Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Legildur]

To my thinking (and absent of any published instructions to refute this thought), that places the FAQ at the very top of the rules hierarchy.

You are joking, right?

Ignoring (for the moment) that the 'published hierarchy' has not yet been sourced, several people have made reference to it, so that it reasonable evidence that it exists (although I do agree that the lack of it does cast some doubt on that). I have also read numerous criticisms about WotC misusing the FAQ in a way contrary to their own stated purposes in previous threads about INA (there was one thread nearing 1000 posts before it was closed)

But the plain language used to describe the various documents is, in itself, indicative of their standing. Did you see the Polymorph changes come through the FAQ? No. Nor did they come through the Rules of the Game, or the Customer Service desk. They came through errata for a good reason.

FAQs are used the world over by a multitude of organisational types for a large variety of reasons. In my job, we use them to help explain changes to legislation and other guidelines. What they do not carry is any sort of legal power or authority - those powers are invested in things like the legislation itself, the guidelines to the legislation, regulations, explanatory memoranda, second reading speeches to parliament, and court decisions. It wouldn't matter what any FAQ said, no matter who backed it, it doesn't carry any weight.

So I would find it next to impossible to to provide any great store in the FAQ as an authoritive rules source, let alone place it at the top of the heap.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That would have been a mistrial and thus time for...<ding!> Round 2!

I think, with the hung vote, the case went to a retrial a couple of months later anyway. But I couldn't swear to it.

Where was this?

New Zealand, so likely yes, some different rules

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...Ignoring (for the moment) that the 'published hierarchy' has not yet been sourced...

See post 382. Primary Sources rule quote is from 3.5 PHB errata. First FAQ quote is from FAQ web site, second is from inside the 3.5 FAQ.

There. Now it's sourced.

 

[Legildur]

See post 382. Primary Sources rule quote is from 3.5 PHB errata. First FAQ quote is from FAQ web site, second is from inside the 3.5 FAQ.

There. Now it's sourced.

Thanks. But that's not the quote I recall from previous discussions.... It was something more concrete than that. But it could have been a collectively formed opinion as part of previous discussions rather than WotC statement - I wouldn't have said so, but I am entertaining the possibility.

 

[Cedric]

You are joking, right?

Hehe, if other people can argue the meaning and use of the word "effects"...and also argue that Humans can't take "Monster" feats (despite them being labeled as [General]) because they aren't monsters...

Then I can certainly point out that there is no published hierarchy and, using reasonable logic, apply my own interpretation.

Of course, you could argue with what I consider "reasonable logic".

But let's review for a moment...

Typically errata is used to correct "mistakes". WotC uses errata for this purpose, however has a statement specifying that the errata is only used for game relevant mistakes, and does not include typo's and the like. The counter argument is that WotC errata has gone beyond just mild corrections, however seems to have done so only in cases where a complete rewrite of the existing rule seems to be necessary.

An FAQ addresses answers to questions and clarifications to ambiguous rules. The amazing amount of debate on this topic makes it crystal clear that this rule is ambiguous. Were it to be flat wrong or right one way or another, the community would not be split along such dramatic lines. You can argue until you are blue in the face that no ambiguity exists, however to do so is to basically disregard the opinion of about half of the D&D community.

I find it simple and clear that a statement in an FAQ would take precident over the book it was clarifying. Now, if it was a casual FAQ, lacking appropriate revision documentation, I would disregard it's validity.

However, this is an official FAQ with all of the necessary trappings to establish its validity.

...and that's the logic I applied and why I'm not joking.

Cedric

 

[Hypersmurf]

You can argue until you are blue in the face that no ambiguity exists, however to do so is to basically disregard the opinion of about half of the D&D community.

If we take this poll as representative, 73% of the D&D community agrees that no ambiguity exists.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

However, this is an official FAQ with all of the necessary trappings to establish its validity.

I can see why you would reach this conclusion. But then the FAQ 'officially' allows someone to 'feint' as a move action.

 

[Cedric]

If we take this poll as representative, 73% of the D&D community agrees that no ambiguity exists.

-Hyp.

That would mean more if it was 73% on one side of the argument, but it's not. It's almost 50% saying yes...almost 24% saying no...and another chunk saying both arguments have vaildity.

Furthermore, the question in this poll never asked, "Do you understand how someone could find ambiguity with the INA Feat as it applies to monks and their eligibility for the feat?"

The question asks if you are certain a monk can or cannot take the feat. Subtle but clear difference.

I am certain they can, but also can understand how a person might interpret it differently...I just feel they are mistaken.

 

[Cedric]

I can see why you would reach this conclusion. But then the FAQ 'officially' allows someone to 'feint' as a move action.

Ok...I fail to see your point. A feint should be a move action. What would you have it be? A feint is a mock blow to distract your opponent for the purpose of landing an immediate attack from another direction.

Sounds like a move action.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ok...I fail to see your point. A feint should be a move action. What would you have it be? A feint is a mock blow to distract your opponent for the purpose of landing an immediate attack from another direction.

Sounds like a move action.

Feinting in Combat: You can also use Bluff to mislead an opponent in melee combat (so that it can’t dodge your next attack effectively). To feint, make a Bluff check opposed by your target’s Sense Motive check, but in this case, the target may add its base attack bonus to the roll along with any other applicable modifiers. If your Bluff check result exceeds this special Sense Motive check result, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for the next melee attack you make against it. This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

Feinting in this way against a nonhumanoid is difficult because it’s harder to read a strange creature’s body language; you take a –4 penalty on your Bluff check. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2) it’s even harder; you take a –8 penalty. Against a nonintelligent creature, it’s impossible.

Feinting in combat does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

Action: Varies. A Bluff check made as part of general interaction always takes at least 1 round (and is at least a full-round action), but it can take much longer if you try something elaborate. A Bluff check made to feint in combat or create a diversion to hide is a standard action. A Bluff check made to deliver a secret message doesn’t take an action; it is part of normal communication.

That would mean more if it was 73% on one side of the argument, but it's not. It's almost 50% saying yes...almost 24% saying no...and another chunk saying both arguments have vaildity.

73% of people chose an option that indicated "Both sides have some validity" is incorrect, and they were 100% certain of their answer. To argue that there is ambiguity is to disregard the opinion of the majority of the D&D community*.

* assuming the poll to be representative.

-Hyp.