unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[bestone]

You cannot use a standard action as part of an Attack of Opportunity, only an attack.

Where, does it state this, in any of the rules?

I only read under attack of opportunity, you can make a melee attack, and under sunder it does not read "when you can use the sunder action." it states you can use a melee action to sunder.

The only argument here is whether or not the rules state that a) sunder is a standard action *which is disputable*

b) that the table has discrepencies, and according to errata, the text precedes the table and the text is not the ambigous part like the table.

c) the fact that you have to be able to do a standard action for the text to apply *which it doesnt state anywhere, this is an assumption* and the fact that What is written under the special attacks section, for sunder, CANT count on anything but a standard action *also of which it doesnt state anywhere*

As far as i know, the text of something is whats right, and if i read the text of a spell telling me it can be used as a swift action, it can be used as a swift action and not a standard action, even if that table lists it as such

As i read the text of sunder, i deduce that it can be used as a melee attack

and on an attack of opportunity you can make a melee attack

Therefore

You can use your melee attack on your attack of opportunity to sunder


The argument against it is based on assumption, i provided you with something from wizard, here is another article http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

Yet people go "that game designer, even tho he had a design in the game doesnt know what he's talking about" just because he's made a mistake or two in the past

well its posted and i've shown you now two articles from wizards showing it can be used as such

 

[Hypersmurf]

This shows not that the table is stating WHAT ACTIONS things are, but more, what actions they count as when used.

I honestly have no idea what distinction you're trying to draw here.

You claim that the table doesn't say it's a standard action, it just counts as a standard action if you use it?

I don't understand the difference. If I'm not using it, it doesn't matter what action it counts as, because... I'm not using it. If I use it and it therefore 'counts as' a standard action, what is the difference between "it counts as a standard action" and "it is a standard action"?

If something counts as a standard action, surely I can only use it if I have a standard action available?

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

You understand very well, No where under the special attacks section, that has sunder listed, does it state that its a standard action.

Your still contradicting yourself by saying text applies for supernatural, but not sunder

No where does it state that that the things listed under the table are, and can only be used as standard actions. It only states when you use them, they count as standard actions, making a melee attack, and using that as a sunder, counts as a standard action, because you are making a melee attack.

If something coutns as a standard action, surely you can use it only if you have a standard action available?

There you go, contradicting yourself again, you state that, yes supernatural abilities are standard actions, but you go by the text, and if the text says they can be used someway else, then thats what you go by.

But the special attack sunder, now your telling me you dont go by the text to see how it can be applied, simply because its listed in a table as a standard action?

If something counts as a standard action, surely I can only use it if I have a standard action available?

And i challenge you, pull up a page number and a reference saying you can only apply a special attack, regardless of how it says it can be applied in its text, if you have a standard action free to do it.

 

[bestone]

Sunder is not written "When you can sunder", no-where in any rule book does it say "a rule doesnt apply unless you have an action to do it, even if the text gives tells you how you use the rule"

I read the text of sunder, it tells me how i apply it, i apply it that way, if i apply it as a melee attack, its a standard action

if i use my attack of opportunity to sunder, thats legal too

Rules....as...written

Like i've said, many many times now, if you really want to win this argument, all you have to do is validate your claim. That the text of a special attack doesnt come into effect unless you have a standard action. You wont find one, cause there isnt one. There are many special attacks out there, many for certain creatures, and they all clearly state what they do in their text. You go by what is written

Even if it said sunder was a standard action, it still doesnt say that you cant use it to replace a melee attack to make a sunder on an attack of opportunity. It would only mean that when you do sunder on your turn, its a standard action.

 

[bestone]

Heres your position, either
a)

Sunder is a standard action, because the table says so. The text of an attack only applies if you have the standard action to do so (which you've yet to quote a rule to prove this), regardless of what the text says. Which then contradicts all your earlier comments, and regardless of what a supernatural ability or other such thing says, and states how it works, you have to be able to have a standard action to even apply the text.

or b)
"When you use a sunder action"......

which is not how its writte, and not rules as written

I've quoted rules, and pulled refrences, you have a claim based on assumption, im using the rules as written. Once you pull rules to support your claim, this argument is over and your right, if you dont have rules to support your claim....then your claim cant be held as raw.

Edit:

Or better yet, lets use your logic, whats the difference between a standard action and another?

