Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 3814216" data-attributes="member: 7808">First, AFAIK the RC isn't released until October 16.&nbsp; So I don't know what it says (or how you have a copy).Second, the RC is a big sore spot for me because of the state of errata.&nbsp; My post here (<a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=208562" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=208562</a>) discusses part of the problem.&nbsp; If the RC comes out before any more errata does, I would probably consider it to be D+D 3.55 or something.In direct response to your point, I do not know if the original intent was for Sunder to always be a standard action, or if footnote 7 was ommited for it on accident.&nbsp; I only know what the SRD says, and that they have not gone through the proper channels to change it.&nbsp; I do believe that the current intent of WotC is that Sunder should be able to be used on an AoO.&nbsp; And changing the rules would be a very easy errata that I would not argue with.&nbsp; However, they are not allowed to change the rule in the FAQ, per the Primary Source Rule.&nbsp; The fact that the reasoning they use in the FAQ is complete swill is another big problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 3814216, member: 7808"] First, AFAIK the RC isn't released until October 16. So I don't know what it says (or how you have a copy). Second, the RC is a big sore spot for me because of the state of errata. My post here ([url]http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=208562[/url]) discusses part of the problem. If the RC comes out before any more errata does, I would probably consider it to be D+D 3.55 or something. In direct response to your point, I do not know if the original intent was for Sunder to always be a standard action, or if footnote 7 was ommited for it on accident. I only know what the SRD says, and that they have not gone through the proper channels to change it. I do believe that the current intent of WotC is that Sunder should be able to be used on an AoO. And changing the rules would be a very easy errata that I would not argue with. However, they are not allowed to change the rule in the FAQ, per the Primary Source Rule. The fact that the reasoning they use in the FAQ is complete swill is another big problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification