unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[atom crash]

Infact, you admit if there was no table, you'd see it working my way
but since there is a table, it now doesnt (the table makes the text work in a way other than written)

That insinuates discrepency in itself!

Actually, the text and the table giving different information does not insinuate discrepancy. It merely means that neither can be taken alone. When you add the info from the table, you get more meaning than the text alone. The text is not exhaustive and should not be taken as such.

If table says A and text says B, then the logical conclusion is that the rule is A+B. Only when A and B are in conflict, then text trumps table (B, not A).

In this case, there is no conflict. The text does not tell you what type of action -- the time the action takes in a combat round -- that the Sunder action uses, the table does. It merely gives the mechanic for resolving the action -- make a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.

The rule therefore must include both A (table) and B (text).

Two-Weapon Fighting also does not state what type of action is used, but we know from elsewhere (in this case text in another section) that it requires the Full Attack Action.

 

[bestone]

And im saying, by the text of sunder you can use it on an attack of opportunity

And by the table listing of it, this would dis-allow it

That is discrepency

You dont add the info, you read sunder, it tells you how it works

When you use it as an action in combat, as per the table, it becomes a standard action.

If using it as a standard action would deny you to use it on a melee attack *as it is written* in an aoo, then there is a discrepancy

The text does tell you what type of action, you apply it to a melee attack. Making a melee attack is a standard action.

AND when used togeather, in hyps circumstance, You must use a standard action to sunder

sunder states You CAN use a melee attack to attack

It does not state you make a melee attack, it says you can, can is an option. There is no option if you dont have an attack, you dont have an attack if oyur standard action is being used to activate the special ability of sunder.

This again proves my statement

When you sunder, its a standard action

NOT You must use a sunder standard action to sunder

 

[bestone]

Not that it matters, The argument against is weak

The argument is unfounded, The argument is in contrary to the text, a game designer, two articles written by a game designer, and several other instances in published material from wizards that shows it being used as such.

Thats a mountain of stuff to argue against

And what is the argument? an unfounded claim that you can only sunder if you have a standard action to sunder. That you ignore the wording of the text * and hyp has agree'd that the wording of the text means what we are using in our argument* Because you cant apply the text unless you can take that standard action. And I've yet to have solid proof thrown my way showing this as in any ways true

Infact i've shown proof against, vis-a-vie supernatural abilities! if the text on them are ignored because they are a standard action, then they dont make sense.

Also text is listed as the primary source of information, you read the text to see how the ability works first, and since he's agreed how it works. You can make a sunder on an aoo.

Regardless of whether or not its a standard action.

 

[KarinsDad]

The description of the Full Attack action is found under the heading "Full Attack".

The description of the Total Defense action is found under the heading "Total Defense".

The description of the Attack action is found under the heading "Attack". It incorporates the subheadings "Melee Attacks", "Unarmed Attacks", and "Ranged Attacks". On Table 8-2, the Attack action is listed three times, since the Attack action doesn't provoke an AoO if you're using it to make a melee attack, but does if you're using it to make an unarmed or ranged attack; the listing is Attack (melee), Attack (ranged), and Attack (unarmed). In all three cases, the action is the Attack action, with a parenthetic note indicating which subsection should be referenced.

If Full Attack on Table 8-2 refers to the Full Attack action, and Withdraw refers to the Withdraw action, and we know that 'the Attack action' exists since it is referenced in feats like Combat Expertise, Spring Attack, and Shot on the Run, it doesn't take a wild leap to deduce that the entry 'Attack' on Table 8-2 refers to the Attack action.

Yup.

And the Attack (Unarmed) entry in that table does not have a footnote that "Armed" Attack (unarmed) do not provoke an AoO.

So which takes precedence, the rules text on page 139 (no AoO for Monks), or the table text on page 141 (AoO for Unarmed)?

Obviously, we both know the answer. Funny, this was not errataed in the last 7 years either.


And, Bull Rush is listed in that table as a Standard Action. However, Bull Rush can be used as part of a Charge action. No footnote on that.


The point is, that is a generic table. It does not have all of the rules listed in it, it just has general rules listed in it. Those rules do not take precedence over the written rules.

A longsword is not specified as having a 19-20/x2 critical in the weapon text. Does this mean it does not?

The rules text on criticals for weapons on page 114 is in a section that refers to the weapons table 7-5.

The Sunder text does not refer to Table 8-2. The Special Attacks text does not refer to Table 8-2. The Attack of Opportunity section does not refer to Table 8-2 for which actions can be done with AoOs (it does for which actions provoke).

None of these rules refer to that table for that. The only thing that refers to that table is the Combat Actions section of the rules.


And, the Sunder rules do not state that Sunder is an action. It states that it is a melee attack (and hence can be done in place of a melee attack).

For example, one could Charge and Sunder. Full Round Action. Use the melee attack action within Charge to Sunder a Weapon.

No rules in the Special Attacks section disallow this.


