|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So here's another issue I'm kind of on the fence about.
Cleave Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.
Sunder: You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
My dilemma is in the use of "part of an attack action in place of a melee attack" with Sunder. Mostly because of that whole spiel with Vital Strike. From that discussion, it sounds like an 'attack action' is just a standard action used to make an attack. Which makes it sound like Sunder suffers the same restrictions as Vital Strike, in that you can't use it on a Charge, and in the case above, couldn't use it while Cleaving.
So, whether you agree with the attack action and Vital Strike issue or not, what do you think? Do you think Sunder should work with a Cleave? It's unlike Disarm and Trip which just say "in place of a melee attack" in that it adds "as part of an attack action". This leads me to think it should be treated differently.
Thoughts?
As far as I can tell, sundering is its own standard action, due to its similar wording to vital strike. So, because of this, it cannot combo with any other attack. No sundering cleaves, charges or vital strikes.
Some may not think it should work this way, but I can see the reasoning. Sundering is much more powerful than other maneuvers, in that its effects are relatively permanent. Disarmed? Pick up your weapon. Tripped? Stand up. Sundered weapon? Hope you brought a spare and have cash to fix your main weapon. Sundered armor? Hope your dex and luck can help you until you can buy a new set of armor. Sundered spellbook? Holy symbol?
Think about it from a monster vs PC view, not a PC vs monster view. If your sunder monster destroys the fighter's primary weapon, you've likely crippled that character until they can fix their weapon or buy a new one. If your sunder monster breaks the paladin's armor? I hope the mage has a wand of Mage Armor that his willing to spend on the paladin until they can go find him an armorsmith. Sundered spellbook? I hope that wizard had forked out the cash for a backup somewhere.
It's even harder in limited access areas, such as dungeons, where you can't be sure that the monsters will be carrying anything you can use, or in low-magic settings, where that +2 longsword is an epic find. Even if your campaign setting has Ye Olde Magick Shoppe on every corner, your players have to waste time and their wealth replacing their gear. PCs often recognize that sundering all of the BBEG's gear is a bad call. Destroyed weapons and armor can't be used or sold.
Sundering is a brutal tactical option. Being able to do it more than once in a round could make it more so.
As far as I can tell, sundering is its own standard action, due to its similar wording to vital strike. So, because of this, it cannot combo with any other attack. No sundering cleaves, charges or vital strikes.
Some may not think it should work this way, but I can see the reasoning. Sundering is much more powerful than other maneuvers, in that its effects are relatively permanent. Disarmed? Pick up your weapon. Tripped? Stand up. Sundered weapon? Hope you brought a spare and have cash to fix your main weapon. Sundered armor? Hope your dex and luck can help you until you can buy a new set of armor. Sundered spellbook? Holy symbol?
Think about it from a monster vs PC view, not a PC vs monster view. If your sunder monster destroys the fighter's primary weapon, you've likely crippled that character until they can fix their weapon or buy a new one. If your sunder monster breaks the paladin's armor? I hope the mage has a wand of Mage Armor that his willing to spend on the paladin until they can go find him an armorsmith. Sundered spellbook? I hope that wizard had forked out the cash for a backup somewhere.
It's even harder in limited access areas, such as dungeons, where you can't be sure that the monsters will be carrying anything you can use, or in low-magic settings, where that +2 longsword is an epic find. Even if your campaign setting has Ye Olde Magick Shoppe on every corner, your players have to waste time and their wealth replacing their gear. PCs often recognize that sundering all of the BBEG's gear is a bad call. Destroyed weapons and armor can't be used or sold.
Sundering is a brutal tactical option. Being able to do it more than once in a round could make it more so.
Remember that sundering actually doesn't destroy the weapon in most cases-- it just gives it the broken quality.
So, say.. snap a longspear in half, and it still has reach. It's technically a "broken" longspear.
Yeah, I know, but a "broken" weapon or suit of armor is still brutal and requires money and/or spells to fix. Disarm just means you have to stoop to pick it up.
