unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Felix]

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]

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.

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]

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.

...

An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack

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]

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]

Deleted

 

[bestone]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!