The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Hypersmurf]

Clearly indicating you are not substituting an attack but rather striking an object instead of the creature itself, changing what you strike but NOT the fact that you are initiating a melee attack. This is why footnote 7 is excluded from sunder.

If the weapon or shield provokes an AoO, I'm happy for you to attack it.

But if it's the creature who provokes an AoO, I'm going to have to ask that your AoO be directed against him... or that you substitute that attack for one of the options bearing footnote 7.

Just as I won't let your AoO provoked by Kobold A be directed at Kobold B, I won't let your AoO provoked by Kobold A be directed at an object. He provoked the AoO; the attack is made on him.

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

Significantly, even normal attacks, ranged attacks and unarmed attacks are all listed without footnote 7, and they're all listed in the same section of the table as sunder, so that's not at all obvious.

Huh?

Melee attacks are standard actions. Melee attacks are listed in the table as standard actions. Melee attacks can be used in a full-attack action and can be used in an AoO. Being listed in the table as a standard action does not preclude than an action might be possible in some other way. Just because Attack(unarmed) is in the Standard Action table does not mean that it's exclusively possible to perform "Attack (unarmed)" as a standard action.

Mere presence of Sunder in the table as a standard action does not mean it's impossible to perfom "Sunder" in some other way. And as my previous post indicated, there are numerous reasons to treat it as any other melee attack.

 

[eamon]

If the weapon or shield provokes an AoO, I'm happy for you to attack it.

But if it's the creature who provokes an AoO, I'm going to have to ask that your AoO be directed against him... or that you substitute that attack for one of the options bearing footnote 7.

Just as I won't let your AoO provoked by Kobold A be directed at Kobold B, I won't let your AoO provoked by Kobold A be directed at an object. He provoked the AoO; the attack is made on him.

-Hyp.

If that is the reason preventing you from sundering as an AoO, would you allow Sunder on a Full Attack action? How about a Charge?

 

[Legildur]

If that is the reason preventing you from sundering as an AoO, would you allow Sunder on a Full Attack action? How about a Charge?

If you search for and read the numerous previous threads on this, I believe you will find that H would answer no, as it is listed as a Standard Action (those words just keep popping up).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Melee attacks are standard actions.

No, they aren't.

The Attack (Melee) action is a standard action; that is not a melee attack, but rather a standard action that includes a melee attack.

The Attack action does not carry footnote 7, because you do not take the Attack action once on a Charge action, one or more times on a Full Attack action, or as an Attack of Opportunity; rather, you make an attack once on an Attack or Charge action, one or more times on a Full Attack action, or as an Attack of Opportunity.

If an attack appeared on Table 8-2 (as opposed to the Attack action, which does), it would be Action Type: Varies; it would still not, however, carry footnote 7, because it makes no sense to say that an attack substitutes for an attack.

If that is the reason preventing you from sundering as an AoO, would you allow Sunder on a Full Attack action? How about a Charge?

No, because it doesn't carry footnote 7.

Notice that the previous answer of 'I would allow' was predicated on an impossible situation, since objects do not provoke attacks of opportunity...

-Hyp.

 

[avr]

Isn't a Sunder attempt essentially an attack made on an object? Why, logically, would you be able to attack people multiple times but not objects multiple times?

I can see the argument about not allowing an AoO, but this one puzzles me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Isn't a Sunder attempt essentially an attack made on an object? Why, logically, would you be able to attack people multiple times but not objects multiple times?

An attack made on an attended object.

I'd allow someone to make a full iterative attack on an unattended object, but Sunder uses a different mechanic.

-Hyp.

 

[Elemmakil]

Not only do I believe that sundering in a full attack is against the RAW, I think that it's not a good idea.

Note how easy it is for a high level character to sunder a worn or carried item: the AC is normally 10 + size mod + dex mod: it's almost as easy (sometimes easier than) hitting with a touch attack, and many of these items have low hp and hardness.

The image of high-level meleers using the last iterative attack to knock off one magic item per round bothers me, and will probably hurt the players.

-Elemmakil

 

[Nail]

The image of high-level meleers using the last iterative attack to knock off one magic item per round bothers me, and will probably hurt the players.

Good point.

The problem is: Most people haven't played high levels much, and certainly haven't seen high-level sunder-ers.

So they'll view sunder (as a melee attack, rather than a Std. action) as no big deal.

 

[SlagMortar]

Note how easy it is for a high level character to sunder a worn or carried item: the AC is normally 10 + size mod + dex mod: it's almost as easy (sometimes easier than) hitting with a touch attack, and many of these items have low hp and hardness.

I find this problem to be with the rule for attacking a worn or carried object, not with using sunder in a full attack. If it always used an opposed attack roll, then that last iterative attack from a fighter would have a hard time sundering much.

Why should it be easier to hit a monk's belt than to hit the monk?