You "claim" (unfoundedly) that you have to be able to do a standard action action for the text of a special attack listed on a table as a standard action to apply (regardless of how the text actually says it works)

When your making an attack of opportunity, your making a melee attack, a melee attack counts as a standard action, so you are, in essence, doing a standard action, and sunder is a special attack, so your doing an attack, you make it a special attack, and read the rules for the special attack which states you can use your melee attack (standard action) to sunder (requires a standard action)

Bottom line? The text of special attacks tell you how you can apply them, and thats how you apply them. If you use sunder then its a standard action, not you must have a standard action in order to sunder. You read the special attack, it tells you how to use it. Thats how you use it. If you use it on your turn, its a standard action. If you use it as an attack of opporunity, well then its still a standard action (as is trip/grapple/blah/blah) but your using it as your attack of opportunity.

Sunder is listed as Sunder (attack) on that table

You find me a rule that states that the text of a special attack only comes into effect if you have a standard action make the attack with, regardless of the text for the attack or how it states it works. or you have no legs to stand on in this argument.

But there's no contradiction. When you're taking the standard action (per the table), what can you do? You can use a melee attack to strike a weapon (per the text). Both are satisfied; neither needs to take precedence, because both are true.

If we use your logic, there is a disagreement between the rules, Using your logic, the table states that sunder is a standard action, and can only be used when you have a standard action. However under sunder it says You can use a melee attack, *which can be an attack of opportunity*

So again, using your logic CREATES a disagreement, so you go by the text, which tells you how you can use it, and thats how you can use it

 

[Legildur]

If we use your logic, there is a disagreement between the rules, Using your logic, the table states that sunder is a standard action, and can only be used when you have a standard action. However under sunder it says You can use a melee attack, *which can be an attack of opportunity*

So again, using your logic CREATES a disagreement, so you go by the text, which tells you how you can use it, and thats how you can use it

Hyp's logic is just fine. And before everyone wastes a lot of time responding to this debate.. AGAIN... I would recommend that you search for some recent threads on this topic.... there are a few of them to chose from, and they are all reasonably lengthy and very detailed.

Sunder uses a melee attack as its mechanic to resolve that Standard Action. It can't be used in a Full Attack or as an AOO. This reading of the relevant paragraphs is perfectly consistent with the table. Whereas your reading assumes an omission in the table (the lack of footnote 7). Which is the more likely to be right? Just apply Occam's Razor, and I think you'll have the answer.

Edit: I will add that there is some significant support for your point of view. Which is why earlier threads on this topic are lengthy and contain often heated debate.

 

[Legildur]

Better yet, we could park the whole debate until (from the news page):

Q: "How will the Rules Compendium be used?"

* Incorporates the most current and problematic rules and situations and breaks them out into easy to handle chunks. Encyclopedic format.
* "One rule per page"
* Also incorporates stuff from the FAQ and the Sage
* Sidebars from the designers on some of the rules.

 

[hong]

Hmmm...you know, I'm thinking that maybe we should add this to our list of catchphrases that often lead to arguments in the rules forum (along with "That isn't RAW, but it would make a great house rule" ). These rarely end well

This place needs a popcorn smiley.

And Hyp, are you coming to Gencon Oz next year? I promise not to gloat over the cricket. HAW HAW!

What?

Oh.

Never mind.

 

[Fortain]

Better yet, we could park the whole debate until (from the news page):

Unfortunately, for some on these boards, that book won't count for crap unless WotC specifically says "These rules override the rules in the PHB, including the 'primary rules' assertion."

 

[IcyCool]

bestone, if I recall the arguement from the last time I saw it, it went something like this (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Hyp):

1. Sunder is listed in Table 8-2 as a standard action.

2. The attack of oportunity section states that you can make a single melee attack (not just any standard action) as an attack of opportunity.

3. Trip states: "You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack"
Disarm states: "As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent."
Bull rush states: "You can make a bull rush as a standard action"
Overrun states: "You can attempt an overrun as a standard action"
Sunder states: "You can use a melee attack"

Trip and disarm can be used as a melee attack (i.e. in place of one) and so can be used for an AoO. Bullrush and Overrun are clearly called out as standard actions, and so are disallowed. Sunder's text is different from both, and so is unclear. Therefore we look to the other information about Sunder to try to determine if it is a standard action, or can be used in place of a normal melee attack. The only other place with information on the matter is Table 8-2, which states that it is a standard action (trip and disarm are not specifically stated as standard actions).

Personally, I rule that sunder can be used as a melee attack (and can therefore be used on AoOs), but I will readily admit that isn't necessarily what the RAW says.