# unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp



## bestone (Feb 20, 2007)

I know there has been a dozen threads about this, and i just recently got into a discussion about it earlier today.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050705a 



> 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.




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


----------



## Sithobi1 (Feb 20, 2007)

You don't...really think this article is going to solve everyone's problems, do you?


----------



## Notmousse (Feb 20, 2007)

Sadly even if the PHB had an entire paragraph related to just how sunders are like any other kind of attack and can be used on AoOs and as part of a sunder-disarm-trip full attack there will be *someone* who claims it's a load of crap and that their way is the one true path.

Even so, I'm glad this is how it came down.  Even if it's useless for PCs in many cases )who really wants to sunder that +5 flaming burst, shocking, dire flail of subjugation?


----------



## Seeten (Feb 20, 2007)

This is from Skip Williams, the guy who just this very week said in an article on WoTC that "Dwarves make poor melee combatants because they are slow, and GET EVEN SLOWER when wearing armor"?

We are trusting his rules knowledge over the RAW?


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 20, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

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




Errata or a new rules printing with the text will finish that.  An answer on par with what you'd get from CustServ isn't going to do much.  This is certainly a good first step though.  Now if they'd just keep the errata updated, there wouldn't be too many issues on the matter.


----------



## bestone (Feb 20, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> This is from Skip Williams, the guy who just this very week said in an article on WoTC that "Dwarves make poor melee combatants because they are slow, and GET EVEN SLOWER when wearing armor"?
> 
> We are trusting his rules knowledge over the RAW?




What are you talking about his knowlege over the raw?

Read the secion under sunder, and it states just that, that it can be used as a melee
attack. Raw agree's with this article.

It makes sense that you can sunder on an attack of opportunity

It states under sunder you can replace your melee attack with a sunder

You can make multiple sunder attacks in a round as long as you got enough bab..
but no aoo?

You can make a melee attack on an attack of opportunity

Its now been stated on something on wizards.com

Yet you still try to say it says you cant in the rules? The argument against it is just pulling straws, very thin straws at that.

Because of the table in the phb?

The rules under sunder clearly state what you can do with it, and no where in the sunder description does it say you may take a standard action to sunder......

Your straw pulling comes to the table, where it lists actions you "CAN" do in combat, and the fact that sunder (attack) is listed as a standard action.

It says sunder (attack) because its part of an attack action, why is it in the table like that? because if you were in combat, and were to do a sunder, it would indeed be a standard action....because its a melee attack.....????

Using this logic, you cant make a melee attack either, cause thats listed as a standard action! oh noes, how could that be, when you attack in a round....it counts as a....standard action..??? no!

why you say, isnt it listed with trip grapple and disarm? well those attacks all function very differently, with touch attacks and opposed rolls, they have very specific things in thier entry about how they work. While sunder doesnt, it only says you can use it as a melee attack.

So yes, i know im gonna get an earfull about your grasping at straws, but really, your telling me the text for sunder itself, the rules it lists under sunder, dont work cause its listed as a table of things you CAN do in combat, and if you happen to sunder that it *and most obviously* counts as a standard action?

So dont go telling me its raw, cause if you read the rule, under sunder, how its WRITTEN it clearly states how its written how it works.


----------



## bestone (Feb 20, 2007)

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

Heres one, it lists supernatural abilities as a standard action, but under supernatural abilities it states this is the standard, and some work different.

So the argument for the table winning is the table > the text, its a standard action and the text only comes into play when you can activate it.

So are you telling me all supernatural abilities are standard actions, and only if you are able to do a standard action can you use your supernatural ability, regardless of whats actually written under the specific ability? no, because that would be absurd, it depends on what the actually attack says

besides, i've never read one rule stating that you dont read the text of an attack untill you can do it according to the table. That table is placed there for ease, you still very much read the attacks and what they do/how they work.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 20, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> why you say, isnt it listed with trip grapple and disarm? well those attacks all function very differently, with touch attacks and opposed rolls, they have very specific things in thier entry about how they work.




Disarm uses no touch attack, only an opposed attack roll, and provokes an AoO.

Sunder uses no touch attack, only an opposed attack roll, and provokes an AoO.

How are these functioning 'very differently' again?

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 20, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Disarm uses no touch attack, only an opposed attack roll, and provokes an AoO.
> 
> Sunder uses no touch attack, only an opposed attack roll, and provokes an AoO.
> 
> ...




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.

Please again, tell me why this is wrong?

Did you check that link? do you disagree with it?


----------



## bestone (Feb 20, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Disarm uses no touch attack, only an opposed attack roll, and provokes an AoO.
> 
> Sunder uses no touch attack, only an opposed attack roll, and provokes an AoO.
> 
> ...




Sunder is still an attack, you still roll normally for, and deal damage, its just versus something different, you use the ac of your opponent, but instead of dealing hp damage to him, you deal hp damage to his weapon, assuming you beat his dr (hardness)

Its basically a normal melee attack, on an object, and not a person, its still a normal melee attack

Disarm removes the defenders weapon, or even gives you his weapon if your unarmed, plus if you fail they can immediately attempt a disarm on you

If someone fails to sunder you, you cant immediately attempt to sunder him

How are these not different?


----------



## Seeten (Feb 20, 2007)

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 (Feb 20, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 20, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 20, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> I dont see how it really matters
> 
> p.137 phb attacks of opportunity
> 
> ...




"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 (Feb 20, 2007)

> 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 (Feb 20, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 20, 2007)

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

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



			
				DMG Errata said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 20, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 20, 2007)

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 (Feb 20, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> 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:



			
				bestone said:
			
		

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


----------



## Legildur (Feb 20, 2007)

Sithobi1 said:
			
		

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



Yes. And they haven't. And perhaps Bestone needs to review the earlier threads on this topic rather than having us all rehash the same old arguments for the nth time which fall into the 'Skip 'Slow Dwarf' Williams is always right' camp or the 'Where's the Errata?' camp.

_Edit: Man, now I'm peeved.  I thought that article must be something new and that maybe it would sway my view towards Sunder being substituted for an attack.  Instead I find it's nearly 2 years old and Bestone has trotted it out and reopened old wounds without searching for earlier threads and fully reading those. Poor protocol!_


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 20, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> What exactly is this "official" of which you people speak?
> 
> The only rules precedence I know of is that "primary" trumps non-primary.




All of what you quoted has to do with if there is a "disagreement between two D&D rules sources".  Such is not the case here.  We have a vaguely worded rule, and some clarifications one way, and no clarifications offerred that I know of the other way from an official source (though I have no dog in this fight).  

You need two sources actually conflicting to use the rule you cited about primary sources.  What two sources are conflicting?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 21, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> All of what you quoted has to do with if there is a "disagreement between two D&D rules sources".  Such is not the case here.  We have a vaguely worded rule, and some clarifications one way, and no clarifications offerred that I know of the other way from an official source (though I have no dog in this fight).
> 
> You need two sources actually conflicting to use the rule you cited about primary sources.  What two sources are conflicting?




The table has only one reading.  Sunder is a standard action.

The text is read by different people in different ways.  We can read the text as describing what the Sunder action permits - When taking the Sunder action, one can use a melee attack to etc.  Or we can read the text as attaching a label to something one can do regardless of the action one is taking - One can use a melee attack, regardless of the source of that attack, to do something we will call 'Sunder'.

If we elect to take the second reading, we have a contradiction between text and table.  If we elect to take the first, no contradiction exists.  Thus, to me, it seems that taking the first reading is appropriate; it doesn't require us to assume an error in the PHB.

To summarise - if the text in isolation can be read in two ways, but one way contradicts information found elsewhere, then the text _as part of the ruleset_ can only in fact be read in one way.

Once we've established this, secondary sources that ascribe footnote-7-like behaviour to Sunder are in contradiction of the primary source - the PHB - and are therefore incorrect.

-Hyp.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 21, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

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



Is that an official definition, or the conjecture of an internet board poster?


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "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?
> 
> ...



First off

No, and you know very well thats poor logic, like i said, your grapsing at straws

Sunder states you can use it ase a MELEE ATTACK

Bull rush says as a standard action, I dont see how you can compare those? does it say anywhere in bullrush you can use it as a melee attack

Secondly, i see no-where, nowhere in the phb where it states sunder is a standard action. Because it doesnt, You can read the whole section on sunder and it wont say that. Oh but the table you say..... Well the table lists actions in combat, and what kind of action they count as, if you make a melee attack, it takes up a standard action, if you read a scroll, same thing, cast a spell, same thing, Its in no way saying these things ARE standard actions, its saying if you do them, it takes a standard action.

Like i said, in there it shows supernatural abilities, does that mean that ALL supernatural abilities are standard actions because the table says so, regardless of what thier text says? no of course not

If you make an attack, it takes up a standard action. If you make a sunder, which is an attack, it aswell takes up your standard action for the turn.

But you cant, with irrefutable proof, show me anywhere where it states and specifically, that sunder a) cant be used on attacks of opportunity and b) is a standard action.

*Infact, sunder is not even listed under the text for standard actions!*

The table has no text saying that these actions count as standard actions, it simply
shows that if you take that action in combat, it counts as whats listed

If you make a trip attack during your turn, that is a standard action (or of course, part of a full round action), so really the fact that it is or is not a standard action doesnt matter, now does it?

If you enter total defense, that counts as a standard action
If you make a melee attack, that counts as a standard action

The biggest flaw, as i've pointed out several times, and you havent been able to rebuff
is supernatural abilities and the like. If you use a supernatural ability, its a standard action, according to the table, but the text says that they are usually, but not always, and there are some supernatural abilities that are not standard actions. But you argue that you have to be able to use a standard action for the text to come into effect????? AGAIN show me where this is stated and you'll win this argument

So your left with what, the fact that its not foot noted? it doesnt need to be, it says what it does in its text.

When you want to sunder, you look up what sunder does, under the special attacks - sunder section, and you see that you can use it as one of your melee attacks.

When you make an attack of opportunity, you make a melee attack

Raw, you can sunder as your attack of opportunity's melee attack

in that other thread you tried telling me that the text only comes into play when the action can be used *which is a standard action*, where is this ruling, tell me that? where does it say this?, i dont see it anywhere, your making it up. What happens on a sunder attempt is listed under the sunder rules, in the book, and they are clear you can use it as a melee attack.

Besides that fact, are you telling me you honestly believe with all sincerity that it makes sense you could a: grapple someone b: disarm someone c:attack someone d: trip someone, but you couldnt take a swipe at thier weapon they are lunging at you?


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The table has only one reading.  Sunder is a standard action.
> 
> -Hyp.




That table, does not list what actions things are, it never says that anywhere, it says if you make that action or an attack, it counts as whatever action is listed.

There is no contradiction between the text and the pbh

You are pulling rules out of no-where stating that sunder is a standard action

Even if it is a standard action, what does that matter? you said you have to be able to make a standard action for the wording to apply....where does it say that? can you give me a page #? As i read it, there is a list of things you can do in combat, with descriptions of how they work, and what they do.

And i dont need to explain again how sunder states it works



> The text is read by different people in different ways. We can read the text as describing what the Sunder action permits - When taking the Sunder action, one can use a melee attack to etc. Or we can read the text as attaching a label to something one can do regardless of the action one is taking - One can use a melee attack, regardless of the source of that attack, to do something we will call 'Sunder'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

And finally, the last thing i have to say on this subject, QUOTED from the wizards posted errata for the phb



> 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.




The text of sunder takes precendence over the table, and the way sunder is written is that it can be used as a melee attack.

Thats the rule as written.

You can assume what you want, and put words into it, but that is not how its written, an not legal/binding in any way.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Bull rush says as a standard action, I dont see how you can compare those? does it say anywhere in bullrush you can use it as a melee attack




It says it's an attack...?

Sunder and Bull Rush are both defined as standard actions; I'm not sure why one definition counts and the other doesn't...?



> Its in no way saying these things ARE standard actions, its saying if you do them, it takes a standard action.




... right.  If you want to Sunder, it takes a standard action.  Isn't that what I've been saying?



> Like i said, in there it shows supernatural abilities, does that mean that ALL supernatural abilities are standard actions because the table says so, regardless of what thier text says? no of course not




It means that unless the specific supernatural ability states otherwise, it's a standard action.

As written, for example, Smite Evil is a standard action, because it doesn't specify otherwise; that standard action allows you to make a normal melee attack with some bonuses.



> If you make an attack, it takes up a standard action. If you make a sunder, which is an attack, it aswell takes up your standard action for the turn.




Rather, if you take the attack action, it's a standard action.  Making an attack might be part of the attack action, the full attack action, the charge action, the Manyshot action, the Sunder action, the Cast a Spell action, the Smite Evil action, or even an AoO.  Using a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield, on the other hand, is part of the Sunder action.



> The table has no text saying that these actions count as standard actions, it simply
> shows that if you take that action in combat, it counts as whats listed




Right.  If you take the Sunder action in combat, it counts as a standard action.



> If you make a trip attack during your turn, that is a standard action (or of course, part of a full round action), so really the fact that it is or is not a standard action doesnt matter, now does it?




A Trip isn't a standard action; it replaces a melee attack, and can thus be used once in an Attack or Charge action, one or more times in a Full Attack action, or on an AoO.  A Sunder _is_ a standard action, and you can use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield.



> If you make a melee attack, that counts as a standard action




The attack _action_ is a standard action.  Making a melee attack is part of assorted actions - one of which is the Sunder standard action.

The Full Attack action does not consist of multiple standard actions strung together; rather, it's multiple melee attacks, all of which are part of a single full round action.



> But you argue that you have to be able to use a standard action for the text to come into effect?




I'm saying that if you're not taking the Charge action, the description of what happens when you Charge is irrelevant.  If you're not taking the Cast a Spell action, it doesn't matter how you cast spells.

If you're taking the Sunder action, you can use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield.  If you aren't taking the Sunder action, you can't use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield.

If you're taking the Full Attack action, you aren't taking the Sunder action... so you can't use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield.  If you're making an AoO, you aren't taking the Sunder action... so you can't use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield.  You can only use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield if you're taking the Sunder action... which is a standard action, not action type: varies.



> Raw, you can sunder as your attack of opportunity's melee attack




Not if you aren't taking the Sunder action.



> Besides that fact, are you telling me you honestly believe with all sincerity that it makes sense you could a: grapple someone b: disarm someone c:attack someone d: trip someone, but you couldnt take a swipe at thier weapon they are lunging at you?




Are you telling me it makes sense that if someone's running past you, you could grapple them, disarm them, attack them, trip them, but not shove them off the bridge?

Are you telling me it makes sense that if someone tries to shoot at you four times, you could (with Combat Reflexes) hit them four times... but if they're paralyzed, you don't even get to hit them once?

I'm not concerned with what 'makes sense'; I'm merely concerned with the fact that the table says Sunder is a standard action, and the description of that standard action says you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.  If you aren't taking the action, you aren't striking the weapon...



> The text of sunder takes precendence over the table, and the way sunder is written is that it can be used as a melee attack.




But there's no contradiction.  When you're taking the standard action (per the table), what can you do?  You can use a melee attack to strike a weapon (per the text).  Both are satisfied; neither needs to take precedence, because both are true.

-Hyp.


----------



## GwydapLlew (Feb 21, 2007)

Man, sometimes I wish there was a opcorn: smiley here on ENW. 

Bestone, maybe if you hear it from someone other than Hypersmurg you might understand more fully. Those who belong to the 'no Sunder on an AoO' camp use the following logic:

Sunder is a standard action. You cannot use a standard action as part of an Attack of Opportunity, only an attack. An attack can also be made as part of an attack _action_ - which could include either a single attack, or multiple attacks (based on whether you are using a Full Attack action or not).

The oft-mentioned table indicates which standard actions are allowable in an AoO. Sunder is not mentioned on this table. Since one interpretation of the text on Sunder is in line with the table, those who follow that interpretation see no rules conflict.

Make sense?


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It says it's an attack...?
> 
> Sunder and Bull Rush are both defined as standard actions; I'm not sure why one definition counts and the other doesn't...?




Where does it say sunder is an standard action? in your table? no it says Actions in combat, sundering in combat is a standard action, as is melee attacks. I read no words stating anywhere that sunder is a standard aciton. Your assuming that because its listen on a table that shows actions being taken in combat counting as standard actions, that it counts as one, but thats an assumption, it never clearly states that anyways, and since there is discrepency, go with the text of sunder 






> It means that unless the specific supernatural ability states otherwise, it's a standard action.
> 
> As written, for example, Smite Evil is a standard action, because it doesn't specify otherwise; that standard action allows you to make a normal melee attack with some bonuses.




But you said the text doesnt come into effect unless you can make that action?????? so now your contradicting yourself, so now your saying if the text says otherwise it can be done?



> Rather, if you take the attack action, it's a standard action.  Making an attack might be part of the attack action, the full attack action, the charge action, the Manyshot action, the Sunder action, the Cast a Spell action, the Smite Evil action, or even an AoO.  Using a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield, on the other hand, is part of the Sunder action.
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  If you take the Sunder action in combat, it counts as a standard action.




You've still yet to prove that it says anywhere that you cant use an action's text because it counts as a standard action? No where in any rule book does it say you have to be able to use a standard action to be able to use an special attack that counts as one when used, or the text becomes invalid.




> A Trip isn't a standard action; it replaces a melee attack, and can thus be used once in an Attack or Charge action, one or more times in a Full Attack action, or on an AoO.  A Sunder _is_ a standard action, and you can use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield.




When you trip as a melee attack, its a standard action, or part of a full round action, just like sunder, if you sunder as an attack its a standard action, no-where under trip or sunder does it state they are standard actions. Infact the fact trip is in a section called "varies" in your table even proves my point even more

The action trip counts as varies , it can be used as a standard action (as a melee attack) or part of a fulll round action, Or as a counter trip if someone tries to trip you. This shows not that the table is stating WHAT ACTIONS things are, but more, what actions they count as when used.




> The attack _action_ is a standard action.  Making a melee attack is part of assorted actions - one of which is the Sunder standard action.




You've still yet to show me any text where it states sunder is a standard action, only an assumption that the table states that, and that the table then over-rules the text, which it doesnt. which is discrepency.



> I'm saying that if you're not taking the Charge action, the description of what happens when you Charge is irrelevant.  If you're not taking the Cast a Spell action, it doesn't matter how you cast spells.




Sure is, if an ability is listed on a table as a standard action, but it has a special form of getting it off listed in its text, the text takes precedense. In this case, sunder can be used as a standard action, but it can also be used as a melee attack, a melee attack is just that, a melee attack. Your still putting words and assumptions into how sunder is written, and your contradictiong your own arguments. 

"supernatural abilities can be used as what they are because thier text says so, but sunder cant because its listed as a standard action and that makes its text irrelevant"

You cant have it both ways you know, either the text states how it works, or it doesnt, And the text states it can be used as a melee attack, during an attack of opportunity you get a melee attack.

YOU are trying to add words that are not written anywhere, that state "when you can sunder" Which is not how its written, and that makes your logic not RAW. 

RAW you can very well sunder on an attack of opportunity



> If you're taking the Sunder action, you can use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield.  If you aren't taking the Sunder action, you can't use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon or shield.




I see none of this under the sunder special attacks description, NOR DO i see sunder under the standard actions text. (which you cleverly left out in your rebuttal, text precedes tables, and the text of the tables doesnt list it as a standard action). Sunder does not say "when making a sunder you can use a melee attack" it says You can use a melee attack to sunder. 





> But there's no contradiction.  When you're taking the standard action (per the table), what can you do?  You can use a melee attack to strike a weapon (per the text).  Both are satisfied; neither needs to take precedence, because both are true.
> 
> -Hyp.




The text for actions in combat, which precedes the table, does not list sunder as a standard action under it, you again, are simply assuming that the table is labelling everything under it a standard action, instead of saying when you take that special attack, or do whats listed that it counts as that action. I see discrepency enough there to go with the text

And both the text on standard actions, and sunder never state it counts as its own standard action.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

GwydapLlew said:
			
		

> You cannot use a standard action as part of an Attack of Opportunity, only an attack.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> This shows not that the table is stating WHAT ACTIONS things are, but more, what actions they count as when used.




I honestly have no idea what distinction you're trying to draw here.

You claim that the table doesn't say it's a standard action, it just counts as a standard action if you use it?

I don't understand the difference.  If I'm not using it, it doesn't matter what action it counts as, because... I'm not using it.  If I use it and it therefore 'counts as' a standard action, what is the difference between "it counts as a standard action" and "it is a standard action"?

If something counts as a standard action, surely I can only use it if I have a standard action available?

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

You understand very well, No where under the special attacks section, that has sunder listed, does it state that its a standard action.

Your still contradicting yourself by saying text applies for supernatural, but not sunder

No where does it state that that the things listed under the table are, and can only be used as standard actions. It only states when you use them, they count as standard actions, making a melee attack, and using that as a sunder, counts as a standard action, because you are making a melee attack.

If something coutns as a standard action, surely you can use it only if you have a standard action available?

There you go, contradicting yourself again, you state that, yes supernatural abilities are standard actions, but you go by the text, and if the text says they can be used someway else, then thats what you go by.

But the special attack sunder, now your telling me you dont go by the text to see how it can be applied, simply because its listed in a table as a standard action?




> If something counts as a standard action, surely I can only use it if I have a standard action available?



 And i challenge you, pull up a page number and a reference saying you can only apply a special attack, regardless of how it says it can be applied in its text, if you have a standard action free to do it.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Sunder is not written "When you can sunder", no-where in any rule book does it say "a rule doesnt apply unless you have an action to do it, even if the text gives tells you how you use the rule"

I read the text of sunder, it tells me how i apply it, i apply it that way, if i apply it as a melee attack, its a standard action

if i use my attack of opportunity to sunder, thats legal too

Rules....as...written

Like i've said, many many times now, if you really want to win this argument, all you have to do is validate your claim. That the text of a special attack doesnt come into effect unless you have a standard action. You wont find one, cause there isnt one. There are many special attacks out there, many for certain creatures, and they all clearly state what they do in their text. You go by what is written

Even if it said sunder was a standard action, it still doesnt say that you cant use it to replace a melee attack to make a sunder on an attack of opportunity. It would only mean that when you do sunder on your turn, its a standard action.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Heres your position, either
a)

Sunder is a standard action, because the table says so. The text of an attack only applies if you have the standard action to do so (which you've yet to quote a rule to prove this), regardless of what the text says. Which then contradicts all your earlier comments, and regardless of what a supernatural ability or other such thing says, and states how it works, you have to be able to have a standard action to even apply the text.

or b)
"When you use a sunder action"...... 

which is not how its writte, and not rules as written

I've quoted rules, and pulled refrences, you have a claim based on assumption, im using the rules as written. Once you pull rules to support your claim, this argument is over and your right, if you dont have rules to support your claim....then your claim cant be held as raw.

Edit:

Or better yet, lets use your logic, whats the difference between a standard action and another?

You "claim" (unfoundedly) that you have to be able to do a standard action action for the text of a special attack listed on a table as a standard action to apply (regardless of how the text actually says it works)

When your making an attack of opportunity, your making a melee attack, a melee attack counts as a standard action, so you are, in essence, doing a standard action, and sunder is a special attack, so your doing an attack, you make it a special attack, and read the rules for the special attack which states you can use your melee attack (standard action) to sunder (requires a standard action)

Bottom line? The text of special attacks tell you how you can apply them, and thats how you apply them. If you use sunder then its a standard action, not you must have a standard action in order to sunder. You read the special attack, it tells you how to use it. Thats how you use it. If you use it on your turn, its a standard action. If you use it as an attack of opporunity, well then its still a standard action (as is trip/grapple/blah/blah) but your using it as your attack of opportunity.

Sunder is listed as Sunder (attack) on that table

You find me a rule that states that the text of a special attack only comes into effect if you have a standard action make the attack with, regardless of the text for the attack or how it states it works. or you have no legs to stand on in this argument.



> But there's no contradiction.  When you're taking the standard action (per the table), what can you do?  You can use a melee attack to strike a weapon (per the text).  Both are satisfied; neither needs to take precedence, because both are true.




If we use your logic, there is a disagreement between the rules, Using your logic, the table states that sunder is a standard action, and can only be used when you have a standard action. However under sunder it says You can use a melee attack, *which can be an attack of opportunity*

So again, using your logic CREATES a disagreement, so you go by the text, which tells you how you can use it, and thats how you can use it


----------



## Legildur (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> If we use your logic, there is a disagreement between the rules, Using your logic, the table states that sunder is a standard action, and can only be used when you have a standard action. However under sunder it says You can use a melee attack, *which can be an attack of opportunity*
> 
> So again, using your logic CREATES a disagreement, so you go by the text, which tells you how you can use it, and thats how you can use it



Hyp's logic is just fine.  And before everyone wastes a lot of time responding to this debate.. AGAIN... I would recommend that you search for some recent threads on this topic.... there are a few of them to chose from, and they are all reasonably lengthy and very detailed.

Sunder uses a melee attack as its mechanic to resolve that Standard Action.  It can't be used in a Full Attack or as an AOO.  This reading of the relevant paragraphs is perfectly consistent with the table.  Whereas your reading assumes an omission in the table (the lack of footnote 7). Which is the more likely to be right?  Just apply Occam's Razor, and I think you'll have the answer.

Edit: I will add that there is some significant support for your point of view. Which is why earlier threads on this topic are lengthy and contain often heated debate.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 21, 2007)

Better yet, we could park the whole debate until (from the news page):



> Q: "How will the Rules Compendium be used?"
> 
> * Incorporates the most current and problematic rules and situations and breaks them out into easy to handle chunks. Encyclopedic format.
> * "One rule per page"
> ...


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> 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



 This place needs a popcorn smiley.

And Hyp, are you coming to Gencon Oz next year? I promise not to gloat over the cricket. HAW HAW!

What?

Oh.

Never mind.


----------



## Fortain (Feb 21, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Better yet, we could park the whole debate until (from the news page):




Unfortunately, for some on these boards, that book won't count for crap unless WotC specifically says "These rules override the rules in the PHB, including the 'primary rules' assertion."


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone, if I recall the arguement from the last time I saw it, it went something like this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Hyp):

1. Sunder is listed in Table 8-2 as a standard action.

2. The attack of oportunity section states that you can make a single melee attack (not just any standard action) as an attack of opportunity.

3. Trip states: "You can try to trip an opponent *as an unarmed melee attack*"
Disarm states: "*As a melee attack*, you may attempt to disarm your opponent."
Bull rush states: "You can make a bull rush *as a standard action*"
Overrun states: "You can attempt an overrun *as a standard action*"
Sunder states: "You can *use a melee attack*"

Trip and disarm can be used as a melee attack (i.e. in place of one) and so can be used for an AoO.  Bullrush and Overrun are clearly called out as standard actions, and so are disallowed.  Sunder's text is different from both, and so is unclear.  Therefore we look to the other information about Sunder to try to determine if it is a standard action, or can be used in place of a normal melee attack.  The only other place with information on the matter is Table 8-2, which states that it is a standard action (trip and disarm are not specifically stated as standard actions).

Personally, I rule that sunder can be used *as a melee attack* (and can therefore be used on AoOs), but I will readily admit that isn't necessarily what the RAW says.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> When your making an attack of opportunity, your making a melee attack, a melee attack counts as a standard action, so you are, in essence, doing a standard action




No, no.  When you're making an AoO, you're making a melee attack.

When you're taking the Attack action, it's a standard action, and you make a single attack.

The melee attack you make as part of an AoO is not a standard action.  In fact, it isn't defined as any sort of action at all.

It's just like how you can't use Manyshot as part of a Full Attack action.

You can use a standard action (Attack) to make a single ranged attack.  You can use a standard action (Manyshot) to make a single Manyshot ranged attack.  You can use a full round action (Full Attack) to make several ranged attacks.  But even though a single ranged attack and a single Manyshot attack might both use a standard action, you can't make several Manyshot attacks in a full attack action.

Effectively, the standard action, Attack, is like a 'wrapper' for a single attack.  The attack is not the action; the Attack action is the action.  The attack occurs as part of that standard action, just as it can occur as part of a full round action (Full Attack or Charge) or an AoO.

-Hyp.


----------



## atom crash (Feb 21, 2007)

That is a very nice re-cap, IcyCool. Thanks for that.

For what it's worth, my reading agrees with Hyp, though I see a case for reading it otherwise.

My reasoning: The table clearly tells me that sunder is a standard action. Notably absent from the table are disarm, grapple and trip (they are instead on a table called "miscellaneous actions" because that's where they fit better). 

Consider these questions: If sunder isn't in fact a standard action, but is instead a miscellaneous action like disarm, grapple and trip, then why is it on the table entitled standard actions instead of on the table of miscellaneous actions with the footnote 7? I see several tables: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, miscellaneous actions. If that table entitled "standard actions" isn't supposed to be read as a list of things that require use of a standard action in combat, then what purpose does that table then serve? How else then might I be expected to read it?

Plus, sunder as a standard action just makes sense to me. Why? I prefer to err on the side that doesn't allow the BBEG fighter to get 3 or 4 chances a round to break my PC's favorite magical weapon. Let's face it, PCs seldom use sunder themselves, because they're breaking what's going to become their share of the treasure when the BBEG goes down.


----------



## Notmousse (Feb 21, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Better yet, we could park the whole debate until (from the news page):



 It would take Centaur Jesus to make this particular bit of bickering to stop.  Unfortunately I'm still a few KGP away from horseshoes of the zephyr.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, no.  When you're making an AoO, you're making a melee attack.
> 
> When you're taking the Attack action, it's a standard action, and you make a single attack.
> 
> -Hyp.




Ok, but you've yet to find a rule that says says you ignore the text on a special attack unless you have a the action listed in the table to do it

So regardless of whether the table lists it as a standard action or not. When i want to make a sunder, i look under the special attacks section, read the rules for sunder, and apply it how the rules under sunder tell me to apply it.

You still have to prove that you dont use the text for the special attack when you want to use it.

As far as im concerned, when i want to sunder, be it as a standard action, or on an attack of opportunity, i look in the special attacks section, and read the sunder special attack, and the text contained within. Your saying i dont do this, why? prove it. Find something that tells me i dont use the rules for applying sunder that are written under the header sunder in the special attack section unless i have a standard action.


Give me a rule reference or a page # to support your claim and this argument is over.

As i've said, you wont find one, cause there isnt one.

IF there is one, then you cant use supernatural abilities unless you have a standard action, regardless of thier text. Thats absurd. To use a special attack, supernaturla ability, or other form of attack, even if its listed in a table as something. You read the TEXT of the ability/attack, it tells you how to use it, and how it applies.

I've asked you to dispute this many times, obviously you cant. Your whole argument now is based on the fact that "you cant do a special attack listed on the table as a standard action unless you have one", but you have no rules proof that says that?


----------



## mvincent (Feb 21, 2007)

Is there anyone here that believes this issue is *not* subject to interpretation and debate?

Aren't clarifications from the FAQ, Sage advice, the RotG and other published rules articles (let alone all four at once, in agreement) normally useful for resolving such issues?


