Attack of Opportunity during an attack of opportunity?

[Majere]

"According to the Core Rules, Sunder is a standard action which, much like the Attack action, permits one to use a single melee attack, but against a weapon or shield, not against an opponent."

I disagree with this, according to the table the above is correct. According to my reading of the text this is wrong.

"According to the FAQ, Sunder is not an action at all, but something that replaces a melee attack, like Disarm, Trip, or Grapple, and is therefore a consequence of an action, rather than, strictly, an action."

I agree with this

The problem really is:
1) The text does not explicitally use the phrase "standard action" at all for sunder, and yet is does for all other sandard actions.
2) The text does call it a melee attack, which is does not do for ANY standard actions, but does do for all melee actions.
3) The table calls it a standard action.

Depending on how you decide to look at 1) & 2) You may decided that:
1) Its a melee attack, the table is wrong and the Text takes precidence over the table.
2) The table is correct and the Text is unclear.

Now, the RAW state that the Text always takes precidence over the table.
Thus it really comes down to wether you chose to ignore every other entry in the combat actions section and call it a stanndard action, even though it is never called one in the Text.

I am fairly convinced Hypersmurfs argument goes:
The table says standard action
The fact that the text calls it a melee attack doesnt mean it is a melee attack.
I agree with the table

My argument is:
The text says melee attack
I agree with the Text.

I know which of those is closer to the RAW.
I know which of these agrees agrees with the FAQ ruling.

Majere

 

[dcollins]

WotC produced it and they have the first, last, and only say as to what is and is not official. The FAQ is official in every way, and even the errata says that if there is disagreement between the text and the table, the text is right. So when you combine the official FAQ, which must be taken as law because it is released by the publisher, with the errata, it all becomes perfectly clear...

Basically, the FAQ is right. If you want Sunder as a Standard Action, move yourself to House Rules, because the RULES state that Sunder is instead a melee attack, as clarified in the FAQ...

Besides, Skip Williams is an official source endorsed by WotC, so obviously they believe that the rule is unclear based on their own writing in that since, unlike all the other "Special Attacks", Sunder's contradicts the table, they felt it necessary to clarify. Why didn't they put it in the errata? THEY DID...

So stop arguing otherwise, you're wrong as to the official rule. Now if you wanna have it a standard action as a house rule in your own games, that's fine, but stop trying to make your little house rules look like official rules. You didn't write the rules, WOTC DID; that means they have final say and their word is law on the subject. Any question as to whether or not the rule is good, that doesn't belong here because that's a house rule discussion and a mechanic discussion, as opposed to a rule discussion.

Hmmm, I'm not sure how you can assert that "WotC [has] only say as to what is and is not official... The FAQ is official... the official FAQ, which must be taken as law... because the RULES state... Skip Williams is an official source endorsed by WotC... THEY DID... you're wrong as to the official rule... You didn't write the rules, WOTC DID; that means they have final say and their word is law on the subject."?

Could you tell me, why do you think that any of this is "official"?

 

[Anubis]

Hmmm, I'm not sure how you can assert that "WotC [has] only say as to what is and is not official... The FAQ is official... the official FAQ, which must be taken as law... because the RULES state... Skip Williams is an official source endorsed by WotC... THEY DID... you're wrong as to the official rule... You didn't write the rules, WOTC DID; that means they have final say and their word is law on the subject."?

Could you tell me, why do you think that any of this is "official"?

Sure thing. It's officla because of all of the following:

1) PH pg. 2 lists, and I quote: Player's Handbook D&D Design Team; Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams. (This shows that Skip Williams is one of the writers and creators and thus helped make the rule.)

2) Skip Williams, one of the writers as shown above, wrote the FAQ in full. (This shows that one of the designers wrote the clarification to a rule that is somewhat confusing thanks to the table.)

3) The errata states that the text overrules any table. (This shows that the table is to be ignored. Tables are for reference only, use the text where applicable.)

4) The text for every single action under Special Attacks states what type of action it is. The text states that Aid Another is a Standard Action, etc. Sunder does not state this, and since the text overrules the table, then Sunder is not an action but rather an attack option like Disarm, etc. (This shows that although the table confuses the issue, the text clearly intends to intentionally state that Sunder is not an action.)

5) PH pg. 1 shows, at the bottom, that everything related to D&D therein are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. This means they own all the rights. (This shows that WotC make the system and own the system and thus are the only source for valid information.)

6) The FAQ can be found here. (This shows that the FAQ, written by one of the designers, is considered to be an official source of information by the legal trademark owners who decide what is and is not valid.)

7) You can find the discussion on Monte Cook's forums here. (This shows that regulars at Monte Cook's web site agree that the FAQ is valid. Without word to the contrary from Monte Cook himself, it must be considered true unless there is proof to the contrary. This is valid due to the combination of factors above, including the fact that he designed the rules alongside Skip Williams, who is the one who wrote out the official clarification for the owners of the trademarks.)

