Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Kem]

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

What advice from the Sage or a RotG article?

One does not have to agree and use something just because they accept it.

I accept the answer provided for the quesiton on FLURRY, and disregard the part dealing with feinting as it seems they missed something and answered the question correctly for FLURRY, but missing mentioning that feint is a move action only with Improved Feint.

And since the question is about FLURRY OF BLOWS, I would never look at that for a question regarding feinting.

 

[Kem]

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.

I accept his conclusion but don't agree with it. It may not be intended for PCs, but by RAW you cannot say that PCs don't have a chance on earth of getting them.

As such which book they are in is unimportant.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

That doesn't make too much sense... How is a Druid supposed to look up stats for it's animal companion? It's in the MM, oh no, can't look there! Same thing for Summon Monster spells... Same thing for magic items in the DMG. If you are creating a character at higher level, you need to know the character wealth for that level and should deck out your character w/ magic items appropriate for that level. But since these are listed in the DMG, then you're not allowed to?

The feats in the MM are commonly used by monsters. They aren't limited to just monsters, only monsters, and nothing but monsters. The only restriction for player's being able to take them would be whatever their prereqs are (and DM fiat... did I use that word right? fiat?)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

KarinsDad
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.

Firelance
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.

I'm with FireLance- the Core Rulebooks are analogous to the codified laws of a country or other sovereign. Like those laws, they can be full of vague or self-contradictory language.

The FAQ and Errata would be analogous to interpretations of that codex by those in power to do so- in other words, cases tried before a judge or judicial body and the resultant
decisions- or in certain circumstances, legislative ammendments or legal circulars. In the RW, such cases are usually mere interpretations, but they can be used to expand or limit the reach underlying code...or even come up with new stuff. It can even be wrong and self-contradictory. Generally, the rulings reach a concensus, and the latest ruling is the one that controls.

The problem is there really is no true body like the Supreme Court to finalize rulings...

except your DM.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

1. If one set of rules is meant to clarify another set of rules, I think you can expect conflict between the two sources. I think it's part of the point in fact. The errata for example is a set of rules that explicitly is meant to contradict the "core", but I doubt you would choose to ignore the errata in favor of the "core" text, despite the errata sometimes being wrong and definitely contradicting the "core" rules.

I keep putting "core" in quotes because I think the whole concept isn't very useful. The FAQ is meant to clarify the "core", and it is written by the same company about the same product as the "core", so I don't understand how it is any less "core" than the PHB itself. Much like the errata is meant to correct the "core". Is the errata therefore not "core" as well?

2. Having Hypersmurf on your side is not, in my opinion, a side that you are correct. In my opinion, HS much more enjoys the debates itself rather than the the side he has chosen to choose. In fact, I sometimes think HS randomly chooses a side just for the challenge of defending it. He's a devil, that advocate.

 

[Legildur]

...I keep putting "core" in quotes because I think the whole concept isn't very useful. The FAQ is meant to clarify the "core", and it is written by the same company about the same product as the "core", so I don't understand how it is any less "core" than the PHB itself. Much like the errata is meant to correct the "core". Is the errata therefore not "core" as well?

The errata makes changes to the core rules, sure. But please don't try and lump the FAQ in with that. It is an acronym for "Frequently Asked Questions", sometimes I think people forget that, and not a set of codified supplementary rules. Whereas the PHB, DMG, and MM state on the front cover "Core Rulebook X" (where X is a I, II, or III).

2. Having Hypersmurf on your side is not, in my opinion, a side that you are correct. In my opinion, HS much more enjoys the debates itself rather than the the side he has chosen to choose. In fact, I sometimes think HS randomly chooses a side just for the challenge of defending it. He's a devil, that advocate.

I believe that your opinion would be in the minority. He may be a troublesome advocate who certainly enjoys a good debate and makes thought provoking posts, but asserting that HS sometimes "chooses a side just for the challenge" seems a little extreme to me.

And as an observation once again the debate has, for the nth time, degenerated into an assessment of the place of the FAQ in the rules hierarchy. There are those that lump it in with the core rulebooks, and those that don't, and no amount of discussion will sway either side.

Similarly, we have gone away from the preceding discussion about "effects" and how that may determine the legitimacy.

 

[Plane Sailing]

And as an observation once again the debate has, for the nth time, degenerated into an assessment of the place of the FAQ in the rules hierarchy. There are those that lump it in with the core rulebooks, and those that don't, and no amount of discussion will sway either side.

Similarly, we have gone away from the preceding discussion about "effects" and how that may determine the legitimacy.

This is true.

And since the whole thing has been about lobbing artillary from entrenched positions and watching the mud fountain up over no-mans land for several pages now, I think that it is time that we drew this thread to a close.

Let's not venture into the land of Monks and INA for a few months, OK?

Thanks