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="Fifth Element" data-source="post: 3817644" data-attributes="member: 48135">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?</blockquote>

Verification