Attack of Opportunity during an attack of opportunity?

[Majere]

Hmm

You can make a bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge
-> This is not a melee attack

As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent.
-> This IS a melle attack

Feinting is a standard action
-> This is not a melee attack

A grapple check is like a melee attack roll.
-> This is a melee attack

You can attempt an overrun as a standard action taken during your move.
-> This is not a melee attack

You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.
-> This IS a melee attack



What the table says is irrelevent; if it disagrees with the text, the text takes precidence.

"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."

Majere
Sunders your stick of Blah (+12) with his AOO

 

[Hypersmurf]

What the table says is irrelevent; if it disagrees with the text, the text takes precidence.

It doesn't disagree; the text simply fails to reiterate information found elsewhere.

Assume there is not an error in the table; therefore Sunder is a standard action. In this case, the phrase "You can use a melee attack to..." tells us what is possible when taking the Sunder standard action.

Assume there is an error in the table (well, at least two errors - placing the action in the wrong list, and omitting the footnote mark); in this case, your interpretation works.

But it requires assuming two errors to work.

If we start off by assuming there are no errors, there is no contradiction, and therefore the primary source rule need not be invoked at all.

-Hyp.

 

[Majere]

Maybe I didnt make point clearly enough.
Every attack option that takes a standard action, states EXPLICITALLY in the text of the attack option that it takes a standard action:

"You can make a bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge"
"Feinting is a standard action"
"You can attempt an overrun as a standard action taken during your move. "

Nowhere in the sundar text does it state that sundar is a standar action.
Equally all the attack option that are melee attack rolls state that they are melee attack rolls:

"As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent."
"A grapple check is like a melee attack roll. "
"You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack."

All of the above are form the SRD
So...
...there appears to be a CLEAR precedent here, if it says melee attack its a melee attack, if it says standard action, its a standard action.
Here is the text for sunder (SRD)

"You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you’re attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here. (Attacking held objects other than weapons or shields is covered below.)"

1) It DOES say melee attack
2) It DOES NOT say standard action.

Therefore I would say that sunder is a nmelee attack and not a standard action.
Hypersmurf seems to be confusing "melee attack" and "melee attack roll".

Majere

 

[Hardhead]

I've got to disagree with Hyp too. "Melee attack" means it can replace a normal attack in a full round attack in every other instance it appears in in the PHB. I think your reaching, Hyp.

There's a great article in Scientific American called "Why Smart People Believe Dumb Things." Basically, it says that smart people believe in dumb things sometimes because they're so good at defending their position, and can convince themselves that they're right even when the facts are against them.

Now, I don't think "sunder is a standard action" is really a "dumb thing," but I think you're definitly using your very strong grasp of the RAW to defend a position which (to me at least) is clearly wrong.

We know that:

(1) A melee attack is any melee attack, even as part of a full round action.

(2) You can "use a melee attack" to make a Sunder attempt.

therefore:

(3) You can make multiple Sunder attempts during a full round attack.

This doesn't require the FAQ, it's simply the reading that anyone would get from the text. Imagine that the table didn't exist for a moment. Wouldn't this be the way you read it? Without the table, there's no possible way to come to the conclusion that Sunder is a standard action!

Now, add in the table, and we see confusion. Therefore, the two contradict. But the Primary Source rule saves us. The text is right, the table is wrong.

One more thing:

But it requires assuming two errors to work.

No, it only requires one: the error in not updating the table. Imagine the author deciding that Sunder should be a standard action. He writes the rules text and places Sunder on the table accordingly. He then later decides to change it, making it a valid to substitute for a normal melee attack. He changes the text to reflect this, but forgets to change the table. Thus, what we see before us.

 

[Anubis]

dcollins, the FAQ doesn't change the wording of the text one bit. The text says it's a melee attack. I personally just consider the table an oversight, although the FAQ's explanation works as well. The FAQ simply explains which is correct between the text and the literal table meaning. The FAQ plainly states that the text is correct.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. Like I said, the word of the developers is law. No matter what you say or think, they have the final say. WotC says it means that Sunder is a melee attack, so it is. You can't argue with the developers, their word is law when it comes to their game.

More or less, I am pretty certain that the FAQ equals errata for intent and purposes when necessary, although it's not really necessary in this case save for maybe a notation on the table to make it even more clear to you guys who don't seem to grasp the written text. I'm willing to bet Monte and the others would say the same thing the FAQ says.

