Cleave and Sunder- a question.
pjmc...@gate.net
If a character with the Cleave(or Great Cleave) feat makes a successful
Sunder attack,
does that entitle them to a cleave attack?
Also:
Can a character making a Whirlwind Attack attempt Sunder attacks instead of,
or in addition to,
attacking all opponents within reach?
John Phillips
pjmcgurk wrote
>
> If a character with the Cleave(or Great Cleave) feat makes a successful
> Sunder attack, does that entitle them to a cleave attack?
No, like the SRD says, its about dropping Creatures, not things they are
holding. Now if they were sundering a dancing sword or the like..
> Also:
> Can a character making a Whirlwind Attack attempt Sunder attacks instead
of,
> or in addition to, attacking all opponents within reach?
I don't see why not.
John
Nockermensch
> If a character with the Cleave(or Great Cleave) feat makes a successful
> Sunder attack,
> does that entitle them to a cleave attack?
No. For doing this, see the feat "Combat Brute" in Complete Warrior.
> Also:
> Can a character making a Whirlwind Attack attempt Sunder attacks instead of,
> or in addition to,
> attacking all opponents within reach?
It was possible in 3.0. It's not possible in 3.5e.
--
@ @ Nockermensch, just to HAVE some posts in July...
Ed Chauvin IV
>pjmcgurk wrote
>>
>> If a character with the Cleave(or Great Cleave) feat makes a successful
>> Sunder attack, does that entitle them to a cleave attack?
>
>No, like the SRD says, its about dropping Creatures, not things they are
>holding. Now if they were sundering a dancing sword or the like..
Dancing swords are not creatures.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Ed Chauvin IV
>> Can a character making a Whirlwind Attack attempt Sunder attacks instead of,
>> or in addition to,
>> attacking all opponents within reach?
>
>It was possible in 3.0. It's not possible in 3.5e.
Why not?
John Phillips
"Ed Chauvin IV" wrote
> Mere moments before death, John Phillips hastily scrawled:
> >pjmcgurk wrote
> >>
> >> If a character with the Cleave(or Great Cleave) feat makes a successful
> >> Sunder attack, does that entitle them to a cleave attack?
> >
> >No, like the SRD says, its about dropping Creatures, not things they are
> >holding. Now if they were sundering a dancing sword or the like..
>
> Dancing swords are not creatures.
True, but if the sunder is successful an argument could be made that one
could cleave off of that.
John
Duane VanderPol
> Sunder attack,
> does that entitle them to a cleave attack?
No. The description of Cleave refers pretty clearly to dropping an
opponent, not other types of attacks such as sundering objects.
> Also:
> Can a character making a Whirlwind Attack attempt Sunder attacks instead
of,
> or in addition to,
> attacking all opponents within reach?
Yes. As noted, Cleave has pretty specific requirements, but as a rule
you can mix and match ANY kind of physical attacks with your BAB attacks -
trips, sundering, melee, missile, whatever. Though some attacks may still
have requirements of certain feats or abilities to make it possible (like
quick draw to throw a missile weapon in the midst of melee attacks) a
sundering attack as an example is made at any point in your attack routine
as one or more of your attacks.
Mark Blunden
> Mere moments before death, Nockermensch hastily scrawled:
>>>
>>> Can a character making a Whirlwind Attack attempt Sunder attacks
>>> instead of, or in addition to,
>>> attacking all opponents within reach?
>>
>> It was possible in 3.0. It's not possible in 3.5e.
>
> Why not?
Because it uses up your full attack, and specifies one attack against each
opponent within reach. A weapon is not an opponent.
--
Mark.
Vis Sierra
This is supported by the 3.5 FAQ's answer (to another question)
that you can attack mirror image, and then cleave through it to
attack another image or perhaps the spellcaster. The image is
not a creature and it doesn't drop in a literal sense, but it's
effectively an opponent in melee as far as you're concerned and
you did deliver enough damage to dispatch it with your original
attack.
On the topic of cleave and non-standard attacks, has the idea of
using Cleave with a trip attack ever been covered?
While a trip attack can 'drop' a foe, it doesn't fit the exact
wording of Cleave ("If you deal a creature enough damage to make
it drop..."). I realize that it wouldn't allow you to make two
immediate attacks (you would not be able to perform a follow-up
attack a tripped foe *and* use Cleave to attack another), but
I can picture making a successful trip against one opponent and
cleaving another on the follow-through.
I have the strong impression it's not possible (a trip may drop a
foe literally but doesn't drop him figuratively), but I'm curious
whether the possibility has ever been FAQ'd.
> John
Vis Sierra
Vis Sierra
> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> > Mere moments before death, Nockermensch hastily scrawled:
> >>> Can a character making a Whirlwind Attack attempt Sunder attacks
> >>> instead of, or in addition to,
> >>> attacking all opponents within reach?
In my reading of the rules, yes. You get one melee attack to use
against each opponent. Sunder, trip and disarm are melee attacks
and can be performed alongside more conventional melee attacks if
there is nothing explicitly preventing them.
> >> It was possible in 3.0. It's not possible in 3.5e.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because it uses up your full attack, and specifies one attack against each
> opponent within reach. A weapon is not an opponent.
If you're going to split that hair, sunder is an attack AGAINST
the opponent holding the weapon, even though it is not an attack
ON the opponent holding the weapon. Correctness in interpreting
rules shouldn't come down to splitting hairs, however.
Is there anything about Whirlwind Attack conceptually that makes
you think sundering the weapon in your opponent's hand shouldn't
be allowed, or is it just the wording in 3.5?
For that matter, what in the wording of 3.0's description makes
you think the intent was different from the present description?
Vis Sierra
Ps- The text of the feat, in case anyone wants it for reference:
When you use the full attack action, you can give up your
regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your
full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#whirlwindAttack
When you perform the full attack action, you can give up
your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at
your base attack bonus against each opponent within 5 feet.
Players Handbook (3.0), p86
Michael Scott Brown
news:8adpf0dtvi8hs57a2...@4ax.com...
> "John Phillips" <jsphi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> While a trip attack can 'drop' a foe, it doesn't fit the exact
> wording of Cleave ("If you deal a creature enough damage to make
> it drop...").
Notice how trip doesn't do *any* damage? Therefore it clearly did not do
enough damage to make something drop. Stop being a sod. Further, trips in
D&D are grab-and-pull maneuvers which bear little resemblance to cleaving
through or striking-and-rebounding.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenatn...@address.invalid> wrote:
> > >>> Can a character making a Whirlwind Attack attempt Sunder attacks
> > >>> instead of, or in addition to,
> > >>> attacking all opponents within reach?
