Attack of Opportunity during an attack of opportunity?

[AGGEMAM]

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

With the current version tunover speed I think I should get a handicap if I made that bet, don't you?

 

[Anubis]

You don't seem to get it. The FAQ didn't "change" a damn thing, it CLARIFIED it. Basically, the FAQ explains to people like you (who take things way out of context and py no attention to the text) what people like me (who understood what was written from beginning) already know.

I'll clarify further. In the TEXT, is specifically says "You can use a melee attack" to Sunder; interestingly enough, this is the SAME THING it says under Disarm, Grapple, and Trip! As for the table, guess what? Sunder may be listed as a Standard Action, BUT SO IS A REGULAR ATTACK. This shows that "Standard Action" and "melee attack" CAN be interchangable sometimes. What determines if the two are interchangable? THE TEXT.

That means the text agrees with me, the FAQ agrees with me, and the designers agree with me.

If you don't allow a Sunder as a melee attack, do you know what that's called? A house rule. Seeing as this is the "Rules" forum, we're here only to talk about the core rules, and those core rules say I'm right. NOWHERE on the WotC web site or any of the designers' web sites is it stated that Sunder is not a melee attack. There is nothing anywhere showing that what I've said here is wrong.

If you wanna talk about Sunder not being a melee attack, take that to "House Rules". I posted here because I'm interested in the "Rules", the core rules.

 

[AGGEMAM]

You don't seem to get it. The FAQ didn't "change" a damn thing, it CLARIFIED it. Basically, the FAQ explains to people like you (who take things way out of context and py no attention to the text) what people like me (who understood what was written from beginning) already know.

Now now, there is no reason to get all worked about this. It rules discussion, my friend, not a life and death situation.

I've said time and time again that agree that Sunder should be listed along with disarm/grapple/trip, but it's not. The FAQ seems to to clarify this at first glance that is correct. However if you read the Sages reason for clarifying it (that it is listed as standard action because bla bla bla) he actually contradicts the rules.

Sunder may be listed as a Standard Action, BUT SO IS A REGULAR ATTACK. This shows that "Standard Action" and "melee attack" CAN be interchangable sometimes.

Standard Actions and melee attacks ARE NEVER interchangable. Don't even consider saying so. Otherwise you'll start to have Wizard wacking out spells on AoOs.

Another example of inadequately described ability is Smite Evil.

That means the text agrees with me, the FAQ agrees with me, and the designers agree with me.

No. Yes. And maybe.

If you don't allow a Sunder as a melee attack, do you know what that's called? A house rule. <snipped>

Seriously, many people in fact probably most here I believe, is of the same opinion that I am on this.

The PHB doesn't allow it and the FAQ can't change the rules without stating so.

I do house rule that Sunder is a melee attack along with disarm/grapple/trip .. but that my friend is a house rule, not the other way around.

 

[dcollins]

You don't seem to get it. The FAQ didn't "change" a damn thing, it CLARIFIED it. Basically, the FAQ explains to people like you (who take things way out of context and py no attention to the text) what people like me (who understood what was written from beginning) already know...

If you wanna talk about Sunder not being a melee attack, take that to "House Rules". I posted here because I'm interested in the "Rules", the core rules.

Blah blah blah blah. The PHB "Table: Miscellaneous Actions" has a double-dagger flag for actions that can "substitute for a melee attack". Disarm, Grapple, and Trip have the flag. Sunder does not. In the core rules, it's as simple as that.

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

...people like you (who take things way out of context and py no attention to the text)...

Here's my out of context reply: chill.

For what it's worth, I disagree with you. Sunder, according to the text of the rules, can not be used in place of a melee attack. That may well be a typo (someone forgot the little superscript marker for it), but the FAQ isn't posting errata in this case, but an opinion on the text of the rules themselves.

You may choose to accept that as errata for your games, but the fact is, errata should be clearly marked, especially in a forum that is nominally not intended as a source of errata.

The crux of your argument appears to be that everything Skip Williams posts should be considered authoritative, and accepted as errata. Given your stance, you are 100% correct - by that interpretation, sunder is an attack.

Now for the rest of us, who could give two hoots what crack Skip smoked this week*, sunder is not an attack.

See? No one disagrees - we're just using different authorities.

* I'm being too harsh. Skip occasionally provides some really insightful comments, and he's right more than he's wrong. The problem, from my perspective, is simply that he is wrong, blatantly wrong, more often than I am willing to accept from a self-nominated "authority".

 

[James McMurray]

especially in a forum that is nominally not intended as a source of errata

Given the number of rules changes that make it into the FAQ, I think its safe to assume that WotC does view the FAQ as an alternative place to put erratta. If they didn't, thing would have been changed by now, and Skip would have been slapped and told to stop disregarding the rules with his answers.

 

[reiella]

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).

On one hand, I wish it was that easy. Would make errata-type issues faster to come out.

