Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Cedric]

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.

The FAQ is an official document, labelled as such by the publisher. It is complete with all of the necessary revision information, publishing info and legalize to establish its legitimacy.

Just because you find an error or errors in the document, you cannot disregard the official nature of the document because "you don't like it." If you feel something needs to be changed in the FAQ, there is a feedback process for that as well.

If WotC had intended for the document to not be "official"...they wouldn't have labelled it as such.

For those who want to cite other examples in comparison, like consider the FAQ to be akin to Harvard Law Review...I think of it more like ISO-9000. There is a strict protocol to define what makes a document official. In following that protocol to the letter, there is no doubt (in my mind) that WotC intends the "official" FAQ to actually be official.

 

[Mistwell]

I actually asked specifically about the PHB

Fair enough. There has been such a huge amount of errata for the PHB that I think it cannot really be argued with a straight face that the PHB was, or even is, error-free. By definition, before every single new errata that is issued, there must have been some error.

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).

Note, I was not mentioning the pricing guidelines. I was mentioning the actual rule for a particular magic item, and the price specifically given for that item. And there are others but that one just came to mind.

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).

And my point is that the PHB has the same history of errors, and was also written by different people. In fact, they were taking a lot of text from the 3.0 PHB which was written by someone else and "updatting" by a new person to 3.5, and this process was often the source of many more errors. If it's hard to discern rules intent from the people who write the FAQ, it's equally difficult to discern rules intent from the people who wrote 3.5 PHB. So why do you feel PHB is a "better" source than the FAQ, given both have a history of errors, both are written by people who were not the same people who wrote the original rules (most of the time) that they are writing about, and both are official and from the same company about the same rules and same game.

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.

And I'd just say then don't use the PHB has a source of justification given the problems it has had over the years.

Can't we just admit that both sources of rules are historically flawed, and both help guide DMs to coming up with good rules to run a game and both are about as official as it gets?

 

[Legildur]

...And I'd just say then don't use the PHB has a source of justification given the problems it has had over the years.

Can't we just admit that both sources of rules are historically flawed, and both help guide DMs to coming up with good rules to run a game and both are about as official as it gets?

Agreed. Except that the PHB is core and that the FAQ contradicts it on occasions. You have to give primacy to one of the documents, and I know which one that should be.

Besides, I have Hypersmurf on my side

But if I play a monk again, and the build is suited to INA, I'll float the FAQ past my DM (who has already once rejected INA based on it being a feat in the Monster Manual, and therefore not intended for PCs) and see what he has to say then. I won't argue his interpretation because it is his game.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I'll float the FAQ past my DM (who has already once rejected INA based on it being a feat in the Monster Manual, and therefore not intended for PCs)

Does your DM not allow Orcs and Ogres to take Power Attack then? After all, they are found in the PHB and are "intended for PCs".

 

[KarinsDad]

Does your DM not allow Orcs and Ogres to take Power Attack then? After all, they are found in the PHB and are "intended for PCs".

There should be a plethora of feats, spells, and other abilities that should be NPC only.

PCs already have hundreds of feats, over a thousand spells, and many abilities from various sources to choose from. Disallowing feats, spells, and other abilities for PCs is perfectly reasonable. Allowing some of them is also reasonable.

But, the PHB is intended for both PCs and NPCs. The MM and the DMG, although they have elements that can be used by PCs, are the purview of the DM and nothing in those sources should be considered RAW from a players POV. Anything in those two books are dynamic.

 

[BryonD]

There should be a plethora of feats, spells, and other abilities that should be NPC only.

PCs already have hundreds of feats, over a thousand spells, and many abilities from various sources to choose from. Disallowing feats, spells, and other abilities for PCs is perfectly reasonable. Allowing some of them is also reasonable.

But, the PHB is intended for both PCs and NPCs. The MM and the DMG, although they have elements that can be used by PCs, are the purview of the DM and nothing in those sources should be considered RAW from a players POV. Anything in those two books are dynamic.

Is this a rule or an assumption?

 

[Legildur]

Is this a rule or an assumption?

If players were intended to know about feats in the MM, then they would be in the PHB instead.

The Leadership feat is in the DMG - that is not universally available to players.

So I can see where KarinsDad has drawn his conclusion.

 

[Deset Gled]

I do accept the rule on feinting, because it's in the FAQ (I think it's wrong, but I accept it). Additionally, I am dispatching an email to WotC to have it reviewed.

Would you change your point of view if Cust Serv ruled against the FAQ?

What advice from the Sage or a RotG article?

 

[Cedric]

Would you change your point of view if Cust Serv ruled against the FAQ?

What advice from the Sage or a RotG article?

If Custserv ruled against the FAQ, I would accept the ruling provisionally, but request an update to the FAQ. If it wasn't forthcoming within two updates, I would request again. If nothing changed, I would revert back to the FAQ.

Typically, I don't read the sage or RotG articles, so I would have to just say case by case on those.

 

[Kem]

If Kem wants to take everything written by WotC as gospel, then that's fine by me,

*sigh* Man, I am sooo glad I don't have to argue with you about this.

You know since I never said that.

just don't use the FAQ as a source of justification given the problems it has had over the years.

Then why bother with it?

A direct question was asked: Can Monks use INA.
It was answered, and published on their website as a rules clarification.

So when I read it, and see that the exact question that is being asked in this thread has a direct answer, why SHOULDN'T I accept it? Because it doesn't mesh with what you what?

I find that rather coincidental, and it seems that you will only accept what you want.

Agreed. Except that the PHB is core and that the FAQ contradicts it on occasions. You have to give primacy to one of the documents, and I know which one that should be.

Great, you do that. To bad I don't see a contradiction in this case.