insult when it's not true, right?

It simply means that you cannot convince them because you are citing a source that has proven itself fallible...

The fact that the source is fallible is a secondary issue. Even the original rulebook is fallible.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"Invincible ignorance" is a technical term derived from theological discussion.

The first person described as being invincibly ignorant was the Apostle Thomas who could not accept the word of his fellow disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead, and would only accept the Resurrection if he placed his fingers in wounds in Jesus' hands and side.

It is not an insult, it is a description of a mental state in which someone cannot be convinced of a fact (or in this case, the FAQ) without directly experiencing evidence from a primary source.

Here, the primary source would be the people who did the 3.5Ed revision. Only they could tell us why the language was changed in those spells, or why the rules are inconsistent or unclear...

Even if their answer is "we didn't notice the problem until it was too late."