I agree with you 100% that Sunder is listed in the table as a Standard Action. That is what Sunder typically is. Just like Bull Rush is typically a Standard action and listed as such in that table.

I disagree with you 100% that Sunder is a Standard action all of the time because the actual rules text on it does not state that, and of course, WotC in at least 6 places also indicates that it can be done on AoOs.

Sunder is a Melee Attack. That table does not override that specific rule.

That table is for the typical case (exceptions can occur with Sunder, Bull Rush, and Unarmed Attacks as I have illustrated).

 

[bestone]

Thanks for the backup karinsdad, i felt very alone on this for a while

Hyp, you've agreed on the wording of sunder
And you've said that it would work on an aoo if there was no table

You can use a melee attack to sunder

Aoo gives you a melee attack

Since you can use a melee attack to sunder

You can use that melee attack to sunder. (pretty simple and clear i think)

Again, as stated, you agreed with this, but disagree because of the tabel

I still, and have several times, ask you, Where this becomes invalid?

The rule as stated under sunder still states what it does, correct?

But your argument is it only does what it does, if you have a standard action to activate sunder

And i still say... where is your proof on this? where is proof that any rule listed in the phb only comes into effect in way x. There isnt, and you cant tell me that. The rule for sunder is under sunder, and is still valid, and still applies. Even if it is a standard action to sunder normally, The text of sunder still validates another way you can use it, on an attack of opportunity. The text states that, and you agree'd that the text stated that, but you say the text doesnt apply when there is a table, and that even tho the text states it works that way it now doesnt because of the table, yet there is no descrepancy.

As i've said, When you want to use sunder, you read the entry for sunder, it tells you how you use it *and you've agreed on how it works*. You have not once proven that you in any way get to ignore that text.

There is no rule that says to be able to use the written rules for a particular rule, you must have an action free to use that rule. And since it doesnt say that anywhere you CAN NOT validate your claim that you must have an action for that text to come into play. And since you have no way of negating the text that states something you've agreed with, you have no argument.

 

[Legildur]

@ discrepency

Infact, you admit if there was no table, you'd see it working my way
but since there is a table, it now doesnt (the table makes the text work in a way other than written)

That insinuates discrepency in itself!

You also state you can see it my way, which how could you possibly even say "i can see how one could interpret that, but i think it works this way" without admitting discrepency?

And lastly the fact that we are even arguing insinuates discrepency, What can be read, and whats in a table is being argued, Two sides can be taken, two point of views gained


The only reason i personally think you arent, is because that would invalidate your argument

The fact is, and you can try to disprove this

Text is the primary source of information, you read this first to find out how to make the attack

Tables are secondary, and once you have read the text in the attack, can you apply the information in the tables.

Text = primary
tables = secondary

As per errata

The primary rule states "in essence" you can use it whenever you make a melee attack

the secondary information then states when you use it, its a standard action

Once again you assert that the table and text are in conflict. Hyp has clearly shown that they are not, unless you choose to read the text in a certain way (the same way it has been since 3.0e, d20 Modern, etc, etc) that requires the assumption that the table has missing information.

Taking the simplest approach that they are not in conflict then your DMG errata reference (text trumps table) has no bearing.

Your approach requires a more awkward interpretation.

And while you are at it, can you please read the PHB text entry on spears on p121 and tell me how much damage a spear does, how much it weighs, or what its threat range is? Then maybe you'll recognise that tables sometimes contain information that is not found elsewhere, and disregarding tables would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[bestone]

Hyp is still wrong in his argument, he proves it by
a) agreeing that you can use it my way if there was no table, this succeeds that the text says that you can use it for an aoo.
b) Even quoting the action types, He picked out the section " Action types tell you how long an action takes" It says nothing about anything else, only that the only relevance the action type has, is it tells you how long they take
c) Being unable to come up with proof for his argument, He can not prove anywhere that you ignore the text *which he agrees with* for any reason. see my previous post for more information on such

Regardless of how long an action takes, you still read under the action for how to apply it, and what it does

He agree's with how the text says you can apply sunder

He disagree's because the table makes it a standard action

He is unable to prove the relevance, he is making an unfounded assumption that you have to use a sunder action for the text to apply, but can not show anywhere where it states you must have an action listed in the table free for the rule to apply.

Because it doesnt

The text proves our claim *as he's agreed*, but no rule proves his, only assumptions

I've challenged him several times, and each time he ignores it, to show me where it states the rules for actions only apply under whatever circumstance

The only proof he's quoted is proof for my claim, he's quoted that the type of action only tells you how long it takes to perform it, not how you do it, or what happens.

If the type of action only states the time required to do the action, how can you claim it dictates when you can do the action? or how the action works?

ACTION TYPES
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform

Thats it, it doesnt state and you must have that action free to do the specified attack, nor anything along those lines. The action still functions as it is written, and being a standard action only tells you how long it takes to perform. It also doesnt state that you disregard the text of an action if you dont have the time to do it, it only says it tells you how long it takes to perform. The text of the action tells you what it does.

