Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

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.

You're right - that's probably what it would take. Oh well, this is a good as it is going to get, I guess. <shrug> While your proposed language might get the correct survey results, it would likey (and rightly) get shut down about 10 minutes after posting, I think.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Except I don't see this as nearly so important and therefore not worthy of the level of details. (Not saying you do by any stretch)
I'd rather agree to DM judgement on a sentence than have a 400 page Code of Regulations for INA. Trying to detail everything out to a perfect degree would be a total mess, would take a ton of word count away from other topics, and wouldn't actually achieve the goal of ending debate. Lose - Lose - Lose.

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.

I think actually trying to reach that level of precision would be highly harmful to the quality of the game. In the end it is a game for relatively intelligent people. And intellegence includes the ability to make reasonable inferences.

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.

IMO, at the end of the day it is WoTC's intent moreso than Monte's intent or Skip's intent.

But even with that, the point is not that you need to agree with WotC.
WotC seems to think the Warbalde is balanced. I think that is insane.
But me disagreeing with them is completely different than me saying their position is not meaningful or official.

 

[Artoomis]

...I think actually trying to reach that level of precision would be highly harmful to the quality of the game. In the end it is a game for relatively intelligent people. And intellegence includes the ability to make reasonable inferences....

Well, there is somevalue in a very high level of precision - mostly in applying these rules in a automated way for character generators, computer games, etc.

However, all that is needed is something like the FAQ to clear up areas of contention.

 

[gabrion]

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.

Are you really that surprised? It seems fairly predictable that most people believe in their viewpoint with absolute certainty on this issue. You can tell by how often arguments about it come up on the boards. Issues that do have some ambiguity tend to get discussed once (or twice) and then people set them aside with an "agree to disagree" type attitude. It seems like this issue gets discussed so much because the two sides do really believe there is only one possible answer.

 

[Artoomis]

Are you really that surprised? It seems fairly predictable that most people believe in their viewpoint with absolute certainty on this issue. You can tell by how often arguments about it come up on the boards. Issues that do have some ambiguity tend to get discussed once (or twice) and then people set them aside with an "agree to disagree" type attitude. It seems like this issue gets discussed so much because the two sides do really believe there is only one possible answer.

What I am surpised at is not the inflexibility of thinking one is correct (heck, I think I am right and I am certain of that fact ), it's the inability to appreciate that the other side has ANY validity to their argument at all - even if they are mistaken.

But then, perhaps this is reflective of my law school training where one learns that there are very, very few absolutes in life and there is almost always as opposing argument that has at least some merit, however small.

 

[Tiberius]

What I am surpised at is not the inflexibility of thinking one is correct (heck, I think I am right and I am certain of that fact ), it's the inability to appreciate that the other side has ANY validity to their argument at all - even if they are mistaken.

Ah, I think this is your problem right here. I suspect most readers wouldn't think of the other side as having any validity, by definition. As Cedric pointed out, it is possible to understand where the other side is coming from and why they decided as they did; this does not mean that their argument is valid. They have come to a wrong conclusion and thus an invalid conclusion. After all, if one follows a series of valid arguments, how could a person not come to the "correct" conclusion?

Also, the fact that one's opponents are clearly soulless apes incapable of higher brain function tends to cloud discourse.

 

[Arnwyn]

What I am surpised at is not the inflexibility of thinking one is correct (heck, I think I am right and I am certain of that fact ), it's the inability to appreciate that the other side has ANY validity to their argument at all - even if they are mistaken.

But then, perhaps this is reflective of my law school training where one learns that there are very, very few absolutes in life and there is almost always as opposing argument that has at least some merit, however small.

You are correct, of course - but that's not how people operate on an internet messageboard.

There's much more to it than the inability to appreciate the other side's argument... instead, there's also some psychology and "strategic voting" going on, too (moreso, I submit).

 

[BryonD]

Well, there is somevalue in a very high level of precision - mostly in applying these rules in a automated way for character generators, computer games, etc.

However, all that is needed is something like the FAQ to clear up areas of contention.

Sure.

WotC says it is ok, so for computer games or official character generators the problem is solved.

Of course I'm not advocating a low level of precision, but, IMO, the level of precision currently provided is very much high enough.

 

[Nail]

.... it is possible to understand where the other side is coming from and why they decided as they did; this does not mean that their argument is valid. They have come to a wrong conclusion and thus an invalid conclusion.

Exactly.

You can answer "yes" to both of the following questions without creating a paradox:

"Is there debate about the meaning of the core rules wrt INA?"

"Is there a clear answer, once all of the core rule facts are examined?"

 

[glass]

Assuming I am OK to post in this thread... Mods let me know if I am not and I'll delete this.

Ah, I think this is your problem right here. I suspect most readers wouldn't think of the other side as having any validity, by definition. As Cedric pointed out, it is possible to understand where the other side is coming from and why they decided as they did; this does not mean that their argument is valid. They have come to a wrong conclusion and thus an invalid conclusion. After all, if one follows a series of valid arguments, how could a person not come to the "correct" conclusion?

My thoughts exactly. If I thought there was any validity to another's argument, I would have to concede. If I haven't conceded it means I don't see any validity in the opposing argument. This is not unreasonable.

Not conceding in the face of a valid argument; that would be unreasonable, IMO.

EDIT: I'm assuming that you are not using 'valid' in the plain English sense rather than the technical argument theory sense. Technically, you could describe the 'Yes' argument as valid but based on a (IMO) incorrect premise, but I don't think you were making that distinction and I'm not sure where you draw the line between an argument and premises anyway.


glass.