Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Cameron]

Hmm?

"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're saying "Hyp claims his interpretation is the only correct one".

I'm saying "No, I'm only claiming that the FAQ's interpretation is an incorrect one".



I'm saying "If you think the FAQ is correct you are wrong, since the FAQ contradicts the PHB".

If the FAQ said, for example, "A medium longsword deals 1d10 damage", it would be in error, because it contradicts the PHB. When the FAQ says "There is such a thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed; thus, a monk's off-hand unarmed strikes add half Str bonus to damage", it's in error, because it contradicts the PHB.

-Hyp.

I have never made any interpretation that I have pushed. I have only pushed the FAQ's view, which is the legal view (or the most legal view, anyway). *You*, on the other hand, have been saying that it is wrong and you are right 24/7 like a broken record. I'm not buying, unless you can show me that you are more legal than the FAQ (and I don't see how you can do that, since you are not even employed by WotC, no offense).

 

[Hypersmurf]

I have never made any interpretation that I have pushed.

I didn't suggest otherwise.

"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?" was in quotes for a reason - those were your words. Which contradict your assertion that I made up "Cameron says Hyper says all non-Hyper interpretations are incorrect".

I have only pushed the FAQ's view, which is the legal view (or the most legal view, anyway).

According to the Primary Source rule, the 'most legal view' is that of the PHB, not that of the FAQ.

And the PHB's view is 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."

When the FAQ says there is such a thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, to which half Str bonus is applied, it is contradicting that 'most legal view', and is thus in error.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I didn't suggest otherwise.

"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?" was in quotes for a reason - those were your words. Which contradict your assertion that I made up "Cameron says Hyper says all non-Hyper interpretations are incorrect".



According to the Primary Source rule, the 'most legal view' is that of the PHB, not that of the FAQ.

And the PHB's view is 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."

When the FAQ says there is such a thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, to which half Str bonus is applied, it is contradicting that 'most legal view', and is thus in error.

-Hyp.

How does that contradict anything? The subject of the quote is you pushing your view as the only correct view. How can you even translate that to "Hyp is always wrong" is way beyond me.

In the face of ambiguity, which has been demonstrated time and again (with you holding out because you take things out of context and stick by it), the FAQ clarifies and thus overrides. I see no clash with the primary source. I see an ambiguity clarified.

 

[Hypersmurf]

How does that contradict anything? The subject of the quote is you pushing your view as the only correct view. How can you even translate that to "Hyp is always wrong" is way beyond me.

I didn't translate it to "Hyp is always wrong". I translated it to "Cameron says Hyp says all non-Hyp is wrong".

In the face of ambiguity, which has been demonstrated time and again (with you holding out because you take things out of context and stick by it), the FAQ clarifies and thus overrides. I see no clash with the primary source. I see an ambiguity clarified.

But you can't clarify something by contradicting it.

If someone says "Haste grants an extra attack, but doesn't stack with 'similar effects'. I'm not sure if Rapid Shot is a 'similar effect'. Can you clarify?", then you can clarify by saying "Haste's extra attack stacks with Rapid Shot", or you can clarify by saying "Haste's extra attack doesn't stack with Rapid Shot", but you can't clarify by saying "Haste doesn't grant an extra attack".

That's not a clarification, that's a change in the rules.

You can clarify the monk line by saying "A monk can't make an off-hand unarmed strike". You can clarify the monk line by saying "Even if a monk makes an off-hand unarmed strike, it deals full Str bonus to damage - that's what 'no such thing' means... the off-hand attack doesn't follow all the normal rules for off-hand attacks". And that's the interpretation you offered - I don't agree with it, but I don't dismiss it as a non-viable conclusion. But you can't clarify the monk line by saying "A monk can make an off-hand unarmed strike, but it only adds half Str bonus to damage just like normal", because that's a complete rejection of the PHB text, not a 'clarification' of it. And that's what the FAQ did, and in so doing, it falls afoul of the Primary Source rule and is in error.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I didn't translate it to "Hyp is always wrong". I translated it to "Cameron says Hyp says all non-Hyp is wrong".



But you can't clarify something by contradicting it.

If someone says "Haste grants an extra attack, but doesn't stack with 'similar effects'. I'm not sure if Rapid Shot is a 'similar effect'. Can you clarify?", then you can clarify by saying "Haste's extra attack stacks with Rapid Shot", or you can clarify by saying "Haste's extra attack doesn't stack with Rapid Shot", but you can't clarify by saying "Haste doesn't grant an extra attack".

