Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The FAQ on Sunder ...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 3805257" data-attributes="member: 51942"><p>Anyhow, this thread is obviously not getting anywhere.</p><p></p><p>One side argues that table 8-2 distinguishes between disarm, grapple etc, and sunder, and notes that footnote 7 is absent in the case of sunder, and that it's unreasonable to ignore that. This side further notes that it's possible to interpret the rule-text of sunder such that it's doesn't say it can be used whenever you could perform a melee attack. Further, allowing sunder to function like disarm poses balance issues at high levels. This side also says that you can't invoke the "primary source" rule since it's possible to interpret the primary source in a non-conflicting fashion.</p><p></p><p>The other side argues that the rule text most naturally is interpreted to allow sunder as a melee attack (like disarm), and that that's the most important issue. It thinks that the mere absence of a footnote in a table isn't particularly strong evidence (noting that sunder would be the <em>only</em> standard action not specified as such in it's rule text if that's really how you interpreted it), since it's not explicit and merely an overview table far from the definitive ruletext, and point out that the table says "Sunder a Weapon (attack)", hinting that it's an attack. Finally, the FAQ interprets it this way very explicitly which is indicative of the intent behind the rule. </p><p></p><p>I think I'm just going to "forget" sunder in my campaigns and hope 4e is the next best thing since sliced bread, and actually fixes another unfortunately phrased rule. Maybe they can also address the FAQ and the "Rules of the Game" section, while they're at it: I would appreciate it greatly if wizards would vouch for the accuracy of future such features - meaning not that they'll never make mistakes, but simply that they vouch to try and fix them when they do, so that this kind of discussions are less necessary.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="eamon, post: 3805257, member: 51942"] Anyhow, this thread is obviously not getting anywhere. One side argues that table 8-2 distinguishes between disarm, grapple etc, and sunder, and notes that footnote 7 is absent in the case of sunder, and that it's unreasonable to ignore that. This side further notes that it's possible to interpret the rule-text of sunder such that it's doesn't say it can be used whenever you could perform a melee attack. Further, allowing sunder to function like disarm poses balance issues at high levels. This side also says that you can't invoke the "primary source" rule since it's possible to interpret the primary source in a non-conflicting fashion. The other side argues that the rule text most naturally is interpreted to allow sunder as a melee attack (like disarm), and that that's the most important issue. It thinks that the mere absence of a footnote in a table isn't particularly strong evidence (noting that sunder would be the [i]only[/i] standard action not specified as such in it's rule text if that's really how you interpreted it), since it's not explicit and merely an overview table far from the definitive ruletext, and point out that the table says "Sunder a Weapon (attack)", hinting that it's an attack. Finally, the FAQ interprets it this way very explicitly which is indicative of the intent behind the rule. I think I'm just going to "forget" sunder in my campaigns and hope 4e is the next best thing since sliced bread, and actually fixes another unfortunately phrased rule. Maybe they can also address the FAQ and the "Rules of the Game" section, while they're at it: I would appreciate it greatly if wizards would vouch for the accuracy of future such features - meaning not that they'll never make mistakes, but simply that they vouch to try and fix them when they do, so that this kind of discussions are less necessary. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The FAQ on Sunder ...
Top