Sundering also doesn't automatically work on a successful CMB check, however - that is to say, it's possible to make your sunder check but not deal enough damage to affect the item.
You got it. It uses the Attack Action, which is separate from the Cleave Standard Action.
It's important to note that Sunder DOES work with Vital Strike because they both use the Attack Action.
Any extra damage is nice when you want one Sunder count, either when you need to overcome DR or making the most of Greater Sunder (which 'passes on' excess damage to the armor's wearer).
For all the hype about the Attack Action/Vital Strike, it's important to note the things it DOES work with as well. That's the entire point, rather than making Vital Strike "it's own" Standard Action like Cleave, that it DOES work with some things (I expect it to work with Spring Attack, for example).
My opinion: when discussing "2Hander vs. Sword&Board vs. 2WF", Cleave and Vital Strike need to be considered part of the 2Hander Feat chain. :-)
|
Honestly I would rule that yes you can use them together.
An attack action is a type of Standard action, a subtype if you will. Essentially an attack action is by definition a standard action. Any maneuver or feat that requires a Standard action can have any of the Attack actions or whatever substitute for it. Otherwise standard actions itself would have almost no use of what so ever in the game.
To quote
Standard Actions
Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
It goes on to list Attack, Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, Unarmed Attack, etc... in fact looking at the chart as well, one could say that casting a spell is a Cast a Spell action, and channeling energy is a Channel Energy Action. In which case the generic Standard Action has almost no use in game at all. In fact, you could NOT EVER use Cleave, because you cannot use a Standard Action to achieve its effect, because no matter how you try, you use an Attack Action, or a Melee Action or a Ranged Attack Action. If they are not interchangable then you can NEVER make a Cleave to begin with.
Is it a powerful combination? Sure it is. But it also has drawbacks. Is it any more powerful than the Wizard turning the NPC to stone, or in the case of the NPC being the attacker is it any worse than the NPC Wizard turning the fighter to stone? No not really...
Any worse than an NPC Cleric Vampire sucking away half your CON or STR points? No not really.
Any worse than the elf humping a tree? Good lord NOTHING is THAT bad! :)
Now I KNOW people are going to come in and say that an Attack Action is entirely different from a Standard Action, from a Melee Action, etc. I can't argue with the rules lawyers who will argue that 1+1 is not interchangeable with 2 because they are not EXACTLY the same. They are right the two are NOT exactly the same... but they ARE interchangeable. We are dealing with the English language here, not math formulas. It's not rocket science.
BTW as far as NPCs using the combo against PCs... IF we have to neuter every possibility of a GM making life difficult for players, then really there is no sense even playing the game to begin with. If the GM is incapable of showing restraint and making his game fun, he has no business running a game to begin with. It is the same kinds of GMs who would decide it is fun to use a Medusa against a level 1 party. Sure nothing says the GM CAN'T do that, but it is not suggested.
I suggest if people are worried the GM will abuse the combo, then perhaps they would be better off playing World of Warcraft and leave everything to a computer to balance.
I just wanted to add, because I was reminded in another thread, that MONKS can Sunder while Flurrying (i.e. not using an Attack action, though they can't do it as an AoO):
I think the fact that all these nuances are even just now coming to people's attention is rather indicative that the way they are presented in the Core Rules is not clear and direct enough.
If anybody's interested, I've worked up a 'mini-table' that could hopefully be folded into the next printing (or at least d20pfsrd.com), which explicitly clarifies which Maneuvers may benefit from weapon bonuses and what actions are needed to use each one. Ideally, the table should have a line somewhere saying it describes the NORMAL way maneuvers are initiated, and at least mention the existence of all the Core ways to bypass those normal requirements (Shield Slam, Knockback, and Monk Flurry... maybe more?) Any feedback or brainstorming would be welcome on the d2pfsrd forums.
p.s. Krome, I hope Jason Buhlman reads your post...