The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Fifth Element]

I think the rule that sunder can be used to replace any melee attack is a fine rule. I have considered using it in my games. I still think that it isn't what the rules say.

That's precisely it. You don't think that's what the rules say, because that's not how you interpret them, which is fine.

The fact is, you don't know that's not what the rules say, because there is some ambiguity. I am arguing against the assertion that there is no ambiguity, that there is only one way to interpret the rules.

 

[Fifth Element]

But why must it be described as such in the text when it's defined in the table?

Other actions do, but if they didn't, we'd still know they were standard actions from the table... so omitting that sentence from the text would not change their behaviour.

Hyp, I'm done arguing details with you. You still did not respond to the text I quoted as being "the important part"; you argued something else when I asked you to specifically comment on that.

I realize now I did include that bit about the standard actions in the last post, so I apologize. Let's strip it down a little more, so you don't get distracted by minutiae:

If you argue that there is no ambiguity here, and that you are absolutely right without the possibility of another interpretation fitting the rules as written, I ask why there have been so many threads on the subject? If you are absolutely right, why can you not prove it?

And if you are not absolutely right beyond the shadow of any doubt, why can you not admit the possibility that another interpretation fits the rules? Even a clearly inferior one which you would never use in your game in a million years?

 

[Elethiomel]

TThe fact is, you don't know that's not what the rules say, because there is some ambiguity. I am arguing against the assertion that there is no ambiguity, that there is only one way to interpret the rules.

I cannot in good conscience state my opinion as objective truth because I don't know the objective truth. I am a human being, flawed and fallible. All I can know is my opinion. How's this:

I am as sure as I can possibly be that the rules currently say that Sunder is its own standard action and cannot be used in place of an arbitrary melee attack.

 

[Fifth Element]

I cannot in good conscience state my opinion as objective truth because I don't know the objective truth. I am a human being, flawed and fallible. All I can know is my opinion.

Please don't think I was targeting you, or those who suggest that the Hyp interpretation fits the rules better, or that they simply prefer it. I'm arguing against those who assert that there is only one possible interpretation of the sunder rules, such as in the OP.

I'm not really interested in which interpretation is better or more popular, just that there is in fact more than one way to interpret them. That you recognize this is good, that others do not is my point.

 

[Elethiomel]

Please don't think I was targeting you, or those who suggest that the Hyp interpretation fits the rules better, or that they simply prefer it. I'm arguing against those who assert that there is only one possible interpretation of the sunder rules, such as in the OP.

I'm not really interested in which interpretation is better or more popular, just that there is in fact more than one way to interpret them. That you recognize this is good, that others do not is my point.

I think I didn't make myself clear. I don't recognise that there is more than one way to correctly interpret the rules on sunder. I can see how someone could interpret it differently than I do, but I think they are wrong. What I do recognise is that I am not omniscient or perfect - I could be wrong. But unless someone points my error out to me (and I find the arguments presented in this (and every previous) thread unconvincing), I will continue to think that there is only one correct way to interpret the Sunder rules as they stand.

When I said I had considered using the other Sunder rules in my game, that was despite my interpreting them the way I do. I consider all rules in like fashion.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think I didn't make myself clear. I don't recognise that there is more than one way to correctly interpret the rules on sunder.

This confuses me. "Correctly interpret" implies that there is only one interpretation that fits what's written.

Assume that this was the designer's intent:

1. Sundering is a special use of a melee attack, not a separate type of action.

2. It was included on table 8-2 only to point out and clarify that it provokes an AoO, unlike the standard use of a melee attack. (That was not the best idea, since some might interpret that as meaning it's always a standard action. There were better options, but it still works in this interpretation.)

With these ideas in mind, the FAQ interpretation of sunder fits the wording and presentation of the rules. Indeed, the phrasing of the FAQ uses both of the above ideas.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you argue that there is no ambiguity here, and that you are absolutely right without the possibility of another interpretation fitting the rules as written, I ask why there have been so many threads on the subject? If you are absolutely right, why can you not prove it?

Someone can read a passage and walk away believing it to mean something it does not; that does not mean there is ambiguity in the passage.

Students write incorrect answers to equations every day; this doesn't mean there is anything ambiguous about the questions.

The existence of dispute doesn't prove ambiguity; the ambiguity only exists if neither party is incorrect in their interpretation.

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

Someone can read a passage and walk away believing it to mean something it does not; that does not mean there is ambiguity in the passage.

So...your answer is "you're wrong". Again.

Gotcha.

PS. I definitely won't be replying to you in this thread any more.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Hypersmurf has already confirmed that he has nothing worthwhile to say. Let's give you the same opportunity. Do you, in fact, have a response to my argument?

Your argument has been responded to ad nauseum. There is this now lengthy thread on the topic where your repeated claims have been responded to. There are numerous older threads covering exactly the same ground - you've not brought a single new idea to the argument. So you'll forgive me if I don't just copy and paste the whole thing every time I write a reply just to pander to your needs.

Okay, I'll play along and give you one last chance. Give me a post number in this thread (or a link to a specific post in some other thread) where my specific argument is refuted.

... I'm waiting.

 

[Elethiomel]

Assume that this was the designer's intent:

1. Sundering is a special use of a melee attack, not a separate type of action.

Okay, I'll assume that for the purposes of this post.

2. It was included on table 8-2 only to point out and clarify that it provokes an AoO, unlike the standard use of a melee attack. (That was not the best idea, since some might interpret that as meaning it's always a standard action. There were better options, but it still works in this interpretation.)

Then they made a mistake in including it under "Standard Action" instead of under "Action Type: Varies". This has been my stance on the issue from the start. If Sunder is not its own standard action, it shouldn't be under the "Standard Action" section of table 8-2.

With these ideas in mind, the FAQ interpretation of sunder fits the wording and presentation of the rules. Indeed, the phrasing of the FAQ uses both of the above ideas.

As I said, the FAQ is not errata, and doesn't move "Sunder" from "Standard Action" to "Action Type: Varies" on the table. So it doesn't fit the presentation of the rules.