unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Legildur]

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)

Ahhmmm, that would be because it doesn't need to! Table says Standard Action; text says you use an opposed melee attack to resolve it - no contradiction, and no awkward assumptions required to reach that position.

 

[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.

Point A

If there was nothing else to distinguish them, he'd be inclined to agree, agree to what?

Originally Posted by KarinsDad
"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.

This is what he said he'd agree too. Which equates to, You can use a melee attack to sunder.

Point b

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.

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

The type only tells you how long the action takes to perform And thats it

It doesnt say specifically you need the action type free to perform the action, You are
still limited to taking 1 standard action. But it does not in any way state that you cant
use the specified action type when the rules for it state otherwise.

Point b-2

Oh, I agree - that's exactly what it says, in the description of the Sunder action. Which description can only apply if you're actually taking the Sunder action.

So what happens when you take the Sunder standard action? You look in the text, and you find that (when you take the Sunder standard action) you can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeonig weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.

On the other hand, if you aren't taking the Sunder standard action, the text found in the description of said action is irrelevant; if you aren't taking the Sunder standard action, you can't use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeonig weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.


-Hyp.

This is unfounded, The description of sunder a) isnt a description, its the rules for sunder
and b) Are not affected by the action type, because the action type only tells you how long it takes to perform

The action DOESNT DETERMINE HOW ITS USED OR THE RULES ON WHAT IT DOES, it determines the time it takes to do, as you've stated.

If you can prove this claim, there would be no argument, The claim being that you have to take the sunder standard
action for the text to come into place. No where in any book or ruling does it state the rule for sunder does
not come into effect unless you are using a standard action to sunder. No. The rule for sunder states how it works,
the action type states how long it takes to be used on your turn.

What does it matter if its a standard action? the rules of it still say how you use it, and in "point a" hyp agree's with this,
under the stipulation "if there was no table" why? because the table lists it as a standard action? That in no
way invalidates how the rule for sunder is applied. And again, unless you show me a rule or quote that states
the text is invalidated i can, and will, consider you wrong as per raw.

I've stated several times, if you can quote a rule that says you cant use a special attack unless you have the action listed in the table to do it, i'll bow out and agree with your side.

... right. If you want to Sunder, it takes a standard action. Isn't that what I've been saying?

The table has only one reading. Sunder is a standard action.

Sometimes you say it takes a standard action, sometimes you say it is a standard action. How bout picking one? It doesnt take a standard action, it is a standard action, and being so essentialy tells you how long it takes to perform. It gives you no other rules on how to use it, the rules listed in the text do.

And also as i've stated It doesnt exist, and would be illogical, and that you shoudl take supernatural abilities as a proving for that fact. If you needed a standard action to perform a supernatural ability which is listed as a standard action, the text of it AS HYP HAS CLEARLY STATED would only work if you take the standard action supernatural ability to perform.

You know this is incorrect, you know very well you read the rule of the supernatural attack to read how it works, and how its performed.

Prove how sunder is treated differently

Further analyzed

On the other hand, if you aren't taking the Sunder standard action, the text found in the description of said action is irrelevant;

Quote a rule to back this up. Something that says if your not taking a sunder standard action then the RULE thats written is irrelevant. You wont find a rule, your assuming the "description" comes into play only if your using the attack, thats an assumption, and i've shown you how its wrong, and no-where states or supports you in this.

And lastly

if the table did not exist, I would presume that the logical reading is as you say.

AND

Oh, I agree - that's exactly what it says, in the description of the Sunder action

The text, being the primary source for the rule on sunder, is clear, and you agree. Your only argument against doesnt matter. Because the text is the primary source of information for the rule, and the table secondary. The text tells you how you can apply it, you agree that it can be read as we say. The text is the rule for sunder, and the text is clear. And unless your going to go back on your standing on that, raw under the text for sunder, its clear what you can do with it.

I see no rule written stating you wouldnt be able to apply it that way. NONE. No rule states that you ignore the rules of something.

Neither do you, you only have a table and assumptions.

And the descrepency

The text is read by different people in different ways. We can read the text as describing what the Sunder action permits

Yes......

- When taking the Sunder action, one can use a melee attack to etc. Or we can read the text as attaching a label to something one can do regardless of the action one is taking - One can use a melee attack, regardless of the source of that attack, to do something we will call 'Sunder'.

Sure, if you say so, But i dont see the words anywhere written - When taking the sunder -
That is added by you, and not how it is written

If we elect to take the second reading, we have a contradiction between text and table. If we elect to take the first, no contradiction exists. Thus, to me, it seems that taking the first reading is appropriate; it doesn't require us to assume an error in the PHB.

Ok, didnt i say this too? if we take the second, contradiction, in essense, descrepency, refer to errata point about text taking precendence


You see the first reading is appropriate, you listed the first reading as being

"the text as describing what the Sunder action permits"

The sunder action permits, as you agree'd (see point a) with me, and my point on sundering as an melee attack on an aoo

so either we go with reading version 1, and the text describe what permits, and you've agree'd that the text is clear on how it permits you to use it.

or version 2, which generates contradiction, which is equal to a descrepancy, which makes
text take precendence

So i'll agree with you, you can sunder as a standard action. But the text describes what it permits. And it permits you to use a melee attack to sunder. On an aoo you get a melee attack. So i'll use sunder, as Sunder states what permits, and how you use it, just as the rules for any other special attacks do.