>
> In my reading of the rules, yes.
Given your other commentary, it's rather clear that your reading of the
rules is highly suspect.
> You get one melee attack to use
> against each opponent. Sunder, trip and disarm are melee attacks
> and can be performed alongside more conventional melee attacks if
> there is nothing explicitly preventing them.
You are confusing the standard full (iterative) attack with feat-based
bonus attacks.
-Michael
pjmc...@gate.net
<pjmc...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:gUWKc.4140$iK....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> If a character with the Cleave(or Great Cleave) feat makes a successful
> Sunder attack,
> does that entitle them to a cleave attack?
"SUNDER
You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a
weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you're attempting to
sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here. (Attacking held
objects other than weapons or shields is covered below.)
CLEAVE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack.
Benefit: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by
dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate,
extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a
5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the
same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous
creature. You can use this ability once per round."
Well, at first blush the answer appears to be No.
Held weapons/shields/objects aren't creatures.
Unless...
"INTELLIGENT ITEMS
Magic items sometimes have intelligence of their own. Magically imbued with
sentience, these items think and feel the same way characters do and should
be treated as NPCs. Intelligent items have extra abilities and sometimes
extraordinary powers and special purposes. Only permanent magic items (as
opposed to single-use items or those with charges) can be intelligent. (This
means that potions, scrolls, and wands, among other items, are never
intelligent.) In general, less than 1% of magic items have intelligence.
Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have
Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs.
Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at
will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise."
NPC is an acronym meaning Non-Player Character.The term character and
creature are used synonymously throughout.
Of course, this says that intelligent items "can be considered" not "are
considered."
But _if_ they are considered creatures, then that would mean you could
cleave off of an attack against an intelligent
weapon/shield/object but not off and attack on a regular
weapon/shield/object.
Bonus round: Can you make a sunder attack against a held gerbil? If you
can,can you cleave off of that ?
If you can't presumably you could still use a regular attack, yes? Or are
held gerbils sacrosant(sp?) and inviolate?
Can you make a regular attack against an object?Or is Sunder an identity
with a regular attack?
Bonus round 2: Can you cleave through a currently dancing intelligent
dancing sword? An unintelligent dancing sword?
I note that the first "can be" a creature(specifically a construct) while
the second is an "object." It would seem very very strange to treat them
differently though.
Does it imbalance the game for Cleave to be made thus useful against tough
weapon using creatures?
Is it worse than Great Cleave+Summoned Monsters+Combat Reflexes?
> Also:
> Can a character making a Whirlwind Attack attempt Sunder attacks instead
of,
> or in addition to,
> attacking all opponents within reach?
Are intelligent weapons opponents, if they are being use against you?
If they are dancing nearby? If they are unintelligent?
Ed Chauvin IV
One would have to be a moron to do so.
Ed Chauvin IV
I'd argue that a Sunder *is* an attack against an opponent.
Ed Chauvin IV
>news:ftfpf0d61vqn8pea5...@4ax.com...
[WWA & Sunder)
>> You get one melee attack to use
>> against each opponent. Sunder, trip and disarm are melee attacks
>> and can be performed alongside more conventional melee attacks if
>> there is nothing explicitly preventing them.
>
> You are confusing the standard full (iterative) attack with feat-based
>bonus attacks.
I fail to see your point. Are you saying that an additional attack
which is granted by a feat (such as Cleave) is somehow subject to
special rules that prohibit it from being a Sunder, Trip, Disarm etc?
Rick Pikul
{Foomph...}
> I have the strong impression it's not possible (a trip may drop a foe
> literally but doesn't drop him figuratively), but I'm curious whether
> the possibility has ever been FAQ'd.
I would likely allow a trip to cleave: If the player declared the
attempt beforehand, and then only to make a second trip attack. The idea
would be to simulate things like a leg sweep.
--
Phoenix
Michael Scott Brown
news:dejrf0p59bvgmh603...@news.supernews.com...
> Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
feat-based
> >bonus attacks.
>
> I fail to see your point. Are you saying that an additional attack
> which is granted by a feat (such as Cleave) is somehow subject to
> special rules that prohibit it from being a Sunder, Trip, Disarm etc?
Seeing as cleave is a follow through attack born from a killing blow
that was, by definition, neither a sunder,trip, nor disarm, and seeing as
cleave is meant to represent (an attempt to be) CUTTING DOWN TWO PEOPLE AT
ONCE and seeing as it carries exactly the same modifiers as the original
attack (barring true strike) and seeing as it allows a bonus attack only
against a *creature*, I don't see how you could possibly rationalize taking
those maneuvers on a Cleave. Sunders and Disarms are not attacks against
creatures, but against objects, and Trip attacks are grab-and-pulls, which
make very little sense in the Cleaving context.
The feat gives you a bonus *attack* - period.
I don't think improved trip's bonus attack makes any sense save as an
attack for damage, either - and a whirlwind "disarm" is patently absurd.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Mere moments before death, Mark Blunden hastily scrawled:
each
> >opponent within reach. A weapon is not an opponent.
>
> I'd argue that a Sunder *is* an attack against an opponent.
The part where it is an attack against your opponent's weapon would seem
to disagree with you.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:pan.2004.07.21....@sympatico.ca...
Seeing as cleave defines dropping as incapacitating through damage and
not as a surrogate for "fall down", this would be a direct violation of the
rules.
-Michael
Hong Ooi
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>and a whirlwind "disarm" is patently absurd.
You need to recalibrate your stunt-o-meter.
--
Hong Ooi | "Well, that about WANGER up the
ho...@zipworld.com.au | WANGER of your WANGER, Hong.
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | WANGER."
Sydney, Australia | -- MSB
CARRIER LOST
> I don't think improved trip's bonus attack makes any sense save as an
> attack for damage, either - and a whirlwind "disarm" is patently absurd.
but very, very cool.
--
\i/ (( dr...@visi.com (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.visi.com/~drow/>
/^\ ))----------------------------------------------------------------
/ \ (( "Barbie says, Take quaaludes in gin and go to a disco right
( o o ) )) away! But Ken says, WOO-WOO!! No credit at Mr. Liquor!!"
Vis Sierra
> > > >>> Can a character making a Whirlwind Attack attempt Sunder attacks
> > > >>> instead of, or in addition to,
> > > >>> attacking all opponents within reach?
> >
> > In my reading of the rules, yes.
>
> Given your other commentary, it's rather clear that your reading of the
> rules is highly suspect.
