unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Hypersmurf]

but apparently "use a melee attack" does not qualify you to use a melee attack??

I'm saying "You can use a melee attack to..." and "The Sunder text explicitly states Sunder is used as a Melee Attack" are not equivalent.

"You can use a melee attack to..." can be read in such a fashion as to mean Sunder is used as a melee attack, but the Sunder text does not explicitly state Sunder is used as a Melee Attack.

And if you read it in that fashion, it contradicts the table, while reading it in a different fashion does not.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Because the relevant rules text takes precedence over the table.

In all cases.

Not in all cases, ONLY when the text and table conflicts. What happens when they do not conflict? More specifically, what happens when they can be read in such a way that they do not conflict?

 

[RigaMortus2]

What am I? Chopped liver? I feel no love from KD or bestone... I am gonna repost this a 3rd time, in the hopes KD and bestone will respond...

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?

Since you have yet to respond, I guess that means you can find no such rule. Therefore you are 100% wrong and your claims are false regarding Sunder being used anytime you are eligible to take "a melee attack".

 

[SlagMortar]

Quote me anywhere (in the PHB) that states you can attempt to Disarm anytime you are eligible for a melee attack.

As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent.

An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack

So using only text, an attack of opportunity is a "single melee attack". A disarm can be used as a "melee attack". Why do I need a table to tell me I can disarm as an attack of opportunity?

 

[bestone]

Ah.

These "sorts" are restricted to the last 30 days. There have been longer (and more acrimonious) threads. (BTW, thanks for toning it down, bestone. I've appreciated the difference in your posts. )

Book of Nine Swords -- Okay? has more views! W00T.


...oh dear, I've posted in both alot.

Well i apologize for being hot headed, and i know it was only making me look bad. Thanks for your comment as well.

 

[bestone]

What am I? Chopped liver? I feel no love from KD or bestone... I am gonna repost this a 3rd time, in the hopes KD and bestone will respond...

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?

Since you have yet to respond, I guess that means you can find no such rule. Therefore you are 100% wrong and your claims are false regarding Sunder being used anytime you are eligible to take "a melee attack".

Heh i apologize for passing you over, i dont have much time to spend on here, and was really into it with hyp there. Its not that i was disregarding you its just i had my mind on other things.

But aside from that fact, i never made any claims on disarm, nor do i intend to get into an argument about disarm.

IF you like i can go back now, and read them and respond.

As per disarm, i am in agreeance with the above statement from the rules (the as a melee attack one). I believe that having a melee attack, and having a rule written that says you can use something as a melee attack, mean that you can use that action as your melee attack.

And i find no relevance about my argument for sunder being invalid because i cant prove something about disarm. If you want to make a point, please at least, tell me i have to quote a rule about sundering.

 

[RigaMortus2]

But aside from that fact, i never made any claims on disarm, nor do i intend to get into an argument about disarm.

Well, you've made your point perfectly clear on Sunder. I am just curious about your thoughts on Disarm is all.

As per disarm, i am in agreeance with the above statement from the rules (the as a melee attack one). I believe that having a melee attack, and having a rule written that says you can use something as a melee attack, mean that you can use that action as your melee attack.

But there is no such rule written, is there?

Since I don't know your stance on Disarm yet, I will take a leap of faith and assume you beleive that you can perform a Disarm attempt any time you have a melee attack available. Is this fair to say?

If so, then how did you come to this conclussion and can you cite me a rule which lead you to this conclussion?

And i find no relevance about my argument for sunder being invalid because i cant prove something about disarm. If you want to make a point, please at least, tell me i have to quote a rule about sundering.

You don't have to find relevance between my question about Disarm, and your stance on Sunder. It is just a simple question. I am curious about how you view Disarm. Can you attempt a Disarm only on your turn? Can you attempt it anytime you have a melee attack available? Does it "cost" you an Action (Standard, Move, Full Round)? Is it it's own Action type? Can you quote me some rule that lead you to your conclussion, or are you just making an assumption with no actual rules to back you up on it?

 

[RigaMortus2]

So using only text, an attack of opportunity is a "single melee attack". A disarm can be used as a "melee attack". Why do I need a table to tell me I can disarm as an attack of opportunity?

You quoted two seperate rules on two seperate things (Disarm and AoOs). Where is the rule that states you can use a Disarm when making an AoO? Or that you can replace/substitute your melee attack from the AoO with that of a Disarm attempt? Or that ANYTIME you are eligible for a melee attack (such as an AoO), you can perform a Disarm?

Disarm
As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent.

AoO
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack

I see no where in either of those quotes which state "You can attempt Disarm whenever you are eligible for a melee attack." These are two seperate rules.

By this logic, you could do a Disarm and Sunder at the same time, because each one is a melee attack.

Sunder
You can use a melee attack

Disarm
As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent.

I make a melee attack, I do a Sunder and a Disarm at the same time. I can do both because all Sunder requires is that I use a melee attack (which I am) and all Disarm requires is that I perform it "as a melee attack" which I am. So anytime I make a melee attack, I can Sunder and Disarm as one action???

And now that I think about it, can I even perform a Trip or a Grapple as my AoO?

AoO
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack

Grapple
You make a melee touch attack to grab the target

Trip
Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target

An AoO just gives me a single melee attack. It does not give me a single melee touch attack, nor does it give me a single unarmed melee touch attack.

 

[KarinsDad]

Not in all cases, ONLY when the text and table conflicts. What happens when they do not conflict? More specifically, what happens when they can be read in such a way that they do not conflict?

They only do not conflict if you change the meaning of the game mechanic phrase "Melee Attack" to "Melee Attack as a Standard Action".

That's like changing the phrase "Armor Class" to "Touch Armor Class".

Apples and Oranges. Two different phrases with two different game mechanic meanings.

 

[SlagMortar]

I would interpret "as a melee attack" to mean that it is identical to all other melee attacks except where the rules note differently. If there were no table, the sunder would not have any rules noting differently. Since there is a table, I understand Hyp's interpretation as a possible interpretation where the table and text are not in conflict.

By this logic, you could do a Disarm and Sunder at the same time, because each one is a melee attack.

You know what, that would in fact be a valid interpretation as far as I can see if you want to bend it enough. Another interpretation would be that when you "use" a melee attack it can not be "used" for anything else.

Look at this quote found here:

When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures.

Thus all successful attacks (regular attacks, disarms, sunders, bull rushes, etc) deal damage based on the weapon used. Please point out the rule to me that indicates a successful disarm does not deal damage.

All rules require some interpretation. It is not a stretch to believe that "melee attack" in one section of the rule book means the same thing as "melee attack" in another section of the rule book, unless there is other information indicating they are not the same.

I believe the analysis in this thread is at least 10 times more rigorous than the collective analysis put into writing the sunder rules in the first place. At some point, there has to be something similar to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" for dungeons and dragons. Rules analysis can only be taken as far as determining all possible interpretations the authors might reasonably intended at which point the remaining interpretations are equally valid.

Edit: By the way, if you all wouldn't mind putting your collective brain power into helping me answer a question regarding bull rush and charging, I would appreciate it. My thread feels lonely and surely this topic is at least newer than sunder.