Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

This is exactly the jump of logic that I refuse to make. You're saying that by "effect", they didn't really mean "effect". I maintain that they said "effect", and that regardless of what they meant, that's all they said. And an effect is not a cause, no matter how you decide to define an effect (in the same way that a sword is not a sheath, a solution is not a problem, and caterpillar is not a butterfly).

You may say that I'm being too precise with the language used in the rules, but I don't think that reading them so loosly that you could fit a Mack truck through is a feasible alternative.

Then what about:

Keen Edge...

Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and the Improved Critical feat) don’t stack.

Here it appears that spells and feats are referred to as effects. Of course that's wrong from an English perspective as spells and feat have (or cause, if you like) effects, but I submit that WotC is sloppy about the distiction and therefore we have no basis upon which to assume they were precise in the monk's class description.

My point really is not that monks can or cannot take INA, it is that from the core rules, as written, we cannot be certain either way.

 

[moritheil]

Le thread est mort. Vive le thread!

It seems to me that the fundamental resistance of people to the imprecision argument is based in the fact that many conclusions reached elsewhere on these boards depend on precise reading.

 

[Cedric]

I've been silent for a few pages, but I figured I would sound off with the summary of why I think what I think...

The wording in the PHB (and SRD) that says to treat a monk's unarmed strike as both natural and manufactured, blah, blah, blah...

To me that sentence is specifically directing you to allow as wide an interpretation of what can enhance a monk's unarmed strike as possible. I don't read that sentence as being the all inclusive, focused list of what can enhance a monk's unarmed strike. I read it as a general guideline to allow anything which otherwise would be applicable to a manufactured weapon or natural weapon.

*shrugs*

Maybe I'm being too simplistic and should read that section with a more critical eye, but I disagree.

 

[Artoomis]

Le thread est mort. Vive le thread!

It seems to me that the fundamental resistance of people to the imprecision argument is based in the fact that many conclusions reached elsewhere on these boards depend on precise reading.

Sure. But if it is proven (and I think is has been) that a precise reading of "effects" is not possible given the imprecise way that term is used in the rules, than shouldn't those folks concede that, at the least, there is an alternative view that is equally(?) valid?

No one has yet proved that "effects" is a precise game term. I do not think that is even possible, but I am prepared to be amazed!

 

[Artoomis]

...To me that sentence is specifically directing you to allow as wide an interpretation of what can enhance a monk's unarmed strike as possible. I don't read that sentence as being the all inclusive, focused list of what can enhance a monk's unarmed strike. I read it as a general guideline to allow anything which otherwise would be applicable to a manufactured weapon or natural weapon. ...Maybe I'm being too simplistic and should read that section with a more critical eye, but I disagree.

You've got it exactly right. If "effects" was a well-defined game term, than it might be different, but it looks like sometimes WotC uses "effects' to mean both "cause and effect." That makes the sentence have rather broad applicability.

 

[No Name]

I've been silent for a few pages, but I figured I would sound off with the summary of why I think what I think...

The wording in the PHB (and SRD) that says to treat a monk's unarmed strike as both natural and manufactured, blah, blah, blah...

To me that sentence is specifically directing you to allow as wide an interpretation of what can enhance a monk's unarmed strike as possible. I don't read that sentence as being the all inclusive, focused list of what can enhance a monk's unarmed strike. I read it as a general guideline to allow anything which otherwise would be applicable to a manufactured weapon or natural weapon.

I agree with the way you think.

I try to stick to the rules; I like consistency. The rules I deliberately change (house rules) can be counted on one hand. When contradictions arise, or when the rules are not so clear, I go with my best guess of what was intended. I don't quibble over the wording. My PHB isn't a holy text (which is a shame because then I could use it to fend off evil outsiders and stuff).

 

[moritheil]

Sure. But if it is proven (and I think is has been) that a precise reading of "effects" is not possible given the imprecise way that term is used in the rules, than shouldn't those folks concede that, at the least, there is an alternative view that is equally(?) valid?

No one has yet proved that "effects" is a precise game term. I do not think that is even possible, but I am prepared to be amazed!

I'm actually not speaking specifically in terms of this private war, which I humorously suggested might continue for the next ten thousand years. I'm pointing out that if they accept that WOTC rules cannot be precisely read, then much of the basis of the Rules boards collapses. Thus, perhaps they unconsciously resist this statement.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I try to stick to the rules; I like consistency. The rules I deliberately change (house rules) can be counted on one hand. When contradictions arise, or when the rules are not so clear, I go with my best guess of what was intended. I don't quibble over the wording. My PHB isn't a holy text (which is a shame because then I could use it to fend off evil outsiders and stuff).

Exactly. So, go with the intent that since INA is in the MM and not in the un-holy PHB then don't allow it for monks.

 

[seans23]

CAUSE: the Faq came up with a misguided ruling on monks and INA, which would really only benefit monks for levels 1-3, anyway.

EFFECT: The Book of Nine Swords has the Superior Unarmed Strike feat to make up for this, and to allow unarmed combatants to do more damage, even at higher levels.

problem resolved.

 

[BryonD]

This chapter provides descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are typically used only by monsters.

It is amazing what a little bolding can do.
Again, context, context context......
The word "typically" completely changes the implication.

Can a Warlock take Empower Spell-Like Ability?