The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Hypersmurf]

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.

So if one Sunders on a Charge - not a standard action, and thus not the Sunder listed on the table - does it provoke an AoO? The Charge action says AoO: No...

-Hyp.

 

[Elethiomel]

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?

I'm not using that text as a basis for saying whether it can be used whenever you could use a standard melee attack, I'm using table 8-2 as a basis for saying that it is its own standard action. The FAQ doesn't change table 8-2, because the FAQ is not errata. To be consistent with the FAQ's interpretation, it should be in the "Action Type: Varies" section, not the "Standard Action" section.

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.

I believe that an interpretation that says that Sunder is not its own standard action contradicts the placement of Sunder in the "Standard Action" section of table 8-2.

 

[eamon]

So if one Sunders on a Charge - not a standard action, and thus not the Sunder listed on the table - does it provoke an AoO? The Charge action says AoO: No...

The "reasoning" in the FAQ given as an excuse for why sunder is on the standard action table and not the action type varies table isn't convincing. It's not the first mistake in books, so it might be true, but it certainly doesn't hold any water. I don't see how this relates to AoO's while charging though - would attacking unarmed while charging provoke an AoO? I don't see the relevance to sunder specifically here...

 

[Hypersmurf]

The "reasoning" in the FAQ given as an excuse for why sunder is on the standard action table and not the action type varies table isn't convincing.

Exactly, but it's the reasoning Fifth Element is advocating.

I don't see how this relates to AoO's while charging though - would attacking unarmed while charging provoke an AoO? I don't see the relevance to sunder specifically here...

No, because attacking unarmed provokes an AoO, whether that unarmed attack derives from the standard action Attack or otherwise; likewise attacking with a ranged weapon.

Just as the Full Attack action or the Charge action can be "AoO: No", but attacks within that action can provoke an AoO, so could Sunder - you would take the Attack (melee) action, which does not itself provoke an AoO, but the Sunder melee attack you made would.

But the action would be Attack (melee), since you're making a melee attack... not the Sunder action, which wouldn't exist.

Since it does exist, that's not how it works.

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

I believe that an interpretation that says that Sunder is not its own standard action contradicts the placement of Sunder in the "Standard Action" section of table 8-2.

Which it sometimes is - when you perform it as a standard action, for instance.

Either the text or the table is confusing - and that's being reasonable. If sunder is simply a standard action, then it's the only such action which doesn't explicitly say so. All standard actions in the table are defined as such in the text (except sunder). Further, sunder's wording resembles that of other "melee attack replacements", which is certainly putting people off on the wrong foot. Conversely, interpreting sunder as an action which can replace any melee attack certainly contradicts the spirit of table 8-2, since other such actions are placed in their own category in table 8-2, and not in the "standard action" compartment.

Pick your poison - which part is unfortunately phrased - the text, or the table? Certainly, if either were more consistent with the other, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The text is generally definitive (such as the fact that standard actions are called out as such), and sunder reads like it can use any melee attack, and it definitely doesn't mention it being a standard action (which all others do). I think that's enough to trump a table.

There's a lot of small factor which increase my trust in that judgment, small factors being the FAQ, the fact that the table isn't very explicit and that's it's an easy mistake to make (labelling a melee attack replacement as a standard action), the fact that sunder as an activity resembles trip, grapple and disarm and should probably use similar mechanics and the fact that the table says Sunder (attack): all help support the natural reading of "use a melee attack", which is simply that you can use any melee attack.

The table is perhaps the most concrete piece of evidence, but in my mind it's not the most powerful (which is simply the text interpretation), and the table doesn't have all the small supporting bits of evidence in it's favor.

 

[phindar]

I would have to agree with eamon. While I respect and admire those posters who pore over the D&D books like constitutional scholars, I think we can at times all be prone to overthinking things.

Disarm
As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent.

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.

Now, if the only way you're going to know that one of these things is a standard action and the other two are standard attack actions is to go over another chart and divine the goose among the ducks (there are not nearly enough duck-duck-goose metaphors these days), I'd have to say the discrepancy is much more likely an oversight on the part of the designers and editors rather than deliberate. If it was deliberate, it would have been much easier (to say nothing of easier to understand) to write sunder as a standard action, in the same way Overrun is.

 

[Fifth Element]

So if one Sunders on a Charge - not a standard action, and thus not the Sunder listed on the table - does it provoke an AoO? The Charge action says AoO: No...

Yes, because whenever you use a melee attack to damage an opponent's weapon or shield (which is what is called sundering), you provoke an AoO. That's in the text of the sunder description.

Because the Charge action says "AoO: No", does that mean disarming on a charge would not provoke an AoO? Of course not.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm not using that text as a basis for saying whether it can be used whenever you could use a standard melee attack, I'm using table 8-2 as a basis for saying that it is its own standard action. The FAQ doesn't change table 8-2, because the FAQ is not errata. To be consistent with the FAQ's interpretation, it should be in the "Action Type: Varies" section, not the "Standard Action" section.

The FAQ explains why sunder is listed on 8-2 in addition to attack (melee): because unlike an attack directly against an opponent, it draws an AoO.

By this logic, shouldn't attack (melee) be listed under action type varies as well? Not all melee attacks are standard actions, so isn't it confusing to list it only as a standard action?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, because whenever you use a melee attack to damage an opponent's weapon or shield (which is what is called sundering), you provoke an AoO. That's in the text of the sunder description.

Exactly. So the action you're taking is Attack (melee), used to Sunder... not the Sunder action. Which is why there's no Sunder action on the table.

... except there is a Sunder action on the table. Which tells me that you're not just making any melee attack as a Sunder and provoking an AoO thereby - you're taking a specific action to do so. And since Charging permits a melee attack, but not a specific standard action, you can't Sunder on a charge.

At least, not until Rules Compendium is released.

By this logic, shouldn't attack (melee) be listed under action type varies as well? Not all melee attacks are standard actions, so isn't it confusing to list it only as a standard action?

The Attack (melee) listed on the table is not a melee attack, it's a standard action which you can take in order to make a melee attack. Just like Charge is a full-round action which you can take in order to make a melee attack.

Melee attacks aren't listed anywhere on Table 8-2. Only the actions that allow you to make them are.

The FAQ explains why sunder is listed on 8-2 in addition to attack (melee): because unlike an attack directly against an opponent, it draws an AoO.

So why don't they list a Sundering Charge action, which would draw an AoO, in addition to the Charge action which does not? Or, alternatively, list Sunder as Type Varies to avoid the problem?

Which they're doing in Rules Compendium, but didn't do in the PHB.


-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

Exactly, but it's the reasoning Fifth Element is advocating.

Reminder:

Advocating in the sense that it's a possible interpretation? Yes.

Advocating in the sense that I think it's the best interpretation? Not necessarily.