Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[eamon]

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?

@Cameron: Hyp may be extremely stubborn but this isn't helping.

@Hyp: It's not very honest to new readers to simply reiterate a flawed argument without acknowledging its previously discussed weaknesses, and it's infuriating to see you ignore those flaws when presenting your ideas to others - to those that don't agree with you, it suggests that you don't value any dissenting opinions, and are quite willing to ignore them when it suits you.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just as a double weapon, unarmed strike has two ends which can be used in combat.

But no rules stating that it is treated as, effectively, two weapons... as there are for double weapons.

The spiked chain has two ends which can be used in combat; nevertheless, you can't use it all by itself for two-weapon fighting. It's not a double weapon.

A monk's unarmed strike can be delivered with fists, elbows, knees, feet, forehead... but it's not a double weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

@Hyp: It's not very honest to new readers to simply reiterate a flawed argument without acknowledging its previously discussed weaknesses

Specifically?

-Hyp.

 

[Baby Samurai]

then there's no reason he can't use an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack... but he can't use it for both his primary attack and his off-hand attack, any more than he can use a single shortsword for both his primary attack and his off-hand attack.

After years of debating this on many boards, I have come to the conclusion that this is the correct interpretation.


Check it:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=883077

 

[eamon]

Specifically?

Cameron:So, why are we (or rather you) still arguing that the FAQ is wrong?
Hyp:Because it contradicts the PHB, and thus falls afoul of the primary source rule.

Cameron:It only contradicts the PHB if you take the literal meaning of the sentences without context.
Hyp:It contradicts the PHB unless you make up complete new sentences and add them in. The difference between the PHB and the FAQ is not a contextual one. It's one source saying the opposite of the other source.

As you said "If only I'd realized that simply declaring victory was sufficient, we could have saved pages!"

For the past few pages I, at the least, have been trying to convince mostly you that the only paragraph about off-hand unarmed strike attacks in the monk section isn't meant literally, and that the context of the statements within it is crucial to place them in the proper perspective. There are a number of reasons why this is so, and I've tried to list them. At one point you even said you sympathized with a non-literal reading - though not quite the FAQ's reading - and then only a few short posts later you're back to claiming that the FAQ contradicts the PHB.

Why would you interpret the paragraph in question literally? And even if you choose to interpret it literally, why would you consider the paragraph's context to be wider than that of TWF? Even if you interpret it literally, it's not contradicting the FAQ, it's just describing the base case (in which prim. and sec. hands are both not "off" and add full str bonus), and TWF simply adds to that.

So, after a bunch of arguments given why you should not interpret it literally, and why the text should be interpreted positively, where's the response? You simply reiterate the same literal interpretation.

 

[glass]

Cameron:So, why are we (or rather you) still arguing that the FAQ is wrong?
Hyp:Because it contradicts the PHB, and thus falls afoul of the primary source rule.
Cameron:It only contradicts the PHB if you take the literal meaning of the sentences without context.
Hyp:It contradicts the PHB unless you make up complete new sentences and add them in. The difference between the PHB and the FAQ is not a contextual one. It's one source saying the opposite of the other source.

Nice summary. But you are still spectacularly failing to point out any flaws in Hyp's argument.

For the past few pages I, at the least, have been trying to convince mostly you that the only paragraph about off-hand unarmed strike attacks in the monk section isn't meant literally, and that the context of the statements within it is crucial to place them in the proper perspective.

So what exactly are you arguing for? By definition, the rules are what they literally say.

So, after a bunch of arguments given why you should not interpret it literally, and why the text should be interpreted positively, where's the response? You simply reiterate the same literal interpretation.

This line of argument is self-defeating. When debating what the rules are, all that matters is what the rules are. As soon as you veer into 'well, the rules don't really mean what they say', that is tantamount to a concession.


glass.

 

[eamon]

Note that in 3E, it allowed the monk unarmed off-hand attack if he were wielding a weapon - it didn't permit him to use Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed strikes alone.

