The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Fifth Element]

The Attack (melee) listed on the table is not a melee attack, it's a standard action which you can take in order to make a melee attack. Just like Charge is a full-round action which you can take in order to make a melee attack.

Melee attacks aren't listed anywhere on Table 8-2. Only the actions that allow you to make them are.

My problem with your reliance on this reasoning is simple. On page 139, it says "Making an attack is a standard action." Not "you can use a standard action to make a melee attack."

Now, I'm not arguing that there is no difference between a standard action used to make a melee attack, and making a melee attack from another source (such as an AoO). But it says in the rules that making an attack is a standard action. Not in some cases, not that one way to get a melee attack is to take a standard action, but making a melee attack is a standard action. Without interpretation, that's what you're left with, and now the AoO rules are contradictory, because you can't use a standard action outside of your turn (unless it's readied, of course).

All rules need to be interpreted. There's no such thing as RAW, really, because there would be all kinds of contradiction everywhere in the rules if they were read literally. Stating that melee attacks aren't listed anywhere on table 8-2 may be technically correct in the sense that you mean it (and only in the sense that you mean it), but the first thing that is listed on table 8-2 is "Attack (melee)". You interpret that to mean the standard action that grants a melee attack, and that's fine because that does appear to be the best interpretation. But nowhere in the rules that I can see does it point out that the attack (melee) listed on the table does not mean a melee attack as used in the text. You have interpreted the rules to get there, and rightly so.

Until you realize that your interpretation of the rules requires interpretation (obviously), and that yours is not the only interpretation that can be gleaned from the information as presented, this is going nowhere.

There is ambiguity in the rules, and as such the rules need interpretation, particularly in this case. Every assertion that it's listed on the table as a standard action is countered with the fact that it's not described as such in the text, despite the fact that every other standard action listed on the table states that it's such in the text. Obviously, the designers could have done a better job with presenting this information. It is rife with ambiguity. But the interpretation is still up to you, the reader. 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?

 

[Fifth Element]

Either the text or the table is confusing - and that's being reasonable. If sunder is simply a standard action, then it's the only such action which doesn't explicitly say so. All standard actions in the table are defined as such in the text (except sunder). Further, sunder's wording resembles that of other "melee attack replacements", which is certainly putting people off on the wrong foot. Conversely, interpreting sunder as an action which can replace any melee attack certainly contradicts the spirit of table 8-2, since other such actions are placed in their own category in table 8-2, and not in the "standard action" compartment.

Pick your poison - which part is unfortunately phrased - the text, or the table? Certainly, if either were more consistent with the other, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is very well put. It illustrates the clear ambiguity (if that makes sense) that exists here, which in turn requires the interpretation of the reader in order to apply the rules.

Hyp has one interpretation that makes sense, and the FAQ has another. Use whichever you like, but don't fall into the trap of believing your interpretation of the rules to be unquestionable truth.

 

[Elethiomel]

The FAQ explains why sunder is listed on 8-2 in addition to attack (melee): because unlike an attack directly against an opponent, it draws an AoO.

That it is listed on table 8-2 is not in question either way. Disarm, trip, and grapple are also listed on 8-2, but in a different section, under "Action type: Varies." I didn't say that Sunder had its own entry in the table - that is not in question. I said that it was listed under "Standard Action" rather than under "Action type: Varies".

By this logic, shouldn't attack (melee) be listed under action type varies as well? Not all melee attacks are standard actions, so isn't it confusing to list it only as a standard action?

No, because the action "Attack (melee)" and the concept "melee attack" are different. This argument is why I stated that the flaw in your reasoning was conflating the concept "melee attack" and the action "Attack (melee)".

 

[Fifth Element]

No, because the action "Attack (melee)" and the concept "melee attack" are different. This argument is why I stated that the flaw in your reasoning was conflating the concept "melee attack" and the action "Attack (melee)".

See post #151 above.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My problem with your reliance on this reasoning is simple. On page 139, it says "Making an attack is a standard action." Not "you can use a standard action to make a melee attack."

On page 139, in the description of the standard action, Attack.

When you're taking the standard action, Attack, making an attack is a standard action.

But attacks also come from other sources - when you're charging, for example, making an attack is part of a full-round action. But there isn't a contradiction, because the phrase found under the standard action, Attack, isn't defining how an attack is made when you're not taking that action...

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

Hyp, I wrote a whole lot more in that post that you didn't respond to, much more important than that one little example I provided.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, I wrote a whole lot more in that post that you didn't respond to, much more important than that one little example I provided.

That struck me as the important part. And the same principle applies to both phrases - 'making an attack is a standard action' and 'you can use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon' are both true... in the context in which they appear. Which is to say, when the standard action under which those phrases are found is being taken.

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

There is ambiguity in the rules, and as such the rules need interpretation, particularly in this case. Every assertion that it's listed on the table as a standard action is countered with the fact that it's not described as such in the text, despite the fact that every other standard action listed on the table states that it's such in the text. Obviously, the designers could have done a better job with presenting this information. It is rife with ambiguity. But the interpretation is still up to you, the reader. 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?

This is the important part.

 

[Elethiomel]

There is ambiguity in the rules, and as such the rules need interpretation, particularly in this case. Every assertion that it's listed on the table as a standard action is countered with the fact that it's not described as such in the text, despite the fact that every other standard action listed on the table states that it's such in the text. Obviously, the designers could have done a better job with presenting this information. It is rife with ambiguity. But the interpretation is still up to you, the reader. 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?

The number of threads on a subject indicates ambiguity, yes, but I still think that the point of view I argue is what the rules actually say. If I hadn't believed that I was right, I wouldn't have argued the position (well, I might have argued it anyway, but I would have stated my insecurity plainly).

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?

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. Of course I doubt - how can I not doubt anything? But that is discussing my philosophic belief about what can and cannot be believed with regard to thoughts, senses, and so on... and if I take as given that what my eyes tell me is true, then I can see no other interpretation that does not cause a contradiction than the one I espouse.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is the important part.

Every assertion that it's listed on the table as a standard action is countered with the fact that it's not described as such in the text, despite the fact that every other standard action listed on the table states that it's such in the text.

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.