The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

... and why it is wrong.

First, the FAQ's position. It was first elucidated in this Q&A, and has since moved into other questions ("Can an AoO provoke an AoO?" etc.).

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).

The FAQ states that Sunder, like Grapple, Tripe, etc., may be performed once in an attack action, multiple times during a full attack action, or during an AoO.

The FAQ's answer is incorrect, as it is based on faulty premises.

First: "If it were a special standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive text for the Manyshot feat says)."

A description of an ability is only part of the rules for an ability. The full set of rules for that ability can oftentimes be found in multiple areas. For instance, Sunder, itself, is found on the table "Actions in Combat" under the heading "Standard Actions."

Now, there is a primacy of rules guideline, in which, if there is a conflict, the full rules text takes precedence over an example (including a summary on a table). However, this rule only comes into effect if there is, in fact, a contradiction. Since there is not an outright contradiction in this case - the rules text can be read in a way which does not cause a contradiction - this rule does not come into effect.

Accordingly, Sunder is a standard action in its own right because it is listed, in the table "Actions in Combat," as a standard action.

Second: "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)."

This is demonstrably false.

The Grapple attack option has its own entry in Table 8-2: Actions in Combat. It can be used in place of a regular melee attack, and provokes an AoO (although not if you have the Improved Grapple feat).

However, the Grapple attack option is not listed under the Standard Actions header. It is, instead, listed (along with Disarm and Trip, the other two examples quoted by the FAQ) under the "Action Type Varies" header.

More importantly, the Grapple, Disarm, and Trip listings include Footnote 7, which, according to the table, means "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."

This footnote is missing from the Sunder action's listing under Standard Actions.

Accordingly, if Sunder were supposed to be treated identically to Grapple, Disarm, and Trip, it would fit perfectly under the "Action Type Varies" header, accompanied by a note that it provokes an AoO (just like Grapple and Disarm) and bearing footnote 7 (allowing it to substitute for an attack).

Therefore, there is only 1 non-contradictory way to read the totality of the rules: Sunder is a standard action which provokes an AoO and grants a melee attack.

As Mistwell will no doubt agree ( ), there are lots of ways to get attacks which are not the Attack or Full Attack actions. This is just another one of them. So, just like one could take the Manyshot standard action and make an attack, one can take the Sunder standard action and make an attack.

 

[blargney the second]

Oddly enough, you just made me want to try running sunder as a melee attack.
-blarg

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Heh - I suspect, even then, it will be rarely used (except against wizards with wands in last-ditch situations).

 

[blargney the second]

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

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think I used it once to destroy a widget some badguy was carrying, but that's pretty much it.

 

[Meeki]

Well under the sunder explanation it says you can use a melee attack... indicating that it is indeed an attack action. It may be in a different spot on a chart but the text of the action indicates otherwise. This is where conflict arises. It is worded poorly but very similar to trip and disarm.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well under the sunder explanation it says you can use a melee attack... indicating that it is indeed an attack action.

The second statement does not follow from the first statement.

When I take the Manyshot action, I make a ranged attack.

When I take the Attack (melee) action, I make a melee attack.

When I take the Full Attack action, I make multiple ranged and / or melee attacks.

When I take the Sunder action, I make a melee attack (with a particular type of weapon; specifically, slashing or bludgeoning).

For further discussion on the difference between "an attack" and "the Attack [Standard] action", see this thread.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well under the sunder explanation it says you can use a melee attack... indicating that it is indeed an attack action.

That's one way to read "you can use a melee attack", but it leads to contradiction with the table.

There's another way to read it, which doesn't - that is, the line is telling you what you can do when you take the Sunder action.

It's similar to the line under the Attack action, "Making an attack is a standard action". This isn't true all the time; making an attack as part of a Charge action, Full Attack action, Attack of Opportunity, or so forth is not a standard action. But it's true in the context in which it appears - that is, in the description of the standard action, Attack. When you are taking the Attack action, making an attack is indeed a standard action. When you aren't taking the Attack action, making an attack might not be a standard action... but since the line is found in the description of the Attack action, it is true within the scope to which it applies.

So, by the same token, it's true that 'you can use a melee attack' to damage an opponent's weapon or shield... but only in the circumstances to which that line applies. In this case, those circumstances are "When you are taking the Sunder action".

If you're taking the Sunder action - a standard action - you can use a melee attack to damage an opponent's weapon or shield. If you're taking the Attack action, the Full Attack action, the Charge action, or an attack of opportunity, that line does not apply, so you can't use a melee attack to damage an opponent's weapon or shield.

If you read the line this way, there's no conflict between text and table. If you read it as globally applicable, then it contradicts the table.

If I can read a line two ways, but one of them requires me to assume that the rules are wrong, my preference is for the other one.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

Why has this argument arisen again? (edit: found the 'little known rules' thread which initiated this, and may as well follow Cheiromancer's lead in the same thread and kick off a thread about Improved Natural Attack...) There have been numerous threads on this in the past. Most ending in heated debate and being locked by mods

Or, more to the point, if WotC are so diligent, as they claim, in reading these boards, then why does the FAQ on Sunder keep contradicting the RAW?

If they want to treat it the same as Disarm/Grapple/Trip then issue the errata already!!!

 

[eamon]

Or, more to the point, if WotC are so diligent, as they claim, in reading these boards, then why does the FAQ on Sunder keep contradicting the RAW?

If they want to treat it the same as Disarm/Grapple/Trip then issue the errata already!!!

Exactly! And further, even if they didn't want sunder to be treated as disarm/grapple/trip they should still issue the errata. It wouldn't be necessary to do more than add "As a standard action" to the rule text!