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

[RigaMortus2]

Well, we're definitely not mature gamers.

I mean, heck, that's an oxymoron!

If we really were mature, we'd be doing something all grown-up.

Hmmm... I meant mature as in, can seperate fantasy from reality and they don't get emotional when their "toys" are taken away (of course, by toys I mean in-game items). I've actually heard tales (not seen with my own eyes) of some "grown-ups", like we're talking mid-30s to early 40's, get upset and leave the table when their characters die. It's funny, and sad at the same time...

If we really were mature, we'd be doing something all grown-up.

Time for a short story... Because your quote here reminds me of a time I went to a comic book convention. You know how they got booths of every different thing all over the place (artist booths, tee-shirt booths, comic book and toy booths)? Well there was this one booth with video games. The guy attending the booth was trying to get attention and would ask passer-bys if they play video games and what not, I guess to promote whatever he was selling. Anyway, these two kids go by and the guy says "Hey, are you guys into video games?" And the two kids reply in a very snarky way "Sorry, I don't play video games anymore, I grew out of it". Or something of that effect... And they keep walking. And I am thinking to myself... You're too old for video games? Ummmm, you are at a freaking COMIC BOOK CONVENTION! Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. I hope someone enjoys the irony in this story.

Now back on topic...

Per text and FAQ... Sunder = melee attack = ANY TIME you qualify to make a melee attack, you can Sunder.

Per table... Sunder - Standard Action (melee attack) = limited to once per round = does not mesh well with text and FAQ.

Discuss

 

[Legildur]

Per text and FAQ... Sunder = melee attack = ANY TIME you qualify to make a melee attack, you can Sunder.

Per table... Sunder - Standard Action (melee attack) = limited to once per round = does not mesh well with text and FAQ.

That's your opinion.

My opinion is that :

Per FAQ... Sunder = melee attack = ANY TIME you qualify to make a melee attack, you can Sunder.

Per table... Sunder - Standard Action (melee attack) = limited to once per round = does not mesh well with text and FAQ.

Per text, slightly ambiguous in that it neither states Standard action nor subtitute for a melee attack.

Of course, this means that because the FAQ mentions that feint is a move action (when in fact it is a standard action) that ALL other rulings and clarifications are to be thrown out.

I didn't actually say that.

What I'm saying is that it would take a brave person to base their position solely on the FAQ. Considering that the FAQ is a document produced by WotC that doesn't even meet their basic purpose of the document that they have publically stated (Errata v FAQ etc), and makes some horrendously simple errors when the answers have supposedly gone through an exhaustive process, it does not engender confidence in the final product.

 

[Paraxis]

To those of you who point out that Monte uses a standard action in one of his alternate players handbooks and think that makes a diference. Here is an article by Skip that talks about actions, and he says its an attack action that can be used as part of a full attack.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050705a

Yes I know its 2 years old, don't care, just means this should have been settled then. Yet another article by Wizards that supports the sunder is attack not a standard action.

 

[glass]

I thought the reason that we were having this conversation is that the RAW are not clear.

We get a 'sneak attack only works once a round, right?' question every other week, despite the fact that it souldn't really be any clearer that it works on any attack that qualifies, so I don't buy the 'we're debating it so it must not be clear' line. Besides, its begging the question.

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.

You're saying that they indented sunder to be an attack option. Does that mean that you're admitting that as written it actually isn't?


glass.

 

[glass]

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.

Which is yet another reason to treat the FAQ with a skip-load of salt.


glass.

 

[glass]

Hmmm...by 'a document of dubious reliability', you mean 'everything WotC has ever released to clear up this matter, ever', right?

Well, not quite everything. Everything apart from the PHB!


glass.

 

[Sammael]

To those of you who point out that Monte uses a standard action in one of his alternate players handbooks and think that makes a diference. Here is an article by Skip that talks about actions, and he says its an attack action that can be used as part of a full attack.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050705a

Yes I know its 2 years old, don't care, just means this should have been settled then. Yet another article by Wizards that supports the sunder is attack not a standard action.

Skip Williams often contradicted the rules in his Sage Advice, and sometimes even contradicted himself. Furthermore, Rules of the Game articles are riddled with errors and his own house rules.

 

[Legildur]

Skip Williams often contradicted the rules in his Sage Advice, and sometimes even contradicted himself. Furthermore, Rules of the Game articles are riddled with errors and his own house rules.

I was actually going to try and leave the RotG articles out of this argument as that isn't very sporting - akin to shooting fish in a barrel.... with a grenade..... However, it does, unfortunately IMO, undermine Skip's credentials as an authority on the rules, and hence the 2-year-old article referenced by Paraxis.

Besides, if Sunder were meant to have a 'footnote 7' against it in the table, then WotC need simply issue errata to that affect, and then this whole debate would become redudant, except perhaps to make a house rule that Sunder requires a standard action...

Now, as a further point in support of Sunder as a standard action, I'll add the following discussion (happy to see what others think about this reasoning):

1. attacks are typically made to injure an opponent (most often comprised of flesh) and often armored or bearing a shield.

2. attacks intended to harm a creature often strike instead weapons, shields or armor without harming the items (causing damage).

3. by my reasoning, this implies that to damage a weapon, shield or armor (at least in the DnD system) requires some special effort (ignoring for the moment that worn armor is not subject to Sundering) to damage. That is, Sundering requires a Standard action.

Does that make sense?

 

[ValhallaGH]

Anyone that declares Sunder to be a Standard action is using a House Rule.

As long as everyone at the table agrees on how much time it takes to Sunder, it's fairly immaterial whether it's a free action, a melee attack, a standard action, a full-round action or if it takes fourteen rounds to perform.



As an aside, I do find it really amusing how many people will energetically defend the text of one wizards of the coast document while dismissing the text of a different but related (and superseding) wizards of the coast document. The most amusing part is that no one bothers to comment on the hypocrisy of it all.

 

[Paraxis]

Anyone that declares Sunder to be a Standard action is using a House Rule.

As Hype pointed out above its in the forum rules not to use this statement. I said pretty much the same thing earlier and got a well deserved hand slap, by the way my bad sorry.

I understand why this is bad in a debate, and it does not contribute to the discussion.

Plus Mr.Smurf is very much respected by me for his opinions (I have been reading these boards far longer then posting, started back when Eric was doing all the pre 3.0 stuff.)

As an aside, I do find it really amusing how many people will energetically defend the text of one wizards of the coast document while dismissing the text of a different but related (and superseding) wizards of the coast document. The most amusing part is that no one bothers to comment on the hypocrisy of it all.

Very good point.