And for the final time, unless you can pull a rule stating you can only sunder on a standard action, or sundering only works when your making a standard action. Or as you've claimed the text for it is dis-regarded. Then you have no case. Because im arguing For as the rule of sunder as it is written, and you are arguing a contradiction (the description says what it permits, you cant use it unless you can do a standard action). And since you cant even decide... (either the description says what it permits, or it doesnt) Coupled with all your contradiction.

Im gonna go with the game designer, the cited sources, and how i read the rule

 

[Legildur]

The text, being the primary source for the rule on sunder, is clear, and you agree. Your only argument against doesnt matter. Because the text is the primary source of information for the rule, and the table secondary. The text tells you how you can apply it, you agree that it can be read as we say. The text is the rule for sunder, and the text is clear. And unless your going to go back on your standing on that, raw under the text for sunder, its clear what you can do with it.

I see no rule written stating you wouldnt be able to apply it that way. NONE. No rule states that you ignore the rules of something.

Except, where your argument breaks down is that the text is NOT clear. It describes how the Special Attack is resolved (the opposed melee attack), but not the effort/time required (type of action). So, how do we resolve this? We go to the table... Standard Action; not listed under Action Type Varies; and no footnote 7.

 

[bestone]

My argument does not break down. The text doesnt have to be clear to be Ruled as written. As it is written means how it is written, it can be ruled. It is written that you can use a melee attack to sunder.

The special attack is Used in such a way. And yes it does tell you the type of action required, in essence. If you are making a melee attack to sunder, its a standard action, because a melee attack, is a standard action.

And as i've stated, sure its a standard action, but how does that prevent the text from stating what it states, that you can use a melee attack to sunder? it doesnt

Not having footnote 7 is regardless, because the text of sunder tells you how you can use it.

There are things cited that agree with me, there is a game designer and two published articles on wizards that agree with me.

You still cant tell me how it makes a lick of difference if its a standard action or not.

When you want to sunder, you still refer to the text, which tells you when it can be applied, and it can be applied to a melee attack.

 

[Legildur]

Ok, didnt i say this too? if we take the second, contradiction, in essense, descrepency, refer to errata point about text taking precendence.

Except that your reasoning requires the assumption that there is a contradiction between the table and text (so that you can invoke a further piece from the DMG errata) - that is an additional two steps required in your argument, and therefore a substantial point against it as the simplest answer is most likely the right one.

Hyp's reasoning is more elegant in that regard and doesn't require any rules gymnastics to achieve an internally consistent result.

 

[bestone]

Except that your reasoning requires the assumption that there is a contradiction between the table and text (so that you can invoke a further piece from the DMG errata) - that is an additional two steps required in your argument, and therefore a substantial point against it as the simplest answer is most likely the right one.

Hyp's reasoning is more elegant in that regard and doesn't require any rules gymnastics to achieve an internally consistent result.

Or you could read it again, My reasoning doesnt say contradiction, hyp's does, the quote is from hyp, and he says there is contradiction. I simply relate his suggested contradiction to being discrepancy.

My reasoning requires no rules gymnastics, My reasoning is - "sunder clearly states how it works in the rules written for it" hyp agree's with how it says it works.

He starts pulling the rules gymnastics by saying but the table suggests this, and no footnote suggests this.

There is no rules gymnastics as far as im concerned

The rule for sunder tells you how it works, it works that way.

 

[Legildur]

When you want to sunder, you still refer to the text, which tells you when it can be applied, and it can be applied to a melee attack.

Correct, you use a melee attack when you take the Standard Action (Sunder) - not otherwise. Not on a charge, not on an AOO etc.

 

[Legildur]

Or you could read it again, My reasoning doesnt say contradiction, hyp's does, the quote is from hyp, and he says there is contradiction. I simply relate his suggested contradiction to being discrepancy.

I'm obviously missing your point here in the semantics.... substitute contradiction and discrepancy as much as you like, your reasoning still requires additional rules gymnastics that Hyp's reasoning doesn't, making his reasoning more likely to be the correct one given the lack of errata to date to add footnote 7 etc.

 

[bestone]

Correct, you use a melee attack when you take the Standard Action (Sunder) - not otherwise. Not on a charge, not on an AOO etc.

Have you even read all the posts written and not just skimmed over them? i think not

How does sunder being a standard action, change the rules written for it, or negate them in any way?

 

[bestone]

I'm obviously missing your point here in the semantics.... substitute contradiction and discrepancy as much as you like, your reasoning still requires additional rules gymnastics that Hyp's reasoning doesn't, making his reasoning more likely to be the correct one given the lack of errata to date to add footnote 7 etc.

I wasnt making any reasoning on discrepency in that statement, he was. It was reffering to the fact in one post he said there was contradictions. Then after it was stated that discrepency is errata'd that you refer to the text. His post changed to the statement, there is no contradiction.

I dont need to win this argument by claiming there is discrepancy. He claimed there was
contradictions in his own statement. I simply said well a contradiction is a discrepancy, which would make his reasoning incorrect.