The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Legildur]

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

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

 

[Legildur]

See above post. Please pay attention.

The table is not ignored. A melee attack is included as a standard action on the table. So is sunder, because sunder is a melee attack. It's not an action that grants a sunder attempt, but the name that you call a melee attack against an opponent's weapon or shield, which has some special rules.

I'm paying enough attention to note footnote 7 is still absent from Sunder in table 8-2.

Sunder USES a melee attack to resolve the special attack. It is not a melee attack in itself.

PS: I'm looking forward to the Rules Compendium

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm paying enough attention to note footnote 7 is still absent from Sunder in table 8-2.

The footnote isn't required, based on my interpretation. Please read it again if you're still missing that.

Sunder USES a melee attack to resolve the special attack. It is not a melee attack in itself.

That's not what the description of sunder says. It says YOU use a melee attack to sunder. It does not say that sunder uses a melee attack.

In the end, either interpretation is reasonable, based on what's written. I'm merely demonstrating that the FAQ answer on sunder can make sense without there being a contradiction in the rules, despite what was claimed earlier in the thread and in other threads.

 

[Fifth Element]

2. It 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".

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.

 

[Deset Gled]

IThe 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.

The text is implicit. The table is explicit.

 

[Caliban]

The footnote isn't required, based on my interpretation. Please read it again if you're still missing that.

What you are missing is that your interpretation is inadequate. kthxbye

 

[Fifth Element]

What you are missing is that your interpretation is inadequate. kthxbye

Inadequate for what exactly?

 

[Fifth Element]

The text is implicit. The table is explicit.

I phrased it badly. The text does not imply that you use a melee attack to sunder. It states plainly that you use a melee attack to sunder. Those are the words used. "You can use a melee attack...", not "you can use a melee attack action...".

It could be interpreted as meaning a melee attack action, but that's not what's written. It is therefore open to interpretation.

Again, the FAQ's position (which has been subjected to much ridicule) is defensible given this interpretation of the rules. That's my only point here. There's no clearly correct answer.

 

[Caliban]

Inadequate for what exactly?

Please read again if you are missing it.

 

[Deset Gled]

It is therefore open to interpretation.

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