Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[KarinsDad]

That is an incorrect reading and incorrect application of the English language.

I'll give you a parallel example.

Battle dress unforms (BDUs) are typically only worn by the military.

How is this different from: "Battle dress unforms (BDUs) are typically worn by the military."?

In other words, if it is different, how? If it is not different, why are you allowed to drop the word "only"?

Speaking purely from a correct application of the English language.

 

[Artoomis]

How is this different from: "Battle dress unforms (BDUs) are typically worn by the military."?

In other words, if it is different, how? If it is not different, why are you allowed to drop the word "only"?

Speaking purely from a correct application of the English language.

It's actually an incorrect usage, not all that much unlike, "usually always." The "always" sounds good but adds nothing - in fact it may create confusion, just as the "only" does in this case.

"Typically" means "in most cases or on most occasions." It add snothing to say "Usually only monster have these feats." The word "only" simply adds nothing and should not be used as the only thing it adds to this sentence is confusion.

In any case, it adds nothing to this debate. Certainly the monster feats were made up primarily for monsters with likely little thought to how they might apply to PCs.

Now, could we get back to the meaning of "effects." Not one has yet answered me as to why that word should be treated with precision here when it is not elsewhere in the rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's actually an incorrect usage, not all that much unlike, "usually always." The "always" sounds good but adds nothing - in fact it may create confusion, just as the "only" does in this case.

"Typically" means "in most cases or on most occasions." It add snothing to say "Usually only monster have these feats." The word "only" simply adds nothing and should not be used as the only thing it adds to this sentence is confusion.

In any case, it adds nothing to this debate. Certainly the monster feats were made up primarily for monsters with likely little thought to how they might apply to PCs.

So, it is your contention that the word "typical" trumps "only" and that we can completely drop the word "only" from the sentence.

I contend that "only" indicates that only monsters get it in the typical case. In an atypical case, one where it is explicitly stated that a non-monster can get a monster feat, there can be an exception. Without the exception being explicit, one would never know when the exception occurs.

But the rule is that only monsters can get these feats. The exceptions are allowed to exist, but they are not typical. In fact, they have to be specified in order to be known.

And the difference here is that my interpretation does not drop the word "only" from RAW. Your interpretation states that RAW is confused here, hence, you will ignore that which disagrees with your interpretation of the INA for Monks debate.


The fact that the opposing POV must drop the word "only" from this rule for their interpretation to work means that something is wrong with the opposing POV. At least by RAW.

 

[Artoomis]

...

And the difference here is that my interpretation does not drop the word "only" from RAW. Your interpretation states that RAW is confused here, hence, you will ignore that which disagrees with your interpretation of the INA for Monks debate.


The fact that the opposing POV must drop the word "only" from this rule for their interpretation to work means that something is wrong with the opposing POV. At least by RAW.

No, it simply means that the rules were not written with precision English. We know the rule for feats: have the prerequisite, take the feat. "Monster" feats do NOT have "monster" as a prerequisite.

The line about "typically only monsters" is little more than "flavor text." It has no weight as a rule. It certainly does give some insight as to the original intent, though, so it is not totally without purpose.

Dropping the word "only" is not key to the monk/INA argument at all. You can leave it in all you like - it just has no weight as a rule both since it the sentence itself is not a rule and because the word "only" is not a value-added word form the perspective of American English (or the Queen's English, either, for that matter).

This line of reasoning is all a red herring distracting us from the true argument - the meaning of the word "effects."

You seem to have avoided answering me on that one. I countered your "definition" and you have not presented anything else - do you concede that "effects" is NOT a game-defined term and that WotC has used it with gross imprecision in the core rules even to the point of using it to mean both cause AND effect?

 

[Artoomis]

...I contend that "only" indicates that only monsters get it in the typical case. In an atypical case, one where it is explicitly stated that a non-monster can get a monster feat, there can be an exception. Without the exception being explicit, one would never know when the exception occurs.....

Another way of answering this is that the "exception" occurs anytime a PC has the prerequisite for the feat. That nicely matches up to the actual rules on feats.

