| 16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
So I've seen this come up in a couple threads now and while there are print books with some ambiguous wording, this has been clarified in the PRD.
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. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
EDIT: Upon further research, it is only correct to admit incorrectness. Vital Strike, obviously a standard action, and sunder, use the same wording. This seems like definitive proof that sunder is the same (which means a sunder specialist would benefit greatly from the Vital Strike tree.)
So I've seen this come up in a couple threads now and while there are print books with some ambiguous wording, this has been clarified in the PRD.
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. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
Correct, as mentioned in the Core Rulebook and the PRD, the action it takes to use a combat maneuver varies; a brief overview:
Bull Rush: standard action or full-round action as part of a charge (swapping the attack at the end of a charge)
Disarm: In the place of a melee attack (can be part of an attack action, full attack, or similar)
Grapple: standard action
Overrun: standard action or full-round action as part of a charge
Sunder: In the place of a melee attack
Trip: In the place of a melee attack
-APG-
Dirty Trick: standard action
Drag: standard action
Reposition: standard action
Steal: standard action
I always used it in place of an attack. I based this on the description of the monk flurry
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Yar!
"...as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."
Sunder is an add on to the Attack Action. Sunder itself is not a standard action, but the "Attack Action" IS a standard action. This very specific wording means that it can be combined with a Vital Strike (which is an "Attack Action", exactly what Sunder is an add-on for), but not with any regular attack in a Full Attack. The Monk inclusion of sunder as an option during a Flurry-of-Blows appears to be a special exception specific to Monks when they Flurry.
Trip and Disarm only say "...in place of a melee attack"
Sunder does not say that, but instead says "...as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."
These are not the same, so a difference must be made. Sunder is not a Standard Action, but is made as part of another action that IS a Standard Action, the "Attack Action."
Again (unless someone with more authority clarifies this to be different), the Monk's Flurry of Blows description is an exception to the rule, specific to the Monk while he is Flurrying.
...as far as I can tell.
~P
Yar!
"...as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."
Sunder is an add on to the Attack Action. Sunder itself is not a standard action, but the "Attack Action" IS a standard action. This very specific wording means that it can be combined with a Vital Strike (which is an "Attack Action", exactly what Sunder is an add-on for), but not with any regular attack in a Full Attack. The Monk inclusion of sunder as an option during a Flurry-of-Blows appears to be a special exception specific to Monks when they Flurry.
Trip and Disarm only say "...in place of a melee attack"
Sunder does not say that, but instead says "...as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."
These are not the same, so a difference must be made. Sunder is not a Standard Action, but is made as part of another action that IS a Standard Action, the "Attack Action."
Again (unless someone with more authority clarifies this to be different), the Monk's Flurry of Blows description is an exception to the rule, specific to the Monk while he is Flurrying.
...as far as I can tell.
~P
Upon reviewing some of your arguements, I can see that you are correct. Original post edited to update this viewpoint.
so I guess this means you can use Sunder or Trip several times in the same round if you have a high enough attack bonus
...and it means you could use either as part of an attack of opportunity
...and it would seem you could use either as part of a spring attack. Hmmm?? yes/no?
so I guess this means you can use Sunder or Trip several times in the same round if you have a high enough attack bonus...and it means you could use either as part of an attack of opportunity
...and it would seem you could use either as part of a spring attack. Hmmm?? yes/no?
1. Err... they are saying that you have to use the Attack action to use sunder... that is one single attack that is replaced by sunder..
2. You can use disarm or trip as an AoO or multiple times during a full attack.
3. Spring Attack is now errata'd to be a full round action, so no sunder, but yes on the trip or disarm.
I'd like to see the wording on Sunder clarified to be consistent with Disarm/Trip or re-written to be like the other Standard Action Combat Maneuvers..
I agree that it should be clarified more - but its also (to me) quite clear that the intention of the rules as well as the overall leaning of the rules is that sunder can be used in the place of melee attacks (like disarm and sunder). The monk is not an exception, but rather the confirmation of this rule.
The reason why it should be ruled that way in the first place is also quite simple: it is roughly as hard to attack a creature multiple times, as it is to attack an object held/worn by that creature.
|
It's important to remember that there is no such thing as an 'attack action' as a Pathfinder 'game-mechanic portion of time'. There is an 'attack' option for the standard action, but the phrase 'attack action' isn't 'rules speak', it's 'descriptive speak'. A sunder is done in place of a melee attack, that's it, pure and simple. It was this way back in 3.5, and there's no reason to believe it changed for Pathfinder, especially considering the Monk's Flurry as an example.
