Attack of Opportunity during an attack of opportunity?

[Deset Gled]

Never heard of this Primary Sources rule.

The primary source rule is something that has come with 3.5. They now write a lot more spells, class abilities, etc, to reference to another source rather than re-write all the rules of something multiple time. This is often nice, as it keeps things simpler in many cases, but can also cause problems of its own (ex: polymorph).

I don't know where/if primary sourcing rules is officially printed anywhere, but a quick google revealed it to be directly cited here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20modern/bp/20040120a

Seriously, some people get too concerned by what's "official" and what's not. I honestly don't think WotC cares if Skip is making up rules or posting errata in the FAQ, so why should I?

...

I left these forums for 2 years because I got tired of the same BS, I can see my return won't be for long either. Just more aggrevating reading the same stuff over and over. I should learn to stick with the story hour forums and nothing else

Playing for fun is fine when you're actually playing. But its also to important that you're talking to the Rules Forum. IMO, this is the place that people are supposed to go to when they want to find the final ruling (or active discussion) of a topic, no matter how nitty-gritty, nit-picky, assinine, intricate, or complex the topic is. Debating through all the nitty-gritty, nit-picky, assinine, intricate, and complex workings of the rules is what this place is all about. I can understand perfectly that this isn't fun for everyone. But in all honestly, if you don't like it, you don't have to read it. Please don't try and preach to us about why you don't happen to find it enjoyable.

And finally, your statement

The rest of the stuff is actually my attitude too and I assume the attitude of 99% of the people here.

is, well, dangerous. I would recommend not trying to say you speak for anybody else unless you can back it up. In this case, the ambiguity of "here" (Does it mean the Rules forum? The message boards? Everyone who reads Enworld?) makes it seem to me that doing so is downright impossible.



(And now, a smiley to try and ensure that this post is taken in a civil, and hopefully uninsulting way)

 

[reiella]

I don't know where/if primary sourcing rules is officially printed anywhere, but a quick google revealed it to be directly cited here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20modern/bp/20040120a

Seeing as I don't actually have 3.5 books, I'm not sure if it's there, but it 'should' be.

At the very least, it's in the DMG Errata, and goes through it more or less [reference to this topic, book and topic precedence], second chapter.

On this topic, I don't really see a reason why an AoO shouldn't provoke an AoO. There may be some confusion in The Late Game with high dex combat reflex characters playing "Eat up the AoO", but since I haven't seen this occur [nor suspect it will occur], I don't feel a need to house rule it, as yet .

 

[Hypersmurf]

The primary source rule is something that has come with 3.5. They now write a lot more spells, class abilities, etc, to reference to another source rather than re-write all the rules of something multiple time. This is often nice, as it keeps things simpler in many cases, but can also cause problems of its own (ex: polymorph).

Not quite. The primary source rule says that if two contradictory rules appear in different places, then the more relevant source is correct and trumps the other one.

-Hyp.

 

[Deset Gled]

Not quite. The primary source rule says that if two contradictory rules appear in different places, then the more relevant source is correct and trumps the other one.

-Hyp.

Good catch.

And, with Reiella's info on the source, here's the text.

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 PC
races, and the 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.

 

[IceBear]

And finally, your statement
is, well, dangerous. I would recommend not trying to say you speak for anybody else unless you can back it up. In this case, the ambiguity of "here" (Does it mean the Rules forum? The message boards? Everyone who reads Enworld?) makes it seem to me that doing so is downright impossible.

(And now, a smiley to try and ensure that this post is taken in a civil, and hopefully uninsulting way)

I spent 4 hours stuck in traffic waiting for a towtruck for my sister in law yesterday so I apologize for my attitude and the words I used. No, I shouldn't speak for everyone, but I don't think my theory that most of us use what we want from the FAQ and discard the rest is that offbase

And you are right, I shouldn't preach and this IS the place to argue ad naseum over some of the finer points of the rules. And again, you are right, I don't find that fun (it was why I left before so I don't know why I thought it would be different this time). My problem is I love this hobby and want to help support new players and DMs by passing on advice. However, I hate conflict and (what I consider) pointless bickering and my rule knowledge has decreased a LOT in the past year (very little actual playing) so my advice is more wrong than right, so with this post I'll sign off and TRY to only lurk. Bye - I hope there are no hard feelings.

 

[Anubis]

@AGGEMAM . . . You said: "The PHB doesn't allow it and the FAQ can't change the rules without stating so.

I do house rule that Sunder is a melee attack along with disarm/grapple/trip .. but that my friend is a house rule, not the other way around."

Sorry, but the text agrees with me whether you like it or not. Allow me to quote yet again: "You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding."

This states CLEARLY that Sunder is "a melee attack". This clearly states that it's usable as "a melee attack". Only the table contradicts this. Well, guess what? Normally, when the text contradicts a table, the text is considered right over the table. This is how it is for all released products thus far. The text ALWAYS trumps the table. The text, contrary to what you think, agrees with me.

This means that by the rules, Sunder is a melee attack and is interchangable as such. Not allowing it is, as I said before, the house rule.

On the subjext of the FAQ: It's an OFFICIAL FAQ posted on the OFFICIAL web site by OFFICIAL sources. That makes it pretty clear that the FAQ is to be taken at its word. Until another official source says the FAQ is wrong, it's THE authority regardless of who wrote it.

 

[James McMurray]

I agree with Anubis. The text specifially says "you may use a melee attack". It doesn't say "you may use a melee attack as a standard action."

 

[Hypersmurf]

This states CLEARLY that Sunder is "a melee attack".

No, it says that if you are sundering, you can "use a melee attack".

"I'm taking the Sunder Standard Action. Can I use a ranged attack to destroy his shield?"
"No, but you can use a melee attack."

Or

"I take the Full Attack action. I use one melee attack to hit the orc, and the other melee attack to damage the hobgoblin's scimitar."
"Sorry - if you want to use a melee attack to damage an opponent's weapon, you have to take the Sunder Standard Action., not the Full Attack action."

Sunder can be a standard action, and allow you to use a melee attack, without any contradiction.

If you decide, on the other hand, that Sunder replaces any melee attack and can thus be used one in an Attack or Charge action, one or more times in a Full Attack action, or as an AoO, then you do cause a contradiction.

Two intepretations, one of which requires that you ignore part of the Core Rules, and one of which does not.

If there's an interpretation that satisfies all relevant sections of the Core Rules, that's the one that works for me!

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I agree with Anubis. The text specifially says "you may use a melee attack". It doesn't say "you may use a melee attack as a standard action."

It doesn't need to.

That part's 100% clear and unambiguous on the Table of Action Types.

The Table of Action Types states that Sunder is a standard action. The text states that it can only be done as a melee attack.

You can't Sunder in a Full Attack, because that contradicts the table. You can't Sunder with a ranged attack, because that contradicts the text.

You can Sunder as a standard action and use a melee attack, because that satisfies both.

No contradiction; simply required information found in two locations.

-Hyp.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Do I have to say that agree with Hyp. ?


(And I'm pretty sure that Hyp. has the same opinion as I have, ie that sunder should be a melee attack, but isn't per the rules. But that only assuming his opinion, not a matter of fact.)