Attack of Opportunity during an attack of opportunity?

[tauton_ikhnos]

Epic characters who trade disarm AOOs, and both have Improved Combat Reflexes, will quickly spiral into an infinity of pain. Otherwise, there shouldn't be any problems with swapping out AOOs - in fact, a high-DEX illithid duellist who'd noticed us AOO'ing his squid-loving wizard buddy specifically stepped in and started chain-AOO'ing with our two Combat Reflex fighters to use up their AOO's.

He lost his swords in the process (and quick drew a fresh pair), but we (having tried to beat him at his own game) lost all our AOO's, and the wizard got off a couple nasty spells before we figured out what he was doing to us.

 

[Anubis]

Actually, I read it as the table just not mentioning everything. You brought up a good point, though, so I looked for an official source that might have an answer. Happily, I found it!

Check out the official FAQ from the WotC site. On page 18, you'll find the following:

Is sunder a special standard action or is it a melee attack variant? It has its own entry on the actions table, but the text describing it refers to it as a melee attack. Is sunder a melee attack only in the sense of hitting something with a melee weapon, or is sunder a true melee attack?

Sunder is a special kind of melee attack. If it were a special standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive text for the Manyshot feat says). If you make a full attack, and you have multiple attacks from a high base attack bonus, you can sunder more than once, or attack and sunder, or some other combination of attacking and sundering. Sunder does indeed get its own entry in Table 8-2: Actions in Combat in the Player’s Handbook. It needs one because unlike a regular melee attack, sunder provokes an attack of opportunity (although not if you have the Improved Sunder feat). You can also disarm, grapple, or trip as a melee attack (or attack of opportunity).

So there you have it. Sunder is, as I said, a melee attack exactly as Disarm and Trip are.

 

[dcollins]

Check out the official FAQ from the WotC site. On page 18, you'll find the following... Sunder is a special kind of melee attack.

There's a legitimate argument that the FAQ's line of reasoning is in direct contradiction with the text of the core rules. I'm in the camp that asserts that basic changes like that are not acceptable in the FAQ.

Isn't that exactly what Hypersmurf originally said in post #32?

 

[James McMurray]

Hyp and someone seem to go around and around on this once every couple of weeks.

Simple solution: those that want to sunder on an AoO should use the interpretation in the FAQ, those that don't should use the interpretation that the table's lack of a footnote means sunder can't be used on na AoO.

 

[Anubis]

Regardless, the FAQ trumps the table/text contradiction. You can't just argue that the FAQ is wrong. It's the OFFICIAL FAQ by the people who made these rules. I think they know a little more about what was intended than we do. As such, the FAQ is right.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Regardless, the FAQ trumps the table/text contradiction. You can't just argue that the FAQ is wrong. It's the OFFICIAL FAQ by the people who made these rules. I think they know a little more about what was intended than we do. As such, the FAQ is right.

I fear it's not that simple. The FAQ can't change the rules without stating that it does so.

 

[IceBear]

I fear it's not that simple. The FAQ can't change the rules without stating that it does so.

I'm not so much of a rules purist that I make a distinction between the books and the FAQ. All else being equal, the FAQ gives some insight into the intent of the rules (maybe only Skip's sometimes - do we know for a fact that he doesn't sometimes ask another designer's opinion on some things, but still it is a designer's insight).

That doesn't mean I always agree with FAQ rulings, but I wouldn't go "Oh, he didn't note that this was a rule change, so I'll discard it". Hell, remember when the only place a natural 1 on a save was an autofailure was the FAQ? People said the same thing then - he can't make up rules. It wasn't until 3.5 did it become "official". BTW - I'm not saying that 3.75 will have Sunder added to the list of AoO actions, just giving an example of how adamant people were that the FAQ can't create rules. There could be a correction to the FAQ in the future reversing this ruling as well.

Anyhoo, I know how well that'll go over (like a lead balloon) so please, let's not debate the FAQ and Skip's rulings again for the billionth time

The ruling in the FAQ could become "official" (ie published in a revised PHB) or it could be dropped. Either is possible. The bottom line, it's up the individual DMs to read all the material on the topic and then make the decision based on how they understand and see the rules. Just like it always was before there was a FAQ or the Internet

 

[dcollins]

Regardless, the FAQ trumps the table/text contradiction. You can't just argue that the FAQ is wrong. It's the OFFICIAL FAQ by the people who made these rules. I think they know a little more about what was intended than we do. As such, the FAQ is right.

Sure you can argue that the FAQ is wrong. It's the "official FAQ" written by one person out of several who made the rules, and doesn't even work at WOTC anymore. The official purpose of the FAQ is to clear up questions about the written rules, and changing written rules falls outside that mission.

I think the whole team of core designers knows more about what was intended than just the Sage. There are in fact cases of FAQ entries being corrected over time.

 

[AGGEMAM]

I think the whole team of core designers knows more about what was intended than just the Sage. There are in fact cases of FAQ entries being corrected over time.

Excately, several entries have been either corrected in or downright omitted from the FAQ during the years. This is certainly one of those that will not stand for long. It has to be corrected.

 

[James McMurray]

How much do you want to bet it sits there uncorrected until 4.0?