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

Nice Job, Icycool.



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> bestone, if I recall the arguement from the last time I saw it, it went something like this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Hyp):
> 
> 1. Sunder is listed in Table 8-2 as a standard action.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Find something that tells me i dont use the rules for applying sunder that are written under the header sunder in the special attack section unless i have a standard action.




I'm saying you don't use the rules for applying Sunder that are written under the header 'Sunder' in the Special Attack section unless you're Sundering.

Remember, a specific rule can override a general rule.  I can wield a one-handed weapon in two hands in order to apply 1.5x Str bonus to damage.  But I can't wield a rapier (a one-handed weapon) in two hands in order to apply 1.5x Str bonus to damage, because the specific rule for rapiers says otherwise.  It takes a standard action to activate a supernatural ability, unless the ability description states otherwise - the specific rule for the specific supernatural ability overrides the general rule for all supernatural abilities.

But this isn't a case of specific trumping general; the text refers to Sunder, and the table refers to Sunder.  It isn't a case of resolving a contradiction by the text taking precedence over the table; there isn't a contradiction.

Both text and table contain rules for Sunder.  The table tells us it is a standard action, and the text tells use we can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.  Both rules apply - we take a standard action, and use a melee attack to strike a weapon.  Simple - no contradiction occurs, so no precedence need be established.

If you _ignore_ the table, then it's possible to read the text differently, and _then_ when you look at the table you have a contradiction.

Let's say we have a sequence of numbers: 1, 2, 4, ...  I decide that the rule is "Double the previous number", so the next number in the sequence should be 8.  When the next number is revealed, the sequence is now 1, 2, 4, 7, ...  I declare that there has obviously been a typo, since the new sequence disagrees with the rule.

Instead, I should see if there are any alternative rules I can find so that it satisfies both the original sequence and the new sequence.  The contradiction doesn't indicate that the second sequence is wrong; rather, it shows that when I made my decision of how to resolve multiple possibilities the first time, _I chose the wrong one_.

The text can be read two ways.  But if you choose the one that is contradicted by the table, you chose the wrong one.  If the choose the one that leads to no contradiction, everything is fine.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 21, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Is there anyone here that believes this issue is *not* subject to interpretation and debate?




I think that absent errata to the PHB that change Sunder to Action Type: Varies and grant it footnote 7, there is only one reading that satisfies both text and table without assuming an error in the rules.

I think that absent errata or contradiction, there's no reason to assume an error in the rules.

Therefore I think there's only one reading, and the FAQ, Sage advice, and RotG have misstated what the rules indicate.

So yes, there's anyone here who believes that 

-Hyp.


----------



## Fortain (Feb 21, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Is there anyone here that believes this issue is *not* subject to interpretation and debate?




Unfortunately, there are some people who take their reading of the rules so narrowly, that they will refuse to see a disparity in the rules, believing the "other side" is making up an error, then trying to rectify "their side" with the rules. Most people, however, will admit that there is some wiggle room either way.



> Aren't clarifications from the FAQ, Sage advice, the RotG and other published rules articles (let alone all four at once, in agreement) normally useful for resolving such issues?




Again, for most people, this is correct. For some, even though the above-mentioned sources are created, edited, approved, and published by WotC (the current holders of D&D's trademark), the information must be in X book(s), otherwise it doesn't exist, and they refuse to acknowledge otherwise. I'd ask that the issue of "what is official" stay in its own thread, however.

To the OP, I agree with you that Sunder can be used in an AoO, for the given reasons.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Your claim is unfounded, i've unloaded a mountain of proof, plus 2 citings from wizards articles.

Im telling you it doesnt matter if it is a standard action as listed by the table. I hear what your saying. Lets even say it is a standard action, when you want to sunder, you read the text to see how to apply it. The text takes precendence over the table. Even if it said under sunder "When you sunder its a standard action.

You've yet to prove how you can ignore the sentence "You can use a melee attack"

The text reads one way, that you can use a melee attack to sunder, so when you make a melee attack, you can use it to sunder. If you do this, its a standard action.

On an attack of opportunity, you get a melee attack, you can use a melee attack to sunder.

As i've said, if your telling me you have to have a standard action to sunder, cause its listed as a standard action on the table, then you have to have a standard action to use a supernatural ability, or anything else listed on the table, which is absurd.

You always refer to the text of the rule, if you wish to use the rule

And there is no "reading two ways" on "You can use a melee attack"

You are adding words to support your claim

It doesnt matter how you read the table, You know what, i can agree with you that it is a standard action, and im still right? 

SHOW ME A PAGE # OR REFERENCE that says when you want to use a special attack, or spell, you cant use it as its written because you must have the action listen in one table to do so.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

You want to win this argument hyp? all you have to do is tell me where it says, in any rule book, that you cant use a special attack how its listed under the text of the special attack, unless you have a standard action to do so.

You wont find one

You have no proof to support your claim

Its listed under the special attacks how to do them. Doing them like its listed may be a standard action, sure. But regardless of that fact, you read the text of the special ability. Prove you dont read the text of an ability whenever you want to use it.


You can easilly say "well you need a rule to tell you you have to read the text, show me that"

No i dont, The text is the rules, and i read the rules, and the rules tell me what i can do, and what i can do is use my melee attacks to sunder. And my attack of opportunity is a melee attack.

You need to prove how it says anywhere how you can ignore the text. (expecially says ignore whats in a table for what the text of the attack says hah)


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

When you want to use a special attack, an item, a spell, you refer to the text for how it works. An item may be listed as reach in the table, but you have to read it to find it may not be useable adjacent to you. When you want to use a spell, you refer to the text of the spell. When you use a supernatural ability (*as listed on your table as a standard action*) you refer to the text of the ability on how to use it (and it may very well end up not being a standard action. And finally, when you want to use a special attack, you refer to the text on how to use it.

As we all know what the text for sunder says, we know how you apply it. And its true, under normal circumstances its a standard action, as any normal time in combat you use it, it will at the very least count as one (as your making an attack). But, since the text tells you how you can use it, and tells you that you can use it as a melee attack. Anytime you make a melee attack you can use it to sunder.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 21, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I think there's only one reading, and the FAQ, Sage advice, and RotG* have misstated what the rules indicate.
> 
> So yes, there's anyone here who believes that



So you cannot empathize with those that view that there is some room for interpretation in the rules? Since that group consists of a _lot_ of people (including several that wrote the original rules), doesn't that give you any indication that your interpretation _might_ be overly strict and inflexible? note: I'm sincerely not trying to dis you or anything (indeed I thank you for your honesty), I just want to view the entire situation logically. To me, such a standpoint _seems_ to lack objectivity and self-analysis.

* You left out the recent Dragon Magazine article


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> You want to win this argument hyp?



*bestone*, could you tone it down a few notches?  Thanks.   

I think you'll find that Hypersmurf doesn't set about "wanting to win arguments", at least from what I've seen.


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone, could you please point out where it says that Sunder *is not* a standard action?


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> *bestone*, could you tone it down a few notches?  Thanks.
> 
> I think you'll find that Hypersmurf doesn't set about "wanting to win arguments", at least from what I've seen.




I dont have any tone, nor am i angry, Infact i dont really care what people think and i'll run things the way that suits me and my players.

How can you assert my tone from that statement? I was simply telling him how he could prove beyond a doubt in my mind he's right, and what he had to do to accomplish that.........

"prove his claim"


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> bestone, could you please point out where it says that Sunder *is not* a standard action?




Im not saying it does, read my posts please, before asking me that.

I even go on to state that it doesnt matter if it does.

So again, please read my posts


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> But, since the text tells you how you can use it, and tells you that *you can use it as a melee attack*. Anytime you make a melee attack you can use it to sunder.




(Emphasis mine) Incorrect.  The text does not state that you may use sunder *as a melee attack*.  It is quite noticeably worded differently than the two abilities that CAN be used as a melee attack.


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> I dont have any tone, nor am i angry, Infact i dont really care what people think...



I see.


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Im not saying it does, read my posts please, before asking me that.




I've read your posts, and would appreciate less snark, thanks.  I'll give you the same courtesy you give me (within the limits of the board rules).


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> (Emphasis mine) Incorrect.  The text does not state that you may use sunder *as a melee attack*.  It is quite noticeably worded differently than the two abilities that CAN be used as a melee attack.




Sunder. p. 158, phb

"You can use a melee attack to"

So your telling me, you cant use a melee attack to sunder??

It says right there, you can use a melee attack


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Sunder. p. 158, phb
> 
> "You can use a melee attack"
> 
> ...




"Use a melee attack" and "As a melee attack" are different.  Therein lies the contention.  As I mentioned in my recap, that is the unclear part.  Why did they write it differently than trip or disarm (and list Sunder as a standard action in the table, separate from trip and disarm), if it wasn't different?


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I've read your posts, and would appreciate less snark, thanks.  I'll give you the same courtesy you give me (within the limits of the board rules).




If you would have read my posts, you would see i say it doesnt matter if its a standard action or not. If you read that you wouldnt be asking that question.

It doesnt matter if its a standard action or not, because to use the special attack sunder, you read its text, its text says

"You can use a melee attack to"

Thus, whenever you have a melee attack, you can use it


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Thus, whenever you have a melee attack, you can use it




Incorrect.  Whenever you take the Sunder action (a standard action), you use a melee attack (which is not an action) as part of it.  Whenever you take the Attack action (a standard action), you use a melee attack (which is not an action) as part of it.  Are you equating melee attack with "Attack action"?


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> "Use a melee attack" and "As a melee attack" are different.  Therein lies the contention.  As I mentioned in my recap, that is the unclear part.  Why did they write it differently than trip or disarm (and list Sunder as a standard action in the table, separate from trip and disarm), if it wasn't different?




Regardless of any contention. You can use your melee attack to sunder. RAW.

Unless your telling me that it says you cant use a melee attack? because it says You can use a melee attack to sunder. And aoo gives you a melee attack, which you CAN USE TO sunder.

if its unclear, theres a discrepency between table and text *text says you can use a melee attack to do it, but its not listed in table as footnote 7". ERRATA clearly states you go with the text, as its the PRIMARY source.

They wrote it different than trip or disarm because it functions different, and that doesnt matter. They may have wrote it the same

But you can still USE a melee attack to sunder

And AS a melee attack trip


----------



## Seeten (Feb 21, 2007)

Hypersmurf has already proved his claim. I am fully in agreement with him.

Errata is issued to fix errors in the text, absent errata, there must not be any errors in the text, and thus, Hypersmurf is correct.

The text claims nothing beyond Sunder is a melee attack, and melee attacks can be standard actions. Table 8-2 shows Sunder is a standard action, and it lacks footnote 7.

None of this prevents me from allowing multiple sunders in my game, and this is how I feel the rule SHOULD work, but it isnt how I feel the RAW states it to work, so I consider how I play it to be house rules.

Thats not to say anyone doing it this way is using house rules, simply that I consider it house rules in my game.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Incorrect.  Whenever you take the Sunder action (a standard action), you use a melee attack (which is not an action) as part of it.  Whenever you take the Attack action (a standard action), you use a melee attack (which is not an action) as part of it.  Are you equating melee attack with "Attack action"?




Wheres your rules proof on this?

where anywhere, does it say text of a special attack only comes into play if you have an action to use it, it doesnt.

Look at supernatural abilities. They are listed in your table as a standard action

does that mean you have to take the supernatural ability (a standard action per the table) to use a supernatural ability. Even if in the text it states you can use it otherwise? No of course not

You go by the text

And the text for sunder doesnt say "when you make a sunder you can", it says You can use a melee attack to"

Show me some rules to prove your claim that the text doesnt apply on a special attack unless you have the action listed on the table to do it.


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> You go by the text...



...when the text contradicts the table.

It doesn't.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Hypersmurf has already proved his claim. I am fully in agreement with him.
> 
> Errata is issued to fix errors in the text, absent errata, there must not be any errors in the text, and thus, Hypersmurf is correct.




There is no errata because its not an issue. The text of sunder states that "You can use a melee attack to" 

it doesnt say as a standard action, it doesnt say when you sunder, it doesnt say anything along those lines.

I've posted Two official wizards published articles that both say you can sunder on an attack of opportunity.

He has not proved his claim, because his claim is the text doesnt apply, but he's yet to claim a rule that states that.

Unless you want to argue the text

"You can use a melee attack to"

but i think that text, is pretty clear


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 21, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> So you cannot empathize with those that view that there is some room for interpretation in the rules?




I think there will always be those that view that there is some room for interpretation in the rules - see the recent 'Hasted Zombie' thread for an example.

If I say "A longsword deals slashing damage", there will always be someone who says "But what if you hit them with the pommel?  The rules are unclear, so there's room for interpretation."  But the rules aren't unclear; a longsword deals slashing damage.  I don't think there is 'room for interpretation'; if you're using what the book says, the damage is slashing.  If you take the -4 to deal nonlethal damage, it might be described as striking with the flat of the blade, or the pommel, or whatever... and the nonlethal damage will be 1d8 Slashing.

Now, the damage type of a longsword is about as clear and straightforward a rule as you're likely to find... and there will still be people who say "The rule is open to interpretation" when what they mean is "I disagree with the rule".  So when we take a rule that requires combining information from several places in the core rules to come to a conclusion, it strikes me as not at all surprising that more people will find that rule 'open to interpretation'.

But that doesn't mean I agree that those people are right that more than one valid interpretation exists, _once the rules as a whole_ are considered.

-Hyp.


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> if its unclear, theres a discrepency between table and text *text says you can use a melee attack to do it, but its not listed in table as footnote 7". ERRATA clearly states you go with the text, as its the PRIMARY source.




The melee attack is part of the Sunder action (a standard action as per Table 8-2).  The Sunder action is not part of the melee attack (which isn't even an action).


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Hyp

Tell me this, The text for sunder says

"You can use a melee attack to"

Ignoring anything but the text, do you see this text as ambigous, or can be taken differently by different people?

By that text, When you have a melee attack.......You can use a melee attack to..

so when you'd have a melee attack, you can use that melee attack to strike a ect ect.

Right?

But your saying you must have a standard action to use sunder
i've asked you where, cite a rule, it states your correct on this issue? where it states you ignore the text "and ignore the text is a quote from you"

It doesnt, so are you not making assumptions?

You have no page # or rule reference, and there wont be one.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> The melee attack is part of the Sunder action (a standard action as per Table 8-2).  The Sunder action is not part of the melee attack (which isn't even an action).




Quote me a page # or reference that says you cant use a special attack thats a standard action on your attack of opportunity if the text says you can?

Or are you too, saying "You can use a melee attack to"

Doesnt mean that you can use your melee attack to do it?

the rule for sunder says you can use a melee attack

Your putting words into the rules that say "when you sunder you can use a melee attack"

Those words clearly arent there


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Wheres your rules proof on this?




Wha?  PHB. Pg. 139, under the heading of "Standard Actions", it lists the following:

Attack
Cast a Spell
Activate Magic Item
Use Special Ability
Use Total Defense
Start/Complete Full Round Action

A melee attack is part of the "Attack" action.


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Quote me a page # or reference that says you cant use a special attack thats a standard action on your attack of opportunity if the text says you can?



Wait.

The text says you can use a special attack that's a Standard Action on your AoO?  <blink, blink>  It does?


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Wait.
> 
> The text says you can use a special attack that's a Standard Action on your AoO?  <blink, blink>  It does?




The text for sunder says

"You can use a melee attack to"

even if its a standard action, you can use a melee attack to sunder, and you get a melee attack on an attack of opportunity


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Wha?  PHB. Pg. 139, under the heading of "Standard Actions", it lists the following:
> 
> Attack
> Cast a Spell
> ...




Thats not proof that you ignore the text listed under sunder when you want to perform a sunder.

As i've said, by your logic, you cant use supernatural abilities unless you have a standard action free, which is CLEARLY WRONG. because thier text tells you how to do them.


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Hyp
> 
> Tell me this, The text for sunder says
> 
> ...




Clearly, it already has.  The text does not clearly state that you can sunder as a melee attack, and neither is it clear that you can sunder as a standard action, hence the use of the table to clarify.  You, however, seem to see no ambiguity with the text, and are convinced that "as a melee attack" and "use a melee attack" are identical.  If that is the case, then I am afraid we are at an impasse.


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> ...
> even if its a standard action, you can use a melee attack to sunder, and you get a melee attack on an attack of opportunity



You are arguing that Standard Actions may be used during an AoO???    

You're kidding me, right?


----------



## Seeten (Feb 21, 2007)

No one is going to convince Bestone he is not correct, so I suggest you allow him to feel as he does.

If this wasnt Enworld, I'd think he was trolling, but I know no posters on Enworld troll. Its not done here.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

I ask you too, icycool,

Rergardless of anything else, put everything else aside for the moment
and read sunder

"You can use a melee attack to"

On attacks of opportunity, you get a melee attack.

Do you dispute that that is right? (remember disregarding anything else) probably not

You get a melee attack, a*nd* you can use it to

Now let me get this correct

Your argument is that sunder is a standard action, And you must be able to use a standard action for the text to work, right?

That is where im asking for proof, no where does it say that, It says under each special attack how it works, it doesnt say ONLY IF YOU HAVE the action listed in the table can you do this.


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Thats not proof that you ignore the text listed under sunder when you want to perform a sunder.




No, it isn't proof of that, but then that isn't what you asked me for, you asked me to prove what you quoted, and I did.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> As i've said, by your logic, you cant use supernatural abilities unless you have a standard action free, which is CLEARLY WRONG. because thier text tells you how to do them.




I think what you are failing to realize is that nothing in the Sunder text explicitly states one way or the other that it can be used *in place of* a melee attack.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Clearly, it already has.  The text does not clearly state that you can sunder as a melee attack, and neither is it clear that you can sunder as a standard action, hence the use of the table to clarify.  You, however, seem to see no ambiguity with the text, and are convinced that "as a melee attack" and "use a melee attack" are identical.  If that is the case, then I am afraid we are at an impasse.





You just won my argument for me icycool

You dont use the table to clerify, in the PUBLISHED AND OFFICIAL PHB ERRATA it says if its not clear YOU USE THE TEXT, NOT THE TABLE.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> No, it isn't proof of that, but then that isn't what you asked me for, you asked me to prove what you quoted, and I did.
> 
> 
> 
> I think what you are failing to realize is that nothing in the Sunder text explicitly states one way or the other that it can be used *in place of* a melee attack.




It says you can use a melee attack

Your telling me that doesnt say that you can use your melee attack?


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> You just won my argument for me icycool
> 
> You dont use the table to clerify, in the PUBLISHED AND OFFICIAL PHB ERRATA it says if its not clear YOU USE THE TEXT, NOT THE TABLE.




Which isn't clear, therefore we have two other sources for clarification, the table, and the FAQ.  The table, via the primary source rule, trumps the FAQ.


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> You dont use the table to clerify, in the PUBLISHED AND OFFICIAL PHB ERRATA it says if its not clear YOU USE THE TEXT, NOT THE TABLE.



...so long as the table and the text contradict each other.

They don't.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 21, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> 3. Trip states: "You can try to trip an opponent *as an unarmed melee attack*"
> Disarm states: "*As a melee attack*, you may attempt to disarm your opponent."
> Bull rush states: "You can make a bull rush *as a standard action*"
> Overrun states: "You can attempt an overrun *as a standard action*"
> ...




Different does not equate to unclear. Logically, that is a totally fallacious conclusion. The one does not follow from the other. 

Plus,this is not unclear at all.

"You can use a *MELEE ATTACK* with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon *TO*" and "as a melee attack" are semantically equivalent (except for type of weapon) and both crystal clear.

In fact, the argument that Sunder states "use a melee attack to" instead of "as a standard action" is the strongest argument on this discussion.

The table entry is irrelvant. Text takes priority over table entries.


It is, quite frankly, amazing that so many people agree with Hyp on this. The phrase "melee attack to" is crystal clear.


And logically, the opposing interpretation does not make any sense. Disarm, Trip, and normal melee attacks are all attacks which do not require movement. Bull rush and Overrun do.

One can reach in and trip, or reach in and disarm, or reach in and attack the creature, but cannot reach and in attack the creature's cloak or shield or weapon? Huh?


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> You are arguing that Standard Actions may be used during an AoO???
> 
> You're kidding me, right?




No, how bout you actually read what i say instead of getting snarky?

I said if the text of an attack says you can do it, you can do it, regardless of whether its a standard action or not.

If they made a new attack, that was a standard action, but it said in the text it could be used as a aoo, you could use it as an aoo


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

@ KarinsDad

Hear hear!


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> No, how bout you actually read what i say instead of getting snarky?



I quoted you.  I responded to your statement.  (You've said you're not angry, right?)   



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> I said if the text of an attack says you can do it, you can do it, regardless of whether its a standard action or not.




So if something is a Standard Action, you "can do it", even if the action you try to do it in isn't a Standard Action?


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The table entry is irrelvant. Text takes priority over table entries.



...so long as there is a discrepancy between the table and the text.

There isn't.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> So if something is a Standard Action, you "can do it", even if the action you try to do it in isn't a Standard Action?




Yes, if the text gives you a stituation in which you can

Example, on the table, supernatural abilities are listed as standard actions. But you dont go by the table, you go by the text, and some supernatural abilties, are not standard actions.


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> I ask you too, icycool,
> 
> Rergardless of anything else, put everything else aside for the moment
> and read sunder
> ...




More specifically, "an attack of opportunity is a single melee attack"



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> Now let me get this correct
> 
> Your argument is that sunder is a standard action, And you must be able to use a standard action for the text to work, right?




Unless otherwise specified (like in trip and disarm), yes.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> That is where im asking for proof, no where does it say that, It says under each special attack how it works, it doesnt say ONLY IF YOU HAVE the action listed in the table can you do this.




Right, and the Sunder actions text is not clear on how it is used.  I can't use my single melee attack from an AoO for an "Attack" action, either.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> ...so long as there is a discrepancy between the table and the text.
> 
> There isn't.




The text for sunder says you can use a melee attack to sunder

An attack of opportunity isnt a standard action, but is a melee attack, which you can use to sunder

Either there is discrepency and you ignore the table and go by the text, or its irellevant as it clearly states how you sunder under sunder.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Right, and the Sunder actions text is not clear on how it is used.  I can't use my single melee attack from an AoO for an "Attack" action, either.




Your logic is flawed, sunder says you can use a melee attack

attack of opportunity doesnt say you can use a melee attack for an attack action.


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> The text for sunder says you can use a melee attack to sunder..



Are there other kinds of attacks that can't be used to sunder?

.....


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Your logic is flawed, sunder says you can use a melee attack
> 
> attack of opportunity doesnt say you can use a melee attack for an attack action.




Oh?  Don't you use a melee attack in an Attack action?


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Are there other kinds of attacks that can't be used to sunder?
> 
> .....




Do you disagree that the text for sunder clearly states that "You can use a melee attack"?


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Oh?  Don't you use a melee attack in an Attack action?




what does that have to do with anything?

Under sunder, it tells you what you can do with it

Under attacks of opportunity, it tells you what you can do with it

attacks of op say you can use a melee attack

Sunder says you can use a melee attack to sunder

Where are you getting confused?


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Do you disagree that the text for sunder clearly states that "You can use a melee attack"?



Nope.

Do you disagree that being a melee attack doesn't determine what kind of action it is?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 21, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> "You can use a *MELEE ATTACK* with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon *TO*" and "as a melee attack" are semantically equivalent (except for type of weapon) and both crystal clear.




If there were nothing else to distinguish them, I'd be inclined to agree; if the table did not exist, I would presume that the logical reading is as you say.

But the table shows that there is a difference between how Trip, Grapple, and Disarm are treated, versus how Sunder is treated; at this point, the difference in wording takes on more significance.

-Hyp.


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Plus,this is not unclear at all.
> 
> "You can use a *MELEE ATTACK* with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon *TO*" and "as a melee attack" are semantically equivalent (except for type of weapon) and both crystal clear.




Obviously, given the contention here, it isn't.  

Also, am I misusing the language if I were to say, "You can use a jump to" and "as a jump"?


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> Do you disagree that being a melee attack doesn't determine what kind of action it is?




No i dont

However sunder says you can use it as a melee attack, you've already said you agree on this. Where does it say, in the rules, anywhere, that even if the text says you can use your melee attack to do something, if its a standard action, then you cant use it on an attack of opportunity.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> attacks of op say you can use a melee attack
> 
> Sunder says you can use a melee attack to sunder




When making an attack of opportunity, you can use a melee attack.

When taking the Sunder action, you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.

Everything under the heading 'Sunder' tells us what happens when you take the Sunder action.  Everything under 'Charge' tells us what happens when you take the Charge action.  That's what the heading is for; it's an umbrella that encompasses all of the consequences of taking action 'X'.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If there were nothing else to distinguish them, I'd be inclined to agree; if the table did not exist, I would presume that the logical reading is as you say.
> 
> But the table shows that there is a difference between how Trip, Grapple, and Disarm are treated, versus how Sunder is treated; at this point, the difference in wording takes on more significance.
> 
> -Hyp.




You just essentially said that as sunder is written, the rules for sunder as written, would make you agree.

But the table doesnt show sunder on it

So you argument is an assumption, like i say.

The difference of wording doesnt take on more significance, because as written it still works as written.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> When making an attack of opportunity, you can use a melee attack.
> 
> When taking the Sunder action, you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.
> 
> ...




Where is your proof hyp? As far as i know, whats written for sunder is the rule for sunder. No-where does it say you have to be able to make the action listed to do the special attack, no, the rule for the special attack is written under the special attack.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

If you want to make a sunder attack, you read the text for sunder. It tells you how you make the attack, and you've agree that the text under sunder is clear.

Your using assumptions based on a table that is considered secondary to text.


Untill you can pull a rule to prove your claim, that states you Cant use the text on how a standard action works unless you have the action free listed in the table. Your not gonna prove your side.

And if you did find text of that, it'd break supernatural abilities.


I'll read the rule for sunder, under the special attacks section, under sunder

It tells me how it works, the rule for it is quite clear.
I'll use it as that, as that is the raw, and unless there is a ruling saying You dont read the text of a special attack if its listed as a standard action and you can make one. Then i'll run it differently. But as there is no such rule. Its clear where it, and i stand

This was not, nor never intended to be a trolling post, as seeten stated earlier, And i take quite an insult to that.

As far as i knew published wizards material was correct, i found TWO articles stating sunder can be taken as an attack of opportunity. So i thought i'd point it out as i THOUGHT this was an official thing.

Just because you dont believe a ruling by a game designer seeten, doesnt mean i was trying to troll. I thought it was official..... who was i to know that because he made mistakes his opinion is invalid?


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> what does that have to do with anything?
> 
> Under sunder, it tells you what you can do with it




Under "Attack", it tells you what you can do with it.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> Where are you getting confused?




*sigh* I'm not getting confused (and I hope that was a legitimate question and not a mean-spirited jab).  Just because I do not agree with your reading does not mean I'm confused.

The text for the Sunder action is curiously different than that of the trip and disarm actions.  That, and the odd fact that Sunder is listed as a standard action in the table, instead of a "varies" action, like trip and disarm leads me to believe that Sunder was intended to be a standard action.

I'm going to assume that your continued arguement stems from the fact that you disagree with me, rather than don't understand me.  As such, we seem to be just butting heads.  So before the name-calling starts (and it always does), I'll hop out of this thread.  My arguements are stated clearly, and have been explained about as thoroughly as I think I can explain them.  If you don't understand any part of my summation or arguements, let me know and I'll do my best to try and explain it better, but I think I've stated it as best I can.


----------



## bestone (Feb 21, 2007)

Im done posting here, and have nothing further to say on the subject. I've provided proof and links to wizards articles. And am tired of arguing the same thigns over and over to people who dont like to read whats written.

I take insult to being called a troll. And apologize if anyone has taken any offense here. Im new and didnt know there were 33 other threads on this subject! nor do i have a search engine to check.

Im gonna run it how i've always run it, regardless of the rule, i see no point in trying to prove it to other people, you'll run it as you want anyways.

Edit - Hah you ninja'd me to it icy, no hard feelings man, i agree with you, butting of heads, we'll leave it at that.


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> And am tired of arguing the same thigns over and over to people who dont like to read whats written.




Statements like this, implying that your opponents in an arguement don't know how to read isn't productive in any way, and is why some might think of you as a troll.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> I take insult to being called a troll. And apologize if anyone has taken any offense here. Im new and didnt know there were 33 other threads on this subject! nor do i have a search engine to check.




Search is only available to community supporters, but you can still do a search of enworld by going to Google and typing in your search terms (for example, "ninja") followed by *site:www.enworld.org*.  So if you wanted to find all information that google has about ninjas on enworld, you would type the following into your google search bar:


```
ninjas site:www.enworld.org
```



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> Edit - Hah you ninja'd me to it icy, no hard feelings man, i agree with you, butting of heads, we'll leave it at that.




Sounds good to me.  But if want another juicy arguement, try and find the thread about flaming whips not causing damage to armored targets .

_Edit - you can find out more about google search operators here._


----------



## Notmousse (Feb 21, 2007)

I do hope you're joking about the whip comment...


----------



## IcyCool (Feb 21, 2007)

Notmousse said:
			
		

> I do hope you're joking about the whip comment...




http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=138686

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=183517

I think there was at least one more thread, but I can't find it at the moment.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> But the table doesnt show sunder on it




Uh, sure it does...?

-Hyp.


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> No i dont
> 
> However sunder says you can use it as a melee attack, you've already said you agree on this. Where does it say, in the rules, anywhere, that even if the text says you can use your melee attack to do something, if its a standard action, then you cant use it on an attack of opportunity.




You've agreed that that being a melee attack doesn't determine what kind of action the melee attack is.  That's correct, and we all agree on that.

A melee attack could be a Standard Action, or part of a Full Round Action, or part of an AoO....

So how do we know what kind of action it is?

.....We look at the table.  The table says it is a Standard Action.  The table does not contradict the text, it augments and clarifies it.  Since it is a Standard Action, we can use it any other time we could use a Standard Action.

Done.


----------



## Nail (Feb 21, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> And am tired of arguing the same thigns over and over to people who dont like to read whats written.



Are you sure that we disagree with you because we "don't like to read what's written"?


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> ...so long as there is a discrepancy between the table and the text.
> 
> There isn't.




If you say so.

I understand that the table does not allow Sunder AoOs.

But, the text of Sunder and the text of AoOs both state melee attacks and do not list sunder as an exception.

And, the Dec FAQ disagrees with your POV as well: page 48



> while the same Ogre trying to sunder your weapon with his greatclub would provoke an attack of opportunity which you could make *against the greatclub* (that is, with a disarm or *sunder* attempt)




Granted, this is in a paragraph concerning a house rule of allowing an AoO against the weapon of a creature, even though the creature is not in threat range.

However, that is not the important part. The important part is that it does not mention sundering against a weapon during an AoO as a house rule, it is written that sunder as AoOs is the normal rule (same for disarm).


