Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

The diference is, the places where they are wrong are not the primary source. The primary source, by definition, cannot be wrong. It is the standard by which wrongness or rightness is judged.


glass.

"Keen Edge" is Primary Source. FWIW, the FAQ lines up nicely with Keen Edge.

It seems to me that either:

(1) "Keen Edge" is correct and a feat can be considered an "effect."

or

(2) "Keen Edge" sets a precendent that WotC, for some purposes at least, considers "effects" to be a very broad term that also includes what causes the effect (as in both the feat's effects and the feat itself).

or

(3) "Keen Edge" is a mistake, despite being a primary source (though by defintion it cannot be wrong .

or

(4) "Keen Edge' ONLY applies to Improved Critical being teated as an "effect," and has no bearing whatsoever on any other feats.

If (1), then monks take INA, no question.

If (2), which is my position, then we cannot know for sure which way effects should be read in the monk's class descirption and maybe monks can take INA, and maybe not, and a FAQ entry was needed to clear it all up.

If (3), then again we do not know which way to treat "effects" in the monk class description - we have no way of knowing if WotC is making the same error there or not. The FAQ entry clears this up and pretty much clearly states that the error (if you believe it to be one) was intentional.

(4) Is a red herring and not worthy of serious consideration. Only included for completeness.

If we accept that the primary source rules cannot be wrong, then (2) is the best choice to tie it all together in an acceptable way where no rules are incorrect. That still (even after the FAQ) leaves us in some doubt as to when "effects" is meant to broadly include that which causes the effect (feats, et.al) and when it is meant to be only the actual "effect" of the feat, spell, etc. I don't think it's that hard to figure out from context, though, but others will certainly disgaree.

 

[Artoomis]

Cool, where can I find that?

Well, WotC does not claarly state what the FAQ is supposed to do and where it's limits are. However, here's what I could find:

"Do you have questions about the D&D game rules? Download the official FAQ that best suits your needs."

"If you have a question about the D&D game rules, you might find them within this FAQ."

That's it for the FAQ. Kind of vague on what it is and is not, other than "offical."

On errata:

"Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.

One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning
of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities."

Note that WotC does NOT say that the only place for rules changes is errata, and they further do NOT say what priority the FAQ has as a "Primary Source."

Everything else about the FAQ as a rules source is assumptions and conjecture.

I assume that WotC has decide they can change the rules in the FAQ and that this becomes the new rule - I assume so because they have in fact done this.

This may even be appropriate. Errata is typically NOT for rules changes, but for fixing errors in the intial publication. Typically, rules changes would be published some other way other than errata. Wotc seems to have chosen the FAQ for this, but they won't quite come out and say it.

 

[Cedric]

So...there is an official, centralized repository that addresses alterations of function, clarifications to intent, and in general answers questions about every other published document related to the 3.5 Edition of the D&D rules (other than mistake corrections, which are appropriately located in errata files, separately contained for each document).

To my thinking (and absent of any published instructions to refute this thought), that places the FAQ at the very top of the rules hierarchy.

Cedric

 

[Deset Gled]

Errata is typically NOT for rules changes, but for fixing errors in the intial publication. Typically, rules changes would be published some other way other than errata. Wotc seems to have chosen the FAQ for this, but they won't quite come out and say it.

To my thinking (and absent of any published instructions to refute this thought), that places the FAQ at the very top of the rules hierarchy.

I simply do not understand how you can reach this conclusion without completely ignoring the Primary Source rule. Any time a secondary publication (like the FAQ) states a rule that is different (regardless of it it is intentional or accidental) than what is published in the SRDs, it is in disagreement with the primary source. And we have a clear and unambiguous rule that states that when we find disagreements like that, the primary source (not the secondary FAQ) is correct. Also, there is precedent for rules changes to come from errata. Polymorph in particular comes to mind.

Rules changes cannot come from anywhere but errata, per WotCs own "official" decision.

 

[Pinotage]

Cool, where can I find that?

