unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[KarinsDad]

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."

I do not understand how either of these two are on topic.

The mechanics of how these are done within a character's turn says nothing about how they are done outside a character's turn (i.e. within an AoO).

Your first two points, on the other hand, are good points (although #6 is for D20 Modern).

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

An error in the table that appeared in the 3E PHB first printing, 3E PHB second printing, 3E SRD (no table, but the action type appeared in brackets after the name), d20 Modern, 3.5 PHB, 3.5 Special Edition PHB, and never appeared in errata for any of those products?

If we ever receive errata stating that Sunder should appear in Table 8-2 as Action Type: Varies and bear footnote 7, I'll change my stance. A note in an FAQ answer saying that Sunder appears as a standard action because it provokes an AoO (despite Grapple and Disarm provoking AoOs and not appearing as standard actions)? Not convincing.

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

Im just of the belief that disarm and trip are listed as varies, not because taking them doesnt count as whatever action, but because if they fail you can counter them, out of turn, for which makes its hard to list them as a specific action at that point.

You cant counter sunder a failed sunder

 

[Hypersmurf]

Im just of the belief that disarm and trip are listed as varies, not because taking them doesnt count as whatever action, but because if they fail you can counter them, out of turn, for which makes its hard to list them as a specific action at that point.

You cant counter sunder a failed sunder

This doesn't address Grapple, or Footnote 7. Footnote 7 has nothing to do with counter-trips; rather, it's about the use of the attack in Attack, Full Attack, or Charge actions, or AoOs.

If Sunder can be used in an Attack, Full Attack, or Charge action, or an AoO, why would it lack the footnote used to denote something that can be used in an Attack, Full Attack, or Charge action, or an AoO?

If it's not necessary for Sunder to bear the footnote used to denote something that can be used in an Attack, Full Attack, or Charge action, or an AoO because the text incorporates the phrase "melee attack", then why do Disarm and Trip (for which the text incorporates the phrase "melee attack") need the footnote used to denote something that can be used in an Attack, Full Attack, or Charge action, or an AoO?

-Hyp.

 

[bestone]

Your statement there is just an assumption. That because there is no footnote it was not meant to work that way. Even tho the text tells you how it works.

Im not saying your wrong or incorrect, im just saying i dont think thats proof

 

[bestone]

I see how you come to your conclusion, i dont agree with it. You see how i come to my conclusion, you dont agree. I dont think either of us are going to change, so lets agree to disagree.

 

[Legildur]

I see how you come to your conclusion, i dont agree with it. You see how i come to my conclusion, you dont agree. I dont think either of us are going to change, so lets agree to disagree.

Which is where all the previous threads on this topic came to.....

 

[bestone]

Point noted, i now know to never bring it up again.

 

[Legildur]

Point noted, i now know to never bring it up again.

If you want another interesting read, the 'monks and Improved Natural Attack feat' also attracted heated debate across multiple threads. Once again, the definitive answer was not agreed.

 

[KarinsDad]

An error in the table that appeared in the 3E PHB first printing, 3E PHB second printing, 3E SRD (no table, but the action type appeared in brackets after the name), d20 Modern, 3.5 PHB, 3.5 Special Edition PHB, and never appeared in errata for any of those products?

You mean like the Special Ability Types Table (Table 8-1 in 3.5) in both 3E and 3.5 where Dispel Magic is listed as affecting Supernatural Special Abilities, even though the text states that it does not and WotC was informed on multiple occassions that this is in error?

Your "multiple version" point here is not convincing.

Text takes precendence over tables. The text states that Sunder is a Melee Attack, not a Standard Action.