Ditto for page 50 of the FAQ. The Cleric sundering the Fighter's weapon as an AoO is not corrected, it is discussed.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 21, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I understand that the table does not allow Sunder AoOs.
> 
> But, the text of Sunder and the text of AoOs both state melee attacks and do not list sunder as an exception.




The Wish spell description states "By simply speaking aloud, you can alter reality to better suit you."

Is this generally true?  Or is it only true in the context of casting the Wish spell?

The table says you can't cast the spell until 17th level.  The text of the spell states that you can alter reality by simply speaking aloud!  Should we assume, then, that this contradiction can be resolved by the text trumping the table?  Or should we assume that the text found under Wish, stating that "by simply speaking aloud" we can alter reality only applies if we've satisfied the condition of casting the Wish spell?

I have no problem with the idea that you can use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon.  But this sentence only applies in a certain context; when we have satisfied the condition of taking the Sunder action.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 21, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I have no problem with the idea that you can use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon.  But this sentence only applies in a certain context; when we have satisfied the condition of taking the Sunder action.




Not according to the FAQ.

And if the entry was not in the table, I suspect you would be taking the opposing POV.

Unlike Bullrush and Overrun, the Sunder text does not state Standard Action.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 21, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> You've agreed that that being a melee attack doesn't determine what kind of action the melee attack is.  That's correct, and we all agree on that.
> 
> A melee attack could be a Standard Action, or part of a Full Round Action, or part of an AoO....
> 
> ...




Ya know...  I've always sided with the "Sunder is a melee attack, the table is wrong" side, but I am slowly begining to see your point here...

The way I see it (now) is there are 3 things going on...  The Special Attack you want to take(Sunder), the attack type you use to perform it (melee attack) and the actual Action that it uses up (Standard Action).  Comparing Sunder & Disarm, we have:


*Special Attack*: Disarm
*Attack Type*: melee attack
*Action*: Text does not specify the Action type.  Per the text, it varies, and has the foot note that it substitutes for anytime you would be allowed a melee attack.

*Special Attack*: Sunder (same as Disarm)
*Attack Type*: melee attack (same as Disarm)
*Action*: Text does not specify the Action type (same as Disarm).  Per the text, it is a Standard Action.

Since Sunder and Disarm are pretty similiar, why is it ok to go by the Table entry for Disarm but not Sunder?  Both do not specify the Action type to perform them within the text, and to assume they can both just be used anytime you qualify for a melee attack is just that, an assumption.  However, if we look them both up in the table, we no longer have that assumption.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 21, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But, the text of Sunder and the text of AoOs both state melee attacks and do not list sunder as an exception.




An Attack of Opportunity a single melee attack.  What kind of action is it?  Don't know.  It doesn't say in the text and there is no table to refer us to.  Some claim it falls under the "Not an Action" category, but who's to say for sure?  It simply is not clarified anywhere.

Sunder, on the other hand, is a Special Attack (which I hope we can agree an AoO is NOT).  When you perform the Sunder special attack, _you can use a melee attack to with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield an opponent is holding._  The problem lies in the fact that, we don't know (a) what kind of Action type this requires or if we should simply (b) assume that anytime you are eligible to take a melee attack (Standard, Full Round, even an AoO), you are eligible for a Sunder.  The text simply does not state what type of Action it takes, and it simply doesn't state that anytime we are eligible for a melee attack, we can Sunder.  Those are both assumptions.  Luckily, we have a table to go to which clarifies this for us...


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

Fortain said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, for some on these boards, that book (Rules Compendium) won't count for crap unless WotC specifically says "These rules override the rules in the PHB, including the 'primary rules' assertion."



Quite probably true, as I'm likely to be one of those people.  However, should it explicitly state that it is errata to the PHB, or similar, then I'll be forced to accept it (Sunder as AOO etc) as RAW (which is why I brought attention to the upcoming compendium).  Until that time, Sunder is, in my view, a Standard Action, regardless of what the FAQ or RotG say, as both those documents are of dubious accuracy.

Privately, I had been wondering if Bestone (because of his recent joining date) wasn't a previous member who may have been barred.... I don't think I had seen someone so argumentative and unwilling to concede that just maybe the other side had a point.....

And it was interesting to see that one person had indicated a shift in view on the topic, so the thread isn't a complete loss if it helped someone understand the rules better (and no, it wouldn't have mattered to me which way they shifted).


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If I say "A longsword deals slashing damage", there will always be someone who says "But what if you hit them with the pommel?  The rules are unclear, so there's room for interpretation."  But the rules aren't unclear; a longsword deals slashing damage.



If the FAQ, RotG, a third article, the majority of players, etc. all said that a longsword does bludgeoning damage, I'm fairly certain I would at least be more conciliatory, despite my own feelings on the matter (indeed, historically longswords did do bludgeoning damage to people in armor, and if you take a -4 to deal non-lethal damage with a longsword I'd likely rule that it was not slashing damage anyway).

To me, being unable to _see_ another's POV (especially if it's such a common one) reduces one's credibility and objectivety on a matter.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And if the entry was not in the table, I suspect you would be taking the opposing POV.




If the entry were not in the table, there wouldn't be anything to tell us what sort of action is required to Sunder; I already indicated that if the table weren't there, I'd agree that the 'in place of any melee attack' is logical, since the 'during the Sunder standard action' reading would be unsupported..

But the table _is_ there, so the 'in place of any melee attack' reading contradicts an existing rule, and only the 'during the Sunder standard action' reading satisfies both text and table.

-Hyp.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 22, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> And it was interesting to see that one person had indicated a shift in view on the topic, so the thread isn't a complete loss if it helped someone understand the rules better (and no, it wouldn't have mattered to me which way they shifted).




Hey, you're not talking about me, are you!  

I think the "arguement" that sort of clinched it for me (which I don't think was brought up before, or maybe I just didn't understand) was that the Table entry is not contradicting the text at all.

I believe it is important to distinguish between actions in the game, because that is a limiting factor we have to work with (you are only allotted so many Actions per round).  So it is important to know what Action type we are "expending" (or performing, or "using") when we want to do something.  I never really looked at it that way...

The Special Attacks section gives us more options than "sit there and hit the attack button every round".  It also gives us the mechanics to perform those Special Attacks.  And of course, we need to know what Action types they use (if any at all).  How can you perform a single melee attack if you don't know it's a Standard Action and that you've already used your Standard Action for the round?  Same with Special Attacks.  How do I know what Action type a Disarm is?  Or a Trip?  Or a Sunder?  If the text doesn't call it out, you need to look else where (tada...  the table!).  And since *a melee attack* is not an Action type by itself...  Well, you get the point...

Someone assuming that you can perform a Sunder anytime you are eligible for a melee attack, is as bad as me assuming that you can only perform a Sunder if you use a Standard Action.  Fortunately, I have the table to help back up and clarify my assumption.  What does the other person have to back it up on their end?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> If the FAQ, RotG, a third article, the majority of players, etc. all said that a longsword does bludgeoning damage, I'm fairly certain I would at least be more conciliatory, despite my own feelings on the matter (indeed, historically longswords did do bludgeoning damage to people in armor, and if you take a -4 to deal non-lethal damage with a longsword I'd likely rule that it was not slashing damage anyway).




The FAQ, RotG, third article, and the majority of players, in the absence of errata, would be incorrect; the damage type of a weapon doesn't change simply because you take the -4 to deal non-lethal damage.  People might argue that if you aren't using the edge of the blade, the 4lb longsword should deal damage - and have a threat range - more in line with a light mace.  But as written, you deal your 1d8 19-20/x2 S damage; it's just non-lethal.

I can see the POV of others on the Sunder issue, but once they show their working, I find fault - given a choice of two readings of a sentence, they're choosing one that contradicts the table, instead of one that works with the table.  And to me the existence of a non-contradictory reading renders the contradictory reading invalid, so when you ask me if I consider there to be room for interpretation, I must say no; the choice between a valid reading and an invalid readnig is no choice at all, so no room for interpretation exists.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Privately, I had been wondering if Bestone (because of his recent joining date) wasn't a previous member who may have been barred.... I don't think I had seen someone so argumentative and unwilling to concede that just maybe the other side had a point.....




I never said they didnt have a point, i said i didnt believe thier point was correct, and tried to explain why. They didnt agree with my point of view and tried to argue why, why are you singling me out?

And i did give up and concede that i cant change your mind and you can think what you want????

And i am not a previous member and have never ben banned from these forums


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I can see the POV of others on the Sunder issue, but once they show their working, I find fault - given a choice of two readings of a sentence, they're choosing one that contradicts the table, instead of one that works with the table.  And to me the existence of a non-contradictory reading renders the contradictory reading invalid, so when you ask me if I consider there to be room for interpretation, I must say no; the choice between a valid reading and an invalid readnig is no choice at all, so no room for interpretation exists.



Occam's Razor at work.....


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Edit: n/m no response, just done


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> And i did give up and concede that i cant change your mind and you can think what you want????



That's hardly the same as acknowledging that the rules are sufficently unclear to some people that each side may have a valid argument....

But goods news on the other points!  I've seen a couple of people wear suspensions and bans over this topic...  the other topic that springs to mind was 'monks and the Improved Natural Attack feat'.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> That's hardly the same as acknowledging that the rules are sufficently unclear to some people that each side may have a valid argument....




Yet hyp's last comment (so no room for interpretation exists.) doesnt suggest that? what, am i being singled out?


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> An Attack of Opportunity a single melee attack. What kind of action is it? Don't know. It doesn't say in the text and there is no table to refer us to. Some claim it falls under the "Not an Action" category, but who's to say for sure? It simply is not clarified anywhere.




An AoO is not an action. With the exception of Immediate Actions and the Readied Action, actions are performed on a character's turn.

An AoO is no different than a Saving Throw, an Opposed Strength check, etc. It is a game mechanic, but it is not an action.

An AoO is an attack. But, that does not mean it is an action.



			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Sunder, on the other hand, is a Special Attack (which I hope we can agree an AoO is NOT).




All I agree is that anything that states it is a melee action can be done on an AoO unless it has explicit rules text to the contrary.


What rules do we have to support this:

1) The Sunder rules themselves specify that Sunder is a melee attack. The Attack of Opportunities rule states a melee attack.

2) We have two different Rules of the Game articies (one in 2004, one in 2005) that specify that Sunder can be used as an attack of opportunity.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050705a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

3) We have two different FAQ rulings that indicate that Sunder can be used as an attack of opportunity.

4) *And the Combat Action table states that both a Melee Attack and Sunder are Standard Actions, both without the 7 footnote.* If Sunders cannot be done as AoOs because they are a standard action on that table, then neither can Melee Attacks. The sole argument people of the opposing POV are using can also be used to indicate that regular melee attack Attacks of Opportunity *NEVER* occur in the game.

The Melee Attack entry on the Combat Actions table totally shatters the opposing POV. IMO.


What rules do we have to not support this:

1) A Sunder table entry under the *Combat Actions* section where Attacks of Opportunity are not even defined as actions.


Quite frankly, it appears that WotC itself does not agree with Hyp's assessment. The FAQ does not agree. Rules of the Game does not agree. Even the Combat Table is forced to have an exception to itself for Melee Actions.

Hence, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Combat Actions table does not apply because Attacks of Opportunity are not Actions. They are melee attacks.

The Combat Actions table only applies for Actions in Combat, not for non-actions.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Hey, you're not talking about me, are you!
> 
> I think the "arguement" that sort of clinched it for me (which I don't think was brought up before, or maybe I just didn't understand) was that the Table entry is not contradicting the text at all.



LOL! Yeah, ya got me. Those arguments had been raised in previous threads, but I must admit that this thread seems to have laid out the arguments are little more clearly and succinctly than the previous threads on this topic.

I will stick my hand in the air and say that reading the text in isolation certainly gives the opinion that Sunder may be substituted for a melee attack.  But the slightly different use of words (compared to disarm etc) and the presence of the table entries make me side with Hyp.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Yet hyp's last comment (so no room for interpretation exists.) doesnt suggest that? what, am i being singled out?



Hyp at least admits that in the absence of the table he would read the text of Sunder the same as you do. Not trying to single you out, but you are certainly the strongest advocate for your view in this thread....


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

Legildur, do please drop the line of personal attack; don't speculate about other users in a public thread.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Hyp at least admits that in the absence of the table he would read the text of Sunder the same as you do. Not trying to single you out, but you are certainly the strongest advocate for your view in this thread....




Well i think that should go without question lol, i should definetly be the strongest advocate for my view.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Legildur, do please drop the line of personal attack; don't speculate about other users in a public thread.
> 
> -Hyp.
> (Moderator)



Sure.  Sorry about that.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 4) *And the Combat Action table states that both a Melee Attack and Sunder are Standard Actions, both without the 7 footnote.* If Sunders cannot be done as AoOs because they are a standard action on that table, then neither can Melee Attacks.




Here, I disagree; the table states that both the Attack (Melee) action and Sunder are standard actions, not that a melee attack is a standard action.  The Attack (Melee) action is a standard action that incorporates a single melee attack; as I read it, the Sunder action is also a standard action that incorporates a single melee attack, since the description of the action states that you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.

The Charge action is a full round action that incorporates a single melee attack.

A melee attack in and of itself doesn't appear on Table 8-2; what appears is the Attack (Melee) action.

While Charging, for example, you can make a melee attack; you cannot take the Attack action.  Thus, while Charging, you can't use the Combat Expertise feat, which requires the use of the Attack action.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Here, I disagree; the table states that both the Attack (Melee) action and Sunder are standard actions, not that a melee attack is a standard action.  The Attack (Melee) action is a standard action that incorporates a single melee attack; as I read it, the Sunder action is also a standard action that incorporates a single melee attack, since the description of the action states that you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.
> 
> The Charge action is a full round action that incorporates a single melee attack.
> 
> ...




Be this linguistical gymnastics as it may, this says nothing about the fact that the Sunder action does *not* state it is a standard action (like the special actions Bullrush and Overrun), the FAQ (twice) indicates that Sunder can be done as an AoO, and Rules of the Game (twice) indicates that Sunder can be done as an AoO.

It looks like an error in the table when all of the other sources are considered.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What rules do we have to support this:



There are a few more items:
5) The most recent dragon magazine specifically clarifies it in their fighter section (different author).
6) An old d20 bullet points answer (different author) says _"an attack of opportunity is still allowed, and the opponent can use it against your hero's weapon by making a sunder or disarm attack."_
7) Sundering cleave feat description says "_The additional attack is with the same weapon and at the same attack bonus as the attack that destroyed the weapon or shield_" (implying that you could use successively lowered itereative attacks like normal... but that is not a strong point).
8) It has been established that you can strike (i.e. smash) inanimate objects with iterative attacks, but the rules say _"Smashing an object is a lot like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your attack roll is opposed by the object’s AC."_


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> 8) It has been established that you can strike (i.e. smash) inanimate objects with iterative attacks, but the rules say _"Smashing an object is a lot like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your attack roll is opposed by the object’s AC."_



I'd be interested in seeing more about this....

The FAQ and RotG articles aren't dependable sources, but you MAY have something here.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> 7) Sundering cleave feat description says "_The additional attack is with the same weapon and at the same attack bonus as the attack that destroyed the weapon or shield_" (implying that you could use successively lowered itereative attacks like normal... but that is not a strong point).
> 8) It has been established that you can strike (i.e. smash) inanimate objects with iterative attacks, but the rules say _"Smashing an object is a lot like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your attack roll is opposed by the object’s AC."_




I do not understand how either of these two are on topic.

The mechanics of how these are done within a character's turn says nothing about how they are done outside a character's turn (i.e. within an AoO).

Your first two points, on the other hand, are good points (although #6 is for D20 Modern).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It looks like an error in the table when all of the other sources are considered.




An error in the table that appeared in the 3E PHB first printing, 3E PHB second printing, 3E SRD (no table, but the action type appeared in brackets after the name), d20 Modern, 3.5 PHB, 3.5 Special Edition PHB, and never appeared in errata for any of those products?

If we ever receive errata stating that Sunder should appear in Table 8-2 as Action Type: Varies and bear footnote 7, I'll change my stance.  A note in an FAQ answer saying that Sunder appears as a standard action because it provokes an AoO (despite Grapple and Disarm provoking AoOs and not appearing as standard actions)?  Not convincing.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Im just of the belief that disarm and trip are listed as varies, not because taking them doesnt count as whatever action, but because if they fail you can counter them, out of turn, for which makes its hard to list them as a specific action at that point.

You cant counter sunder a failed sunder


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Im just of the belief that disarm and trip are listed as varies, not because taking them doesnt count as whatever action, but because if they fail you can counter them, out of turn, for which makes its hard to list them as a specific action at that point.
> 
> You cant counter sunder a failed sunder




This doesn't address Grapple, or Footnote 7.  Footnote 7 has nothing to do with counter-trips; rather, it's about the use of the attack in Attack, Full Attack, or Charge actions, or AoOs.

If Sunder can be used in an Attack, Full Attack, or Charge action, or an AoO, why would it lack the footnote used to denote something that can be used in an Attack, Full Attack, or Charge action, or an AoO?

If it's not necessary for Sunder to bear the footnote used to denote something that can be used in an Attack, Full Attack, or Charge action, or an AoO because the text incorporates the phrase "melee attack", then why do Disarm and Trip (for which the text incorporates the phrase "melee attack") need the footnote used to denote something that can be used in an Attack, Full Attack, or Charge action, or an AoO?

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Your statement there is just an assumption. That because there is no footnote it was not meant to work that way. Even tho the text tells you how it works.

Im not saying your wrong or incorrect, im just saying i dont think thats proof


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

I see how you come to your conclusion, i dont agree with it. You see how i come to my conclusion, you dont agree. I dont think either of us are going to change, so lets agree to disagree.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> I see how you come to your conclusion, i dont agree with it. You see how i come to my conclusion, you dont agree. I dont think either of us are going to change, so lets agree to disagree.



Which is where all the previous threads on this topic came to.....


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Point noted, i now know to never bring it up again.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Point noted, i now know to never bring it up again.



If you want another interesting read, the 'monks and Improved Natural Attack feat' also attracted heated debate across multiple threads. Once again, the definitive answer was not agreed.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> An error in the table that appeared in the 3E PHB first printing, 3E PHB second printing, 3E SRD (no table, but the action type appeared in brackets after the name), d20 Modern, 3.5 PHB, 3.5 Special Edition PHB, and never appeared in errata for any of those products?




You mean like the Special Ability Types Table (Table 8-1 in 3.5) in both 3E and 3.5 where Dispel Magic is listed as affecting Supernatural Special Abilities, even though the text states that it does not and WotC was informed on multiple occassions that this is in error?

Your "multiple version" point here is not convincing.

Text takes precendence over tables. The text states that Sunder is a Melee Attack, not a Standard Action.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You mean like the Special Ability Types Table (Table 8-1 in 3.5) in both 3E and 3.5 where Dispel Magic is listed as affecting Supernatural Special Abilities, even though the text states that it does not and WotC was informed on multiple occassions that this is in error?
> 
> Your "multiple version" point here is not convincing.
> 
> Text takes precendence over tables. The text states that Sunder is a Melee Attack, not a Standard Action.




Even if sunder was a standard action, The text states you can use sunder as a melee attack.

On an aoo, you make a melee attack.

Like im saying, supernatural abilities are listed on that table as standard actions

But thier text may say otherwise, some are used instead of thier attacks, some are free actions, ect ect.

You always go by the text

The counter argument on this was: The text for sunder only comes into play if you are using a standard action to sunder.

or

If they would have wanted it to work that way, it would be listed with footnote 7

or a few other less argued points

The main problem i found with it was the arguing of table over text, when i take a standpoint from the information written in the faq, that text is primary, and the table is secondary. And the text for sunder didnt list it as a standard action, but did say you can use a melee attack to apply it.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> The main problem i found with it was the arguing of table over text, when i take a standpoint from the information written in the faq, that text is primary, and the table is secondary.



The equipment table (and others) would beg to differ with you.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You mean like the Special Ability Types Table (Table 8-1 in 3.5) in both 3E and 3.5 where Dispel Magic is listed as affecting Supernatural Special Abilities, even though the text states that it does not and WotC was informed on multiple occassions that this is in error?




Here we have a contradiction, so text-over-tables works.



> Text takes precendence over tables. The text states that Sunder is a Melee Attack, not a Standard Action.




The text for the Sunder action states that you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.  I don't agree that this contradicts a definition elsewhere that the Sunder action is a standard action.  Since both can be true (You take a standard action, and doing so allows you to use a melee attack to strike a weapon), text-over-tables isn't necessary to satisfy all the rules.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> The equipment table (and others) would beg to differ with you.




Its been stated in the phb errata, Text is a primary source of information, and tables are secondary. Im not making anything im just remarking on what i read in that.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

And this is where the entire debate comes to a point



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The text for the Sunder action states that you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.




You agree that the text for sunder says what it says, and what it means, with me



> I don't agree that this contradicts a definition elsewhere that the Sunder action is a standard action.




 I dont disagree



> Since both can be true (You take a standard action, and doing so allows you to use a melee attack to strike a weapon), text-over-tables isn't necessary to satisfy all the rules.




Here is where we now disagree, I dont see anywhere in sunder where it says you must use a standard action to sunder. I read that according to the table sundering is a standard action. But it does not say under sunder "as a standard action" nor does the text insinuate such. Where we disagree is you say you must use sunder (the standard action) to sunder. I say when you sunder its a standard action. And personally i think regardless of that, Sunders text is clear how it works, and doesnt disclude it from attacks of opportunity.

And i dont agree with you that you must be able to do a standard action for the rules of a special attack listed as one to come into play, vis-a-vie my standpoint on standard actions.

A ruling stated anywhere that the rules for each special attack dont come into effect unless you have the action listed in the table to do them would prove your side of things as true.

I see no such ruling, so you are making an assumption that the text doesnt apply unless you can make the action (which i personally think is unfounded, expecially when compared with supernatural abilities)

And i say that the rules written under the special attack state how you use it, and using it that way may be a special attack, but i dont think it discludes using it on an aoo.


----------



## Nail (Feb 22, 2007)

Perhaps part of the issue might be: "Why does it say 'melee attack' when it could have said 'standard action'?"

Try this: Could a ranged attack sunder a weapon?  Could a touch spell sunder a weapon?  Could a grapple touch attack sunder a weapon?  Etc.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> I say when you sunder its a standard action. And personally i think regardless of that, Sunders text is clear how it works, and doesnt disclude it from attacks of opportunity.




This is still where you completely lose me.  You say it's a standard action, except that it isn't?

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Perhaps part of the issue might be: "Why does it say 'melee attack' when it could have said 'standard action'?"
> 
> Try this: Could a ranged attack sunder a weapon?  Could a touch spell sunder a weapon?  Could a grapple touch attack sunder a weapon?  Etc.




It could have just as easilly said "When you take a standard action, you can use a melee attack to sunder" 

which would have put it inline with bull rush and such like karinsdad said

But it doesnt state that


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The text for the Sunder action states that you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.  I don't agree that this contradicts a definition elsewhere that the Sunder action is a standard action.  Since both can be true (You take a standard action, and doing so allows you to use a melee attack to strike a weapon), text-over-tables isn't necessary to satisfy all the rules.




The text for the Melee Attack action states that you can use a melee attack to strike a creature.  I don't agree that this contradicts a definition elsewhere that the Melee Attack action is a standard action.  Since both can be true (You take a standard action, and doing so allows you to use a melee attack to strike a creature), text-over-tables isn't necessary to satisfy all the rules.


Good for the goose. Good for the gander.  

No Sunders in AoOs. No Melee Attacks in AoOs.


You have multiple problems with your POV:

1) Other sources from WotC disagree with it.

2) The text portion of Sunder does not state that it is a Standard Action which is literally a contradiction with your interpretation (i.e. the text does not explicitly state Standard Action, it explicitly states Melee Attack).

3) The Melee Attack action in the exact same table has the exact same issues for AoOs that Sunder does (regardless of your very stretched explanation of why it applies to one and not the other).


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> This is still where you completely lose me.  You say it's a standard action, except that it isn't?
> 
> -Hyp.




I dont state that it isnt, i state that it may be a standard action, but the if the text says how you can use it. If you use it in your turn, as one of your actions, its a standard action. But by the wording of the text, i read it to also be allowed to be applied to aoo's by how its written (You can use a melee attack).

I've never seen a rule that states you cant use a standard action to sunder, expecially if its written under that action how it gets used. If you read some supernatural abilities, the text may allow them to be used at odd times, even tho supernatural abilities are listed as a standard action.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Perhaps part of the issue might be: "Why does it say 'melee attack' when it could have said 'standard action'?"
> 
> Try this: Could a ranged attack sunder a weapon?  Could a touch spell sunder a weapon?  Could a grapple touch attack sunder a weapon?  Etc.




It could have said both if it meant both. This argument holds no water.


----------



## Nail (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> I dont state that it isnt, i state that it may be a standard action, but the if the text says how you can use it.



As I've remarked before, this statement of yours has boggled me too.

Casting a spell is a standard action.  Can I cast a spell as an AoO?


----------



## Nail (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It could have said both if it meant both. This argument holds no water.



This isn't an argument.  This is an attempt to understand why someone would write 'melee attack'.  After all, there are other kinds of attacks!

The 'main' discussion is separate from this point.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Short "and semi-relevant" explanation of what i mean. Supernatural abilities are standard actions, and ARE standard actions unless otherwise noted in the text.

Lets take mm 4, p 72, fang golem

Verdant surge (su) Any creature hit by a fang golem's melee attack or spikes takes a -2 penalty on saving throws made to resist the effects of a druid spell or a spell or ability from a fey creature.

This particular ability doesnt state any effect in the type of action, So by the table, this supernatural ability is a standard action.

Now what your saying is, they have to be able to make a standard action for this to apply? no of course not. The text of it tells you how they apply it. So the fang golem could even make a melee attack on an attack of opportunity, and have this supernatural ability (which supernatural abilities are standard actions) apply.

So what im saying is, regardless of what its "classified" as, the text tells you how you actually use it. And the rules for sunder as written, as i read them tell me that i can use a melee attack to sunder.

This is what i meant


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> As I've remarked before, this statement of yours has boggled me too.
> 
> Casting a spell is a standard action.  Can I cast a spell as an AoO?




Not unless under the casting it stated "as a melee attack you may cast a spell"

Your really just putting words into my mouth here, making up statements out of things i say

If the text of the spell said it was a swift action, but casting a spell is a standard action, you cast it as a swift action.

I never once claimed that on a aoo you can use any standard action


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The text for the Melee Attack action states that you can use a melee attack to strike a creature.  I don't agree that this contradicts a definition elsewhere that the Melee Attack action is a standard action.  Since both can be true (You take a standard action, and doing so allows you to use a melee attack to strike a creature), text-over-tables isn't necessary to satisfy all the rules.
> 
> No Sunders in AoOs. No Melee Attacks in AoOs.




No Attack actions in AoOs, and I agree completely.

Melee attacks aren't solely found in the Attack action, however.

An AoO lets you make a single melee attack against the creature that provokes it.  Footnote 7 says that this attack can be replaced with a Trip, Grapple, or Disarm.  An AoO doesn't state that you may attack the creature's weapon, nor does Sunder carry Footnote 7.

The AoO doesn't go anywhere near the Attack action... which is, certainly, a standard action.  It simply allows a melee attack against the creature.

If you want to make a melee attack against a weapon, you need to use Sunder... and since the AoO allows you to attack a creature (not a weapon), and Sunder doesn't carry footnote 7, the only recourse is to take the Sunder standard action... which can't be done outside your own turn.

Neither, of course, can the Attack action.  But we're not using the Attack action when an AoO is provoked.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nail (Feb 22, 2007)

So you're saying that sunder is like this?

Sunder(Su) Any creature hit by a melee weapon attack has its weapon damaged.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> So you're saying that sunder is like this?
> 
> Sunder(Su) Any creature hit by a melee weapon attack has its weapon damaged.




I dont even know where/how your drawing that conclusion, are you misreading everything i say? no i say if you want to sunder then As a melee attack YOU CAN make a sunder

where is this unclear? quote me on saying that any creature hit has its weapon damaged?


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you want to make a melee attack against a weapon, you need to use Sunder... and since the AoO allows you to attack a creature (not a weapon), and Sunder doesn't carry footnote 7, the only recourse is to take the Sunder standard action... which can't be done outside your own turn.
> 
> Neither, of course, can the Attack action.  But we're not using the Attack action when an AoO is provoked.
> 
> -Hyp.




This is where we disagree, and I dont think you have to proof to claim yourself un-disputedly right (and im not saying you did)

Your saying you have to be able to use the sunder standard action, for the text to take place, right?

Im saying i read no-where thats true. As i read it, If i want to sunder, i read the text under the special attacks section, And i read the sunder entry. And i read the rules under sunder and that tells me how i can use it.

And i deduce by the text, that it says i can use it as a melee attack.

If you want to prove me wrong, You can just quote a reference somewhere that states you must have a standard action free to perform a special attack that requires one, or anything along those lines.

Cause as far as i know (and you havent proved me wrong yet) The rules on how to use a special attack are listed in thier text, and how you apply them is listed there as well.

And from what i take from sunders text i've written a million times, and wont write again, but you get where i draw my conclusions.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> This isn't an argument.  This is an attempt to understand why someone would write 'melee attack'.  After all, there are other kinds of attacks!




In the Special Attacks section, WotC wrote Melee Attack for Disarm, Grapple, Sunder, and Trip.

They wrote Standard Action for Aid Another, Bull Rush, Feint, Overrun, and Turn Undead.

They wrote Full Round Action for Charge.

They wrote Ranged Touch Attack for Throw Splash Weapon.

They did not specify for Two Weapon Fighting, but other sections of rules (not just tables) specify it as part of a Full Round Attack.


The rules within the Special Attack section are crystal clear. One of them just happens to disagree with the table. It matters not WHY they wrote Melee Attack for Sunder, the fact remains that they did write it.


The key here is that any rule that states that something is a Melee Attack, means that it follows ALL of the melee attack rules: AoO, Reach, Damage, Criticals, etc. unless a written rule specifiies otherwise.


I totally understand that the table indicates that a Sunder is a Standard Action. It also indicates that Melee Attacks are a Standard Action.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Melee attacks aren't solely found in the Attack action, however.




No. They are also found in Sunder.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> You can just quote a reference somewhere that states you must have a standard action free to perform a special attack that requires one, or anything along those lines.




_ACTION TYPES 
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are four types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, and free actions.

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.

In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action.

Standard Action: A standard action allows you to do something, most commonly make an attack or cast a spell. See Table 8-2: Actions in Combat for other standard actions._

We see Table 8-2 for other standard actions, and find Sunder.  The action's type tells us how long the action takes to perform.  In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action.

How long does Sunder take to perform?  A standard action.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> No. They are also found in Sunder.




Exactly!

If I want to make a melee attack on a creature, which actions can I take?  Attack (standard), Full Attack (full round), Charge (full round).  Or an AoO (not an action).

