Sunder as a Melee attack

[Magic Missile]

Whereas I'm saying that the text of how Sunder works only applies when you're taking the Sunder action.

If you are taking the Sunder action, then you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon. And the Sunder action is a standard action.

If you are taking the Disarm action, then as a melee attack you can attempt to Disarm your opponent. And the Disarm action can substitute for a melee attack in the Attack Action, an AoO, the Charge Action, or one or more times in a Full Attack Action.

You can only use a melee attack to strike a weapon if you are using the Sunder standard action, not otherwise.

And as I've said before, it doesn't need to state "standard action" in the text, because that is made quite clear on the table.

-Hyp.

OK, so do I have this right? By your definitions:

A character with, say a BAB 15/10/5 cannot use a full round action to (for example) go "attack sunder attack", but *can* use it to "attack disarm attack"?

(as an aside, you *can* mix ranged and melee attacks as part of a full attack, if you have something like quick draw, or a one handed weapon and a hand crossbow, can't you?)

Am I reading you right? And if so, why can you disarm as part of a full attack but not sunder?

 

[Hypersmurf]

A character with, say a BAB 15/10/5 cannot use a full round action to (for example) go "attack sunder attack", but *can* use it to "attack disarm attack"?

You have it exactly.

(as an aside, you *can* mix ranged and melee attacks as part of a full attack, if you have something like quick draw, or a one handed weapon and a hand crossbow, can't you?)

It is indeed so.

Am I reading you right? And if so, why can you disarm as part of a full attack but not sunder?

Why, because Disarm is Action Type: Varies, with a special note that it can be used as part of a full attack, while Sunder is a Standard Action, with no such special note.

-Hyp.

 

[Magic Missile]

Hmm. Letter of the rules it may be, but doesn't it just seem really weird and daft? I mean, surely disarming is virtually identical to sundering anyway - if anything, disarming is slightly harder than just whacking your opponent's weapon; what's so specific about sundering that means you can't try more than once per round?

*scratches head*

I don't mean to argue, I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around this. I've never been in a game where anyone has reached a high enough level to get iterative attacks!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hmm. Letter of the rules it may be, but doesn't it just seem really weird and daft?

I suggest you start with something more blatant, like "If an AoO represents someone dropping their defences, why doesn't being Held, asleep, unconscious, or otherwise helpless provoke an AoO? If someone can provoke four AoOs from an opponent with Combat Reflexes by making four ranged attacks in a threatened square, why doesn't a Helpless opponent provoke four AoOs?"

Weird and daft goes hand in hand with rules at times

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

I think that Sunder is made in the place of a melee attack and that the table is in error.

This is the easiest, most consistent reading of the rules (consistent with "Disarm," and other special attacks that use a melee attack).

<deleted - Hypersmurf pointed out my error>. Supporting the fact that the table is less important that the text is that:

1. When trying to find out how Sunder works, one would go to the text, not the table and

2. <deleted - Hypersmurf pointed out my error>.

A table like this is generally a quick reference only and not definitive - the definitive rule is in the text.

Needs errata.[/b

 

[Magic Missile]

I suggest you start with something more blatant, like "If an AoO represents someone dropping their defences, why doesn't being Held, asleep, unconscious, or otherwise helpless provoke an AoO? If someone can provoke four AoOs from an opponent with Combat Reflexes by making four ranged attacks in a threatened square, why doesn't a Helpless opponent provoke four AoOs?"

Weird and daft goes hand in hand with rules at times

-Hyp.

Point taken.

*head explodes*

 

[Hypersmurf]

This appears to be a simple error that the designers made in producing 3.5.

The text, the table, and the footnotes were identical in 3E. This is not a conversion error.

2. The table is not even included in the SRD.

The table is included in the SRD.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

The text, the table, and the footnotes were identical in 3E. This is not a conversion error.

Right you are . My mistake. Of course, it was called "Strike a Weapon," not sunder, but that's pretty nitpicky.

The table is included in the SRD.
-Hyp.

Crud. You're right, and I even quoted it above.

Well, they makes my argument a bit less compelling, doesn't it? Ah well, I can't be right ALL the time.

I still say it needs errata. Either the table must be changed to be the same as "Disarm," or the text changed to make it clear that the text and table agree with each other.

 

[Hypersmurf]

... or the text changed to make it clear that the text and table agree with each other.

That's one of the main reasons I support the table. It's unambiguous. The text can be read to be in contradiction with the table... but it can also be read so that it isn't.

When you can read it two ways, and one way is supported by rules found elsewhere in the book, and the other way isn't, I know which one works for me...

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

Great, then you agree that Weapon finesse must be bought per weapon, and you must be proficient in each weapon, before you buy it? Because the table clearly says so.

Yes, but then I'm using 3.0 rules, and there's no discrepancy between table & text there.

If you happen to be using a substandard ruleset where they changed it in one place but not the other, I can see that as a problem.