Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fifth Element" data-source="post: 3810326" data-attributes="member: 48135">How is it not contradictory to disallow sundering as an attack of opportunity? "Melee attack" is used in both places. An AoO is a "melee attack", and you can use a "melee attack" to sunder. It doesn't refer to an "attack action", or anything other than a "melee attack", which is the same term used for the AoO.Disarm, trip, etc. are substitutes for a melee attack, but sunder is a melee attack (targeted on the opponent's weapon rather than the opponent's body), per a simple reading of the description of sunder. As such there is no contradiction between text and table by allowing sundering as an AoO, since it is already a melee attack and as such can be used as an AoO. Footnote 7 is not required, since it is already a melee attack. It is listed as a standard action, just like a normal melee attack.The above illustrates how you can interpret the rules to allow sundering on an AoO, without inferring any contradiction, either between text and table or between two bits of text. Hyp's interpretation is not the only one that avoids contradiction.Two different, possibly equally valid interpretations of the rules, neither of which result in contradictions in the text. As such, clarification from the creators of the rules seems the best way to determine what's "right".</blockquote>