Sunder/Improved Sunder

[MacMathan]

This has been hashed out before but: One melee attack (against a monster or his weapon) is a standard action. On a full attack you can make multiple Sunder attempts if you can make multiple melee attacks. (See pg 35 current rules faq)

As far as balance I don't see a problem with it. Against monsters with natural attacks it is useless, it destroys treasure and is only really effective if an opponent is stupid enough to not carry a backup weapon. In short it is an interesting but sub-optimal feat choice for a fighter that does not need to be penalized futher, in my opinion.

BTW: Shouldn't this be in House Rules.

(Edited Can't Type)

 

[Infiniti2000]

Against monsters with natural attacks it is useless...

Unless it's a hydra.

 

[Eloi]

What a scene at the chop-shop later..

"Well, these heads are *broken*, and everything I'd normally scavenge has all been slurried together inside.. A copper a pound, straight meat value, take it or leave it."

 

[Shin Okada]

Sunder could be a decent tactics against weapon-wielding characters. And certainly annoys Players. But not strong.

Usually, it is much better to inflict damages onto a character, than to inflict damages onto his weapon. If you can damage your opponent and kill him, you don't need to worry about his weapon anymore. If you spend several attacks for sundering your foe' weapon, you may end up seeing him just drawing another weapon, casting spells, grappling you, etc.

And Improved Sunder is useless against creatures without manufactured weapon (or some special rule such as you can sunder it's tentacles).

 

[Eloi]

Actually, the Sunder I'd like to see is against a Mind Flayer's tentacles, so some of them are non-functional and it cannot extract a brain. (Needs all 4 to do so)

Would make it all worthwhile.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I suppose a Marilith with lots of powerful weapons and multiattack (or whatever it's called) could do a job on someone's weapon.

Dave

 

[Legildur]

This has been hashed out before but: One melee attack (against a monster or his weapon) is a standard action. On a full attack you can make multiple Sunder attempts if you can make multiple melee attacks. (See pg 35 current rules faq)

Are you saying that the FAQ overrides the PHB?

IDHMBIFOM but I'm sure that in the table in the PHB that Sunder does NOT have the little footnote 7 (I believe it is 7) attached to it like Disarm and Grapple does, thereby restricting it to a Standard Action only and not available as a Full Attack (unless you only get one attack of course).

 

[Nyeshet]

Actually, the Sunder I'd like to see is against a Mind Flayer's tentacles, so some of them are non-functional and it cannot extract a brain. (Needs all 4 to do so)

Would make it all worthwhile.

Unless a DM decides to modify the race a little - granting the tentacles the same property of a Hydra's neck (ie: grow another one (or two) if one is cut off). I wonder if a Mindflayer with eight tentacles and Cleave can go for a two-for-one deal?

 

[Shin Okada]

Are you saying that the FAQ overrides the PHB?

IDHMBIFOM but I'm sure that in the table in the PHB that Sunder does NOT have the little footnote 7 (I believe it is 7) attached to it like Disarm and Grapple does, thereby restricting it to a Standard Action only and not available as a Full Attack (unless you only get one attack of course).

The list has "Sunder an object (attack)" as an example of Standard Action. It can be interpreted that attack action version (not full-attack version) of sunder is a standard action, even without the same foot-note for Disarm and such.

And basically, when there is a table and descriptive texts, descriptive texts tramples the table. The rule says "You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to..", not "You can use an attack action with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to...".

From other point of view, at least, PHB does not say that you CANNOT sunder with a full-attack. So it is an issue of clarification. FAQ does not contradict to RAW. Just support one of the reasonable interpretations.

 

[Legildur]

...And basically, when there is a table and descriptive texts, descriptive texts tramples the table. The rule says "You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to..", not "You can use an attack action with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to..."...

I fully agree that text takes precedence over table.

However, the text does not preclude the interpretation that I provided (and think stole from Hypersmurf, IIRC), that it requires a Standard Action, in which you make a melee attack, in order to Sunder an object.

As a balancing factor, it is the only special attack (out of Disarm, Grapple, Trip and Sunder) that people consistently complain about it. If you interpret the rules as it requiring a Standard Action, then I think that the level of complaints would drop dramatically.

And it still isn't listed under the 'Action Type Varies' table with the footnote 7 on p141 of the PHB. So to me, it isn't clear cut. I accept that you may be right, but the FAQ has hardly proved itself to be a reliable source of clarification.