The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Hypersmurf]

Sunder does not grant you a melee attack, it USES a melee attack.

When you Sunder, you can use a melee attack.

The action doesn't use a melee attack; you use a melee attack when you take the action.

If you can show me another ability which uses the phrasing "uses a melee attack" while clearly not referring to an ability which can be used as a melee attack, I'll concede that sunder cannot be used as a melee attack.

Well, compare Disarm and Trip, which we know replace an attack derived from another source (since they carry footnote 7):
"As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent."
"You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack."

They use the phrasing "As a melee attack". Sunder doesn't use this phrasing.

So not only does it not carry footnote 7; it's also expressed differently to those things that do.

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

When you Sunder, you can use a melee attack.

The action doesn't use a melee attack; you use a melee attack when you take the action.

Ultimately I have a very difficult time believing that the designers intended such a fine (some might say non-existant) distinction to actually make a difference in the rules.

You seem to be splitting hairs in order to arrive at your interpretation.

 

[Legildur]

Ultimately I have a very difficult time believing that the designers intended such a fine (some might say non-existant) distinction to actually make a difference in the rules.

You seem to be splitting hairs in order to arrive at your interpretation.

Ultimately I have a very difficult time believing the designers simply overlooked adding Sunder under the section 'Action Varies' AND adding footnote 7 AND have not issued errata.

At least Hyp isn't ignoring the printed rules to arrive at his interpretation.

Okay, but reading through those we have basically the same arguments that have been made in this thread, and they are just as unconvincing there as they are here. Other than some Hyp-worshipping and Skip-bashing, I don't see much different in them.

Clearly there is no right answer here. Choose which one makes the most sense for your game, regardless of how vociferously an authority may decry your chosen interpretation.

And just why do you think I provided those links to previous threads? To demonstrate that the arguments are old and the issue much debated. I even pointed that out in the post before the one with the links that it is rehashing old issues.

 

[Fifth Element]

And just why do you think I provided those links to previous threads? To demonstrate that the arguments are old and the issue much debated. I even pointed that out in the post before the one with the links that it is rehashing old issues.

It appeared that you posted them in support of one particular side, given this comment:

Oh, and this one is a good one for explaining why the FAQ entry on Sunder is worthless as Skip's reasoning is blatantly flawed:

It gave the impression you were posting them in favour of one particular interpretation.

 

[Fifth Element]

At least Hyp isn't ignoring the printed rules to arrive at his interpretation.

That's debatable. My point was that in order to interpret the written rules as Hyp suggests, you need to split hairs to a great degree. He's interpreting the printed rules in one way such that they do not appear to be contradictory, and many here are suggesting that that interpretation, while achieving its end, is confusing and makes little sense outside the realm of strict rulespeak.

Besides, there are many instances where strictly reading the "printed rules" leads to ridiculous outcomes. Rules require interpretation to make sense, and Hyp's interpretation is tortured, designed only to lead to the conclusion.

 

[blargney the second]

I saw a sunder in operation for the first time last night! It was remarkably ineffective...

 

[mvincent]

I believe the FAQ is excellent for resolving issues that are subject to interpretation (that seems to be a big part of its purpose).

If one believes that the core rules are clear on this and not subject to interpretation, then one has no need for the FAQ answer anyway.

However, one might have difficulty in convincing others that the core rules are clear on this and not subject to interpretation (especially considering the current thread).

 

[Legildur]

It appeared that you posted them in support of one particular side, given this comment:

It gave the impression you were posting them in favour of one particular interpretation.

I won't deny that I do favour one position. But it is unfair of you to attribute my selection as biased. I only picked the threads based on size/length, figuring that they would be the most comprehensive in covering all the debate (it is a debate that has been had many times already and nothing new emerges each time). It's hardly my fault they don't support your position. Feel free to search for other threads.

BTW did you even read Skip's comments in that thread I highlighted? It was hardly robust reasoning.

Anyway, the argument is very easy to distill. The text on Sunder is potentially ambiguous (at the least, it is insufficiently explicit). If you favour substituting Sunder for any melee attack, then you claim that the table/text are in conflict and invoke the 'text trumps table' clause. If you favour Sunder as a Standard Action, then there is no conflict between text and table.

 

[Legildur]

I believe the FAQ is excellent for resolving issues that are subject to interpretation (that seems to be a big part of its purpose).

If one believes that the core rules are clear on this and not subject to interpretation, then one has no need for the FAQ answer anyway.

However, one might have difficulty in convincing others that the core rules are clear on this and not subject to interpretation (especially considering the current thread).

Nicely put!

 

[Fifth Element]

I won't deny that I do favour one position. But it is unfair of you to attribute my selection as biased.

Hold on there. Your comment that accompanied the selection implied the possibility of bias. If you don't want people to think you were posting links to support your position, don't preface them with "here's one that supports my position nicely."

If you favour substituting Sunder for any melee attack, then you claim that the table/text are in conflict and invoke the 'text trumps table' clause.

Actually, I think I'd invoke the "doesn't make a lick of sense when considering the rule in the context of the whole of the rule set" clause.