The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Meeki]

Arguing that its easy to sunder means that sunder should be a standard action is not valid. Tripping is probably easier than sundering but yet you can trip 5 times a round if you have enough attacks and enough opponents to trip. The mechanics of sunder may be poor for attacking attended objects but that is bad design.
Also read sunder over and over and over. See that it is an attack directed at a weapon/shield/object and does not warrent the need for footnote 7 because it is not a substitute for an attack, compare it to trip and disarm. Disarm says "As a melee attack..." trip says "you make attempt to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack...". Sunder "you can USE a melee attack...". Similar but different, the wording for trip/disarm are meant to show substitution using the word as while sunder is meant to show it is a melee attack. On top of that the rest of the actions on the standard action part of the chart say that it requires a standard action to perform in their description where as sunder does not, it only mentions an attack.

Also, see that on the actions in combat chart it is Sunder a Weapon (attack) not just Sunder. indicating that it is an attack.

Look at the special attacks table it says that you strike a weapon, and I don't know any other way to strike anything other than making a melee attack against it (or some magic); which is what sunder says you do.

To Hypersmurf: Your argument that you would allow a sunder as an AoO if the weapon/shield provoked would only work if you also would only allow disarm the same way. Why would a kobold provoking at AoO by moving be subject to disarm, it wouldnt with your logic (and if you change it in your game more power to you). But it is allowed in the rules.

Patron: You can shocking grasp as a AoO if you have the charge ready, since having an offensive spell charge held counts as being armed. However you cannot cast a spell as part of an AoO because casting a spell is not an attack and is specifically stated as a standard action. The sunder description says it is an attack, thus you can sunder as an AoO. Again I refer you back to the description of sunder, " You can use a melee attack...". A single melee attack.
Also, you cannot take a full attack on an AoO because it is not a melee attack is it multiple melee attacks, which is covered under the AoO description.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To Hypersmurf: Your argument that you would allow a sunder as an AoO if the weapon/shield provoked would only work if you also would only allow disarm the same way. Why would a kobold provoking at AoO by moving be subject to disarm, it wouldnt with your logic (and if you change it in your game more power to you).

Certainly it would - because Disarm bears footnote 7, which says it can be used in place of an Attack of Opportunity. Sunder does not, and thus cannot.

You disarm an opponent; you sunder a weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Yah. I've not once, since 3.0 came out, seen anybody on either side of the DM screen use sunder.

In red hand, I had a character with a tower shield, I was holding back the black dragon using full cover. The dragon took a full attack of claws, bite, and tail against the tower shield. poor tower shield never saw it coming... it was a +1 darkwood tower shield too... If we were playing by the rules, the dragon would have had to give up a standard action to attack once. Most likely the tower shield would have survived, and it would have ate away at the dragons actions.

 

[blargney the second]

Better the shield than you, I say!

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Better the shield than you, I say!

true that.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

Such a reading requires you to throw out the table. It thus requires you to contradict at least one section of rules.......

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.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Certainly. But if you can read something two ways, and have a choice of "All sources interact without contradiction", and "One source contradicts another, so we need to apply the Primary Source rule under the assumption that a screw-up led to one source being incorrect", does it not make sense to take the reading that doesn't mandate throwing away one source?

-Hyp.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Certainly. But if you can read something two ways, and have a choice of "All sources interact without contradiction", and "One source contradicts another, so we need to apply the Primary Source rule under the assumption that a screw-up led to one source being incorrect", does it not make sense to take the reading that doesn't mandate throwing away one source?

-Hyp.

No. The designers of the game are telling you what to do when one source contradicts another as what I quoted is at the top of all Errata Documents. I see no reason to go against that. On top of that the FAQ is also confirming this fact to be true also.

 

[Legildur]

No. The designers of the game are telling you what to do when one source contradicts another as what I quoted is at the top of all Errata Documents. I see no reason to go against that. On top of that the FAQ is also confirming this fact to be true also.

But then your inferred conclusion (that Sunder can substitute for a melee attack) is predicated on the text and table being in contradiction. They are not. The text could be more definitive (either way), but it is not. Therefore the table provides the clarification required - and Sunder requires the use of a Standard Action and uses a melee attack (with special modifiers) to resolve the special attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No. The designers of the game are telling you what to do when one source contradicts another as what I quoted is at the top of all Errata Documents. I see no reason to go against that.

I agree that when one source contradicts another, the Primary Source rule tells us how to resolve the conflict.

What I'm saying is that if there are two possible readings, one of which leads to a conflict necessitating application of the Primary Source rule and one of which does not, it makes sense to take the reading that doesn't require you to assume the book is in error in the first place.

-Hyp.