Rock_X wrote:But it is: It's available on an image of it from several years ago: it's just not on the CURRENT site.
I should have been more specific. The referenced FAQ is no longer available on the Paizo site.
Can you really tell me that you expect anyone just arriving to the site to search the all of the previous version of the Paizo FAQ before making a reply post?
Rock_X wrote:As for the assertion that the FAQ is from the Author himself, The post is not signed.Never said that or inferred that. I said the author gave of intent on how he meant the feat to work: he unfortunately failed to get his intent into the actual rules.
You did when you stated;
That's a good point for figuring out intent. However, we have the author's own words on intent. This is a rules question in the rules section of the forum though and as such clear RAW trumps RAI. Paizo has said when a "feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike" that includes "the monk's increased unarmed damage".
That said, I acknowledge that by RAW, you are right. There really is not much room to debate that point.
that's NOT what it seemed like, but if that's the case then fine. the only other thing I posted about is the availability of the old FAQ: It's simple to find on an image of the official list from years ago.
The reason I don't sound like I agree with you is that I don't agree with you position on the purpose of the Rules Forum. Like it or not, Ascetic Style is useless if no one will allow it into play. We can argue RAW V.S. RAI all day but the only way any of it matters is if someone will actually allow the feat in play. Which won't happen if the feat is overwhelmingly powerful. By RAW, this feat is too strong to be allowed into play and requires at least some tweaking to be viable in even 20% of games.