Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Cameron]

"Thus" means "consequently".

Statement: There's no such thing as an offhand attack.
Consequence: Thus, apply full Str bonus to damage.

If the full Str bonus were the reason, the sentences would be reversed: A monk may apply full Str bonus to damage with unarmed strikes. Thus, there is no such thing as an off-hand attack.

But the 'thus' defines the Str bonus as the consequence, not the reason.

-Hyp.

No. It does not always mean consequently. It can be a QED statement, in which case, the result is already determined and you are trying to justify it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No. It does not always mean consequently. It can be a QED statement, in which case, the result is already determined and you are trying to justify it.

Example?

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

Example?

-Hyp.

Prove dy/dx of 5x^2+4x+2=10x+4.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Prove dy/dx of 5x^2+4x+2=10x+4.

The rules of differentiation are [insert rules], thus dy/dx of 5x^2+4x+2=10x+4?

The result is a consequence of the rules being true.

The result is only predetermined if we know it to be so from some other source. But in the case of the monk, we don't know that the monk adds full Str bonus from any other source; the only place we learn this is in the 'thus' following the statement that off-hand attacks don't exist.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

The rules of differentiation are [insert rules], thus dy/dx of 5x^2+4x+2=10x+4?

The result is a consequence of the rules being true.

The result is only predetermined if we know it to be so from some other source. But in the case of the monk, we don't know that the monk adds full Str bonus from any other source; the only place we learn this is in the 'thus' following the statement that off-hand attacks don't exist.

-Hyp.

No. The intention is to get to x. Yes, the rules y will give you a route to x, but y is being used to justify the path. In this case, I would say that this is a reasonable interpretation of it due to the FAQ.

And besides, it is not that the rules of differentiation gives you that. The rules of differentialtion is based on the rate of change of y with respects to x, which you can calculate out to be the gradient of the xy graph, but can also mean other things (the relationship between velocity and acceleration, for example). Thus, your assumption is not always valid (which is the point I am making, incidentally).

 

[Hypersmurf]

No. The intention is to get to x. Yes, the rules y will give you a route to x, but y is being used to justify the path. In this case, I would say that this is a reasonable interpretation of it due to the FAQ.

And everywhere else the word is used?

Forgery is language-dependent; thus, to forge documents and detect forgeries, you must be able to read and write the language in question.

Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source).

Legend lore brings to your mind legends about an important person, place, or thing. If the person or thing is at hand, or if you are in the place in question, the casting time is only 1d4×10 minutes. If you have only detailed information on the person, place, or thing, the casting time is 1d10 days, and the resulting lore is less complete and specific (though it often provides enough information to help you find the person, place, or thing, thus allowing a better legend lore result next time). If you know only rumors, the casting time is 2d6 weeks, and the resulting lore is vague and incomplete (though it often directs you to more detailed information, thus allowing a better legend lore result next time).

A scrying spell creates an invisible magical sensor that sends you information. Unless noted otherwise, the sensor has the same powers of sensory acuity that you possess. This level of acuity includes any spells or effects that target you, but not spells or effects that emanate from you. However, the sensor is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours, and thus it functions normally even if you have been blinded, deafened, or otherwise suffered sensory impairment.

A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell).

Most cones are either bursts or emanations, and thus won’t go around corners.

A sliding floor is a type of trapdoor, designed to be moved and thus reveal something that lies beneath it.

Dungeon doors are often locked, and thus the Open Lock skill comes in very handy.

I can't imagine the authors meant that cones won't go around corners, and that's why they're bursts. Or that the Open Lock skill is handy, and that's why dungeon doors are locked.

You're suggesting that in one instance in all of the core rules, they chose to use the word in such a fashion as to mean the opposite of what it means everywhere else?

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

And everywhere else the word is used?

Forgery is language-dependent; thus, to forge documents and detect forgeries, you must be able to read and write the language in question.

Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source).

Legend lore brings to your mind legends about an important person, place, or thing. If the person or thing is at hand, or if you are in the place in question, the casting time is only 1d4×10 minutes. If you have only detailed information on the person, place, or thing, the casting time is 1d10 days, and the resulting lore is less complete and specific (though it often provides enough information to help you find the person, place, or thing, thus allowing a better legend lore result next time). If you know only rumors, the casting time is 2d6 weeks, and the resulting lore is vague and incomplete (though it often directs you to more detailed information, thus allowing a better legend lore result next time).

A scrying spell creates an invisible magical sensor that sends you information. Unless noted otherwise, the sensor has the same powers of sensory acuity that you possess. This level of acuity includes any spells or effects that target you, but not spells or effects that emanate from you. However, the sensor is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours, and thus it functions normally even if you have been blinded, deafened, or otherwise suffered sensory impairment.

A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell).

Most cones are either bursts or emanations, and thus won’t go around corners.

A sliding floor is a type of trapdoor, designed to be moved and thus reveal something that lies beneath it.

Dungeon doors are often locked, and thus the Open Lock skill comes in very handy.

I can't imagine the authors meant that cones won't go around corners, and that's why they're bursts. Or that the Open Lock skill is handy, and that's why dungeon doors are locked.

You're suggesting that in one instance in all of the core rules, they chose to use the word in such a fashion as to mean the opposite of what it means everywhere else?

-Hyp.

Whichever way you *think* they use it is irrelavent since the FAQ explicitly states out what they meant.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Whichever way you *think* they use it is irrelavent since the FAQ explicitly states out what they meant.

And I disagree with the FAQ, just as I disagree when it says "A bastard sword is listed as a one-handed weapon for convenience, even though its really a two-handed weapon", or when it says "A longsword wielded in two hands is a two-handed weapon".

The PHB says there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed; the FAQ says there is such a thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. This goes beyond clarification or interpretation, and into the realm of making stuff up.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

And I disagree with the FAQ, just as I disagree when it says "A bastard sword is listed as a one-handed weapon for convenience, even though its really a two-handed weapon", or when it says "A longsword wielded in two hands is a two-handed weapon".

The PHB says there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed; the FAQ says there is such a thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. This goes beyond clarification or interpretation, and into the realm of making stuff up.

-Hyp.

That is your call. To me it makes sense. Both weapons comments also make sense. Neither is making things up. I would explain to you why it makes sense, but it has been obvious for a very long time that you just aren't interested in hearing it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Both weapons comments also make sense.

Something can make sense and still contradict the rules.

It might make sense to someone that a sword used in two hands is a two-handed weapon. But the multiple references in the rules to "a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands" indicate that a one-handed weapon is still a one-handed weapon, whether you're using it in two hands or not. (It can be considered a two-handed weapon if wielded by a smaller creature, but not just by changing how you hold it.)

Despite it perhaps 'making sense', the FAQ answer does not reflect the rules.

-Hyp.