The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Fifth Element]

Please read again if you are missing it.

Alright, I read it again.

Inadequate for what exactly?

Proving that Hyp's interpretation is incorrect? I can't do that, since it's a reasonable interpretation, and that's not my purpose. Hyp's interpretation is not, and cannot be, incorrect, since the rules are open to interpretation as I have demonstrated.

What other purpose is it inadequate for?

 

[Fifth Element]

The text is open to interpretation. The table is not.

My interpretation of the text means the table doesn't mean what you think it means (under this interpretation). Sunder is listed under standard actions because that's where melee attack is listed. And sunder is a melee attack used in a particular way.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

(Note, I don't have a dog in this fight, because I don't particularly care whether Sunder is an attack or an attack option. I'm just indulging my curiosity.)

Those of y'all who say that Sunder isn't open for interpretation (that the RAW is clear):

Does it mean anything to y'all that the Rules Compendium backs up the "use as a melee attack" interpretation? Do y'all think the designers changed the intent of Sunder, between the Player's Handbook and the Rules Compendium? Are they just plain wrong, and they're "rewriting" the rules in the Rules Compendium so as to no longer be wrong? Is it possible that what's in the PH on Sunder is open to interpretation, due to a minute error? Is it possible that what's in the PH isn't an error, but just unclear?

 

[Beginning of the End]

Where?

The table says it's a standard action. In the description of that action, it says you can use a melee attack.

Hmm... You're extending the argument so that it now goes:

1. You rewrite what the rules say, but it's only a slight change so you hope nobody notices what you did.

2. Then you rewrite what the rules say even more, but it's only a slight change of the slight change you already made, so you hope that nobody notices what you did.

3. Then, when your're called on rewriting the rule, you talk about a completely different section of the rulebook.

Yeah... I'm afraid this argument still isn't doing much for me.

And where is any rewriting occurring?

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

What you rewrote the first time: "When you Sunder, you can use a melee attack."

What you rewrote the second time: "The action doesn't use a melee attack; you use a melee attack when you take the action."

I read the same text and table, and don't thus conclude.

I notice you have neglected, in any way, to respond to or refute the core of the argument. Allow me to repeat it and give you another chance:

What do we notice here? Well, first we notice that every single "Special Attack" that doesn't take the place of an attack specifically states the type of action it requires: (examples snipped)

When a "Special Attack" takes the place of an attack we find: (examples snipped)

1. Sunder contains no statement of the type of action it requires.

2. Sunder contains the phrase "use a melee attack" -- which looks a lot like "as a melee attack", "in place of a melee attack", and "make a melee attack", but looks absolutely nothing like "using a standard action", "requires a standard action", or "as a standard action".

Thus we conclude that Sunder is clearly written as an action which is used as an attack. According to the rules, this supersedes the table. It simple doesn't matter that the table incorrectly omitted this information.

Do you have an actual response to this? Or are you just going to play more selective quoting games?

I reckon that is a pretty lame accusation to make. Sloppy and unnecessary.

Lame accusation? I quoted him doing it.

Of course, I notice that in your next message you use the EXACT same tactic of trying to subtly rewrite what the rule actually says to make it look like it says what you want it to say.

And that kind of intellectual dishonesty is lame. Cut it out.

I disagree with this. It says that you use a melee attack to sunder. The phrasing "as a melee attack" implies an action that replaces a melee attack. The sunder description implies that it is a use of a melee attack, not a replacement for one.

That's a good argument against equating "use a melee attack" with "as a melee attack" or "in place of a melee attack", and if those were the only phrases in question you'd be able to argue that Sunder falls into some sort of gray area (out of which the FAQ explicitly removes it).

But you're ignoring the phrase "make a ranged touch attack". The difference between "use an attack" and "make an attack" is, AFAICT, non-existent. And, when taken in totality, creates a clear pattern of usage for actions which take the place of an attack.

(Particularly combined with the fact that Sunder doesn't follow the forms found in standard actions which grant an attack -- strongly indicating that it is not, in fact, a standard action which grants an attack.)

 

[Meeki]

Its funny how many times people say the table is the be all end all. When the table does not indicate what can be used as an attack of opportunity or not. It merely says those with footnote 7 can substitute a melee attack to perform that action and use it on an AoO.

however, if half of you would bother to read sunder, you would see it says you may make a melee attack to strike. This is NOT substituting a melee attack to do somethig else, like disarm. Nor is it a standard action, because, like ALL OTHER standard actions in that same section, it does not say it takes a standard action to perform.

Come on, it says IN THE TEXT, it is a melee attack. It IS a melee attack. It mentions a strike, which follows a melee attack. The TEXT of sunder explains it clear. The Table does not contradict this.

The counter arguments are loosely based on this table that does not contradict sunder being used on an AoO. Not only that but none of the counter arguments actually refer to the text of sunder, which is THE evidence that should be used.

This is silly, please lock this thread the rules compendium clears up an issue that should not require clearing up.

 

[Fifth Element]

To be clear about my purpose, we go back to the OP:

Therefore, there is only 1 non-contradictory way to read the totality of the rules: Sunder is a standard action which provokes an AoO and grants a melee attack.

This is disproven by my interpretation, which provides another non-contradictory way to read the rules.

 

[Fifth Element]

But you're ignoring the phrase "make a ranged touch attack". The difference between "use an attack" and "make an attack" is, AFAICT, non-existent. And, when taken in totality, creates a clear pattern of usage for actions which take the place of an attack.

To me, making an attack follows using an attack in this sense.

When you use an attack, you decide what you're doing: you attack, and decide what to use the attack for (either to hit an opponent or, say, his weapon). You then make the attack (ie, roll the die in game terms).

I see what you're saying, though. If sunder said "You can make a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon...", I don't think that would change my interpretation.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

(Please pardon the aside.)

Hey, Fifth Element, I don't think EN World has your correct email address.

 

[Fifth Element]

Hey, Fifth Element, I don't think EN World has your correct email address.

You're quite right. It's fixed now.

(It's iain.fyffe@gmail.com FYI)

 

[Deset Gled]

Does it mean anything to y'all that the Rules Compendium backs up the "use as a melee attack" interpretation? Do y'all think the designers changed the intent of Sunder, between the Player's Handbook and the Rules Compendium? Are they just plain wrong, and they're "rewriting" the rules in the Rules Compendium so as to no longer be wrong? Is it possible that what's in the PH on Sunder is open to interpretation, due to a minute error? Is it possible that what's in the PH isn't an error, but just unclear?

First, AFAIK the RC isn't released until October 16. So I don't know what it says (or how you have a copy).

Second, the RC is a big sore spot for me because of the state of errata. My post here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=208562) discusses part of the problem. If the RC comes out before any more errata does, I would probably consider it to be D+D 3.55 or something.

In direct response to your point, I do not know if the original intent was for Sunder to always be a standard action, or if footnote 7 was ommited for it on accident. I only know what the SRD says, and that they have not gone through the proper channels to change it. I do believe that the current intent of WotC is that Sunder should be able to be used on an AoO. And changing the rules would be a very easy errata that I would not argue with. However, they are not allowed to change the rule in the FAQ, per the Primary Source Rule. The fact that the reasoning they use in the FAQ is complete swill is another big problem.