unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Legildur]

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

Quite probably true, as I'm likely to be one of those people. However, should it explicitly state that it is errata to the PHB, or similar, then I'll be forced to accept it (Sunder as AOO etc) as RAW (which is why I brought attention to the upcoming compendium). Until that time, Sunder is, in my view, a Standard Action, regardless of what the FAQ or RotG say, as both those documents are of dubious accuracy.

Privately, I had been wondering if Bestone (because of his recent joining date) wasn't a previous member who may have been barred.... I don't think I had seen someone so argumentative and unwilling to concede that just maybe the other side had a point.....

And it was interesting to see that one person had indicated a shift in view on the topic, so the thread isn't a complete loss if it helped someone understand the rules better (and no, it wouldn't have mattered to me which way they shifted).

 

[mvincent]

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.

If the FAQ, RotG, a third article, the majority of players, etc. all said that a longsword does bludgeoning damage, I'm fairly certain I would at least be more conciliatory, despite my own feelings on the matter (indeed, historically longswords did do bludgeoning damage to people in armor, and if you take a -4 to deal non-lethal damage with a longsword I'd likely rule that it was not slashing damage anyway).

To me, being unable to see another's POV (especially if it's such a common one) reduces one's credibility and objectivety on a matter.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And if the entry was not in the table, I suspect you would be taking the opposing POV.

If the entry were not in the table, there wouldn't be anything to tell us what sort of action is required to Sunder; I already indicated that if the table weren't there, I'd agree that the 'in place of any melee attack' is logical, since the 'during the Sunder standard action' reading would be unsupported..

But the table is there, so the 'in place of any melee attack' reading contradicts an existing rule, and only the 'during the Sunder standard action' reading satisfies both text and table.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

And it was interesting to see that one person had indicated a shift in view on the topic, so the thread isn't a complete loss if it helped someone understand the rules better (and no, it wouldn't have mattered to me which way they shifted).

Hey, you're not talking about me, are you!

I think the "arguement" that sort of clinched it for me (which I don't think was brought up before, or maybe I just didn't understand) was that the Table entry is not contradicting the text at all.

I believe it is important to distinguish between actions in the game, because that is a limiting factor we have to work with (you are only allotted so many Actions per round). So it is important to know what Action type we are "expending" (or performing, or "using") when we want to do something. I never really looked at it that way...

The Special Attacks section gives us more options than "sit there and hit the attack button every round". It also gives us the mechanics to perform those Special Attacks. And of course, we need to know what Action types they use (if any at all). How can you perform a single melee attack if you don't know it's a Standard Action and that you've already used your Standard Action for the round? Same with Special Attacks. How do I know what Action type a Disarm is? Or a Trip? Or a Sunder? If the text doesn't call it out, you need to look else where (tada... the table!). And since a melee attack is not an Action type by itself... Well, you get the point...

Someone assuming that you can perform a Sunder anytime you are eligible for a melee attack, is as bad as me assuming that you can only perform a Sunder if you use a Standard Action. Fortunately, I have the table to help back up and clarify my assumption. What does the other person have to back it up on their end?

 

[Hypersmurf]

If the FAQ, RotG, a third article, the majority of players, etc. all said that a longsword does bludgeoning damage, I'm fairly certain I would at least be more conciliatory, despite my own feelings on the matter (indeed, historically longswords did do bludgeoning damage to people in armor, and if you take a -4 to deal non-lethal damage with a longsword I'd likely rule that it was not slashing damage anyway).

The FAQ, RotG, third article, and the majority of players, in the absence of errata, would be incorrect; the damage type of a weapon doesn't change simply because you take the -4 to deal non-lethal damage. People might argue that if you aren't using the edge of the blade, the 4lb longsword should deal damage - and have a threat range - more in line with a light mace. But as written, you deal your 1d8 19-20/x2 S damage; it's just non-lethal.

I can see the POV of others on the Sunder issue, but once they show their working, I find fault - given a choice of two readings of a sentence, they're choosing one that contradicts the table, instead of one that works with the table. And to me the existence of a non-contradictory reading renders the contradictory reading invalid, so when you ask me if I consider there to be room for interpretation, I must say no; the choice between a valid reading and an invalid readnig is no choice at all, so no room for interpretation exists.

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

Privately, I had been wondering if Bestone (because of his recent joining date) wasn't a previous member who may have been barred.... I don't think I had seen someone so argumentative and unwilling to concede that just maybe the other side had a point.....

I never said they didnt have a point, i said i didnt believe thier point was correct, and tried to explain why. They didnt agree with my point of view and tried to argue why, why are you singling me out?

And i did give up and concede that i cant change your mind and you can think what you want????

And i am not a previous member and have never ben banned from these forums

 

[Legildur]

I can see the POV of others on the Sunder issue, but once they show their working, I find fault - given a choice of two readings of a sentence, they're choosing one that contradicts the table, instead of one that works with the table. And to me the existence of a non-contradictory reading renders the contradictory reading invalid, so when you ask me if I consider there to be room for interpretation, I must say no; the choice between a valid reading and an invalid readnig is no choice at all, so no room for interpretation exists.

Occam's Razor at work.....

 

[bestone]

Edit: n/m no response, just done

 

[Legildur]

And i did give up and concede that i cant change your mind and you can think what you want????

That's hardly the same as acknowledging that the rules are sufficently unclear to some people that each side may have a valid argument....

But goods news on the other points! I've seen a couple of people wear suspensions and bans over this topic... the other topic that springs to mind was 'monks and the Improved Natural Attack feat'.

 

[bestone]

That's hardly the same as acknowledging that the rules are sufficently unclear to some people that each side may have a valid argument....

Yet hyp's last comment (so no room for interpretation exists.) doesnt suggest that? what, am i being singled out?