Charging Paladin build

[Legildur]

But to each his own, and untill errata comes out, there will be difference of opinions and arguments

I don't believe that there is any need for errata.
it would seem a significant oversight to not include Sunder under the 'Full Round Action (full attack)' and also exclude it from the footnote 7 on the 'Action Type Varies' table where it clearly articulates disarm/grapple/trip to substitute for a normal attack or even an AOO. But it is listed under Standard Action and uses a melee attack opposed roll as its resolving mechanism. I don't see any problems with that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Im of the opinion, it was on the table as a standard action, because it is an attack, and an attack is a standard action, no? i mean, its just another form of an attack, and thats what the table was for, listing different types of things *like attacks* and what they would be. I mean it pretty clearly states that its used as a melee attack.

It would be true, if you used a melee attack to sunder, it would be a standard action....no?

Just like Grapple, Trip, or Disarm, say?

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

eep

 

[blargney the second]

Then you can perform multiple Sunders in a full attack, you can attempt to SUnder at the end of a charge, you can mix Spring Attack and Sunder, you can Sunder with two weapons if you are TWF...

Is that bad? (I've never seen anybody sunder anything in our games, so I have no clue what it would be like if it were easier to get more of them...)
-blarg

 

[VonRichthofen]

So Skip Williams is ignorant of the game rules, and the text is wrong as well. Good to know...

 

[Legildur]

So Skip Williams is ignorant of the game rules, and the text is wrong as well. Good to know...

<shrug> He has been known to be on occasion.

BTW, in your opinion, which part of which text is wrong?

 

[VonRichthofen]

I have cited the relevant passage PHB.

As to my humble thinking, had they meant "Standard Action" they wouldn't have named it "Melee Attack".
Now you can say they thought of this as a Standard Action & provided clue to this in the table - but it is still not what is written, even though Patryn's argument follows that line.

To me, there is a contradiction between text and table.

Apart from that, why should you be capable of using Disarm or Trip several times in a round alltough the discriptive text uses the same wording ("Melee Attack") ?

Actions such as Feint are clearly outlined as Standard Actions - why wouldn't they name "Sunder" in the same and obvious manner?

Thus, as long as no official WotC erratum comes up to gainsay this interpretation, I will keep it.

 

[Legildur]

To you, there is a contradiction between text and table, to me there is no contradiction and they read fine together.

And the wording is not exactly the same across the special attacks, so please don't paraphrase it as such. You really should read the other (numerous) threads on this exact topic. There is little point in us thrashing it out here, again, when others have already done so. I was only bringing it up to highlight the issue for consideration of the OP.

Edit: Even though I've suggested that a search be conducted for one of the previous threads on the 'Sunder as a Standard Action', I see that no one has done so, and now I have to do my own dirtywork!

Is Sunder a Standard Action or just something you can do any time you melee attack?

[Sunder] as an AOO?

 

[mvincent]

this argument is old and has been covered in previous threads.

To clarify: were you already aware of the above mentioned FAQ and RotG clarifications when you (definitively) declared "Not only can you not use Sunder on an AOO, you can't use it in place of an attack"?

 

[Legildur]

To clarify: were you already aware of the above mentioned FAQ and RotG clarifications when you (definitively) declared "Not only can you not use Sunder on an AOO, you can't use it in place of an attack"?

You obviously haven't bothered to read those threads I linked either, as at least one of them discusses the FAQ statements about Sunder.