unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[KarinsDad]

Tables aren't RAW?

I am assuming you were being facious... ficticious... you know what I am trying to spell...

Not as RAW as the applicable rules text.

 

[bestone]

If you cant prove that claim hyp, you realize this argument goes downhill for you

 

[KarinsDad]

An Attack (melee) is a standard action.

A melee attack may be part of any number of actions. A Warblade's Recharge Action, for instance.

Precisely.

A melee attack can even be part of the non-action Attack of Opportunity.

 

[bestone]

Unless there is a rule that explicitly states you may ignore the text of a special attack if you dont have the action free of the type that when that special attack is used, it counts as.

The it doesnt matter if sunderING is a standard action or not.

And since you have agree'd that without the table listing it as a standard action, you'd agree with our pov on how the text is worded.

And the fact that the tables listing becomes irrelevant.

You now have no argument

 

[bestone]

Karinsdad please refer to post # 280 and #279, do you agree with me on this? i would appreciate your input here

 

[hong]

Karinsdad please refer to post # 280 and #279, do you agree with me on this? i would appreciate your input here

You know d00d, I seem to recall, in the mists of time, you saying that you were done with this thread. Twice, even.

 

[bestone]

Well this thread is going to come to an end right now

Either hyp provides the rules now needed to backup his claim, or his claim is falsified

However, if he manages to find said rule, I can only wholeheardtedly agree with his pov, as no other deductions could be made from that situation.

Edit - Your table furthers this point, The table doesnt list sunder AS a standard action. It lists taking an action to sunder in combat is considered a standard action.

 

[KarinsDad]

Karinsdad please refer to post # 280 and #279, do you agree with me on this? i would appreciate your input here

I agree with Hyp on that point.

Any game element which is specified as an action counts as an action.

Sometimes, the only place in the rules where a specific action is listed is within Table 8-2. For example, I suspect that the only rule for "Extinguish flames" might be within that table.

However, I disagree with him that Sunder is an action. It is explicitly specified as a melee attack in the rules text on Sunder.

Table 8-2 disagrees with this, but then again, the Table disagrees with several rules and takes a back seat to the actual Unarmed Attack, Bull Rush, and Sunder rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As far as i know, you read the rules for sunder, they tell you how to apply them. The table may list it as a standard action. And you can use it as a standard action, but why would that eliminate any text that would tell you that you can use it otherwise.?

If Sunder replaced any melee attack, there would not be a standard action entry for Sunder on the table, because you would never take a Sunder action. If you had a standard action available and wished to Sunder, you would take the Attack action. If you wanted to move in a straight line and Sunder, you would take the Charge action. If you wanted to Sunder multiple times in a round, or combine a Sunder with other attacks, you would take the Full Attack action. You would never take a Sunder action, so the action would not exist and would not appear on the table. Further, in this case, the usage of Sunder would be identical to Disarm, Trip, and Grapple; it would appear with those special attacks as Action Type: Varies, and bear footnote 7.

Since the Sunder standard action (which would never be used if Sunder replaced any melee attack) exists, and since it does not bear footnote 7 (as it would if Sunder replaced any melee attack), the only conclusion I can draw is that Sunder does not replace any melee attack.

The text still applies; however, the phrase "You may use a melee attack to..." does not mean "In place of any melee attack from any source, you may..."

The existence of the Sunder standard action on the table tells me that that reading of the phrase is incorrect. I'm not ignoring the text; I'm just taking note that it doesn't mean what you think it does.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The table doesnt list sunder AS a standard action. It lists taking an action to sunder in combat is considered a standard action.

This paragraph reminds me of the FAQ answer that explains that "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" really means "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, except when the monk chooses to strike unarmed as an off-hand attack"...

-Hyp.