Granted, which's why I greatly appreciate you taking time to help
bring a newbie up to speed.
> > You get one melee attack to use
> > against each opponent. Sunder, trip and disarm are melee attacks
> > and can be performed alongside more conventional melee attacks if
> > there is nothing explicitly preventing them.
>
> You are confusing the standard full (iterative) attack with feat-based
> bonus attacks.
I'm here to learn. Please direct me to rules on the distinction.
From what I have read the melee attacks of WA are melee attacks,
without special qualifications (aside from what I mention below).
I see that you are restricted in a few ways on WA-granted actions
- you must direct the attack against one opponent (which is the
basis of Mark's statement) and you cannot take advantage of extra
attacks that would have normally resulted from Cleave, trip, etc.
Aside from those restrictions and the fact that you use your full
BAB, WA's melee attacks seem to be regular melee attacks, and as
such may be made as sunder, trip, disarm or plain vanilla flavor
damaging melee attacks.
By the way, apologies to Mark if my line regarding Nockermensch's
comments about a difference between 3.0 and 3.5 Whirlwind Attacks
seemed (mis)directed at him. I'm open to any illustration of the
difference, if there is one.
> -Michael
Vis Sierra
Vis Sierra
> >and a whirlwind "disarm" is patently absurd.
>
> You need to recalibrate your stunt-o-meter.
For comparison's sake, a 6th level monk (the minimum level for a
monk to learn Whirlwind Attack without multiclassing) could jump
off a 5th story balcony and only suffer 1d6 subdual damage thanks
to grabbing on to the wall on the way down.
In fact, a monk with the Snatch Arrows feat may pluck a shuriken
out of the air and throw it back at his attacker.
The difference between "patently absurd" and "impossible!
...I can't wait to use it in a game" is a subjective one.
Vis Sierra
Vis Sierra
> I don't think improved trip's bonus attack makes any sense save as an
> attack for damage, either - and a whirlwind "disarm" is patently absurd.
Ignoring Whirlwind Attack for a moment - you can't picture a monk
grabbing a person by the wrist/hand, throwing him to the ground,
and then taking the weapon from that hand as a bonus melee attack
action on an Improved Trip attack?
> -Michael
Vis Sierra
Vis Sierra
"Vis Sierra" <visi...@geocities.com> wrote:
> > On the topic of cleave and non-standard attacks, has the idea of
> > using Cleave with a trip attack ever been covered?
> >
> > While a trip attack can 'drop' a foe, it doesn't fit the exact
> > wording of Cleave ("If you deal a creature enough damage to make
> > it drop..."). I realize that it wouldn't allow you to make two
> > immediate attacks (you would not be able to perform a follow-up
> > attack a tripped foe *and* use Cleave to attack another), but
> > I can picture making a successful trip against one opponent and
> > cleaving another on the follow-through.
> >
> > I have the strong impression it's not possible (a trip may drop a
> > foe literally but doesn't drop him figuratively), but I'm curious
> > whether the possibility has ever been FAQ'd.
"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Notice how trip doesn't do *any* damage? Therefore it clearly did not do
: enough damage to make something drop.
Quite. That's why I included parenthetic text in two locations
about the fact that you have not actually KO'd your foe through
damage.
It seems pretty clear it's denying a cleave-through on a trip, as
written. I am interested in hearing whether it's been FAQ'd, as
FAQs/errata can reverse seemingly clear rules, as well as clarify
unclear ones.
: Further, trips in
> D&D are grab-and-pull maneuvers which bear little resemblance to cleaving
> through or striking-and-rebounding.
Good thought. I had tried to picture performing a trip attack
and have the follow through of that attack striking or tripping
another opponent. It didn't seem especially decisive that I was
able to picture the pull-side of a trip attack striking a second
opponent after it trips the first, so I decided to reiterate the
clause that you have to take someone down through damage instead.
While I've got your attention, your description of how a Cleave
attack is performed has me wondering whether there are explicit
limits on the type of attacks that can trigger a Cleave.
From your description, it sounds like Cleave could be limited to
those types of attacks that you can use to sunder - bludgeoning
and slashing, but not piercing. Do you know of a rule or FAQ
entry that covers this or have the limits on what attacks Cleave
been left to DM fiat/common sense?
> -Michael
Vis Sierra
Michael Scott Brown
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > You are confusing the standard full (iterative) attack with
feat-based
> > bonus attacks.
>
> I'm here to learn. Please direct me to rules on the distinction.
Three alternate forms of attack are marked with the relevant "footnote
7" on page 141 of the 3.5 PhB - Disarm, Grapple, and Trip. "Each of these
substitutes for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be
used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack
action, or even as an attack of opportunity." Note that Sunder is listed as
a standard action of its own, there - so this isn't cleave or whirlwind
fodder anyway!
Now, are you prepared to use some English comprehension? What does 'an
attack or charge action' refer to? That's a reference to getting {melee
attacks} via Standard Actions (a single melee attack you can combine with a
move) and via Charge {a single melee attack you can combine with a bigger
move}. Coupled with the full attack & AoO reference we see that these are
*only* connected to the occasions where the character gets an attack chance
normally - _not_ freebie bonus attacks such as are born of Cleave or
Improved Trip. This was a comprehensive listing, and so it would include
free actions if it had meant to. When you couple that observation with the
fact that Cleave leading into a Disarm is just absurd ("you can follow
through with powerful blows" ... ahah! I will duel you for your sword now
because of the power with which I killed this man!), and likewise Tripping
(which is a grab-and-pull, making follow-through conceptualizations a little
iffy), you see that this just doesn't fit.
Now, full attack actions allow multiple attacks, and so does whirlwind -
so perhaps whirlwind isn't a 'bonus attack' in the same way. After all, the
full attack reference is vague, and it could be argued that whirlwind simply
changes the multiple-attack formula the character uses. After thinking
about it while doing the exercise of proving my case to you, I have
concluded that I was in error in lumping whirlwind in with Cleave in this
respect; there's more wiggle room for whirlwind.
However, whirlwinding grapples don't work - you grab your first foe,
touch him, struggle and win a contest of strength against him, get a hold
and inflict 1d3+str damage and stop threatening all other opponents (and
lose your dex bonus) because you started grappling. But you don't threaten
anyone else, now. So you can't whirlwind-attack any further (a similar
problem applies to trying to cleave through such a situation).
