unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Legildur]

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.

Believe me, I see where you are coming from, and how you make those linkages to arrive at your position.

And I agree that the Sunder text is 'lazy', so that at a casual reading, and ignorant of the table, you could easily read it to be the same as disarm etc. However, the language is different (albeit not drastically) from the other special attacks, and the table treats Sunder distinctly from the other special attacks. That leads me to believe that it was intentional on part of the designers. Either that, or they stuffed up when writing the rules and never corrected it.

It would be interesting to see what the original play test rules had for Sunder... That may explain some things.

If you actually look under the text list of standard actions, sunder isnt on there, but your right, the table lists it as such. but then again 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.

I believe (and I'm too lazy to double check) that there are a few things not listed under the text of Standard Actions. Which means that you would probably have to resort to the table to check what Actions they can be used with.

 

[bestone]

Im in concurrance with you on most points there legildur.

I dont buy that because the language is so so slightly different (but still having the same meaning) that you could draw irrefutable proof that it means it was to be used differently.

I see two standpoints on this, those that believe the text is right as written (and blah blah blah as we've said)

and those that believe that the table insinuates that the text is really different. (however note, i know your argument comprises a lot more than this, im just stating in short note, you can replace this line with whatever the belief of your argument may be)

I think this has become nearly moot to argue. We've scoured and disected a lot of rules and to me, its still a stalemate. I believe either side can make good cases
on thier pov.

And obviously i come to the conclusion that im right. And hyp is wrong.

I might be inclined to agree a little more with the other opinion, but there is so so so many places that can be cited, including game designers and a faq. But lets not get into how these are valid, im not saying they are vaild or %100 accurate. But they have read the text they designed too, and interpreted it the way that i interpret it.

That doesnt by any rule make me undisputedly correct. But it at least makes me feel more comfterable in the corectness of my interpretation.

Edit - and like i said, i think it may be lazy cause it wasnt intended to be so different, its written to me, as a rule for a melee attack that strikes an attended object instead of a person, and not a completely different game mechanic. But dont quote me on this, or have me quote a rule on this, this is just my opinion.

 

[Legildur]

My emphasis:

I see two standpoints on this, those that believe the text is right as written (and blah blah blah as we've said)

and those that believe that the table insinuates that the text is really different. (however note, i know your argument comprises a lot more than this, im just stating in short note, you can replace this line with whatever the belief of your argument may be).

'Insinuates' is not really a fair portrayal of the position. The table clearly states it. The table is rules. The table clarifies the possibly ambiguous text etc......

And yes, I appreciate why you have quoted games designers etc, but they are a notoriously unreliable bunch when it comes to rules interpretations. You just have to sift around on these boards a bit to get plenty of evidence. Better still, the RotG articles are rife with contradictions and house rules!

 

[bestone]

I apologize for the unfair portrayal of your posiition, however i did attempt to note that your argument does comprise of a lot more.

I more meant i'll leave it to you to insert your argument there, cause i couldnt do (or rather, didnt feel it was my right to do) what was just pointed out - made a fair summary in your eyes

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

If it stated "You can use a standard action to strike an opponent's weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon", one could Sunder with a sling or throwing axe.

How to prevent this? Clarify that it's a melee attack that does the striking. The standard action bit is still present in the rules - on Table 8-2 - so there's no need to repeat it.

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

You can indeed sunder with a throwing axe

 

[Hypersmurf]

You can indeed sunder with a throwing axe

Not if you're throwing it, though.

Unless you're suggesting that since 'You can use a melee attack to strike...' means 'If you have a melee attack, you can instead strike...', the Sunder attempt is not itself restricted to a melee attack...?

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

Not if you're throwing it, though.

Unless you're suggesting that since 'You can use a melee attack to strike...' means 'If you have a melee attack, you can instead strike...', the Sunder attempt is not itself restricted to a melee attack...?

-Hyp.

Roflmao no way, of course not, that would be ridiculous.

You didnt specify as throwing, so i thought i'd be a snarky butt
i knew what you meant, heh, sorry

 

[Hypersmurf]

Roflmao no way, of course not, that would be ridiculous.

Although I'm interested to hear KD's point of view on this.

If "You may use a melee attack to do X" means "If you could normally make a melee attack, you may instead do X", is X required to take the form of a melee attack?

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I would like to see what bestone and KD has to say about being able to Sunder and Disarm someone using the same melee attack

Sunder
You can use a melee attack

Disarm
As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent.

I make a melee attack, I do a Sunder and a Disarm at the same time. I can do both because all Sunder requires is that I use a melee attack (which I am) and all Disarm requires is that I perform it "as a melee attack" (which I am). So anytime I make a melee attack, I can Sunder and Disarm as one action???

And now that I think about it, can I even perform a Trip or a Grapple as my AoO?

AoO
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack

Grapple
You make a melee touch attack to grab the target

Trip
Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target

An AoO just gives me a single melee attack. It does not give me a single melee touch attack, nor does it give me a single unarmed melee touch attack.




To my knowledge, the only place that has the rule stating you can make a Trip or Grapple (or Disarm) on an Attack of Opportunity is the Table. The text for allowing this is NOT within the descriptions of each Speacial Attack themselves. So if you allow this because of the Table entry, why would you also not consider Sunder a Standard Action as it is listed in the Table? Seems like a double standard. We can suddenly pick and choose the rules we use that best suits us? (obviously we can in our own games, but not when talking RAW)