unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Nail]

And the text of sunder suggests too, that it could have other uses....

Which uses?

 

[Nail]

I think the issue here is, the table is clarifying the text, its explaining exactly what the text meant. If you read the text that way, the table and text agree. If you make up your mind before you read the table, then you tend to claim the table is in error.

If the table WAS in fact, in error, they've had 4 years to errata it. Instead all they've done is make claims in articles that you can sunder on an AoO, which suggests they, like me, havent really bothered to check this rule out and fully read it.

That's the way I see it too, FWIW.

It's also clear that it takes a BIG deal to publish errata (e.g. wild shape). If it's just a minor detail (like this one), they don't bother.

 

[bestone]

That it could be used on an aoo, the table doesnt change the way the text is written.

And If the special attack sunder's text gives you a use to use it on an aoo, why cant you? Is there a rule that a standard action cant be used for an aoo if that actions text states a way you can?

 

[bestone]

I think the issue here is, the table is clarifying the text, its explaining exactly what the text meant. If you read the text that way, the table and text agree. If you make up your mind before you read the table, then you tend to claim the table is in error.

If the table WAS in fact, in error, they've had 4 years to errata it. Instead all they've done is make claims in articles that you can sunder on an AoO, which suggests they, like me, havent really bothered to check this rule out and fully read it.

I agree, this is such a minor issue, i doubt they care if we argue about it or not. We'll run it how we want.

They've stated in a faq, and explained about the table, which tells me they at least read it, and ended up comming to the same interpretation as the articles.


I dont think the table and text have to be in error

Like the point im trying to make in bullrush

Bullrush is listed as a standard action on the table, but the text gives it another use.

Sunder is listed on the table as a standard action, but the text would suggest another use.

The table doesnt add words to how sunder is written, and as its written would still suggest it has other uses. This doesnt make the table necessarially wrong (as bull rush is on it and has another use too)

 

[Seeten]

The table clarifies that its a melee attack used as part of a standard action, not a melee attack standing on its own.

 

[bestone]

How do you draw that conclusion? That is adding words to the text

The table only shows that the action (sunder) in combat, is a standard action.

It does not change how the text for sunder is written.

edit - Also sunder doesnt say that it is a melee attack on its own, it says you use a melee attack to sunder

 

[bestone]

the text is still the text as written, without your assumptions that thet table puts words into the text, the text would give it other uses.

Bullrush is listed on that table as a standard action, the text gives it other uses.

So if the table indeed changed the text, you may be right

If the table is in addition to the text, i see it on par with bull rush.

 

[Legildur]

Bullrush explicitly states "as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge." (PHB 154)

Find me the same text under Sunder.

I think your confusion comes about because you consider "use a melee attack" as an action - it's not. It's something you do as part of your action. To gain a melee attack, you must take an action of some description, whether that be a Standard, Full-round, or AOO (not an action) etc.

In the case of the Sunder special attack, it is it's own Standard Action - as denoted by Table 8-2 by:

- being listed as a Standard Action;
- the absence of disarm/grapple/trip being listed under same; and
- the absence of Sunder under Action Type Varies and footnote 7.

The text under Sunder only specifies the mechanism to resolve the Standard Action: "use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding." It's not use ANY melee attack, it's use the melee attack granted through the use of the Sunder special attack - a Standard Action.

 

[KarinsDad]

When the table and text disagree, go with the text.

That's a non-issue for Sunder.

Only if one assumes that "Melee Attack" and "Melee Attack as a Standard Action" mean the exact same thing in the rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the issue here is, the table is clarifying the text, its explaining exactly what the text meant. If you read the text that way, the table and text agree. If you make up your mind before you read the table, then you tend to claim the table is in error.

I am not making up my mind before I read the table.

I am reading "Melee Attack" and "Melee Attack as a Standard Action" and saying, "Hmmm. These are not the same thing"..

In order for the table to clarify the text, the text has to not be in conflict with the table (as many people claim). However, I see this as a conflict. "Melee Attack" is not restricted in its use and "Melee Attack as a Standard Action" is restricted.

Since they are not the same thing, it is not a clarification. It is a change. As such, text overrides table as per the rules.

If the table WAS in fact, in error, they've had 4 years to errata it. Instead all they've done is make claims in articles that you can sunder on an AoO, which suggests they, like me, havent really bothered to check this rule out and fully read it.

It took years for them to errata the Special Abilities table in the DMG. They hardly errata anything. This is a non issue.

Whether this suggests anything at all is irrlevant.

The fact remains is that WotC has many sources which disagree with the "Table over Text" interpretation.

Frankly, I am surprised so many people are so adament about Table over Text here on the boards when it is pretty apparent that WotC means the exact opposite and that there is a literal RAW interpretation that matches WotC's take on this.