The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Legildur]

...Or do you agree that there is another possible interpretation of the rules, regardless of which interpretation you might prefer or even consider to be the "right" one?

I absolutely would agree with you if table 8-2 didn't exist. But once I am aware of it, I find that I can't disregard it.

 

[Legildur]

So you and Hypersmurf claim, and yet neither one of you seems capable of even responding to my argument.

Hypersmurf has already confirmed that he has nothing worthwhile to say. Let's give you the same opportunity. Do you, in fact, have a response to my argument? Or are you just going to continue pretending that saying "Hypersmurf is really smart" constitutes a meaningful argument?

Your argument has been responded to ad nauseum. There is this now lengthy thread on the topic where your repeated claims have been responded to. There are numerous older threads covering exactly the same ground - you've not brought a single new idea to the argument. So you'll forgive me if I don't just copy and paste the whole thing every time I write a reply just to pander to your needs.

 

[Fifth Element]

I absolutely would agree with you if table 8-2 didn't exist. But once I am aware of it, I find that I can't disregard it.

And again, my interpretation explains that you don't disregard the table, you simply interpret it differently. Why is that hard to understand? Sunder is a special use of a melee attack, and as such is listed in the same table as melee attack. That's how my interpretation views it.

You don't disregard the table. You read it differently. I could stop reiterating my argument if I saw any evidence you were comprehending it.

 

[Legildur]

And again, my interpretation explains that you don't disregard the table, you simply interpret it differently. Why is that hard to understand? Sunder is a special use of a melee attack, and as such is listed in the same table as melee attack. That's how my interpretation views it.

You don't disregard the table. You read it differently. I could stop reiterating my argument if I saw any evidence you were comprehending it.

It is my opinion that Sunder should be represented in the same way as disarm/grapple/trip IF it were to substitute for a melee attack. But the PHB does not do so, and I believe that by ignoring the 'action varies' part of the table, that you are missing a piece of the puzzle. I see where you are coming from, I just believe it to be incorrect when everything is taken into account.

And if you keep restating your argument, then Beginning of the End might have some unkind words to say like he does about Hyp's restating of the same argument

 

[Fifth Element]

It is my opinion that Sunder should be represented in the same way as disarm/grapple/trip IF it were to substitute for a melee attack. But the PHB does not do so, and I believe that by ignoring the 'action varies' part of the table, that you are missing a piece of the puzzle. I see where you are coming from, I just believe it to be incorrect when everything is taken into account.

I agree it should be presented that way if it were a substitute for a melee attack. But for the last time, under this interpretation, it's not a substitute for a melee attack, it is a melee attack.

Your use of the term "incorrect" is what I'm talking about here. If you were to say my interpretation is illogical, that would be one thing (which I would dispue, of course). But "incorrect" implies you believe there is an absolute right answer, not a preference of one interpretation over another.

Regardless of whether you think it's an "incorrect" interpretation, can you find any problems with the logic of my interpretation? No value judgments, no consideration of which is more likely or which you prefer. Where is the logical flaw?

 

[phindar]

My group has always treated Sunder as a melee attack ("Who cares?" you'd ask and well, you'd be right); I mean, instead of swinging to hit meat (or stone, or bone, or wtf-ever you're fighting), you're swinging to hit their sword, axe, shield or wand. Its not exactly out of your way. Their weapon is generally within arm's reach of their body, as it were.

This ruling (perhaps "assumption" would be a better term, since no one in my group has ever to my knowledge suggested treating Sunder as anything other than a standard melee attack action) has stood for years because:

1) No one ever takes Improved Sunder.

2) No one tries to Sunder.

3) The GM rarely, if ever, uses Sunder against us.

Not because Sunder is bad, broken or worthless, its just not a terribly sexy alternative. No one really thinks of it. At best you're making the enemy slightly less dangerous but also keeping him around longer (killing him usually makes him less threatening as well), and at worst, you're blowing up loot. Also, my group has come the long way round to the idea that most of the tactical alternatives (Trip, Sunder, Disarm and Grapple) are more trouble than they're worth, a little unwieldly (does everything in the system have to use a different mechanic that gets so little use we have to look it up every session it comes up?), and tends to make combats unsatisfyingly anti-climatic (although occasionally hilarious).

My current character is the only one I know of in the 6ish years my group has played 3ish D&D, and that's only because I'm playing a paladin and I'm keeping my options open for Blackguard. (Evil gods will only take you as a profane servant if you've done undergraduate work in breaking things, apparently.)

