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

[Felix]

The most amusing part is that no one bothers to comment on the hypocrisy of it all.

The core rules were established to set a standard. We accepted this standard.

They established a place where that standard was changed: errata.

They have since gone about changing the standard of the rules in places other than the explicit forum for rules changes.

That is what I (and I imagine others) dislike about what WotC is doing.

How am I a hypocrite again, please?

 

[RigaMortus2]

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?

1) I know you said "typically" but I want to point out, that spells like Charm Person are also considered to be an "attack" and they do not damage or injure. The litmus test I use for "attacks" in this case is: "Would this break the invisibility spell?"

2) In the real world, yes. In the abstract mind of DMs and gamers, yes (it should). Game mechanically, no. Not w/o specifically wanting to target them (or a nat 1 on a failed save). Which brings us to:

3) The special effort that I see is, not that it takes a standard action, but that it (a) provokes and AoO and (b) you have to bypass hardness to deal actual damage to the weapon/shield.

Edit: I submitted too soon... Legildur... Would the same logic not also apply to Trip and Disarm? Disarm even more so, because instead of wanting to cause damage or injure, you are trying to carefully aim at a weapon not to damage it, but to skillfully remove it from their hands.

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

It is not a substitute for a melee attack. It IS a melee attack, which happens to have a different effect other than dealing damage to ones person.

 

[Legildur]

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.

You weren't alone in this.....

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

Actually, the reasoning behind this train of thought comes specifically from the PHB Errata:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

This rule spells out the fact that the FAQ does not superceed the book, only errata does. So when sage or FAQ contradict the books, the books are to be taken as the correct answer, regardless of whether or not the FAQ (or sage, or RotG articles) are "official". This is also the rule that spells out the fact that tables trump text -- but only when there is a disagrement -- that people have referenced earlier in this thread.

Thus, before any other questions can be asked, you first need to answer the question as to whether or not the text and table are contradictory. The arguements about this subject have been discussed earlier in this thread.

This rule is the reason why I personally really don't care what the FAQ says about how to rule in this case, and is probably the reason so many people simply ignore arguements of "but the FAQ says...".

 

[Bront]

I re-read the Combat chapter of the PHB and have altered my opinion (or should I say, my method of argument) as to what the proper RAW action is for a Sunder. This descrepency does not show in the SRD; it is much clearer in the PHB.

I'm inclined to agree with Felix's interpretation, and that Sunder was simply left off the variant actions table. And I'll use Feint as an example. Feint is not substitutable for an attack action, and specificly states it as a standard action. Meanwile Trip and Disarm both state they are melee attacks, just like Sunder.

If Sunder was supposed to be a standard action, why wasn't it specificly stated in the text? The text leads me to believe that it is substitutable as a standard melee attack, much like trip and disarm are.

 

[RigaMortus2]

This is also the rule that spells out the fact that tables trump text -- but only when there is a disagrement -- that people have referenced earlier in this thread.

You quoted the rule, but I think you got it mixed up. It isn't that the table trumps text, it is the othe way around. Take a look:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

 

[Felix]

If Sunder was supposed to be a standard action, why wasn't it specificly stated in the text? The text leads me to believe that it is substitutable as a standard melee attack, much like trip and disarm are.

The problem with my argument was that it had to disregard footnote 7 on table 8-2. If Sunder has footnote 7 (which all of the other special attacks have; trip; grapple, etc.) then it's not a problem. The problem is that Sunder is listed as a standard action (an attack action is a standard action) in the table, the text refers to a game term of melee attack (which is a standard action), and that it lacks the one thing that is present that allows special attacks to substitute for iterative attacks: Footnote 7.

(Although, of course, Sunder has footnote 7 in my PHB. )

Otherwise my reasoning was sound. Sunder just needed the footnote.

