unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[bestone]

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?

AND i've already quoted hyp to agreeing that the rule as written under sunder is taken in the way i've said it works.

Your working off an assumption that because its a standard action, the that text would permit you to use it as an attack of opportunity doesnt apply. And i ask you to quote a rule that proves your assumption.

when in fact, the only thing it says under attack types, is they tell you how long the action takes to perform.

You dont ignore the text of a rule, because the rule is jus that, a rule, it tells you how you can do it, and how its done. Tables are vague, and this is why they are secondary. Text is primary, and by the text, as its written, you can use sunder on an aoo.

if you apply the secondary information from the tables, sure its a standard action, but the primary text still, as written, says you can use sunder on an aoo.

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

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.

We all seem to be in agreeance on what the rules under sunder state.

Now show me a rule that states you can dis-regard that ruling of text simply because sundering counts as a standard action?

You wont find one, because regardless of what type of action something is considered (and an action only tells you how long something takes to do, AS STATED IN THE PHB AND QUOTED BY HYP). The rules still state how you can use it, and all are agree'd on what the rules for sunder state.

As it comes down to it, We all know what the description of sunder states, and how it states you can use it.

I dont have to prove otherwise, i make no claim otherwise, i say it works as its written. No rules gymnastics, nothing fancy.

Those arguing against still have to prove how you get to dis-regard the rules for sunder, as written, because it is a standard action. You havent been able to thus far, and you wont be able to, because there is no such rule.

You can cling to the fact its a standard action all you want, that proves nothing.

The primary source of information, the text, tells you how to use it.

The table, tells you "in essence" how long it takes to do it

And even considering that action types are simply how long it takes to do it, whats so far fetched about sundering on an aoo? when it takes the same amount of time *as suggested by the action types description* as a melee attack.

 

[bestone]

My side of the argument has quoted rules, game designers, published wizard articles, and other sources that agree with us.

Hyp's side of the argument is relying on the statement

You cant use the description for sunder, unless you have the action to make the standard action sunder.

I've asked for a rule to prove this staement, a quote, i get none

There is no rule that states that the rules written for something dont apply if that something is considered a standard action. There is no rule stating that you must be able to make a standard action, if something as labeled as such, for the rule to apply. i've never read anything of the like thats written that you get to ignore the rules on how to apply or use something becasue its listed as a type of action anyhwere.

You dont get to dis-regard the text as hyp claims, the text is the rule for sunder, it is the primary source of information on how to use sunder.

Thus, how can you possibly tell me, the rules as given under sunder, which we are all in agreeance with, dont apply, and expect me to take them as raw?

In my argument, i quote the rules, and say we go by whats ruled under sunder

You quote what? ...what rule? I've yet to see a rule quoted that as i've said many times now, that allows you to ignore, or not use sunder, as it is written.

 

[Sithobi1]

Since you don't seem to get it:
There are two ways to read the statement.
One way is to read it such that "melee attack" means an attack with a melee weapon, as opposed to a ranged weapon. This reading means Sunder takes a standard action, because the table supplements the text and gives an action type where the text is lacking.

The other way is to read it so that "melee attack" means you can use Sunder in lieu of another melee attack. This reading means Sunder is NOT a standard action.

The problem with the second reading is that it causes a contradiction where the first does not. Although the contradiction may be resolved with the use of the errata's primary source rule, you have to choose the reading which gives you a contradiction in the first place.

Quotes from anything other than the rules as written bear no weight in a purely rule-based discussion. It makes the RAI(Rules As Intended) very clear, but by no means is that necessarily what the rules say.

 

[Seeten]

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?

I've read them all, and gotten great delight over each new post of yours. Reading this thread is a gift that keeps giving. I've been chuckling for almost 35 straight minutes.

You continue to be wrong, your logic is atrocious, and Hypersmurf has the patience of a saint. A saint. I'd have been flaming you for 4 pages by now. Which is why I dont try and change peoples opinions, regardless of how wrong I think they are. How you play sunder in your game affects me not at all.

Hypersmurf has already made every relevant point, so I'm not going to say anything on the rules, but I will say that arguing semantics and rules with Hypersmurf is a generally poor idea. It doesn't make you look informed, and further, claiming his arguments are unsupported, or logically weak makes it appear you have no foundation in what logic is.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

There might be a slight distinction between the two, but it is not explicit. Hence, it is not important. This is an inference you are making. Inferences do not count as rules.

The rules are not just for the rules lawyers to pick over each phrase and examine them under a microscope. That is what you are doing here (whether you realize it or not).

A good 8 people out of 10 might not even understand such a distinction unless it was explained to them. To most people, "use a melee attack to" and "used in place of a melee attack" are synonymous.

With that being the case, it is unlikely that the game designers meant such a fine line linguistical distinction there.

Even if they originally did, since then they have written a half dozen references into other sources that contradict your theory and support mine.

So, not only do we have the phrase "you can use a melee attack to" which contradicts "standard action" (i.e. not all melee attacks are standard actions, nor or all standard actions melee attacks, hence, the two phrase mean two different things), we also have multiple instances of Sunders being used in AoOs being backed up the WotC.

You do not have that, even with your linguistical razor's edge dissection of the text.

There really isn't any more rules to discuss TMK. I am using an explicit definition of Melee Attack. You are not.

 

[Ranes]

This is an inference you are making. Inferences do not count as rules.

An inference is a deduction, made from premises. Without making deductions about them, we cannot have any understanding of the rules at all. You are making deductions, too. You're simply making a different one, in this case, from Hyp.

 

[billd91]

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

Which doesn't make it any more right. Designers and company representatives have spoken on this topic which should indicate what they meant, even if the rulebook is inconsistent or ambiguous.
D&D, being a role-playing game, is always subject to house rules and specific gaming table understandings so anyone who wants to keep sundering from being an AoO may do so. And anyone who wants to follow the official interpretation (like the Living Greyhawk campaign) may do so as well.

It's also abundantly clear that nobody is going to be convinced either way via this thread. It's a feature of this particular forum that people generally dig in their heels based on their own interpretations, hard won through their own laborious rules exegesis, and don't budge.

 

[Nail]

Reading this thread is a gift that keeps giving.

Indeed.

Thanks everyone!

...and Hypersmurf has the patience of a saint. A saint.

No kidding.....

 

[Ranes]

It's also abundantly clear that nobody is going to be convinced either way via this thread.

Not so. Unless I'm a nobody.

 

[Nail]

It's a feature of this particular forum that people generally dig in their heels based on their own interpretations, hard won through their own laborious rules exegesis, and don't budge.

Not at all.

When I first came to this topic (several threads ago), I said "but of course a Sunder is a melee attack, and therefore can be used in an AoO!"

Then I read the discussion, and realized I was in error, according to RAW (I had assumed a melee attack was an action type - it's not).

This sort of discussion is valuable and dynamic. Sure, a few posters continue along inspite of evidence to the contrary...and everyone does what they like in their own games. It's just really helpful to get the full interpretation of the rules.