It's important to remember that there is no such thing as an 'attack action' as a Pathfinder 'game-mechanic portion of time'. There is an 'attack' option for the standard action, but the phrase 'attack action' isn't 'rules speak', it's 'descriptive speak'. A sunder is done in place of a melee attack, that's it, pure and simple. It was this way back in 3.5, and there's no reason to believe it changed for Pathfinder, especially considering the Monk's Flurry as an example.
I do believe that James elaborated that an 'attack action' (not option) is a type of standard action, which is well supported by the common use of the term. Hence as far as combat maneuvers go, sundering cannot be done as a part of an iterative attack. Unfortunately, that much has been established. Perhaps rightfully so, as I can imagine few debuffs that can equate to my armor being torn into pieces - following that up with a series of iterative attacks would be killer.
At the same time, I don't understand why the Monk's Flurry description would overrule the general rule on sundering; it is clear that the Monk is the exception, for whatever reason.
|
|
I do believe that James elaborated that an 'attack action' (not option) is a type of standard action...
Actually, as I understand it, he clarified that the 'attack action' referenced in the Vital Strike feat was specifically a standard action. The devs have also mentioned that some things in the rules which sound like rules-terms aren't, they're just descriptive (wish I could find the post again, but I can't recall the thread it was a part of...). On the other hand, '... in place of a melee attack' is crystal clear in rules terms.
Pulling this out of the other thread. Thought it might help.
Paizo Employee Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer), Thu, Aug 20, 2009, 06:21 PM
Flag
| List | FAQ | Reply
6 people marked this as FAQ candidate
Jason's avatarAs of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two. The preview was in error. Alas I did not catch it until weeks later, and by then, there was no point in digging up old topics.
Hope that helps...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Im basically repeating what I said I'n a previous thread butcher goes. it comes down to how the ebglish language works.
we have the attack action, and the full attack action.
vital strike says it uses the attack action, ergo it takes a standard action. ( no matter how many people want to try and make it otherwise)
sunder says it is done as part of an attack a action. meaning it it is a modifier to one of the two types of attack actions.
why it uses the funny wording I don't know.
lastly it is explicitly stated monks can sunder as part of a flurry of blows.
more or less you can make any attack a sunder.
Developer
|
It seems to contradict itself. If this isn't a FAQ candidate I don't know what is.
As for now, I'll go with the mechanics description (attack action) above the example use (replacing a flurry attack), but that's how I deal with contradiction in the text.
[rant]
I hate the use of "attack action" in any description. It causes needless confusion. If it's supposed to be a standard action, it should say so. If you want it to replace a melee attack, say so. Don't add this confusing middle ground.
The attack action should be removed from the text. Among standard actions, just list "Make a melee attack." There. Now if you want to define things similar and make them standard actions (like cleave) you can do so. If you want them to be usable more often, you can just say in place of an attack. "Standard Action." "In place of an Attack." "The Full Attack Action" (For flurry or TWF). These should be the only alternatives to normal attacking textually. Problem Solved. Confusion Alleviated.
[/rant]
|
|
I totally agree it would take pretty much zero effort on Paizo's part to clear this up once and for all: did they mean to change it from the 3.5 'replaces a melee attack' to a 'standard action' or did they actually keep it the same and just worded it poorly. Even more frustrating is table 8-2 on page 183 of the Core book which lists 'Perform a Combat Maneuver' under 'Action Type Varies'... there aren't that many of the things, can't we just have them listed as individual entries on the table?
I suppose I just don't see how Sunder is considered to be one of two attack actions. If Vital Strike is definitely a Standard Action 'attack action', I don't see why Sunder isn't the same.
Vital Strike (Combat)
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can . . . .
SunderYou can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack . . . .
The language just doesn't diverge enough for me to assume that they're talking about an attack action in a looser manner that would also include attacks in a full attack action.
I recall briefly eyeballing a discussion regarding which actions could be mixed simultaneously (Vital Strike, Sunder, Cleave, Charge); obviously people would like to Vital Strike Sunders, or Charge Cleaves, or whatever else they could get away with.
What little language differences there are, I'm wondering if it is to specify which of these maneuvers can be combined.
(Sadly, whatever thread I had looked at probably dealt with it already, but I didn't read the whole thing. So I'm doubtless re-treating territory that's already been covered.)
For example:
* Vital Strike is an attack action. If you happen to be using a melee weapon, then it is a melee attack.
