The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Hypersmurf]

To phrase it the same way, then, when you take the Sunder (attack) action (which is listed on table 8-2), you use a standard action. But that is not the only way you can sunder, just as Attack (melee) is not the only way you can attack.

In which case there is no difference - at all! - between taking the Attack (melee) action to sunder and taking the Sunder action to sunder... so there would not be a Sunder action in the first place, since the Attack (melee) action already exists.

The existence of the Sunder action tells us that there's a difference between the two, which means the Attack (melee) action can't be used to sunder, which means sunder can't happen just any time there's a melee attack going spare.

-Hyp.

 

[Elethiomel]

Indeed. When you take the Attack (melee) action, it's a standard action. To phrase it the same way, then, when you take the Sunder (attack) action (which is listed on table 8-2), you use a standard action. But that is not the only way you can sunder, just as Attack (melee) is not the only way you can attack. The description of sunder says that you can use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon. It does not limit it in any way.

So just the same as a melee attack does not require the Attack (melee) action, from this perspective sundering does not require the Sunder (attack) action. Because under the description of sunder, it states that you can use a melee attack to strike an opponent's weapon. It does not state you use Attack (melee) to strike an opponent's weapon. It says "a melee attack", which as you have pointed out several times is not the same thing as Attack (melee), or the melee attack action.

If the Attack (melee) action does not need to be listed as action type varies, then the Sunder (attack) action does not need to be listed as action type varies either.

Attack (melee) is a defined action that grants a melee attack. So is the Full Attack action, the Cast a Spell action (sometimes), and so on and so forth. Because Attack (melee) is not the only action that grants a melee attack, it doesn't have to be Action type: Varies. There are different actions with other names that grant melee attacks using other action types than a standard action, so Attack (melee) doesn't have to cover those action types. Sunder does, because it is listed on the table in only one place. Since that is under Standard Action, that's the action type you need to take in order to use Sunder.

You're assuming, of course, that the only way to sunder is to use the Sunder (attack) action. Under my interpretation, this is as plainly false as an assertion that in order to make a melee attack you need to use the Attack (melee) action.

The fact that the sunder description says you can use a melee attack to sunder means that whenever you make a melee attack you can sunder (under this interpretation). The fact that Sunder (attack) is listed as a standard action has no effect on the ability to use any melee attack as a sunder attempt, just as the fact that Attack (melee) is listed as a standard action has no effect on the other situations that may grant you a melee attack.

Sunder (attack) is a defined action that grants a melee attack that can be used against items. There is no defined action you can take that lets you sunder on any other attack, such as is defined for Disarm and Trip. You need to take the Sunder action in order for the description under "Sunder" to take effect, just like you have to take the Disarm action in order for the "Disarm" description to take effect, and the Attack (melee) action in order for the "Attack (melee)" description to take effect.

Sunder's very presence on the table tells us that it is its own action. Sunder's presence under "Standard Action" tells us that it is its own standard action.

 

[Fifth Element]

Sunder (attack) is a defined action that grants a melee attack that can be used against items. There is no defined action you can take that lets you sunder on any other attack, such as is defined for Disarm and Trip. You need to take the Sunder action in order for the description under "Sunder" to take effect, just like you have to take the Disarm action in order for the "Disarm" description to take effect, and the Attack (melee) action in order for the "Attack (melee)" description to take effect.

I understand your point, but I disagree that this is the only way to interpret the situation. From my perspective, any defined action that grants a melee attack also grants a sunder attempt, since sundering is simply a special use of a melee attack.

We're clearly not going to agree that this is a possible interpretation. This thread has been good for my post count, and hopefully some readers have understood my argument, but it's pointless to continue.

 

[Elethiomel]

I understand your point, but I disagree that this is the only way to interpret the situation. From my perspective, any defined action that grants a melee attack also grants a sunder attempt, since sundering is simply a special use of a melee attack.

We're clearly not going to agree that this is a possible interpretation. This thread has been good for my post count, and hopefully some readers have understood my argument, but it's pointless to continue.

It's a possible interpretation, but yes, I don't think at this point that I will agree that it is a correct interpretation. So we'll leave it at that. I hope I haven't insulted or anything - reading through some of my posts I come across a bit condescending. I assure you that was not my intent.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's a possible interpretation, but yes, I don't think at this point that I will agree that it is a correct interpretation. So we'll leave it at that. I hope I haven't insulted or anything - reading through some of my posts I come across a bit condescending. I assure you that was not my intent.

I think the crux of our disagreement then is the the use of the terms "possible" and "correct" to mean different things to both of us.

I don't recall reading any of your posts as condescending. I cannot say the same for some other posters, but I thank you for maintaining the level of discussion in this thread.