On the other, I'm glad it isn't that way, because the Sage shows repeatively a lack of understanding of the RAW... Also it prevents some of the 'Rules Creep' issues of 2.x. I don't want to have to have a subscription to Dragon in order to make sure I have the most up to date rules just like I don't want to have conflicting rules based upon which supplements I have.

The Primary Sources rule is good about this. The FAQ is not supposed to be releasing Errata, because of the Primary Sources rule. That means any 'errata' the FAQ releases is supposed to be trumped by the Rules As Written in the book in question [ie, it's worthless/pointless].

And Sage has made rulings in direct contrast to the Developer of a Given Product's 'clarification' [see 3.0 PsiHB]. The truth of the matter is that, the developers vision of the rule means dingo kidney once the book is in print, as the Core Rules Group and some other R&D Think Tank decide the ramifications.

 

[IceBear]

As I said - ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL

Never heard of this Primary Sources rule. I play with one group. I don't play in official tournaments, or anything like that. We play to have fun. If a rules issue comes up, we don't let that bother us to the point that we can't have fun. Thus maybe I'm more willing to accept a questionable ruling than others, as it affects no one other than my group.

I started playing D&D in the early 80s in a small fishing village in Nfld, Canada. I barely got the D&D rulesets let alone Dragon or any sort of rules update (The nearest bookstore was 2 hours away, and they hardly had any selection). What did I do when there was a rule dispute? The same thing I do now - I consult all books and my group (and now maybe this forum) and make a decision that we can all agree on. If, for some reason, we get stuck and the FAQ has a ruling one way or the other, then that MIGHT be the deciding factor.

Seriously, some people get too concerned by what's "official" and what's not. I honestly don't think WotC cares if Skip is making up rules or posting errata in the FAQ, so why should I? Hell, people new to D&D were ADAMANT that is was a made up rule that a natual 1 on a Save was not an autofail. When you tried to tell them that this was an oversight and look, it's in the FAQ they would virtually spit on you for being stupid. So, the problem is, sometimes these "made up rules" are "official"

The middle ground here people is that the FAQ isn't perfect, but at the same time WotC allows some of the rulings to become defacto errata or rules changes. I'm not saying that we should throw the rules to the wolves, but at the same time I find it tiring to see the same rules debated time after time after time. What is also kinda funny is that depending on what your pet peeve rule is, you might see a person in one thread state "I'm right because it's in the FAQ" and then in another thread say "The FAQ makes so many mistakes it's useless". Can't have it both way people.

So, I freely admit I use the FAQ sometimes and other times I do not. It's not like I have the FAQ with me at the games. All I have there are the rules and my memories from rules discussions on here.

I think arguing over the FAQ is pointless here, but I know it will continue. I just was a little offended that you oversimplified my comment into thinking I'm a FAQ lacky. I make my OWN decisions on the rules based mainly on my understanding and my players. The FAQ might be looked at just to see Skip's point of view to see if his viewpoint causes any lightbulbs to go off. I also don't consider the RAW the be all and end all to my group's fun, I'm sorry that you seem to be chained the RAW (I'm sorry, that's probably just as unfair as how your comment seemed to me, but I tend to be a middle of the road kind of guy and I can't really understand anyone too far to one side or the other). James and I seem to be on the same wavelength.

I left these forums for 2 years because I got tired of the same BS, I can see my return won't be for long either. Just more aggrevating reading the same stuff over and over. I should learn to stick with the story hour forums and nothing else

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

especially in a forum that is nominally not intended as a source of errata

Given the number of rules changes that make it into the FAQ, I think its safe to assume that WotC does view the FAQ as an alternative place to put erratta.

Thought I'd emphasize something ^_^ I am aware that Skip is allowed to do his own thing, and that, in fact, he does. And as I said here

Skip occasionally provides some really insightful comments, and he's right more than he's wrong.

I think that he occasionally comes up with some real gems. And I generally steal those shamelessly, just like I steal 'em from anyone on this forum. But when he is directly contradicting the written rules, and doesn't even appear to be aware that he's contradicting them, I tend to disregard what he says unless it looks like a good house rule.

I also don't consider the RAW the be all and end all to my group's fun, I'm sorry that you seem to be chained the RAW

That sounds suspiciously like heresy in this here forum ^_^

 

[IceBear]

Thought I'd emphasize something ^_^ I am aware that Skip is allowed to do his own thing, and that, in fact, he does. And as I said here


I think that he occasionally comes up with some real gems. And I generally steal those shamelessly, just like I steal 'em from anyone on this forum. But when he is directly contradicting the written rules, and doesn't even appear to be aware that he's contradicting them, I tend to disregard what he says unless it looks like a good house rule.


That sounds suspiciously like heresy in this here forum ^_^

Fun is the #1 rule I try not to lose sight of that (not that I don't, but I try)

The rest of the stuff is actually my attitude too and I assume the attitude of 99% of the people here. That's why the ceaseless bickering over the FAQ gets sooooo tiresome, because I'm almost sure we're all on the same freaking page. *sigh* - bad day, so I apologize for ranting