If I want to use a melee attack to strike a weapon, which actions can I take?  Sunder (standard).

Melee attacks are found in multiple places, which include but are not limited to the Attack action.  Melee attacks used to strike a weapon are found in one place - the Sunder action.



> I totally understand that the table indicates that a Sunder is a Standard Action. It also indicates that Melee Attacks are a Standard Action.




It indicates that the Attack (Melee) action is a standard action, not that a melee attack is a standard action.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _
> 
> How long does Sunder take to perform?  A standard action.
> 
> -Hyp._



_
I dont disagree with you on that

How long does a melee attack take to perform? A standard action

Regardless, what i was saying is not anywhere in there

Nowhere does it say that unless you have an action to perform a special attack, does that special attack apply.

If sunder said specifically in the text it can be used as an attack of opportunity, we wouldnt have this argument

And i see it as saying that *not specifically however* when it says you can use a melee attack to sunder.

The fact is, the rules for  a special attack tell you how you can use that special attack, can you tell me otherwise?

*The time an action takes to perform does not hold sway over what it does, or when it can be used. The text of the action does.*_


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

And like i've posted, how can you support your claim, when using a supernatural ability is a standard action, but under some text of the supernatural abilities it states they work different. Its still listed as a standard action. And it may not note in the supernatural ability that its any other type of action *thus by default it still remains a standard action* yet some supernatural abilities function by adding to melee attacks, like the aforementioned fang golem, who has a special thing that applies to each melee attack it does.

Or are you saying now that to use that ability it must take the standard action "supernatural ability" which would then affect its attacks *which it'd get none if its already using its standard action

Or even, by your logic

You must use a standard action to use the special ability - sunder

The special ability sunder lets you Use a melee attack to sunder

It doesnt grant you a melee attack, nor do you get a melee attack by default on a standard action

Therefore when using the standard action sunder

You CAN (can meaning having the option to, but not having too) use a melee attack to sunder, but you dont have a melee attack (standard action) to make, if your using a standard action that gives you the option to use a melee attack to do something (sunder).
Which would mean of course, you wont be making any attacks.

If it was written " When you sunder you use a melee attack to......"
then it would be a little harder to argue my part


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It indicates that the Attack (Melee) action is a standard action, not that a melee attack is a standard action.




When you show me where "Attack (Melee)" is defined in the rules, I'll concede this point.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If I want to use a melee attack to strike a weapon, which actions can I take?  Sunder (standard).




If I want to use a melee attack to strike a weapon, which actions can I take?  Sunder (melee attack).


Sunder is not specified as a Standard action in the Sunder rules text, hence, it is not.

It is specified as a Melee Attack, just like Disarm, Grapple, and Trip.

Tables do not take precedence over rules.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I do not understand how either of these two are on topic.
> 
> The mechanics of how these are done within a character's turn says nothing about how they are done outside a character's turn (i.e. within an AoO).



Sundering with iterative attacks and sundering with AoO's would generally be considered the same argument (i.e. treating it as an attack action rather than a standard action).


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Besides that karin, when you want to take a special attack, the time it takes does not govern whether or not you can use it, nor how you can use it. The rule of the special attack, as written does.

So imho they can only dispute sentence "You can use a melee attack to"

But they have already agreed about what it means, with us


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Sundering with iterative attacks and sundering with AoO's would generally be considered the same argument (i.e. treating it as an attack action rather than a standard action).




True, but your #7 sentence does not state that.

It states that the bonus is the same. For example, if the bonus was lowered via Power Attack, the same bonus would be used twice with that feat. That does not mean that the Sunder is not a Standard Action. It means that the second attack off the Sunder Cleave has the same bonus as the first. It states nothing about iterative attacks or AoOs.

Just like the AC statement of #8 doesn't state anything about Standard Action versus Melee Attack.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

HYP from what i take on your standpoint, im deducing this (and feel free to correct me if im wrong)

Either There is a discrepency between sunder and the table or there isnt

If there isnt - (my opinion)

If there isnt a discrepency, then the rule for sunder states how it works, you have the option to use a melee attack to strike a weapon. And the time it takes to do it is irrelevent because the text tells you how to use sunder.

OR

If there is a discrepency (your assumption)

The rule for sunder states you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon, and since on an attack of opportunity you can make a melee attack by the rule of sunder, you could use sunder to do an attack of opportunity. But (and this is only a claim by you) you can only use the special attack sunder if you have a standard action. That creates a discrepency, as the rule in the text would allow you to use it for things like an attack of opportunity. And as per errata, if there is a discrepency, you go by the text.

So the discrepency would be, the rule and text of sunder says you have the option on a melee attack, and there are more ways than a standard action to get a melee attack *vis-a-vie aoo's*.


Either way seems to suggest you can sunder on an attack of opportunity

If you disagree refer to the earlier post then, where if you are using your standard action to activate the special attack - sunder. The raw for sunder only give you the option to make a melee attack against a weapon or shield. It doesnt give you the melee attack to do so

Deduced from - 

You can make a melee attack

Not When you sunder you make, or even As a sunder you make a melee


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> How long does a melee attack take to perform? A standard action




Only if you're using the Attack action.

If you're making that melee attack as part of a Charge action or Full Attack action, the time it takes to perform is some fraction of a Full Round action, not a Standard action.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> When you show me where "Attack (Melee)" is defined in the rules, I'll concede this point.




The description of the Full Attack action is found under the heading "Full Attack".

The description of the Total Defense action is found under the heading "Total Defense".

The description of the Attack action is found under the heading "Attack".  It incorporates the subheadings "Melee Attacks", "Unarmed Attacks", and "Ranged Attacks".  On Table 8-2, the Attack action is listed three times, since the Attack action doesn't provoke an AoO if you're using it to make a melee attack, but does if you're using it to make an unarmed or ranged attack; the listing is Attack (melee), Attack (ranged), and Attack (unarmed).  In all three cases, the action is the Attack action, with a parenthetic note indicating which subsection should be referenced.

If Full Attack on Table 8-2 refers to the Full Attack action, and Withdraw refers to the Withdraw action, and we know that 'the Attack action' exists since it is referenced in feats like Combat Expertise, Spring Attack, and Shot on the Run, it doesn't take a wild leap to deduce that the entry 'Attack' on Table 8-2 refers to the Attack action.



> Sunder is not specified as a Standard action in the Sunder rules text, hence, it is not.




A longsword is not specified as having a 19-20/x2 critical in the weapon text.  Does this mean it does not?

Or can a table contain information which is true despite not being repeated in the text?

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Or can a table contain information which is true despite not being repeated in the text?
> 
> -Hyp.




no, but the rules for sunder suggest you can use it as an attack of op, as you can use a melee attack to sunder

the table disagrees

So you use the text


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Sunder still doesnt give you a melee attack to sunder with, it states you can USE a melee attack.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> HYP from what i take on your standpoint, im deducing this (and feel free to correct me if im wrong)




Hmm?  No, I don't think there's a discrepancy between text and table at all.

I think Sunder is a standard action (per the table), and taking that standard action allows you to use a melee attack to strike a weapon (per the text).

Both text and table are true; no discrepancy need exist.

If one allows any melee attack to be replaced with Sunder, it requires the table to be in error.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Sunder still doesnt give you a melee attack to sunder with, it states you can USE a melee attack.




I disagree.  The melee attack you can use comes from the Sunder action.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I disagree.  The melee attack you can use comes from the Sunder action.
> 
> -Hyp.




Your again making an unfounded assumption, where under sunder does it say you gain a melee attack to sunder with, it doesnt

It gives you the option to use a melee attack to sunder

It doesnt give you a melee attack


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Your argument is based on the assumption that the text for sunder doesnt apply because you need to do a standard action to sunder in the first place, and only if you can use a standard action can you sunder. Even tho normally a melee attack is a standard action, and when listed on tables it is a standard action, text gives it other uses *like the aoo text* Your claming one attack wo

A melee attack is listed as a standard action, but the text written for aoo's allows it to be used as an aoo.

Sunder may be a standard action, but the text written for sunder suggests that it can, infact, be used as a melee attack, which can be used as an aoo.

Like i said, your assuming that you cant even read the rules for sunder unless you have a standard action because its listed as such as a table. But your assumption has no proof, i've stated several situations that put a dampen on that argument, and you havent responded to any.

As well there has been quotes from articles from wizards themselves, A game designers statement saying you can sunder on an aoo. And several sources that suggest this.

You've yet to even show one source that shows your opinion.

And i still ask you, how can you tell me the text on a special attack doesnt come into effect, regardless of how, in that text, it tells you you can use the ability, if you dont have the action listed on the table free to do it.

You've already said you agree on what the text under sunder means, and if there was no table that you'd agree.

Well in that, you agree, because the table doesnt restrict you to only making sunder as a standard action, it simply shows when you sunder its a standard aciton. Unless of course, you want to quote something that proves me wrong here?

You wont, and i've already stated why, it would break things like supernatural abilities. Whenever you want to do a special attack, you read the special attack and low and behold, it tells you how to use it.

Sunder tells you how to use it, you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon, thats a sunder

Of course, making a melee attack is a standard aciton, so in the table its listed as such


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Hmm?  No, I don't think there's a discrepancy between text and table at all.
> 
> I think Sunder is a standard action (per the table), and taking that standard action allows you to use a melee attack to strike a weapon (per the text).
> 
> ...




How is there not a discrepency?
sunder states you can use a melee attack to *blah blah*
Aoo's say you get a melee attack
Thus, its suggested you can use your melee attack to sunder
If your pov is right, this would directly disagree with the table
which makes the text take precendence



> If one allows any melee attack to be replaced with Sunder, it requires the table to be in error.




And you prove me right yet again, As sunder does say, you can use a melee attack to sunder (unless now your switching and telling me it doesnt?) which is again, why i say there is a discrepency in the table.

Edit: refer to post 174, and 175, they are still valid and you havent been able to repute them

Where are you pulling this rule from, that states the text of a special attack doesnt apply unless you have an action to do that special attack? its written no-where. Infact to even figure out how you use the special attack you read the text. The text of sunder tells you how to use it. Using sunder may be a standard action. But the text still lets you use it on an aoo. regardless.

*The time an action takes to perform does not hold sway over what it does, or when it can be used. The text of the action does.*


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

@ discrepency

Infact, you admit if there was no table, you'd see it working my way
but since there is a table, it now doesnt (the table makes the text work in a way other than written)

That insinuates discrepency in itself!

You also state you can see it my way, which how could you possibly even say "i can see how one could interpret that, but i think it works this way" without admitting discrepency?

And lastly the fact that we are even arguing insinuates discrepency, What can be read, and whats in a table is being argued, Two sides can be taken, two point of views gained 


The only reason i personally think you arent, is because that would invalidate your argument

The fact is, and you can try to disprove this

Text is the primary source of information, you read this first to find out how to make the attack

Tables are secondary, and once you have read the text in the attack, can you apply the information in the tables.

Text = primary
tables = secondary

As per errata

The primary rule states "in essence" you can use it whenever you make a melee attack

the secondary information then states when you use it, its a standard action


----------



## atom crash (Feb 22, 2007)

> Infact, you admit if there was no table, you'd see it working my way
> but since there is a table, it now doesnt (the table makes the text work in a way other than written)
> 
> That insinuates discrepency in itself!




Actually, the text and the table giving different information does not insinuate discrepancy. It merely means that neither can be taken alone. When you add the info from the table, you get more meaning than the text alone. The text is not exhaustive and should not be taken as such.

If table says A and text says B, then the logical conclusion is that the rule is A+B. Only when A and B are in conflict, then text trumps table (B, not A). 

In this case, there is no conflict. The text does not tell you what type of action -- the time the action takes in a combat round -- that the Sunder action uses, the table does. It merely gives the mechanic for resolving the action -- make a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.

The rule therefore must include both A (table) and B (text).

Two-Weapon Fighting also does not state what type of action is used, but we know from elsewhere (in this case text in another section) that it requires the Full Attack Action.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

And im saying, by the text of sunder you can use it on an attack of opportunity

And by the table listing of it, this would dis-allow it

That is discrepency

You dont add the info, you read sunder, it tells you how it works

When you use it as an action in combat, as per the table, it becomes a standard action.

If using it as a standard action would deny you to use it on a melee attack *as it is written* in an aoo, then there is a discrepancy

The text does tell you what type of action, you apply it to a melee attack. Making a melee attack is a standard action.

AND when used togeather, in hyps circumstance, You must use a standard action to sunder

sunder states You CAN use a melee attack to attack

It does not state you make a melee attack, it says you can, can is an option. There is no option if you dont have an attack, you dont have an attack if oyur standard action is being used to activate the special ability of sunder. 

This again proves my statement

When you sunder, its a standard action

NOT You must use a sunder standard action to sunder


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Not that it matters, The argument against is weak

The argument is unfounded, The argument is in contrary to the text, a game designer, two articles written by a game designer, and several other instances in published material from wizards that shows it being used as such.

Thats a mountain of stuff to argue against

And what is the argument? an unfounded claim that you can only sunder if you have a standard action to sunder. That you ignore the wording of the text * and hyp has agree'd that the wording of the text means what we are using in our argument* Because you cant apply the text unless you can take that standard action. And I've yet to have solid proof thrown my way showing this as in any ways true

Infact i've shown proof against, vis-a-vie supernatural abilities! if the text on them are ignored because they are a standard action, then they dont make sense.

Also text is listed as the primary source of information, you read the text to see how the ability works first, and since he's agreed how it works. You can make a sunder on an aoo.

Regardless of whether or not its a standard action.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The description of the Full Attack action is found under the heading "Full Attack".
> 
> The description of the Total Defense action is found under the heading "Total Defense".
> 
> ...




Yup.

And the Attack (Unarmed) entry in that table does not have a footnote that "Armed" Attack (unarmed) do not provoke an AoO.

So which takes precedence, the rules text on page 139 (no AoO for Monks), or the table text on page 141 (AoO for Unarmed)?

Obviously, we both know the answer. Funny, this was not errataed in the last 7 years either.


And, Bull Rush is listed in that table as a Standard Action. However, Bull Rush can be used as part of a Charge action. No footnote on that.


The point is, that is a generic table. It does not have all of the rules listed in it, it just has general rules listed in it. Those rules do not take precedence over the written rules.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A longsword is not specified as having a 19-20/x2 critical in the weapon text.  Does this mean it does not?




The rules text on criticals for weapons on page 114 is in a section that refers to the weapons table 7-5.

The Sunder text does *not* refer to Table 8-2. The Special Attacks text does *not* refer to Table 8-2. The Attack of Opportunity section does *not* refer to Table 8-2 for which actions can be done with AoOs (it does for which actions provoke).

None of these rules refer to that table for that. The only thing that refers to that table is the Combat Actions section of the rules.


And, the Sunder rules do not state that Sunder is an action. It states that it is a melee attack (and hence can be done in place of a melee attack).

For example, one could Charge and Sunder. Full Round Action. Use the melee attack action within Charge to Sunder a Weapon.

No rules in the Special Attacks section disallow this.


I agree with you 100% that Sunder is listed in the table as a Standard Action. That is what Sunder typically is. Just like Bull Rush is typically a Standard action and listed as such in that table.

I disagree with you 100% that Sunder is a Standard action all of the time because the actual rules text on it does not state that, and of course, WotC in at least 6 places also indicates that it can be done on AoOs.

Sunder is a Melee Attack. That table does not override that specific rule.

That table is for the typical case (exceptions can occur with Sunder, Bull Rush, and Unarmed Attacks as I have illustrated).


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Thanks for the backup karinsdad, i felt very alone on this for a while

Hyp, you've agreed on the wording of sunder
And you've said that it would work on an aoo if there was no table

You can use a melee attack to sunder

Aoo gives you a melee attack

Since you can use a melee attack to sunder

You can use that melee attack to sunder. (pretty simple and clear i think)

Again, as stated, you agreed with this, but disagree because of the tabel

I still, and have several times, ask you, Where this becomes invalid?

The rule as stated under sunder still states what it does, correct?

But your argument is it only does what it does, if you have a standard action to activate sunder

And i still say... where is your proof on this? where is proof that any rule listed in the phb only comes into effect in way x. There isnt, and you cant tell me that. The rule for sunder is under sunder, and is still valid, and still applies. Even if it is a standard action to sunder normally, The text of sunder still validates another way you can use it, on an attack of opportunity. The text states that, and you agree'd that the text stated that, but you say the text doesnt apply when there is a table, and that even tho the text states it works that way it now doesnt because of the table, yet there is no descrepancy.

As i've said, When you want to use sunder, you read the entry for sunder, it tells you how you use it *and you've agreed on how it works*. You have not once proven that you in any way get to ignore that text.

There is no rule that says to be able to use the written rules for a particular rule, you must have an action free to use that rule. And since it doesnt say that anywhere you CAN NOT validate your claim that you must have an action for that text to come into play. And since you have no way of negating the text that states something you've agreed with, you have no argument.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> @ discrepency
> 
> Infact, you admit if there was no table, you'd see it working my way
> but since there is a table, it now doesnt (the table makes the text work in a way other than written)
> ...



Once again you assert that the table and text are in conflict.  Hyp has clearly shown that they are not, unless you choose to read the text in a certain way (the same way it has been since 3.0e, d20 Modern, etc, etc) that requires the assumption that the table has missing information.

Taking the simplest approach that they are not in conflict then your DMG errata reference (text trumps table) has no bearing.

Your approach requires a more awkward interpretation.

And while you are at it, can you please read the PHB text entry on spears on p121 and tell me how much damage a spear does, how much it weighs, or what its threat range is? Then maybe you'll recognise that tables sometimes contain information that is not found elsewhere, and disregarding tables would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Hyp is still wrong in his argument, he proves it by
a) agreeing that you can use it my way if there was no table, this succeeds that the text says that you can use it for an aoo.
b) Even quoting the action types, He picked out the section " Action types tell you how long an action takes" It says nothing about anything else, only that the only relevance the action type has, is it tells you how long they take
c) Being unable to come up with proof for his argument, He can not prove anywhere that you ignore the text *which he agrees with* for any reason. see my previous post for more information on such

Regardless of how long an action takes, you still read under the action for how to apply it, and what it does

He agree's with how the text says you can apply sunder

He disagree's because the table makes it a standard action

He is unable to prove the relevance, he is making an unfounded assumption that you have to use a sunder action for the text to apply, but can not show anywhere where it states you must have an action listed in the table free for the rule to apply.

Because it doesnt

The text proves our claim *as he's agreed*, but no rule proves his, only assumptions

I've challenged him several times, and each time he ignores it, to show me where it states the rules for actions only apply under whatever circumstance

The only proof he's quoted is proof for my claim, he's quoted that the type of action only tells you how long it takes to perform it, not how you do it, or what happens.

If the type of action only states the time required to do the action, how can you claim it dictates when you can do the action? or how the action works?



> ACTION TYPES
> An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform




Thats it, it doesnt state and you must have that action free to do the specified attack, nor anything along those lines. The action still functions as it is written, and being a standard action only tells you how long it takes to perform. It also doesnt state that you disregard the text of an action if you dont have the time to do it, it only says it tells you how long it takes to perform. The text of the action tells you what it does.

So a sunder may take a standard actions length in time to perform

So does a melee attack, which can be used on a sunder

They take the same time, the text says you can use one as another

Action types DONT say you require that action to be able to use the rules from
a special attack.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Hyp, you've agreed on the wording of sunder




You've said this about fifteen times in the last page.

I'm never said "The text states you can replace any melee attack with a Sunder attempt, but the table contradicts it so I'm ignoring it".

What I've said is that the text taken in isolation can be read in two ways, and that if the table did not exist, I'd be inclined to read it in the way that says you can replace any melee attack with a Sunder attempt.  But since the table does exist, I consider that way invalid once the text is no longer considered _in isolation_.

The text is never ignored.  It just doesn't mean what you think it means... because if it did, it would contradict the table.  It means something else, which _doesn't_ contradict the table.

Please stop saying "He agrees with our interpretation of the wording but chooses to ignore the text" (especially in five posts in a row!), because that's not my position at all.

I've said that when taking the Sunder action, you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.  You seem to think that this means I'm saying when taking the Sunder action, you can replace any melee attack derived from any other action with a strike on a weapon.  This is not how I'm reading the phrase at all.  As I read it, "You can use a melee attack to strike a weapon" in this context (once the table is taken into account) is saying "You're Sundering?  Have a melee attack!  Strike a weapon with it!", not "You want to Sunder?  You'll need to pay a melee attack for the privilege.  Thank you - now go strike a weapon!"



			
				Karinsdad said:
			
		

> And, the Sunder rules do not state that Sunder is an action. It states that it is a melee attack (and hence can be done in place of a melee attack).




I draw quite a distinction between "In place of a melee attack" and "You can use a melee attack"... and Sunder says the second, not the first.



> For example, one could Charge and Sunder. Full Round Action. Use the melee attack action within Charge to Sunder a Weapon.




There is no Attack action within the Charge action.  There _is_ a melee attack, and if Sunder carried footnote 7, it could replace that melee attack.  But it doesn't.



> I agree with you 100% that Sunder is listed in the table as a Standard Action. That is what Sunder typically is.




If it were typically used as part of the Attack action, but able to be used in a Charge or Full Attack action or an AoO, it would be Action Type: Varies and carry footnote 7.  It's not part of any other action, though; it's its own standard action.

The Bull Rush entry is correct; you can bull rush as a standard action (the Bull Rush standard action from Table 8-2) or as part of a charge (the Charge full round action from Table 8-2).  If you're Bull Rushing as part of a charge, you don't use the Bull Rush standard action, you use the Charge action.

If Sunder is used in place of any melee attack, however, there would be no need for a Sunder standard action; you would Sunder as part of an Attack action, Full Attack action, or Charge action.  The standard action entry on the table would be meaningless, because the Sunder action would never be taken, only the Attack action (etc), and the maneuver would appear as Action Type: Varies and carry footnote 7.

But the standard action entry for Sunder does appear, and doesn't carry footnote 7.

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Hyp is still wrong in his argument, he proves it by etc...



I love this line 



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> a) agreeing that you can use it my way if there was no table, this succeeds that the text says that you can use it for an aoo.



My recollection is that he agreed that MAYBE you could interpret it your way in absence of the table. However, the table exists and quote clearly articulates that it requires Standard Action and cannot be substituted for a melee attack, as it is not listed under 'action type varies' and does not have footnote 7. Therefore the action type does not vary and it requires a Standard Action. And the lack of footnote certainly means that it cannot be used as AOO.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> ....He is unable to prove the relevance, he is making an unfounded assumption that you have to use a sunder action for the text to apply, but can not show anywhere where it states you must have an action listed in the table free for the rule to apply.



So you are continually asserting.  He has proved it to many others who have accepted the view (and others that haven't).  His position is built on logic and evidence as contained in the core rules and doesn't require the convenient assumption that the table is wrong (or missing information). Making sweeping absolute statements otherwise doesn't make you position the right one. Your position is a possible one, but my position is that a strict reading of the rules tells us otherwise.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> The only proof he's quoted is proof for my claim,...



In your opinion. I see it otherwise. Hyp has patiently spelled out his logic and evidence in response to each of your points. So you can hardly claim that he has ignored you - that is patently wrong and just a little insulting after reading tens of his and your posts. In my view it seems that you are not willing to accept his argument.  And that's fine. But to then make sweeping statements about 'he proves nothing' or 'he proves my point' or he 'ignores my points' just aren't true.  They are only true in your opinion, and possibly with some of those that share it.

Even the old 3.0 treated 'Strike a Weapon' as a Standard Action (with no listing under 'action type varies' or the special footnote).

Doesn't it seem odd that they have treated it differently to disarm/grapple/trip across so many versions? (d20 modern etc that Hyp has already listed)

I see the point you are trying to make, but I don't think you can ignore the table.

_Edit: I see that Hyp has since rebutted your erroneous paraphrasing of his argument._


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Your still avoiding what you always avoid, and you have yet to rebut the fact that it being listed as a standard action only indicates the time it takes to perform. It does not negate the text (which you've claimed)


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Your still avoiding what you always avoid, and you have yet to rebut the fact that it being listed as a standard action only indicates the time it takes to perform. It does not negate the text (which you've claimed)



Ahhmmm, that would be because it doesn't need to! Table says Standard Action; text says you use an opposed melee attack to resolve it - no contradiction, and no awkward assumptions required to reach that position.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If there were nothing else to distinguish them, I'd be inclined to agree; if the table did not exist, I would presume that the logical reading is as you say.
> 
> But the table shows that there is a difference between how Trip, Grapple, and Disarm are treated, versus how Sunder is treated; at this point, the difference in wording takes on more significance.
> 
> -Hyp.




Point A

If there was nothing else to distinguish them, he'd be inclined to agree, agree to what?



> Originally Posted by KarinsDad
> "You can use a MELEE ATTACK with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon TO" and "as a melee attack" are semantically equivalent (except for type of weapon) and both crystal clear.




This is what he said he'd agree too. Which equates to, You can use a melee attack to sunder.

Point b



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> When making an attack of opportunity, you can use a melee attack.
> 
> When taking the Sunder action, you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.
> 
> ...








> ACTION TYPES
> An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform




The type only tells you how long the action takes to perform And thats it

It doesnt say specifically you need the action type free to perform the action, You are
still limited to taking 1 standard action. But it does not in any way state that you cant
use the specified action type when the rules for it state otherwise.

Point b-2



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Oh, I agree - that's exactly what it says, in the description of the Sunder action.  Which description can only apply if you're actually taking the Sunder action.
> 
> So what happens when you take the Sunder standard action?  You look in the text, and you find that (when you take the Sunder standard action) you can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeonig weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.
> 
> ...




This is unfounded, The description of sunder a) isnt a description, its the rules for sunder
and b) Are not affected by the action type, because the action type only tells you how long it takes to perform

The action DOESNT DETERMINE HOW ITS USED OR THE RULES ON WHAT IT DOES, it determines the time it takes to do, as you've stated.

If you can prove this claim, there would be no argument, The claim being that you have to take the sunder standard
action for the text to come into place. No where in any book or ruling does it state the rule for sunder does
not come into effect unless you are using a standard action to sunder. No. The rule for sunder states how it works,
the action type states how long it takes to be used on your turn.

What does it matter if its a standard action? the rules of it still say how you use it, and in "point a" hyp agree's with this,
under the stipulation "if there was no table" why? because the table lists it as a standard action? That in no
way invalidates how the rule for sunder is applied. And again, unless you show me a rule or quote that states
the text is invalidated i can, and will, consider you wrong as per raw.

I've stated several times, if you can quote a rule that says you cant use a special attack unless you have the action listed in the table to do it, i'll bow out and agree with your side.



> ... right. If you want to Sunder, it takes a standard action. Isn't that what I've been saying?






> The table has only one reading. Sunder is a standard action.




Sometimes you say it takes a standard action, sometimes you say it is a standard action. How bout picking one? It doesnt take a standard action, it is a standard action, and being so essentialy tells you how long it takes to perform. It gives you no other rules on how to use it, the rules listed in the text do.

And also as i've stated It doesnt exist, and would be illogical, and that you shoudl take supernatural abilities as a proving for that fact. If you needed a standard action to perform a supernatural ability which is listed as a standard action, the text of it AS HYP HAS CLEARLY STATED would only work if you take the standard action supernatural ability to perform.

You know this is incorrect, you know very well you read the rule of the supernatural attack to read how it works, and how its performed.

Prove how sunder is treated differently

Further analyzed



> On the other hand, if you aren't taking the Sunder standard action, the text found in the description of said action is irrelevant;




Quote a rule to back this up. Something that says if your not taking a sunder standard action then the RULE thats written is irrelevant. You wont find a rule, your assuming the "description" comes into play only if your using the attack, thats an assumption, and i've shown you how its wrong, and no-where states or supports you in this.

And lastly 







> if the table did not exist, I would presume that the logical reading is as you say.
> 
> AND
> 
> Oh, I agree - that's exactly what it says, in the description of the Sunder action




The text, being the primary source for the rule on sunder, is clear, and you agree. Your only argument against doesnt matter. Because the text is the primary source of information for the rule, and the table secondary. The text tells you how you can apply it, you agree that it can be read as we say. The text is the rule for sunder, and the text is clear. And unless your going to go back on your standing on that, raw under the text for sunder, its clear what you can do with it.

I see no rule written stating you wouldnt be able to apply it that way. NONE. No rule states that you ignore the rules of something.

Neither do you, you only have a table and assumptions.

And the descrepency


> The text is read by different people in different ways. We can read the text as describing what the Sunder action permits




Yes......



> - When taking the Sunder action, one can use a melee attack to etc. Or we can read the text as attaching a label to something one can do regardless of the action one is taking - One can use a melee attack, regardless of the source of that attack, to do something we will call 'Sunder'.




Sure, if you say so, But i dont see the words anywhere written - When taking the sunder -
That is added by you, and not how it is written




> If we elect to take the second reading, we have a contradiction between text and table. If we elect to take the first, no contradiction exists. Thus, to me, it seems that taking the first reading is appropriate; it doesn't require us to assume an error in the PHB.




Ok, didnt i say this too? if we take the second, contradiction, in essense, descrepency, refer to errata point about text taking precendence


You see the first reading is appropriate, you listed the first reading as being

"the text as describing what the Sunder action permits"

The sunder action permits, as you agree'd (see point a) with me, and my point on sundering as an melee attack on an aoo

so either we go with reading version 1, and the text describe what permits, and you've agree'd that the text is clear on how it permits you to use it.

or version 2, which generates contradiction, which is equal to a descrepancy, which makes
text take precendence

So i'll agree with you, you can sunder as a standard action. But the text describes what it permits. And it permits you to use a melee attack to sunder. On an aoo you get a melee attack. So i'll use sunder, as Sunder states what permits, and how you use it, just as the rules for any other special attacks do.

And for the final time, unless you can pull a rule stating you can only sunder on a standard action, or sundering only works when your making a standard action. Or as you've claimed the text for it is dis-regarded. Then you have no case. Because im arguing For as the rule of sunder as it is written, and you are arguing a contradiction (the description says what it permits, you cant use it unless you can do a standard action). And since you cant even decide... (either the description says what it permits, or it doesnt) Coupled with all your contradiction.

Im gonna go with the game designer, the cited sources, and how i read the rule


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> The text, being the primary source for the rule on sunder, is clear, and you agree. Your only argument against doesnt matter. Because the text is the primary source of information for the rule, and the table secondary. The text tells you how you can apply it, you agree that it can be read as we say. The text is the rule for sunder, and the text is clear. And unless your going to go back on your standing on that, raw under the text for sunder, its clear what you can do with it.
> 
> I see no rule written stating you wouldnt be able to apply it that way. NONE. No rule states that you ignore the rules of something.



Except, where your argument breaks down is that the text is NOT clear.  It describes how the Special Attack is resolved (the opposed melee attack), but not the effort/time required (type of action). So, how do we resolve this? We go to the table... Standard Action; not listed under Action Type Varies; and no footnote 7.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

My argument does not break down. The text doesnt have to be clear to be Ruled as written. As it is written means how it is written, it can be ruled. It is written that you can use a melee attack to sunder.