That's not a clarification, that's a change in the rules.

You can clarify the monk line by saying "A monk can't make an off-hand unarmed strike". You can clarify the monk line by saying "Even if a monk makes an off-hand unarmed strike, it deals full Str bonus to damage - that's what 'no such thing' means... the off-hand attack doesn't follow all the normal rules for off-hand attacks". And that's the interpretation you offered - I don't agree with it, but I don't dismiss it as a non-viable conclusion. But you can't clarify the monk line by saying "A monk can make an off-hand unarmed strike, but it only adds half Str bonus to damage just like normal", because that's a complete rejection of the PHB text, not a 'clarification' of it. And that's what the FAQ did, and in so doing, it falls afoul of the Primary Source rule and is in error.

-Hyp.

You answered your own question, didn't you? The fact that you say that the FAQ is wrong and that the PHB is unambiguous (which it certainly is not unambiguous, or we won't be in this thread) proves that you think you are higher than the FAQ. If you are higher than the FAQ (which, by the way is legal and endorsed by the maker of DnD), what do you consider above you? If I were the one saying that the law is an arse, and that we should ignore it, what would be your assumption?

 

[Hypersmurf]

You answered your own question, didn't you? The fact that you say that the FAQ is wrong and that the PHB is unambiguous (which it certainly is not unambiguous, or we won't be in this thread) proves that you think you are higher than the FAQ.

I didn't say it's unambiguous - I allowed for at least two interpretations of the text in that very post! But the FAQ's answer falls outside of the ambiguity.

If there's something that's aqua, and one person says "It's blue", and I say "It's green", I can still believe it's green even while understanding how someone else might consider it to be blue. I don't agree with them, but I'm not going to say their answer is impossible.

But if someone else comes along and says "It's red", they're wrong.

I'm not saying "I'm higher than the FAQ"; I'm saying "The PHB is higher than the FAQ". And what the FAQ says isn't what the PHB says.

-Hyp.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Skip doesn't write the FAQ.

Waiter, sense of humour, table 5!

 

[eamon]

Do you feel that a Dervish, once he gains the class feature that states "The character treats scimitars as light weapons for all purposes", can gain a bonus to damage with a scimitar from Power Attack? Does he take a -4 on Sunder and Disarm checks?

The dervish, though its rule-text may also be ambiguous, is not relevant to this discussion. If you think an analogy is necessary, feel free to make it .

As I said before, the context of the line denying the existence of offhand attacks is a description saying how a monk can even strike from elbows, knees and feet, and is illustrating the flexibility of the monk's unarmed strike as the reason a monk always gets full strength bonus. In other words, a monk can't make an off-hand attack not because he can't make an attack with his off-hand, but because there's nothing "off" about either hand. He definitely can strike with both hands.

You have not actually disagreed with what that post says - so what is your standpoint wrt that line of argumentation?

 

[glass]

As I said before, the context of the line denying the existence of offhand attacks is a description saying how a monk can even strike from elbows, knees and feet, and is illustrating the flexibility of the monk's unarmed strike as the reason a monk always gets full strength bonus. In other words, a monk can't make an off-hand attack not because he can't make an attack with his off-hand, but because there's nothing "off" about either hand. He definitely can strike with both hands.

Nobody disagrees with any of that, except for the FAQ which you are lauding. That is the point!


glass.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The dervish, though its rule-text may also be ambiguous, is not relevant to this discussion. If you think an analogy is necessary, feel free to make it .

The Dervish is another example of a class where a class feature, which grants some benefits, also removes some options.

In other words, a monk can't make an off-hand attack not because he can't make an attack with his off-hand, but because there's nothing "off" about either hand. He definitely can strike with both hands.

Right. And because he can't make an off-hand attack, whichever hand he uses, it's can't be the extra attacks from the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, which permit additional off-hand attacks. If he punches with his left hand, it's not an off-hand attack, since there's nothing 'off' about it... so it's not a valid attack to meet the additional off-hand attack criterion.

Just like he can't punch with the additional attack from Rapid Shot, since it's not a ranged attack, he can't punch with the additional attack from Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, since it's not an off-hand attack.

-Hyp.