Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Hypersmurf]

Unreasonable doubt = guilty.

That must have been very painful to go through.

Hence the flashbacks

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

You probably know better than to trust eye witness testimony.

Hmmm. Interesting. I can see the correlation (prosecution cases are probably often dependent on eye witness testimony), and of course, that does match my personal POV.


Interesting story that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. My wife, a friend, his wife and myself were walking near my old university campus. A drunk driver uses his car to crash through the locked gates at an entrance, spins around and leaves. My wife got a good description of the driver and his shirt. My friend got the make and model of the car. His wife got the color of the car. I got the license plate number. Between us, we had enough substantial information that the police were able to pick the guy up at his apartment in a matter of 10 minutes while he was still intoxicated. And, each of us had totally different eye witness testimony.

 

[Legildur]

In this case, if WotC was wrong in one place, how can we be reasonably sure they are not wrong in another?

This is my point precisely about the example starting package in the PHBII that some people have been quoting to support the 'yes' case. The close proximity of other glaring errors throws into doubt the entire package.

The errors in the FAQ are not in as close proximity, so I found that has greater weight (if you accept the FAQ as a rules source).

I don't buy that rules alterations or revisions should be handled only with errata.

Then you haven't read WotC's own published policy on what errata and the FAQ are meant to achieve. Because that's exactly what errata are there to do.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Second, one needs to do extensive anaylsis on the monk class vs. other classes to determine how it stacks up next to the other classes and the relative value of the monk using up one precious feat for INA.

No, that's what I'm saying you should not do.

I did not do that to illustrate that PA is stronger.

I used it to illustrate that the Monk with INA had fewer options and did less extra damage than the Fighter with Power Attack. And at the same time, the Fighter can use Special Abilities of a weapon and still use Power Attack whereas the Monk cannot use INA if using Special Abilities of a weapon.

Your line of reasoning is still irrelevant. I can't force you to agree, so I have no desire to discuss this point further.

I noticed that you totally avoided the Monk + INA + Amulet versus Monk + Magic Weapon analysis completely.

I tend to do that when I guess that they will be irrelevant. I skipped over much of that because (a) you seem to be arguing something I don't really care about, and (b) you also ignored my hypothetical which I believe I asked first (and at least is relevant as far as I'm concerned).

 

[Infiniti2000]

I never get on a jury (course, it's usually the Prosecution that drops me, not quite sure why that is).

How do you know? Here in Orange County we are not told why we are not chosen.

 

[Cedric]

How do you know? Here in Orange County we are not told why we are not chosen.

In many courts the Prosection and Defense will provide dismissals by Potential Juror Number to the judge in front of the Jury Pool, but without reasons for dismissal. So you won't know why, but you'll know if it was Prosecution or Defense that dismissed you.

 

[KarinsDad]

I tend to do that when I guess that they will be irrelevant. I skipped over much of that because (a) you seem to be arguing something I don't really care about, and (b) you also ignored my hypothetical which I believe I asked first (and at least is relevant as far as I'm concerned).

Typical.

 

[glass]

2. There is sufficient doubt, confusion and disagreement around point number 1 that a clarifying statement from WotC (a FAQ entry) was entirely appropriate. I continue to be amazed and astounded that there is not general agreement on this.

I don't think anyone disagrees in principal with their clarifying it in the FAQ. Some of us just disagree with the direction their 'clarification' took.


glass.

 

[glass]

In this case, if WotC was wrong in one place, how can we be reasonably sure they are not wrong in another?

The diference is, the places where they are wrong are not the primary source. The primary source, by definition, cannot be wrong. It is the standard by which wrongness or rightness is judged.


glass.

 

[Cedric]

Then you haven't read WotC's own published policy on what errata and the FAQ are meant to achieve. Because that's exactly what errata are there to do.

Cool, where can I find that?