unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[bestone]

You state its a file, and its official, but its the faq and not an errata file, You state its a file, and the definition of errata states its errata, So one could deduce that this official file that is essentially errata, could be considered a primary resource (but that deduction sounds incorrect)

but i think thats just making mountains out of mole hills, and like i said, doubt it'd hold up in an argument

 

[Lackhand]

but i think thats just making mountains out of mole hills, and like i said, doubt it'd hold up in an argument

me too

 

[bestone]

So that awnsers my question, i just wanted to know why people dis-regard the faq, now i know

 

[KarinsDad]

Your two articles and the FAQ are indeed well cited. They are not, however, the primary source. So when the primary source and the articles, FAQ, message board posts come in conflict, the primary source takes precident. It is then our duty so see what it is that the primary source says.

Precisely.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry.

And within the primary source there is no inconsistency of the text and table if Sunder is a Standard Action, unusable during an AoO.

Except that the text of Sunder does not call out a Sunder as a Standard Action. Nowhere.

Notice the word "if" in your sentence here. The problem with "if" is that it is not the same as "because". This is like wishful thinking. "If we pretend that it means one thing and not what it actually states, then there is no contradiction.".

Changing the Sunder text from "Melee Attack" to "Melee Attack as a Standard Action" is a very specific modification of what the Sunder text actually states.

In order for Hyp's POV of be correct, the wording of the Sunder text has to be changed. The primary source for the rule has to be changed from "Melee Attack" to "Melee Attack as a Standard Action".

Hence, Hyp's POV is incorrect.

Not to mention all of the other WotC sources that disagree with him.


A Melee Attack can be part of a Standard Action. But, it also can be part of a Full Round Attack or a Charge Action or an Attack of Opportunity. That is part of the game mechanic definition of a Melee Attack. It can be used for any of these.

These are all properties that the Sunder rules by definition gain by the phrase "Melee Attack" unless a different primary source rule corrects it.

The Sunder text explicitly states Sunder is used as a Melee Attack. It's there in black and white.

One cannot just willy nilly change that because a non-primary source states something different.

Every source but one that we have states that a Sunder is a Melee Attack. Only one source states that it is a Standard Action and that source is not the primary source.

Hence, it is wrong.


Hyp's side of the argument cannot have it both ways. The table cannot be a primary source over the FAQ without the text being a primary source over the table.

The weasel room he is trying to create is one of there not being a contradiction. But that's not precise and when discussing rules as you yourself stated "It is then our duty so see what it is that the primary source says".

The primary source says "Melee Attack". Period.

There is a definitive game mechanic difference between "Melee Attack" and "Melee Attack as a Standard Action" and hence, the primary source does in fact contradict the non-primary source.

 

[Legildur]

Originally Posted by WotCRichBaker
In the case of Sunder, I'm pretty sure that "melee attack" means that you can use it as part of a full attack action. If it were an action demanding a standard action (like bull rush, or overrun) it would say so.

LOL! That's real concrete evidence there!

I mean 'pretty sure'???? What about a quote from the PHB! At least Hyp, who obviously is incapable of correctly refencing the core rules as some would claim, thumbs his way through one when he answers a question.

So that awnsers my question, i just wanted to know why people dis-regard the faq, now i know.

I believe that this issue was first raised on page 1 of this thread...... and it's now, well, many pages past that before you finally acknowledge it?? Might have saved a few posts for all of us in there.

Hyp stated in one of the first few posts, that there could be multiple interpretations on the rules, but he things he is right, and told us why that is.

Right now he's stating that thier interpretation is wrong, and only his can be the one that is "true" - this to me is an egotistical statement.

Well, by his logic, they are. The rules are written. He postulated a couple of possibilites in how to interpret the rule and by referencing the rules, and applying sound logic, he discounted all but one position - his conclusion. It's a pretty standard and straightforward piece of analysis - based on the Rules as Written.

