unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Hypersmurf]

"You can use a MELEE ATTACK with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon TO" and "as a melee attack" are semantically equivalent (except for type of weapon) and both crystal clear.

If there were nothing else to distinguish them, I'd be inclined to agree; if the table did not exist, I would presume that the logical reading is as you say.

But the table shows that there is a difference between how Trip, Grapple, and Disarm are treated, versus how Sunder is treated; at this point, the difference in wording takes on more significance.

-Hyp.

 

[IcyCool]

Plus,this is not unclear at all.

"You can use a MELEE ATTACK with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon TO" and "as a melee attack" are semantically equivalent (except for type of weapon) and both crystal clear.

Obviously, given the contention here, it isn't.

Also, am I misusing the language if I were to say, "You can use a jump to" and "as a jump"?

 

[bestone]

Nope.

Do you disagree that being a melee attack doesn't determine what kind of action it is?

No i dont

However sunder says you can use it as a melee attack, you've already said you agree on this. Where does it say, in the rules, anywhere, that even if the text says you can use your melee attack to do something, if its a standard action, then you cant use it on an attack of opportunity.

 

[Hypersmurf]

attacks of op say you can use a melee attack

Sunder says you can use a melee attack to sunder

When making an attack of opportunity, you can use a melee attack.

When taking the Sunder action, you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.

Everything under the heading 'Sunder' tells us what happens when you take the Sunder action. Everything under 'Charge' tells us what happens when you take the Charge action. That's what the heading is for; it's an umbrella that encompasses all of the consequences of taking action 'X'.

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

If there were nothing else to distinguish them, I'd be inclined to agree; if the table did not exist, I would presume that the logical reading is as you say.

But the table shows that there is a difference between how Trip, Grapple, and Disarm are treated, versus how Sunder is treated; at this point, the difference in wording takes on more significance.

-Hyp.

You just essentially said that as sunder is written, the rules for sunder as written, would make you agree.

But the table doesnt show sunder on it

So you argument is an assumption, like i say.

The difference of wording doesnt take on more significance, because as written it still works as written.

 

[bestone]

When making an attack of opportunity, you can use a melee attack.

When taking the Sunder action, you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.

Everything under the heading 'Sunder' tells us what happens when you take the Sunder action. Everything under 'Charge' tells us what happens when you take the Charge action. That's what the heading is for; it's an umbrella that encompasses all of the consequences of taking action 'X'.

-Hyp.

Where is your proof hyp? As far as i know, whats written for sunder is the rule for sunder. No-where does it say you have to be able to make the action listed to do the special attack, no, the rule for the special attack is written under the special attack.

 

[bestone]

If you want to make a sunder attack, you read the text for sunder. It tells you how you make the attack, and you've agree that the text under sunder is clear.

Your using assumptions based on a table that is considered secondary to text.


Untill you can pull a rule to prove your claim, that states you Cant use the text on how a standard action works unless you have the action free listed in the table. Your not gonna prove your side.

And if you did find text of that, it'd break supernatural abilities.


I'll read the rule for sunder, under the special attacks section, under sunder

It tells me how it works, the rule for it is quite clear.
I'll use it as that, as that is the raw, and unless there is a ruling saying You dont read the text of a special attack if its listed as a standard action and you can make one. Then i'll run it differently. But as there is no such rule. Its clear where it, and i stand

This was not, nor never intended to be a trolling post, as seeten stated earlier, And i take quite an insult to that.

As far as i knew published wizards material was correct, i found TWO articles stating sunder can be taken as an attack of opportunity. So i thought i'd point it out as i THOUGHT this was an official thing.

Just because you dont believe a ruling by a game designer seeten, doesnt mean i was trying to troll. I thought it was official..... who was i to know that because he made mistakes his opinion is invalid?

 

[IcyCool]

what does that have to do with anything?

Under sunder, it tells you what you can do with it

Under "Attack", it tells you what you can do with it.

Where are you getting confused?

*sigh* I'm not getting confused (and I hope that was a legitimate question and not a mean-spirited jab). Just because I do not agree with your reading does not mean I'm confused.

The text for the Sunder action is curiously different than that of the trip and disarm actions. That, and the odd fact that Sunder is listed as a standard action in the table, instead of a "varies" action, like trip and disarm leads me to believe that Sunder was intended to be a standard action.

I'm going to assume that your continued arguement stems from the fact that you disagree with me, rather than don't understand me. As such, we seem to be just butting heads. So before the name-calling starts (and it always does), I'll hop out of this thread. My arguements are stated clearly, and have been explained about as thoroughly as I think I can explain them. If you don't understand any part of my summation or arguements, let me know and I'll do my best to try and explain it better, but I think I've stated it as best I can.

 

[bestone]

Im done posting here, and have nothing further to say on the subject. I've provided proof and links to wizards articles. And am tired of arguing the same thigns over and over to people who dont like to read whats written.

I take insult to being called a troll. And apologize if anyone has taken any offense here. Im new and didnt know there were 33 other threads on this subject! nor do i have a search engine to check.

Im gonna run it how i've always run it, regardless of the rule, i see no point in trying to prove it to other people, you'll run it as you want anyways.

Edit - Hah you ninja'd me to it icy, no hard feelings man, i agree with you, butting of heads, we'll leave it at that.

 

[IcyCool]

And am tired of arguing the same thigns over and over to people who dont like to read whats written.

Statements like this, implying that your opponents in an arguement don't know how to read isn't productive in any way, and is why some might think of you as a troll.

I take insult to being called a troll. And apologize if anyone has taken any offense here. Im new and didnt know there were 33 other threads on this subject! nor do i have a search engine to check.

Search is only available to community supporters, but you can still do a search of enworld by going to Google and typing in your search terms (for example, "ninja") followed by site:www.enworld.org. So if you wanted to find all information that google has about ninjas on enworld, you would type the following into your google search bar:

ninjas site:www.enworld.org

Edit - Hah you ninja'd me to it icy, no hard feelings man, i agree with you, butting of heads, we'll leave it at that.

Sounds good to me. But if want another juicy arguement, try and find the thread about flaming whips not causing damage to armored targets .

Edit - you can find out more about google search operators here.