unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[KarinsDad]

I think Skip, and the others, make the same mistake I made originally, which is not carefully reading the table, and then making assumptions.

Or possibly they noted the difference between the table and the text of the ability and realized the table was in error. Perhaps yours is the mistake.

Seriously, does anyone really think that Sunder does not belong in the same category as a normal melee attack, a disarm, or a trip?

If one can use a weapon to disarm a foe's weapon with an AoO, doesn't it also make sense that one could use a weapon to attempt to sunder the weapon with an AoO? Is there a valid logical or game balance reason for this not to be the case? I think one would really have to stretch to come up with a reason that it does not make sense or that it imbalances the game.

 

[atom crash]

If the RotG, and the FAQ, and all these other sources truly consider Sunder along the lines of trip, etc, why not correct it in either an errata, or correct it in the special edition phb, or correct it at some point?

I think Skip, and the others, make the same mistake I made originally, which is not carefully reading the table, and then making assumptions.

Further, let's suppose a hypothetical situation in which this mistake in interpretation was made in one source and then propogated in a dozen other sources afterward. Like, say, imagine a world in which it showed up erroneously in the FAQ one day and was used as the basis for a bunch of later articles, including an article by a contributor to Dragon magazine that collected many rules useful for a single character class. This doesn't establish a definitive argument for that interpretation, since if all those subsequent sources -- whether there are 1 or 100 of them -- are in conflict with the original (or, shall we say "primary") source, i.e. the PHB, the primary source trumps them.

I could try to sneak an article past a Dragon magazine editor that says Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't require the Full Attack Action, for example, and if it gets through, that doesn't mean I've now changed the rule. It just means that I made a mistake and the editor failed to catch it. Repeating an incorrect ruling many times won't make it right. In other words, sheer volume of citations doesn't hold much water if they're all wrong.

Only the officlal errata has the ability to change a rule or create new rulings.

 

[atom crash]

If one can use a weapon to disarm a foe's weapon with an AoO, doesn't it also make sense that one could use a weapon to attempt to sunder the weapon with an AoO? Is there a valid logical or game balance reason for this not to be the case? I think one would really have to stretch to come up with a reason that it does not make sense or that it imbalances the game.

Are you trying to apply logic to the D&D ruleset? Seriously?

But all kidding aside, to answer your question, I'll refer you back to the last paragraph of post #42 in this thread as a start.

 

[mvincent]

Or possibly they noted the difference between the table and the text of the ability and realized the table was in error.

Agreed. Also, I believe there is sometimes a difference between the literal rules and what the writer's intend. Intuitively deciphering what the writers intend is part of understanding any rules, and literal interpreations are not always valid. I have given examples of this before:

“A defender wearing spiked gauntlets can't be disarmed.” Taking the Rules As Written literally here would imply that spiked gauntlets prevents someone from disarming any of your weapons.

“A creature can’t hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.” RAW implies that a dwarf cannot hide within 60’ of himself

“Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor.” RAW implies that a rogue cannot use a ring of evasion while in armor, even though other PC’s can.

"Speed while wearing elven chain is 30 feet for Medium creatures, or 20 feet for Small." RAW implies that elven chain would make Dwarves go faster, but Barbarians, Monks, Flyers, etc. would go slower.

"When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). " Taken literally, this could allow someone below 0 hp to have their hp increased when drowning.

"Suffocation: A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. " Strictly as written, the suffocation rules would technically apply to non-breathing creatures.

etc.

 

[Seeten]

Or possibly they noted the difference between the table and the text of the ability and realized the table was in error. Perhaps yours is the mistake.

Seriously, does anyone really think that Sunder does not belong in the same category as a normal melee attack, a disarm, or a trip?

If one can use a weapon to disarm a foe's weapon with an AoO, doesn't it also make sense that one could use a weapon to attempt to sunder the weapon with an AoO? Is there a valid logical or game balance reason for this not to be the case? I think one would really have to stretch to come up with a reason that it does not make sense or that it imbalances the game.

Perhaps, but I am fairly confident that Skip has the power at WoTC to get errata/changes made in the PHB, so if I were in error, and not him, it would have happened officially by now. When the designer disagrees with what his own rule means, it means either he didnt say what he meant, or someone else changed it, and he's only aware of how he thinks it ought to work.

In short, if Skip wants the rule changed, he needs to change it officially, not make statements about how it works and continue to be wrong.

 

[mvincent]

sheer volume of citations doesn't hold much water

I feel that sheer volumes has some weight and bearing. Also, in any RPGA game, the FAQ answer serves as the rule here.

 

[KarinsDad]

Perhaps, but I am fairly confident that Skip has the power at WoTC to get errata/changes made in the PHB, so if I were in error, and not him, it would have happened officially by now. When the designer disagrees with what his own rule means, it means either he didnt say what he meant, or someone else changed it, and he's only aware of how he thinks it ought to work.

It took several years (upwards of 4) to errata the DMG on the Special Abilities table, even though people knew about in the first month 3E came out. In fact, the error still exists in the 3.5 DMG.

Expecting WotC to issue errata is like expecting us to all agree here on the forum.

 

[atom crash]

I feel that sheer volumes has some weight and bearing. Also, in any RPGA game, the FAQ answer serves as the rule here.

I acknowledge that.

But by only quoting part of what I wrote, you've taken my statement out of context and miscontrued my meaning.

I'm not saying that sheer volume has no weight. I'm saying that sheer volume has little weight by itself if all the citations in the stack are wrong.

Expecting WotC to issue errata is like expecting us to all agree here on the forum.

You're right. Good point. That's just sheer madness, man.

As an aside, I've often wondered, if I had no Internet connection, how am I supposed to get corrections and updates to the rules? Why must I have a computer and access to the Internet to make full sense of a printed and bound volume I bought in a bookstore down the street from me? Or should I start demanding the rules to be 100% correct and complete with the first printing?

 

[Seeten]

The thing is, I dont really care. I play sunder as a melee attack, and allow it in AoO's, and do some despite my belief that that isnt raw.

Regardless of what the table says, or text says, I do it the way that makes the best sense to me. Skips RoTG articles have no bearing on that though, and dont make me feel at all like I'm playing it RAW. Hehe.

 

[mvincent]

I'm not saying that sheer volume has no weight. I'm saying that sheer volume has little weight by itself if all the citations in the stack are wrong.

Isn't them being right/wrong what we are debating? Using that as evidence to support their invalidity seems like a circular argument (hence it could be left it out without effectively changing the implication of your statement).