The special attack is Used in such a way. And yes it does tell you the type of action required, in essence. If you are making a melee attack to sunder, its a standard action, because a melee attack, is a standard action.

And as i've stated, sure its a standard action, but how does that prevent the text from stating what it states, that you can use a melee attack to sunder? it doesnt

Not having footnote 7 is regardless, because the text of sunder tells you how you can use it.

There are things cited that agree with me, there is a game designer and two published articles on wizards that agree with me.

You still cant tell me how it makes a lick of difference if its a standard action or not.

When you want to sunder, you still refer to the text, which tells you when it can be applied, and it can be applied to a melee attack.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Ok, didnt i say this too? if we take the second, contradiction, in essense, descrepency, refer to errata point about text taking precendence.



Except that your reasoning requires the assumption that there is a contradiction between the table and text (so that you can invoke a further piece from the DMG errata) - that is an additional two steps required in your argument, and therefore a substantial point against it as the simplest answer is most likely the right one.

Hyp's reasoning is more elegant in that regard and doesn't require any rules gymnastics to achieve an internally consistent result.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Except that your reasoning requires the assumption that there is a contradiction between the table and text (so that you can invoke a further piece from the DMG errata) - that is an additional two steps required in your argument, and therefore a substantial point against it as the simplest answer is most likely the right one.
> 
> Hyp's reasoning is more elegant in that regard and doesn't require any rules gymnastics to achieve an internally consistent result.




Or you could read it again, My reasoning doesnt say contradiction, hyp's does, the quote is from hyp, and he says there is contradiction. I simply relate his suggested contradiction to being discrepancy.

My reasoning requires no rules gymnastics, My reasoning is - "sunder clearly states how it works in the rules written for it" hyp agree's with how it says it works.

He starts pulling the rules gymnastics by saying but the table suggests this, and no footnote suggests this.

There is no rules gymnastics as far as im concerned

The rule for sunder tells you how it works, it works that way.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> When you want to sunder, you still refer to the text, which tells you when it can be applied, and it can be applied to a melee attack.



Correct, you use a melee attack when you take the Standard Action (Sunder) - not otherwise. Not on a charge, not on an AOO etc.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Or you could read it again, My reasoning doesnt say contradiction, hyp's does, the quote is from hyp, and he says there is contradiction. I simply relate his suggested contradiction to being discrepancy.



I'm obviously missing your point here in the semantics.... substitute contradiction and discrepancy as much as you like, your reasoning still requires additional rules gymnastics that Hyp's reasoning doesn't, making his reasoning more likely to be the correct one given the lack of errata to date to add footnote 7 etc.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Correct, you use a melee attack when you take the Standard Action (Sunder) - not otherwise. Not on a charge, not on an AOO etc.




Have you even read all the posts written and not just skimmed over them? i think not

How does sunder being a standard action, change the rules written for it, or negate them in any way?


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> I'm obviously missing your point here in the semantics.... substitute contradiction and discrepancy as much as you like, your reasoning still requires additional rules gymnastics that Hyp's reasoning doesn't, making his reasoning more likely to be the correct one given the lack of errata to date to add footnote 7 etc.




I wasnt making any reasoning on discrepency in that statement, he was. It was reffering to the fact in one post he said there was contradictions. Then after it was stated that discrepency is errata'd that you refer to the text. His post changed to the statement, there is no contradiction.

I dont need to win this argument by claiming there is discrepancy. He claimed there was
contradictions in his own statement. I simply said well a contradiction is a discrepancy, which would make his reasoning incorrect.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Have you even read all the posts written and not just skimmed over them? i think not
> 
> How does sunder being a standard action, change the rules written for it, or negate them in any way?




AND i've already quoted hyp to agreeing that the rule as written under sunder is taken in the way i've said it works.

Your working off an assumption that because its a standard action, the that text would permit you to use it as an attack of opportunity doesnt apply. And i ask you to quote a rule that proves your assumption.

when in fact, the only thing it says under attack types, is they tell you how long the action takes to perform.

You dont ignore the text of a rule, because the rule is jus that, a rule, it tells you how you can do it, and how its done. Tables are vague, and this is why they are secondary. Text is primary, and by the text, as its written, you can use sunder on an aoo.

if you apply the secondary information from the tables, sure its a standard action, but the primary text still, as written, says you can use sunder on an aoo.



> if the table did not exist, I would presume that the logical reading is as you say.
> 
> AND
> 
> Oh, I agree - that's exactly what it says, in the description of the Sunder action






> Originally Posted by KarinsDad
> "You can use a MELEE ATTACK with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon TO" and "as a melee attack" are semantically equivalent (except for type of weapon) and both crystal clear.




We all seem to be in agreeance on what the rules under sunder state.

Now show me a rule that states you can dis-regard that ruling of text simply because sundering counts as a standard action?

You wont find one, because regardless of what type of action something is considered (and an action only tells you how long something takes to do, AS STATED IN THE PHB AND QUOTED BY HYP). The rules still state how you can use it, and all are agree'd on what the rules for sunder state.

As it comes down to it, We all know what the description of sunder states, and how it states you can use it.

I dont have to prove otherwise, i make no claim otherwise, i say it works as its written. No rules gymnastics, nothing fancy.

Those arguing against still have to prove how you get to dis-regard the rules for sunder, as written, because it is a standard action. You havent been able to thus far, and you wont be able to, because there is no such rule.

You can cling to the fact its a standard action all you want, that proves nothing.

The primary source of information, the text, tells you how to use it.

The table, tells you "in essence" how long it takes to do it

And even considering that action types are simply how long it takes to do it, whats so far fetched about sundering on an aoo? when it takes the same amount of time *as suggested by the action types description* as a melee attack.


----------



## bestone (Feb 22, 2007)

My side of the argument has quoted rules, game designers, published wizard articles, and other sources that agree with us.

Hyp's side of the argument is relying on the statement

You cant use the description for sunder, unless you have the action to make the standard action sunder.

I've asked for a rule to prove this staement, a quote, i get none

There is no rule that states that the rules written for something dont apply if that something is considered a standard action. There is no rule stating that you must be able to make a standard action, if something as labeled as such, for the rule to apply. i've never read anything of the like thats written that you get to ignore the rules on how to apply or use something becasue its listed as a type of action anyhwere.

You dont get to dis-regard the text as hyp claims, the text is the rule for sunder, it is the primary source of information on how to use sunder.

Thus, how can you possibly tell me, the rules as given under sunder, which we are all in agreeance with, dont apply, and expect me to take them as raw?

In my argument, i quote the rules, and say we go by whats ruled under sunder

You quote what? ...what rule? I've yet to see a rule quoted that as i've said many times now, that allows you to ignore, or not use sunder, as it is written.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Feb 22, 2007)

Since you don't seem to get it:
There are two ways to read the statement.
One way is to read it such that "melee attack" means an attack with a melee weapon, as opposed to a ranged weapon. This reading means Sunder takes a standard action, because the table supplements the text and gives an action type where the text is lacking.

The other way is to read it so that "melee attack" means you can use Sunder in lieu of another melee attack. This reading means Sunder is NOT a standard action.

The problem with the second reading is that it causes a contradiction where the first does not. Although the contradiction may be resolved with the use of the errata's primary source rule, you have to choose the reading which gives you a contradiction in the first place.

Quotes from anything other than the rules as written bear no weight in a purely rule-based discussion. It makes the RAI(Rules As Intended) very clear, but by no means is that necessarily what the rules say.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 22, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Have you even read all the posts written and not just skimmed over them? i think not
> 
> How does sunder being a standard action, change the rules written for it, or negate them in any way?




I've read them all, and gotten great delight over each new post of yours. Reading this thread is a gift that keeps giving. I've been chuckling for almost 35 straight minutes.

You continue to be wrong, your logic is atrocious, and Hypersmurf has the patience of a saint. A saint. I'd have been flaming you for 4 pages by now. Which is why I dont try and change peoples opinions, regardless of how wrong I think they are. How you play sunder in your game affects me not at all.

Hypersmurf has already made every relevant point, so I'm not going to say anything on the rules, but I will say that arguing semantics and rules with Hypersmurf is a generally poor idea. It doesn't make you look informed, and further, claiming his arguments are unsupported, or logically weak makes it appear you have no foundation in what logic is.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I draw quite a distinction between "In place of a melee attack" and "You can use a melee attack"... and Sunder says the second, not the first.




There might be a slight distinction between the two, but it is not explicit. Hence, it is not important. This is an *inference* you are making. Inferences do not count as rules.

The rules are not just for the rules lawyers to pick over each phrase and examine them under a microscope. That is what you are doing here (whether you realize it or not).

A good 8 people out of 10 might not even understand such a distinction unless it was explained to them. To most people, "use a melee attack to" and "used in place of a melee attack" are synonymous.

With that being the case, it is unlikely that the game designers meant such a fine line linguistical distinction there. 

Even if they originally did, since then they have written  a half dozen references into other sources that contradict your theory and support mine.

So, not only do we have the phrase "you can use a melee attack to" which contradicts "standard action" (i.e. not all melee attacks are standard actions, nor or all standard actions melee attacks, hence, the two phrase mean two different things), we also have multiple instances of Sunders being used in AoOs being backed up the WotC.

You do not have that, even with your linguistical razor's edge dissection of the text.

There really isn't any more rules to discuss TMK. I am using an explicit definition of Melee Attack. You are not.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is an *inference* you are making. Inferences do not count as rules.




An inference is a deduction, made from premises. Without making deductions about them, we cannot have any understanding of the rules at all. You are making deductions, too. You're simply making a different one, in this case, from Hyp.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 22, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Hyp's reasoning is more elegant in that regard and doesn't require any rules gymnastics to achieve an internally consistent result.




Which doesn't make it any more right. Designers and company representatives have spoken on this topic which should indicate what they meant, even if the rulebook is inconsistent or ambiguous. 
D&D, being a role-playing game, is always subject to house rules and specific gaming table understandings so anyone who wants to keep sundering from being an AoO may do so. And anyone who wants to follow the official interpretation (like the Living Greyhawk campaign) may do so as well.

It's also abundantly clear that nobody is going to be convinced either way via this thread. It's a feature of this particular forum that people generally dig in their heels based on their own interpretations, hard won through their own laborious rules exegesis, and don't budge.


----------



## Nail (Feb 22, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Reading this thread is a gift that keeps giving.



Indeed.

Thanks everyone!



			
				Seeten said:
			
		

> ...and Hypersmurf has the patience of a saint. A saint.



No kidding.....


----------



## Ranes (Feb 22, 2007)

> It's also abundantly clear that nobody is going to be convinced either way via this thread.




Not so. Unless I'm a nobody.


----------



## Nail (Feb 22, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It's a feature of this particular forum that people generally dig in their heels based on their own interpretations, hard won through their own laborious rules exegesis, and don't budge.



Not at all.

When I first came to this topic (several threads ago), I said "but of course a Sunder is a melee attack, and therefore can be used in an AoO!"

Then I read the discussion, and realized I was in error, according to RAW (I had assumed a melee attack was an action type - it's not).  

This sort of discussion is valuable and dynamic.  Sure, a few posters continue along inspite of evidence to the contrary...and everyone does what they like in their own games.  It's just really helpful to get the full interpretation of the rules.


----------



## SlagMortar (Feb 22, 2007)

> Except that your reasoning requires the assumption that there is a contradiction between the table and text (so that you can invoke a further piece from the DMG errata) - that is an additional two steps required in your argument, and therefore a substantial point against it as the simplest answer is most *likely* the right one.



Emphasis added by me.

If you look only at the player's handbook, then it is definitely more likely that the interpretation that results in no contradiction is the correct one.  I would ask how much more likely, maybe 70/30 or 80/20?  Heck, maybe even 99/1, meaning that if you read 100 different ambiguous rules then your method of analysis would result in the "rules as intended" answer 99% of the time.  Your method of rules analysis is generally sound and is more likely than not to arrive at the "rules as intended" answer.  

However, there is evidence outside the player's handbook that suggests the player's handbook contains an error and it should not have said standard action.  Even if your method provides the right answer 99% of the time, it will still be wrong 1% of the time.


----------



## Funkthis (Feb 22, 2007)

I complete agree with Nail.  I read these threads to try and gain a better understanding of the rules as many people on these boards either have far more time than I do to peruse the books or have better rules jujitsu than I do.

I think the problem for some people is that this is a rules forum.  RAW is far different from rules as intended.  Additionally bringing up FAQ or Sage or any other source will never convince some because well lets face it there are times when they blantantly contridict the rules.  Do I always play RAW?  Definately not.  Like any system of rules which are fairly complex there are always unintended loop holes, inconsistencies, and vagueness which any good DM will adjudicate when it comes up.

Ok...I'm off my soapbox.  When I started reading this thread (which at the time was mainly to see when the flaming would start) I was on the fence.  Now I see the argument clearly and tend to agree with Hyp.  Not going to argue the issue because I think this horse has been beat to death.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> True, but your #7 sentence does not state that.



I'm ok with you 'not getting it' (in fact, I assumed several people would not get any one particular point, that's why I included several). No need for debate.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

Ranes said:
			
		

> An inference is a deduction, made from premises. Without making deductions about them, we cannot have any understanding of the rules at all. You are making deductions, too. You're simply making a different one, in this case, from Hyp.



I believe if Hyp agreed with that statement then there would not be much of a debate.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 22, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Not at all.
> 
> When I first came to this topic (several threads ago), I said "but of course a Sunder is a melee attack, and therefore can be used in an AoO!"
> 
> ...




I, Like Nail, entered considering sunder a melee attack(about 5 sunder threads ago) and after reading Hypersmurf's case, now believe the raw interpretation is as he says it is. I continue to play sunder as a melee attack with footnote 7, and acknowledge thats house rules, but to each their own.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 22, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> I believe if Hyp agreed with that statement then there would not be much of a debate.




I don't see how that follows but I suspect Hyp will let us know what he believes.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

Ranes said:
			
		

> I don't see how that follows



It is clarified in an earlier post of mine.



> I suspect Hyp will let us know what he believes.



I believe he already did (in response to my earlier post).


----------



## Ranes (Feb 22, 2007)

I must have missed or forgotten it. Could you save me the trouble of re-reading the entire thread and point me to the post? Thanks.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> I'm ok with you 'not getting it' (in fact, I assumed several people would not get any one particular point, that's why I included several). No need for debate.




Quite frankly, this is insulting.

I understood your point to the level at which you wrote it. If there was a deeper meaning, you have yet to state it, so any miscommunications would be on your end.

I was not debating you. I was pointing out that what you wrote is not relevant without more information.

Don't assume that people do not understand you just because they disagree. And don't talk down to people. It makes you look like an ass.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> There might be a slight distinction between the two, but it is not explicit. Hence, it is not important. This is an *inference* you are making. Inferences do not count as rules.
> 
> A good 8 people out of 10 might not even understand such a distinction unless it was explained to them.




Well, the _explicit_ distinction I'm seeing is between
_*Standard*
Sunder a Weapon Yes_

and 
_*Action Type Varies*
Sunder a Weapon7 Yes_

I think 8 out of 10 people would have little trouble seeing the difference between those two, right?

Once that distinction is understood, the difference between "You can use a melee attack to..." meaning _Under what conditions you may Sunder_ and _By what means you carry out a Sunder_ is sharper.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 22, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> It is clarified in an earlier post of mine.
> 
> I believe he already did (in response to my earlier post).




If you're referring to your earlier post #122 and Hyp's response in #125, Hyp's response does not indicate that he would disagree with me that he is making a deduction or that Karinsdad is making a deduction. It would indicate that Hyp believes Karinsdad's deduction is in error.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Then I read the discussion, and realized I was in error, according to RAW (I had assumed a melee attack was an action type - it's not).




Precisely.

And neither are Special Attacks action types unless they themselves define themselves as such.

The fact that the table does not indicate that Armed Unarmed Strikes are an exception to the information within the table or that Bull Rush used as part of a Charge is an exception to the information within the table should indicate that the table is not infallable or totally accurate in all circumstances.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

Ranes said:
			
		

> I must have missed or forgotten it. Could you save me the trouble of re-reading the entire thread and point me to the post? Thanks.



Certainly:
I stated:
_"Is there anyone here that believes this issue is *not* subject to interpretation and debate?

Aren't clarifications from the FAQ, Sage advice, the RotG and other published rules articles (let alone all four at once, in agreement) normally useful for resolving such issues?"_

Hyp identified himself as such, saying "_I think there's only one reading_"


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Ranes said:
			
		

> If you're referring to your earlier post #122 and Hyp's response in #125, Hyp's response does not indicate that he would disagree with me that he is making a deduction or that Karinsdad is making a deduction. It would indicate that Hyp believes Karinsdad's deduction is in error.




Yes.

My deduction is that the phrase "Melee Attack" in the Sunder section means "Melee Attack" and not "Melee Attack as part of a Standard Action". That is an explicit deduction.

Hyps's deduction is that the phrase "Melee Attack" in the Sunder section means "Melee Attack as part of a Standard Action" and not "Melee Attack". That is an implicit deduction.

Mine is based on what is explicitly written in the relevant rules section. His is based on what is explicitly written in a table in a different section of the book, but is not explicitly written in the relevant rules section. According to the precedence rules, rules text takes priority over table text.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, this is insulting.



Historically, I have often had to explain things to you (often taking several tries), and you have been rude while I did so. I do not desire to continue doing so is all. I apologize if this seems insulting to you. Give me a different (more acceptable) way of stating this and I will endeavor to use it in the future.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 22, 2007)

Actually, part of Hyp's reasoning does draw attention to the wording of rules text. It is also Hyp's assertion that the precedence rules are only required where there is a contradiction and that there is none.

I've been persuaded by Hyp's line of reasoning. I understand yours but must beg to differ.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

Ranes said:
			
		

> If you're referring to your earlier post #122 and Hyp's response in #125, Hyp's response does not indicate that he would disagree with me that he is making a deduction or that Karinsdad is making a deduction. It would indicate that Hyp believes Karinsdad's deduction is in error.



If the matter is subject to inferences (as mentioned earlier), then that usually implies at least a small degree of uncertainty.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 22, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> If the matter is subject to inferences (as mentioned earlier), then that usually implies at least a small degree of uncertainty.




Usually. Not necessarily. In fact, not usually. Sometimes. Often, maybe...


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, the _explicit_ distinction I'm seeing is between
> _*Standard*
> Sunder a Weapon Yes_
> 
> ...




Sharper, but not intuitive.

I totally agree with you as to the intention of the table.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 22, 2007)

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.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 22, 2007)

> 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 (Feb 22, 2007)

> 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 (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 22, 2007)

atom crash said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 22, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 22, 2007)

> 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 (Feb 22, 2007)

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 (Feb 22, 2007)

atom crash said:
			
		

> 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).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 22, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> 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).




If they're right, it doesn't matter if there's one, or a hundred; all of them are right regardless of number.

If they're wrong, it doesn't matter if there's one, or a hundred; all of them are wrong regardless of number.

Thus, the volume of the stack of citations is irrelevant - if they all say them same thing, then they're either _all_ correct or _all_ incorrect, and all that matters is the reasoning they used to reach their conclusion.

If the reasoning is flawed, all of them are just as wrong as if there were only one.

-Hyp.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> 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.



As mentioned, that doesn't seem like a truism. Also note: it's not just Skip, but several other authors too (at least 4 or 5 mentioned so far). I have not yet found an author that clarified the issue in the other direction.


----------



## atom crash (Feb 22, 2007)

> Using that as evidence to support their invalidity seems like a circular argument (hence why I left it out).




My point is that they -- citations from sources other than the PHB -- should not be used to support either the validity or invalidity of the original argument. For reasons Hypersmurf sums up nicely above me.



> Also note: it not just Skip, but several other authors too (at least 4 or 5 mentioned so far).




Imagine that a scientist made some empirical observations about the movements of the sun, moon and other heavenly bodies as seen from earth and deduced that the universe actually circled around the earth. Then a bunch of other scientists used that geocentric model as the basis of their work in tracking the orbits of all objects through the starry expanse. This model held sway for hundreds of years. But just because it was the basis for scientific thought for so long for so many people doesn't make it correct.

Perhaps Skip published an inaccurate ruling. Then 4 or 5 other authors repeated it in their work. Is it now more or less true than when Skip wrote it?

I'm not necessarily saying this is the case. I'm merely pointing out that it is perfectly feasible that this could be the case. And just because 4 or 5 people repeat something doesn't make it more true. Perhaps no one has made a clarification to the contrary because, I don't know, they feel the rule is clear enough as written.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> the volume of the stack of citations is irrelevant - if they all say them same thing



Your post seems to be contesting my _earlier_ post, rather than the one you were quoting. As mentioned, it is relevant to _me_ (and _possibly_ to atom crash as well, since he said "_I'm not saying that sheer volume has no weight_" after I restated his earlier statement).


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

atom crash said:
			
		

> My point is that they -- citations from sources other than the PHB -- should not be used to support either the validity or invalidity of the original argument.



That is your assertion, but not everyone’s. On that we may have to agree to disagree.


----------



## atom crash (Feb 22, 2007)

> (and possibly to atom crash as well, since he said "I'm not saying that sheer volume has no weight" after I restated his earlier statement).




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

But that's neither here or there.

While I was editing post #253, several people posted, so let me re-direct your attention briefly back to that post. Thanks.


----------



## atom crash (Feb 22, 2007)

Let me take a moment, *mvincent*, to assure you that I don’t intend to imply that you’re intentionally trying to twist my words. I hope I don’t seem too defensive or overly sensitive to criticism. On the contrary. I’m merely concerned that partial quotes may muddy the waters of what we’re really saying here.

I consider our exchange here to be both civil and informative, and I hope you feel the same way (on that, at least).

Now back to our regularly scheduled rules debate.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 22, 2007)

I do not understand this idea that rules are like scientific questions.  That it's all precise, that it's a yes or no at every level, and that it is purely objective.

That seems to be to be a wierd way to look at rules.  In the law, where even life and death can be on the line, they are still not as rigid as you guys are making these rules sound (and intent of the authors, and debate at the time of the law, and reasonability, all play a factor).  And if that field isn't as rigid, I would think rules for a role playing game certainly are not.

The intent of the author is relevant.  The opinion of the company that writes the rules is relevant.  The ramifications of various rules decisions are relevant.  It's not just this thing in a vacuum lab or machine that registers either on or off.  These rules have a context, and that context extends to the people who wrote them, and who work for the company that wrote them.

It should matter to everyone what the full context, including the people, say regarding this rule.  Because the goal should be to formulate the best intepretation of the rule, not the most pure intepretation.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Feb 22, 2007)

...Flavor text does not replace the mechanic? From what Ive seen and read, what beltone's argument is based on is flavor text and not a mechanic in the game.

---Rusty


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Perhaps Skip published an inaccurate ruling. Then 4 or 5 other authors repeated it in their work. Is it now more or less true than when Skip wrote it?



1) In regard to game rules (i.e. an artificial system created by authors and players) I believe it would technically be more true by repetition. 
2) That aside, there is also the fact that having more eyes on a ruling increases the likelihood that any errors would be noticed (note: my career is in software quality assurance, so this concept is near and dear to me).
3) Thirdly, it becomes not just Skip's error (i.e. some have implied, to support their point, that it is just Skip making an error). 
4) Lastly, in regard to establishing whether something can _reasonably_ be interpreted in a different way, I feel weight of numbers has some bearing.


----------



## mvincent (Feb 22, 2007)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Let me take a moment, *mvincent*, to assure you that I don’t intend to imply that you’re intentionally trying to twist my words.



No worries. I did not infer that, and I'm glad you don't feel that way. By restating your statements in a different way, I hope to clarify either my and/or your understanding of the statements (I believe this has accomplished both so far, but I'm not positive).


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 22, 2007)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> ...Flavor text does not replace the mechanic? From what Ive seen and read, what beltone's argument is based on is flavor text and not a mechanic in the game.
> 
> ---Rusty




If a mechanic is vague, and there are two different reasonable interpretations of the mechanic, you should look to everything that could help you figure out what it was supposed to mean.  Flavor text, FAQ, Rules of the Game, Dragon Magazine, an interview with the author, analogies to other rules, logic, playability, a customer service answer, whatever is helpful in getting to what WOTC meant by what was written.


----------



## atom crash (Feb 22, 2007)

> 1) In regard to game rules (i.e. an artificial system created by authors and players) I believe it would technically be more true by repetition.




I believe that an error is an error, regardless of how many times it's repeated. You're right, we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. 



> 2) That aside, there is also the fact that having more eyes on a ruling increases the likelihood that any errors would be noticed (note: my career is in software quality assurance, so this concept is near and dear to me).




Excellent point. I used to be a newspaper copy editor, so I know how it goes.



> 3) Thirdly, it becomes not just Skip's error (i.e. some have implied, to support their point, that it is just Skip making an error).




True, but consider also that it is possible that such a ruling might be scrutinized less by someone who views Skip as a credible source for rules interpretations. His name is on the D&D rulebooks, after all. That holds a lot of weight with many people. I just try to remember that he is also human, and therefore capable of making mistakes, but not necessarily any more or less frequently than other people. 



> 4) Lastly, in regard to establishing whether something can reasonably be interpreted in a different way, I feel weight of numbers has some bearing.




Again, we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. 

You know, if I was Skip Williams, I'd hate to read the rules forum here some days. Sorry, Skip.


----------



## demadog (Feb 22, 2007)

Hi everyone,

Sorry to come late, but I've enjoyed the debate and had a sincere question.

Where does it say that an AoO cannot be a standard action?  It says that its a single melee attack, but it doesn't seem to limit that melee attack to a non-standard action.  There seems to be some discussion around footnote 7 that may clear this up for me.  Any help would be appricaited.

Thanks.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 22, 2007)

demadog said:
			
		

> Where does it say that an AoO cannot be a standard action?




First, an AoO is not an action at all.  By definition, actions (all types) are things that only take place on your turn.

Second, an AoO is explicity defined as "a single melee attack" in the SRD, Combat 1 section.


----------



## Nail (Feb 22, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> 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?



'Cause that would take all the fun out of it?  

Seriously: "Figuring it out using the text, rather assertions or house rules" is kinda fun.  I least for me.


----------



## Nail (Feb 22, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If a mechanic is vague, and there are two different reasonable interpretations of the mechanic, you should look to everything that could help you figure out what it was supposed to mean...



Or you could side-step the "supposed meaning" entirely.  Perhaps by answering the question: "What does the RAW say?"  In this case, that approach works fine.


----------



## Nail (Feb 22, 2007)

Sithobi1 said:
			
		

> You don't...really think this article is going to solve everyone's problems, do you?



I think now is an appropriate time to quote post #2 from this thread.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> ...Flavor text does not replace the mechanic? From what Ive seen and read, what beltone's argument is based on is flavor text and not a mechanic in the game.




Melee Attacks are now flavor text?


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 22, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Or you could side-step the "supposed meaning" entirely.  Perhaps by answering the question: "What does the RAW say?"  In this case, that approach works fine.




Agreed. RAW states that it is a Melee Attack.

A table states that it is a Standard Action.


----------



## Nail (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Agreed. RAW states that it is a Melee Attack.
> 
> A table states that it is a Standard Action.



An Attack (melee) is a standard action. 

A melee attack may be part of any number of actions.  A Warblade's Recharge Action, for instance.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 22, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 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.




Yes, I agree with you here.  It _should_ work that way IMHO.  I would still play it that way (call it a house rule if you will).  It's just that, for me, the RAW (from just the PHB) doesn't point me to that conclussion unless I exclude the Table.

When you want to Sunder, _you can use a melee attack with..._
All this tells us is they type of attack we can use.  It is a melee attack.  It isn't a ranged attack.  It isn't a melee touch attack.
We still do not know what type of ACTION it is, however.  To assume that we can perform Sunder with ANY melee attack we have available, is just that, an assumption.
The text does not say the Action Type.
The table does say the Action Type.  It is a Standard Action.
Once again, my little chart:

*Special Attack*: Sunder
*Attack Type*: a melee attack
*Action Type*: Sunder

Using the text and the table satisifies all of these.  Ignorning the table, does not.  We are left with:

*Action Type*: ???

and left to assume...

Let me pose this question... Forget about Sunder for a moment.  Let's look a Disarm.  Let's also IGNORE the Table.  Forget the Table is even there.  There is no Table...

Using just the text of Disarm, prove to me 2 things:

1) Tell me what Action Type Disarm is (if any)

2) Quote me anywhere (in the PHB) that states you can attempt to Disarm *anytime* you are eligible for a melee attack.  If you can't find a quote (something along the lines of "This attack substitute for a melee attack" or "You can use this anytime you make a melee attack")  If you can not find such a quote, are you not making a wide assumption here?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 23, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> No worries. I did not infer that, and I'm glad you don't feel that way. By restating your statements in a different way, I hope to clarify either my and/or your understanding of the statements (I believe this has accomplished both so far, but I'm not positive).




Do you two want to get a room?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 23, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Agreed. RAW states that it is a Melee Attack.
> 
> A table states that it is a Standard Action.




Tables aren't RAW?

I am assuming you were being facious...  ficticious...  you know what I am trying to spell...


----------



## mvincent (Feb 23, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> 2) Quote me anywhere (in the PHB) that states you can attempt to Disarm *anytime* you are eligible for a melee attack.



Are you saying that you believe sunders and disarms cannot (for instance) be used in a grapple?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Are you saying that you believe sunders and disarms cannot (for instance) be used in a grapple?




Note his question is based on the hypothetical premise that Table 8-2 - and, by extension, footnote 7 - does not exist.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

I have a question from you hype, i've asked it a few times, but i really want an awnser. As to me the awnser to this question makes or breaks your argument

You have stated (and i can quote if you like) that unless you take the standard aciton sunder, the text doesnt apply.

I ask you, where is there a rule written, anywhere that states that unless you have the action type listed in the table free to perform the aciton, that you can not use it in any other way, even if the text of that action would suggest, or state that it can in fact be used in a way that wouldnt be, in itself, a standard action.

Your using an assumption that you have to be able to perform the standard action sunder for its rule to apply. Im saying you have no rules basis to make this assumption, if the rule for a special attack states it can be used a certain time. Then regardless of whether that special attack counts as a standard action or not, you can use that rule how its stated in its text.

PLEASE! show me a rule of proof?

Alll you have provided is a rule stating that the type of action only determines how long it takes to perform.

Back up your statement

Edit, again, my question Where does it state anywhere, that you can ignore the text of a standard action, even if that text would give you anoter means to use it, even if that means wasnt considered a standard action.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> You have stated (and i can quote if you like) that unless you take the standard aciton sunder, the text doesnt apply.




That's how actions work!

If you want to load your crossbow, and it's a move action, you need to use a move action to load your crossbow!

If you want to perform a coup de grace, and it's a full round action, you need to use a full round action to perform a coup de grace!