This sort of thing happens all the time in legislation. I used to see it regularly in a previous job. The designers (govt) have an idea, the write instructions for the lawyers, the lawyers draft legislation which is passed by parliament etc, the govt then writes guidelines about what it means and how it is meant to work, operational instructions are written for the person at the coalface. Then what happens is that someone takes the govt to court to challenge a decision based on the legislation. You might find that the judge will disagree with the govt's view because the legislation doesn't say what the govt thought it did (law is wonderful like that) and it doesn't matter what the govt thought, because only the legislation matters. Now, if WotC want Sunder to have Footnote 7, then they can damn well follow their own rules and issue Errata! But vague interpretations in flawed documents and 'pretty sure' statements aren't errata. In summary, the effect may differ from the intent.

 

[Nail]

Precisely.

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

I couldn't agree more.

So....since the text doesn't tell us what kind of action the Sunder is, but the table above the text *does* tell us what kind of action it is.......

 

[SlagMortar]

Well, by his logic, they are. The rules are written. He postulated a couple of possibilites in how to interpret the rule and by referencing the rules, and applying sound logic, he discounted all but one position - his conclusion. It's a pretty standard and straightforward piece of analysis - based on the Rules as Written.

This sort of thing happens all the time in legislation. I used to see it regularly in a previous job. The designers (govt) have an idea, the write instructions for the lawyers, the lawyers draft legislation which is passed by parliament etc, the govt then writes guidelines about what it means and how it is meant to work, operational instructions are written for the person at the coalface. Then what happens is that someone takes the govt to court to challenge a decision based on the legislation. You might find that the judge will disagree with the govt's view because the legislation doesn't say what the govt thought it did (law is wonderful like that) and it doesn't matter what the govt thought, because only the legislation matters. Now, if WotC want Sunder to have Footnote 7, then they can damn well follow their own rules and issue Errata! But vague interpretations in flawed documents and 'pretty sure' statements aren't errata. In summary, the effect may differ from the intent.

If I am reading this correctly, you just claimed that Hyp arrived at an objective truth regarding sunder while also comparing Hyp's analysis to a legal proceeding. Note that I agree that Hyp's analysis is fine in terms of determining what the Player's Handbook has to say about sunder, but to claim that either his analysis or the analysis in a legal proceeding leads to an objective truth is a stretch. Otherwise, court cases would never be overturned? By your assertion, once someone does a legal analysis then you are left with the unequivocal truth.

Contradictions between rules are explicitly permitted in the D&D rules because there are rules about what to do when two WotC rules contradict each other. These are as much a part of the rule set as any rules in the errata. I don't think there is a rule that says "The rules on contradictions should only be used as the last possible resort when there is absolutely, positively no other way to interpret the rules in question." I agree that it is generally good practice to try to interpret rules in a manner that avoids contradictions, but this method is not part of the rule set.

 

[RigaMortus2]

You do make assumptions on how you think it works, but dont provide a rule.

And you are also not making assumptions on your end? I know you are in a heated debate with Hyper, but if you could take the time to look at other people's responses (namely mine ) it would be much appreciated. Since you seem to like to challenge people with finding rules quotes, please allow me to do the same. I would be very interested in what you find. This is actually a repost of what I posted earlier, since everyone seemed to skip my question.

I am very interested in bestone's and KD's response to this in particular...

Let me pose this question... Forget about Sunder for a moment. Let's look a Disarm. Let's also IGNORE the Table. Forget the Table is even there. There is no Table...

Using just the text of Disarm, prove to me 2 things:

1) Tell me what Action Type Disarm is (if any)

2) Quote me anywhere (in the PHB) that states you can attempt to Disarm anytime you are eligible for a melee attack. If you can't find a quote (something along the lines of "This attack substitute for a melee attack" or "You can use this anytime you make a melee attack") If you can not find such a quote, are you not making a wide assumption here?

 

[Nail]

1) Tell me what Action Type Disarm is (if any)

Without the table? We do not know what type of action it is.

2) Quote me anywhere (in the PHB) that states you can attempt to Disarm anytime you are eligible for a melee attack. If you can't find a quote (something along the lines of "This attack substitute for a melee attack" or "You can use this anytime you make a melee attack")

The PH says "As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent." Without the table, we must assume that any time you may make a melee attack, we could instead make a disarm attempt.

If you can not find such a quote, are you not making a wide assumption here?

The assumption - if any - is only that there is not other information in the PH (beyond the table ) that tells us what kind of action a Disarm attempt is.

Given how scattered some information is, that's a risky assumption.

 

[Nail]

Awww....man! I was hoping for the first post on page 11.....