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

[Felix]

On account of footnote 7

Ah. I'll be wrong then. Deset Gled had the right of it.

I'll be off, but only after noting that careful checking of my PHB will show a "7" next to the Sunder Action. It seems not to have been printed, but rather written in ink with a ball-point pen.

Odd, that.

The Full Attack action allows multiple attacks. It doesn't allow multiple Attack actions; the Attack action is a standard action that allows a single attack.

You corrected my statement to what I intended it to mean.

 

[Legildur]

<goes and prepares more popcorn and refills his soda>

It's still a Standard Action.

And while are talking about throwing out tables, can we toss out those pesky ones like Table 1-1: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells and anything other tables not directly supported by text?

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'll be off, but only after noting that careful checking of my PHB will show a "7" next to the Sunder Action. It seems not to have been printed, but rather written in ink with a ball-point pen.

Send a couple of EEE's against the PC's and I'm sure that scribble will be summarily ripped out of the book.

 

[RigaMortus2]

That's Infinity wanting to throw out the tables. I just commented that the tables (perhaps I should have specified this table in particular) are there for convience. The tables can not always hold all the information available. The text certain can. So why they chose to insert Standard Action as the action you need to take for Sunder in the table and not the text is beyond me.

But this is speculation by me in regards to what the table(s) are used for. I don't think Wizards specifically defined the use for tables.

The real heart of the matter is that Sunder is defined as a Standard Action in the table, and as a melee attack (which is NOT limited to being a Standard Action alone) in the text.

Sure. You said this: "So, according to the text (not the table), the actions (Trip, Sunder, Disarm, etc.) listed as melee attack should be able to be taken anytime you make a melee attack." Actually, it's according to the table, not the text, where this very important correlation is made. The text doesn't make this correlation and the wording of "melee attack" is extremely ambiguous otherwise. A melee attack a clearly defined standard action. It's also a clearly defined portion of a full round action, etc. Which is it? The only way to know is the table.

It is no more ambiguous than the wording for Trip and Disarm, yet they are not defined as Standard Actions in the table. And the other similiar attack actions such as Aid Another and Overrun ARE defined as Standard Actions in BOTH the text and table. Hence why people often question this. So either this table in particular is being used to redefine certain actions that the text is leaving out, or it is not. If it truly is a Standard Action, why is the wording of the text for Sunder not the same as the wording for Aid Another and Overrun (for example)? The text for Aid Another should then read "As a melee attack, you may choose to..." and then in the table have Aid Another listed as a Standard Action.

 

[PallidPatience]

I would like to point out that it DOES say under Sunder that "you may use a melee attack", and not "you may use an attack action", which is the Standard Action version of a melee attack.

 

[Deset Gled]

I would like to point out that it DOES say under Sunder that "you may use a melee attack", and not "you may use an attack action", which is the Standard Action version of a melee attack.

If it said "you may use an attack action", it would allow Sunder to be used on ranged attacks. The reason the text states "you may use a melee attack" is to clarify that ranged attacks cannot be used.

 

[PallidPatience]

At the same time, the word "action", which would point it toward the Standard Action version, is not present. After all, it still does not say "melee attack action", but "melee attack", which implies, at least, that attacking an object only takes as much effort as attacking the creature holding it.

 

[Deset Gled]

At the same time, the word "action", which would point it toward the Standard Action version, is not present. After all, it still does not say "melee attack action", but "melee attack", which implies, at least, that attacking an object only takes as much effort as attacking the creature holding it.

"Melee attack action" would be no clearer that saying "melee attack", because the melee attack action (as part of a normal attack) is variable. In both cases, there is no explicit information about what type of action is required. To get anything more than an "implication" you need further clarification. This clarification is found in the table, which shows that Sunder is a standard action.

 

[PallidPatience]

I would disagree with your statement. A melee attack action is nothing more than the attack action used to make a melee attack. The attack action is clearly defined as a Standard action. At the same time, the text does not state that "you may make a melee attack as a standard action, as others have pointed out.

I'm really not sure which way I'd choose, but I think that I'd land on the side that allows iterative Sundering attacks, simply because I can't think of a reason it would require so much more effort to strike a shield or weapon than the foe holding it. At least, not in the middle of combat, where the foe is using the shield to stop your attacks, and the weapon to strike at you, thus placing them both more easily within your range than the foe is.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So either this table in particular is being used to redefine certain actions that the text is leaving out, or it is not.

I object to your use of this word. You are begging the question and it is incorrect to use that word because it assumes that there is a conflict. The proper word you should use is something like "clarifies."

The key to this discussion is that there is no conflict between the text and tables, thus all of the rules have merit.

I'm really not sure which way I'd choose, but I think that I'd land on the side that allows iterative Sundering attacks...

Just iterative? That's different than anyone else's ruling in this thread. I believe the two sides are: (a) as a standard action, or (b) substitute for a melee attack. The difference between this and your suggestion (which you may not realize or intend), so that your suggestion disallows natural weapons from sundering at all, and you cannot use two-weapon fighting to Sunder.

The obvious point at which sundering becomes terrible is when you have a two-weapon fighter with dual adamantine shatterspikes.