Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 1449558" data-attributes="member: 111">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.</blockquote>