8) They may not be able to control how we use the rules, but the "Core Rules" are, factually, whatever they say they are. They wrote the rules, they own the rules, they publish the rules. That means they are the only people to have a legal say as to what the rules mean as they own the rules. Much like you can't come onto my computer and say my book I have written has a different title than the title I have given it, you also can't take their work and define it contradictory to what those who own it define it. (This shows that, while you can debate the effectiveness or the realism of the ruling all you want, proof shows that regardless of whether or not it is a good or a bad decision, the FAQ clarifies exactly what the core rule is. As such, any contradictory interpretation is a house rule. Play how you want, but don't say it's a core rule.)

I believes this covers everything. The bottom line is that the designers and the owner decide what the wording means, NOT YOU. They have spoken, so the core rule is that Sunder is not an action. You can disagree with the essence of the ruling, but the ruling still stands whether you agree or not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

7) You can find the discussion on Monte Cook's forums here. (This shows that regulars at Monte Cook's web site agree that the FAQ is valid. Without word to the contrary from Monte Cook himself, it must be considered true unless there is proof to the contrary.)

I... you... the... what?

Some guys on another website agree with you, so some guys on this website must be wrong?

And since Monte Cook hasn't posted in the thread to disagree, he obviously supports them 100%?

-Hyp.

 

[Anubis]

I... you... the... what?

Some guys on another website agree with you, so some guys on this website must be wrong?

And since Monte Cook hasn't posted in the thread to disagree, he obviously supports them 100%?

-Hyp.

There are eight reasons why you're wrong, slappy. Try going back and reading the whole post, like all eight major points.

As to your question, well . . . Monte and Skip worked together to write the rules, and if Skip said something about the rules that Monte disagreed with, he would say so. Logic thus suggests that Monte isn't saying anything primarily because he feels there is no need as Skip already answered the question in the FAQ.

Anyway, yeah, try reading all eight points. Proof is only acceptable when complete. You can't question one point and say the whole reasoning is invalid; unless you can strike down the entire thing, you have nothing.

There is ample proof that you're wrong. Do you all have to disrespect me so much that you'll argue with me just because I'm the one that says it? Hmmm? What kind of game are you playing? This is about the core rules, and there are authoritative sources that claim you are wrong and I am right. What right do you have to say someone is wrong about their own damn work, huh?

If I call a book I write one thing, you can't call it something else. (Well, you can, but you'd be WRONG.) You can say the designers are wrong about as much as you can tell Stephen King the Stand isn't really called the Stand. That's the depth of your argument.

IT DOESN'T MATTER whether you like the ruling or not, it's freaking official because it comes direct from the writers and owners. You can't say they're wrong about their own damn work, fool. Get a freaking grip on reality; you're starting to really piss me off with this crap. You have no place to say they're wrong about their own work, and that's the bottom line, period.

 

[AGGEMAM]

There are eight reasons why you're wrong, slappy. Try going back and reading the whole post, like all eight major points.

I for one don't particulary like that tone of voice, mate. Cease or desist!

The fact remains that regardless of what any of the authors personal opinions are the books as published are the only official source of the rules. The only thing that can change that is the official errata.

 

[reiella]

I for one don't particulary like that tone of voice, mate. Cease or desist!

The fact remains that regardless of what any of the authors personal opinions are the books as published are the only official source of the rules. The only thing that can change that is the official errata.

Yep, that's quite accurate and has been reiterated a bit on different forums.

I know that it has come up as a topic item for the XPH, and for the PsiHB [contrast between Skip's rulings and BRC's psuedo-errata].

Probably a few other sources too.

 

[Darkness]

There are eight reasons why you're wrong, slappy. Try going back and reading the whole post, like all eight major points.

There are a number of reasons why this tone is inappropriate. Cut it out.

- Darkness,
moderator

 

[Henry]

As to your question, well . . . Monte and Skip worked together to write the rules, and if Skip said something about the rules that Monte disagreed with, he would say so. Logic thus suggests that Monte isn't saying anything primarily because he feels there is no need as Skip already answered the question in the FAQ.

So let me see if I understand you, Anubis... You're saying that Monte reads EVERYTHING that Skip writes?

And he corrects him whenever he thinks Skip's wrong?

That's not a leap of logic I'd be willing to accept.

 

[IceBear]

Anubis, just post a new topic on Monte's forums asking his opinion on the topic. A few years ago I pasted the link to a thread on these forums with respect to Mindblank vs True Strike and he gave his opinion within the day.

You'll still have the purists telling you it's not official (and they're not wrong) but if Monte agreed with Skip then that would be enough for me