unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[RigaMortus2]

@ RigaMortus2

Your very right, by that text, you can make an grapple or a trip aswell on an aoo, which you can, so what point exactly are you trying to make?

My point is, you can't... An AoO is a single melee attack. A Grapple is a melee touch attack, which is not what you get from an AoO. A Trip is an unarmed melee touch attack, also not what you get from an AoO. Are you suggesting that you can replace a melee attack with a melee touch attack, or an unarmed melee touch attack? Is there a rule you can quote, or are you just making this up on how you WANT it to work? (note: there very well may be a rule that states anytime you can take a melee attack, you can substitute a melee touch attack for it, I don't know, but you seem to know where it is, so please show me)

And what are you talking about, he quoted a rule, as a melee attack

Right. as a melee attack. Not as a melee TOUCH attack or as an UNARMED melee TOUCH attack.

You can make melee attacks on your turn, as part of a standard action, full round action, aoo (and probably some other sources im missing). If we are dis-regarding the table completely, then the wording of the text for disarm tells me how i can use it.

So where does the text for disarm tell you you can take it when it is not your turn? When does it state that you can take it ANYTIME you are eligible for a melee attack? It tells you HOW to do it (as a melee attack), but not WHEN. Unless you ASSUME you can do it ANYTIME you are eligible for a melee attack. So again, is there a rule you can quote as to WHEN you can perform the Disarm melee attack, or are you simply ASSUMING it is anytime you are eligible for a melee attack?

Or do you think the wording as a melee attack means something entirely different than i do.

I think it tells us HOW the attack is performed, as a melee attack (rather than as a melee touch attack, unarmed melee touch attack, or a ranged attack). I do NOT think it tells us WHEN we can perform it. That is what Action Types are for.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think much rigour is required to analyse whether something that can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO should carry the footnote that indicates something that can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO...

No doubt it should. It doesn't. Error? Or intended rule?

From a balance perspective, it could an error, but either way is not unbalanced.

From a WotC perspective, it is an error.

From a logical perspective (i.e. if you can attack a head, you can attack a sword), it is an error.

From the author of the table, it is an intended rule.

From the author of the text, it is unknown, but literally an error.

 

[bestone]

@ RigaMortus2

I take it your trying to suggest that without the table you wouldnt be able to do any of those attack at any time, thus you need the table to tell you when you can do them.

I disagree, because when you refer to the text, your still assuming the table is there.

As a melee attack (disarm)

You can use a melee attack (sunder)

To start a grapple it requires a successive melee attack (grapple)

So you want me to quote a rule? those are all lines from the text, the text is the rules.

Without the table how would you interpret them?

that you can take it ANYTIME you are eligible for a melee attack

I dont know about you, but if there was a rule telling me that if i have one thing (a), i could use it as (b) instead. Then when i have (a), i can use it as (b).

The text doesnt say its a standard action, it simply says, when you have (a), you can use it as (b).

aoo's, melee attacks, full round attacks, give you (a)

The text states, i can use that (a) as (b) instead.

Or do you read that text as something entirely different, or dont consider it a rule?

 

[bestone]

going by the text, why dont i think you could do all three at once?

disarm - As a melee attack (to me reads, you can use your melee attack to) attempt to disarm.

Your using your melee attack to disarm, its now a disarm attempt, and not a melee attack (note this doesnt let you say I win, its not a melee attack. Because the text for disarm says you can use your melee attack (and doesnt say from a standard action, or any specific source) to attempt to disarm.

Grapple is the most plainly obvious one, you start a grapple, and follow the rules then listed for grappling. (as your no longer making a melee attack, you are grappling)

 

[bestone]

Heres one for you hyp

Bull rush is listed on your table as a standard action

If your not taking the standard action, bull rush. Then the text doesnt apply right?

But the text for bullrush gives it another use......

 

[bestone]

also, i was reading attacks of opportunity, it states you need an action provoke attacks of op, i think this is where the designers/sage faq writer deduce why it is listed as an action. (because it not being an action wouldnt qualify it as an "action" that provokes an aoo) When really i dont think it was intended as its own action, but instead the action of a melee attack but used not against an object, or a pc, but an attended object by the pc)) <-- this may not be the best of logic. Im simply stating i see how they may have came to thier conclusion.

But why isnt it listed with the others? who knows, i can only make assumptions

one would be that on a failed sunder you cant counter with a sunder, as stated and argued before.

You can make actions on your turn, but you can use a counter disarm on your opponents turn.

Thus, i say, they are now listed as a varied action, that varied action doesnt specify an action *and aoo's require an action* thats why it might have footnote 7, to clerify.

Cause if they werent action, or werent stated as actions they might not qualify for an aoo...

 

[Nail]

But the text for bullrush gives it another use......

When the table and text disagree, go with the text.

That's a non-issue for Sunder.

[Edit: I meant "text". Good grief, has this gone on too long, or what? ]

 

[bestone]

When the table and text disagree, go with the table.

That's a non-issue for Sunder.

Heres where there is disagreeance *and i know you mean, when the table and text disagree, go with the text, right?*

I read the text for sunder as giving it another use

i read the text for bullrush as giving it another use

both are listed as standard actions.

Using you rown arguments - I see bullrush working with the table, its a standard action AND you can use it as part of a charge. There is no descrepancy.

Unless you know of a rule that states that that circumstance would be illegal as per the rules?

 

[Nail]

Text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text, text,.....

Don't mind me, just practicing....

 

[bestone]

Even bullrush text states its a standard action, but gives it another use. (thus it is not in descrepancy with the table)

And i'll take that last comment as you have no good rebutal?