Now, for disarms and trips, there's no real conceptual disjoint like
there is with grappling. And a high level character, such as a hasted
flurrying monk simultaneously using twf (late-era sage upgrade) could make
an *awful* lot of trip or disarm attacks just with his iteratives. So these
are probably OK with Whirlwind. Whirlwind suppresses any improved-trip or
cleave-based bonus attacks anyway, so they aren't an issue regardless.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
That doesn't seem much like a follow-through to me. What does taking
the weapon from him have to do with the fact that you tripped him? I always
envision IT as Steven Segal aikijutsu moves that damage-and-trip
simultaneously (hence the "as if you hadn't attacked" phrase or whatnot).
On the other hand, if I insist that such hat tricks require full attack
actions, then then 'readied' sensei who knocks you down and takes your sword
away in one burst of motion can't be represented in D&D. I was surly and
short of imagination yesterday. Nevermind!
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> While I've got your attention, your description of how a Cleave
> attack is performed has me wondering whether there are explicit
> limits on the type of attacks that can trigger a Cleave.
There are officially none - but cleaves with piercing weapons seem
pretty wonky if you cannot argue impaling two in one go. IMC, cleave takes
two forms - if you have a slashing or bludgeoning weapon you can follow
through to the *next* opponent in an arc from the one you just slew (not
just anyone), and if you have a piercing weapon you can run through your
opponent and someone in the fan of squares beyond him as if you had reach.
The right 5' step makes spearmongers very happy in that respect.
Note that spears have slashing-capable blades and so you could
conceivably do a slashing-cleave with one, leaving very few piercing weapons
left to consider.
-Michael
Ed Chauvin IV
I understand you're having trouble wrapping your head around the
concepts, but I'm looking at this strictly from a "What do the rules
permit?" perspective. I have zero interest in whether the maneuvers
make sense vis a vis actual RL combat techniques. So far, I don't see
any rules based reason why you can't use special maneuvers for your
WWA or Cleave granted bonus attacks. Whether or not allowing it is a
good thing is an entirely separate discussion that I may or may not be
in agreement with you, depending entirely on the style of game being
played.
Ed Chauvin IV
>
You've lost it man.
Ed Chauvin IV
It would seem to, wouldn't it? I don't think it really does.
Michael Scott Brown
> Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
> >
> > The part where it is an attack against your opponent's weapon would
seem
> >to disagree with you.
>
> It would seem to, wouldn't it? I don't think it really does.
The part where Sunder is its own standard action takes it off the table,
regardless.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
> >
>
> You've lost it man.
Can ye be more specific, lad?
-Michael
Chipacabra
news:hHxLc.9206$mL5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> That doesn't seem much like a follow-through to me. What does
> taking
> the weapon from him have to do with the fact that you tripped him? I
> always envision IT as Steven Segal aikijutsu moves that
> damage-and-trip simultaneously (hence the "as if you hadn't attacked"
> phrase or whatnot). On the other hand, if I insist that such hat
> tricks require full attack actions, then then 'readied' sensei who
> knocks you down and takes your sword away in one burst of motion can't
> be represented in D&D. I was surly and short of imagination
> yesterday. Nevermind!
>
Maybe it would work better conceptually if IT represents taking down the
opponent so quickly and efficiently that you have extra time to get in
another manuever in the same time.
Incidentally, you've been using 'hat trick' a lot lately. I'm curious how
you're defining it, because I don't thing it means the same thing to me as
it does to you.
Chipacabra
news:5NxLc.9210$mL5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> There are officially none - but cleaves with piercing weapons seem
> pretty wonky if you cannot argue impaling two in one go.
Agreed. IMC, I use the old standby of "Try not to think too hard about it."
Knight37
news:Xns952D91A5C1...@216.196.97.134:
IMC, I just make any NPCs with Cleve are using slashing weapons. So far
none of the players who have it use anything else either.
Knight37
Senator Blutarsky
>
> The part where Sunder is its own standard action takes it off the table,
> regardless.
Except that it isn't. "You can use a melee attack
with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a
weapon or shield that your opponent is holding."
(PHB, page 158.)
And yes, I'm aware of Table 8-2. It doesn't mean
that all sunders are their own standard action any
more than all attacks are.
-Bluto
Hong Ooi
>
> IMC, I just make any NPCs with Cleve
:)
Hong "alas poor Cleve, I knew him well" Ooi
Michael Scott Brown
news:40FF1715...@comcast.net...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >
> > The part where Sunder is its own standard action takes it off the
table,
> > regardless.
>
> Except that it isn't. "You can use a melee attack
> with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a
> weapon or shield that your opponent is holding."
> (PHB, page 158.)
Which is the *context* of a standard action all its own.
> And yes, I'm aware of Table 8-2. It doesn't mean
> that all sunders are their own standard action any
> more than all attacks are.
It is on a table listing "actions in combat".
It is on the section of the table labeled "standard actions"
It does *not* have the footnote 7 which describes
melee-attack-replacement actions.
Is sunder, nonetheless, a melee attack? Seeing as you're thwacking
someone in melee with a weapon, yes. Therefore, it is TRIVIALLY CORRECT to
describe the attack that way, even though it is an attack form that requires
its own action.
If the writers had intended for it to be a switch-for-an-attack action,
they could have said so. They didn't. Deal with it.
-Michael
pjmc...@gate.net
Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uPtLc.9068$mL5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
He is probably correct all the same.
Under the description of Sunder, the SRD indicates that the "target"
gets an attack of opportunity.
If this means the creature holding the weapon/shield/object gets an AoO he
is essentially correct.
If it means the weapon/shield/object gets the AoO that would make
Improved Sunder all but pointless unless you routinely attempt Sunder
attacks
against intelligent animated objects held by creatures.
I think it's clear that the first of these interpretations is what the
designers intended.
I have now Read The Manual and the answers to my questions are in order:
Yes,provided the item destroyed was either intelligent or animated,but No
otherwise. (For the Sunder/Cleave question)
This is because intelligent or animated objects are constructs, which are
creatures, while nonintelligent nonanimated
objects are not creatures.
Which is really really silly, but correct by the rules all the same.
It could be fixed readily by changing all instances of "creature" in
Cleave to "creature(or object)"-which would always allow
cleaving off of Sunder.
It could also be fixed by changing the wording of Cleave so that the
dropped creature had to be the target of the original attack
(because Sunder does damage to something that by the rules is not the
target)- this version would consistently
disallow Cleaving off of Sunder.
And Yes (for the Whirlwind Attack/Sunder question):
Sunder is Melee Attack, which is (probably-see above) against a creature(who
isn't damaged) holding the item(which is damaged).
