Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Plane Sailing]

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Hey, are you getting political?

Don't worry, I'm only joking!

 

[Plane Sailing]

BTW, is this poll assuming that INA will improve the monks damage at every level, or just improve the 1d3 unarmed damage that a human fist might benefit from (for instance)?

 

[BryonD]

I don't agree, which leaves me back at "No"

-Hyp.

And that is fair enough.
I really don't think the specific matter at hand is really a big deal at all.

The point is more a matter of parsing language to the point that there is no hint of fun left to be found anywhere.

To me it is much better to get past contorting every single word and look at the overall rules with a bit of "blur" to allow understanding of what was meant.
Whether they said it perfectly or not, I am completely confident that the intent of the statement was that any time you are looking at a monk's unarmed attack you can consider it to be a natural weapon or not. The intent was not to create a killjoy logic trap over the meaning of the word "effect".

 

[Pinotage]

To me it is much better to get past contorting every single word and look at the overall rules with a bit of "blur" to allow understanding of what was meant.
Whether they said it perfectly or not, I am completely confident that the intent of the statement was that any time you are looking at a monk's unarmed attack you can consider it to be a natural weapon or not. The intent was not to create a killjoy logic trap over the meaning of the word "effect".

Well said. I seem to recall from the previous debate on this topic that there were some quotes in other sources that feats were considered effects. The counter-argument was that feats may be considered effects, but their prerequisites weren't. I can see the arguments both ways, so I'm not voting 100% certainty. I know how I would rule, but that doesn't matter for this debate, nor does anything from another non-core source.

Pinotage

 

[Artoomis]

BTW, is this poll assuming that INA will improve the monks damage at every level, or just improve the 1d3 unarmed damage that a human fist might benefit from (for instance)?

The first.

 

[Artoomis]

As of this writing, 80 votes are in (a large number for this board in well under 24 hours):

34 100% sure allowed
25 100% sure disallowed
21 At least some level of ambiguity exists.


This is a VERY big surprise to me. I assumed (wrongly) that most folks would see some validity, however small, to the opposing view. The fact that so many are 100% certain of opposite view does itself indicate some ambiguity, hoever small an amount, and yet 74% of the responders don't see that. Amazing.

I wonder how many folks now see at least some level of ambiguity based upon these survey results?

I am very curious - please post if you've softened your "100% certain" response and now see at least some level of ambiguity or uncertainty.

 

[Artoomis]

...To me it is much better to get past contorting every single word and look at the overall rules with a bit of "blur" to allow understanding of what was meant.
Whether they said it perfectly or not, I am completely confident that the intent of the statement was that any time you are looking at a monk's unarmed attack you can consider it to be a natural weapon or not. The intent was not to create a killjoy logic trap over the meaning of the word "effect".

The trick is to know when to look an "intent" and when to look only at a strict construction of what the words say. It's tricky - that's why often we have courts of law disgreeing over statutes. It's a very close parallel. Sometimes the courts use intent as overiding the strict language, sometimes the language can override what everyone knew was the intent.

BTW, I agree with you,. This set of rules simply does not have the level of precision that Hyp (and others) would like to put on it. Attempting to put a precise defintion on "effects" is a great exemple of this; it's an ill-defined game term and we have little evidence (from the PHB/DMG/MM) that indicates whether the intent here was for "effects" to include feats or not.

We do have after-the-fact evidence in terms of the FAQ and later-published material, but that does not really tell us what the intent was at the time of the original writing.

 

[Cedric]

As of this writing, 80 votes are in (a large number for this board in well under 24 hours):

34 100% sure allowed
25 100% sure disallowed
21 At least some level of ambiguity exists.


This is a VERY big surprise to me. I assumed (wrongly) that most folks would see some validity, however small, to the opposing view. The fact that so many are 100% certain of opposite view does itself indicate some ambiguity, hoever small an amount, and yet 74% of the responders don't see that. Amazing.

I wonder how many folks now see at least some level of ambiguity based upon these survey results?

I am very curious - please post if you've softened your "100% certain" response and now see at least some level of ambiguity or uncertainty.

I can absolutely understand how someone could read it differently than me and disallow INA for Monks. However, I also believe that they are completely mistaken.

I only state that because there is a difference between:

1. Believing an opposing argument has no validity

and

2. Understanding how someone could reasonably come to the conclusion they have.

So please don't take my "yes" vote as a complete dismissal of other people's viewpoint. I understand their viewpoint and the logic they took in arriving at it. I simply feel that they are still wrong.

I am confident that many of those people on the "no" side of this discussion feel largely the same way about my position on the "yes" side of this.

 

[Artoomis]

I can absolutely understand how someone could read it differently than me and disallow INA for Monks. However, I also believe that they are completely mistaken.

I only state that because there is a difference between:

1. Believing an opposing argument has no validity

and

2. Understanding how someone could reasonably come to the conclusion they have.

So please don't take my "yes" vote as a complete dismissal of other people's viewpoint. I understand their viewpoint and the logic they took in arriving at it. I simply feel that they are still wrong.

I am confident that many of those people on the "no" side of this discussion feel largely the same way about my position on the "yes" side of this.

Oh, well, I guess, despite best efforts, the survey was not well-written enough. <sigh>. In your case I would have preferred a vote for the not 100% certain category. My fault - it's just the nature of these completely unscientific surveys.

 

[Cedric]

Oh, well, I guess, despite best efforts, the survey was not well-written enough. <sigh>. In your case I would have preferred a vote for the not 100% certain category. My fault - it's just the nature of these completely unscientific surveys.

I know what you're going for, and unfortunately I just don't think there is an acceptable way to word that poll and achieve the results your thinking of...

It would almost have to be as blatant as ...

1. Yes, anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot who can't read

2. No, don't be a moron, stop reading more into it because you want to help out underpowered monks.

3. Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to see that there are at least two legitimate ways of applying these rules.

Now, I'm not advocating that wording...but to get the results you want, you'd almost have to word it that way.

But like I've said, I believe that someone can have a reasonable counter argument that was arrived at after intelligent thought and discourse...and I can still consider them to be completely wrong.