D&D 3E/3.5 New D&D 3.5 FAQ at Wizards!

[Rozman]

No. He doesn't have a good excuse. This is just sloppy work.

Color me confused, but what's sloppy about the work here?

Was there some reason to think you could not make multiple Sunder attempts in a round using Full Attack? Or that you couldn't use it as an AoO?
Maybe it would be clearer (but redundant) if he said that Sunder should be listed under the "Action Type Varies" header on 8-2?

I'm failing to see the problem here. Unless you're referring to opponents using Sunder as an AoO on each other's AoO and getting stuck in a loop if the have Combat Reflexes and a high enough Dex...

 

[jgsugden]

Color me confused, but what's sloppy about the work here?

Read the words of the prophet, Hypersmurf. He has been blessed by the most wonderful of blessings: intelligence and the ability to read.

Was there some reason to think you could not make multiple Sunder attempts in a round using Full Attack? Or that you couldn't use it as an AoO? Maybe it would be clearer (but redundant) if he said that Sunder should be listed under the "Action Type Varies" header on 8-2?

Yu hinted at the reason you couldn't use it in those instances: it is listed as a standard action. The table CLEARLY indicates that it is a standard action. Nothing in the description opposes that view. Calling it an attack in the description is entirely different than refering to it as an attack replacement. The invisibility spell references offensive spells as attacks ... can we suddenly use those in our iterative attacks? The Sage's distinction is pulled out of a place where the sun doesn't shine. He picks the rule he wishes were in place and then uses ridiculously poor arguments to support his pet position.

I'm failing to see the problem here. Unless you're referring to opponents using Sunder as an AoO on each other's AoO and getting stuck in a loop if the have Combat Reflexes and a high enough Dex...

Just for a second: Forget balance. Forget whether the rule fits in your game. Focus on the Sage. His job is to add clarity to the game. He provides answers for frequently asked questions.

The problem is that his a significant number of his answers provide more problems than answers. Is this issue now clarified? No. Why? Because his answer is based upon faulty logic and poor research. People will still argue against his ruling because it is based upon an argument with holes big enough to drive a dragon through.

A couple days ago, allegedly, he did not even know that the DMG errata had been released during the sage advice Q&A. It had been out for many days, and the WotC rules expert was oblivious. That would be like a DA walking into a court and not knowing that the law regarding unavailable witnesses didn't change drastically a few weeks ago.

This is one example. Do a search on the various message boards for the combination of the words Sage and (idiot, fool, incompetent, bad ruling, etc ...) You'll find that a lot of examples of this type of error exist.

Is this a life or death issue? No. Of course not. This is just a game, to us. But to the people working directly or indirectly for WotC, this is a job. Their profession. They need to act professionally. A failure to do so is inexcusable. I'm not demanding perfection. I'm not demanding excellence. I'm just demanding adequacy. And friends, failure to do research, failure to provide sound reasoning and failure to use logic isn't a sign of adequacy.

 

[da chicken]

It's rather irrelevant what the table says. The text of the PH contradicts the table: "You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding." Primary Sources say text entry > table entry.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding."

Right. That's what you can do if you take the Sunder action.

The text doesn't define what type of action it is, but the table does - a standard action.

So, by taking a standard action, you can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.

This does not mean that you can replace any attack in a full attack action with a Sunder. For that to be true, it would need the footnote mark that states as much. "You can use a melee attack" is the benefit that the Sunder standard action provides.

-Hyp.

 

[da chicken]

Aid another: "[Y]ou can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action."
Bull Rush: "You can make a bull rush as a standard action..."
Charge: "Charging is a special full-round action..."
Disarm: "As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent."
Feint: "Feinting is a standard action."
Grapple: Varies, but it's there for all of 'em. It usually referrs to "as a melee attack".
Overrun: "You can attempt an overrun as a standard action..."

But really, all that needs to be shown is that the language for Disarm and Trip is identical to that for Sunder. And it is.

According to the text of the PH, the table is in error. It should, in the very least, have note 7 ascribed to it in the table. Otherwise Sunder would need to say "You can make a sunder attempt as a standard action..." rather than "You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to..." which is how it reads now.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Whereas I read it to state that the Sunder action allows you to use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield.