So a sunder may take a standard actions length in time to perform

So does a melee attack, which can be used on a sunder

They take the same time, the text says you can use one as another

Action types DONT say you require that action to be able to use the rules from
a special attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, you've agreed on the wording of sunder

You've said this about fifteen times in the last page.

I'm never said "The text states you can replace any melee attack with a Sunder attempt, but the table contradicts it so I'm ignoring it".

What I've said is that the text taken in isolation can be read in two ways, and that if the table did not exist, I'd be inclined to read it in the way that says you can replace any melee attack with a Sunder attempt. But since the table does exist, I consider that way invalid once the text is no longer considered in isolation.

The text is never ignored. It just doesn't mean what you think it means... because if it did, it would contradict the table. It means something else, which doesn't contradict the table.

Please stop saying "He agrees with our interpretation of the wording but chooses to ignore the text" (especially in five posts in a row!), because that's not my position at all.

I've said that when taking the Sunder action, you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon. You seem to think that this means I'm saying when taking the Sunder action, you can replace any melee attack derived from any other action with a strike on a weapon. This is not how I'm reading the phrase at all. As I read it, "You can use a melee attack to strike a weapon" in this context (once the table is taken into account) is saying "You're Sundering? Have a melee attack! Strike a weapon with it!", not "You want to Sunder? You'll need to pay a melee attack for the privilege. Thank you - now go strike a weapon!"

And, the Sunder rules do not state that Sunder is an action. It states that it is a melee attack (and hence can be done in place of a melee attack).

I draw quite a distinction between "In place of a melee attack" and "You can use a melee attack"... and Sunder says the second, not the first.

For example, one could Charge and Sunder. Full Round Action. Use the melee attack action within Charge to Sunder a Weapon.

There is no Attack action within the Charge action. There is a melee attack, and if Sunder carried footnote 7, it could replace that melee attack. But it doesn't.

I agree with you 100% that Sunder is listed in the table as a Standard Action. That is what Sunder typically is.

If it were typically used as part of the Attack action, but able to be used in a Charge or Full Attack action or an AoO, it would be Action Type: Varies and carry footnote 7. It's not part of any other action, though; it's its own standard action.

The Bull Rush entry is correct; you can bull rush as a standard action (the Bull Rush standard action from Table 8-2) or as part of a charge (the Charge full round action from Table 8-2). If you're Bull Rushing as part of a charge, you don't use the Bull Rush standard action, you use the Charge action.

If Sunder is used in place of any melee attack, however, there would be no need for a Sunder standard action; you would Sunder as part of an Attack action, Full Attack action, or Charge action. The standard action entry on the table would be meaningless, because the Sunder action would never be taken, only the Attack action (etc), and the maneuver would appear as Action Type: Varies and carry footnote 7.

But the standard action entry for Sunder does appear, and doesn't carry footnote 7.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

Hyp is still wrong in his argument, he proves it by etc...

I love this line

a) agreeing that you can use it my way if there was no table, this succeeds that the text says that you can use it for an aoo.

My recollection is that he agreed that MAYBE you could interpret it your way in absence of the table. However, the table exists and quote clearly articulates that it requires Standard Action and cannot be substituted for a melee attack, as it is not listed under 'action type varies' and does not have footnote 7. Therefore the action type does not vary and it requires a Standard Action. And the lack of footnote certainly means that it cannot be used as AOO.

....He is unable to prove the relevance, he is making an unfounded assumption that you have to use a sunder action for the text to apply, but can not show anywhere where it states you must have an action listed in the table free for the rule to apply.

So you are continually asserting. He has proved it to many others who have accepted the view (and others that haven't). His position is built on logic and evidence as contained in the core rules and doesn't require the convenient assumption that the table is wrong (or missing information). Making sweeping absolute statements otherwise doesn't make you position the right one. Your position is a possible one, but my position is that a strict reading of the rules tells us otherwise.

The only proof he's quoted is proof for my claim,...

In your opinion. I see it otherwise. Hyp has patiently spelled out his logic and evidence in response to each of your points. So you can hardly claim that he has ignored you - that is patently wrong and just a little insulting after reading tens of his and your posts. In my view it seems that you are not willing to accept his argument. And that's fine. But to then make sweeping statements about 'he proves nothing' or 'he proves my point' or he 'ignores my points' just aren't true. They are only true in your opinion, and possibly with some of those that share it.

Even the old 3.0 treated 'Strike a Weapon' as a Standard Action (with no listing under 'action type varies' or the special footnote).

Doesn't it seem odd that they have treated it differently to disarm/grapple/trip across so many versions? (d20 modern etc that Hyp has already listed)

I see the point you are trying to make, but I don't think you can ignore the table.

Edit: I see that Hyp has since rebutted your erroneous paraphrasing of his argument.

 

[bestone]

Your still avoiding what you always avoid, and you have yet to rebut the fact that it being listed as a standard action only indicates the time it takes to perform. It does not negate the text (which you've claimed)