In the meantime, I'm going to assume blindly and foolishly that all these problems will be fixed in 4e. Keep watching the skies, true believers!

 

[Hypersmurf]

I agree it should be presented that way if it were a substitute for a melee attack. But for the last time, under this interpretation, it's not a substitute for a melee attack, it is a melee attack.

But if Sunder just means using a melee attack (no matter what source that melee attack derives from) to attack a weapon or shield, then if you wanted to Sunder when you had a standard action available, you'd take the Attack (melee) action, and declare the weapon or shield your target. There wouldn't be a Sunder entry on the table of standard actions, because you wouldn't need a specific standard action when the generic one would already cover it.

If we have a standard action that means 'make an attack just like the attack action, except that you have to aim it at a weapon', then logically we'd need a full round Sundering Charge action - 'move up to twice your speed and make an attack just like the charge action, except that you have to aim it at a weapon'.

If you're saying that Sunder is just a melee attack aimed at a weapon or shield, which can occur in a standard action attack, a charge, a full attack, or an AoO, then its action type is variable... and it would appear as such in the table. Even though it's 'a melee attack' and not 'in place of a melee attack', it's still a variable type - giving it a separate standard action entry alongside the Attack (melee) standard action either makes no sense, or means a few other duplicate action entries are missing.

If it can occur as part of several different action types, it's Type Varies. If it appears in one place as a single action type, it isn't Type Varies and thus can't occur as part of several different action types.

In the Rules Compendium, it will apparently be Type Varies (and carry footnote 28), which means it can occur as part of several different action types. In the PHB, it isn't and can't.

-Hyp.

 

[Elethiomel]

I agree it should be presented that way if it were a substitute for a melee attack. But for the last time, under this interpretation, it's not a substitute for a melee attack, it is a melee attack.

Your use of the term "incorrect" is what I'm talking about here. If you were to say my interpretation is illogical, that would be one thing (which I would dispue, of course). But "incorrect" implies you believe there is an absolute right answer, not a preference of one interpretation over another.

Regardless of whether you think it's an "incorrect" interpretation, can you find any problems with the logic of my interpretation? No value judgments, no consideration of which is more likely or which you prefer. Where is the logical flaw?

Your flaw is in conflating the concept "a melee attack" and the action "Attack (melee)". The distinction between them is not hair splitting, but it has been the subject of much confusion in several previous threads.

 

[Fifth Element]

But if Sunder just means using a melee attack (no matter what source that melee attack derives from) to attack a weapon or shield, then if you wanted to Sunder when you had a standard action available, you'd take the Attack (melee) action, and declare the weapon or shield your target. There wouldn't be a Sunder entry on the table of standard actions, because you wouldn't need a specific standard action when the generic one would already cover it.

As the FAQ states, the reason sunder is listed on table 8-2 is because unlike a standard melee attack, it provokes an attack of opportunity, as indicated on the table. That's a difference between using an attack to sunder and using an attack to damage an opponent, and the table illustrates and clarifies that.

Forgive me if this has been covered before, but if sunder is not simply an attack (as the FAQ states), why does the table show it as sunder (attack), while disarm, grapple, and trip are not shown as disarm (attack), grapple (attack) and trip (attack)?

 

[Fifth Element]

Your flaw is in conflating the concept "a melee attack" and the action "Attack (melee)". The distinction between them is not hair splitting, but it has been the subject of much confusion in several previous threads.

In the description of sunder, it says you can use a melee attack to strike at a weapon or shield. It does not say you can use an attack (melee), or that you can use a melee attack action. It says you can use a melee attack.

Apparently you're interpreting "a melee attack" in the sunder description to mean "a melee attack action", despite the lack of those words. That's your interpretation, but given the words used, it's just your interpretation. If such a distinction were critical in this case, would the designers have used such ambiguous language?

As the FAQ says:

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).

Not a special use of a melee attack action, but a special kind of melee attack.

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).

Which is what I point out in the post above.

I find it baffling that given the above comments, and my illustration of how such comments fit within the rules without contradiction, that so many continue to insist that this interpretation is completely without merit.

Perhaps the contrary interpretation is more obvious, and perhaps it even fits the rules as written "better". That does not preclude the possibility of another interpretation that agrees with the FAQ, and does not contradict the written rules.