Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bestone" data-source="post: 3358818" data-attributes="member: 48880">Point AIf there was nothing else to distinguish them, he'd be inclined to agree, agree to what?This is what he said he'd agree too. Which equates to, You can use a melee attack to sunder.Point bThe type only tells you how long the action takes to perform And thats itIt doesnt say specifically you need the action type free to perform the action, You arestill limited to taking 1 standard action. But it does not in any way state that you cantuse the specified action type when the rules for it state otherwise.Point b-2This is unfounded, The description of sunder a) isnt a description, its the rules for sunderand b) Are not affected by the action type, because the action type only tells you how long it takes to performThe action DOESNT DETERMINE HOW ITS USED OR THE RULES ON WHAT IT DOES, it determines the time it takes to do, as you've stated.If you can prove this claim, there would be no argument, The claim being that you have to take the sunder standardaction for the text to come into place. No where in any book or ruling does it state the rule for sunder doesnot come into effect unless you are using a standard action to sunder. No. The rule for sunder states how it works,the action type states how long it takes to be used on your turn.What does it matter if its a standard action? the rules of it still say how you use it, and in "point a" hyp agree's with this,under the stipulation "if there was no table" why? because the table lists it as a standard action? That in noway invalidates how the rule for sunder is applied. And again, unless you show me a rule or quote that statesthe text is invalidated i can, and will, consider you wrong as per raw.I've stated several times, if you can quote a rule that says you cant use a special attack unless you have the action listed in the table to do it, i'll bow out and agree with your side.Sometimes you say it takes a standard action, sometimes you say it is a standard action. How bout picking one? It doesnt take a standard action, it is a standard action, and being so essentialy tells you how long it takes to perform. It gives you no other rules on how to use it, the rules listed in the text do.And also as i've stated It doesnt exist, and would be illogical, and that you shoudl take supernatural abilities as a proving for that fact. If you needed a standard action to perform a supernatural ability which is listed as a standard action, the text of it AS HYP HAS CLEARLY STATED would only work if you take the standard action supernatural ability to perform.You know this is incorrect, you know very well you read the rule of the supernatural attack to read how it works, and how its performed.Prove how sunder is treated differentlyFurther analyzedQuote a rule to back this up. Something that says if your not taking a sunder standard action then the RULE thats written is irrelevant. You wont find a rule, your assuming the "description" comes into play only if your using the attack, thats an assumption, and i've shown you how its wrong, and no-where states or supports you in this.And lastly The text, being the primary source for the rule on sunder, is clear, and you agree. Your only argument against doesnt matter. Because the text is the primary source of information for the rule, and the table secondary. The text tells you how you can apply it, you agree that it can be read as we say. The text is the rule for sunder, and the text is clear. And unless your going to go back on your standing on that, raw under the text for sunder, its clear what you can do with it.I see no rule written stating you wouldnt be able to apply it that way. NONE. No rule states that you ignore the rules of something.Neither do you, you only have a table and assumptions.And the descrepencyYes......Sure, if you say so, But i dont see the words anywhere written - When taking the sunder -That is added by you, and not how it is writtenOk, didnt i say this too? if we take the second, contradiction, in essense, descrepency, refer to errata point about text taking precendenceYou see the first reading is appropriate, you listed the first reading as being"the text as describing what the Sunder action permits"The sunder action permits, as you agree'd (see point a) with me, and my point on sundering as an melee attack on an aooso either we go with reading version 1, and the text describe what permits, and you've agree'd that the text is clear on how it permits you to use it.or version 2, which generates contradiction, which is equal to a descrepancy, which makestext take precendenceSo i'll agree with you, you can sunder as a standard action. But the text describes what it permits. And it permits you to use a melee attack to sunder. On an aoo you get a melee attack. So i'll use sunder, as Sunder states what permits, and how you use it, just as the rules for any other special attacks do.And for the final time, unless you can pull a rule stating you can only sunder on a standard action, or sundering only works when your making a standard action. Or as you've claimed the text for it is dis-regarded. Then you have no case. Because im arguing For as the rule of sunder as it is written, and you are arguing a contradiction (the description says what it permits, you cant use it unless you can do a standard action). And since you cant even decide... (either the description says what it permits, or it doesnt) Coupled with all your contradiction.Im gonna go with the game designer, the cited sources, and how i read the rule</blockquote>

Verification