Actions are given types so that we know what type of action we need to use to perform them!

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's how actions work!
> 
> If you want to load your crossbow, and it's a move action, you need to use a move action to load your crossbow!
> 
> ...




Quote a rule on this, you can tell me thats how it works

Sunder is a special attack, not an action type, it may have an action type, but it is not an action type. 

As far as i know, you read the rules for sunder, they tell you how to apply them. The table may list it as a standard action. And you can use it as a standard action, but why would that eliminate any text that would tell you that you can use it otherwise.?



Supernatural abilities are standard actions, yet under some abilities it will say they can be used as free actions. Do you have to have the standard action to use a supernatural ability that requires one, for the text that allows it to be a free action to come into play? no
why? because if the text gives it another means to be used, other than the action listed in your table, then you can use it as it is ruled in the said text. 

So Please, quote me a rule that states unless you can make that action, then the text of that special attack *not action, special attack, sunder isnt an action* doesnt apply.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Sunder is not a standard action, its a special attack, that when performed counts as a standard action.

By your non-awnsering, can i assume that you cant prove this? That you have no rule? i have looked myself, i dont see one.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Tables aren't RAW?
> 
> I am assuming you were being facious...  ficticious...  you know what I am trying to spell...




Not as RAW as the applicable rules text.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

If you cant prove that claim hyp, you realize this argument goes downhill for you


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> An Attack (melee) is a standard action.
> 
> A melee attack may be part of any number of actions.  A Warblade's Recharge Action, for instance.




Precisely.

A melee attack can even be part of the non-action Attack of Opportunity.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Unless there is a rule that explicitly states you may ignore the text of a special attack if you dont have the action free of the type that when that special attack is used, it counts as.

The it doesnt matter if sunderING is a standard action or not.

And since you have agree'd that without the table listing it as a standard action, you'd agree with our pov on how the text is worded.

And the fact that the tables listing becomes irrelevant.

You now have no argument


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Karinsdad please refer to post # 280 and #279, do you agree with me on this? i would appreciate your input here


----------



## hong (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Karinsdad please refer to post # 280 and #279, do you agree with me on this? i would appreciate your input here



 You know d00d, I seem to recall, in the mists of time, you saying that you were done with this thread. Twice, even.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Well this thread is going to come to an end right now

Either hyp provides the rules now needed to backup his claim, or his claim is falsified

However, if he manages to find said rule, I can only wholeheardtedly agree with his pov, as no other deductions could be made from that situation.

Edit - Your table furthers this point, The table doesnt list sunder AS a standard action. It lists taking an action to sunder in combat is considered a standard action.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Karinsdad please refer to post # 280 and #279, do you agree with me on this? i would appreciate your input here




I agree with Hyp on that point.

Any game element which is specified as an action counts as an action.

Sometimes, the only place in the rules where a specific action is listed is within Table 8-2. For example, I suspect that the only rule for "Extinguish flames" might be within that table.

However, I disagree with him that Sunder is an action. It is explicitly specified as a melee attack in the rules text on Sunder.

Table 8-2 disagrees with this, but then again, the Table disagrees with several rules and takes a back seat to the actual Unarmed Attack, Bull Rush, and Sunder rules.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> As far as i know, you read the rules for sunder, they tell you how to apply them. The table may list it as a standard action. And you can use it as a standard action, but why would that eliminate any text that would tell you that you can use it otherwise.?




If Sunder replaced any melee attack, there would not be a standard action entry for Sunder on the table, because you would never take a Sunder action.  If you had a standard action available and wished to Sunder, you would take the Attack action.  If you wanted to move in a straight line and Sunder, you would take the Charge action.  If you wanted to Sunder multiple times in a round, or combine a Sunder with other attacks, you would take the Full Attack action.  You would never take a Sunder action, so the action would not exist and would not appear on the table.  Further, in this case, the usage of Sunder would be identical to Disarm, Trip, and Grapple; it would appear with those special attacks as Action Type: Varies, and bear footnote 7.

Since the Sunder standard action (which would never be used if Sunder replaced any melee attack) exists, and since it does not bear footnote 7 (as it would if Sunder replaced any melee attack), the only conclusion I can draw is that Sunder does not replace any melee attack.

The text still applies; however, the phrase "You may use a melee attack to..." does not mean "In place of any melee attack from any source, you may..."

The _existence_ of the Sunder standard action on the table tells me that that reading of the phrase is incorrect.  I'm not ignoring the text; I'm just taking note that it doesn't mean what you think it does.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> The table doesnt list sunder AS a standard action. It lists taking an action to sunder in combat is considered a standard action.




This paragraph reminds me of the FAQ answer that explains that "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" _really means_ "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, _except_ when the monk chooses to strike unarmed _as an off-hand attack_"...

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> This paragraph reminds me of the FAQ answer that explains that "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" _really means_ "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, _except_ when the monk chooses to strike unarmed _as an off-hand attack_"...
> 
> -Hyp.




You've still yet to prove to me, how it being a standard action allows you to disregard any other mode of using the attack, if that text of the attack gives you such a way to use it.

If you cant quote a rule on this, then your wrong on it, as far as im concerned


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If Sunder replaced any melee attack, there would not be a standard action entry for Sunder on the table, because you would never take a Sunder action.  If you had a standard action available and wished to Sunder, you would take the Attack action.  If you wanted to move in a straight line and Sunder, you would take the Charge action.  If you wanted to Sunder multiple times in a round, or combine a Sunder with other attacks, you would take the Full Attack action.  You would never take a Sunder action, so the action would not exist and would not appear on the table.  Further, in this case, the usage of Sunder would be identical to Disarm, Trip, and Grapple; it would appear with those special attacks as Action Type: Varies, and bear footnote 7.
> 
> Since the Sunder standard action (which would never be used if Sunder replaced any melee attack) exists, and since it does not bear footnote 7 (as it would if Sunder replaced any melee attack), the only conclusion I can draw is that Sunder does not replace any melee attack.
> 
> ...




This is all assumption, if proves nothing. You've still yet to quote a rule stating that you ignore the text of a special attack and any way that that text might allow you to deliver it. Sure you can argue that the text listed under sunder is unclear. But thats different than what im asking you

Lets say sunder is a standard action, How would that in any way tell you that you can ignore the rules laid forth for using it in the rulebook? you CAN NOT tell me that


Where is your rules proof?

You are making assumptions on what you read

What rule states that claim


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

I also want you to tell me, why then, can you use supernatural abilities as thier text denotes, EVEN THOUGH they are listed as a standard action.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Lets say sunder is a standard action, How would that in any way tell you that you can ignore the rules laid forth for using it in the rulebook?




I'm not ignoring the rules laid forth.  I'm applying exactly the same sentence you are.  I'm just getting a result that's consistent with the table, instead of a result that necessitates the table being wrong.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 23, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> You know d00d, I seem to recall, in the mists of time, you saying that you were done with this thread. Twice, even.




Yeah but you didn't believe that the first time you read it, did you? This thread doesn't seem to have a sell-by date, however prophetically titled it may have been.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> You've still yet to quote a rule stating that you ignore the text...




Why do you persist in accusing Hyp of ignoring the text? He has repeatedly pointed out that - 



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm not ignoring the text...


----------



## Elethiomel (Feb 23, 2007)

Please, bestone. Hypersmurf has explained his reasoning. This thread is starting to sound like a broken record. Anyone who is in doubt about Sunder can examine the thread and will find no new arguments from either side for the last several pages.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

> The text still applies; however, the phrase "You may use a melee attack to..." does not mean "In place of any melee attack from any source, you may..."




No it doesnt, and now your contradicting yourself, you stated before without the table you'd agree. Unless you quote a rule, which you are so cleverly trying to avoid doing. You ARE WRONG. you have no rules to back you up.

Now if the table is irrelevant, you are still saying you dont agree?

No, you can use a melee attack to, does not mean in place of any melee attack. That would be adding words.

Define the sentence You can use a melee attack to for me?

You (the character) can (have the option to) use a melee attack (whether it is the standard action melee attack, or simply a melee attack meaning a close combat attack) to ....

Aoo states you may make a melee attack.

How is one form of melee attack different from the other, neither states use the action melee attack. Neither states The other definition either. But both use the same wording. "melee attack"


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Hyp, you cant quote a rule to support your claim, you are wrong, enough said.

The claim NOT being sunder can be used as an aoo.

The claim being that you can in any way, ignore the text of a special attack. And when you do find that, then you can explain to me why supernatural abilities is not broken.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Hyp, you cant quote a rule to support your claim, you are wrong, enough said.




Finally settled then.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> The claim NOT being sunder can be used as an aoo.
> 
> The claim being that you can in any way, ignore the text of a special attack.




Or not!


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Whatver you say, you can agree with him all you want, i keep asking him to show rules from a book that supports his claim. He keps TELLING me how he interprets to work, but never once quotes an official source. IF you can actually quote rules that back up your claim. Like i said, i'll agree with you.

But i dont want you to just tell me how it works.

Prove with rules please


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> I also want you to tell me, why then, can you use supernatural abilities as thier text denotes, EVEN THOUGH they are listed as a standard action.




This is the same as the Attack action.

The Attack action is a standard action.  If I take the Attack action, I can make a single attack.

However, not all attacks are made as part of the Attack action.

The Use Supernatural Ability action is a standard action.  For a supernatural ability that takes a standard action to activate, the action you use is the Use Supernatural Ability action... much as casting a spell with a one action casting time uses the Cast a Spell standard action, but casting a spell with a one round casting time uses the Cast a Spell full round action.  For a supernatural ability that doesn't take a standard action to activate, as defined in the ability description, you wouldn't use the Use Supernatural Ability standard action.

Like the Bull Rush standard action, which is used for a stand-alone Bull Rush, but not for a Bull Rush made as part of a charge.  The Use Supernatural Ability standard action exists and is used sometimes, but not all supernatural abilities use the Use Supernatural Ability standard action.

But if Sunder replaces any melee attack, then the Sunder standard action would _never be used_, and thus would not exist or appear on the table; you'd use the Attack standard action instead.  And Sunder would appear with the other special attacks under Action Type: Varies and carry footnote 7.

Sunder and Use Supernatural Ability are not equivalent in this case.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Sunder and Use Supernatural Ability are not equivalent in this case.
> 
> -Hyp.




I can quote the rules, attacks that dont list an action  type are considered standard actions.

Edit- Supernatural abilities that dont list an action type, sorry, my bad.

A supernatural ability, by that table, and that rule, that doesnt list an action type. Is then considered a standard action, is it not?

Since it is, A supernatural ability that states "any melee attack made by the creature is increased by blah blah"

By your logic, would be irrelevant, no? you'd have to take the standard action  ( supernatural ability) to activate them, even tho they may be constant effects


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> No it doesnt, and now your contradicting yourself, you stated before without the table you'd agree.




Good grief!  I'm not contradicting myself.  I said that without the table I'd agree, but _the table exists_, so there _is_ no 'without the table', and therefore I don't agree.

1. If the table didn't exist, I would agree.
2. If the table exists, I would not agree.
3. The table exists.

I do not agree; _this is not contradicting myself_.  This is the logical consequence of the three statements.



> Now if the table is irrelevant, you are still saying you dont agree?




The table isn't irrelevant!



> Define the sentence You can use a melee attack to for me?




Given that the table defines Sunder as a standard action and doesn't give it footnote 7?

The sentence means "When you take the Sunder standard action, the form the resolution of the special attack takes is a melee attack".

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> A supernatural ability, by that table, and that rule, that doesnt list an action type. Is then considered a standard action, is it not?




Sure.



> Since it is, A supernatural ability that states "any melee attack made by the creature is increased by blah blah"
> 
> By your logic, would be irrelevant, no? you'd have to take the standard action  ( supernatural ability) to activate them, even tho they may be constant effects




Does it list a duration?  If not, you'd spend a standard action once to activate it, and it would last forever.  Where's the problem?

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

I give you a very easy way to convince me your argument is true, im not saying that i disgaree with your point of view even, im saying for me it comes down to. Do the rules state what you claim? If the rules state what you claim then what you claim is true. So please, end this, state the rule that supports your claim, and end this.

Your claim being you can ignore the text of a special attack unless you have the action listed in the table to use it. Even if the text of that special attack would give you another option on how to use that attack.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Sure, except i can quote you a few that state they are always in effect. And dont list duration. IT never says once you have to use a standard action to activate it, the text of it tells you how it works.

Or are you honestly telling me a fang golem has to activate the supernatural ability where its spiky, and any melee attack that it makes has its special effect? This doesnt even make sense.

Again, where is your rules proof?

Stop telling me how things work, and pull rules stating how they work


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> IT never says once you have to use a standard action to activate it...




It doesn't have to - it's defined elsewhere for you.

_Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability's description)._

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Now your just being silly

And you know your wrong, dont even pretend otherwise

The abilities description states how it can be used, it can be used that way.

State your rule where you deduce that you in any way can ignore the text of that.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Now your just being silly




Hmm?  You say "Show me a rule".  I show you the rule.  You insult me.

That's the rule that says unless the ability states otherwise, using a Su ability is a standard action.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Its admirable you are sticking to your guns, but you have no rules proof to support your claim.

And untill you provide such proof, I am going to consider you wrong.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> And untill you provide such proof, I am going to consider you wrong.




Not a problem - I've been considering you wrong for eight pages.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Now your dodging again, .

Show me a rule anywhere that supports your claim that you can ignore the text rule of anything if you cant take the action it is listed on the table as. EVEN IF that text would give you another option for which to use that attack, than the action listed on that table..

You TELL ME your proof, you dont quote one rules source.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Im starting to suspect you know you cant quote a rules source, thus arent doing it. Your sticking to your assumption of how things work. And since you cant provide a rules source to support your claim, how can you tell me im incorrect?

Even a misinterpretation of a rule would be more proof then being unable to provide any rule to support your claim at all.


----------



## hong (Feb 23, 2007)

People, people, please! Why can't we all live together in peace and harmony?


----------



## Ranes (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Show me a rule anywhere that supports your claim that you can ignore the text rule of anything if you cant take the action it is listed on the table as.




I'm sorry. I'm not baiting. I don't understand how you can keep making this utterly fallacious assertion. Not once has Hyp claimed that you ignore anything.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

> On the other hand, if you aren't taking the Sunder standard action, the text found in the description of said action is irrelevant; if you aren't taking the Sunder standard action, you can't use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeonig weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.




Thats the claim i want him to prove

Where in the rule books, does it state, that unless you are taking a standard action to use sunder, the text stated under the special attack is irrelevant. 

This would mean that, even if sunder gave you an option to use it as something other than a standard action, unless you are using it as a standard action, that text is irrelevant.

I want him to prove this claim

He has agree'd that without the table, he'd agree with my pov on sunder

I say that You never ignore the text of the special attack, because it tells you how you can use that attack.

He states you cant use that text in a certain circumstance, i want him to quote a rule on this (and as you can see, if he manages to do this, it would destroy my position, would it not)


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

You can Fault me all you want for asking for a quote from a rule that proves this, but i dont think that im not within the right to ask for it.

He's making a claim, i want a quoted rules proof that backs that up.

If he can quote that rule, i dont have a leg to stand on, and i admit it

If he cant, then i feel he has no argument, as it then proves the type of action sunder is doesnt matter, because the text would give it a function that could be used as something other than a standard action "and he agreed that without the table this would be true"


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Am i wrong to want a quote from the rules as proof on his point of view? Heck i've even admitted that when he does this, if its as he says in the rules and can prove it. It will decimate my argument, why hasnt he done it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Thats the claim i want him to prove




It's what I used the Wish example for.

The text of the Wish spell says that by simply speaking aloud, I can alter reality.  Speaking aloud is a free action - does that mean that instead of casting the spell, I can instead take the free action to speak aloud and thereby alter reality?

Or does that line only apply _if I actually cast the Wish spell_?

The text of the Sunder action says that I can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.  Does that mean that instead of taking the action, I can instead use _any_ melee attack to strike a weapon?

Or does that line only apply _if I actually take the Sunder action_?

Remember, if the text contradicted the table, then per the text-over-table precedence, I would consider the table in error.  If the text said "In place of a melee attack (for example, during the attack action or charge action), you may instead strike an opponent's weapon or shield", the table entry would be wrong.

But the text doesn't say that, and the text can be read such that the table is not wrong.

So I do, because to do otherwise requires assuming an error exists.

(Note - I'm not contradicting myself here.  Saying "If X, then I would consider the table in error" is not a contradiction of "I do not consider the table in error", because X is false.)

(Just noting that one in advance.)

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

i dont want an example, i want a rule that states this


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> i dont want an example, i want a rule that states this




So if you can't find one, does the text of Wish provide an alternate route for altering reality, other than casting the spell?

-Hyp.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 23, 2007)

But he HAS proved his claim, at least 40 times so far.

You on the other hand, have not only not proved your claim, you've driven people over to Hypersmurf's side.

But keep going, I'm still chuckling from this morning, and your post count is going up.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

You think he has proven his claim

I need rules proof. I dont think thats illogical?



> So if you can't find one, does the text of Wish provide an alternate route for altering reality, other than casting the spell?




No, i never said that, And it wouldnt be me that needs to find one, you need to find one to prove your claim.

At least under spells there is a noting on the descriptive text

Quoted - This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works.

This is a portion of the spell. You need to cast the spell to have this part of the spell take effect. -- I see where you derrive your logic, and im not saying its wrong

I just want to know how you use rules to justify the way this works for standard actions, and not spells.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Feb 23, 2007)

This is a portion of the [special attack]. You need to [use the special attack] to have this part of the [special attack] take effect.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> But he HAS proved his claim, at least 40 times so far.
> 
> You on the other hand, have not only not proved your claim, you've driven people over to Hypersmurf's side.
> 
> But keep going, I'm still chuckling from this morning, and your post count is going up.




Thank you, at the very least, if i've driven people to hyp's side then this issue is being slowly resolved is it not?

By having this long debate, people who might not have previously agree'd are now doing so.

And thank you for laughing at me, i know you dont agree with my pov, or my logic, or my opinions, and your statement just makes me feel oh so gooey right now.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Sithobi1 said:
			
		

> This is a portion of the [special attack]. You need to [use the special attack] to have this part of the [special attack] take effect.




Where does it state this in the rulebook, page # please?

If this was as written, i have no argument


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

jeesh, you all attack me, and make statements on how things work

But not a one of you has quoted an actual rule to prove your pov.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Look, i obviously cant win with you guys.

You are too stubborn to admit you cant find a rule that proves your claim.

You do make assumptions on how you think it works, but dont provide a rule.

When you provide a rule i will agree with you.

Untill you provide a rule, i wont say that your wrong, but i dont agree that your right

(this may be in contrary to a previous post, but i've had my mind changed on the subject)

This matter will remain unresolved with me, you will not have convinced me that you've actually made a point with rules proof that states your pov.

The simple fact of you quoting no rules to back you up, whether or not i believe your
pov to be true, adds discredit to your pov.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 23, 2007)

The funniest part is, I dont need you to agree with me.

Dammit, _______. Not everyone believes what you believe.
_______: My beliefs do not require them to. 

Bonus points for the quote.

My game doesnt change based on what you, or anyone else on this thread believes, nor do I find it earthshattering if played either way. The rules need to be understood, before specific citations make sense.

And last, I never said I was laughing at you. I've been laughing at this entire thread. As though the 34th thread on sunder was gonna go someplace new? LOL.


----------



## demadog (Feb 23, 2007)

The table is correct.  Sunder is a standard action, but that in no way precludes it from being used as an AoO.  The rules for AoOs do not say say that they are not standard actions, only that it can be used as a single melee attack.  In fact, a single melee attack is in itself a standard action.  So in effect, an AoO gives a standard action (perhaps more than one to those with combat reflexes), but that action is limited to a single melee attack.  Sunder is a sinlge melee attack, wether its a standard action or not is irrelevent.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 23, 2007)

demadog said:
			
		

> The table is correct.  Sunder is a standard action, but that in no way precludes it from being used as an AoO.  The rules for AoOs do not say say that they are not standard actions, only that it can be used as a single melee attack.  In fact, a single melee attack is in itself a standard action.  So in effect, an AoO gives a standard action (perhaps more than one to those with combat expertise), but that action is limited to a single melee attack.  Sunder is a sinlge melee attack, wether its a standard action or not is irrelevent.




Awesome! I can now cast spells as an AoO! Great rules work.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Awesome! I can now cast spells as an AoO! Great rules work.




I love how you just ignore the fact that he says limited too to make a snarky comment


----------



## demadog (Feb 23, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Awesome! I can now cast spells as an AoO! Great rules work.




If your spell is a single melee attack, then by all means.


----------



## atom crash (Feb 23, 2007)

> Action Types
> An action’s type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, swift actions, and immediate actions.
> 
> In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.




If this doesn't mean I need to have a standard action available in order to take a standard action, then what does it mean? 

If I don't have a standard action available, how many standard actions can I take in a round?


----------



## demadog (Feb 23, 2007)

atom crash said:
			
		

> If this doesn't mean I need to have a standard action available in order to take a standard action, then what does it mean?
> 
> If I don't have a standard action available, how many standard actions can I take in a round?




As the text denotes, AoOs break the flow of the combat round.  They are an attempt to inject real-time actions into a turn based game.  When its a characters turn they need to be concerned with how many standard actions they have available, but when its not their turn they can actually manage quite a few of what be considered standard actions during their turn.  That is, if they have a high dex, combat reflexes (expertise edited out thanks rystil), and most importantly those actions are limited to single melee attacks.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Feb 23, 2007)

You mean Reflexes?


----------



## Felix (Feb 23, 2007)

I'm just going to note two things:

The title of this thread.
The page count of this thread.​
I love the smell of irony in the morning.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Well i wouldnt have claimed that, if i knew that articles by game designers posted the wizards site meant nothing.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

demadog said:
			
		

> In fact, a single melee attack is in itself a standard action.




When made as part of a full attack action, it is not a standard action; it is part of a full round action.

When made as part of a charge action, it is not a standard action; it is part of a full round action.

When made as an AoO, it is not a standard action; it is not an action at all.

Making a single melee attack takes a standard action if you're taking the Attack action; it's not inherent in the nature of a melee attack.

-Hyp.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Where does it state this in the rulebook, page # please?
> 
> If this was as written, i have no argument



Your own words.


			
				bestone said:
			
		

> This is a portion of the spell. You need to cast the spell to have this part of the spell take effect.





			
				Sithobi1 said:
			
		

> This is a portion of the [special attack]. You need to [use the special attack] to have this part of the [special attack] take effect.


----------



## Felix (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Well i wouldnt have claimed that, if i knew that articles by game designers posted the wizards site meant nothing.



I am perhaps overly fond of citing the difference between the questions "what are the rules?" and "what should the rules be?". When articles on the wizards boards cite designer opinion, they should not necessarily be construed as answering the first question rather than the second.

The rules forum here is a big fan of the primary source rule, so many prefer to see what's written in the language of the text instead of the language of articles. I read the first two pages of this thread when you began it and returned to see it having grown to 9 pages; Hyp is generally very good about citing his rules in the text, and if memory serves, his text-based answer will be found in the first two pages.

One wrinkle is that Hyp is fond of the socratic method of DnD rules, so that may frustrate those with a less encyclopedic knowledge of the PHB. He is rarely, if ever, ungrounded.


----------



## demadog (Feb 23, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> When made as part of a full attack action, it is not a standard action; it is part of a full round action.
> 
> When made as part of a charge action, it is not a standard action; it is part of a full round action.
> 
> ...




Quite right, poor wording on my part.  A single melee attack takes a standard action, not is a standard action.  But the point remains, wether sunder is a standard action or not is irrelevent.  The table is correct, the text is correct.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2007)

demadog said:
			
		

> The table is correct.  Sunder is a standard action, but that in no way precludes it from being used as an AoO.  The rules for AoOs do not say say that they are not standard actions, only that it can be used as a single melee attack.  In fact, a single melee attack is in itself a standard action.  So in effect, an AoO gives a standard action (perhaps more than one to those with combat expertise), but that action is limited to a single melee attack.  Sunder is a sinlge melee attack, wether its a standard action or not is irrelevent.




As ludicrous as this claim sounds, there is some rules support for it.



> When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of *actions. (For exceptions*, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)






> attack: Any of numerous *actions* intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.






> Making *an attack* is a standard *action*.
> 
> Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately for demadog, there is also rules support against his theory:



> These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, *not an action*. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or *even* as an attack of opportunity.






> In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, *or* you can perform a full-round action.




AoOs interrupt the normal flow of actions, but nothing in them states that if one uses them, the round becomes abnormal.


This is an interesting theory though. I would have never considered an AoO to be an action. I considered it a non-action, like making a saving throw.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Making an attack is a standard action.




I've always considered this line to be true, in the context in which it is found; that is, the line appears in the description of the standard action, Attack; within that context, making an attack _is_ a standard action.

If the same line appeared in the text of the full round action, Full Attack, it would be perplexing.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Deleted


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> When articles on the wizards boards cite designer opinion




I agree with your post for the most part, but Its not suggested by the designer that its his opinon. Infact its stated under one article as "rules of the game". I figured, like i said, that a deisgner stating that this is how the rule of the game would be suitable proof. And on top of that the fact that it was stated multiple times.

But it has been shown that  it could obviously, possibly be incorrect, that his thinking of how the rule works, may not be actually how the rule works.

My assumption that an article posted by a designer of the game, under something that had a header "rules of the game" is proof seems to be wrong.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> I agree with your post for the most part, but Its not suggested by the designer that its his opinon. Infact its stated under one article as "rules of the game". I figured, like i said, that a deisgner stating that this is how the rule of the game would be suitable proof. And on top of that the fact that it was stated multiple times.
> 
> But it has been shown that  it could obviously, possibly be incorrect, that his thinking of how the rule works, may not be actually how the rule works.
> 
> My assumption that an article posted by a designer of the game, under something that had a header "rules of the game" is proof seems to be wrong.



 The Rules of the Game articles have been known for being less accurate than almost any other WotC source for 'clarifications'.  Sometimes they say things that really leaving you scratching your head.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Like i said, that has been proven to me, i didnt previously know such.

And as such, i now dont consider it proof, Im just justifying why i used the title i used for this thread.

I was under a mistaken assumption, which i admit.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I've always considered this line to be true, in the context in which it is found; that is, the line appears in the description of the standard action, Attack; within that context, making an attack _is_ a standard action.
> 
> If the same line appeared in the text of the full round action, Full Attack, it would be perplexing.




Although it is a singular "an".

Multiple attacks would not be singular, hence, a group of them would not be a standard action. That does not change the validity of the statement one way or the other with regard to demadog's theory.

But, other rules do change the validity of it for demadog's theory. For example, a Charge is a Full Round Action which has a singular melee attack. In this case, a single melee attack is not a Standard Action.


----------



## hong (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Like i said, that has been proven to me, i didnt previously know such.
> 
> And as such, i now dont consider it proof, Im just justifying why i used the title i used for this thread.
> 
> I was under a mistaken assumption, which i admit.



 Aw mang, you were so close to breaking 350 posts for the thread.

I'll just have to do it for you!


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Lol, do i get a cookie at 350?

Edit ahh, i owe you a cookie.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

WotCRichBaker said:
			
		

> In the case of Sunder, I'm pretty sure that "melee attack" means that you can use it as part of a full attack action. If it were an action demanding a standard action (like bull rush, or overrun) it would say so.




This is a quote i stumbled upon and i can direct you to the source of it, from rich baker, who may be a little more convincing to people than skippy.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Ok, on the wizards page, under the game rules

*Official D&D Game Rule FAQ*

In the main rules downloadable pdf




> *Is sunder a special standard action or is it a melee
> attack variant? It has its own entry on the actions table,
> the text describing it refers to it as a melee attack. Is sunder
> melee attack only in the sense of hitting something with
> ...




Mind you, i dont know how valid such things are considered to you people, i just thought it was interesting that every bit of information on the wizards site suggests the same thing, with reasoning why.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> ... with reasoning why.




And their reasoning is "It's on the table as a standard action because it provokes an AoO".

But so do Disarm and Grapple, and they're not on the table as standard actions; they're on the table as Action Type: Varies, and carry a footnote that specifies they can be used multiple times in a Full Attack action, on a Charge, on an AoO.

The reasoning the FAQ answer gives in support of its conclusion is flawed; I therefore feel no compunction in rejecting that conclusion.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And their reasoning is "It's on the table as a standard action because it provokes an AoO".
> 
> But so do Disarm and Grapple, and they're not on the table as standard actions; they're on the table as Action Type: Varies, and carry a footnote that specifies they can be used multiple times in a Full Attack action, on a Charge, on an AoO.
> 
> ...




Disarm and grapple both function differently than sunder in that a failure means that your opponent can return the attack on you. I could possibly then believe this is why they are listed under the varied action section because its something being taken out of your turn completely if your counter-tripping.

But i also see your argument, they just say because of aoo, and dont state any other factor.

They leave it quite unclear.

I dont believe the reasoning is flawed, i just believe that you are comming to a different conclusion than, say me, and say, the game designers that have stated that. They never stated why disarm and grapple are in the varied section without sunder, but i believe one could logic out why that is.

I can find clear distinction on the working of the three abilities. And i do believe the game designers arguments for why they are listed where they are listed.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Im not stating this as any sort of argument, purely a question that i dont know the awnser to

Is the faq not an official source for rules fixes?

It says its official and give fixes to rules, and is written by the same game designers that created the books.

And like i said, this is only a question because i dont know, not to argue anything!


----------



## Lackhand (Feb 23, 2007)

Only... grapple _can_ be used in a full attack (and I'm assuming here that I understood your argument to be that it couldn't, because I'm disagreeing with both parts of your statement): (from the system reference document, as I don't have my books here)

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple


> To start a grapple, you need to grab and hold your target. Starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll. If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses).




Meanwhile, you can only sunder as part of a full-round attack if the FAQ (and the point of contention) is correct, which is a bit circular.

the edit!: The FAQ actually _isn't_ the official source for rules fixes -- the errata is the only one which is (this is the primary source rule, I think). And knowing is half the battle


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Disarm and grapple both function differently than sunder in that a failure means that your opponent can return the attack on you.




Since when can an opponent counter-grapple?

And just like last time, the 'counter-move' hypothesis doesn't explain why Sunder lacks footnote 7, which has absolutely nothing to do with counter-moves, but everything to do with whether something can be done as an AoO...

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

I should have specified more clearly, they make opposed grapple checks against you, i kinda cluttered my thoughts into one statement. And they can make a grapple check to break your grapple. If they are making a grapple check on thier turn, and you roll the opposed, you are still using the rules for grapple, but for you its not a standard action (but i realise for them it is, and this is where the rules fall into place for your being able to use them). Sorry

they just function imho, differently enough to be given a varied action 

I again see your point, but im simply inclined to agree with the two game designers pov on this, Plus the faq. Not having that footnote doesnt disclude it from being able too, but  your right in that nothing explains why its not given it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> I should have specified more clearly, they make opposed grapple checks against you




You mean like how the make an opposed check with you when you Sunder?

