The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Legildur]

I have provided an interpretation of the rules that allows sundering on attacks of opportunity ...

If you ignore the table, sure.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

When I said "attack", I meant "attempt to cause damage". Starting a grapple does not cause damage,

Yes, it does. Specifically, it does damage equivalent to your unarmed strike.

Moreover, there are all kinds of things which involve attacks but do no damage; Ray of Enfeeblement springs immediately to mind.

Look, I realize that you prefer the other intepretation, but you're essentially saying "you're wrong" without anything to back it up.

No, I'm saying "In order for you to be right, you have to ignore part of the rules and assume that the designers have made multiple mistakes in multiple places. In order for me to be right, you have to ignore nothing and assume that the designers did their jobs competently."

You don't see any qualitative difference in those positions at all?

 

[Fifth Element]

No, I'm saying "In order for you to be right, you have to ignore part of the rules and assume that the designers have made multiple mistakes in multiple places. In order for me to be right, you have to ignore nothing and assume that the designers did their jobs competently."

This is the absolute last time I'm going to say this; I'm done here. Please pay attention.

My interpretation ignores no rule, ignores no part of any table, and does not assume designer error anywhere. Sundering is simply what you call making a melee attack against an opponent's weapon or shield. It is not a separate action. All of this can be arrived at by the rules as written.

 

[Fifth Element]

If you ignore the table, sure.

See above post. Please pay attention.

The table is not ignored. A melee attack is included as a standard action on the table. So is sunder, because sunder is a melee attack. It's not an action that grants a sunder attempt, but the name that you call a melee attack against an opponent's weapon or shield, which has some special rules.

 

[Nail]

Edited by moderator to remove unnecessary snark. -Hyp.

 

[Vurt]

In Previews for October and Beyond, where the article discusses the upcoming Rules Compendium, sunder is listed as substituting for a melee attack. (Only with a footnote 28 instead of a footnote 7.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

In Previews for October and Beyond, where the article discusses the upcoming Rules Compendium, sunder is listed as substituting for a melee attack. (Only with a footnote 28 instead of a footnote 7.)

Now, that's how it should have been shown all along if they wanted it to behave like Grapple, Trip, and Disarm. And once Rules Compendium is out, my position on Sunder will change: per the Core Rules as published, it is a standard action; with Rules Compendium in play, it is action type varies, and substitutes for a melee attack. (Assuming Rules Compendium is considered the primary source for all the material it covers, or is considered errata to the primary source.)

Until Rules Compendium is released, of course, it's still a standard action.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I saw a sunder in operation for the first time last night! It was remarkably ineffective...

Well, sure, if you have a 1st-level wizard try and do it...

 

[Beginning of the End]

When you Sunder, you can use a melee attack.

The action doesn't use a melee attack; you use a melee attack when you take the action.

Lemme see if I can follow your argument:

1. You rewrite what the rules say, but it's only a slight change so you hope nobody notices what you did.

2. Then you rewrite what the rules say even more, but it's only a slight change of the slight change you already made, so you hope that nobody notices what you did.

Yeah... that argument isn't doing much for me.

Well, compare Disarm and Trip, which we know replace an attack derived from another source (since they carry footnote 7):
"As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent."
"You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack."

They use the phrasing "As a melee attack". Sunder doesn't use this phrasing.

Okay, let's break this down by looking at all of the "Special Attacks" in the SRD (except for mounted combat):

NOT AN ATTACK
AID ANOTHER: "...you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action."

BULL RUSH: "You can make a bull rush as a standard action..."

CHARGE: "Charging is a special full-round action..."

FEINT: "Feinting is a standard action."

GRAPPLE - DRAW A LIGHT WEAPON: "You can draw a light weapon as a move action with a successful grapple check."

GRAPPLE - MOVE: "This requires a standard action..."

GRAPPLE - RETRIEVE SPELL COMPONENT: "You can produce a spell component from your pouch while grappling by using a full-round action."

OVERRUN: "You can attempt an overrun as a standard action taken during your move."

TURN/REBUKE UNDEAD: "Turning undead is a supernatural ability that a character can perform as a standard action."

DEFINITELY AN ATTACK
DISARM: "As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent."

STARTING A GRAPPLE: "If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple
multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses)."

GRAPPLE - DAMAGE YOUR OPPONENT: "While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike. Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack."

GRAPPLE - ESCAPE: "You can escape a grapple by winning an opposed grapple check in place of making an attack."

GRAPPLE - PIN YOUR OPPONENT: "You can hold your opponent immobile for 1 round by winning an opposed grapple check (made in place of an attack)."

GRAPPLE - BREAK ANOTHER'S PIN: "If you are grappling an opponent who has another character pinned, you can make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack."

GRAPPLE - USE AN OPPONENT'S WEAPON: "If your opponent is holding a light weapon, you can use it to attack him. Make an opposed grapple check (in place of an attack)."

THROW SPLASH WEAPON: "To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target."

TRIP: "You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack."

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

CONCLUSIONS
What do we notice here? Well, first we notice that every single "Special Attack" that doesn't take the place of an attack specifically states the type of action it requires:

- "as a standard action" / "as a move action" (x6)
- "is a special full-round action"
- "requires a standard action"
- "using a full-round action"

When a "Special Attack" takes the place of an attack we find:

- "as a melee attack" / "as an unarmed melee attack" (x2)
- "If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times..."
- "in place of an attack" (x5)
- "make a ranged touch attack"

Now, what do we notice about the description for Sunder?

1. It contains no statement of the type of action it requires.

2. It contains the phrase "use a melee attack" -- which looks a lot like "as a melee attack", "in place of a melee attack", and "make a melee attack", but looks absolutely nothing like "using a standard action", "requires a standard action", or "as a standard action".

Thus we conclude that Sunder is clearly written as an action which is used as an attack. According to the rules, this supersedes the table. It simple doesn't matter that the table incorrectly omitted this information.

Of course, the table's omission can cause confusion. But when confusion like this arises the best thing to do is check the FAQ.

(Guess what the FAQ says?)

 

[Hypersmurf]

1. You rewrite what the rules say, but it's only a slight change so you hope nobody notices what you did.

Where?

The table says it's a standard action. In the description of that action, it says you can use a melee attack. How can you use the melee attack described in the description of the action if you aren't taking the action? And where is any rewriting occurring?

Now, what do we notice about the description for Sunder?

1. It contains no statement of the type of action it requires.

That's right. Fortunately, the table defines it for us.

Thus we conclude that Sunder is clearly written as an action which is used as an attack.

I read the same text and table, and don't thus conclude.

-Hyp.