unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Hypersmurf]

I believe the analysis in this thread is at least 10 times more rigorous than the collective analysis put into writing the sunder rules in the first place.

I don't think much rigour is required to analyse whether something that can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO should carry the footnote that indicates something that can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO...

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

@ RigaMortus2

Your very right, by that text, you can make an grapple or a trip aswell on an aoo, which you can, so what point exactly are you trying to make?

And what are you talking about, he quoted a rule, as a melee attack

You can make melee attacks on your turn, as part of a standard action, full round action, aoo (and probably some other sources im missing). If we are dis-regarding the table completely, then the wording of the text for disarm tells me how i can use it.

I can use it as one (or all) of those melee attacks.

Or do you think the wording as a melee attack means something entirely different than i do.

 

[bestone]

Hyp, without adding your own words what does the text

"You can use a melee attack to"

mean to you? I just want to know where your difference is comming from

 

[SlagMortar]

I don't think much rigour is required to analyse whether something that can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO should carry the footnote that indicates something that can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO...

It also doesn't take much rigor for the design team to say, "You know, if we use the phrase 'You can use a melee attack' instead of 'You can use a standard action' then some people might be confused about what we meant.

 

[bestone]

Since there is a table, I understand Hyp's interpretation as a possible interpretation where the table and text are not in conflict.

They only do not conflict if you change the meaning of the game mechanic phrase "Melee Attack" to "Melee Attack as a Standard Action".

That's like changing the phrase "Armor Class" to "Touch Armor Class".

Apples and Oranges. Two different phrases with two different game mechanic meanings.

And i think like karinsdad states

Hyp is reading the text written for sunder with words that arent there. He's influenced to add these by the table. But
again, they quite simply arent there. The text for sunder is clear, i can quote him on saying without the table he'd agree.
I say, how does the table then change the text? it doesnt, it only changes the text if your making an assumption that there is
wording there (or meant to be there) that does not exist

 

[bestone]

It also doesn't take much rigor for the design team to say, "You know, if we use the phrase 'You can use a melee attack' instead of 'You can use a standard action' then some people might be confused about what we meant.

And lo and behold two game designers and a faq state that they meant as you suggest and whats written. They've said that yeah, guess what? You can use it as a melee attack whenever you make a melee attack. Just as it says.

 

[Legildur]

Hyp, without adding your own words what does the text

"You can use a melee attack to"

mean to you? I just want to know where your difference is comming from

I thought he had spelt this out numerous times during this thread?

However, I believe Hyp is saying that a melee attack is a 'a physical attack suitable for close combat' (PHB glossary, p310).

A melee attack is used in some actions, depending on what action you take.

Nowhere in the text for Sunder does it list what actual action it is......... it simply says a use melee attack. If you substitute the glossary definition you get 'use a physical attack suitable for close combat'.

But when your character decides to take an action on his initiative turn, he has to make a decision as to what action type to take... Standard, Free, Full-round, Delay, Ready etc. Within each of those types, there are certain actions allowed. Within the Standard action suite of options is Sunder, which uses an opposed melee attack to resolve the result of the special attack.

 

[Legildur]

And lo and behold two game designers and a faq state that they meant as you suggest and whats written. They've said that yeah, guess what? You can use it as a melee attack whenever you make a melee attack. Just as it says.

Let's take the FAQ then and allow everyone to bluff as a move action..... (plenty of other examples in there as well).

As has been iterated many times in this thread, trying to introduce possible designer intent through the FAQ or RotG is fraught with issues due to the inherent lack of robustness of those articles, regardless of how well intentioned they are.

 

[bestone]

I recall him stating he agrees that without the table blah blah

And him adding his own words.

But he never actually said what those words, without adding words too them, mean

Nowhere in the text for Sunder does it list what actual action it is......... it simply says a use melee attack.

Yes, and this is how all other sources cited say it was meant to be written, and how it works.

If you substitute the glossary definition you get 'use a physical attack suitable for close combat'.

This is adding words that arent there. But i like your line of argument.

But when your character decides to take an action on his initiative turn, he has to make a decision as to what action type to take... Standard, Free, Full-round, Delay, Ready etc. Within each of those types, there are certain actions allowed. Within the Standard action suite of options is Sunder, which uses an opposed melee attack to resolve the result of the special attack.

If you actually look under the text list of standard actions, sunder isnt on there. The text as written would give it other uses - but lets not elaborate on this as this argument is already going on and i dont want to make a long specification.

imho- Melee attack is a standard action (or full round action). You use your standard action to make a melee attack. The special attack rule for sunder (the text) lets you use that melee attack. And fundamentally i dont find them really that different, either you hit the person, or you hit thier weapon.

This is what i think is going on
Your making a melee attack, but instead of a pc your hitting an object. But if that object is on a pc's person, it provokes an aoo.

 

[bestone]

Let's take the FAQ then and allow everyone to bluff as a move action..... (plenty of other examples in there as well).

As has been iterated many times in this thread, trying to introduce possible designer intent through the FAQ or RotG is fraught with issues due to the inherent lack of robustness of those articles, regardless of how well intentioned they are.

And i never said thier word is law

I did however, quote a designer saying that the intent was as such. But, of course, that is not raw.