Rick Pikul
That's nice. Now do you need the implied context of that statement
spelled out to you, or can you figure it out yourself?
--
Phoenix
Knight37
news:a2dc97fe.04072...@posting.google.com:
Don't speak of the Unspeakable One, you might accidentally summon him.
Ed Chauvin IV
>"Ed Chauvin IV" <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
>news:rqktf01pnnhcjbjg5...@news.supernews.com...
>> Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
>> >
>>
>> You've lost it man.
>
> Can ye be more specific, lad?
Yes.
Ed Chauvin IV
>"Ed Chauvin IV" <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
>news:8rktf0hdlondsmr1v...@news.supernews.com...
>> Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
>> >> I'd argue that a Sunder *is* an attack against an opponent.
>> >
>> > The part where it is an attack against your opponent's weapon would
>seem
>> >to disagree with you.
>>
>> It would seem to, wouldn't it? I don't think it really does.
>
> The part where Sunder is its own standard action takes it off the table,
>regardless.
Could you *possibly* come up with something more irrelevant?
Ed Chauvin IV
Like I said before, you've lost it. Don't the words "You can use a
melee attack..." mean anything to you?
Michael Scott Brown
Hint: the correct mechanic for such a stunt is iterative or whirlwind
full attacks.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
table,
> >regardless.
>
> Could you *possibly* come up with something more irrelevant?
Sunders aren't "replace-a-melee attack" actions - you *either* sunder as
your action or you attack/full attack. Unless, of course, the rulebook is
wrong. Consequently, once can neither sunder as a bonus cleave attack, nor
cleave after sundering.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
> >someone in melee with a weapon, yes. Therefore, it is TRIVIALLY CORRECT
to
> >describe the attack that way, even though it is an attack form that
requires
> >its own action.
> >
> > If the writers had intended for it to be a switch-for-an-attack
action,
> >they could have said so. They didn't. Deal with it.
>
> Like I said before, you've lost it. Don't the words "You can use a
> melee attack..." mean anything to you?
...*with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon*. Ie; the text is describing
what kind of weapons can be used with the special sundering strike, which is
an attack with a melee weapon (ie; melee attack) but which, much like
charge, is an melee attack action all its own which cannot be folded into
full attacks.
Like it or not, Ed, you have a major problem with Sunder not appearing
with the replace-a-melee-attack actions on table 8-2. That is where the
standard/full/etc. status of EVERY COMBAT ACTION is established by the rules
of D&D. The text of the rules simply reiterates what is there. The *only*
discussion of what it means to substitute for a melee attack is in the
footnote on table 8-2, and the *only* attack options it assigns this
property are the "action type varies" maneuvers Trip, Disarm, and Grapple.
Do I think one sunder per round is righteous? I'm agnostic about that -
but the correct interpretation of the rules *as they are written* is as I
describe it. The absence of membership in "action type varies" and a
footnote-7 means that Sunder isn't part of that club.
-Michael
Aaron F. Bourque
>The absence of membership in "action type varies" and a
>footnote-7 means that Sunder isn't part of that club.
Which is odd, considering you *can* Sunder with a club.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
--
Women supposedly mature at a faster rate than men
If that is true, how come they live so much longer then . . ?
"We're nothing like God. Not only do we have limited powers,
but sometimes we're driven to become the devil himself."-ndw
CARRIER LOST
> Sunders aren't "replace-a-melee attack" actions - you *either* sunder as
> your action or you attack/full attack.
the D&D 3.5 FAQ provides,
Is sunder a special standard action or is it a melee attack variant?
It has its own entry on the actions table, but the text describing it
refers to it as a melee attack. Is sunder a melee attack only in the
sense of hitting something with a melee weapon, or is sunder a true
melee attack?
Sunder is a special kind of melee attack. If it were a special
standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive
text for the Manyshot feat says).
If you make a full attack, and you have multiple attacks from a
high base attack bonus, you can sunder more than once, or attack
and sunder, or some other combination of attacking and
sundering.
Sunder does indeed get its own entry in Table 8-2: Actions in
Combat in the Player's Handbook. It needs one because unlike a
regular melee attack, sunder provokes an attack of opportunity
(although not if you have the Improved Sunder feat).
You can also disarm, grapple, or trip as a melee attack (or attack
of opportunity).
--
______ ___________ dr...@visi.com ______
___ /_________ /__ /_______ _______ ______________ ________ /
__ __ \ _ \_ /__ /__ ___/ __ __ `/_ __ \_ __ `/ _ \_ / of the
_ / / / __/ / _ / _(__ ) / /_/ /_ / / / /_/ // __/ / Information
/_/ /_/\___//_/ /_/ /____/ \__,_/ /_/ /_/_\__, / \___//_/ Superhighway
/____/
"There's no second chance when FORTRAN is used for EVIL!"
Michael Scott Brown
news:40fff7f4$0$176$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...
> Alien mind control rays made Michael Scott Brown
<mister...@earthlink.net> write:
> > Sunders aren't "replace-a-melee attack" actions - you *either* sunder
as
> > your action or you attack/full attack.
>
> the D&D 3.5 FAQ provides,
> Sunder does indeed get its own entry in Table 8-2: Actions in
> Combat in the Player's Handbook. It needs one because unlike a
> regular melee attack, sunder provokes an attack of opportunity
> (although not if you have the Improved Sunder feat).
>
> You can also disarm, grapple, or trip as a melee attack (or attack
> of opportunity).
Well, there you have it - the rulebook is wrong. Or the Sage changed
the rules. Notice that Sunder could just as easily had its own entry on the
table under the ACTION TYPE VARIES section with footnote 7's attached, just
like all the other substitution actions?
The rationale offered does not conform to the evidence!
-Michael
CARRIER LOST
> Alien mind control rays made Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> write:
>> Sunders aren't "replace-a-melee attack" actions - you *either* sunder as
>> your action or you attack/full attack.
>
> the D&D 3.5 FAQ provides,
i should follow up with,
> Sunder is a special kind of melee attack. If it were a special
> standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive
> text for the Manyshot feat says).
it's true that those special attacks which are clearly standard actions
to use are noted that way in the descriptive text (aid another, bull
rush, feint, overrun), and that sunder lacks this note. text takes
precedence over tables within a single source, and this absence, imho,
is telling.
