unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[bestone]

HYP from what i take on your standpoint, im deducing this (and feel free to correct me if im wrong)

Either There is a discrepency between sunder and the table or there isnt

If there isnt - (my opinion)

If there isnt a discrepency, then the rule for sunder states how it works, you have the option to use a melee attack to strike a weapon. And the time it takes to do it is irrelevent because the text tells you how to use sunder.

OR

If there is a discrepency (your assumption)

The rule for sunder states you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon, and since on an attack of opportunity you can make a melee attack by the rule of sunder, you could use sunder to do an attack of opportunity. But (and this is only a claim by you) you can only use the special attack sunder if you have a standard action. That creates a discrepency, as the rule in the text would allow you to use it for things like an attack of opportunity. And as per errata, if there is a discrepency, you go by the text.

So the discrepency would be, the rule and text of sunder says you have the option on a melee attack, and there are more ways than a standard action to get a melee attack *vis-a-vie aoo's*.


Either way seems to suggest you can sunder on an attack of opportunity

If you disagree refer to the earlier post then, where if you are using your standard action to activate the special attack - sunder. The raw for sunder only give you the option to make a melee attack against a weapon or shield. It doesnt give you the melee attack to do so

Deduced from -

You can make a melee attack

Not When you sunder you make, or even As a sunder you make a melee

 

[Hypersmurf]

How long does a melee attack take to perform? A standard action

Only if you're using the Attack action.

If you're making that melee attack as part of a Charge action or Full Attack action, the time it takes to perform is some fraction of a Full Round action, not a Standard action.

When you show me where "Attack (Melee)" is defined in the rules, I'll concede this point.

The description of the Full Attack action is found under the heading "Full Attack".

The description of the Total Defense action is found under the heading "Total Defense".

The description of the Attack action is found under the heading "Attack". It incorporates the subheadings "Melee Attacks", "Unarmed Attacks", and "Ranged Attacks". On Table 8-2, the Attack action is listed three times, since the Attack action doesn't provoke an AoO if you're using it to make a melee attack, but does if you're using it to make an unarmed or ranged attack; the listing is Attack (melee), Attack (ranged), and Attack (unarmed). In all three cases, the action is the Attack action, with a parenthetic note indicating which subsection should be referenced.

If Full Attack on Table 8-2 refers to the Full Attack action, and Withdraw refers to the Withdraw action, and we know that 'the Attack action' exists since it is referenced in feats like Combat Expertise, Spring Attack, and Shot on the Run, it doesn't take a wild leap to deduce that the entry 'Attack' on Table 8-2 refers to the Attack action.

Sunder is not specified as a Standard action in the Sunder rules text, hence, it is not.

A longsword is not specified as having a 19-20/x2 critical in the weapon text. Does this mean it does not?

Or can a table contain information which is true despite not being repeated in the text?

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

Or can a table contain information which is true despite not being repeated in the text?

-Hyp.

no, but the rules for sunder suggest you can use it as an attack of op, as you can use a melee attack to sunder

the table disagrees

So you use the text

 

[bestone]

Sunder still doesnt give you a melee attack to sunder with, it states you can USE a melee attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

HYP from what i take on your standpoint, im deducing this (and feel free to correct me if im wrong)

Hmm? No, I don't think there's a discrepancy between text and table at all.

I think Sunder is a standard action (per the table), and taking that standard action allows you to use a melee attack to strike a weapon (per the text).

Both text and table are true; no discrepancy need exist.

If one allows any melee attack to be replaced with Sunder, it requires the table to be in error.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sunder still doesnt give you a melee attack to sunder with, it states you can USE a melee attack.

I disagree. The melee attack you can use comes from the Sunder action.

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

I disagree. The melee attack you can use comes from the Sunder action.

-Hyp.

Your again making an unfounded assumption, where under sunder does it say you gain a melee attack to sunder with, it doesnt

It gives you the option to use a melee attack to sunder

It doesnt give you a melee attack

 

[bestone]

Your argument is based on the assumption that the text for sunder doesnt apply because you need to do a standard action to sunder in the first place, and only if you can use a standard action can you sunder. Even tho normally a melee attack is a standard action, and when listed on tables it is a standard action, text gives it other uses *like the aoo text* Your claming one attack wo

A melee attack is listed as a standard action, but the text written for aoo's allows it to be used as an aoo.

Sunder may be a standard action, but the text written for sunder suggests that it can, infact, be used as a melee attack, which can be used as an aoo.

Like i said, your assuming that you cant even read the rules for sunder unless you have a standard action because its listed as such as a table. But your assumption has no proof, i've stated several situations that put a dampen on that argument, and you havent responded to any.

As well there has been quotes from articles from wizards themselves, A game designers statement saying you can sunder on an aoo. And several sources that suggest this.

You've yet to even show one source that shows your opinion.

And i still ask you, how can you tell me the text on a special attack doesnt come into effect, regardless of how, in that text, it tells you you can use the ability, if you dont have the action listed on the table free to do it.

You've already said you agree on what the text under sunder means, and if there was no table that you'd agree.

Well in that, you agree, because the table doesnt restrict you to only making sunder as a standard action, it simply shows when you sunder its a standard aciton. Unless of course, you want to quote something that proves me wrong here?

You wont, and i've already stated why, it would break things like supernatural abilities. Whenever you want to do a special attack, you read the special attack and low and behold, it tells you how to use it.

Sunder tells you how to use it, you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon, thats a sunder

Of course, making a melee attack is a standard aciton, so in the table its listed as such

 

[bestone]

Hmm? No, I don't think there's a discrepancy between text and table at all.

I think Sunder is a standard action (per the table), and taking that standard action allows you to use a melee attack to strike a weapon (per the text).

Both text and table are true; no discrepancy need exist.



-Hyp.

How is there not a discrepency?
sunder states you can use a melee attack to *blah blah*
Aoo's say you get a melee attack
Thus, its suggested you can use your melee attack to sunder
If your pov is right, this would directly disagree with the table
which makes the text take precendence

If one allows any melee attack to be replaced with Sunder, it requires the table to be in error.

And you prove me right yet again, As sunder does say, you can use a melee attack to sunder (unless now your switching and telling me it doesnt?) which is again, why i say there is a discrepency in the table.

Edit: refer to post 174, and 175, they are still valid and you havent been able to repute them

Where are you pulling this rule from, that states the text of a special attack doesnt apply unless you have an action to do that special attack? its written no-where. Infact to even figure out how you use the special attack you read the text. The text of sunder tells you how to use it. Using sunder may be a standard action. But the text still lets you use it on an aoo. regardless.

The time an action takes to perform does not hold sway over what it does, or when it can be used. The text of the action does.

 

[bestone]

@ discrepency

Infact, you admit if there was no table, you'd see it working my way
but since there is a table, it now doesnt (the table makes the text work in a way other than written)

That insinuates discrepency in itself!

You also state you can see it my way, which how could you possibly even say "i can see how one could interpret that, but i think it works this way" without admitting discrepency?

And lastly the fact that we are even arguing insinuates discrepency, What can be read, and whats in a table is being argued, Two sides can be taken, two point of views gained


The only reason i personally think you arent, is because that would invalidate your argument

The fact is, and you can try to disprove this

Text is the primary source of information, you read this first to find out how to make the attack

Tables are secondary, and once you have read the text in the attack, can you apply the information in the tables.

Text = primary
tables = secondary

As per errata

The primary rule states "in essence" you can use it whenever you make a melee attack

the secondary information then states when you use it, its a standard action