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

[James McMurray]

Which is why I said "wrote and revoised" IF the person who originally wrote Sunder (Strike a Weapon) meant for it to be a standard action, but the person who revised it meant for it to be an attack, then the revising designer's intent matters. If the person who revised Sunder didn't mean to change it, then the person who wrote it originally is the one whose intent matters.

But no matter whose intent we're concerned with, we have no idea right now what that intent was, and to state that we do is not only erroneous, its also deceitful.

 

[Trainz]

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.

Tripping someone requires you to change your focus from hacking at a person, to making them fall without the trip damaging them immediately. It requires more attention and aim.

Yet, you can do it with all your attacks.

Disarming someone requires you to change your focus from hacking at a person, to removing their weapons from their hands. It requires more attention and aim.

Yet, you can still do it with all your attacks.

Just thought I'd point that out.

If you really wanted to be consistent, you'd make Sunder, Trip, and Disarm ALL be standard actions, since they are all more precise maneuvers than just inflicting damage.

But it seems Skip decided to make them ALL be possible during a full-attack action. If anything, it's more consistent, if contradictory to what's in the books or SRD or whatever.

 

[jester47]

Skip's credibility

IMO it does not matter if skip is right or wrong. The reason being that he presents a logic that, if you disagree, gives you a structure for explaining your ruling on the written rules, which is the only one that really counts. In essence his ruling helps you to create a more solid ruling if you disagree. This should work for most DMs, unless you are playing in a fully sanctioned RPGA event, and then its to the letter of the FAQ time. (or I would think so)

Aaron.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

The attack action is a standard action. It lets you make a single attack.

The full attack action is a full round action. It lets you make potentially multiple attacks. That doesn't mean it lets you make multiple standard actions; the attack action is a standard action, but an attack is not.

Which is why I said "wrote and revoised" IF the person who originally wrote Sunder (Strike a Weapon) meant for it to be a standard action, but the person who revised it meant for it to be an attack, then the revising designer's intent matters. If the person who revised Sunder didn't mean to change it, then the person who wrote it originally is the one whose intent matters.

[blink] So the person who revised it might have done so without actually bothering about what mechanics were involved?

-Hyp.

 

[MerricB]

Here's Richard Baker's take on the subject:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129535&perpage=30&pagenumber=4

And them making a similar error with the wording of the Warhulk's ability:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1703835#post1703835

Cheers!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here's Richard Baker's take on the subject:

Of course, he doesn't appear to have looked at the table before answering.

And them making a similar error with the wording of the Warhulk's ability:

Has that ever been resolved? It's definitely screwy as written, from what you posted.

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

As a matter of fact, I am happy that Sunder is clarified to substitute for a melee attack. Before it happened to me a couple of times to be regarded as stupid DM by my players because I had it played as a standard action unlike disarm, grapple and trip.

And frankly Mac Callum, supporting the fact that it was first ruled otherwise with "rationalization" or "balance" is post-justification only! You could say the same for exact the opposite rules if you want

 

[Thanee]

Yes. The fellows who designed most of the Miniatures Handbook mechanical material are absolute fanatics for careful game balance...

Hmm... wasn't the MiniHB the one that was so seriously unbalanced?
Don't have it myself, but heard some bad things about this book, when it comes to balance.

Errors in the Miniatures Handbook
"A mighty swing is like a great swing, except that it is a standard action rather than a full round action. Thus, the character can move and make a mighty swing or (if he can make multiple attacks) make multiple mighty swings in the same round."

...and they know the rules fairly well, too.

Bye
Thanee

 

[James McMurray]

So that's two designers (one of which is WotC's resident rules "expert") that say Sunder is a melee attack instead of a standard action.

 

[Darklone]

Well... If everyone at WotC agrees, why don't they write it that way ?