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

[hong]

Hyp, here's a "Skip disagrees with me, therefore he's wrong" hat. Wear it with pride.

 

[Ratama]

Poor Hyp; I can only hope he will take some small comfort in the fact that he's right.

PS- Skip, the traditional substance for a sage's pipe is tobacco, not opium. Please switch back at your earliest possible convenience.

Addendum- If this "ruling" sticks, I hereby propose that we unofficially WW-ize the name of 3.5 to "D&D 3.5: The Sundering".

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

Does the text of the 3E SRD and PHB differ? I don't have my 3E PHB on me.

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.

Looks like a bad copy and paste job to me.

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.

I do presuppose that the table was in error. I see no reason to believe that Sunder, a rarely used feat, would be high on the designers priority list of things to make sure they got right. Player's don't like to use Sunder and neither do DM's because it ruins magic items.

Aren't most of those tables copy and pasted over? Looks like the 3E SRD text wasn't in line with the 3E PHB text, but both tables were in line with each other probably because they were copy and paste jobs.

It still looks like we have someone copy and pasting without thinking. That is not so hard to believe for me, is that hard to believe for you?

 

[Wolffenjugend]

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.

I think the Sage's critics should cut him a little slack; afterall, he's not a lawyer and he can't get inside the head of every game designer that touched the game. He's doing the best he can and, IMO, it's good enough.

Besides which, criticism of the Sage is increasingly turning downright offensive which in my mind comes across as bitterness that the Sage doesn't agree with certain peoples' answers. Just houserule it for god's sake!

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

I am one of Skip's critics, mostly because he has admitted that he DOES descirminate against sorcerors, but since he's doing it because he likes them, so it makes it okay somehow that he craps on them in every feat and PrC he writes. <shrug>

Anyway, I don't see a problem, 3.0 allowed sunders as melee substitutes, it doesn't bother me.

 

[Artoomis]

Hyp's got good arguments, but, on the surface, the text and table do seem to disagree (though you can make an argument they do not, it is obvious that many, if not most, folks think they do).

This make this issue ripe for a FAQ clarification, and that's what happened. This bit about why Sunder is in the table the way it is is another example of oddness in the FAQ, but the clarification on whether Sunder is a standard action or not if very clear. It's not. This falls clearly within the realm of a "clarification" and not really a rules change, and thus is appropriate for the FAQ.

Don't forget that Sunder was one of thoise things re-thought for 3.5, so looking to pre-3.5 stuff for clarification is a bit shaky.

It's a done deal in any casel, Hyp. Let it go.

It certainly does not rise to the level of the incredible, colossal screw-up on charge in the errata. And even there the official rule is clear - it's just an incredibly stupid change.

 

[Mac Callum]

IMPROVED SUNDER [GENERAL]

Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack.

Benefit: When you strike at an object held or carried by an opponent (such as a weapon or shield), you do not provoke an attack of opportunity (see Sunder, page 158).

You also gain a +4 bonus on any attack roll made to attack an object held or carried by another character.

Normal: Without this feat, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you strike at an object held or carried by another character.

Special: A fighter may select Improved Sunder as one of his fighter bonus feats (see page 38).

I see "Sunder a Weapon" and "Sunder an Object" under "Standard Actions." I mention "Strike an Object" because the Feat itself say "you may sunder an object such as a weapon." The Improved Sunder feat allows you to sunder either without provoking an AoO.

I see under the Sunder feat that it's a melee attack - which only tells me that it must be in melee, not ranged. The text does not say whether it can be part of a full attack or must be a standard action, or even a full round action. It only says "melee." Time is not mentioned at all. Should feat descriptions come with something analagous to casting time fields?

Complete Warrior has a feat which allows Sunder at Range, does it not? Does this feat say whether it can be part of a full attack, or a standard action?

At most the text is only clear as to melee v. ranged attack. It is unclear as to timing. The table is not unclear at all.

Edit: I looked up the Complete Warrior "Ranged Sunder" feat. It also does not mention whether it is a Varies Action or a Standard Action. It only says that you can Sunder at range, up to 30'. It references the text on page 158 of the 3.5 PHB, which also does not say if it's Varies or Standard. The only sources now are Skip and the Table.

PS - I actually see a lot of use from Sunder, but then I use something akin to hong's Imbued Magic rules. A magic weapon in your enemy's hands is usually just a Masterwork one in yours, abd maybe a cursed one too. Weapons take on their user's alignment after a time, in my house rule.

 

[reiella]

Complete Warrior has a feat which allows Sunder at Range, does it not? Does this feat say whether it can be part of a full attack, or a standard action?

At most the text is only clear as to melee v. ranged attack. It is unclear as to timing. The table is not unclear at all.

Ranged Sunder behaves a bit differently than the Improved Sunder feat.

"When attacking objects, you deal full damage (instead of half damage) with slashing or bludgeoning ranged weapons. You can make ranged sunder attempts with piercing weapons, such as arrows, but you only deal half damage; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the object's hardness. (some reference commentary to the PH for sunder special attack and object hardness) You must be within 30 feet of your opponent to make a ranged sunder attempt."

Since I lack the 3.5 core books, I'm not sure how it interprets or relates. But for the most part, I think ti doesn't make a difference.

 

[Darklone]

Humpf. I do think that Sundering was clearly a standard action in 3.0 and they forgot to edit the table when they changed it in 3.5.

Bad job either way for them.

Can I get such a hat too, hong?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does the text of the 3E SRD and PHB differ? I don't have my 3E PHB on me.

There's no table of action types in the 3E SRD. Instead, the type of action is listed after the action name in the text description.

For example, "Strike a Weapon [Standard][AoO: Yes]", versus "Trip an opponent [Varies][AoO: No]".

-Hyp.