Attack of Opportunity during an attack of opportunity?
- Thread starter Anubis
- Start date
- Status
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
IceBear said:
Well, the rules were the same in 3.0.
Strike a Weapon was a standard action, and its effect was "You can use a melee attack to..."
-Hyp.
Okay, now I know this debate is pointless. None of you know what you're talking about. Piratecat, where do you get the idea that Monte Cook didn't work on 3.5? He's one of the designers! Take a look at PH pg. 2!
Also, as to the opinions of the designers, since they made it, they don't have opinions, they have only facts. Also, errata says text over table, therefore Sunder is not an action. What is wrong with you people? Did someone turn on the stupid switch or something?
Designers, as per the book: Monte Cook, Janathan Tweet, Skip Williams. Revision Team: Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Skip Willliams. Looky there! Monte Cook is there! Skip Williams is there TWICE! Yet you say his word isn't official? I think they know more about what the wording means than you do.
You claim there is no contradiction, but there is. If Sunder was a standard action, that would make it the ONLY SPECIAL ATTACK NOT LISTED AS SUCH IN THE TEXT. That means YOU'RE WRONG!
I'll take whatever tone I like, and I can't tolerate utter stupidity when the answer is so damn clear. There is a contradiction. The text says it's not a standard action and the table says it is. The ERRATA says text over table, therefore the text is right and Sunder is not a standard action. The book doesn't stand alone, the designers are the ones to answer any questions. Considering OVER HALF OF ALL PEOPLE are disagreeing with you guys, that shows that there is indeed a legitimate question as to what the rules are saying. The FAQ is designed to answer said questions, and IT DOES. In other words, you guys are wrong and Skip Williams is right. He freaking was one of the designers, after all, and has been involved since DAY ONE.
You can't say that since the book has been published, it's the only official source; that's the absolute dumbest thing I've ever heard. If that's the crux of your argument, then I automatically win because you guys don't even know the basics. You guys fight logic every which way, and even when confronted by ample evidence (when you provide no proof whatsoever aside from twisting context and conjecture), you still resist it. I swear you guys must have something against me. I'm guessing you LIKE pissing me off, because I refuse to believe such stupidity can be so widespread on a topic that is CLOSED TO DISCUSSION.
WotC has given an official word on this. YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE THEM BECAUSE IT IS THEIR PRODUCT! What part of that do you fools NOT understand?
Also, as to the opinions of the designers, since they made it, they don't have opinions, they have only facts. Also, errata says text over table, therefore Sunder is not an action. What is wrong with you people? Did someone turn on the stupid switch or something?
Designers, as per the book: Monte Cook, Janathan Tweet, Skip Williams. Revision Team: Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Skip Willliams. Looky there! Monte Cook is there! Skip Williams is there TWICE! Yet you say his word isn't official? I think they know more about what the wording means than you do.
You claim there is no contradiction, but there is. If Sunder was a standard action, that would make it the ONLY SPECIAL ATTACK NOT LISTED AS SUCH IN THE TEXT. That means YOU'RE WRONG!
I'll take whatever tone I like, and I can't tolerate utter stupidity when the answer is so damn clear. There is a contradiction. The text says it's not a standard action and the table says it is. The ERRATA says text over table, therefore the text is right and Sunder is not a standard action. The book doesn't stand alone, the designers are the ones to answer any questions. Considering OVER HALF OF ALL PEOPLE are disagreeing with you guys, that shows that there is indeed a legitimate question as to what the rules are saying. The FAQ is designed to answer said questions, and IT DOES. In other words, you guys are wrong and Skip Williams is right. He freaking was one of the designers, after all, and has been involved since DAY ONE.
You can't say that since the book has been published, it's the only official source; that's the absolute dumbest thing I've ever heard. If that's the crux of your argument, then I automatically win because you guys don't even know the basics. You guys fight logic every which way, and even when confronted by ample evidence (when you provide no proof whatsoever aside from twisting context and conjecture), you still resist it. I swear you guys must have something against me. I'm guessing you LIKE pissing me off, because I refuse to believe such stupidity can be so widespread on a topic that is CLOSED TO DISCUSSION.
WotC has given an official word on this. YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE THEM BECAUSE IT IS THEIR PRODUCT! What part of that do you fools NOT understand?
By the way, after reading the FAQ even more carefully, I figured out there is nothing odd about it being listed on the table as it is. What Skip Williams says in the FAQ makes perfect sense now, and I figured out why it's shown differently.
Disarm and the others can be used in place of melee attacks as melee attacks, but sunder uses a melee attack because it IS a melee attack. Do you know what the difference is? Unlike disarm and the others, SUNDER DOES DAMAGE. That's the difference. Basically, the reason it's listed apart from everything else is because it's a special attack action. This means that there is no need for errata.
The text says that sunder itself is not a standard action, and it's not. A normal attack, however, is the very same way. Disarm and the others may be interchangable, but sunder doesn't need to be because it's already an attack in and of itself. I read it all again because I still didn't like Skip's reasoning as to why sunder was on the table, but now I understand. It's an attack that provokes an attack of opportunity. Sure, disarm and others do as well, but they aren't attacks, they're used AS attacks. Sunder IS an attack, so it's different.
Why is it listed as a standard action on the table? Simple. FOR THE SAME REASON A NORMAL ATTACK IS. As such, when you combine the text AND the table, that means that just as attack and sunder are both attack actions, but can be used as part of a full attack because they are both attack actions in and of themselves.
The problem here, and the reason you guys seem to be out of it regarding this issue, is simply because the wording is so complex all around that only those who can actually think deep enough like the designers can grasp what it's saying. Basically, it's a form of "tech talk". The bad thing is that they accidentally left the "tech talk" in the handbook, so only those astute enough to make that determination can figure it out exactly. It took me several tries to figure it out myself. Nonetheless, sunder is an attack action, not a defacto standard action. The listing is supposed to be the same as a regular attack.