---

RigaMortis2:

There is no conflict between the text and the table. Sunder says, "a melee attack". This is a game term found under Standard Actions. No, it does not take a "Standard Action" to use Sunder in the way it takes Manyshot a Standard Action, but the action it requires is a Standard Action, and the rule that would allow it to be substituted under the Multiple Attacks description is present in both the Grapple description and in Footnote 7. Sunder has neither of these.

So yes, text trumps table when there is a conflict. But much like Darth Vader on Endor, there is no conflict.

 

[RigaMortus2]

RigaMortis2:

There is no conflict between the text and the table. Sunder says, "a melee attack". This is a game term found under Standard Actions.

Are you suggesting that the only time you can make a melee attack is if you use a Standard Action?

No, it does not take a "Standard Action" to use Sunder in the way it takes Manyshot a Standard Action, but the action it requires is a Standard Action,

That doesn't make sense IMO. If you are saying Sunder takes a Standard Action, then it would work similar to Manyshot. Want to use Manyshot? Then use up your 1 Standard Action for the round and follow the instructions for Manyshot. Want to use Sunder? Then use up your 1 Standard Action for the round and follow the instructions for Sunder.

How else would your version of Standard Action Sunder work?

and the rule that would allow it to be substituted under the Multiple Attacks description is present in both the Grapple description and in Footnote 7. Sunder has neither of these.

Well the fact that it specifically says it in the Grapple notes is irrelevant, because you can make multiple Trip and Disarm attempts, yet that is not specifically called out in the Trip and Disarm descriptions. The only commonality between Grapple and Trip/Disarm is that they both have footnote 7. And as I have suggested, if the table entry for Sunder is incorrect, it isn't going to have footnote 7 anyway.

 

[Felix]

Are you suggesting that the only time you can make a melee attack is if you use a Standard Action?

I am suggesting that the only time you make a melee attack action is by using a Standard Action, yes. "Melee Attack" is a game term, and it is listed under Standard Acitons. It is seperate and distinct from Multiple Attacks (which references Full Attack Action).

That doesn't make sense IMO. If you are saying Sunder takes a Standard Action, then it would work similar to Manyshot. ...

How else would your version of Standard Action Sunder work?

It would work similar to Manyshot, per the core rules. Manyshot requires a standard action. Sunder requires a melee attack action, which is a Standard Action, and is not eligible for Multiple Attacks because of the lack of Footnote 7 and the lack of a text description allowing it as in Grapple.

Well the fact that it specifically says it in the Grapple notes is irrelevant, because you can make multiple Trip and Disarm attempts, yet that is not specifically called out in the Trip and Disarm descriptions. The only commonality between Grapple and Trip/Disarm is that they both have footnote 7. And as I have suggested, if the table entry for Sunder is incorrect, it isn't going to have footnote 7 anyway.

It is not irrelevant, merely redundant.

Grapple has both footnote 7 and a text allowance, thus you may use it in iterative attacks.
Trip and Disarm have footnote 7, but no text allowance, so you may use it in iterative attacks.
Sunder has neither footnote 7 nor a text allowance, so you may not use it in iterative attacks.

If you're testing for the robustness of the text and table, assuming that one of them is wrong will show you that they are not robust at all; you assumed the problem into the system. But if you ask, "Assuming the text and the table are both correct, does this work?"

And it turns out that it does work.

• The Sunder description refers to a game term defined as a Standard action pages earlier in the same chapter.

• Table 8-2 defines Sunder as a standard action.

• Footnote 7 allows actions that would normally require a Standard action by virtue of their using a melee attack action to replace iterative attacks gained by various means.

• Sunder lacks footnote 7, and so may not be used in iterative attacks.

• Sunder lacks a text allowance similar to Grapple's that would permit it to be used in iterative attacks.

So if the text and the table can work together without conflict, why assume the problem?

 

[Deset Gled]

You quoted the rule, but I think you got it mixed up. It isn't that the table trumps text, it is the othe way around. Take a look:

You are quite right. Sometimes my fingers type faster than my brain thinks.