> Sunder does indeed get its own entry in Table 8-2: Actions in
> Combat in the Player's Handbook. It needs one because unlike a
> regular melee attack, sunder provokes an attack of opportunity
> (although not if you have the Improved Sunder feat).
if sunder is truly an 'as one of your attacks' action, it clearly
should have been listed under the 'action varies' header, along with
trip, etc. but it is, at least in the current SRD, noted '(attack)'
in parenthesis. i'm not sure how to interpret that except as an
editorial attempt to clarify its nature.
anyway, i think that taking 'sunder' 'as one of your attacks' rather
than 'as a standard action only' is well-supported, and utterly
reasonable regardless.
on the original topic, i think that a successful sunder clearly fails
to meet the stated requirement of 'deal a creature enough damage to
make it drop' for cleave. there's little ambiguity there.
i would be very hesitant to allow anything but a normal melee attack
against a creature to trigger a cleave attack, or for the cleave attack
to be anything but another normal melee attack. that seems like the
kind of trick which would make an excellent follow-up feat with cleave
as a prerequisite, though.
my 2cp.
--
_
'/-/ __/_ _ _ _ _/_ _ _/._ ._/__ / /_ _ dr...@visi.com
/_ /_\ / /_ /_'/ // /_///_/ /_///_// / /_|/ /_//_//_/ (CARRIER LOST)
_/ _/ _/
Michael Scott Brown
> > Sunder is a special kind of melee attack. If it were a special
> > standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive
> > text for the Manyshot feat says).
>
> it's true that those special attacks which are clearly standard actions
> to use are noted that way in the descriptive text (aid another, bull
> rush, feint, overrun), and that sunder lacks this note. text takes
> precedence over tables within a single source, and this absence, imho,
> is telling.
If absence is telling, notice its blatant non-inclusion with the other
substitution attacks. Further, your logic suggests that any capability in
the book that doesn't say *otherwise* is a melee attack substitution. Do
you really want to embrace such fallacy-ridden thinking?
-Michael
CARRIER LOST
> > to use are noted that way in the descriptive text (aid another, bull
> > rush, feint, overrun), and that sunder lacks this note. text takes
> > precedence over tables within a single source, and this absence, imho,
> > is telling.
>
> If absence is telling, notice its blatant non-inclusion with the other
> substitution attacks. Further, your logic suggests that any capability in
> the book that doesn't say *otherwise* is a melee attack substitution. Do
> you really want to embrace such fallacy-ridden thinking?
not at all. but in this case, it has to be one or the other. i think
by the omission of 'standard action' in the text (noting that all other
special attacks which are standard actions are described as such) and
the inclusion of 'melee attack' (though, as you note yourself, any
intent of those words is muddied by the following weapon type clause),
the weight of evidence leans towards sunder being a melee attack
substitution.
and it feels right. i don't see that attacking an opponent's weapon
with intent to damage should be more difficult (in the sense that it
could not be used iteratively and so forth) than disarming that same
weapon, or just attacking the opponent itself.
either way, the editing on this particular point is sloppy, and should
have been cleaned up or at least errata'd. (specifically, either
clearly describing sunder as a stanard action in its description, or
moving the entry in the table to the correct section.)
--
n_n n_n dr...@visi.com (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.visi.com/~drow/>
|"|n_n_n|"| -------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Put back the Nile first." -- Isis to Shiva
| | [|] | |
Ed Chauvin IV
C++?
Ed Chauvin IV
>"Ed Chauvin IV" <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
>news:m3fvf0hmmf7rag0q7...@news.supernews.com...
>> Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
>> > Is sunder, nonetheless, a melee attack? Seeing as you're thwacking
>> >someone in melee with a weapon, yes. Therefore, it is TRIVIALLY CORRECT
>to
>> >describe the attack that way, even though it is an attack form that
>requires
>> >its own action.
>> >
>> > If the writers had intended for it to be a switch-for-an-attack
>action,
>> >they could have said so. They didn't. Deal with it.
>>
>> Like I said before, you've lost it. Don't the words "You can use a
>> melee attack..." mean anything to you?
>
> ...*with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon*. Ie; the text is describing
>what kind of weapons can be used with the special sundering strike, which is
>an attack with a melee weapon (ie; melee attack) but which, much like
>charge, is an melee attack action all its own which cannot be folded into
>full attacks.
>
> Like it or not, Ed, you have a major problem with Sunder not appearing
>with the replace-a-melee-attack actions on table 8-2.
You're confused. There is no such "replace-a-melee-attack" section on
that table.
>That is where the
>standard/full/etc. status of EVERY COMBAT ACTION is established by the rules
>of D&D. The text of the rules simply reiterates what is there.
You're going backwards. Tables are quick reference devices that
summarize the rules text.
>The *only*
>discussion of what it means to substitute for a melee attack is in the
>footnote on table 8-2, and the *only* attack options it assigns this
>property are the "action type varies" maneuvers Trip, Disarm, and Grapple.
*BZZZT*
> Do I think one sunder per round is righteous? I'm agnostic about that -
>but the correct interpretation of the rules *as they are written* is as I
>describe it. The absence of membership in "action type varies" and a
>footnote-7 means that Sunder isn't part of that club.
You're wrong. You've lost it completely.
Ed Chauvin IV
>> Sunders aren't "replace-a-melee attack" actions - you *either* sunder as
>> your action or you attack/full attack.
>
>the D&D 3.5 FAQ provides,
Thanks, I was just about to paste that into a reply.
Ed Chauvin IV
>"Ed Chauvin IV" <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
>news:o0fvf095rsjddn8vo...@news.supernews.com...
>> Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
>> > The part where Sunder is its own standard action takes it off the
>table,
>> >regardless.
>>
>> Could you *possibly* come up with something more irrelevant?
>
> Sunders aren't "replace-a-melee attack" actions - you *either* sunder as
>your action or you attack/full attack.
Is that why the rules say you can use a melee attack to strike a
weapon or shield?
>Unless, of course, the rulebook is wrong.
No, you're wrong. The rulebook is fine.
>Consequently, once can neither sunder as a bonus cleave attack, nor
>cleave after sundering.
Of course you can't cleave after sundering, don't be silly.
Michael Scott Brown
appearing
> >with the replace-a-melee-attack actions on table 8-2.
>
> You're confused. There is no such "replace-a-melee-attack" section on
> that table.
<RAISES HAND>
Trip, Disarm, and Grapple are listed under "action type varies" TOGETHER
with a footnote (7) that explains that these are substitutions that fill in
for standard-attacks, fullattack-action-attacks, and attacks of opportunity.
That is most *certainly* the replace-a-melee-attack section. Sunder
should be there with them if it were originally intended to be just like
them.
> >That is where the
> >standard/full/etc. status of EVERY COMBAT ACTION is established by the
rules
> >of D&D. The text of the rules simply reiterates what is there.
