The FAQ on Sunder ...

[frankthedm]

Has not WOTC changed the text on later PHB printings and the SRD to allow sunder as a melee attack?

You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you’re attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here. (Attacking held objects other than weapons or shields is covered below.)

Step 1
Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target whose weapon or shield you are trying to sunder. (If you have the Improved Sunder feat, you don’t incur an attack of opportunity for making the attempt.)

Step 2
Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a sunder attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a -4 penalty. If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category.

Step 3
Consequences. If you beat the defender, roll damage and deal it to the weapon or shield. See Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points to determine how much damage you must deal to destroy the weapon or shield.

If you fail the sunder attempt, you don’t deal any damage.

Sundering a Carried or Worn Object
You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character.

 

[Legildur]

Hold on there. Your comment that accompanied the selection implied the possibility of bias. If you don't want people to think you were posting links to support your position, don't preface them with "here's one that supports my position nicely."


Actually, I think I'd invoke the "doesn't make a lick of sense when considering the rule in the context of the whole of the rule set" clause.

It would certainly appear to me that you haven't read those threads, as they contain extensive arguments for both sides. It just so happens that the middle thread also happened to include a quote from Skip which was so obviously flawed that it deserved highlighting. Yes it supports my position, but it was far from the only element of the argument.

"doesn't make a lick of sense" is your (and others') opinion. I (and others) happen to think it makes perfect sense. Better yet, I don't have to assume that the table is in error in order to reach my opinion. If they issue errata, then my group will play Sunder the other way without blinking an eye. I've seen it so infrequently in play that I don't believe it matters much either way.

 

[Fifth Element]

An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack...

You can use a melee attack...to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.

How is it not contradictory to disallow sundering as an attack of opportunity? "Melee attack" is used in both places. An AoO is a "melee attack", and you can use a "melee attack" to sunder. It doesn't refer to an "attack action", or anything other than a "melee attack", which is the same term used for the AoO.

Disarm, trip, etc. are substitutes for a melee attack, but sunder is a melee attack (targeted on the opponent's weapon rather than the opponent's body), per a simple reading of the description of sunder. As such there is no contradiction between text and table by allowing sundering as an AoO, since it is already a melee attack and as such can be used as an AoO. Footnote 7 is not required, since it is already a melee attack. It is listed as a standard action, just like a normal melee attack.

The above illustrates how you can interpret the rules to allow sundering on an AoO, without inferring any contradiction, either between text and table or between two bits of text. Hyp's interpretation is not the only one that avoids contradiction.

Two different, possibly equally valid interpretations of the rules, neither of which result in contradictions in the text. As such, clarification from the creators of the rules seems the best way to determine what's "right".

 

[Fifth Element]

Better yet, I don't have to assume that the table is in error in order to reach my opinion.

Nor do I. See the post above.

Better yet, I don't have to assume WotC's comments are in error in order to reach my opinion.

 

[Legildur]

As such, clarification from the creators of the rules seems the best way to determine what's "right"....Better yet, I don't have to assume WotC's comments are in error in order to reach my opinion.

Okay then, let's test that a little...... from one of those threads I referenced, Skip (as the Sage, no less) is quoted as saying:

"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)."

So, by that reasoning, any other special attack that provokes an AOO should also have it's "own entry". And as Hyp goes on to point out, neither Disarm, Grapple, nor Trip have their "own entry". Immediately Skip's interpretation in this case is questionable.

And let's look at some other comments in that thread about Skip's reasoning for Sunder:

"He's getting too much money and sits on his private island in the Carribean with beautiful women... that's why he does not have time to know the rules anymore."

"No. He doesn't have a good excuse. This is just sloppy work."

"I don't expect perfection, but I do expect a level of competence above the average player. This is far beneath that standard."

"It couldn't be in any worse shape than having a guy putting out "official" clarifications that are WRONG.

and, unfortunately, the sages answers are supposed to be reviewed by the actual designers before they are printed as eratta. Its pretty apparent that this is NOT happening."

"Of course, given that I've had answers from the Sage that blatantly ignore the rules without any justification, and have become more than slightly disillusioned with the veracity of his answers."

"...what gets everyone (including me) annoyed is, the man paid to get it RIGHT, apparently cannot even be bothered to do the same level of research - IOW, actually open the [censored] book - that the least rules-for-their-own-sake people here will do."

And there's plenty more from where that came from.

It's pretty clear that any clarification provided with dubious reference is not worth the paper it is written on, and plenty of people formed the same view.

The same rule for Sunder (Standard Action) was carried across from 3.0e virtually unchanged.

Maybe, just maybe, Skip got it wrong.

Does the entry for Sunder in Table 8-2 carry footnote 7? No. Therefore it requires a Standard Action and is resolved by using a melee attack (with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon) to strike an object.

 

[Fifth Element]

"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)."