I haven't seen anything on their site other than one of the Star Wars Jedi Counselling articles a few months back saying exactly what the rules preference was, and it was as is commonly understood - primary source, errata, FAQ, website article or something like that.

Pinotage

 

[Cedric]

I simply do not understand how you can reach this conclusion without completely ignoring the Primary Source rule. Any time a secondary publication (like the FAQ) states a rule that is different (regardless of it it is intentional or accidental) than what is published in the SRDs, it is in disagreement with the primary source. And we have a clear and unambiguous rule that states that when we find disagreements like that, the primary source (not the secondary FAQ) is correct. Also, there is precedent for rules changes to come from errata. Polymorph in particular comes to mind.

Since the FAQ is a centralized document that houses clarifications of intent and alterations of function for the rules of every other publication, I consider it to be a Primary Source. The Primary Source statement in the preface of the errata does not address what place in the rules Hierarchy the FAQ fills and seems clearly targetted at other published rulebooks, not an overseeing document like the FAQ. So I'm not sure how you can just arbitrarily say the FAQ is secondary.

Now, if WotC has taken the stance that the FAQ is secondary to the rulebooks it's clarifying (in terms of which takes primacy), I will gladly accept that if you can direct me to where I can find that statement of intent. Though, it would seem odd to publish an FAQ that restates or alters rules and at the same time place it in a position secondary to tbe book it is referring too.

Rules changes cannot come from anywhere but errata, per WotCs own "official" decision.

I've not found where this has been stated. I can certainly see how a posting from a WotC moderator on a forum on their boards would not be official, that makes perfect sense. But nothing I've seen from WotC declares the "Official" FAQ to be incapable of altering the manner in which a rule is used to an extent that many would consider it a revision.

 

[glass]

"Keen Edge" is Primary Source.

Primary source for what?

EDIT: I hope we can agree that it certainly not the primary source for how the monks special abilities work. We can agree that that would be the monk description in the Classes chapter, right?


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

Primary source for what?

EDIT: I hope we can agree that it certainly not the primary source for how the monks special abilities work. We can agree that that would be the monk description in the Classes chapter, right?


glass.

Primary source for how "effects" is used in the core rules. The spell text comes right from the core rules, and, since there is no defintion of "effects", the spell text is just as authoritataive as any other PHB text in explaining what "effects" actually means.

 

[Infiniti2000]

In many courts the Prosection and Defense will provide dismissals by Potential Juror Number to the judge in front of the Jury Pool, but without reasons for dismissal. So you won't know why, but you'll know if it was Prosecution or Defense that dismissed you.

Intriguing. We are sent out of the court room while the defense and prosecutors choose the jury, apparently with the defendant/plaintiffs/currently available witnesses still present. I was not chosen in the two times I went and I have no real idea why, though I have my hunches. Quite honestly, though, I like it better this way.

Typical.

Only typical. And, I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I was on a jury a while back, for an Assault case.

The guy who got hit said "He hit me."
The two witnesses said "He was kneeling on the guy's chest, punching him in the face."
The defendant said "I didn't hit him."

In our discussions, some of the jurors said "What if he thought he was threatened? That would make it self defence."

"What?" we said. "He didn't mention feeling threatened. His lawyer didn't mention feeling threatened. He didn't say 'I hit him in self defence', he said 'I didn't hit him'. We've got two witnesses who said he hit him. How can he claim self defence, if he's saying it never happened?"

"But how can we know?" they pressed. "We weren't there, so we can't. And that's reasonable doubt."

YIKES!

I was only involved in the criminal side of the law for a couple of weeks (as a Dallas Public Defender Temporary Intern) and even I can see that was a mess!

The prosecutor should have polled the jury- that way he'd have found out that the jury reached an improper (in)decision by assuming facts not in evidence. That is, they assumed a defense that was not offered at trial and used that as a basis for their decision...probably in direct violation of the jury charge as well.

That would have been a mistrial and thus time for...<ding!> Round 2!

That DA must have been asleep at the switch...or at least operating under a different set of procedural rules than I'm used to. Where was this?