Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Hypersmurf]

Once again, you are trying to use a subjective, hand-waving rationale to solve an objective issue. That is simply not done. That is why I asked you to define "reasonable". You can't do so conclusively because it is a subjective thing. It is an impossible task.

I'm happy to take an objective view - to accept that a gauntlet makes your kick deal lethal damage, and that there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed - since, as you say, 'reasonable' isn't really something that can be measured.

Gauntlets affecting kicks is an artifact of the language used, but it is the literal and unembellished reading. I can live with that.

And there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I'm happy to take an objective view - to accept that a gauntlet makes your kick deal lethal damage, and that there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed - since, as you say, 'reasonable' isn't really something that can be measured.

Gauntlets affecting kicks is an artifact of the language used, but it is the literal and unembellished reading. I can live with that.

And there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

-Hyp.

So, it is "reasonable" for you to rule that a gauntlet makes a kick lethal, but it is not "reasonable" to say that you can TWF with unarmed strikes, even though the FAQ says otherwise.

Ohhh-kaayyy... I don't think I have to say anything else on the matter.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, it is "reasonable" for you to rule that a gauntlet makes a kick lethal, but it is not "reasonable" to say that you can TWF with unarmed strikes, even though the FAQ says otherwise.

Read again - I'm saying that if we reject 'reasonable' as a standard, since it can't be quantified, we're left with objective readings, no inference permitted... which means that, as you pointed out, a gauntlet makes all unarmed strikes, however delivered, deal lethal damage, but also means that there is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

You're the one who decried 'reasonable' as subjective and hand-waving. I'm leaving reasonable alone now, and taking the objective line.

Goalposts have moved, but at your request in this case.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

Read again - I'm saying that if we reject 'reasonable' as a standard, since it can't be quantified, we're left with objective readings, no inference permitted... which means that, as you pointed out, a gauntlet makes all unarmed strikes, however delivered, deal lethal damage, but also means that there is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

You're the one who decried 'reasonable' as subjective and hand-waving. I'm leaving reasonable alone now, and taking the objective line.

Goalposts have moved, but at your request in this case.

-Hyp.

It is not against the grain to interprete the no off-hand attack comment as all of the attack (normally off-hand or not) takes on the characteristics of a primary hand attack. That is, your TWF attacks all use full strength bonus to damage. It is your "reasonable inference" tactic that made it seem as though your version is the only true version out there.

Oh, by the way. I did not ask for the change in goalposts. I merely pointed out the inconsistency in your stance, and how your "reasonable inference" stance is doomed to failure before it even starts. You changed all by your lonesome. A change due to a stimulus is still a willing change in this case. The stimulus (me) did not demand it. It just made you more comfortable to make the change.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is not against the grain to interprete the no off-hand attack comment as all of the attack (normally off-hand or not) takes on the characteristics of a primary hand attack. That is, your TWF attacks all use full strength bonus to damage.

But that's not what the FAQ says. It says a monk's off-hand unarmed strikes add half Str bonus to damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

But that's not what the FAQ says. It says a monk's off-hand unarmed strikes add half Str bonus to damage.

-Hyp.

*shrugs* I never said that the FAQ was objective. I just said the it was more "official" (as it were) than your interpretation of how things worked.

Objective and "reasonable" (and hence subjective) was something you brought up to change the goalposts again.

 

[Hypersmurf]

*shrugs* I never said that the FAQ was objective. I just said the it was more "official" (as it were) than your interpretation of how things worked.

But it contradicts the PHB.

How can you get from "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" to "When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting and the monk adds only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed strike hits"?

According to the Primary Source rule, in the case of a contradiction, the primary source (PHB) takes precedence over a supplementary source (the FAQ).

-Hyp.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Get it right people, we now cal the FAQ and Rules of the Game, "Skip's Vague and Cryptic Interpretations of the Rules".

 

[IanB]

Get it right people, we now cal the FAQ and Rules of the Game, "Skip's Vague and Cryptic Interpretations of the Rules".

Skip doesn't write the FAQ.

 

[Cameron]

But it contradicts the PHB.

How can you get from "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" to "When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting and the monk adds only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed strike hits"?

According to the Primary Source rule, in the case of a contradiction, the primary source (PHB) takes precedence over a supplementary source (the FAQ).

-Hyp.

It contradicts the PHB only by *your* narrow interpretation of the rules, which you yourself admitted comes under the "reasonable inferrence" category.

Can't you see how arrogant you sound by continuously pushing that your interpretation of the rules is the *only* correct and true interpretation of the rules? You are implicitly doing this every time you say the FAQ is wrong.

Why can you not admit that you might be wrong, and the FAQ might be right, even if the rules were interpreted differently from you, and that it all hinges on the *interpretation* of the rules, and that yours may not be the *only* valid interpretation?