The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Hypersmurf]

It's also inconsistent; the PHB never "definitively" defines when something's and action and when it's an attack.

It draws a distinction between them, though: see footnote 7, again, which refers to "a melee attack, not an action".

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.

Certainly there is. An ability which can be used "when you take the Attack action" can't be used just any time you attack; the source of that attack becomes crucial.

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.

Melee attacks are absent because they're just a building block. Attack of Opportunity isn't present on the table either. What's defined on the table is what can and can't provide a melee attack (Attack action, Full Attack action, Charge action, Sunder action, and so on), and what can and can't replace a melee attack (Disarm, Grapple, Trip).

There is a distinction between the Sunder action and the 'sunder attack'; a 'sunder attack' is an attack against an opponent's weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon, which is something you can do when you take the Sunder action.

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

It's the case half the time

Which other sense is there? 'disarm' can mean to remove weapons from someone (transitive), or it can mean to divest yourself of weapons (intransitive). To 'disarm a sword' is nonsense, just like you can't say "I steal the man" to mean "I steal the man's belongings".

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

Anyhow, this thread is obviously not getting anywhere.

Which was always going to be the case. If you refer back to my post #9 in this thread (some 40-odd posts ago) you'll see that I made reference to several previous threads on the subject of Sunder. Reading those would have revealed exactly the same range of issues you have just rehashed here. There are two opposing camps on this rules question, and both believe they are right and are unlikely to change their vews.

 

[Fifth Element]

Melee attacks are absent because they're just a building block. Attack of Opportunity isn't present on the table either. What's defined on the table is what can and can't provide a melee attack (Attack action, Full Attack action, Charge action, Sunder action, and so on), and what can and can't replace a melee attack (Disarm, Grapple, Trip).

I thought an AoO can provide a melee attack. Why is it not listed on the table?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I thought an AoO can provide a melee attack. Why is it not listed on the table?

An AoO isn't an action. (Nor, apparently, is it a Not-An-Action like a 5' step.)

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

An AoO isn't an action. (Nor, apparently, is it a Not-An-Action like a 5' step.)

Which is not suprising, since the rule text isn't written for machines and won't cover all cases explicitly, but leaves things to common sense. Which in turn is why I don't think you should read so much into tiny implications that aren't supported by common sense ;-).

 

[eamon]

Which was always going to be the case. If you refer back to my post #9 in this thread (some 40-odd posts ago) you'll see that I made reference to several previous threads on the subject of Sunder. Reading those would have revealed exactly the same range of issues you have just rehashed here. There are two opposing camps on this rules question, and both believe they are right and are unlikely to change their vews.

Possibly - however, the FAQ is quite explicit, and I see no reason to overrule it. I also didn't participate in earlier discussions and didn't find the specific instances you're referring to (I think they were swamped by a bunch of other sunder-mentioning threads in my search). I certainly did not see a table pointing out that sunder is the only so-called standard action which isn't actually specified as being one explicitly ;-).

This thread title proclaims something I can't agree with, supported only by the absence of footnote 7 on a table twenty pages from the definitive rule text. I don't think that's reasonable, which is why this particular instance was worth arguing to me.

At least: Once .

 

[eamon]

It draws a distinction between them, though: see footnote 7, again, which refers to "a melee attack, not an action".

Sometimes it does indeed.

Certainly there is. An ability which can be used "when you take the Attack action" can't be used just any time you attack; the source of that attack becomes crucial.

That hypothetical situation isn't the case here, however, since the actions in question (disarm, trip, etc.) don't limit themselves to the attack action. I think Sunder falls in that category, but even in your interpretation it's just (equivalent to) a standard action.

Melee attacks are absent because they're just a building block. Attack of Opportunity isn't present on the table either.

That's a fine rationalization, and one I support. However, it's not explicit, and as such it's more evidence that you need some common sense to apply these rules successfully.

What's defined on the table is what can and can't provide a melee attack (Attack action, Full Attack action, Charge action, Sunder action, and so on), and what can and can't replace a melee attack (Disarm, Grapple, Trip).

The table defines what you can do. It does not define what you cannot do. It makes sense to assume that the authors would try to list as many as possible actions, which begs the question why they did not mention sunder. Though that may be common sense, it's not explicit rules text - and common sense also dictates that it's odd that all other standard actions per the table are explicitly defined as standard actions in the definitive rule text - except sunder. The absence of that definition is no less relevant than the absence of footnote 7.

There is a distinction between the Sunder action and the 'sunder attack'; a 'sunder attack' is an attack against an opponent's weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon, which is something you can do when you take the Sunder action.

That distinction exists in your well-argued mental model of the rules. The text doesn't (at least as I read it) make that distinction explicit, so you can't know which it's referring to when it says sunder.

In the big picture, I see this just as more evidence that the rules are underspecified and that you can't rely on subtle inferences without a good dose of common - and obviously subjective - sense.

 

[Legildur]

I also didn't participate in earlier discussions and didn't find the specific instances you're referring to (I think they were swamped by a bunch of other sunder-mentioning threads in my search).

Try:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=168114

Oh, and this one is a good one for explaining why the FAQ entry on Sunder is worthless as Skip's reasoning is blatantly flawed:

http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-81926.html

And this one:

http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-188792.html

There are others...

 

[Fifth Element]

Try:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=168114

Oh, and this one is a good one for explaining why the FAQ entry on Sunder is worthless as Skip's reasoning is blatantly flawed:

http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-81926.html

And this one:

http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-188792.html

There are others...

Okay, but reading through those we have basically the same arguments that have been made in this thread, and they are just as unconvincing there as they are here. Other than some Hyp-worshipping and Skip-bashing, I don't see much different in them.

Clearly there is no right answer here. Choose which one makes the most sense for your game, regardless of how vociferously an authority may decry your chosen interpretation.

 

[Beginning of the End]

The rules are perfectly clear:

SUNDER: You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.

Sunder does not grant you a melee attack, it USES a melee attack.

If you can show me another ability which uses the phrasing "uses a melee attack" while clearly not referring to an ability which can be used as a melee attack, I'll concede that sunder cannot be used as a melee attack.

Until that point, the FAQ is right (insofar as the use of sunder is concerned).

(The FAQ is also wrong: An errata needs to be issued for the table.)