Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Legildur]

None of those answer the question though. They dont even go against anything in the thread relating in the other direction.

Okay, I'll throw this in (but I'll soon end up quoting the the entire text at this rate)[my emphasis]:

Making a Trip Attack
Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks.

An unarmed strike is NOT an unarmed melee touch attack. Same with initiating a grapple.

 

[Kem]

Ahhh, so you choose to be selective about which parts of the FAQ you use because you acknowledge parts of it have errors. Now then, how do we know which parts have errors?

Same as I do with the Player's Handbook.

Just like if I want to know about a spell I go to its entry. If some other table, or chart, or section mentions something about the spell, and its wrong, I ignore it in favor of the actual entry.

If I have a question about something I go to a FAQ entry that deals with it. I don't bother reading every question to see if one might off handedly refer to it. If one does refer to what I have a question about, it can be wrong, just like the Quick Reference Spell Chart can be wrong in the PHB.

This is a case of asking a direct question, Can a Monk Take INA and get the Benefit. Not a case of an off hand comment as it is with feint. (How is it off-hand? You can remove the reference to Feint and the question is still answered).

 

[Legildur]

Same as I do with the Player's Handbook.

Just like if I want to know about a spell I go to its entry. If some other table, or chart, or section mentions something about the spell, and its wrong, I ignore it in favor of the actual entry.

If I have a question about something I go to a FAQ entry that deals with it. I don't bother reading every question to see if one might off handedly refer to it. If one does refer to what I have a question about, it can be wrong, just like the Quick Reference Spell Chart can be wrong in the PHB.

This is a case of asking a direct question, Can a Monk Take INA and get the Benefit. Not a case of an off hand comment as it is with feint. (How is it off-hand? You can remove the reference to Feint and the question is still answered).

Post errata, are there any contradictions within the PHB?

The rules about text versus tables is clearly articulated in the errata docs. So there is nothing new there.

You may consider the 'feint as move action' as an off-hand comment (and I agree to an extent), but that paragraph goes to some pains to spell out what other options are not available. The answer is just plain wrong (as is the reference to Sunder in the paragraph above that). As I explained earlier, I'm simply using it as an example as to the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the FAQ, and what that may imply about the document as a whole as regards to underpinning any rules discussion.

And a general question, did the current Sage (author of the FAQ?) write the INA feat for the MM? I'm guessing not, so that would imply that the FAQ answer on INA is someone else's take on whom can take the feat.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for monks taking INA for all the reasons others have discussed, except that I believe it requires a DM to invoke rule #1.

 

[FireLance]

Common law does distinguish between ratio decidendi ("the reason or rationale for the decision"), which stand as potentially binding precedent, and obiter dictum (a statement said "by the way"), a remark or observation made by a judge that, while included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision, and does not set a binding precedent.

In the case of the FAQ on what the monk can do in a flurry of blows, the ratio decidendi is essentially whether the action can be done with a special monk weapon and can take the place of an attack (yes) or either cannot be done with a special monk weapon or cannot take the place of an attack, e.g. because it requires a standard action or move action (no). The FAQ was inaccurate in calling a feint a move action, since it is only a move action if you have Improved Feint, but that to me is obiter dictum.

Of course your DM is the highest court of appeal and can overturn precedent if he wants to. However, in the same way that most legal systems the world over do not overturn precedent lightly, I tend to go with the FAQ unless it is obviously wrong or jars with my own sense of internal logic.

 

[KarinsDad]

Of course your DM is the highest court of appeal and can overturn precedent if he wants to. However, in the same way that most legal systems the world over do not overturn precedent lightly, I tend to go with the FAQ unless it is obviously wrong or jars with my own sense of internal logic.

This equates the FAQ with Common Law. That's an assumption.

I equate the PHB/DMG/MM with Common Law.

I equate the FAQ with the Harvard Law Review (although not as error free). Interesting reading and has a lot of good tidbits in it, but not RAW.

 

[Kem]

Post errata, are there any contradictions within the PHB?

Doesn't matter.

The rules about text versus tables is clearly articulated in the errata docs. So there is nothing new there.

And also the logical method to determine is something is right, even before the errata told me to do so.

You may consider the 'feint as move action' as an off-hand comment (and I agree to an extent), but that paragraph goes to some pains to spell out what other options are not available. The answer is just plain wrong (as is the reference to Sunder in the paragraph above that). As I explained earlier, I'm simply using it as an example as to the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the FAQ, and what that may imply about the document as a whole as regards to underpinning any rules discussion.

The answer is right, the exact explanation is wrong. You cannot normally Feint as part of a flurry, even with improved feint.

