unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[bestone]

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.

You've still yet to prove to me, how it being a standard action allows you to disregard any other mode of using the attack, if that text of the attack gives you such a way to use it.

If you cant quote a rule on this, then your wrong on it, as far as im concerned

 

[bestone]

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.

This is all assumption, if proves nothing. You've still yet to quote a rule stating that you ignore the text of a special attack and any way that that text might allow you to deliver it. Sure you can argue that the text listed under sunder is unclear. But thats different than what im asking you

Lets say sunder is a standard action, How would that in any way tell you that you can ignore the rules laid forth for using it in the rulebook? you CAN NOT tell me that


Where is your rules proof?

You are making assumptions on what you read

What rule states that claim

 

[bestone]

I also want you to tell me, why then, can you use supernatural abilities as thier text denotes, EVEN THOUGH they are listed as a standard action.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Lets say sunder is a standard action, How would that in any way tell you that you can ignore the rules laid forth for using it in the rulebook?

I'm not ignoring the rules laid forth. I'm applying exactly the same sentence you are. I'm just getting a result that's consistent with the table, instead of a result that necessitates the table being wrong.

-Hyp.

 

[Ranes]

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

Yeah but you didn't believe that the first time you read it, did you? This thread doesn't seem to have a sell-by date, however prophetically titled it may have been.

You've still yet to quote a rule stating that you ignore the text...

Why do you persist in accusing Hyp of ignoring the text? He has repeatedly pointed out that -

I'm not ignoring the text...

 

[Elethiomel]

Please, bestone. Hypersmurf has explained his reasoning. This thread is starting to sound like a broken record. Anyone who is in doubt about Sunder can examine the thread and will find no new arguments from either side for the last several pages.

 

[bestone]

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..."

No it doesnt, and now your contradicting yourself, you stated before without the table you'd agree. Unless you quote a rule, which you are so cleverly trying to avoid doing. You ARE WRONG. you have no rules to back you up.

Now if the table is irrelevant, you are still saying you dont agree?

No, you can use a melee attack to, does not mean in place of any melee attack. That would be adding words.

Define the sentence You can use a melee attack to for me?

You (the character) can (have the option to) use a melee attack (whether it is the standard action melee attack, or simply a melee attack meaning a close combat attack) to ....

Aoo states you may make a melee attack.

How is one form of melee attack different from the other, neither states use the action melee attack. Neither states The other definition either. But both use the same wording. "melee attack"

 

[bestone]

Hyp, you cant quote a rule to support your claim, you are wrong, enough said.

The claim NOT being sunder can be used as an aoo.

The claim being that you can in any way, ignore the text of a special attack. And when you do find that, then you can explain to me why supernatural abilities is not broken.

 

[Ranes]

Hyp, you cant quote a rule to support your claim, you are wrong, enough said.

Finally settled then.

The claim NOT being sunder can be used as an aoo.

The claim being that you can in any way, ignore the text of a special attack.

Or not!

 

[bestone]

Whatver you say, you can agree with him all you want, i keep asking him to show rules from a book that supports his claim. He keps TELLING me how he interprets to work, but never once quotes an official source. IF you can actually quote rules that back up your claim. Like i said, i'll agree with you.

But i dont want you to just tell me how it works.

Prove with rules please