Question about Disarm...

[Asmor]

The SRD says "As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent."

My question is, can I make a disarm attack any time I would be allowed to make a melee attack? For example, if given an attack of opportunity may I try to disarm, or if making a full attack can I disarm multiple foes, or even both attack and attempt to disarm?

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Yes

 

[Hypersmurf]

See footnote 7 to the Table of Action Types in the PHB, for Trip, Grapple, and Disarm:

These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

See footnote 7 to the Table of Action Types in the PHB, for Trip, Grapple, and Disarm:

These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity.

-Hyp.

What about Sunder? That is also a melee attack action, right? <ducks for cover>

 

[Hypersmurf]

What about Sunder?

Does it have the footnote?

-Hyp.

 

[kjenks]

Main 3.5e FAQ, page 26:

Is sunder a special standard action or is it a melee
attack variant? It has its own entry on the actions table, but
the text describing it refers to it as a melee attack. Is sunder
a melee attack only in the sense of hitting something with a
melee weapon, or is sunder a true melee attack?

Sunder is a special kind of melee attack. If it were a special
standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive
text for the Manyshot feat says).

If you make a full attack, and you have multiple attacks
from a high base attack bonus, you can sunder more than once,
or attack and sunder, or some other combination of attacking
and sundering.

Sunder does indeed get its own entry in Table 8-2: Actions
in Combat in the Player’s Handbook. It needs one because
unlike a regular melee attack, sunder provokes an attack of
opportunity (although not if you have the Improved Sunder
feat).

You can also disarm, grapple, or trip as a melee attack (or
attack of opportunity).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Main 3.5e FAQ, page 26:
Sunder does indeed get its own entry in Table 8-2: Actions
in Combat in the Player’s Handbook. It needs one because
unlike a regular melee attack, sunder provokes an attack of
opportunity (although not if you have the Improved Sunder
feat).

Note that Disarm, Grapple, and (sometimes) Trip also provoke Attacks of Opportunity.

They're listed as Action Type: Varies, and carry footnote 7.

If Sunder were intended to be usable on an Attack action, Full Attack action, Charge action, or AoO, it would be listed as Action Type: Varies, and carry footnote 7.

Instead, it's listed as a standard action.

-Hyp.

 

[satori01]

Which I think begs the question, is the limitation on Sundering and to an extent Combat Expertise,(via not being able to use Expertise during a charge action), purposeful limitations or an oversight on the table.

Do the designers really think that being able to make a Sunder attempt as AOO is unbalancing?

Do the desingers really think that a warrior that has allotted a 13 to intelligence and expended a feat should not be able to use said feat during a charge?

Frankly I do not think either of these cases are game breaking, and should be allowed for simplicity sake. Nothing is worse then having to tell the player of a Fighter character that has chose to take an intresting feat like Improved Sunder " Sorry the feat doesnt apply here, check this table and make the inference that it is not listed".

This is a perfect example, imho, where being permisive as a DM, defuses a possible long and disruptive rules arguement, and encourages players to do more than move, roll to hit, roll for damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do the desingers really think that a warrior that has allotted a 13 to intelligence and expended a feat should not be able to use said feat during a charge?

If not, why would they specify "when taking the Attack action or Full Attack action in melee", rather than just "when in melee" or "when attacking in melee"?

-Hyp.

 

[satori01]

Which is the obvious answer. My statement was more rhetorical in nature, as I see no game unbalance by a character with Expertise using the feat to negate the advantages to hit as well as the disadvantage to AC.

Again I wonder rhetoricaly wether it is a "good thing"(TM), to have feats and actions with so much nuance to them. I would wager that most average players have not sat down and read the PHB cover to cover, and most would not pick up on the differentions that you so elequently quote Hyp. I suspect that in some ways these rules are like weapon speed and weapon vs armor type were in 1e. Officially part of the rules, but oft ignored.