NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 3806794" data-attributes="member: 51942">Sometimes it does indeed. That hypothetical situation isn't the case here, however, since the actions in question (disarm, trip, etc.) don't limit themselves to the attack action.  I think Sunder falls in that category, but even in your interpretation it's just (equivalent to) a standard action.   That's a fine rationalization, and one I support.  However, it's not explicit, and as such it's more evidence that you need some common sense to apply these rules successfully. The table defines what you can do.  It does not define what you cannot do.  It makes sense to assume that the authors would try to list as many as possible actions, which begs the question why they did not mention sunder.  Though that may be common sense, it's not explicit rules text - and common sense also dictates that it's odd that all other standard actions per the table are explicitly defined as standard actions in the definitive rule text - except sunder.  The absence of that definition is no less relevant than the absence of footnote 7.That distinction exists in your well-argued mental model of the rules.  The text doesn't (at least as I read it) make that distinction explicit, so you can't know which it's referring to when it says sunder.In the big picture, I see this just as more evidence that the rules are underspecified and that you can't rely on subtle inferences without a good dose of common - and obviously subjective - sense.</blockquote>

Verification