Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 3042019" data-attributes="member: 31734">Perhaps, but that is the conundrum.&nbsp; We are left with a decision on how to interpret the opposed attack roll.&nbsp; Clearly, the armor class part of the attack roll definition doesn't apply, but does the &quot;hit&quot; part of it where damage occurs also not apply?&nbsp; I think we can argue that either way (as evidenced by this huge thread), but it would be based entirely on flavor.&nbsp; In this situation, when we look at disarm, however, we don't see the words 'hit' anywhere, so there's an inclination that damage does not occur (unlike with a sunder, which explicitly mentions damage).&nbsp; At the risk of sounding like a straw man, if disarming causes damage, then sundering causes damage twice, n'est-ce pas?&nbsp;Quite naturally, this devolves into a slippery slope, so by no means am I suggesting that none of the rules on attack rolls apply.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 3042019, member: 31734"] Perhaps, but that is the conundrum. We are left with a decision on how to interpret the opposed attack roll. Clearly, the armor class part of the attack roll definition doesn't apply, but does the "hit" part of it where damage occurs also not apply? I think we can argue that either way (as evidenced by this huge thread), but it would be based entirely on flavor. In this situation, when we look at disarm, however, we don't see the words 'hit' anywhere, so there's an inclination that damage does not occur (unlike with a sunder, which explicitly mentions damage). At the risk of sounding like a straw man, if disarming causes damage, then sundering causes damage twice, n'est-ce pas? Quite naturally, this devolves into a slippery slope, so by no means am I suggesting that [I]none[/I] of the rules on attack rolls apply. [/QUOTE]

Verification