Which is an intesting point - I'll grant that it's not obvious that should be possible. I don't see an explicit rule either way, so I think it's mostly a question of common sense - and if your sense says that you can't "Two Weapon Fight" with two fists, that's fine.

The FAQ's interpretation is not a meaning of the wording at all, intentional or otherwise.

The rules are not exact, and intent is important. The FAQ's authors, just as the RotG's, are close to the original design team. They may not be infallible, but they're trying to help. If they say something, I'm going to take it at face value unless there's a very good reason to assume they're mistaken. This counts even more so for inherently fuzzy matters of interpretation - if it's a simple matter of applying a simple rule, I don't need their help, but it's very interesting to read what people close to the design process think should happen.

So if the RotG and the FAQ both read it differently, how can you use both as evidence? At least one must, presumably, be incorrect.

Although they read differently, they agree upon the fact that that an off-hand attack can be made with the monk's unarmed strike. They disagree on the mechanical details, mainly due to the difference in whether the monk's unarmed strike text or the TWF text take precedence, and how they interact. Despite their differences however, both agree with the premise that a monk can use his unarmed strike as an off-hand attack and thus that the monk paragraph is not meant literally.

I think it's possible, by stretching and twisting the wording, to come up with an interpretation that permits a monk to make an off-hand attack with an unarmed strike. I don't think it's possible to come up with the FAQ's interpretation, that permits a monk to make an off-hand attack with an unarmed strike adding half Str bonus to damage, while maintaining any relationship to the wording at all.

I've illustrated how this is possible, and it's simply a matter of context: interpreting the unarmed strike text to be describing no more that the straightforward case, then it's logical to rely on TWF to extend that mechanic just as it does normally. I've explored this in far greater detail in previous posts.

And if we take a reading that doesn't state that there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, then there's no reason he can't use an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack... but he can't use it for both his primary attack and his off-hand attack, any more than he can use a single shortsword for both his primary attack and his off-hand attack.

Granted, that's a sane conclusion if you consider an unarmed strike to be mechanically identical to any other light melee weapon. Crucially, there's no reason to require you to use a different weapon in your off hand than in your primary hand. Most weapons can't be wielded simultaneously in two independent hands, but for instance double weapons can. It's not explicitly stated whether it's possible with an unarmed strike, but then, the rules frequently don't state the obvious. They do say that you can wield a second weapon in your off hand. In this context (and not necessarily every context), can two different fists be considered two different weapons? I don't think the rules offer clarity either way - the unarmed strike is simply far from a normal weapon - in fact, it's not even a weapon, strictly speaking. When it's relevant, you're considered armed when unarmed, and it's considered a light weapon, and it's considered a natural weapon for improvement effects, and it's considered a manufactured weapon for improvement effects - but it isn't a weapon. So what is it - are you considered armed with your off-hand, and can thus strike, or is it considered a unique light weapon of which you only have one? Without a bit of common sense, I don't think you'll be able to truly resolve this, so the question becomes, "what's reasonable". An unarmed strike "is a weapon" you can wield in your primary hand to full effect. The two weapon fighting rules are written for weapons which you can wield in an off hand even when your primary hand is busy. It wasn't written with the unarmed strike in mind, and you're fine ruling it doesn't apply. On the other hand, it was written for use with duplicates of all other weapons, and can apply to two unarmed strikes just fine (as long as you apply the penalties normally). I'm not really convinced either way; which means that as a player I wouldn't suggest it, but as a DM, I wouldn't forbid it either.

 

[eamon]

So what exactly are you arguing for? By definition, the rules are what they literally say.

Most certainly not. The rules are what they say - they aren't a thousand independent rules you can safely interpret in isolation.

Let me put it this way: There's no special exemption allowing you to take this particular rule and interpret it literally without taking the rest into account.