Tell me, what gives any of you the justification to say that the game developers are wrong? You can say whether you agree or disagree with the real rule or not, sure, but there is really no debate on the official word itself, whether you like that or not. Besides, lastly, think logically; Sunder and Disarm are very similar actions, nearly identical, so why would they not be similar actions?

The text agrees with me word for word, the FAQ agrees with me, and even logic agrees with me. You don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[dcollins]

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. Like I said, the word of the developers is law. No matter what you say or think, they have the final say. WotC says it means that Sunder is a melee attack, so it is. You can't argue with the developers, their word is law when it comes to their game...

Tell me, what gives any of you the justification to say that the game developers are wrong? You can say whether you agree or disagree with the real rule or not, sure, but there is really no debate on the official word itself, whether you like that or not. Besides, lastly, think logically; Sunder and Disarm are very similar actions, nearly identical, so why would they not be similar actions?

The text agrees with me word for word, the FAQ agrees with me, and even logic agrees with me. You don't have a leg to stand on.

I disagree, and I don't think that your argument has any merit. Or perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying. What do you mean to say by "the word of the developers is law... they have the final say... their word is law... the official word..."?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Imagine that the table didn't exist for a moment. Wouldn't this be the way you read it? Without the table, there's no possible way to come to the conclusion that Sunder is a standard action!

No, exactly. If the table did not exist, I would agree with you.

But the table does exist, and does not contradict the text, and is therefore a valid rule.

If the text were more specific, and stated that "As a melee attack, Sunder can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO", it would be clear that there would be a contradiction between text and table. But it says "You can use a melee attack"... which could, for example, simply mean that the Sunder standard action can use a ranged attack.

As a related example - the text of the Hooked Hammer states that the bludgeoning head deals 1d6 damage. The table says that it deals 1d6 for a small version, and 1d8 for a medium version. Should we ignore the table, since it contains information that is not found in the text, and is therefore obviously in error?

Or should we accept that sometimes the table contains information which is omitted from the text, but which is still valid and useful?

-Hyp.

-Hyp.

 

[Majere]

You still havent adressed my point Hypersmurf.
Where in the text does it say Sundering is a standard action.

If you can show me where in the text it says it is a standard action I will agree with you fully.
Because I can show you where in the text it says it is a melee attack.

MAjere

 

[Hypersmurf]

You still havent adressed my point Hypersmurf.
Where in the text does it say Sundering is a standard action.

It doesn't say it in the text.

It doesn't need to say it in the text.

It says it in the table.

This is hardly the only place in the Core Rules where cross-referencing is required to understand how something works!

Because I can show you where in the text it says it is a melee attack.

No, you can show me where it says under the description of the Sunder action that you can use a melee attack.

The Attack (Melee) action is not a melee attack. It is a standard action that allows you to make a single melee attack.

Similarly, under Sunder, "You can use a melee attack" does not have to mean "The Sunder action takes the place of any melee attack".

-Hyp.

 

[Majere]

Eh-hmm
Hyper do you want to read that again.

"It doesn't say it in the text."
- Quite right it doesnt

"It doesn't need to say it in the text."
-Erm, yes it does
Otherwise why do they say explicitally for all other melee attack standard actions that they are standard action. Every OTHER option which is a standard action is explicitally called a standard action in the text.
If they didnt need to, then why do they do it in every other case ?

"No, you can show me where it says under the description of the Sunder action that you can use a melee attack."
-Ok let me quote again

"You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding."

It does NOT say:
"As a standard action you may make a sunder attempt with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon"
OR
"As part of a sunder action you may make a melee attack."

Your wording implies there are multiple options. That you declaire the sunder action and then as part of that have many options, one of which is a melee attack.
You dont
There are no other options
If you "dont" choose to use a melee attack what would you use instead ?

Infact the RAW dont explicitally call it a sunder attempt. What they say is that instead of attacking a person you may elect to attack their weapon or shield. And that such a targetted strike is called a sunder.

Im pretty sure I wont convince you though

Id agree with the previous comment though.
The table is NOT a source of information, it is simply a handy summary.
You can remove almost all the tables in the DMG or PHB, the books would be harder to navigate without handy summary tables but you could do it.
Now imagine reading the sunder tables in your hypothetical book and decide if it is a melee action or a standard action.
The tables are NOT a source of information, they are just a handy summary, this is why it is stated that if a table contradicts the text, the text takes precident.

Majere