unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Ranes]

It is clarified in an earlier post of mine.

I believe he already did (in response to my earlier post).

If you're referring to your earlier post #122 and Hyp's response in #125, Hyp's response does not indicate that he would disagree with me that he is making a deduction or that Karinsdad is making a deduction. It would indicate that Hyp believes Karinsdad's deduction is in error.

 

[KarinsDad]

Then I read the discussion, and realized I was in error, according to RAW (I had assumed a melee attack was an action type - it's not).

Precisely.

And neither are Special Attacks action types unless they themselves define themselves as such.

The fact that the table does not indicate that Armed Unarmed Strikes are an exception to the information within the table or that Bull Rush used as part of a Charge is an exception to the information within the table should indicate that the table is not infallable or totally accurate in all circumstances.

 

[mvincent]

I must have missed or forgotten it. Could you save me the trouble of re-reading the entire thread and point me to the post? Thanks.

Certainly:
I stated:
"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?"

Hyp identified himself as such, saying "I think there's only one reading"

 

[KarinsDad]

If you're referring to your earlier post #122 and Hyp's response in #125, Hyp's response does not indicate that he would disagree with me that he is making a deduction or that Karinsdad is making a deduction. It would indicate that Hyp believes Karinsdad's deduction is in error.

Yes.

My deduction is that the phrase "Melee Attack" in the Sunder section means "Melee Attack" and not "Melee Attack as part of a Standard Action". That is an explicit deduction.

Hyps's deduction is that the phrase "Melee Attack" in the Sunder section means "Melee Attack as part of a Standard Action" and not "Melee Attack". That is an implicit deduction.

Mine is based on what is explicitly written in the relevant rules section. His is based on what is explicitly written in a table in a different section of the book, but is not explicitly written in the relevant rules section. According to the precedence rules, rules text takes priority over table text.

 

[mvincent]

Quite frankly, this is insulting.

Historically, I have often had to explain things to you (often taking several tries), and you have been rude while I did so. I do not desire to continue doing so is all. I apologize if this seems insulting to you. Give me a different (more acceptable) way of stating this and I will endeavor to use it in the future.

 

[Ranes]

Actually, part of Hyp's reasoning does draw attention to the wording of rules text. It is also Hyp's assertion that the precedence rules are only required where there is a contradiction and that there is none.

I've been persuaded by Hyp's line of reasoning. I understand yours but must beg to differ.

 

[mvincent]

If you're referring to your earlier post #122 and Hyp's response in #125, Hyp's response does not indicate that he would disagree with me that he is making a deduction or that Karinsdad is making a deduction. It would indicate that Hyp believes Karinsdad's deduction is in error.

If the matter is subject to inferences (as mentioned earlier), then that usually implies at least a small degree of uncertainty.

 

[Ranes]

If the matter is subject to inferences (as mentioned earlier), then that usually implies at least a small degree of uncertainty.

Usually. Not necessarily. In fact, not usually. Sometimes. Often, maybe...

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, the explicit distinction I'm seeing is between
Standard
Sunder a Weapon Yes

and
Action Type Varies
Sunder a Weapon7 Yes

I think 8 out of 10 people would have little trouble seeing the difference between those two, right?

Once that distinction is understood, the difference between "You can use a melee attack to..." meaning Under what conditions you may Sunder and By what means you carry out a Sunder is sharper.

Sharper, but not intuitive.

I totally agree with you as to the intention of the table.

 

[Seeten]

If the RotG, and the FAQ, and all these other sources truly consider Sunder along the lines of trip, etc, why not correct it in either an errata, or correct it in the special edition phb, or correct it at some point?

I think Skip, and the others, make the same mistake I made originally, which is not carefully reading the table, and then making assumptions.