Search results

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...

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...

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...

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?

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...

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...

The text doesnt say you take a standard action, or use a standard action, does it? The text states as you said earlier, edit : Sunder(mistake) Aoo gives you a melee attack So BY THE TEXT you could sunder on an aoo right? right

Does an aoo not give you a melee attack that, by the text, you could use?

x-bows are the preffered choice for low level mages!(imho) drop prone for the 4 bonus to ac from ranged attacks and shoot away without penalty. (note this only works at range, dont try this in melee) Last mage i played this, the fighters tied up the melee, and i felt i could do something, with...

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?

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)

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

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...

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...

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?

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.

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?

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...

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...

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......