unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[KarinsDad]

An Attack of Opportunity a single melee attack. What kind of action is it? Don't know. It doesn't say in the text and there is no table to refer us to. Some claim it falls under the "Not an Action" category, but who's to say for sure? It simply is not clarified anywhere.

An AoO is not an action. With the exception of Immediate Actions and the Readied Action, actions are performed on a character's turn.

An AoO is no different than a Saving Throw, an Opposed Strength check, etc. It is a game mechanic, but it is not an action.

An AoO is an attack. But, that does not mean it is an action.

Sunder, on the other hand, is a Special Attack (which I hope we can agree an AoO is NOT).

All I agree is that anything that states it is a melee action can be done on an AoO unless it has explicit rules text to the contrary.


What rules do we have to support this:

1) The Sunder rules themselves specify that Sunder is a melee attack. The Attack of Opportunities rule states a melee attack.

2) We have two different Rules of the Game articies (one in 2004, one in 2005) that specify that Sunder can be used as an attack of opportunity.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050705a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

3) We have two different FAQ rulings that indicate that Sunder can be used as an attack of opportunity.

4) And the Combat Action table states that both a Melee Attack and Sunder are Standard Actions, both without the 7 footnote. If Sunders cannot be done as AoOs because they are a standard action on that table, then neither can Melee Attacks. The sole argument people of the opposing POV are using can also be used to indicate that regular melee attack Attacks of Opportunity NEVER occur in the game.

The Melee Attack entry on the Combat Actions table totally shatters the opposing POV. IMO.


What rules do we have to not support this:

1) A Sunder table entry under the Combat Actions section where Attacks of Opportunity are not even defined as actions.


Quite frankly, it appears that WotC itself does not agree with Hyp's assessment. The FAQ does not agree. Rules of the Game does not agree. Even the Combat Table is forced to have an exception to itself for Melee Actions.

Hence, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Combat Actions table does not apply because Attacks of Opportunity are not Actions. They are melee attacks.

The Combat Actions table only applies for Actions in Combat, not for non-actions.

 

[Legildur]

Hey, you're not talking about me, are you!

I think the "arguement" that sort of clinched it for me (which I don't think was brought up before, or maybe I just didn't understand) was that the Table entry is not contradicting the text at all.

LOL! Yeah, ya got me. Those arguments had been raised in previous threads, but I must admit that this thread seems to have laid out the arguments are little more clearly and succinctly than the previous threads on this topic.

I will stick my hand in the air and say that reading the text in isolation certainly gives the opinion that Sunder may be substituted for a melee attack. But the slightly different use of words (compared to disarm etc) and the presence of the table entries make me side with Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

Yet hyp's last comment (so no room for interpretation exists.) doesnt suggest that? what, am i being singled out?

Hyp at least admits that in the absence of the table he would read the text of Sunder the same as you do. Not trying to single you out, but you are certainly the strongest advocate for your view in this thread....

 

[Hypersmurf]

Legildur, do please drop the line of personal attack; don't speculate about other users in a public thread.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[bestone]

Hyp at least admits that in the absence of the table he would read the text of Sunder the same as you do. Not trying to single you out, but you are certainly the strongest advocate for your view in this thread....

Well i think that should go without question lol, i should definetly be the strongest advocate for my view.

 

[Legildur]

Legildur, do please drop the line of personal attack; don't speculate about other users in a public thread.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

Sure. Sorry about that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

4) And the Combat Action table states that both a Melee Attack and Sunder are Standard Actions, both without the 7 footnote. If Sunders cannot be done as AoOs because they are a standard action on that table, then neither can Melee Attacks.

Here, I disagree; the table states that both the Attack (Melee) action and Sunder are standard actions, not that a melee attack is a standard action. The Attack (Melee) action is a standard action that incorporates a single melee attack; as I read it, the Sunder action is also a standard action that incorporates a single melee attack, since the description of the action states that you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.

The Charge action is a full round action that incorporates a single melee attack.

A melee attack in and of itself doesn't appear on Table 8-2; what appears is the Attack (Melee) action.

While Charging, for example, you can make a melee attack; you cannot take the Attack action. Thus, while Charging, you can't use the Combat Expertise feat, which requires the use of the Attack action.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Here, I disagree; the table states that both the Attack (Melee) action and Sunder are standard actions, not that a melee attack is a standard action. The Attack (Melee) action is a standard action that incorporates a single melee attack; as I read it, the Sunder action is also a standard action that incorporates a single melee attack, since the description of the action states that you can use a melee attack to strike a weapon.

The Charge action is a full round action that incorporates a single melee attack.

A melee attack in and of itself doesn't appear on Table 8-2; what appears is the Attack (Melee) action.

While Charging, for example, you can make a melee attack; you cannot take the Attack action. Thus, while Charging, you can't use the Combat Expertise feat, which requires the use of the Attack action.

Be this linguistical gymnastics as it may, this says nothing about the fact that the Sunder action does not state it is a standard action (like the special actions Bullrush and Overrun), the FAQ (twice) indicates that Sunder can be done as an AoO, and Rules of the Game (twice) indicates that Sunder can be done as an AoO.

It looks like an error in the table when all of the other sources are considered.

 

[mvincent]

What rules do we have to support this:

There are a few more items:
5) The most recent dragon magazine specifically clarifies it in their fighter section (different author).
6) An old d20 bullet points answer (different author) says "an attack of opportunity is still allowed, and the opponent can use it against your hero's weapon by making a sunder or disarm attack."
7) Sundering cleave feat description says "The additional attack is with the same weapon and at the same attack bonus as the attack that destroyed the weapon or shield" (implying that you could use successively lowered itereative attacks like normal... but that is not a strong point).
8) It has been established that you can strike (i.e. smash) inanimate objects with iterative attacks, but the rules say "Smashing an object is a lot like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your attack roll is opposed by the object’s AC."

 

[Legildur]

8) It has been established that you can strike (i.e. smash) inanimate objects with iterative attacks, but the rules say "Smashing an object is a lot like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your attack roll is opposed by the object’s AC."

I'd be interested in seeing more about this....

The FAQ and RotG articles aren't dependable sources, but you MAY have something here.