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

No, i meant because grapple can extend beyond your turn, into another turn, and they can try to break i then i guess.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

You know, i think its just a wee bit egotistical of you to claim you know the rules better than the game designers, and know how they are to be properly interpreted and used, regardless of what they say. And there are more than one saying so, i've now quoted two, and the faq.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> No, i meant because grapple can extend beyond your turn, into another turn, and they can try to break i then i guess.




... ahh.

So Disarm and Trip have Footnote 7 because you can Counterdisarm or Countertrip, and Grapple has Footnote 7 because it can extend beyond your turn into another turn and they can try to break it then, and Sunder doesn't but can be used once in an Attack or Charge action, one or more times in a Full Attack action, or as an AoO anyway?

-Hyp.


----------



## Felix (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> You know, i think its just a wee bit egotistical of you to claim you know the rules better than the game designers,



He hasn't claimed such; he quotes the rules as the writers wrote them.

Rule of Law as opposed to Rule of Edict.

Not that Hyp doesn't have reason to be egotistical about his rules-fu, but he hardly ever is, even if he is quite skilled at poking holes in others' arguments vis-a-via the socratic method.



> and know how they are to be properly interpreted and used, regardless of what they say.



Your pronoun "they" is unclear: do you mean "regardless of what game designers say" or do you mean "regardless of what the rules as written in the core books say".



> And there are more than one saying so, i've now quoted two, and the faq.



Your two articles and the FAQ are indeed well cited. They are not, however, the primary source. So when the primary source and the articles, FAQ, message board posts come in conflict, the primary source takes precident. It is then our duty so see what it is that the primary source says.

And within the primary source there is no inconsistency of the text and table if Sunder is a Standard Action, unusable during an AoO.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Errata is listed as a primary source




> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
> er·ra·ta
> Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-rah-tuh, i-rey-, i-rat-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun 1. pl. of erratum.
> ...




I think the faq could possibly be considered errata

Expecially if you consider the fact that wizards considers them official

The faq is written as an "official" publication of rules fixes, qualifying it as erratta under the dictionary.com definiton of eratta. and this eratta comes from wizards.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Hyp stated in one of the first few posts, that there could be multiple interpretations on the rules, but he things he is right, and told us why that is.

Right now he's stating that thier interpretation is wrong, and only his can be the one that is "true" - this to me is an egotistical statement

I think that hyp can have a valid interpretation

I also believe that the game-makers have a valid interpretation *expecially considering they are the ones that wrote the rules they are interpreting*

saying your absolutely right, no if ands or butts but the guys who wrote and created the rules your interpreting are wrong in thier interpretation of thier own rules....to me doesnt add up.

Some people take hyp's statements as more truth about the rules than the game designers, they are entitled to that opinion.

I dont share it, i think they knew what they wanted the rules to representt, and i feel that they are interpreting the rules correctly. I believe that and im entitled to that opinion.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Errata is listed as a primary source




Absolutely.



> I think the faq could possibly be considered errata




You'll find that Errata and FAQ are two separate pages on the Wizards website.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Hyp stated in one of the first few posts, that there could be multiple interpretations on the rules




I said that I thought there could be multiple interpretations of one sentence in the Sunder text taken in isolation.

I further said that once it was considered in conjunction with the rest of the rules, only one remained.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Absolutely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes i do find that, i also find that the faq could fall under the dictionary definition of eratta.

And thus, not being under the eratta section of wizards.com wouldnt mean that it is not eratta, as it is defined as such.

It might not mean it is eratta you can refer to via a primary source, but the wording for the primary source doesnt say eratta listed under the eratta rules section of wizards.com it seems to suggest any eratta that is published.

If that faq was published in a book, i doubt we'd be discussing this.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I said that I thought there could be multiple interpretations of one sentence in the Sunder text taken in isolation.
> 
> I further said that once it was considered in conjunction with the rest of the rules, only one remained.
> 
> -Hyp.




And the fact that you consider only your interpretation to be the only right  one is an egotistical statement imho

I seem to recall people earlier giving me the gears for not being able to succeed that there might possibly be other valid ways to read the rules.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

If it had said errata found in this section. Or This eratta there would be no thoughts by me that the faq may indeed be official

but it doesnt, it states errata is a primary source. Dictionary.com would define faq as being able to be considered eratta.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Dictionary.com would define faq as being able to be considered eratta.




Oh, well, if _Dictionary.com_ says so, that's different.

I'll have to check what it says for 'Wish'.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Oh, well, if _Dictionary.com_ says so, that's different.
> 
> I'll have to check what it says for 'Wish'.
> 
> -Hyp.




I think that was uncalled for. 

Do you think that according to the definition of errata, that the faq couldnt be considered errata?


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

I doubt that you can claim its not errata as it falls under the definition as such. (feel free to prove me wrong)

You could probably claim its not errata that was meant to work under the primary source rule.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Feb 23, 2007)

There's a reason that the FAQ is separate from the errata...


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Yes, there is, But can you state with absolute impunity just what that reason is? Cause you could assume that it is an awnsering of specific questions that may not need rule changes, just clerifications, Or you could state that it is an errata comprised of faqs. 
Or you could probably make other such assumptions.


Or you could state the way i assume you believe full well it works, that its seperate because its not meant to work as such


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Dont get me wrong, im not stating that the faq is errata as mentioned under the primary source rule. Im stating i can see it being deduced as such

I dont have enough experience dealing with either to know what would be true about this subject. Im just wondering why even tho it says its official, and even tho its by definition is errata. Why is it considered "unofficial" and therefor an irrelevant waste of space on the wizards site


----------



## hong (Feb 23, 2007)

Stream of consciousness posting is so 1990s.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Yeah well, that doesnt mean that the faq isnt still official errata, and thus takes precedence.

- I am in no way drawing a claim to have this win my argument (as i realise that even tho the faq can be defined as official errata, it probably wasnt meant to be used as such)

-- I just want clerification on what i asked


----------



## Lackhand (Feb 23, 2007)

What we're actually all doing at the moment is feverishly thumbing through our bookmarked PHBs and DMGs trying to find the order-of-primary-sources rules.

from the (then) current version of the PHB errata file on the WotC site, dated 02/17/2006:

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. Note: The most recent updates are shaded like this.


Since the FAQ isn't the official Errata file -- 
it's a file, and it's official, and it's errata by the dictionary definition (but not Errata -- consider that spells that do extra damage to Cold creatures don't do anything extra to cold creatures; we're looking for the noun phrase "errata file", not just a file which contains what dictionary.com defines as errata), it's not anything that can trump the PHB.

Same thing applies to customer service replies, author interviews, and (perhaps) humorously, direct revelation from the deity of your choice.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

You state its a file, and its official, but its the faq and not an errata file, You state its a file, and the definition of errata states its errata, So one could deduce that this official file that is essentially errata, could be considered a primary resource (but that deduction sounds incorrect)

but i think thats just making mountains out of mole hills, and like i said, doubt it'd hold up in an argument


----------



## Lackhand (Feb 23, 2007)

> but i think thats just making mountains out of mole hills, and like i said, doubt it'd hold up in an argument



me too


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

So that awnsers my question, i just wanted to know why people dis-regard the faq, now i know


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Your two articles and the FAQ are indeed well cited. They are not, however, the primary source. So when the primary source and the articles, FAQ, message board posts come in conflict, the primary source takes precident. It is then our duty so see what it is that the primary source says.




Precisely.



> 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*.






			
				Felix said:
			
		

> And within the primary source there is no inconsistency of the text and table if Sunder is a Standard Action, unusable during an AoO.




Except that the text of Sunder does not call out a Sunder as a Standard Action. Nowhere.

Notice the word "if" in your sentence here. The problem with "if" is that it is not the same as "because". This is like wishful thinking. "If we pretend that it means one thing and not what it actually states, then there is no contradiction.".  

Changing the Sunder text from "Melee Attack" to "Melee Attack as a Standard Action" is a very specific modification of what the Sunder text actually states.

In order for Hyp's POV of be correct, the wording of the Sunder text has to be changed. The primary source for the rule has to be changed from "Melee Attack" to "Melee Attack as a Standard Action".

Hence, Hyp's POV is incorrect.

Not to mention all of the other WotC sources that disagree with him.


A Melee Attack can be part of a Standard Action. But, it also can be part of a Full Round Attack or a Charge Action or an Attack of Opportunity. That is part of the game mechanic definition of a Melee Attack. It can be used for any of these.

These are all properties that the Sunder rules by definition gain by the phrase "Melee Attack" unless a *different primary source* rule corrects it.

The Sunder text *explicitly* states Sunder is used as a Melee Attack. It's there in black and white.

One cannot just willy nilly change that because a non-primary source states something different.

Every source but one that we have states that a Sunder is a Melee Attack. Only one source states that it is a Standard Action and that source is not the primary source.

Hence, it is wrong.


Hyp's side of the argument cannot have it both ways. The table cannot be a primary source over the FAQ without the text being a primary source over the table.

The weasel room he is trying to create is one of there not being a contradiction. But that's not precise and when discussing rules as you yourself stated "It is then our duty so see what it is that the primary source says".

The primary source says "Melee Attack". Period.

There is a definitive game mechanic difference between "Melee Attack" and "Melee Attack as a Standard Action" and hence, the primary source does in fact contradict the non-primary source.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by WotCRichBaker
> In the case of Sunder, *I'm pretty sure* that "melee attack" means that you can use it as part of a full attack action. If it were an action demanding a standard action (like bull rush, or overrun) it would say so.



LOL! That's real concrete evidence there!

I mean 'pretty sure'???? What about a quote from the PHB! At least Hyp, who obviously is incapable of correctly refencing the core rules as some would claim, thumbs his way through one when he answers a question.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> So that awnsers my question, i just wanted to know why people dis-regard the faq, now i know.



I believe that this issue was first raised on page 1 of this thread...... and it's now, well, many pages past that before you finally acknowledge it??  Might have saved a few posts for all of us in there.   



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> Hyp stated in one of the first few posts, that there could be multiple interpretations on the rules, but he things he is right, and told us why that is.
> 
> Right now he's stating that thier interpretation is wrong, and only his can be the one that is "true" - this to me is an egotistical statement.



Well, by his logic, they are.  The rules are written. He postulated a couple of possibilites in how to interpret the rule and by referencing the rules, and applying sound logic, he discounted all but one position - his conclusion. It's a pretty standard and straightforward piece of analysis - based on the Rules as Written.

This sort of thing happens all the time in legislation. I used to see it regularly in a previous job. The designers (govt) have an idea, the write instructions for the lawyers, the lawyers draft legislation which is passed by parliament etc, the govt then writes guidelines about what it means and how it is meant to work, operational instructions are written for the person at the coalface.  Then what happens is that someone takes the govt to court to challenge a decision based on the legislation.  You might find that the judge will disagree with the govt's view because the legislation doesn't say what the govt thought it did (law is wonderful like that) and it doesn't matter what the govt thought, because only the legislation matters. Now, if WotC want Sunder to have Footnote 7, then they can damn well follow their own rules and issue Errata! But vague interpretations in flawed documents and 'pretty sure' statements aren't errata. In summary, the effect may differ from the intent.


----------



## Nail (Feb 23, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Precisely.
> 
> A melee attack can even be part of the non-action Attack of Opportunity.



I couldn't agree more.

So....since the text *doesn't* tell us what kind of action the Sunder is, but the table above the text **does** tell us what kind of action it is.......


----------



## SlagMortar (Feb 23, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Well, by his logic, they are. The rules are written. He postulated a couple of possibilites in how to interpret the rule and by referencing the rules, and applying sound logic, he discounted all but one position - his conclusion. It's a pretty standard and straightforward piece of analysis - based on the Rules as Written.
> 
> This sort of thing happens all the time in legislation. I used to see it regularly in a previous job. The designers (govt) have an idea, the write instructions for the lawyers, the lawyers draft legislation which is passed by parliament etc, the govt then writes guidelines about what it means and how it is meant to work, operational instructions are written for the person at the coalface. Then what happens is that someone takes the govt to court to challenge a decision based on the legislation. You might find that the judge will disagree with the govt's view because the legislation doesn't say what the govt thought it did (law is wonderful like that) and it doesn't matter what the govt thought, because only the legislation matters. Now, if WotC want Sunder to have Footnote 7, then they can damn well follow their own rules and issue Errata! But vague interpretations in flawed documents and 'pretty sure' statements aren't errata. In summary, the effect may differ from the intent.



If I am reading this correctly, you just claimed that Hyp arrived at an objective truth regarding sunder while also comparing Hyp's analysis to a legal proceeding.  Note that I agree that Hyp's analysis is fine in terms of determining what the Player's Handbook has to say about sunder, but to claim that either his analysis or the analysis in a legal proceeding leads to an objective truth is a stretch.  Otherwise, court cases would never be overturned?  By your assertion, once someone does a legal analysis then you are left with the unequivocal truth.

Contradictions between rules are explicitly permitted in the D&D rules because there are rules about what to do when two WotC rules contradict each other.  These are as much a part of the rule set as any rules in the errata.  I don't think there is a rule that says "The rules on contradictions should only be used as the last possible resort when there is absolutely, positively no other way to interpret the rules in question."  I agree that it is generally good practice to try to interpret rules in a manner that avoids contradictions, but this method is not part of the rule set.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> You do make assumptions on how you think it works, but dont provide a rule.




And you are also not making assumptions on your end?  I know you are in a heated debate with Hyper, but if you could take the time to look at other people's responses (namely mine ) it would be much appreciated.  Since you seem to like to challenge people with finding rules quotes, please allow me to do the same.  I would be very interested in what you find.  This is actually a repost of what I posted earlier, since everyone seemed to skip my question.

I am very interested in bestone's and KD's response to this in particular...

Let me pose this question... Forget about Sunder for a moment. Let's look a Disarm. Let's also IGNORE the Table. Forget the Table is even there. There is no Table...

Using just the text of Disarm, prove to me 2 things:

1) Tell me what Action Type Disarm is (if any)

2) Quote me anywhere (in the PHB) that states you can attempt to Disarm anytime you are eligible for a melee attack. If you can't find a quote (something along the lines of "This attack substitute for a melee attack" or "You can use this anytime you make a melee attack") If you can not find such a quote, are you not making a wide assumption here?


----------



## Nail (Feb 23, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> 1) Tell me what Action Type Disarm is (if any)



Without the table?  We do not know what type of action it is.



			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> 2) Quote me anywhere (in the PHB) that states you can attempt to Disarm anytime you are eligible for a melee attack. If you can't find a quote (something along the lines of "This attack substitute for a melee attack" or "You can use this anytime you make a melee attack")



The PH says "As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent."  Without the table, we must assume that any time you may make a melee attack, we could instead make a disarm attempt.



			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> If you can not find such a quote, are you not making a wide assumption here?



The assumption - if any - is only that there is not other information in the PH (beyond the table   ) that tells us what kind of action a Disarm attempt is. 

 Given how scattered some information is, that's a risky assumption.


----------



## Nail (Feb 23, 2007)

Awww....man!  I was hoping for the first post on page 11.....


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> So....since the text *doesn't* tell us what kind of action the Sunder is, but the table above the text **does** tell us what kind of action it is.......




Who said that Sunder has to be an action (in the primary source)?

According to the text of Sunder, it is a melee attack. A melee attack can be used as part of a Standard Action, a Full Round Attack, a Charge Action, or even an AoO non-action.


This fascination with Sunder having to be an action appears to be interfering with people's judgement with respect to what the Sunder text actually states.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The Sunder text *explicitly* states Sunder is used as a Melee Attack. It's there in black and white.




Here is where I disagree.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nail (Feb 23, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Who said that Sunder has to be an action (in the primary source)?



The table 8-2 "Actions in Combat", page 141 of the 3.5e PH.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 23, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Precisely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You highlighted the wrong section.

Taking BOTH the Table and Text into context:

Table:
Standard Action: Sunder

Text:
You can use a melee attack

If you allow both table and text, there is no disagreement.  It is only when you disregard the table, that you get a disagreement, and at that point (this is the funny part), it isn't even a matter of "text trumpts table" because...  you've already decided to ignore the table entry anyway.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

What he is saying is the primary source of information doesnt state it has to be used as any sort of action. It does however state that you can use it as a melee attack. Which i dont know how you could read that differently. I see what your saying however, Its a standard action, and you can use that standard action as a melee attack. But i dont think that table limits it to that, i belive the table shows that making a melee attack to sunder during your round would be a standard action, but the text (imho) explicity allows you to use it in other situations, like on an aoo.

And one of the reasons i believe this is - aoo says make a melee attack, sunder says use a melee attack. 

The point for me is, i just dont see any rule that specifically would limit you from using that text *which allows you to USE a melee attack* on something that gives you a melee attack.

Edit- And like i said, i realise your saying well it is a standard action because the table says so (but i believe the table - actions in combat - tells you when you take an action to sunder in combat, then it  simply counts as a standard action, but i may very well be wrong on that)

And that you have to have a standard action for the text of the special attack to apply.

But i dont buy that. The primary source doesnt explicitly limit to a standard aaction. The table says using it is a standard action. But even still, the rule for the special attack sunder gives it a use that may not be any specific action at all.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> The table 8-2 "Actions in Combat", page 141 of the 3.5e PH.




The table 8-2 "Actions in Combat" also states that Unarmed Attacks have an AoO and that Bull Rush is a Standard Action, but this is not necessarily true either.

When you use both the table and the text, a Sunder could be a Standard Action, but it does not have to be. Just like a Bull Rush could be a Standard Action, but it does not have to be.


----------



## Nail (Feb 23, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The table 8-2 "Actions in Combat" also states that Unarmed Attacks have an AoO and that Bull Rush is a Standard Action, but this is not necessarily true either.



...and how do you know that?


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> ...and how do you know that?




Because the relevant rules text takes precedence over the table.

In all cases.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

off topic, - if you now list threads by the amount of posts, this thread now takes the cake and is in top spot


----------



## Artoomis (Feb 23, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ... ahh.
> 
> So Disarm and Trip have Footnote 7 because you can Counterdisarm or Countertrip, and Grapple has Footnote 7 because it can extend beyond your turn into another turn and they can try to break it then, and Sunder doesn't but can be used once in an Attack or Charge action, one or more times in a Full Attack action, or as an AoO anyway?
> 
> -Hyp.




Correct.  I'm glad you've finally seen the light.


----------



## Fortain (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> off topic, - if you now list threads by the amount of posts, this thread now takes the cake and is in top spot




Actually this one is: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=149266  

And now, back to the discussion.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

deleted


----------



## Nail (Feb 23, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Because the relevant rules text takes precedence over the table.



Where are those relevant rules?


----------



## Seeten (Feb 23, 2007)

In the feat text for Improved Unarmed Strike, and in the Monk class description, I'm guessing. AKA, the corner case exceptions.


----------



## Nail (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> off topic, - if you now list threads by the amount of posts, this thread now takes the cake and is in top spot



The post Fortain linked to has 24 pages.

This one only has 11.

Piddly!


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 23, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> In the feat text for Improved Unarmed Strike, and in the Monk class description, I'm guessing. AKA, the corner case exceptions.




It's also in the Standard Action description for Unarmed Strikes and in the Special Attack Bull Rush text.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> The post Fortain linked to has 24 pages.
> 
> This one only has 11.
> 
> Piddly!




Hey, i dindt say it had the most ever, if your in the D&d rules section, at you click on the replies button to list them by replies, this comes up first.


----------



## bestone (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Hypersmurf
> If there were nothing else to distinguish them, I'd be inclined to agree; if the table did not exist, I would presume that the logical reading is as you say.






> Originally Posted by Hypersmurf
> Oh, I agree - that's exactly what it says, in the description of the Sunder action.






> Originally Posted by KarinsDad
> The Sunder text explicitly states Sunder is used as a Melee Attack. It's there in black and white.






> Here is where I disagree.




wh...what?

You've stated earlier that you'd agree with the text how its written, if it wasnt for the table. You've also contradicted that statement.

The table doesnt change how the text is written.

And now two game designers and an official faq state that the text does explicitly state it is used as a melee attack. And you even agree that it can be read that way. 

but apparently "use a melee attack" does not qualify you to use a melee attack??


----------



## Nail (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Hey, i dindt say it had the most ever, ....



Ah.

These "sorts" are restricted to the last 30 days.  There have been longer (and more acrimonious) threads.  (BTW, thanks for toning it down, bestone.  I've appreciated the difference in your posts.   )

Book of Nine Swords -- Okay?  has more views!  W00T.


...oh dear, I've posted in both alot.


----------



## Nail (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> You've stated earlier that you'd agree with the text how its written, if it wasnt for the table. You've also contradicted that statement.



That's not an accurate assessment, IMO.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 23, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> but apparently "use a melee attack" does not qualify you to use a melee attack??




I'm saying "You can use a melee attack to..." and "The Sunder text explicitly states Sunder is used as a Melee Attack" are not equivalent.

"You can use a melee attack to..." can be read in such a fashion as to mean Sunder is used as a melee attack, but the Sunder text does not explicitly state Sunder is used as a Melee Attack.

And if you read it in that fashion, it contradicts the table, while reading it in a different fashion does not.

-Hyp.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 23, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Because the relevant rules text takes precedence over the table.
> 
> In all cases.




Not in all cases, ONLY when the text and table conflicts.  What happens when they do not conflict?  More specifically, what happens when they can be read in such a way that they do not conflict?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 23, 2007)

What am I?  Chopped liver?  I feel no love from KD or bestone...  I am gonna repost this a 3rd time, in the hopes KD and bestone will respond...

Let me pose this question... Forget about Sunder for a moment. Let's look a Disarm. Let's also IGNORE the Table. Forget the Table is even there. There is no Table...

Using just the text of Disarm, prove to me 2 things:

1) Tell me what Action Type Disarm is (if any)

2) Quote me anywhere (in the PHB) that states you can attempt to Disarm anytime you are eligible for a melee attack. If you can't find a quote (something along the lines of "This attack substitute for a melee attack" or "You can use this anytime you make a melee attack") If you can not find such a quote, are you not making a wide assumption here?

Since you have yet to respond, I guess that means you can find no such rule.  Therefore you are 100% wrong and your claims are false regarding Sunder being used anytime you are eligible to take "a melee attack".


----------



## SlagMortar (Feb 23, 2007)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> Quote me anywhere (in the PHB) that states you can attempt to Disarm anytime you are eligible for a melee attack.






			
				Disarm rules said:
			
		

> As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent.






			
				Attack of Opportunity rules said:
			
		

> An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack




So using only text, an attack of opportunity is a "single melee attack".  A disarm can be used as a "melee attack".  Why do I need a table to tell me I can disarm as an attack of opportunity?


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Ah.
> 
> These "sorts" are restricted to the last 30 days.  There have been longer (and more acrimonious) threads.  (BTW, thanks for toning it down, bestone.  I've appreciated the difference in your posts.   )
> 
> ...




Well i apologize for being hot headed, and i know it was only making me look bad. Thanks for your comment as well.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> What am I?  Chopped liver?  I feel no love from KD or bestone...  I am gonna repost this a 3rd time, in the hopes KD and bestone will respond...
> 
> Let me pose this question... Forget about Sunder for a moment. Let's look a Disarm. Let's also IGNORE the Table. Forget the Table is even there. There is no Table...
> 
> ...




Heh i apologize for passing you over, i dont have much time to spend on here, and was really into it with hyp there. Its not that i was disregarding you its just i had my mind on other things. 

But aside from that fact, i never made any claims on disarm, nor do i intend to get into an argument about disarm.

IF you like i can go back now, and read them and respond.

As per disarm, i am in agreeance with the above statement from the rules (the as a melee attack one). I believe that having a melee attack, and having a rule written that says you can use something as a melee attack, mean that you can use that action as your melee attack.

And i find no relevance about my argument for sunder being invalid because i cant prove something about disarm. If you want to make a point, please at least, tell me i have to quote a rule about sundering.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> But aside from that fact, i never made any claims on disarm, nor do i intend to get into an argument about disarm.




Well, you've made your point perfectly clear on Sunder.  I am just curious about your thoughts on Disarm is all.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> As per disarm, i am in agreeance with the above statement from the rules (the as a melee attack one). I believe that having a melee attack, and having a rule written that says you can use something as a melee attack, mean that you can use that action as your melee attack.




But there is no such rule written, is there?

Since I don't know your stance on Disarm yet, I will take a leap of faith and assume you beleive that you can perform a Disarm attempt any time you have a melee attack available.  Is this fair to say?

If so, then how did you come to this conclussion and can you cite me a rule which lead you to this conclussion?



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> And i find no relevance about my argument for sunder being invalid because i cant prove something about disarm. If you want to make a point, please at least, tell me i have to quote a rule about sundering.




You don't have to find relevance between my question about Disarm, and your stance on Sunder.  It is just a simple question.  I am curious about how you view Disarm.  Can you attempt a Disarm only on your turn?  Can you attempt it anytime you have a melee attack available?  Does it "cost" you an Action (Standard, Move, Full Round)?  Is it it's own Action type?  Can you quote me some rule that lead you to your conclussion, or are you just making an assumption with no actual rules to back you up on it?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 24, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> So using only text, an attack of opportunity is a "single melee attack".  A disarm can be used as a "melee attack".  Why do I need a table to tell me I can disarm as an attack of opportunity?




You quoted two seperate rules on two seperate things (Disarm and AoOs).  Where is the rule that states you can use a Disarm when making an AoO?  Or that you can replace/substitute your melee attack from the AoO with that of a Disarm attempt?  Or that ANYTIME you are eligible for a melee attack (such as an AoO), you can perform a Disarm?



> *Disarm*
> As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent.
> 
> *AoO*
> An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack




I see no where in either of those quotes which state "You can attempt Disarm whenever you are eligible for a melee attack."  These are two seperate rules.

By this logic, you could do a Disarm and Sunder at the same time, because each one is a melee attack.



> *Sunder*
> You can use a melee attack
> 
> *Disarm*
> As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent.




I make a melee attack, I do a Sunder and a Disarm at the same time.  I can do both because all Sunder requires is that I use a melee attack (which I am) and all Disarm requires is that I perform it "as a melee attack" which I am.  So anytime I make a melee attack, I can Sunder and Disarm as one action???

And now that I think about it, can I even perform a Trip or a Grapple as my AoO?



> *AoO*
> An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack
> 
> *Grapple*
> ...




An AoO just gives me a single melee attack.  It does not give me a single melee *touch* attack, nor does it give me a single *unarmed* melee *touch* attack.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 24, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Not in all cases, ONLY when the text and table conflicts.  What happens when they do not conflict?  More specifically, what happens when they can be read in such a way that they do not conflict?




They only do not conflict if you change the meaning of the game mechanic phrase "Melee Attack" to "Melee Attack as a Standard Action".

That's like changing the phrase "Armor Class" to "Touch Armor Class".

Apples and Oranges. Two different phrases with two different game mechanic meanings.


----------



## SlagMortar (Feb 24, 2007)

I would interpret "as a melee attack" to mean that it is identical to all other melee attacks except where the rules note differently.  If there were no table, the sunder would not have any rules noting differently.  Since there is a table, I understand Hyp's interpretation as a possible interpretation where the table and text are not in conflict.  



> By this logic, you could do a Disarm and Sunder at the same time, because each one is a melee attack.



You know what, that would in fact be a valid interpretation as far as I can see if you want to bend it enough.  Another interpretation would be that when you "use" a melee attack it can not be "used" for anything else.  

Look at this quote found here:


> When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures.



Thus all successful attacks (regular attacks, disarms, sunders, bull rushes, etc) deal damage based on the weapon used.  Please point out the rule to me that indicates a successful disarm does not deal damage.

All rules require some interpretation.  It is not a stretch to believe that "melee attack" in one section of the rule book means the same thing as "melee attack" in another section of the rule book, unless there is other information indicating they are not the same.

I believe the analysis in this thread is at least 10 times more rigorous than the collective analysis put into writing the sunder rules in the first place.  At some point, there has to be something similar to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" for dungeons and dragons.  Rules analysis can only be taken as far as determining all possible interpretations the authors might reasonably intended at which point the remaining interpretations are equally valid.

Edit:  By the way, if you all wouldn't mind putting your collective brain power into helping me answer a question  regarding bull rush and charging, I would appreciate it.  My thread feels lonely and surely this topic is at least newer than sunder.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 24, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> I believe the analysis in this thread is at least 10 times more rigorous than the collective analysis put into writing the sunder rules in the first place.




I don't think much rigour is required to analyse whether something that can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO should carry the footnote that indicates something that can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO...

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

@  RigaMortus2  

Your very right, by that text, you can make an grapple or a trip aswell on an aoo, which you can, so what point exactly are you trying to make?

And what are you talking about, he quoted a rule, as a melee attack

You can make melee attacks on your turn, as part of a standard action, full round action, aoo (and probably some other sources im missing). If we are dis-regarding the table completely, then the wording of the text for disarm tells me how i can use it.

I can use it as one (or all) of those melee attacks.

Or do you think the wording as a melee attack means something entirely different than i do.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

Hyp, without adding your own words what does the text

"You can use a melee attack to"

mean to you? I just want to know where your difference is comming from


----------



## SlagMortar (Feb 24, 2007)

> I don't think much rigour is required to analyse whether something that can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO should carry the footnote that indicates something that can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO...



It also doesn't take much rigor for the design team to say, "You know, if we use the phrase 'You can use a melee attack' instead of 'You can use a standard action' then some people might be confused about what we meant.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Since there is a table, I understand Hyp's interpretation as a possible interpretation where the table and text are not in conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> It also doesn't take much rigor for the design team to say, "You know, if we use the phrase 'You can use a melee attack' instead of 'You can use a standard action' then some people might be confused about what we meant.




And lo and behold two game designers and a faq state that they meant as you suggest and whats written. They've said that yeah, guess what? You can use it as a melee attack whenever you make a melee attack. Just as it says.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Hyp, without adding your own words what does the text
> 
> "You can use a melee attack to"
> 
> mean to you? I just want to know where your difference is comming from



I thought he had spelt this out numerous times during this thread?  

However, I believe Hyp is saying that a melee attack is a 'a physical attack suitable for close combat' (PHB glossary, p310).

A melee attack is used in some actions, depending on what action you take.

Nowhere in the text for Sunder does it list what actual action it is......... it simply says a use melee attack. If you substitute the glossary definition you get 'use a physical attack suitable for close combat'.

But when your character decides to take an action on his initiative turn, he has to make a decision as to what action type to take... Standard, Free, Full-round, Delay, Ready etc. Within each of those types, there are certain actions allowed. Within the Standard action suite of options is Sunder, which uses an opposed melee attack to resolve the result of the special attack.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> And lo and behold two game designers and a faq state that they meant as you suggest and whats written. They've said that yeah, guess what? You can use it as a melee attack whenever you make a melee attack. Just as it says.



Let's take the FAQ then and allow everyone to bluff as a move action..... (plenty of other examples in there as well).