Basically, the confusion stems from sunder dealing damage and the need to thus list it as an attack. The text says it all. Just read it ALL more carefully, the FAQ included. The FAQ is necessary to pick apart the "tech talk". Basically, disarm and the others aren't attacks, they're used as attacks; sunder is an attack, and you use a melee attack to do it, and it's thus interchangable like all the other actions. Really, for simplicity they should just go ahead and change it to be like disarm and the others, but it's not necessary to do so because the only thing getting in the way is the "tech talk".
Disarm and the others can be used in place of melee attacks as melee attacks, but sunder uses a melee attack because it IS a melee attack. Do you know what the difference is? Unlike disarm and the others, SUNDER DOES DAMAGE. That's the difference. Basically, the reason it's listed apart from everything else is because it's a special attack action. This means that there is no need for errata.
The text says that sunder itself is not a standard action, and it's not. A normal attack, however, is the very same way. Disarm and the others may be interchangable, but sunder doesn't need to be because it's already an attack in and of itself. I read it all again because I still didn't like Skip's reasoning as to why sunder was on the table, but now I understand. It's an attack that provokes an attack of opportunity. Sure, disarm and others do as well, but they aren't attacks, they're used AS attacks. Sunder IS an attack, so it's different.
Why is it listed as a standard action on the table? Simple. FOR THE SAME REASON A NORMAL ATTACK IS. As such, when you combine the text AND the table, that means that just as attack and sunder are both attack actions, but can be used as part of a full attack because they are both attack actions in and of themselves.
The problem here, and the reason you guys seem to be out of it regarding this issue, is simply because the wording is so complex all around that only those who can actually think deep enough like the designers can grasp what it's saying. Basically, it's a form of "tech talk". The bad thing is that they accidentally left the "tech talk" in the handbook, so only those astute enough to make that determination can figure it out exactly. It took me several tries to figure it out myself. Nonetheless, sunder is an attack action, not a defacto standard action. The listing is supposed to be the same as a regular attack.
Basically, the confusion stems from sunder dealing damage and the need to thus list it as an attack. The text says it all. Just read it ALL more carefully, the FAQ included. The FAQ is necessary to pick apart the "tech talk". Basically, disarm and the others aren't attacks, they're used as attacks; sunder is an attack, and you use a melee attack to do it, and it's thus interchangable like all the other actions. Really, for simplicity they should just go ahead and change it to be like disarm and the others, but it's not necessary to do so because the only thing getting in the way is the "tech talk".
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Anubis said:
No, it doesn't... the text is silent on the matter.
No, not at all. There's also the official errata.
Grapple does damage.
"Step 3: Hold. Make an opposed grapple check as a free action. If you succeed, you and your target are now grappling, and you deal damage to the target as if with an unarmed strike."
Why isn't it listed as a standard action?
Instead, it's listed as Action Type: Varies, and has a footnote that specifically notes it can be used once in an Attack or Charge action, one or more times in a Full Attack action, or as an AoO.
Which makes sense for something that can be used once in an Attack or Charge action, one or more times in a Full Attack action, or as an AoO.
Sunder isn't listed in this way. Which makes sense for something that can't be used once in an Attack or Charge action, one or more times in a Full Attack action, or as an AoO.
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf said:
Now read it more carefully. The grapple action itself doesn't cause the damage, parts of later consequences do, and even then it's unarmed damage and not a normal attack. Sunder itself deals direct damage just like a regular attack.
It doesn't have the note because *it doesn't need it*. The fact that it is an actual attack means it behaves in every way as such.
I'm starting to think the collective intelligence of some of you people is questionable.
AGGEMAM said:
Well, I just can't tolerate downright stupidity. It's a pet peeve.
To bring up another point, what on earth justifies the position that if the designers meant A thing and wrote it up in such an ambiguous way that it could mean A or B, that the word of the designers specifically stating it means A isn't valid? That makes no sense.
The designers obviously intend sunder to be an actual attack and not a flat standard action. The wording can be interpreted either way based on the errata and the notation that the text overrules any table. Still, it's just "tech talk" and a result of poor wording, so why would you think it's okay to ignore what the designers obviously intended (which most of us can even see in the wording by breaking down the "tech talk", errata, and information from the FAQ)?
I think the wording could be better for the less intuitive, but that still leaves no doubt that the designers meant one thing and worded it in a way at least they understood clearly; you just like ignoring what is clearly factual. Skip Williams designed the damn thing and says it means one thing, yet you still say it means something else even though he freaking wrote it. Explain the logic in that.
I'm not saying whether or not sunder being an attack is a good thing or not, I'm just saying that if you go by the core rules, that's what it is whether you like it or not. To say sunder is a standard action and can't be part of a full attack, that is *a house rule*. Every bit of proof supports what I'm saying, yet you still ignore it.
You wanna know why I refuse to show respect? The reason is simple: you're all too disrespectful toward me to deserve it.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Gentlemen, the personal insults - especially after a prior warning from a moderator - are unacceptable.
The Standard Action/Type Varies debate is a legitimate issue for the rules forum.
Attacking the people involved - on either side - is not, however.
This thread is closed; if someone wishes to start a new thread in the Rules Forum discussing the status of Sunder, they may feel free... provided it does not degenerate into another sniping exchange.
-Hyp.
(Moderator)
The Standard Action/Type Varies debate is a legitimate issue for the rules forum.
Attacking the people involved - on either side - is not, however.
This thread is closed; if someone wishes to start a new thread in the Rules Forum discussing the status of Sunder, they may feel free... provided it does not degenerate into another sniping exchange.
-Hyp.
(Moderator)
- Status
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (181) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
