The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Fifth Element]

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.

As I read it, your position is "because the rules say so", which is fine. However, you attempted to support why the rules should work that way with an explanation that does not rely on rulespeak. And you come up with a completely arbitrary distinction that I'm sure will conflict with most players' suspension of disbelief.

If we're sticking strictly to RAW, we don't need to explain it in non-rules terms, and doing so just creates more questions than answers. The only answer to "why can you disarm on an AoO but not sunder?" is "the rules say you can't". Saying "you disarm an opponent, not a weapon" will not satisfy players at the table.

Not that I agree with your interpretation, since I don't.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If we're sticking strictly to RAW, we don't need to explain it in non-rules terms, and doing so just creates more questions than answers. The only answer to "why can you disarm on an AoO but not sunder?" is "the rules say you can't". Saying "you disarm an opponent, not a weapon" will not satisfy players at the table.

Hmm? Sunder is an special attack directed at a weapon. Disarm is a special attack directed at an opponent.

If the opponent provokes an AoO, you can direct an attack at him; you can't direct an attack elsewhere.

Which fits perfectly with the fact that Disarm carries footnote 7, and Sunder does not.

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

Hmm? Sunder is an special attack directed at a weapon. Disarm is a special attack directed at an opponent.

Yes, technically per RAW. But tell that to a player at the table. How do you disarm an opponent, in descriptive terms? Do you lunge for his torso, hoping he'll drop his weapon? No, you go for his weapon, tying to knock it away. In descriptive terms, the rules differentiation here makes no sense. Ergo, just call it RAW, and ignore the cognitive dissonance.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ergo, just call it RAW...

Well, I did; the sentence you're objecting to immediately followed "Disarm bears footnote 7, which says it can be used in place of an Attack of Opportunity. Sunder does not, and thus cannot."

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, I did; the sentence you're objecting to immediately followed "Disarm bears footnote 7, which says it can be used in place of an Attack of Opportunity. Sunder does not, and thus cannot."

No, what I'm objecting to is the characterization in descriptive terms of the difference between sundering and disarming. While technically a disarm attempt is directed at the opponent, not the opponent's weapon (perhaps; see below), this doesn't fly when describing the action. In descriptive terms a disarm attempt focuses on the weapon, not the opponent, whatever your interpretation of RAW may be.

There's also the snippet in the disarm description (under Step 2) that states "If the targeted item isn't a melee weapon..." which implies the target is the weapon, not the opponent. And the bit in the preamble that states "If you're attempting to disarm a melee weapon...If the item you are attempting to disarm...". These refer to disarming an item, not disarming an opponent.

While I understand the reasons for your interpretation of RAW and won't argue it regardless that I disagree with it, this is a case where such RAW would be inconsistent and seemingly contradictory (comparing the mechanics of disarm and sunder), and as such should probably be ignored.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There's also the snippet in the disarm description (under Step 2) that states "If the targeted item isn't a melee weapon..." which implies the target is the weapon, not the opponent. And the bit in the preamble that states "If you're attempting to disarm a melee weapon...If the item you are attempting to disarm...". These refer to disarming an item, not disarming an opponent.

It also says "you may attempt to disarm your opponent" and "You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to disarm".

It does, as you point out, also make reference to attempting to disarm a melee weapon... which seems odd, since that would mean to take weapons away from said melee weapon... :\

... this is a case where such RAW would be inconsistent and seemingly contradictory (comparing the mechanics of disarm and sunder), and as such should probably be ignored.

Hmm? Why inconsistent and contradictory? There are two special attacks (sunder and disarm), each with their own entry... differences between the two are to be expected, not evidence of contradiction.

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

Hmm? Why inconsistent and contradictory? There are two special attacks (sunder and disarm), each with their own entry... differences between the two are to be expected, not evidence of contradiction.

Again, from a player's in-game perspective, being able to disarm on an AoO but not sunder is not intuitive. Mechanical differences are fine, but since both types of attacks can (do) target an opponent's weapon, such a difference creates confusion.

 

[Fifth Element]

It does, as you point out, also make reference to attempting to disarm a melee weapon... which seems odd, since that would mean to take weapons away from said melee weapon... :\

Only if the rules use the term "disarm" only in the sense you are using it, which is apparently not the case.

 

[eamon]

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

Which is exactly the point of the message you were replying to - the table doesn't differentiate between attack actions and melee attacks either!

That's splitting hairs. It's also inconsistent; the PHB never "definitively" defines when something's and action and when it's an attack. Many actions are listed in the section "Special attacks" and some "actions" (such as disarm) per table 8-2 are actually attacks. The terms are used almost interchangeably - a simple attack in the PHB's sense is thus both a standard action, and a melee attack (which might be exchanged for certain special attacks, or might be gained in certain circumstances). Unless it's explicitly stated how to interpret it, differentiation is misleading - you'll have to interpret is as one or the other based on the context, instead.

Further, the differentiation is meaningless. It's meaningless since there's clearly no difference between a situation/ruleset in which you have both an action and an attack with identical consequences and an alternative situation/ruleset in which you have only one action which can also be used as an attack.

Finally, distinguishing between a melee attack (notably absent in table 8-2) and the action "Attack (melee)" simply begs the question whether there's no similar distinction between a sunder action and a sunder attack.

Of course, there's an obvious answer why the PHB doesn't distinguish between these to things: it's written for humans, not machines, and it's extremely confusing to consider two identical actions (actions in the english, not rules, sense) to be two completely different things without some obvious distinguishing factor.

In other words: the accuracy of the ruleset does not extend to the level detail required for such distinctions to be reliable. Inferring the absense of a sunder attack based on the interaction of an underspecifed table and a text blob separated by a number of pages certainly isn't reasonable, especially since the text suggests it is possible, and similar attacks definitely are possible.

I'm sure you can find details of this post to disagree with, but that's kind of the whole point - these details are simply underspecified and it's inherently arguable both ways, therefore.

 

[eamon]

Anyhow, this thread is obviously not getting anywhere.

One side argues that table 8-2 distinguishes between disarm, grapple etc, and sunder, and notes that footnote 7 is absent in the case of sunder, and that it's unreasonable to ignore that. This side further notes that it's possible to interpret the rule-text of sunder such that it's doesn't say it can be used whenever you could perform a melee attack. Further, allowing sunder to function like disarm poses balance issues at high levels. This side also says that you can't invoke the "primary source" rule since it's possible to interpret the primary source in a non-conflicting fashion.

The other side argues that the rule text most naturally is interpreted to allow sunder as a melee attack (like disarm), and that that's the most important issue. It thinks that the mere absence of a footnote in a table isn't particularly strong evidence (noting that sunder would be the only standard action not specified as such in it's rule text if that's really how you interpreted it), since it's not explicit and merely an overview table far from the definitive ruletext, and point out that the table says "Sunder a Weapon (attack)", hinting that it's an attack. Finally, the FAQ interprets it this way very explicitly which is indicative of the intent behind the rule.

I think I'm just going to "forget" sunder in my campaigns and hope 4e is the next best thing since sliced bread, and actually fixes another unfortunately phrased rule. Maybe they can also address the FAQ and the "Rules of the Game" section, while they're at it: I would appreciate it greatly if wizards would vouch for the accuracy of future such features - meaning not that they'll never make mistakes, but simply that they vouch to try and fix them when they do, so that this kind of discussions are less necessary.