unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[mvincent]

Let me take a moment, mvincent, to assure you that I don’t intend to imply that you’re intentionally trying to twist my words.

No worries. I did not infer that, and I'm glad you don't feel that way. By restating your statements in a different way, I hope to clarify either my and/or your understanding of the statements (I believe this has accomplished both so far, but I'm not positive).

 

[Mistwell]

...Flavor text does not replace the mechanic? From what Ive seen and read, what beltone's argument is based on is flavor text and not a mechanic in the game.

---Rusty

If a mechanic is vague, and there are two different reasonable interpretations of the mechanic, you should look to everything that could help you figure out what it was supposed to mean. Flavor text, FAQ, Rules of the Game, Dragon Magazine, an interview with the author, analogies to other rules, logic, playability, a customer service answer, whatever is helpful in getting to what WOTC meant by what was written.

 

[atom crash]

1) In regard to game rules (i.e. an artificial system created by authors and players) I believe it would technically be more true by repetition.

I believe that an error is an error, regardless of how many times it's repeated. You're right, we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

2) That aside, there is also the fact that having more eyes on a ruling increases the likelihood that any errors would be noticed (note: my career is in software quality assurance, so this concept is near and dear to me).

Excellent point. I used to be a newspaper copy editor, so I know how it goes.

3) Thirdly, it becomes not just Skip's error (i.e. some have implied, to support their point, that it is just Skip making an error).

True, but consider also that it is possible that such a ruling might be scrutinized less by someone who views Skip as a credible source for rules interpretations. His name is on the D&D rulebooks, after all. That holds a lot of weight with many people. I just try to remember that he is also human, and therefore capable of making mistakes, but not necessarily any more or less frequently than other people.

4) Lastly, in regard to establishing whether something can reasonably be interpreted in a different way, I feel weight of numbers has some bearing.

Again, we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

You know, if I was Skip Williams, I'd hate to read the rules forum here some days. Sorry, Skip.

 

[demadog]

Hi everyone,

Sorry to come late, but I've enjoyed the debate and had a sincere question.

Where does it say that an AoO cannot be a standard action? It says that its a single melee attack, but it doesn't seem to limit that melee attack to a non-standard action. There seems to be some discussion around footnote 7 that may clear this up for me. Any help would be appricaited.

Thanks.

 

[Deset Gled]

Where does it say that an AoO cannot be a standard action?

First, an AoO is not an action at all. By definition, actions (all types) are things that only take place on your turn.

Second, an AoO is explicity defined as "a single melee attack" in the SRD, Combat 1 section.

 

[Nail]

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?

'Cause that would take all the fun out of it?

Seriously: "Figuring it out using the text, rather assertions or house rules" is kinda fun. I least for me.

 

[Nail]

If a mechanic is vague, and there are two different reasonable interpretations of the mechanic, you should look to everything that could help you figure out what it was supposed to mean...

Or you could side-step the "supposed meaning" entirely. Perhaps by answering the question: "What does the RAW say?" In this case, that approach works fine.

 

[Nail]

You don't...really think this article is going to solve everyone's problems, do you?

I think now is an appropriate time to quote post #2 from this thread.

 

[KarinsDad]

...Flavor text does not replace the mechanic? From what Ive seen and read, what beltone's argument is based on is flavor text and not a mechanic in the game.

Melee Attacks are now flavor text?

 

[KarinsDad]

Or you could side-step the "supposed meaning" entirely. Perhaps by answering the question: "What does the RAW say?" In this case, that approach works fine.

Agreed. RAW states that it is a Melee Attack.

A table states that it is a Standard Action.