But I digress from the real issue at hand...

 

[KarinsDad]

Another way of answering this is that the "exception" occurs anytime a PC has the prerequisite for the feat. That nicely matches up to the actual rules on feats.

But I digress from the real issue at hand...

This is not a digression. It is integral to the discussion. You appear to be real eager to get off this subject though.

Monster feats are a subset of feats. Hence, they can have their own rules. One of those is that they are monster only with the exception than in an atypical case, this rule can be overwritten.

 

[Cedric]

So, it is your contention that the word "typical" trumps "only" and that we can completely drop the word "only" from the sentence.

I contend that "only" indicates that only monsters get it in the typical case. In an atypical case, one where it is explicitly stated that a non-monster can get a monster feat, there can be an exception. Without the exception being explicit, one would never know when the exception occurs.

But the rule is that only monsters can get these feats. The exceptions are allowed to exist, but they are not typical. In fact, they have to be specified in order to be known.

And the difference here is that my interpretation does not drop the word "only" from RAW. Your interpretation states that RAW is confused here, hence, you will ignore that which disagrees with your interpretation of the INA for Monks debate.


The fact that the opposing POV must drop the word "only" from this rule for their interpretation to work means that something is wrong with the opposing POV. At least by RAW.

After a few rewrites, I'll just keep this short.

Typically, is an adverb. It applies a qualifier or descriptor to the word or phrase with which it is paired. An adverb indicates manner, time, place, cause, or in our example, degree.

In this case, by pairing it with the word "only" it eliminates the exclusivity of using "only" without a qualifier. If there are no exceptions or only exceptions when expressly stated, then "typically" would be redundant as the word "only" establishes that point on its own.

Because "typically" is attached as an adverb to establish degree, it clarifies that while the usual usage of these feats are for monsters, by no means is the usage exclusive to only monsters.

Again, I think your other arguments had merit. However, I feel you have the semantics wrong on this particular point. Not sort of wrong, just flat wrong.

Lastly, there are numerous examples of feats presented in the Monster Manual in use by non-monster PCs and NPCs. None of those examples have a caveat to clarify that the character is allowed to take the feat, despite not being a monster.

Cedric

 

[KarinsDad]

This line of reasoning is all a red herring distracting us from the true argument - the meaning of the word "effects."

True argument?

So, your contention is that there can only be one argument here? Only one set of rules that the "Monks can take INA" position can be invalid on?

 

[KarinsDad]

After a few rewrites, I'll just keep this short.

Typically, is an adverb. It applies a qualifier or descriptor to the word or phrase with which it is paired. An adverb indicates manner, time, place, cause, or in our example, degree.

In this case, by pairing it with the word "only" it eliminates the exclusivity of using "only" without a qualifier. If there are no exceptions or only exceptions when expressly stated, then "typically" would be redundant as the word "only" establishes that point on its own.

Typically indicates that there can be exceptions.

Only indicates that as a general rule, monster feats are exclusive.

You need both words to convey that these feats are generally exclusive, but there can be exceptions.

Because "typically" is attached as an adverb to establish degree, it clarifies that while the usual usage of these feats are for monsters, by no means is the usage exclusive to only monsters.

They are only exclusive as a general rule. Specific rules can override that. But without specific rules to the contrary, the general rules holds.

Without the word "typically", then the word "only" would be extremely strong as an exclusive directive. With the word typically, only is still exclusive, but the ground work for the case of exceptions is laid.

Typically does not take away the exclusive nature of the word only. It merely indicates that there can be exceptions.

Again, I think your other arguments had merit. However, I feel you have the semantics wrong on this particular point. Not sort of wrong, just flat wrong.

You are entitled to this opinion.

Lastly, there are numerous examples of feats presented in the Monster Manual in use by non-monster PCs and NPCs. None of those examples have a caveat to clarify that the character is allowed to take the feat, despite not being a monster.

And your examples that illustrate this?

 

[Thurbane]

But how typically is TYPICAL typical? What is IS? What does MEAN mean?

This has devolved from an intelligent debate into a Dr Seuss book.

Thurbane out.