>
> You're going backwards. Tables are quick reference devices that
> summarize the rules text.
That is a statement by someone who has clearly never read a D&D rulebook
before. Please show me where the TEXT description of a longsword's damage
resides. Please show me the TEXT description of all the entries on the Move
Action portion of table 8-2. .
> >The *only*
> >discussion of what it means to substitute for a melee attack is in the
> >footnote on table 8-2, and the *only* attack options it assigns this
> >property are the "action type varies" maneuvers Trip, Disarm, and
Grapple.
>
> *BZZZT*
Show me somewhere else in the book where this is discussed.
-Michael
Chipacabra
> <RAISES HAND>
> Trip, Disarm, and Grapple are listed under "action type varies"
> TOGETHER
> with a footnote (7) that explains that these are substitutions that
> fill in for standard-attacks, fullattack-action-attacks, and attacks
> of opportunity.
> That is most *certainly* the replace-a-melee-attack section.
> Sunder
> should be there with them if it were originally intended to be just
> like them.
>
I will note that 8-2 lists (attack) after the sunder actions, probably
meaning that these are attacks, not standard actions. Which is a dumb way
to have assembled the table, yes. I suspect someone wasn't paying
attention, or the table was written by committee, or something.
Laszlo
> > Mere moments before death, Mark Blunden hastily scrawled:
> > >Because it uses up your full attack, and specifies one attack against
> each
> > >opponent within reach. A weapon is not an opponent.
> >
>
> The part where it is an attack against your opponent's weapon would seem
> to disagree with you.
Have NONE of you people read the FAQ, conveniently located on WotC's
D&D webpage, and labeled "v.3.5 Main D&D FAQ"?
Maybe if someone were more interested in finding out the answer to
a question than flapping their gums on Usenet and pretending to be
a rules guru, we wouldn't have 61-post threads about a question
that is specifically addressed and answered in the FAQ.
Laszlo
Mouse
<ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> raised a finger to the sky and
proclaimed:
>Mere moments before death, Knight37 hastily scrawled:
>>ho...@zipworld.com.au (Hong Ooi) wrote in
>>news:a2dc97fe.04072...@posting.google.com:
>>
>>> Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<Xns952DA7387...@130.133.1.4>...
>>>>
>>>> IMC, I just make any NPCs with Cleve
>>>
>>>:)
>>>
>>>
>>> Hong "alas poor Cleve, I knew him well" Ooi
>>>
>>
>>Don't speak of the Unspeakable One, you might accidentally summon him.
>
>C++?
>
>
>
>Ed Chauvin IV
As everyone knows, you can't spell Cleve without C. Plus. Uh, plus.
Again.
--
Either way, I hate you Count Chocula, if I didn't already.
- Drifter Bob, rec.games.frp.dnd
Ed Chauvin IV
>> > Like it or not, Ed, you have a major problem with Sunder not
>appearing
>> >with the replace-a-melee-attack actions on table 8-2.
>>
>> You're confused. There is no such "replace-a-melee-attack" section on
>> that table.
>
> <RAISES HAND>
> Trip, Disarm, and Grapple are listed under "action type varies" TOGETHER
>with a footnote (7) that explains that these are substitutions that fill in
>for standard-attacks, fullattack-action-attacks, and attacks of opportunity.
> That is most *certainly* the replace-a-melee-attack section.
No, it's the Action Type Varies section. STOP ACTING STUPID IN
PUBLIC!
>Sunder
>should be there with them if it were originally intended to be just like
>them.
/nod.
>> >That is where the
>> >standard/full/etc. status of EVERY COMBAT ACTION is established by the
>rules
>> >of D&D. The text of the rules simply reiterates what is there.
>>
>> You're going backwards. Tables are quick reference devices that
>> summarize the rules text.
>
> That is a statement by someone who has clearly never read a D&D rulebook
>before. Please show me where the TEXT description of a longsword's damage
>resides. Please show me the TEXT description of all the entries on the Move
>Action portion of table 8-2. .
*sigh*
>> >The *only*
>> >discussion of what it means to substitute for a melee attack is in the
>> >footnote on table 8-2, and the *only* attack options it assigns this
>> >property are the "action type varies" maneuvers Trip, Disarm, and Grapple.
>>
>> *BZZZT*
>
> Show me somewhere else in the book where this is discussed.
RTFM.
Ed Chauvin IV
>> "Ed Chauvin IV" <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
>> news:5ajrf0lsok0c6cidu...@news.supernews.com...
>> > Mere moments before death, Mark Blunden hastily scrawled:
>> > >Because it uses up your full attack, and specifies one attack against
>> each
>> > >opponent within reach. A weapon is not an opponent.
>> >
>> > I'd argue that a Sunder *is* an attack against an opponent.
>>
>> The part where it is an attack against your opponent's weapon would seem
>> to disagree with you.
>
>Have NONE of you people read the FAQ, conveniently located on WotC's
>D&D webpage, and labeled "v.3.5 Main D&D FAQ"?
No. Not all of it anyway. Have you?
>Maybe if someone were more interested in finding out the answer to
>a question than flapping their gums on Usenet and pretending to be
>a rules guru, we wouldn't have 61-post threads about a question
>that is specifically addressed and answered in the FAQ.
Fuck of pusshead.
CARRIER LOST
> Fuck of pusshead.
like cream of tartar, but with a ZING you won't forget!
--
___ ._.
| ._|---.---.---.-| | dr...@visi.com <http://www.visi.com/~drow/>
| ._| . | _ | ._| _ | ---------------------------------------------------
|_| |_|_|___|_| |___| Fnord is a pyrotumescent retrograde onyx obelisk.
Laszlo
> Mere moments before death, Laszlo hastily scrawled:
> >"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<uPtLc.9068$mL5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >> "Ed Chauvin IV" <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
> >> news:5ajrf0lsok0c6cidu...@news.supernews.com...
> >> > Mere moments before death, Mark Blunden hastily scrawled:
> >> > >Because it uses up your full attack, and specifies one attack against
> each
> >> > >opponent within reach. A weapon is not an opponent.
> >> >
> >> > I'd argue that a Sunder *is* an attack against an opponent.
> >>
> >> The part where it is an attack against your opponent's weapon would seem
> >> to disagree with you.
> >
> >Have NONE of you people read the FAQ, conveniently located on WotC's
> >D&D webpage, and labeled "v.3.5 Main D&D FAQ"?
>
> No. Not all of it anyway. Have you?
Yes, but that's not the point.