So, by that reasoning, any other special attack that provokes an AOO should also have it's "own entry". And as Hyp goes on to point out, neither Disarm, Grapple, nor Trip have their "own entry". Immediately Skip's interpretation in this case is questionable.

Of course, those other special attacks do have their own entries, on the table for "action type varies".

Another reading of Mr. Williams' comments is that while sunder is a melee attack, it is different from a regular melee attack since it provokes an AoO. It should therefore have its own entry in the table to clarify that. Note the use of "regular melee attack", which implies sunder is a special melee attack, not a replacement for a melee attack.

"He's getting too much money and sits on his private island in the Carribean with beautiful women... that's why he does not have time to know the rules anymore."

"No. He doesn't have a good excuse. This is just sloppy work."

<snip>

And there's plenty more from where that came from.

I don't find ad hominem attacks to be particularly convincing of anything. Are we discussing rules or other peoples' opinions of Skip Williams?

Maybe, just maybe, Skip got it wrong.

Maybe he did. Then again, maybe he got it right (perhaps despite himself). I have provided an interpretation of the rules whereby he got it right. None of your comments addressed this interpretation.

Sunder is a melee attack (this is what the rules say). An attack of opportunity is a melee attack. You can therefore use sunder to make an attack of opportunity. No footnote needed.

You can use trip or disarm as a melee attack (per the rules), which implies replacement. Since by themselves they are not melee attacks (unlike sunder), footnote 7 is required to indicate that they can be used for an AoO.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

How is it not contradictory to disallow sundering as an attack of opportunity?

You get a melee attack which you can use to target an opponent's weapon or shield with a particular type of weapon when you take the Standard Action Sunder.

You get a melee attack which you can use to target an opponent when he provokes an AoO when threatened by you.

Different circumstances.

Similarly:

You get a ranged attack which you can use to target an opponent when you take the Stanard Action Attack (Ranged).

You get a ranged attack which you can use to target an opponent with certain modifiers and additional rules when you take the Standard Action Manyshot.

You get multiple ranged attacks which you can use to target one or more opponents with certain modifiers and additional rules when you take the Full-Round Action Full Attack with Rapid Shot.

There are multiple ways to gain ranged or melee attacks. Sunder is one, just like Manyshot is one, and just like Attack (Melee) is one.

 

[Fifth Element]

There are multiple ways to gain ranged or melee attacks. Sunder is one, just like Manyshot is one, and just like Attack (Melee) is one.

This is where the confusion lies, as I see it. Sunder is not an action that grants a melee attack. You can choose to sunder when you make a melee attack (see below). That is how I read the rules. It is included on the list of standard actions, just like a melee attack is, because it provokes an AoO, thus giving it an important difference from a regular melee attack. You can sunder as a standard action, because you can attack as a standard action. But you do not require a standard action to sunder, just as you do not require a standard action to attack.

You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you’re attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here.

Reading this gives me "If you're making a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon, you can strike your opponent's weapon or shield instead of your opponent. This is called sundering, and the following special rules apply." With this reading, the source of the melee attack is irrelevant. You just need to be making a melee attack.

Why is this different than, say, disarm? Because you're still attacking. You're just attacking your opponent's weapon, rather than your opponent directly. Sundering is not an alternative to an attack, it is an attack.

Again, I can see where the alternate interpretation comes from, but it is no more clearly right than my interpretation. The language used to describe sunder is different from the other special attacks (nothing says you can sunder "as a melee attack", for instance).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sunder is not an action that grants a melee attack.

Yes, it is.

That's why it's right there on the table of actions, under Standard Actions.

You don't get to read or follow the rules on Sunder until you take that action.

It is included on the list of standard actions, just like a melee attack is, because it provokes an AoO, thus giving it an important difference from a regular melee attack.

...

Why is this different than, say, disarm? Because you're still attacking.

Just like grapple.

... Waitaminute ...

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, it is.
That's why it's right there on the table of actions, under Standard Actions.

You don't get to read or follow the rules on Sunder until you take that action.

That's your interpretation. My interpretation is, just because you can use a standard action to sunder (just like you can use a standard action to make a regular attack), doesn't mean every time you sunder you have to use a standard action. A "sunder" is a melee attack, used to attack an opponent's weapon or shield.

Despite the fact that a melee attack is not always a standard action, it is listed as a standard action. Why can't sunder be the same?

Just like grapple.

... Waitaminute ...

When I said "attack", I meant "attempt to cause damage". Starting a grapple does not cause damage, and therefore is not an attack in that sense. Trip and disarm don't cause damage by themselves. Regular melee attacks and sunders do (assuming they hit).

Look, I realize that you prefer the other intepretation, but you're essentially saying "you're wrong" without anything to back it up. I have provided an interpretation of the rules that allows sundering on attacks of opportunity and produces no contradiction in the rules (which was claimed impossible earlier in the thread). If all you have is "nope" then we can let it rest, please.