And the Sunder action is clearly defined on the table as a standard action.

Notice that Grapple, Trip, or Disarm are all listed as Action Type: Varies, not Stadnard. Notice that they all carry the footnote mark that specifies that the replace an attack, and can therefore be performed once in attack or charge action, on or more times in a full attack action, or as an attack of opportunity.

Notice how none of that is true for Sunder.

Notice how Grapple, Trip, and Disarm all provoke AoOs without the appropriate feat, and thus the reasoning "Sunder had to be called a standard action because it provokes an AoO" is spurious.

If you're taking the Sunder action, you can use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield. If you're not taking the Sunder action, you can't. Since the Sunder action is a standard action, it can't be performed once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an attack of opportunity.

-Hyp.

I just thought designer and editors made a mistake. It isn't like the 3.5 PHB isn't rife with mistakes. I fail to see how the table trumps the text for the sunder action.

Are you just arguing because you wanted the sage to make it clear that listing the sunder action as a standard action on the table is a mistake? I've been playing sunder as a melee attack for as long as I can remember.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I just thought designer and editors made a mistake. It isn't like the 3.5 PHB isn't rife with mistakes.

The 3E PHB Table of Action Types says Sunder is a standard action; it lists Trip, Grapple, and Disarm as action type varies, and notes that they can be performed as part of a full attack action.

The 3E SRD description of Sunder calls it a standard action; the SRD lists Trip, Grapple, and Disarm as action type varies, and notes that they can be performed as part of a full attack action.

The 3.5 PHB Table of Action Types says Sunder is a standard action; it lists Trip, Grapple, and Disarm as action type varies, and notes that they can be performed as part of a full attack action.

The 3.5 SRD Table of Action Types says Sunder is a standard action; it lists Trip, Grapple, and Disarm as action type varies, and notes that they can be performed as part of a full attack action.

The d20 Modern handbook Table of Action Types says Sunder is a standard action; it lists Trip, Grapple, and Disarm as action type varies, and notes that they can be performed as part of a full attack action.

The d20 Modern SRD Table of Action Types says Sunder is a standard action; it lists Trip, Grapple, and Disarm as action type varies, and notes that they can be performed as part of a full attack action.

It's not an editing slipup unless that same editing slipup made it into three different handbooks and their equivalent SRDs, without being mentioned in the errata for any of those three documents.

According to the text of the PH, the table is in error.

No - only if you make the assumption that Sunder replaces any melee attack to begin with. If you make that assumption, then you read "You can use a melee attack" as confirmation of the assumption.

If you assume, on the other hand, that the table is correct (rather than assuming that the table is in error and that the same error has made its way into all of the documents mentioned above), then the text does not contradict the table. The text merely states what the Sunder standard action allows you to do - use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield.

The text only contradicts the table if you make the presupposition that the table is in error, and use that presupposition to interpret the text.

-Hyp.

 

[Ottergame]

As we all know, when a table and text contradict each other, the table is right.

The text for Sunder is just like the text for that of grapple, trip, and disarm, therefor, you can sunder as a melee attack, just like it says. The TABLE is wrong, not the TEXT.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The text for Sunder is just like the text for that of grapple, trip, and disarm...

No, it isn't.

Grapple says "If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times", and "Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or move action". It's exceedingly clear.

Disarm and Trip say "as a melee attack". This is clarified by the footnote - they take the place of a melee attack in an attack, charge, or full attack action, or AoO.

Sunder says "You can use a melee attack". It doesn't suggest you can Sunder in place of any melee attack. It could perhaps mean this, so we check the table - and find that this isn't what it means at all, since Sunder is a standard action.

Therefore the sentence must mean something else. For example, it is making the point that even when taking the Sunder standard action, you cannot use a ranged attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield, only a melee attack. Hence "You can use a melee attack".

But since Sunder is a standard action, this only applies when you take the Sunder standard action. On an attack action, charge action, full attack action, or AoO, you cannot use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Hey folks, give it up. Hyp will never change his mind about this unless erratta comes out. Just know that you and he disagree, and take heart in the fact that the official FAQ backs up your stance.