unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[bestone]

I ask you too, icycool,

Rergardless of anything else, put everything else aside for the moment
and read sunder

"You can use a melee attack to"

On attacks of opportunity, you get a melee attack.

Do you dispute that that is right? (remember disregarding anything else) probably not

You get a melee attack, and you can use it to

Now let me get this correct

Your argument is that sunder is a standard action, And you must be able to use a standard action for the text to work, right?

That is where im asking for proof, no where does it say that, It says under each special attack how it works, it doesnt say ONLY IF YOU HAVE the action listed in the table can you do this.

 

[IcyCool]

Thats not proof that you ignore the text listed under sunder when you want to perform a sunder.

No, it isn't proof of that, but then that isn't what you asked me for, you asked me to prove what you quoted, and I did.

As i've said, by your logic, you cant use supernatural abilities unless you have a standard action free, which is CLEARLY WRONG. because thier text tells you how to do them.

I think what you are failing to realize is that nothing in the Sunder text explicitly states one way or the other that it can be used in place of a melee attack.

 

[bestone]

Clearly, it already has. The text does not clearly state that you can sunder as a melee attack, and neither is it clear that you can sunder as a standard action, hence the use of the table to clarify. You, however, seem to see no ambiguity with the text, and are convinced that "as a melee attack" and "use a melee attack" are identical. If that is the case, then I am afraid we are at an impasse.

You just won my argument for me icycool

You dont use the table to clerify, in the PUBLISHED AND OFFICIAL PHB ERRATA it says if its not clear YOU USE THE TEXT, NOT THE TABLE.

 

[bestone]

No, it isn't proof of that, but then that isn't what you asked me for, you asked me to prove what you quoted, and I did.



I think what you are failing to realize is that nothing in the Sunder text explicitly states one way or the other that it can be used in place of a melee attack.

It says you can use a melee attack

Your telling me that doesnt say that you can use your melee attack?

 

[IcyCool]

You just won my argument for me icycool

You dont use the table to clerify, in the PUBLISHED AND OFFICIAL PHB ERRATA it says if its not clear YOU USE THE TEXT, NOT THE TABLE.

Which isn't clear, therefore we have two other sources for clarification, the table, and the FAQ. The table, via the primary source rule, trumps the FAQ.

 

[Nail]

You dont use the table to clerify, in the PUBLISHED AND OFFICIAL PHB ERRATA it says if its not clear YOU USE THE TEXT, NOT THE TABLE.

...so long as the table and the text contradict each other.

They don't.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Different does not equate to unclear. Logically, that is a totally fallacious conclusion. The one does not follow from the other.

Plus,this is not unclear at all.

"You can use a MELEE ATTACK with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon TO" and "as a melee attack" are semantically equivalent (except for type of weapon) and both crystal clear.

In fact, the argument that Sunder states "use a melee attack to" instead of "as a standard action" is the strongest argument on this discussion.

The table entry is irrelvant. Text takes priority over table entries.


It is, quite frankly, amazing that so many people agree with Hyp on this. The phrase "melee attack to" is crystal clear.


And logically, the opposing interpretation does not make any sense. Disarm, Trip, and normal melee attacks are all attacks which do not require movement. Bull rush and Overrun do.

One can reach in and trip, or reach in and disarm, or reach in and attack the creature, but cannot reach and in attack the creature's cloak or shield or weapon? Huh?

 

[bestone]

You are arguing that Standard Actions may be used during an AoO???

You're kidding me, right?

No, how bout you actually read what i say instead of getting snarky?

I said if the text of an attack says you can do it, you can do it, regardless of whether its a standard action or not.

If they made a new attack, that was a standard action, but it said in the text it could be used as a aoo, you could use it as an aoo

 

[bestone]

@ KarinsDad

Hear hear!

 

[Nail]

No, how bout you actually read what i say instead of getting snarky?

I quoted you. I responded to your statement. (You've said you're not angry, right?)

I said if the text of an attack says you can do it, you can do it, regardless of whether its a standard action or not.

So if something is a Standard Action, you "can do it", even if the action you try to do it in isn't a Standard Action?