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

[Thanee]

Well, hyp does have a point there.

Altho it doesn't make much sense to me, why Sunder should not be an attack action!?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Mac Callum]

Well, hyp does have a point there.

Altho it doesn't make much sense to me, why Sunder should not be an attack action!?

Rationalization - Sundering a weapon or object requires you to change your focus from attacking a person to attacking something they have in their hand and can easily move. It requires more attention and aim.

Game Balance - Once you sunder a fighter's main weapon he's pretty helpless; or at least seriously reduced in power. It would be too good a feat if you could attempt to completely destroy his weapon multiple times per round.

Pro-PC - How would you like it if the enemy could make multiple attempts/ rd to sunder your items? Frankly, it would suck. He's bound to make one of them.


I don't know if any of the above will convince anyone, as they aren't 'rules.' Just my attempt to explain the rules.

 

[Marshall]

I think the Sage is doing a great job. Sure he may be off the odd time, but it's still better to have official answers to refer to rather than internet answers with no official clout. Think what a mess the game would be in if there was no support/clarification for the rules as written.

It couldn't be in any worse shape than having a guy putting out "official" clarifications that are WRONG.

and, unfortunately, the sages answers are supposed to be reviewed by the actual designers before they are printed as eratta. Its pretty apparent that this is NOT happening.

 

[James McMurray]

Yeah, because it couldn't be the case that the designers agree with Sunder being used as a replacement for a melee attack. I assume you can point us to where they've stated this?

 

[Pax]

.. nor, James, could it be the case that teh designers simply aren't "Vetting" the Sage's answers before they get published?

Let's be honest: consistency is not one of WOTC's strong points.

 

[reiella]

Yeah, because it couldn't be the case that the designers agree with Sunder being used as a replacement for a melee attack. I assume you can point us to where they've stated this?

I can point to this situation with the Sage in the past with other "clarifications" .

See the 3.0 Psi FAQ, and compare against Bruce Cordell's posts at Malhavoc's Forums on the subject of "Animal Affinity"...

Just to note, the subsequent comments from Bruce rather reaffirm that the designers of the books aren't refered for said FAQ clarifications. And Bruce admits that his opinion on Animal Affinity isn't the offical one for WotC, and that more or less once the book is published, the developer is no longer "in the loop". The Core Rules Group or whatever that subgroup in WotC is meant to think-tank the rules consistancy/effort (ie, the folks who get to give the 'Go Ahead' for the web articles).

Of course, given that I've had answers from the Sage that blatantly ignore the rules without any justification, and have become more than slightly disillusioned with the veracity of his answers.

 

[Marshall]

Yeah, because it couldn't be the case that the designers agree with Sunder being used as a replacement for a melee attack. I assume you can point us to where they've stated this?

Specifically on Sunder? No.
But there are other examples where the Sage and FAQ(Which is just a reprint of the Sage Advice column) are 180 to the rest of the design teams interpretations. For some reason, the only one that comes to mind right now(without digging thru all my Dragons) is the d6 on Burst weapons. Which actually made the 3.0 FAQ despite being stated to be wrong by EVERYONE at WotC.

 

[James McMurray]

.. nor, James, could it be the case that teh designers simply aren't "Vetting" the Sage's answers before they get published?

Let's be honest: consistency is not one of WOTC's strong points.

It most certainly could be the case. But one shouldn't assume anything, even if it does help your argument if its true. Unless someone has chatted with the designers (specifically whoever wrote and revised the Sunder rules), any speculation on what they intended and whether it jibes with the Sage's answer is just that: speculation.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unless someone has chatted with the designers (specifically whoever wrote and revised the Sunder rules)...

Revised is irrelevant - the table entry and wording in question are essentially identical, with the only real difference being the name of the action ("Strike a Weapon" in 3E, "Sunder" in 3.5).

In both editions, the table lists it as a standard action; in both editions, it lacks the footnote mark that Trip, Grapple, and Disarm have; in both editions, it states "You can use a melee attack to..." in the text.

Effectively, it wasn't revised, so the only relevant designer is the 3E author.

-Hyp.

 

[Treebore]

All this time I thought an attack and a standard action were essentially the same. Now I have to re-read everything!