Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Cameron]

US is one weapon.

And when you use that one weapon in conjunction with gauntlets, it deals lethal damage by default instead of nonlethal.

Disable Device is one skill.

And when you use that one skill in conjunction with MW Thieves' Tools, you get a circumstance bonus on your roll.

Kicking is no more "using US in conjunction with gauntlets" than disarming a trap with a hairpin is "using DD in conjunction with MW Thieves' Tools."

You keep saying absurd; I don't think that word means what you think it means.

By one weapon, then all instances of it is affected. If it is a *class* of weapons, then different instances can have different effects, but it also opens up the whole TWF ability. Which is it?

 

[Cameron]

1. US is one weapon.

2. Your step is not logical.

3. What you have shown is not absurd, but rather a common question of rules inferrence that comes up very often with multiclassed casters.

Incorrect. It is very logical. In fact, computer programming is based on it. You change variable y, variable y is that value. Period. It can't be "y except in situation x, where it is z". You cannot get more logical than computer programming.

The gauntlets changed your unarmed strike (your y) to lethal. Period.

 

[Cameron]

In my game? In my game, a gauntlet makes your unarmed strike deal lethal damage if you're using the gauntlet when you attack with unarmed strike. We've been over that.

-Hyp.

In other words, you selectively apply inferrence to the rules.

Prejudice, by any other name...

 

[Hypersmurf]

In other words, you selectively apply inferrence to the rules.

Certainly. With my selection criterion being the reasonability of making the inference.

We've been here before.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

Certainly. With my selection criterion being the reasonability of making the inference.

We've been here before.

-Hyp.

Yes. And we have also gone over the fact that your prejudice does not make things *official*, correct?

So, why are we (or rather you) still arguing that the FAQ is wrong?

 

[IanB]

Yes. And we have also gone over the fact that your prejudice does not make things *official*, correct?

So, why are we (or rather you) still arguing that the FAQ is wrong?

Wait, how is expressing one's opinion about a rules question prejudice? I'm generally not part of the FAQ-is-garbage crowd at all, but you've lost me here.

Also, describing someone's opinion about a rules matter as "prejudice" doesn't really seem to me to meet the standard of polite discourse we're supposed to maintain in this forum, nor does excessive use of sarcasm.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, why are we (or rather you) still arguing that the FAQ is wrong?

Because it contradicts the PHB, and thus falls afoul of the primary source rule.

-Hyp.

 

[Deset Gled]

Incorrect. It is very logical. In fact, computer programming is based on it. You change variable y, variable y is that value. Period. It can't be "y except in situation x, where it is z". You cannot get more logical than computer programming.

The gauntlets changed your unarmed strike (your y) to lethal. Period.

1. Exceptions were an entire chapter of my C++ programming textbook.

2. This has no bearing on whether or not US is one weapon or two.

 

[Cameron]

Wait, how is expressing one's opinion about a rules question prejudice? I'm generally not part of the FAQ-is-garbage crowd at all, but you've lost me here.

Also, describing someone's opinion about a rules matter as "prejudice" doesn't really seem to me to meet the standard of polite discourse we're supposed to maintain in this forum, nor does excessive use of sarcasm.

He has been stating repeatedly that the FAQ is wrong and that the *real* interpretation is xxxxx.

He comes to this using a literal reading of two sentences in a book of over 200 pages, totally taking things out of context. Yet, on another front, when it is no longer conducive to his arguments, he refuses to take things as literally as he has portrayed in the past. To selectively apply ethics in order to favour yourself is pretty prejudical and underhanded, don't you think?

 

[Cameron]

1. Exceptions were an entire chapter of my C++ programming textbook.

2. This has no bearing on whether or not US is one weapon or two.

1. Exception is to a rule, not a variable.

2. Yes it does. It directly addresses whether US is a *class* of weapons or a *single* weapon. Two different things.