It's always the case that you need to take context into account, but with freeform text, there's another issue: namely in what order and with which precedence do you apply them? There are a number of different hints to guide our interpretation, and a well known one is that primary sources are generally correct. Erratas may take precedence over unaltered texts. Just because the rules don't say you cannot, doesn't mean you can. A more specific case usually takes precedence over the general case. These principles aren't really very different from any other reading comprehension rules. Language is an ambiguous vehicle for meaning. Rephrasing it - like we're doing on these past 10 pages - may not remove the fundamental ambiguity, but by approaching it from a variety of angles we might be able to be clarify some of it. Oh, and it's fun .

And of course, on top of all these textual factors, there are a number of other issues. Since the rules are an abstract concept distinct from the text, and you need to interpret the text to arrive at the rules, it's interesting to use meta-logic to assist your interpretation. In short, what was most likely the intent of the writer? Given that the rules are intended to be simple, when presented with two interpretations, one of which is simpler than the other but otherwise of equal value, we could choose the simpler one. Similarly, they're supposed to be consistent. That's why we draw analogs to similar rules - if a similar rule exists, and an analog interpretation of the second rule is invalid, then our interpretation of the first requires inconsistency, and we don't like that. The game is also supposed to be balanced - if an interpretation results in a severe imbalance, it's hopefully not the correct interpretation. Even if it is correct with respect to the written rules, it's still "incorrect" in the sense that you won't apply in a real game to avoid breaking it. In such a case, what's the "real" rule?

So yes, the rules are what they say - but what do the rules say? What's it all mean?

You can't just take away context and interpret each sentence in a vacuum.

I gave a number of reasons why I believe that the correct interpretation allows a monk's unarmed strikes to be off-hand. Summarily though:
- To me, common sense says it's possible in the real world
- The RotG and FAQ authors (who are closer to the original author than we are) agree on this point.
- The sentence prohibiting it originates in 3.0, where it's clearly not intended to be universal. They didn't change the sentence in 3.5, and I don't think we should assume that the meaning has radically altered either.
- The context suggests the ability is intended positively, which matches this interpretation. The alternative (no off-hand attacks) certainly is not positive.
- There's no balance problem (and options are a good thing).
- The sentence suggesting that off-hand attacks are possible has a viable, yet more limited interpretation suggesting that other appendages aren't off when using the unarmed strike - so why not?

In a meta-game sense, I then like using an existing interpretation, such as the FAQ's, just for clarity, ease-of lookup, and those kind of factors. Unless there's some convincing reason to make up your own interpretation, why not use the FAQ or the RotG? I think the FAQ's simpler, and more obviously balanced approach is better than the RotG, but that's a matter of taste.

In conclusion, there's a whole bunch of flaws in the interpretation that there should be no off-hand attacks, and furthermore, there's a viable alternative - DO allow them. I agree that it's definitely not perfect - but that's because the rules are incomplete on the matter, and no matter how we interpret them, we're not really going to solve that problem.

 

[eamon]

After years of debating this on many boards, I have come to the conclusion that this is the correct interpretation.


Check it:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=883077

Is that only one interpretation? Looks to me like it's pretty similar to our situation - lots of people and nobody really knows what to think.

 

[Cameron]

@Cameron: Hyp may be extremely stubborn but this isn't helping.

You are right. It isn't helping. My only defence (and I don't think it is a good one) is that I have watched for years my fellow New Zealanders do this, turning a beautiful country of fairly decent people (relative to the rest of the world) into one of arrogant, contrary, racist, lying bigots. Don't get me wrong I am a New Zealander, and I am proud of it. But there is a difference between pride in one's nation and being an arrogant douche. The majority of my fellow citizens have made me so ashamed of being called a New Zealander that I don't even put my location on to my forum accounts anymore. They cannot admit they can be wrong and so say that the rest of the world is wrong instead. I guess Hyp, when he displayed the exact same qualities of those arrogant douches, just triggers my irritation, especially when he has taken to stalking me through this forum and jumping on every little typo I make.

My apologies to you for that post. My best course of action, I think, is to just ignore him from now on.