* Sunder is used as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack
Therefore, the possibility exists that when you are performing a Vital Strike with a melee weapon, you can make it a Sunder attempt that, if successful, would follow the normal Sunder rules but would have its damage augmented.
Food for thought. I'll hunt down some arguments for and against later.
it's the use of the word "an" I'n sunder where vital strike uses "the"
the attack action refers to the singular it only refers to one type of action. ie the standard attack action.
the use of an allows for both types of attack a tins.
really as I said In my lat post. monks can explicitly flurry and sunder. this supports the use if sunder as part of a full attack.
I believe the designers' intent is that you can replace one or more attacks in your normal attack routine with sunder attempts. Some of the RAW (not all) supports this.
The rules become inconsistent otherwise. All the other weapon-based combat maneuvers allow you to replace attacks after all.
Despite my certainty, I too would like further official clarification.
The difference in language between Sunder and Vital Strike allows that but doesn't imply that, at least not to me; allowing something to be possible does not imply that it is correct (See: "The rules don't say that I can't" arguments).
If one were to take the perspective that the language difference weighs in favor of Sunder being used as an attack replacement, then the language difference between Sunder and Trip would logically weigh in favor of Sunder being a Standard action.
In short, interpreting through the lens of how the english language is used can be leveraged for both perspectives.
I didn't mean to 'ignore' your statement about Monks using them during Flurries; I thought I had already responded to it, since I had posted a response to this idea in another thread, which lead me in here in the first place.
Still, a poster commented on that before either of us were here, so I'll just paraphrase his reply.
Again (unless someone with more authority clarifies this to be different), the Monk's Flurry of Blows description is an exception to the rule, specific to the Monk while he is Flurrying.
Language this and language that. It's clearly a mistake as far as I'm concerned.
For example:
* Vital Strike is an attack action. If you happen to be using a melee weapon, then it is a melee attack.
* Sunder is used as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack
Therefore, the possibility exists that when you are performing a Vital Strike with a melee weapon, you can make it a Sunder attempt that, if successful, would follow the normal Sunder rules but would have its damage augmented.Food for thought. I'll hunt down some arguments for and against later.
Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent in place of a melee attack.I think this would imply you're substituting your attack, in this case a Vital Strike, with a sunder attempt. As written, I don't think you'd get the augmented damage on the sunder attempt.
why wouldn't you? vital strike is not precision damage. you can use it on incorporeal undead and oozes and undead. why not a door?
If you were to use a nickel in place of a quarter in the soda machine, how much money have you deposited?
If you use sunder in place of a melee attack, and Vital Strike is a standard action (one melee attack), you would end up with only a sunder attempt.
|
|
If one were to take the perspective that the language difference weighs in favor of Sunder being used as an attack replacement, then the language difference between Sunder and Trip would logically weigh in favor of Sunder being a Standard action.
Except for the fact that 'standard action' is never mentioned in the Sunder rules text... some people are just happy to assume that the use of the phrase 'attack action' means the same thing as 'standard action'... In which case the strict language of the rules text is in favour of Sunder being, as it says, used in place of a melee attack...
... But that's the whole issue - it just gets argued in circles until Paizo sweep down from on high and declare one way or the other. I, for one, will be keeping Sunder as a melee attack equivalent in my games as it makes no sense to me to do otherwise.
After all, Sunder's hardly an overpowered tactic as it is: only works Vs bad guys who actually use manufactured armour or weapons, doesn't work on weapons with a bigger magical plus than yours, has to bypass object hardness, then has to do enough damage to actually break the thing... which, combined, is often enough damage that you'd really want to be doing that to the guy holding the weapon in the first place... Sure, you can build a 'Sunder machine' character, but then you've invested a lot of character resource into doing that and should be rewarded. Gimping Sunder any further leaves it languishing in the 'pointless tactics' bin, for the most part...
IMHO, YMMV, etc, etc...
|
Sunder is specifically worded differently from both Trip and Disarm. I believe that this was done on purpose.
I agree with the previous posters who stated that it uses an "attack action" which is a type of standard action (cf the quote above from Jason Bulmahn's post).
Why it is not worded as the other standard action combat maneuvers is so that any attack modifiers you would get on an attack roll you also get on your Sunder roll (Weapon Finesse, for example).