However, if you had a question about Improved Feint or Regular Feint, you would NOT want to consider a question on Flurry of Blows as a reference. You don't know what was left out of the FAQ question and answer.

And a general question, did the current Sage (author of the FAQ?) write the INA feat for the MM? I'm guessing not, so that would imply that the FAQ answer on INA is someone else's take on whom can take the feat.

WotC wrote it, WotC answered it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for monks taking INA for all the reasons others have discussed, except that I believe it requires a DM to invoke rule #1.

Even before the FAQ I thought that monks could take it. I never thought it was something that had to be "allowed".

 

[FireLance]

This equates the FAQ with Common Law. That's an assumption.

I equate the PHB/DMG/MM with Common Law.

I equate the FAQ with the Harvard Law Review (although not as error free). Interesting reading and has a lot of good tidbits in it, but not RAW.

Actually, I would equate the PHB/DMG/MM with the written laws of a country, as enacted by the Legislature. In most countries, the Legislature writes the law, but it does not interpret it. Interpretation of the law is left to the Courts (the Judiciary). Since I see the FAQ as an interpretation of the written law, clarifying how it should be applied, Court judgements are the closest analogue.

 

[Mistwell]

Post errata, are there any contradictions within the PHB?

The rules about text versus tables is clearly articulated in the errata docs. So there is nothing new there.

Now you've entered into a whole mess you probably don't want to dig up.

Yes, there are contradictions in the core. Yes, there are clearly flawed rules, which have not been erratted, but which pretty much everyone agrees are errors.

For example, in the DMG the prayer necklace has pricing that, if taken as written for not including certain beads in a set of beads when making the necklace, it would make the necklace in the very least free (and in some people's minds, you could gain money for making the necklace). We all know they didn't mean that, and it didn't take errata to let us know they didn't mean that, but nevertheless the rule is there, and it is flawed.

Heck, even the expansion rules seem to directly modify the core rules at times as if the expansion were errata. For example, I understand that the rule about losing most prestige class abilities if you lose a prerequisite for that prestige class comes from the Complete Warrior book. Almost everyone plays with that rule as if it were core, despite it not being in a core book. Because it makes sense!

No rules source is perfect and infallible and totally noncontradictory. Not the core rules as written, not the errata (which last I heard created a mess with the wildshaping and polymorph rules) not the FAQ (like the feinting as a move action line), and not the expansion books.

Every source has flaws. It is not fair or logical to claim that if a source has one bad rule then the entire source cannot be trusted for any rules. Given they were all made by humans, they are going to have flaws, and you can find a way to accept most of a body of rules without discarding the whole thing just because it isn't a perfect set of rules.

I choose to accept the core rules, the errata, the FAQ, and the expansion rules. I know all four are not perfect, and some tend to be better than others. But I think all four are overall valid, all four are official, and that the term "core" has no realistic meaning most of the time.

 

[BryonD]

This equates the FAQ with Common Law. That's an assumption.

I equate the PHB/DMG/MM with Common Law.

I equate the FAQ with the Harvard Law Review (although not as error free). Interesting reading and has a lot of good tidbits in it, but not RAW.

That works well for me.

Of course the rule that the word "effects" may not be used as part of standard english appears nowhere in your Common Law. You are just declaring it. That's an assumption.
It is an assumption that is not only unsupported by the common law, but it further directly contradicted by the Harvard Law Review.

I'll put the Harvard Law Review higher up the chain than I put the EnWorld Rules forum. Particularly when to do otherwise flies in the face of simple english and goes out of its way to force a killjoy logic trap demanding absolute perfection in language over the assumption of the reader having the ability to make reasonable common sense judgements.

 

[Legildur]

Yes, there are contradictions in the core. Yes, there are clearly flawed rules, which have not been erratted, but which pretty much everyone agrees are errors....

....Every source has flaws. It is not fair or logical to claim that if a source has one bad rule then the entire source cannot be trusted for any rules. Given they were all made by humans, they are going to have flaws, and you can find a way to accept most of a body of rules without discarding the whole thing just because it isn't a perfect set of rules.

I actually asked specifically about the PHB, but I take your point on the DMG (although magical item pricing doesn't follow hard and fast rules - there are numerous examples of the pricing issue).

My only point is that for those who wish to hang their hat on the FAQ as the final word on everything, is that you can't do so reliably. It contains errors and it is written by different people than those that wrote the original core rules (so you can't discern or claim original intent).

If Kem wants to take everything written by WotC as gospel, then that's fine by me, just don't use the FAQ as a source of justification given the problems it has had over the years.