Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Cameron]

Cameron, you're just being rude. You only erode the validity of your own position by acting so. It is possible to discuss matters without being rude.

And you put too much stock into the FAQ, which is at best a shaky, sometimes-contradictory rules interpretation by one or a few people at Wizards of the Coast, not the original writers of any given rule that's being 'clarified' in the FAQ.

FAQ is far more valid than what you *think*. In a contest between FAQ and your house rules, FAQ wins in a debate like this. Otherwise, I can bring out a "house rule" too and we'd really get nowhere.

In other words, shaky or not, it is still the most valid thing we have. And just because *you* don't agree with it is not a reason that *everyone* must ignore it. It is as simple as that.

 

[Arkhandus]

.....No, the FAQ isn't really more valid than individual interpretations of the Rules As Written, as it contradicts them or itself sometimes, so isn't really reliable.

Interpretation is not the same as house rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Doesn't matter. If you wear the gauntlet, your *unarmed strikes* deal lethal damage. That's the rule. If, as you say, unarmed strikes are one weapon, it is one weapon. Lethal damage, period. Now, if it is a *class* of weapons, then you can say what you just said, and you will be right.

I agree that if we do not apply any inference of implied limitations to the gauntlet text, as written, wearing a gauntlet means your kick deals lethal damage.

I stand by my assertion, however, that that implied limitation is not an unreasonable inference to make.

So, my position is that unarmed strike is a single weapon; assuming a reasonable inference, that single weapon deals lethal damage if you use a gauntlet when you make an attack, but non-lethal if you don't; absent that inference, that single weapon deals lethal damage if you are wearing a gauntlet when you make an attack, whether the gauntlet is involved in the attack or not.

Since I make the inference, my ruling is that a punch with the single weapon, unarmed strike, would deal lethal damage, but a kick with the single weapon, unarmed strike, would not.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I agree that if we do not apply any inference of implied limitations to the gauntlet text, as written, wearing a gauntlet means your kick deals lethal damage.

I stand by my assertion, however, that that implied limitation is not an unreasonable inference to make.

So, my position is that unarmed strike is a single weapon; assuming a reasonable inference, that single weapon deals lethal damage if you use a gauntlet when you make an attack, but non-lethal if you don't; absent that inference, that single weapon deals lethal damage if you are wearing a gauntlet when you make an attack, whether the gauntlet is involved in the attack or not.

Since I make the inference, my ruling is that a punch with the single weapon, unarmed strike, would deal lethal damage, but a kick with the single weapon, unarmed strike, would not.

-Hyp.

If you add in implied limitations, then why do you think that the implied inferrence of "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack..." etc., etc., etc., is that "you get full Strength bonus to off-hand attacks" is wrong, whereas the implied inferrence of "you can never have off-hand attacks" is correct? Both are valid interpretations, but especially given the sentence following the above quote, I would lean towards the latter than the former.

Implied inferrence goes *both* ways, and you can't categorically say something is wrong if you are using implied inferrence. On the other hand, if you are not using implied inferrence, then you can say something is wrong.

So, once more, which one are you aiming at?

 

[Cameron]

.....No, the FAQ isn't really more valid than individual interpretations of the Rules As Written, as it contradicts them or itself sometimes, so isn't really reliable.

Interpretation is not the same as house rules.

Isn't it? When the official source says otherwise?

As I said, whatever *your* views of the FAQ is, it is a more official source than what *you* think. Thus, if *you* contradict the FAQ, then it is a house rule that you are making.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you add in implied limitations, then why do you think that the implied inferrence of "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack..." etc., etc., etc., is that "you get full Strength bonus to off-hand attacks" is wrong, whereas the implied inferrence of "you can never have off-hand attacks" is correct? Both are valid interpretations, but especially given the sentence following the above quote, I would lean towards the latter than the former.

I don't think that "You can make an off-hand attack, but it gets full Str bonus" is a valid reading of "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack", no matter what you feel is left to be understood by the reader. Unless it's "... just kidding".

And regardless, that's not the approach the FAQ takes. It doesn't say "you get full Strength bonus to off-hand attacks". It says that if you make an off-hand attack, it gets half Str bonus:
When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk
suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting
(see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook) and the monk adds
only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand
unarmed strike hits.

Whether or not you feel that "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes" means a monk applies full Str bonus on an off-hand attack with an unarmed strike, it's not what the FAQ says.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I don't think that "You can make an off-hand attack, but it gets full Str bonus" is a valid reading of "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack", no matter what you feel is left to be understood by the reader. Unless it's "... just kidding".

And regardless, that's not the approach the FAQ takes. It doesn't say "you get full Strength bonus to off-hand attacks". It says that if you make an off-hand attack, it gets half Str bonus:
When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk
suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting
(see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook) and the monk adds
only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand
unarmed strike hits.

Whether or not you feel that "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes" means a monk applies full Str bonus on an off-hand attack with an unarmed strike, it's not what the FAQ says.

-Hyp.

And thus, implied inferrence is obviously not the order of the day.

Which means that your stance which is based on implied inferrence is not the correct stance according to the rules.

QED.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And thus, implied inferrence is obviously not the order of the day.

Hmm? I'm not sure how the FAQ taking a different take from either of us on the meaning of "no such thing as an off-hand attack" has any bearing on whether or not one can infer that a gauntlet only affects an unarmed strike if you use it.

-Hyp.

 

[Umbran]

FAQ is far more valid than what you *think*. In a contest between FAQ and your house rules, FAQ wins in a debate like this. Otherwise, I can bring out a "house rule" too and we'd really get nowhere.

I think now is an appropriate time to remind folks that the Rules forum has a an addendum to the normal civility rules.

Specifically, trying to claim that another person's interpretation of how things work is a house rule is considered rude behavior around here - it is a simple way to dismiss an argument without addressing the content. So, folks, please resist the urge to do it.

 

[Cameron]

Hmm? I'm not sure how the FAQ taking a different take from either of us on the meaning of "no such thing as an off-hand attack" has any bearing on whether or not one can infer that a gauntlet only affects an unarmed strike if you use it.

-Hyp.

The point is that you can either use inferrence rules, or you don't. You can't use inferrence rules for one thing and then disallow it for something else. That is being inconsistent (aka., moving goal posts).

This strikes at the very basis of your arguments.