unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Hypersmurf]

And untill you provide such proof, I am going to consider you wrong.

Not a problem - I've been considering you wrong for eight pages.

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

Now your dodging again, .

Show me a rule anywhere that supports your claim that you can ignore the text rule of anything if you cant take the action it is listed on the table as. EVEN IF that text would give you another option for which to use that attack, than the action listed on that table..

You TELL ME your proof, you dont quote one rules source.

 

[bestone]

Im starting to suspect you know you cant quote a rules source, thus arent doing it. Your sticking to your assumption of how things work. And since you cant provide a rules source to support your claim, how can you tell me im incorrect?

Even a misinterpretation of a rule would be more proof then being unable to provide any rule to support your claim at all.

 

[hong]

People, people, please! Why can't we all live together in peace and harmony?

 

[Ranes]

Show me a rule anywhere that supports your claim that you can ignore the text rule of anything if you cant take the action it is listed on the table as.

I'm sorry. I'm not baiting. I don't understand how you can keep making this utterly fallacious assertion. Not once has Hyp claimed that you ignore anything.

 

[bestone]

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.

Thats the claim i want him to prove

Where in the rule books, does it state, that unless you are taking a standard action to use sunder, the text stated under the special attack is irrelevant.

This would mean that, even if sunder gave you an option to use it as something other than a standard action, unless you are using it as a standard action, that text is irrelevant.

I want him to prove this claim

He has agree'd that without the table, he'd agree with my pov on sunder

I say that You never ignore the text of the special attack, because it tells you how you can use that attack.

He states you cant use that text in a certain circumstance, i want him to quote a rule on this (and as you can see, if he manages to do this, it would destroy my position, would it not)

 

[bestone]

You can Fault me all you want for asking for a quote from a rule that proves this, but i dont think that im not within the right to ask for it.

He's making a claim, i want a quoted rules proof that backs that up.

If he can quote that rule, i dont have a leg to stand on, and i admit it

If he cant, then i feel he has no argument, as it then proves the type of action sunder is doesnt matter, because the text would give it a function that could be used as something other than a standard action "and he agreed that without the table this would be true"

 

[bestone]

Am i wrong to want a quote from the rules as proof on his point of view? Heck i've even admitted that when he does this, if its as he says in the rules and can prove it. It will decimate my argument, why hasnt he done it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thats the claim i want him to prove

It's what I used the Wish example for.

The text of the Wish spell says that by simply speaking aloud, I can alter reality. Speaking aloud is a free action - does that mean that instead of casting the spell, I can instead take the free action to speak aloud and thereby alter reality?

Or does that line only apply if I actually cast the Wish spell?

The text of the Sunder action says that I can use a melee attack to strike a weapon. Does that mean that instead of taking the action, I can instead use any melee attack to strike a weapon?

Or does that line only apply if I actually take the Sunder action?

Remember, if the text contradicted the table, then per the text-over-table precedence, I would consider the table in error. If the text said "In place of a melee attack (for example, during the attack action or charge action), you may instead strike an opponent's weapon or shield", the table entry would be wrong.

But the text doesn't say that, and the text can be read such that the table is not wrong.

So I do, because to do otherwise requires assuming an error exists.

(Note - I'm not contradicting myself here. Saying "If X, then I would consider the table in error" is not a contradiction of "I do not consider the table in error", because X is false.)

(Just noting that one in advance.)

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

i dont want an example, i want a rule that states this