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

[Infiniti2000]

Enlarge person . . . now, if there was only a way to put shatterspike on a spiked chain.

 

[TYPO5478]

the RAW is pretty clear that [Sunder] is a Standard Action.

I thought the reason that we were having this conversation is that the RAW are not clear. I mean, they're clear about, say, Overrun being a standard action because they actually use the words "standard" and "action" (consecutively, in that order) in the entry for Overrun. Sunder's entry doesn't have either of them. It occurs to me that if the authors intended for Sunder to take a standard action, they would have included those words in the actual entry for the attack like all the others do (or don't, depending upon the action required). Which is the more likely typo: writing "melee attack" instead of "standard action," or leaving a superscriped 7 out of a table entry?

And a question for those who think it should be an attack action: If I have a fighter with Whirlwind who is surrounded by eight enemies, can he make a sunder attempt on each one at highest attack bonus?

I don't see why not; he'll still take 8 attacks of opportunity from his opponents. Maybe, if he lives through it, he'll learn not to put himself in that situation.

And if your logic leads you to yes, how do you sleep at night?

With my head cushioned on my Big Fat List of Things That Are More Broken Than Sunder Not Being a Standard Action instead of a pillow.

An adamantine spiked chain improved sunder whirldwind . . . Ugh!

So you've spent 4 feats and more than 3,000 gp to be able to attempt that attack when the situation presents itself. If it presents itself. Ugh, indeed. Just disarm him or stun him or, better yet, pelt him with magic.

 

[GorTeX]

But, doesn't that imply that there's a problem with Sunder? If there's no problem, then not only is the Whirlwind abuse allowable, but the DM should use it. An adamantine spiked chain improved sunder whirldwind . . . Ugh!

except that you can't sunder with a piercing weapon.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Which is the more likely typo: writing "melee attack" instead of "standard action," or leaving a superscriped 7 out of a table entry?

How about neither?

So you've spent 4 feats and more than 3,000 gp to be able to attempt that attack when the situation presents itself. If it presents itself. Ugh, indeed. Just disarm him or stun him or, better yet, pelt him with magic.

No, whirlwind and an adamantine spiked chain are valid in their own right, without this combo. So, I'd not count them on this. Improved Sunder, however, would be counted. And, the situation will present itself easily enough if the bad guy surprises the party or gains initiative and moves into position. Many spiked chain wielders gain Combat Reflexes, which makes this sundering combo even nastier (because sundering can be used in an AoO according to your interpretation).

 

[Infiniti2000]

except that you can't sunder with a piercing weapon.

Good catch!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which is the more likely typo: writing "melee attack" instead of "standard action," or leaving a superscriped 7 out of a table entry?

It's not just the missing footnote; the Sunder action is also in an entirely different section of the table to all the things that can be used multiple times in a full attack action (standard action, instead of type: varies).

-Hyp.

 

[GorTeX]

yet every time WOTC has made a statement/ruling/FAQ about sunder, they had clearly indicated that it can be used multiple times in a full attack action...pretty clear to me that the mistake is in the table.

 

[TYPO5478]

It's not just the missing footnote; the Sunder action is also in an entirely different section of the table to all the things that can be used multiple times in a full attack action (standard action, instead of type: varies).

Sorry, I don't have a PHB handy; I'll check it when I get home from work. So far, though, everyone has seemed more concerned with the fact that the footnote was missing, rather than the section of the table the action was listed in. I was just going on what people had said.

[PURE SPECULATION]That kind of makes me wonder whether the person who wrote the text entries for the special attacks also built that table. If it was someone else, they could have read the entry for Sunder and interpreted it as a standard action and then written it into the table that way.[/PURE SPECULATION] At any rate, this seems to fall under the category of Confusion that Could Have Been Avoided Through Better Proofreading.

 

[TYPO5478]

...the situation will present itself easily enough if the bad guy surprises the party or gains initiative and moves into position.

So, you're going to make a full attack action during a surprise round? Or after having moved? Not in my game.

 

[Infiniti2000]

After having moved into position . . . c'mon, work with me here.