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="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 3813875" data-attributes="member: 55271">Hmm... You're extending the argument so that it now goes:1. You rewrite what the rules say, but it's only a slight change so you hope nobody notices what you did.2. Then you rewrite what the rules say even more, but it's only a slight change of the slight change you already made, so you hope that nobody notices what you did.3. Then, when your're called on rewriting the rule, you talk about a completely different section of the rulebook.Yeah... I'm afraid this argument still isn't doing much for me.What the rule says: "You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding."What you rewrote the first time: "When you Sunder, you can use a melee attack."What you rewrote the second time: "The action doesn't use a melee attack; you use a melee attack when you take the action."I notice you have neglected, in any way, to respond to or refute the core of the argument. Allow me to repeat it and give you another chance:What do we notice here? Well, first we notice that every single "Special Attack" that doesn't take the place of an attack specifically states the type of action it requires: (examples snipped)When a "Special Attack" takes the place of an attack we find: (examples snipped)1. Sunder contains no statement of the type of action it requires.2. Sunder 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".Thus we conclude that Sunder is clearly written as an action which is used as an attack. According to the rules, this supersedes the table. It simple doesn't matter that the table incorrectly omitted this information.Do you have an actual response to this? Or are you just going to play more selective quoting games?Lame accusation? I quoted him doing it.Of course, I notice that in your next message you use the EXACT same tactic of trying to subtly rewrite what the rule actually says to make it look like it says what you want it to say.And that kind of intellectual dishonesty is lame. Cut it out.That's a good argument against equating "use a melee attack" with "as a melee attack" or "in place of a melee attack", and if those were the only phrases in question you'd be able to argue that Sunder falls into some sort of gray area (out of which the FAQ explicitly removes it).But you're ignoring the phrase "make a ranged touch attack". The difference between "use an attack" and "make an attack" is, AFAICT, non-existent. And, when taken in totality, creates a clear pattern of usage for actions which take the place of an attack. (Particularly combined with the fact that Sunder doesn't follow the forms found in standard actions which grant an attack -- strongly indicating that it is not, in fact, a standard action which grants an attack.)</blockquote>

Verification