Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 3817530" data-attributes="member: 51942">Which it sometimes is - when you perform it as a standard action, for instance.Either the text or the table is confusing - and that's being reasonable.&nbsp; If sunder is simply a standard action, then it's the only such action which doesn't explicitly say so.&nbsp; All standard actions in the table are defined as such in the text (except sunder).&nbsp; Further, sunder's wording resembles that of other &quot;melee attack replacements&quot;, which is certainly putting people off on the wrong foot.&nbsp; 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 &quot;standard action&quot; compartment.Pick your poison - which part is unfortunately phrased - the text, or the table?&nbsp; Certainly, if either were more consistent with the other, we wouldn't be having this discussion.&nbsp; The text is generally definitive (such as the fact that standard actions are called out as such), and sunder reads like it can use any melee attack, and it definitely doesn't mention it being a standard action (which all others do).&nbsp; I think that's enough to trump a table.There's a lot of small factor which increase my trust in that judgment, small factors being the FAQ, the fact that the table isn't very explicit and that's it's an easy mistake to make (labelling a melee attack replacement as a standard action), the fact that sunder as an activity resembles trip, grapple and disarm and should probably use similar mechanics and the fact that the table says Sunder (attack): all help support the natural reading of &quot;use a melee attack&quot;, which is simply that you can use any melee attack.The table is perhaps the most concrete piece of evidence, but in my mind it's not the most powerful (which is simply the text interpretation), and the table doesn't have all the small supporting bits of evidence in it's favor.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 3817530, member: 51942"] Which it sometimes is - when you perform it as a standard action, for instance. 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. The text is generally definitive (such as the fact that standard actions are called out as such), and sunder reads like it can use [i]any[/i] melee attack, and it definitely doesn't mention it being a standard action (which all others do). I think that's enough to trump a table. There's a lot of small factor which increase my trust in that judgment, small factors being the FAQ, the fact that the table isn't very explicit and that's it's an easy mistake to make (labelling a melee attack replacement as a standard action), the fact that sunder as an activity resembles trip, grapple and disarm and should probably use similar mechanics and the fact that the table says Sunder (attack): all help support the natural reading of "use a melee attack", which is simply that you can use [i]any[/i] melee attack. The table is perhaps the most concrete piece of evidence, but in my mind it's not the most powerful (which is simply the text interpretation), and the table doesn't have all the small supporting bits of evidence in it's favor. [/QUOTE]

Verification