unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Seeten]

Hypersmurf has written about 33 posts of proofs on why Sunder is ruled the way it is. In all the previous threads, someone trotted out Skip Williams opinions as though they mean something.(They don't.)

Skip has a very bad habit of using his house rules in his "Official" articles, including slow Dwarves, his own brand of grappling, his sunder rules. He has his own jokes, regarding his time as "The Sage" - Skip the Sage. Its not who he is, its an instruction.

The FAQs he helped put together are a morass of misinformation, bad rulings, house rules, and nonsense, mixed with a couple of useful clarifications.

Play sunder how you like, based on your interpretation. There is enough ammo on both sides to make a case, but Skip's opinion has less weight from both a balance perspective and a knowledge of the rules perspective than Hypersmurf's, in my opinion.

 

[bestone]

Play sunder how you like, based on your interpretation. There is enough ammo on both sides to make a case, but Skip's opinion has less weight from both a balance perspective and a knowledge of the rules perspective than Hypersmurf's, in my opinion.

Theres no ammo in an argument that relies on *because there was no footnote on the table, the text of the attack doesnt apply!*

I find from reading most of hyps stuff that he is usually correct. From my *albeit limited as im new* reading of hyps stuff i agree with you, he's usually right.

But i dont agree here

 

[Mistwell]

Hypersmurf has written about 33 posts of proofs on why Sunder is ruled the way it is. In all the previous threads, someone trotted out Skip Williams opinions as though they mean something.(They don't.)

Skip has a very bad habit of using his house rules in his "Official" articles, including slow Dwarves, his own brand of grappling, his sunder rules. He has his own jokes, regarding his time as "The Sage" - Skip the Sage. Its not who he is, its an instruction.

I appreciate that you don't value Skip's opinion. A lot of us do, however. His opinion has meaning to an awful lot of people here. He is a co-creator of this game (and worked on it all the way back to 1e). He continues to work for WOTC on many projects which are official, such as Races of the Wild. In fact, take a look at his credits: http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=385 . He has a long history of being knowledgeable about the rules, and was paid to answer questions in an official capacity about the rules.

Sure, he is human. He makes mistakes sometimes. We all do. But just because he has made mistakes, it doesn't mean his opinions now have no value. For a lot of people here, his opinion on the rules remains a valuable resource. I hope you can appreciate that and the people who view it that way.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I dont see how it really matters

p.137 phb attacks of opportunity

An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack

p158 - Sunder - You can use a melee attack with a ......

How does it even matter in the slightest that its listed under the table as
a standard action? Infact, i just read the attacks of opportunity section and it doesnt say anything about not being able to use a standard action. It says you make a single melee attack, and sunder says you can use your melee attack to sunder.

"You can make a bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge (see Charge, below)."

Since it specifies "an attack", does this mean I can bull rush on an attack of opportunity?

After all, an attack of opportunity is an attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Good to see something official, now arguing on the subject can be done with

Hmmm...you know, I'm thinking that maybe we should add this to our list of catchphrases that often lead to arguments in the rules forum (along with "That isn't RAW, but it would make a great house rule" ). These rarely end well

 

[mvincent]

Good to see something official, now arguing on the subject can be done with

Something official on this had been given the whole time this issue was being argued.

Both the FAQ and the RotG clarified this long ago, with no effect on the naysayers.

The most recent Dragon magazine also (*very* clearly) reiterates this clarification in their fighter section. This would be a third ruling from third author in an official (and edited) publication.

Now, I'm ok with people deciding for themselves how to go in this, but they should at least be aware of the (official) information.

 

[Deset Gled]

What exactly is this "official" of which you people speak?

The only rules precedence I know of is that "primary" trumps non-primary.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

 

[mvincent]

What exactly is this "official" of which you people speak?

Published by the makers of the game, rather than the conjecture of internet board posters (like you and me).

 

[Sithobi1]

All they would have to do is alter the PHB errata slightly to say "Sunder should have footnote 7" or something to that effect.

 

[IcyCool]

Hmmm...you know, I'm thinking that maybe we should add this to our list of catchphrases that often lead to arguments in the rules forum (along with "That isn't RAW, but it would make a great house rule" ). These rarely end well

You should probably add this one (also from this thread) as well:

There doesnt need to be a faq, cause the rules are quite clear.