unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[bestone]

(Emphasis mine) Incorrect. The text does not state that you may use sunder as a melee attack. It is quite noticeably worded differently than the two abilities that CAN be used as a melee attack.

Sunder. p. 158, phb

"You can use a melee attack to"

So your telling me, you cant use a melee attack to sunder??

It says right there, you can use a melee attack

 

[IcyCool]

Sunder. p. 158, phb

"You can use a melee attack"

So your telling me, you cant use a melee attack to sunder??

It says right there, you can use a melee attack

"Use a melee attack" and "As a melee attack" are different. Therein lies the contention. As I mentioned in my recap, that is the unclear part. Why did they write it differently than trip or disarm (and list Sunder as a standard action in the table, separate from trip and disarm), if it wasn't different?

 

[bestone]

I've read your posts, and would appreciate less snark, thanks. I'll give you the same courtesy you give me (within the limits of the board rules).

If you would have read my posts, you would see i say it doesnt matter if its a standard action or not. If you read that you wouldnt be asking that question.

It doesnt matter if its a standard action or not, because to use the special attack sunder, you read its text, its text says

"You can use a melee attack to"

Thus, whenever you have a melee attack, you can use it

 

[IcyCool]

Thus, whenever you have a melee attack, you can use it

Incorrect. Whenever you take the Sunder action (a standard action), you use a melee attack (which is not an action) as part of it. Whenever you take the Attack action (a standard action), you use a melee attack (which is not an action) as part of it. Are you equating melee attack with "Attack action"?

 

[bestone]

"Use a melee attack" and "As a melee attack" are different. Therein lies the contention. As I mentioned in my recap, that is the unclear part. Why did they write it differently than trip or disarm (and list Sunder as a standard action in the table, separate from trip and disarm), if it wasn't different?

Regardless of any contention. You can use your melee attack to sunder. RAW.

Unless your telling me that it says you cant use a melee attack? because it says You can use a melee attack to sunder. And aoo gives you a melee attack, which you CAN USE TO sunder.

if its unclear, theres a discrepency between table and text *text says you can use a melee attack to do it, but its not listed in table as footnote 7". ERRATA clearly states you go with the text, as its the PRIMARY source.

They wrote it different than trip or disarm because it functions different, and that doesnt matter. They may have wrote it the same

But you can still USE a melee attack to sunder

And AS a melee attack trip

 

[Seeten]

Hypersmurf has already proved his claim. I am fully in agreement with him.

Errata is issued to fix errors in the text, absent errata, there must not be any errors in the text, and thus, Hypersmurf is correct.

The text claims nothing beyond Sunder is a melee attack, and melee attacks can be standard actions. Table 8-2 shows Sunder is a standard action, and it lacks footnote 7.

None of this prevents me from allowing multiple sunders in my game, and this is how I feel the rule SHOULD work, but it isnt how I feel the RAW states it to work, so I consider how I play it to be house rules.

Thats not to say anyone doing it this way is using house rules, simply that I consider it house rules in my game.

 

[bestone]

Incorrect. Whenever you take the Sunder action (a standard action), you use a melee attack (which is not an action) as part of it. Whenever you take the Attack action (a standard action), you use a melee attack (which is not an action) as part of it. Are you equating melee attack with "Attack action"?

Wheres your rules proof on this?

where anywhere, does it say text of a special attack only comes into play if you have an action to use it, it doesnt.

Look at supernatural abilities. They are listed in your table as a standard action

does that mean you have to take the supernatural ability (a standard action per the table) to use a supernatural ability. Even if in the text it states you can use it otherwise? No of course not

You go by the text

And the text for sunder doesnt say "when you make a sunder you can", it says You can use a melee attack to"

Show me some rules to prove your claim that the text doesnt apply on a special attack unless you have the action listed on the table to do it.

 

[Nail]

You go by the text...

...when the text contradicts the table.

It doesn't.

 

[bestone]

Hypersmurf has already proved his claim. I am fully in agreement with him.

Errata is issued to fix errors in the text, absent errata, there must not be any errors in the text, and thus, Hypersmurf is correct.

There is no errata because its not an issue. The text of sunder states that "You can use a melee attack to"

it doesnt say as a standard action, it doesnt say when you sunder, it doesnt say anything along those lines.

I've posted Two official wizards published articles that both say you can sunder on an attack of opportunity.

He has not proved his claim, because his claim is the text doesnt apply, but he's yet to claim a rule that states that.

Unless you want to argue the text

"You can use a melee attack to"

but i think that text, is pretty clear

 

[Hypersmurf]

So you cannot empathize with those that view that there is some room for interpretation in the rules?

I think there will always be those that view that there is some room for interpretation in the rules - see the recent 'Hasted Zombie' thread for an example.

If I say "A longsword deals slashing damage", there will always be someone who says "But what if you hit them with the pommel? The rules are unclear, so there's room for interpretation." But the rules aren't unclear; a longsword deals slashing damage. I don't think there is 'room for interpretation'; if you're using what the book says, the damage is slashing. If you take the -4 to deal nonlethal damage, it might be described as striking with the flat of the blade, or the pommel, or whatever... and the nonlethal damage will be 1d8 Slashing.

Now, the damage type of a longsword is about as clear and straightforward a rule as you're likely to find... and there will still be people who say "The rule is open to interpretation" when what they mean is "I disagree with the rule". So when we take a rule that requires combining information from several places in the core rules to come to a conclusion, it strikes me as not at all surprising that more people will find that rule 'open to interpretation'.

But that doesn't mean I agree that those people are right that more than one valid interpretation exists, once the rules as a whole are considered.

-Hyp.