unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[SlagMortar]

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.

Emphasis added by me.

If you look only at the player's handbook, then it is definitely more likely that the interpretation that results in no contradiction is the correct one. I would ask how much more likely, maybe 70/30 or 80/20? Heck, maybe even 99/1, meaning that if you read 100 different ambiguous rules then your method of analysis would result in the "rules as intended" answer 99% of the time. Your method of rules analysis is generally sound and is more likely than not to arrive at the "rules as intended" answer.

However, there is evidence outside the player's handbook that suggests the player's handbook contains an error and it should not have said standard action. Even if your method provides the right answer 99% of the time, it will still be wrong 1% of the time.

 

[Funkthis]

I complete agree with Nail. I read these threads to try and gain a better understanding of the rules as many people on these boards either have far more time than I do to peruse the books or have better rules jujitsu than I do.

I think the problem for some people is that this is a rules forum. RAW is far different from rules as intended. Additionally bringing up FAQ or Sage or any other source will never convince some because well lets face it there are times when they blantantly contridict the rules. Do I always play RAW? Definately not. Like any system of rules which are fairly complex there are always unintended loop holes, inconsistencies, and vagueness which any good DM will adjudicate when it comes up.

Ok...I'm off my soapbox. When I started reading this thread (which at the time was mainly to see when the flaming would start) I was on the fence. Now I see the argument clearly and tend to agree with Hyp. Not going to argue the issue because I think this horse has been beat to death.

 

[mvincent]

True, but your #7 sentence does not state that.

I'm ok with you 'not getting it' (in fact, I assumed several people would not get any one particular point, that's why I included several). No need for debate.

 

[mvincent]

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.

I believe if Hyp agreed with that statement then there would not be much of a debate.

 

[Seeten]

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.

I, Like Nail, entered considering sunder a melee attack(about 5 sunder threads ago) and after reading Hypersmurf's case, now believe the raw interpretation is as he says it is. I continue to play sunder as a melee attack with footnote 7, and acknowledge thats house rules, but to each their own.

 

[Ranes]

I believe if Hyp agreed with that statement then there would not be much of a debate.

I don't see how that follows but I suspect Hyp will let us know what he believes.

 

[mvincent]

I don't see how that follows

It is clarified in an earlier post of mine.

I suspect Hyp will let us know what he believes.

I believe he already did (in response to my earlier post).

 

[Ranes]

I must have missed or forgotten it. Could you save me the trouble of re-reading the entire thread and point me to the post? Thanks.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm ok with you 'not getting it' (in fact, I assumed several people would not get any one particular point, that's why I included several). No need for debate.

Quite frankly, this is insulting.

I understood your point to the level at which you wrote it. If there was a deeper meaning, you have yet to state it, so any miscommunications would be on your end.

I was not debating you. I was pointing out that what you wrote is not relevant without more information.

Don't assume that people do not understand you just because they disagree. And don't talk down to people. It makes you look like an ass.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

A good 8 people out of 10 might not even understand such a distinction unless it was explained to them.

Well, the explicit distinction I'm seeing is between
Standard
Sunder a Weapon Yes

and
Action Type Varies
Sunder a Weapon7 Yes

I think 8 out of 10 people would have little trouble seeing the difference between those two, right?

Once that distinction is understood, the difference between "You can use a melee attack to..." meaning Under what conditions you may Sunder and By what means you carry out a Sunder is sharper.

-Hyp.