unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Hypersmurf]

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

No, no. When you're making an AoO, you're making a melee attack.

When you're taking the Attack action, it's a standard action, and you make a single attack.

The melee attack you make as part of an AoO is not a standard action. In fact, it isn't defined as any sort of action at all.

It's just like how you can't use Manyshot as part of a Full Attack action.

You can use a standard action (Attack) to make a single ranged attack. You can use a standard action (Manyshot) to make a single Manyshot ranged attack. You can use a full round action (Full Attack) to make several ranged attacks. But even though a single ranged attack and a single Manyshot attack might both use a standard action, you can't make several Manyshot attacks in a full attack action.

Effectively, the standard action, Attack, is like a 'wrapper' for a single attack. The attack is not the action; the Attack action is the action. The attack occurs as part of that standard action, just as it can occur as part of a full round action (Full Attack or Charge) or an AoO.

-Hyp.

 

[atom crash]

That is a very nice re-cap, IcyCool. Thanks for that.

For what it's worth, my reading agrees with Hyp, though I see a case for reading it otherwise.

My reasoning: The table clearly tells me that sunder is a standard action. Notably absent from the table are disarm, grapple and trip (they are instead on a table called "miscellaneous actions" because that's where they fit better).

Consider these questions: If sunder isn't in fact a standard action, but is instead a miscellaneous action like disarm, grapple and trip, then why is it on the table entitled standard actions instead of on the table of miscellaneous actions with the footnote 7? I see several tables: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, miscellaneous actions. If that table entitled "standard actions" isn't supposed to be read as a list of things that require use of a standard action in combat, then what purpose does that table then serve? How else then might I be expected to read it?

Plus, sunder as a standard action just makes sense to me. Why? I prefer to err on the side that doesn't allow the BBEG fighter to get 3 or 4 chances a round to break my PC's favorite magical weapon. Let's face it, PCs seldom use sunder themselves, because they're breaking what's going to become their share of the treasure when the BBEG goes down.

 

[Notmousse]

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

It would take Centaur Jesus to make this particular bit of bickering to stop. Unfortunately I'm still a few KGP away from horseshoes of the zephyr.

 

[bestone]

No, no. When you're making an AoO, you're making a melee attack.

When you're taking the Attack action, it's a standard action, and you make a single attack.

-Hyp.

Ok, but you've yet to find a rule that says says you ignore the text on a special attack unless you have a the action listed in the table to do it

So regardless of whether the table lists it as a standard action or not. When i want to make a sunder, i look under the special attacks section, read the rules for sunder, and apply it how the rules under sunder tell me to apply it.

You still have to prove that you dont use the text for the special attack when you want to use it.

As far as im concerned, when i want to sunder, be it as a standard action, or on an attack of opportunity, i look in the special attacks section, and read the sunder special attack, and the text contained within. Your saying i dont do this, why? prove it. Find something that tells me i dont use the rules for applying sunder that are written under the header sunder in the special attack section unless i have a standard action.


Give me a rule reference or a page # to support your claim and this argument is over.

As i've said, you wont find one, cause there isnt one.

IF there is one, then you cant use supernatural abilities unless you have a standard action, regardless of thier text. Thats absurd. To use a special attack, supernaturla ability, or other form of attack, even if its listed in a table as something. You read the TEXT of the ability/attack, it tells you how to use it, and how it applies.

I've asked you to dispute this many times, obviously you cant. Your whole argument now is based on the fact that "you cant do a special attack listed on the table as a standard action unless you have one", but you have no rules proof that says that?

 

[mvincent]

Is there anyone here that believes this issue is not subject to interpretation and debate?

Aren't clarifications from the FAQ, Sage advice, the RotG and other published rules articles (let alone all four at once, in agreement) normally useful for resolving such issues?

 

[Nail]

Nice Job, 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.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Find something that tells me i dont use the rules for applying sunder that are written under the header sunder in the special attack section unless i have a standard action.

I'm saying you don't use the rules for applying Sunder that are written under the header 'Sunder' in the Special Attack section unless you're Sundering.

