Sage advice and some recent topics

[James McMurray]

Yep. That and "if it were special standard action, its description would say so (as the description or the Manyshot feat says...)".

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yep.

Despite the fact that Grapple and Disarm have their own entries that state they provoke an AoO... in the "Action Type: Varies" part of the table, with a footnote stating they can substitute for any melee attack?

That and "if it were special standard action, its description would say so (as the description or the Manyshot feat says...)".

It doesn't need to. It's clearly defined as a standard action on the table. Unlike Grapple, Trip, and Disarm, which are clearly defined to act in the way he's claiming Sunder does.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Perhaps you should discuss this with him? As I said, people are free to disregard the Sage when they disagree with him, but for this qestion, his answer seems fine to me, and probably to large numbers or other gamers as well.

 

[jgsugden]

Perhaps you should discuss this with him? As I said, people are free to disregard the Sage when they disagree with him, but for this qestion, his answer seems fine to me, and probably to large numbers or other gamers as well.

The Sage ruling makes no sense. If they wanted sunder to work like trip or disarm, they'd have put it on the table with trip and disarm. Unfortunately, the sage's rulings are official, even when based upon nothing but faulty logic, so we're stuck with it in an 'official' game.

I just can't tell if he decided to change the rule and hide it behind double-speak, or if he truly can't figure out how to read the table.

 

[James McMurray]

Or perhaps he feels that since every other special attack that is a standard action specifies in its descriptive text that it is indeed a standard action?

Or perhaps, since he presumably works in the same office with them and has (we can assume) known them for quite a while, he stuck his head over the cube wall and asked the authors what they intended?

 

[Artoomis]

In defense of the Sage:

Look in the SRD. Any mention of Sunder being a Standard Action as opposed to simply using a melee attack?

No?

It seems the PHB table is in error. Simple as that. The text makes it quite clear that you use a "melee attack" to sunder.

I think you'll find all other standard actions identified as such in the text.

This ruling makes sense, but does require errata for the table.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Look in the SRD. Any mention of Sunder being a Standard Action as opposed to simply using a melee attack?

Absolutely. On the table in the SRD. In the same place it appeared in the 3E PHB, and in d20 Modern. In the 3E SRD, it even listed it as "Strike a Weapon [Standard] [AoO: Yes]" in the heading of the descriptive text.

The text makes it quite clear that you use a "melee attack" to sunder.

Sure. You can use a melee attack to damage a weapon or shield. But only if you're Sundering, which is defined in the table, and not contradicted anywhere in the text, as a standard action.

If I take the Sunder standard action, what can I do? I can use a melee attack to damage a weapon or shield.

On an AoO, can I use a melee attack to damage a weapon or shield? No, that requires the Sunder action. The attack forms that can substitute for a melee attack on an AoO are Trip, Grapple, and Disarm, since they have footnote 7 on the Table of Action Types. Sunder doesn't; it's not a variable-action-type "attack form that substitutes for a melee attack, not an action"; it's a standard action.

The text doesn't specify that it's a standard action, but it doesn't need to. The table makes it perfectly clear.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

I agree with Hyp on this one.

The next thing to look for, I'd think, is this: If the designers really mean to change this, the proper errata alteration is to say "In Table 8-4, move 'Sunder' from 'Standard Actions' to 'Action Type Varies', and apply the double-dagger note". Any bets as to whether this will be the actual errata, or if it instead somehow turns into a bungled half-modification (like 3.0 shield?)

 

[James McMurray]

I wouldn't be surprised if it never made it into the eratta. Putting it into Sage Advice means it ill amke it into the FAW, meaning its official, with or without erratta. It definitely should mke it into both places, but no need to hold our breaths.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Any bets as to whether this will be the actual errata, or if it instead somehow turns into a bungled half-modification (like 3.0 shield?)

Much as I dislike the practice of placing errata in a FAQ document, I actually thought that the 3E Shield one wasn't terrible.

It opened with "The spell description is erroneous." Which tells us "Yes, we've read the text, and we know what it says. Change it so that it says what we're about to tell you." It's acknowledging that what they're saying differs from the text, and telling us the text is wrong.

I'm okay with that.

Compare that to the DotF FAQ answer on Divine Might, which directly contradicts the text without stating that the original text was incorrect. Or the 3E Main FAQ entry on invisible creatures and flanking, which makes up new mechanics that have no basis in the Core rules, without so much as a "This is one way your DM might choose to handle it".

Or, god help us, the Song and Silence FAQ answer on combining QttE with Expert Tactician.

I'd prefer to see errata in the Official Errata document, but if they're going to insist on putting them in the FAQ, at least make it clear that the Core rules are in fact in error, so we know they haven't ruled without actually researching what the book says, and acknowledge which sections of the Core rules need to change to make the new ruling consistent with the text...

The 3E Shield wasn't formatted as nicely as it might have been, but at least it made it clear that it was a replacement for the rule in the book, not a mistaken interpretation of the rule in the book.

-Hyp.