Trip Fest

[the Jester]

I've never seen sundering to be a problem, because it means the players are destroying their own loot.

I guess you don't use it against the pcs, then?

 

[Seffbasilisk]

There's a druid spell that lets you grow roots and sink in. You get some benifits like fast healing and such, but can't move.

 

[mvincent]

no, I won't 'get over it' because I happen to disagree

Then is there something I can put in my posts that makes it clear that my FAQ information is just for people that use the FAQ (and so FAQ maligners can safely ignore it)? It seems a given for any FAQ reference (indeed infiniti2k, much to his credit, just ignores such information), but I thought I'd be safe with my earlier disclaimer. What do I have to do to avoid such negativity?

The point I was really trying to make is that I suspect that the author of the FAQ is not the same author who wrote the original rules for Sunder? (happy to be proved wrong here) So I don't see a basis for claiming 'intent'.

The current writer of the FAQ (Andy Collins) may not have been the author of sunder, but he certainly has access to the original authors, so he at least has much more access to the intent of the rules than we do.

However, Skip Williams (the writer of the Rules of the Game) was one of the original designers, and (if he didn't pen sunder himself) has even greater insight and access to the intent of the rules. The Rules of the Game says:
"Sunder: You can attempt to sunder an object as a melee attack. You usually use the attack or full attack action for a sunder, but you also can sunder as an attack of opportunity."*

Given the same clarification by two different (officially designated) rules clarifiers seems enough to satisfy the intent of the rules (which is generally what I mean by "writer's intent").

*(obligatory disclaimer: ignore this too if you don't wish to use the RotG as a rules resource)

 

[Artoomis]

...Sure, these manaeuvers are good against these kinds of opponents, and they can seem overpowering when the majority of enemies are these kinds of opponents, but as soon as the enemy doesn't fit nicely into one of these descriptions, the manaeuver becomes very much less effective...[/i]]

Yep. I find that specializing in these maneuvers is a lot of fun, but way less than optimal for combat. Too many opponents are virtually immune.

 

[Felix]

Yep. I find that specializing in these maneuvers is a lot of fun, but way less than optimal for combat. Too many opponents are virtually immune.

We.... agree.

Huh.

----

And yeah, I like dabbling in those maneuvers; taking Improved Sunder when I've already got Power Attack, or Improved Trip a few levels after Combat Expertise. They're nice to have on the occasion you run into someone you can rule with it, but not so great that I'd put all my resources towards it.

 

[Legildur]

...Given the same clarification by two different (officially designated) rules clarifiers seems enough to satisfy the intent of the rules (which is generally what I mean by "writer's intent").

I see your point, and I acknowledge that it has some merit. I would certainly be more accepting of it (and perhaps even adopt it) if I had more confidence in the the FAQ and the Rules of the Game articles, but while they still contain blatant errors and rules contradictions I am wary in doing so.

To be honest, I have significantly more faith in Hypersmurf's interpretations (once you wade through the hypothetical questions) than I do in the Sage or the FAQ.

If Sunder can be substituted for an attack, then why haven't they issued errata to include footnote 7 in the table in the PHB?

 

[Thramzorean]

Another often not well used issue with trip is simply disarming or sundering or tripping the tripper... you'd be surprised how many players forget to include a back up weapon and even if they've got one having the orc barbarian smash both your chains makes for a nice reversal of roles. You don't have to run this out all the time but if in your case of having two specific trippers in the group it never hurts to run the same tactic back at them to keep the players amused.

 

[Dagger of Lath]

Specialty moves and amazing exotic weapons make a fighter cool again, in any game where spellcasters generally get all the glory.

(usually those with less than recommended dosage of combat per day)

 

[glass]

Either way, for those that use the 3.5 FAQ as a rules resource; Sunder is treated as an attack action.

Yet another excellent reason to treat the FAQ with the skip-load of salt it deserves.


glass.

 

[glass]

Then is there something I can put in my posts that makes it clear that my FAQ information is just for people that use the FAQ (and so FAQ maligners can safely ignore it)? It seems a given for any FAQ reference (indeed infiniti2k, much to his credit, just ignores such information), but I thought I'd be safe with my earlier disclaimer. What do I have to do to avoid such negativity?

Don't post FAQ information when the OP asked for rules information? Just a thought.



glass.