Remember, a specific rule can override a general rule. I can wield a one-handed weapon in two hands in order to apply 1.5x Str bonus to damage. But I can't wield a rapier (a one-handed weapon) in two hands in order to apply 1.5x Str bonus to damage, because the specific rule for rapiers says otherwise. It takes a standard action to activate a supernatural ability, unless the ability description states otherwise - the specific rule for the specific supernatural ability overrides the general rule for all supernatural abilities.

But this isn't a case of specific trumping general; the text refers to Sunder, and the table refers to Sunder. It isn't a case of resolving a contradiction by the text taking precedence over the table; there isn't a contradiction.

Both text and table contain rules for Sunder. The table tells us it is a standard action, and the text tells use we can use a melee attack to strike a weapon. Both rules apply - we take a standard action, and use a melee attack to strike a weapon. Simple - no contradiction occurs, so no precedence need be established.

If you ignore the table, then it's possible to read the text differently, and then when you look at the table you have a contradiction.

Let's say we have a sequence of numbers: 1, 2, 4, ... I decide that the rule is "Double the previous number", so the next number in the sequence should be 8. When the next number is revealed, the sequence is now 1, 2, 4, 7, ... I declare that there has obviously been a typo, since the new sequence disagrees with the rule.

Instead, I should see if there are any alternative rules I can find so that it satisfies both the original sequence and the new sequence. The contradiction doesn't indicate that the second sequence is wrong; rather, it shows that when I made my decision of how to resolve multiple possibilities the first time, I chose the wrong one.

The text can be read two ways. But if you choose the one that is contradicted by the table, you chose the wrong one. If the choose the one that leads to no contradiction, everything is fine.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Is there anyone here that believes this issue is not subject to interpretation and debate?

I think that absent errata to the PHB that change Sunder to Action Type: Varies and grant it footnote 7, there is only one reading that satisfies both text and table without assuming an error in the rules.

I think that absent errata or contradiction, there's no reason to assume an error in the rules.

Therefore I think there's only one reading, and the FAQ, Sage advice, and RotG have misstated what the rules indicate.

So yes, there's anyone here who believes that

-Hyp.

 

[Fortain]

Is there anyone here that believes this issue is not subject to interpretation and debate?

Unfortunately, there are some people who take their reading of the rules so narrowly, that they will refuse to see a disparity in the rules, believing the "other side" is making up an error, then trying to rectify "their side" with the rules. Most people, however, will admit that there is some wiggle room either way.

Aren't clarifications from the FAQ, Sage advice, the RotG and other published rules articles (let alone all four at once, in agreement) normally useful for resolving such issues?

Again, for most people, this is correct. For some, even though the above-mentioned sources are created, edited, approved, and published by WotC (the current holders of D&D's trademark), the information must be in X book(s), otherwise it doesn't exist, and they refuse to acknowledge otherwise. I'd ask that the issue of "what is official" stay in its own thread, however.

To the OP, I agree with you that Sunder can be used in an AoO, for the given reasons.

 

[bestone]

Your claim is unfounded, i've unloaded a mountain of proof, plus 2 citings from wizards articles.

Im telling you it doesnt matter if it is a standard action as listed by the table. I hear what your saying. Lets even say it is a standard action, when you want to sunder, you read the text to see how to apply it. The text takes precendence over the table. Even if it said under sunder "When you sunder its a standard action.

You've yet to prove how you can ignore the sentence "You can use a melee attack"

The text reads one way, that you can use a melee attack to sunder, so when you make a melee attack, you can use it to sunder. If you do this, its a standard action.

On an attack of opportunity, you get a melee attack, you can use a melee attack to sunder.

As i've said, if your telling me you have to have a standard action to sunder, cause its listed as a standard action on the table, then you have to have a standard action to use a supernatural ability, or anything else listed on the table, which is absurd.

You always refer to the text of the rule, if you wish to use the rule

And there is no "reading two ways" on "You can use a melee attack"

You are adding words to support your claim

It doesnt matter how you read the table, You know what, i can agree with you that it is a standard action, and im still right?

SHOW ME A PAGE # OR REFERENCE that says when you want to use a special attack, or spell, you cant use it as its written because you must have the action listen in one table to do so.