As has been iterated many times in this thread, trying to introduce possible designer intent through the FAQ or RotG is fraught with issues due to the inherent lack of robustness of those articles, regardless of how well intentioned they are.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

I recall him stating he agrees that without the table blah blah

And him adding his own words.

But he never actually said what those words, without adding words too them, mean



> Nowhere in the text for Sunder does it list what actual action it is......... it simply says a use melee attack.




Yes, and this is how all other sources cited say it was meant to be written, and how it works.



> If you substitute the glossary definition you get 'use a physical attack suitable for close combat'.




This is adding words that arent there. But i like your line of argument.



> But when your character decides to take an action on his initiative turn, he has to make a decision as to what action type to take... Standard, Free, Full-round, Delay, Ready etc. Within each of those types, there are certain actions allowed. Within the Standard action suite of options is Sunder, which uses an opposed melee attack to resolve the result of the special attack.




If you actually look under the text list of standard actions, sunder isnt on there. The text as written would give it other uses - but lets not elaborate on this as this argument is already going on and i dont want to make a long specification.

imho- Melee attack is a standard action (or full round action). You use your standard action to make a melee attack. The special attack rule for sunder (the text) lets you use that melee attack. And fundamentally i dont find them really that different, either you hit the person, or you hit thier weapon.

This is what i think is going on
Your making a melee attack, but instead of a pc your hitting an object. But if that object is on a pc's person, it provokes an aoo.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Let's take the FAQ then and allow everyone to bluff as a move action..... (plenty of other examples in there as well).
> 
> As has been iterated many times in this thread, trying to introduce possible designer intent through the FAQ or RotG is fraught with issues due to the inherent lack of robustness of those articles, regardless of how well intentioned they are.




And i never said thier word is law

I did however, quote a designer saying that the intent was as such. But, of course, that is not raw.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> imho- Melee attack is a standard action (or full round action). You use your standard action to make a melee attack. The special attack rule for sunder (the text) lets you use that melee attack. And fundamentally i dont find them really that different, either you hit the person, or you hit thier weapon.
> 
> This is what i think is going on
> Your making a melee attack, but instead of a pc your hitting an object. But if that object is on a pc's person, it provokes an aoo.



Believe me, I see where you are coming from, and how you make those linkages to arrive at your position.

And I agree that the Sunder text is 'lazy', so that at a casual reading, and ignorant of the table, you could easily read it to be the same as disarm etc. However, the language is different (albeit not drastically) from the other special attacks, and the table treats Sunder distinctly from the other special attacks. That leads me to believe that it was intentional on part of the designers. Either that, or they stuffed up when writing the rules and never corrected it.

It would be interesting to see what the original play test rules had for Sunder... That may explain some things.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> If you actually look under the text list of standard actions, sunder isnt on there, but your right, the table lists it as such. but then again the text as written would give it other uses - but lets not elaborate on this as this argument is already going on and i dont want to make a long specification.



I believe (and I'm too lazy to double check) that there are a few things not listed under the text of Standard Actions. Which means that you would probably have to resort to the table to check what Actions they can be used with.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

Im in concurrance with you on most points there legildur.

I dont buy that because the language is so so slightly different (but still having the same meaning) that you could draw irrefutable proof that it means it was to be used differently. 

I see two standpoints on this, those that believe the text is right as written (and blah blah blah as we've said)

and those that believe that the table insinuates that the text is really different. (however note, i know your argument comprises a lot more than this, im just stating in short note, you can replace this line with whatever the belief of your argument may be)

I think this has become nearly moot to argue. We've scoured and disected a lot of rules and to me, its still a stalemate. I believe either side can make good cases
on thier pov.

And obviously i come to the conclusion that im right. And hyp is wrong.

I might be inclined to agree a little more with the other opinion, but there is so so so many places that can be cited, including game designers and a faq. But lets not get into how these are valid, im not saying they are vaild or %100 accurate. But they have read the text they designed too, and interpreted it the way that i interpret it.

That doesnt by any rule make me undisputedly correct. But it at least makes me feel more comfterable in the corectness of my interpretation.

Edit - and like i said, i think it may be lazy cause it wasnt intended to be so different, its written to me, as a rule for a melee attack that strikes an attended object instead of a person, and not a completely different game mechanic. But dont quote me on this, or have me quote a rule on this, this is just my opinion.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 24, 2007)

My emphasis:







			
				bestone said:
			
		

> I see two standpoints on this, those that believe the text is right as written (and blah blah blah as we've said)
> 
> and those that believe that the table *insinuates* that the text is really different. (however note, i know your argument comprises a lot more than this, im just stating in short note, you can replace this line with whatever the belief of your argument may be).



'Insinuates' is not really a fair portrayal of the position. The table clearly states it. The table is rules. The table clarifies the possibly ambiguous text etc......

And yes, I appreciate why you have quoted games designers etc, but they are a notoriously unreliable bunch when it comes to rules interpretations.  You just have to sift around on these boards a bit to get plenty of evidence.  Better still, the RotG articles are rife with contradictions and house rules!


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

I apologize for the unfair portrayal of your posiition, however i did attempt to note that your argument does comprise of a lot more.

I more meant i'll leave it to you to insert your argument there, cause i couldnt do (or rather, didnt feel it was my right to do) what was just pointed out - made a fair summary in your eyes


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 24, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> It also doesn't take much rigor for the design team to say, "You know, if we use the phrase 'You can use a melee attack' instead of 'You can use a standard action' then some people might be confused about what we meant.




If it stated "You can use a standard action to strike an opponent's weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon", one could Sunder with a sling or throwing axe.

How to prevent this?  Clarify that it's a melee attack that does the striking.  The standard action bit is still present in the rules - on Table 8-2 - so there's no need to repeat it.

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

You can indeed sunder with a throwing axe


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> You can indeed sunder with a throwing axe




Not if you're throwing it, though.

Unless you're suggesting that since 'You can use a melee attack to strike...' means 'If you have a melee attack, you can instead strike...', the Sunder attempt is not itself restricted to a melee attack...?

-Hyp.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Not if you're throwing it, though.
> 
> Unless you're suggesting that since 'You can use a melee attack to strike...' means 'If you have a melee attack, you can instead strike...', the Sunder attempt is not itself restricted to a melee attack...?
> 
> -Hyp.




Roflmao no way, of course not, that would be ridiculous.

You didnt specify as throwing, so i thought i'd be a snarky butt
i knew what you meant, heh, sorry


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Roflmao no way, of course not, that would be ridiculous.




Although I'm interested to hear KD's point of view on this.

If "You may use a melee attack to do X" means "If you could normally make a melee attack, you may instead do X", is X required to take the form of a melee attack?

-Hyp.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 24, 2007)

I would like to see what bestone and KD has to say about being able to Sunder and Disarm someone using the same melee attack



> *Sunder*
> You can use a melee attack
> 
> *Disarm*
> As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent.




I make a melee attack, I do a Sunder and a Disarm at the same time.  I can do both because all Sunder requires is that I use a melee attack (which I am) and all Disarm requires is that I perform it "as a melee attack" (which I am).  So anytime I make a melee attack, I can Sunder and Disarm as one action???

And now that I think about it, can I even perform a Trip or a Grapple as my AoO?



> *AoO*
> An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack
> 
> *Grapple*
> ...




An AoO just gives me a single melee attack.  It does not give me a single melee *touch* attack, nor does it give me a single *unarmed* melee *touch* attack.




To my knowledge, the only place that has the rule stating you can make a Trip or Grapple (or Disarm) on an Attack of Opportunity is the Table.  The text for allowing this is NOT within the descriptions of each Speacial Attack themselves.  So if you allow this because of the Table entry, why would you also not consider Sunder a Standard Action as it is listed in the Table?  Seems like a double standard.  We can suddenly pick and choose the rules we use that best suits us? (obviously we can in our own games, but not when talking RAW)


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> @  RigaMortus2
> 
> Your very right, by that text, you can make an grapple or a trip aswell on an aoo, which you can, so what point exactly are you trying to make?




My point is, you can't...  An AoO is a single melee attack.  A Grapple is a melee *touch* attack, which is not what you get from an AoO.  A Trip is an *unarmed* melee *touch* attack, also not what you get from an AoO.  Are you suggesting that you can replace a melee attack with a melee touch attack, or an unarmed melee touch attack?  Is there a rule you can quote, or are you just making this up on how you WANT it to work? (note: there very well may be a rule that states anytime you can take a melee attack, you can substitute a melee touch attack for it, I don't know, but you seem to know where it is, so please show me)



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> And what are you talking about, he quoted a rule, as a melee attack




Right.  as a melee attack.  Not as a melee TOUCH attack or as an UNARMED melee TOUCH attack.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> You can make melee attacks on your turn, as part of a standard action, full round action, aoo (and probably some other sources im missing). If we are dis-regarding the table completely, then the wording of the text for disarm tells me how i can use it.




So where does the text for disarm tell you you can take it when it is not your turn?  When does it state that you can take it ANYTIME you are eligible for a melee attack?  It tells you HOW to do it (as a melee attack), but not WHEN.  Unless you ASSUME you can do it ANYTIME you are eligible for a melee attack.  So again, is there a rule you can quote as to WHEN you can perform the Disarm melee attack, or are you simply ASSUMING it is anytime you are eligible for a melee attack?



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> Or do you think the wording as a melee attack means something entirely different than i do.




I think it tells us HOW the attack is performed, as a melee attack (rather than as a melee touch attack, unarmed melee touch attack, or a ranged attack).  I do NOT think it tells us WHEN we can perform it.  That is what Action Types are for.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 24, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't think much rigour is required to analyse whether something that can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO should carry the footnote that indicates something that can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO...




No doubt it should. It doesn't. Error? Or intended rule?

From a balance perspective, it could an error, but either way is not unbalanced.

From a WotC perspective, it is an error.

From a logical perspective (i.e. if you can attack a head, you can attack a sword), it is an error.

From the author of the table, it is an intended rule.

From the author of the text, it is unknown, but literally an error.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

@ RigaMortus2 

I take it your trying to suggest that without the table you wouldnt be able to do any of those attack at any time,  thus you need the table to tell you when you can do them. 

I disagree, because when you refer to the text, your still assuming the table is there.

As a melee attack (disarm)

You can use a melee attack (sunder)

To start a grapple it requires a successive melee attack (grapple)

So you want me to quote a rule? those are all lines from the text, the text is the rules.

*Without the table how would you interpret them?*



> that you can take it ANYTIME you are eligible for a melee attack




I dont know about you, but if there was a rule telling me that if i have one thing (a), i could use it as  (b) instead. Then when i have (a), i can use it as (b).

The text doesnt say its a standard action, it simply says, when you have (a), you can use it as (b).

aoo's, melee attacks, full round attacks, give you (a)

The text  states, i can use that (a) as (b) instead.

Or do you read that text as something entirely different, or dont consider it a rule?


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

going by the text, why dont i think you could do all three at once?

disarm - As a melee attack (to me reads, you can use your melee attack to) attempt to disarm.

Your using your melee attack to disarm, its now a disarm attempt, and not a melee attack (note this doesnt let you say I win, its not a melee attack. Because the text for disarm says you can use your melee attack (and doesnt say from a standard action, or any specific source) to attempt to disarm.

Grapple is the most plainly obvious one, you start a grapple, and follow the rules then listed for grappling. (as your no longer making a melee attack, you are grappling)


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

Heres one for you hyp

Bull rush is listed on your table as a standard action

If your not taking the standard action, bull rush. Then the text doesnt apply right?

But the text for bullrush gives it another use......


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

also, i was reading attacks of opportunity, it states you need an action provoke attacks of op, i think this is where the designers/sage faq writer deduce why it is listed as an action. (because it not being an action wouldnt qualify it as an "action" that provokes an aoo) When really i dont think it was intended as its own action, but instead the action of a melee attack but used not against an object, or a pc, but an attended object by the pc)) <-- this may not be the best of logic. Im simply stating i see how they may have came to thier conclusion.

But why isnt it listed with the others? who knows, i can only make assumptions

one would be that on a failed sunder you cant counter with a sunder, as stated and argued before.

You can make actions on your turn, but you can use a counter disarm on your opponents turn.

Thus, i say, they are now listed as a varied action, that varied action doesnt specify an action *and aoo's require an action* thats why it might have footnote 7, to clerify.

Cause if they werent action, or werent stated as actions they might not qualify for an aoo...


----------



## Nail (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> But the text for bullrush gives it another use......



When the table and text disagree, go with the text.

That's a non-issue for Sunder.

[Edit: I meant "text".  Good grief, has this gone on too long, or what?  ]


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> When the table and text disagree, go with the table.
> 
> That's a non-issue for Sunder.




Heres where there is disagreeance *and i know you mean, when the table and text disagree, go with the text, right?*

I read the text for sunder as giving it another use

i read the text for bullrush as giving it another use

both are listed as standard actions.

Using you rown arguments - I see bullrush working with the table, its a standard action AND you can use it as part of a charge. There is no descrepancy.

Unless you know of a rule that states that that circumstance would be illegal as per the rules?


----------



## Nail (Feb 24, 2007)

Text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text,  text, text,  text, text, text, text,.....

Don't mind me, just practicing....


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

Even bullrush text states its a standard action, but gives it another use. (thus it is not in descrepancy with the table)

And i'll take that last comment as you have no good rebutal?


----------



## Nail (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> I read the text for sunder as giving it another use



<laughs>

Where?


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

Refer to post 443

Nothing specifies that melee attack has to be during a standard action in the sunder text, it simply says melee attack.


----------



## Nail (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Refer to post 443



  Nothing personal, but: unlikely.    



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> Nothing specifies that melee attack has to be during a standard action in the sunder text, it simply says melee attack.



Exactly.

Fortunately, the table clears this up.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

And now you are just disregarding my last couple posts.

And you may think its unlikely, but that doesnt make your pov true. Infact the game designers and faq agree with the pov as listed in post 443.

The table doesnt clear it up

You tell me what the text. You can use a melee attack. means?


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

The sunder text gives it other uses

The bull rush text gives it other uses

both are listed as standard actions.

What makes you able to bull rush as part of a charge? the text.

What states you could sunder as a melee attack the text


The text doesnt list sunder as taking a standard action to sunder, or sundering as part of a standard action, it says melee attack.

Your and my idea of melee attack must be different.


----------



## Nail (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> The table doesnt clear it up



The text doesn't define the Type of Action.

The Table does.

Man A: "Rain is wet."

Man B: "It will rain in one hour."

Question: Will you get wet in one hour?


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

As the game designers and faq suggest, the table only determines an action because the text lacks an action. And you need to have an "action" to provoke an aoo.

Bull rush text describes it as a standard action, so does the table, no descrepancy. But the text also gives it another use (which isnt a standard aciton).

This contradicts hyp's statement of "unless you are taking the standard action the text doesnt apply"

If your not taking the standard action bullrush, then the text wouldnt apply.

That text lets you use it on a charge.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

In the case of bullrush, using your logic there is no descrepancy

Its a standard action, and you can use it as part of a charge


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

And lets keep in mind, under action types, it specifically says the action type essentially tells you how long it takes to perform (and not what it does)


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

Nail, i'd be interested to know what you make of this text

"You can use a melee attack to" What do you take that to mean?


----------



## Nail (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> "You can use a melee attack to" What do you take that to mean?



Just what it says: Use a melee attack to perform the special attack.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

Does an aoo not give you a melee attack that, by the text, you could use?


----------



## Seeten (Feb 24, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> The text doesn't define the Type of Action.
> 
> The Table does.
> 
> ...




No, I'll be inside.


----------



## Nail (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Does an aoo not give you a melee attack that, by the text, you could use?



Sure, if an AoO was a Standard Action.


----------



## Nail (Feb 24, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> No, I'll be inside.



Good man.

IOW, before answering a question, you'd best consider all of the facts.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

The text doesnt say you take a standard action, or use a standard action, does it?

The text states as you said earlier, 



> Just what it says: Use a melee attack to perform the special attack.




edit : Sunder(mistake)

Aoo gives you a melee attack 

So BY THE TEXT you could sunder on an aoo right? right


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

And thus, like bullrush, wouldnt that mean that the text would suggest that you could have another way in which to use it?

If the text was written as a standard action you can, or you use a standard action too, no argument.

But as written, the text lets you use a melee attack to perform that special attack

aoo gives you a melee attack

Bullrush and sunder are both listed on the table as standard actions

Both have text that gives other uses of that special attack


----------



## Nail (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> So BY THE TEXT you could sunder on an aoo right? right



So long as the table didn't specify the type of action, you'd be right.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

So what im saying is, the table lists sunder AND bullrush as standard actions

But the text of bull rush still gives it another use

And the text of sunder suggests too, that it could have other uses

And if the text actually said You make a standard action to...  then i'd agree with you

But the text doesnt specify that you need a standard action to use a melee attack (and thus would suggest that it could indeed have other uses)

The table, like i've stated lists sunder and bull rush as standard actions, but the standard action bull rush, states in its text it has another use.

Without adding words to the text of sunder, it too, suggests that it could be used
in other ways.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 24, 2007)

I think the issue here is, the table is clarifying the text, its explaining exactly what the text meant. If you read the text that way, the table and text agree. If you make up your mind before you read the table, then you tend to claim the table is in error.

If the table WAS in fact, in error, they've had 4 years to errata it. Instead all they've done is make claims in articles that you can sunder on an AoO, which suggests they, like me, havent really bothered to check this rule out and fully read it.


----------



## Nail (Feb 24, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> And the text of sunder suggests too, that it could have other uses....



Which uses?


----------



## Nail (Feb 24, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> I think the issue here is, the table is clarifying the text, its explaining exactly what the text meant. If you read the text that way, the table and text agree. If you make up your mind before you read the table, then you tend to claim the table is in error.
> 
> If the table WAS in fact, in error, they've had 4 years to errata it. Instead all they've done is make claims in articles that you can sunder on an AoO, which suggests they, like me, havent really bothered to check this rule out and fully read it.



That's the way I see it too, FWIW.

It's also clear that it takes a BIG deal to publish errata (e.g. wild shape).  If it's just a minor detail (like this one), they don't bother.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

That it could be used on an aoo, the table doesnt change the way the text is written.

And If the special attack sunder's text gives you a use to use it on an aoo, why cant you? Is there a rule that a standard action cant be used for an aoo if that actions text states a way you can?


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> I think the issue here is, the table is clarifying the text, its explaining exactly what the text meant. If you read the text that way, the table and text agree. If you make up your mind before you read the table, then you tend to claim the table is in error.
> 
> If the table WAS in fact, in error, they've had 4 years to errata it. Instead all they've done is make claims in articles that you can sunder on an AoO, which suggests they, like me, havent really bothered to check this rule out and fully read it.




I agree, this is such a minor issue, i doubt they care if we argue about it or not. We'll run it how we want.

They've stated in a faq, and explained about the table, which tells me they at least read it, and ended up comming to the same interpretation as the articles.


I dont think the table and text have to be in error

Like the point im trying to make in bullrush

Bullrush is listed as a standard action on the table, but the text gives it another use.

Sunder is listed on the table as a standard action, but the text would suggest another use.

The table doesnt add words to how sunder is written, and as its written would still suggest it has other uses. This doesnt make the table necessarially wrong (as bull rush is on it and has another use too)


----------



## Seeten (Feb 24, 2007)

The table clarifies that its a melee attack used as part of a standard action, not a melee attack standing on its own.


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

How do you draw that conclusion? That is adding words to the text

The table only shows that the action (sunder) in combat, is a standard action.

It does not change how the text for sunder is written.

edit - Also sunder doesnt say that it is a melee attack on its own, it says you use a melee attack to sunder


----------



## bestone (Feb 24, 2007)

the text is still the text as written, without your assumptions that thet table puts words into the text, the text would give it other uses.

Bullrush is listed on that table as a standard action, the text gives it other uses.

So if the table indeed changed the text, you may be right

If the table is in addition to the text, i see it on par with bull rush.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 25, 2007)

Bullrush explicitly states "as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge." (PHB 154)

Find me the same text under Sunder.

I think your confusion comes about because you consider "use a melee attack" as an action - it's not.  It's something you do as part of your action. To gain a melee attack, you must take an action of some description, whether that be a Standard, Full-round, or AOO (not an action) etc.

In the case of the Sunder special attack, it is it's own Standard Action - as denoted by Table 8-2 by:

- being listed as a Standard Action;
- the absence of disarm/grapple/trip being listed under same; and
- the absence of Sunder under Action Type Varies and footnote 7.

The text under Sunder only specifies the mechanism to resolve the Standard Action: "use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding."  It's not use ANY melee attack, it's use the melee attack granted through the use of the Sunder special attack - a Standard Action.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 25, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> When the table and text disagree, go with the text.
> 
> That's a non-issue for Sunder.




Only if one assumes that "Melee Attack" and "Melee Attack as a Standard Action" mean the exact same thing in the rules.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 25, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> I think the issue here is, the table is clarifying the text, its explaining exactly what the text meant. If you read the text that way, the table and text agree. If you make up your mind before you read the table, then you tend to claim the table is in error.




I am not making up my mind before I read the table.

I am reading "Melee Attack" and "Melee Attack as a Standard Action" and saying, "Hmmm. These are not the same thing"..

In order for the table to clarify the text, the text has to not be in conflict with the table (as many people claim). However, I see this as a conflict. "Melee Attack" is not restricted in its use and "Melee Attack as a Standard Action" is restricted.

Since they are not the same thing, it is not a clarification. It is a change. As such, text overrides table as per the rules.



			
				Seeten said:
			
		

> If the table WAS in fact, in error, they've had 4 years to errata it. Instead all they've done is make claims in articles that you can sunder on an AoO, which suggests they, like me, havent really bothered to check this rule out and fully read it.




It took years for them to errata the Special Abilities table in the DMG. They hardly errata anything. This is a non issue.

Whether this suggests anything at all is irrlevant.

The fact remains is that WotC has many sources which disagree with the "Table over Text" interpretation.

Frankly, I am surprised so many people are so adament about Table over Text here on the boards when it is pretty apparent that WotC means the exact opposite and that there is a literal RAW interpretation that matches WotC's take on this.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Feb 25, 2007)

It's not Table over text, it's table + text.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 25, 2007)

Sithobi1 said:
			
		

> It's not Table over text, it's table + text.




Not according to WotC.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Feb 25, 2007)

This is just a rehash of previous arguments...
Table+Text=Outcome
If table contradicts text, you get text over tables...
In this case, whoever supports sunder as an AoO thinks the table contradicts the text.
Whoever supports sunder as a standard action doesn't think there's a contradiction.


----------



## Legildur (Feb 25, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...and that there is a literal RAW interpretation that matches WotC's take on this.



And an even MORE literal RAW interpretation that opposes WotC's take on this.


----------



## Nail (Feb 25, 2007)

Page 13!  We can do it!


----------



## Legildur (Feb 25, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Page 13!  We can do it!



Bah! We're only halfway to the number of posts achieved in the 'monks use Improved Natural Attack?' thread.....


----------



## Felix (Feb 25, 2007)

Well, as long as


----------



## Felix (Feb 25, 2007)

we do the whole


----------



## Felix (Feb 25, 2007)

stream of consciousness posting


----------



## Felix (Feb 25, 2007)

we should get to


----------



## Felix (Feb 25, 2007)

page 40 fairly quickly.


----------



## Nail (Feb 25, 2007)

Only if....


----------



## Nail (Feb 25, 2007)

all of us....


----------



## Nail (Feb 25, 2007)

keep posting....


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 1, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> @ RigaMortus2
> 
> I take it your trying to suggest that without the table you wouldnt be able to do any of those attack at any time,  thus you need the table to tell you when you can do them.




Basically, that is what I am suggesting.  You could ASSUME that there is no special Action Type, and that they can be used whenever you are eligible to take a melee attack.  But this would be an assumption.  Since the Table DOES exisit to back this assumption up, it no longer becomes an assumption and becomes fact.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> I disagree, because when you refer to the text, your still assuming the table is there.




I am not clear what you mean by this...  Can you explain?

Either we are ignoring the Table completely, in which case, all we have are assumptions as to when we can make our Disarms, Trips and Grapples.  OR we are using the information in the Table that spells out when we can take our Disarms, Trips and Grapples.  But if we DO read the Table to support this, why would we all of a sudden decide to ignore the Table when it comes to Sunder?

In other words, the Text does not tell us WHEN we can make the Disarm check.  It tells us HOW to take it (As a melee attack).  When can we make a Disarm "as a melee attack"?  Check the Table (it's footnote 7).
The Text does not tell us WHEN we can make a Sunder attempt.  It tells us HOW to take it (You can use a melee attack).  When can make a Sunder by "using a melee attack"?  Check the Table (under Standard Actions).



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> As a melee attack (disarm)
> 
> You can use a melee attack (sunder)
> 
> ...




Again, those tell me the attack TYPE (a melee attack vs. a ranged attack).  That still does not tell me WHEN or what ACTION TYPE (if any).

Quote me the rule that tells me WHEN I can make/use the melee attack?  I know that it IS a melee attack, but I do not know WHEN I can make that melee atttack.  Is it only on my turn?  On my opponents turn?  During an AoO?  Only when I take a Full-Round Action?  A Standard Action?  A Move Action?

If you can't quote the rule, then you are simply assuming "anytime you are eligible for a melee attack, you can make a Disarm, Trip, Grapple or Sunder".  It's all assumption until you can quote the rule as to WHEN you can make it vs HOW it is performed.



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> *Without the table how would you interpret them?*




Exactly.  WITHOUT THE TABLE...  Without the Table, I would be left to ASSUME that you can take them whenever you are eligible to make a melee attack.  No matter if it is a Grapple, Trip, Disarm or Sunder.  However, WITH the Table we can verify that Grapple, Trip and Disarm can be done whenever you have a melee attack to take, and that Sunder (a) lacks that footnote and (b) is a Standard Action (unlike Grapple, Trip and Disarm).



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> I dont know about you, but if there was a rule telling me that if i have one thing (a), i could use it as  (b) instead. Then when i have (a), i can use it as (b).




If only such a rule existed.  Quote please...



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> The text doesnt say its a standard action, it simply says, when you have (a), you can use it as (b).




False.  The text does NOT state that.  I would love to see a rules quote that states "If you have a Special Attack that requires a melee attack, you may substitute any melee attack you are granted for such an attack".  Or SOMETHING to that effect.  



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> aoo's, melee attacks, full round attacks, give you (a)




Ok...



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> The text  states, i can use that (a) as (b) instead.




*This is the rules quote I am asking for.  WHERE does it state this?*
Note: Unless you are referring to the rules in the Table for footnote 7?



			
				bestone said:
			
		

> Or do you read that text as something entirely different, or dont consider it a rule?




I am trying to find the text you are referring to.  It doesn't appear in my PHB or any online SRD that I am aware of.


----------



## Nail (Mar 1, 2007)

....ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..........

RigaMortus2, *what have you done!*


----------



## bestone (Mar 2, 2007)

Yeah, just let it die


----------



## Legildur (Mar 2, 2007)

Nah... we are so close to 500 posts!!!


----------



## Sithobi1 (Mar 2, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Yeah, just let it die



So you're saying you don't have a response?


----------



## bestone (Mar 2, 2007)

Sure, if thats what it takes to kill this thing


----------



## airwalkrr (Mar 2, 2007)

Geez Louise! End this thread already.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 2, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> disarm - As a melee attack (to me reads, you can use your melee attack to) attempt to disarm.




How do you know that Disarm isn't it's own melee attack?  Why do you assume it just "piggybacks" ontop of any melee attack you are eligible for?


----------



## mvincent (Mar 16, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> stream of consciousness posting



Are the sizes of the posts taken into account when determining pages, or is it only the number of posts?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Apr 1, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Are the sizes of the posts taken into account when determining pages, or is it only the number of posts?




That is a good question...


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 1, 2007)

Number only. The User CP has a setting for number of posts per page, and the top post of any page will always be that number times the number of pages minus one, plus one, or (x - 1) + 1.


----------



## mvincent (Apr 2, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Number only. The User CP has a setting for number of posts per page, and the top post of any page will always be that number times the number of pages minus one, plus one, or (x - 1) + 1.



Ah. Good point. Thanks. Of course, mine is set to default, so now I wonder what that number is. 

I realize I could figure it out rather easily (i.e. by viewing the bottom post number on the first page), but then, where would be the fun in that?


----------



## werk (Apr 2, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Ah. Good point. Thanks. Of course, mine is set to default, so now I wonder what that number is.
> 
> I realize I could figure it out rather easily (i.e. by viewing the bottom post number on the first page), but then, where would be the fun in that?




In the toolbar ^^up there^^ under the flashing ad banner

Hit, My Account
Then, Edit my Thread Viewing Options

Mine is set to 50, it's the highest it goes. : \


----------



## mvincent (Apr 2, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> In the toolbar ^^up there^^ under the flashing ad banner
> 
> Hit, My Account
> Then, Edit my Thread Viewing Options



I had actually done that: that's how I learned that my current "_Number of Posts to Show Per Page_" setting was set to "_Use forum default_". I was just curious what the "forum default" was here.


----------



## tylermalan (Apr 2, 2007)

I think, obviously, this thread needs a *bump*


----------



## Nail (Apr 2, 2007)

tylermalan said:
			
		

> I think, obviously, this thread needs a *bump*



Oh, my wrath knows no bounds.....


----------



## werk (Apr 2, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> I had actually done that: that's how I learned that my current "_Number of Posts to Show Per Page_" setting was set to "_Use forum default_". I was just curious what the "forum default" was here.




I guess there's no way to find out then... <rolls eyes>

Maybe you should bother the mods in Meta.


----------



## Deset Gled (Apr 2, 2007)

The default is 40.  There was actually an odd occurence a couple of months ago where the default got changed from 40 (to 50, IIRC), resulting in a thread in Meta by some of the people who noticed.

Meta is your friend.


----------



## mvincent (Apr 2, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> The default is 40.



Thanks ; )



> There was actually an odd occurence a couple of months ago where the default got changed from 40 (to 50, IIRC), resulting in a thread in Meta by some of the people who noticed.



For sure: a tragic incident like that could reduce this thread size from 13 to 10 (or less) pages!


----------



## Deset Gled (Apr 2, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> For sure: a tragic incident like that could reduce this thread size from 13 to 10 (or less) pages!




Tragic, indeed.  The reason that I specifically remember going Meta for it was because (unknown to me at the time) my home computer was set to default, but my work computer was set specifically to 40 posts per page.  So I would be posting on page 5 of a thread at work, then go home and find the thread only had 4 pages.  I spent some time wondering if something had been slipped into my coffee that day.


----------



## Legildur (Apr 2, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> ...So I would be posting on page 5 of a thread at work, then go home and find the thread only had 4 pages.  I spent some time wondering if something had been slipped into my coffee that day.



LOL! Glad I wasn't drinking my coffee right now.


----------



## tylermalan (Apr 3, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Oh, my wrath knows no bounds.....




Hahahahaha yes!!


----------