> >Maybe if someone were more interested in finding out the answer to
> >a question than flapping their gums on Usenet and pretending to be
> >a rules guru, we wouldn't have 61-post threads about a question
> >that is specifically addressed and answered in the FAQ.
>
> Fuck of pusshead.
Ooh, struck a nerve, did I?
All I'm saying is, I'm glad I have places other than this NG to go
when I need a rules question answered.
Laszlo
Ed Chauvin IV
>Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message news:<qoi3g0ljon4hlsns6...@news.supernews.com>...
>> Mere moments before death, Laszlo hastily scrawled:
>> >"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<uPtLc.9068$mL5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> >> "Ed Chauvin IV" <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:5ajrf0lsok0c6cidu...@news.supernews.com...
>> >> > Mere moments before death, Mark Blunden hastily scrawled:
>> >> > >Because it uses up your full attack, and specifies one attack against
>> each
>> >> > >opponent within reach. A weapon is not an opponent.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd argue that a Sunder *is* an attack against an opponent.
>> >>
>> >> The part where it is an attack against your opponent's weapon would seem
>> >> to disagree with you.
>> >
>> >Have NONE of you people read the FAQ, conveniently located on WotC's
>> >D&D webpage, and labeled "v.3.5 Main D&D FAQ"?
>>
>> No. Not all of it anyway. Have you?
>
>Yes,
Liar.
>but that's not the point.
Then what, pray tell, is your fucking point?
>> >Maybe if someone were more interested in finding out the answer to
>> >a question than flapping their gums on Usenet and pretending to be
>> >a rules guru, we wouldn't have 61-post threads about a question
>> >that is specifically addressed and answered in the FAQ.
>>
>> Fuck of pusshead.
>
>Ooh, struck a nerve, did I?
Yeah, that's what you did. You struck a nerve. Congratulations.
Would you like a cookie?
>All I'm saying is, I'm glad I have places other than this NG to go
>when I need a rules question answered.
I haven't found a better one.
Laszlo
> Mere moments before death, Laszlo hastily scrawled:
> >
> >Yes,
>
> Liar.
Oh, come on.
> >but that's not the point.
>
> Then what, pray tell, is your fucking point?
The point is not to _have read_ the FAQ. The point is to look stuff up
before coming up with your own interpretation.
> >Ooh, struck a nerve, did I?
>
> Yeah, that's what you did. You struck a nerve. Congratulations.
> Would you like a cookie?
Fine, okay, I was a jerk. I'm actually probably going to be a jerk
until Monday. If you want an apology, ask me in a couple of days,
I'll be in a more reasonable mood then.
Nonetheless, my point stands... though it wasn't actually aimed at
you specifically. _One_ person may slip up on things like this. But
an entire newsgroup of people? I just find that strange.
Laszlo
Nockermensch
Because they made a mistake?
--
@ @ Nockermensch, *GASPS IN HORROR!*
Michael Scott Brown
news:4769522f.04072...@posting.google.com...
changed
> > the rules. Notice that Sunder could just as easily had its own entry on
the
> > table under the ACTION TYPE VARIES section with footnote 7's attached,
just
> > like all the other substitution actions?
>
> Because they made a mistake?
That's a pretty huge "mistake" to have "overlooked".
-Michael
Ed Chauvin IV
What? A single misplaced entry in a massive table? Are you FUCKING
kidding?
Ed Chauvin IV
>Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message news:<dlt4g096itaifepfg...@news.supernews.com>...
>> Mere moments before death, Laszlo hastily scrawled:
>> >Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message news:
>> >> No. Not all of it anyway. Have you?
>> >
>> >Yes,
>>
>> Liar.
>
>Oh, come on.
Yep. I called you a liar, liar. Now stop lying, you lying liar.
>> >but that's not the point.
>>
>> Then what, pray tell, is your fucking point?
>
>The point is not to _have read_ the FAQ.
Is that why you asked if anyone had read the FAQ? To make sure we
didn't read the FAQ?
>The point is to look stuff up before coming up with your own interpretation.
Ooh! You think you're clever! Guess what? Some of us KNOW we're
right because we ARE RIGHT. We only need to do fact checking to
provide evidence to idiot shitbreeders like you so as to accentuate
your moronitude.
>> >Ooh, struck a nerve, did I?
>>
>> Yeah, that's what you did. You struck a nerve. Congratulations.
>> Would you like a cookie?
>
>Fine, okay, I was a jerk. I'm actually probably going to be a jerk
>until Monday. If you want an apology, ask me in a couple of days,
>I'll be in a more reasonable mood then.
Fuck of pusshead.
>Nonetheless, my point stands...
You don't have a point, now eat my ass, you shitbreeder.
>though it wasn't actually aimed at
>you specifically. _One_ person may slip up on things like this. But
>an entire newsgroup of people?
Yeah, all 4 of us.
>I just find that strange.
I bet you find applesauce strange. But then, you're a fucking idiot.
Laszlo
> Mere moments before death, Laszlo hastily scrawled:
> >Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message news:<dlt4g096itaifepfg...@news.supernews.com>...
> >> Mere moments before death, Laszlo hastily scrawled:
> >> >Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message news:
> >> >> No. Not all of it anyway. Have you?
> >> >
> >> >Yes,
> >>
> >> Liar.
> >
> >Oh, come on.
>
> Yep. I called you a liar, liar. Now stop lying, you lying liar.
*snicker*
Laszlo
Wayne Shaw
<ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote:
>I bet you find applesauce strange. But then, you're a fucking idiot.
Want an example of being hostile far out of preportion to the stimulus
Ed? Go back and look over this whole post and those which preceded
it.
Ed Chauvin IV
><ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote:
>
>>I bet you find applesauce strange. But then, you're a fucking idiot.
>
>Want an example of being hostile far out of preportion to the stimulus
>Ed?
No.
>Go back and look over this whole post and those which preceded
>it.
But this was fully intentional, and Laszlo deserved what he asked for.
Wayne Shaw
<ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote:
>Mere moments before death, Wayne Shaw hastily scrawled:
>>On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 06:17:00 -0400, Ed Chauvin IV
>><ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I bet you find applesauce strange. But then, you're a fucking idiot.
>>
>>Want an example of being hostile far out of preportion to the stimulus
>>Ed?
>
>No.
>
>>Go back and look over this whole post and those which preceded
>>it.
>
>But this was fully intentional, and Laszlo deserved what he asked for.
Just go back and look at it next time I tell you you're being a prick
for no good reason. If you don't care about that, fine, but don't be
at all suprised when people think so.