Why the designers would allow you many opportunities per round to disarm or trip an opponent and only one to sunder an item (unless you're a monk) is beyond me, but the wording of the rules leaves no doubt in my mind that it is their intended goal.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that, even while full attacking, you can successfully trip your opponent only once and disarm him at most twice while you could keep on sundering all his magic items (as Sunder works on worn items too).
Vital Strike ("when you use the attack action") works quite well with Sunder ("as part of an attack action").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yar!
Except that the Paizo staff already have swooped down from on high to clarify the Attack Action.
And so we now know that an "Attack Action" IS in fact a Standard Action.
Thus, when an ability says:
is an attack action
as an attack action
when you use the attack action
Then it is a Standard Action.
When it says:
as part of an Attack Action
Then when you use the attack action (or any ability that uses or is also an Attack Action), you may add this ability as part of it.
This is, currently, the Rules As Written**.
I want to also point out that some of the "rules quotes" in this thread are not actual quotes of the rules. Many of them are in fact paraphrases, and sometimes even have key components omitted (sometimes the “key components” are what clarify the rule for the opposing side, and sometimes the “key components” are what is unclear and need to be addressed).
I will now carefully quote, CRB page reference, and link to both the PRD & SRD everything that I understand to be the relevant rules in this discussion.
A single class in a particular situation/using a specific ability being able to do something is NOT grounds for everyone being able to do the same thing. This is called an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.
So, from the above quoted rules (and Dev clarification), I can see that:
~An “Attack Action” is a type of Standard Action
~A “Melee Attack” is any attack (standard, iterative attacks in a full attack, and even Attacks of Opportunity)
~Vital Strike is “an attack action”, and is thus, a Standard Action
~Trip/Disarm are “in place of a melee attack”, and thus can be done as a Attack Action (standard action), as any or all of your attacks in a Full Attack Action, and even as an AoO
And now for Sunder:
~Sunder is “as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack”. This is confusing. I think that they left out the word “or” in that sentence. From “as part of an attack action” we can clearly see that a Sunder on its own is a Standard Action, but may also be combined with other actions that are “Attack Actions”, like Vital Strike. But with the following “in place of a melee attack” we clearly see that is can be combined with any attack (standard, full, AoO), which does not mesh with the previous statement. Both “attack action” and “melee attack” are defined above and are in fact separate entities by the rules. Changing this to say “as part of an attack action or in place of a melee attack” would make it MUCH clearer how Sunder works (and would better illustrate what I think the intent was, to allow it during full attack iteratives and AoOs but to also allow it to be combined with Vital Strike and other standard action “attack actions” like the two-handed fighter archetypes “overhand-chop”).
Is Sunder an add-on to the Attack Action (standard action), an add-on to any attack (like trip/disarm), or BOTH? I think it’s both (it’s definitely implied), but we need the word “or” inserted into the text in order to clearly determine that.
~P
Edit:
|
|
~An “Attack Action” is a type of Standard Action
... as it applies to the Vital Strike Feat tree, sure. You're using this as an example of...
I want to also point out that some of the "rules quotes" in this thread are not actual quotes of the rules. Many of them are in fact paraphrases, and sometimes even have key components omitted (sometimes the “key components” are what clarify the rule for the opposing side, and sometimes the “key components” are what is unclear and need to be addressed).
***
Why it is not worded as the other standard action combat maneuvers is so that any attack modifiers you would get on an attack roll you also get on your Sunder roll (Weapon Finesse, for example).
Which all Combat Maneuvers get anyway, as spelled out in the Combat Maneuver text. So no, I doubt that's what the guys who wrote the Sunder text meant. What I suspect is that it's a case of poor editing and cut-n-paste...
But again, it'll just be circular arguments until Paizo bring out an official list of what action types are required for which Combat Maneuvers.
A single class in a particular situation/using a specific ability being able to do something is NOT grounds for everyone being able to do the same thing. This is called an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.
I beg to differ. It could very much be an indication of intent FOR THE NORM, and the sunder text is simply an editing error.
So many people seem to discount some of our arguments because of what the RAW says. Please realize that many of us are not arguing RAW at all, but RAI, which we do have support for. You don't have to agree with us, but please don't discount the possibility so quickly.
|
|
So many people seem to discount some of our arguments because of what the RAW says. Please realize that many of us are not arguing RAW at all, but RAI, which we do have support for. You don't have to agree with us, but please don't discount the possibility so quickly.
The problem with RAI, is that there are as many RAI as people involved and then some more. Also, most GM I know work with RAW and houserules. Not with RAI.
I don't think I'm being understood here ...
It specifically states it's used as part of an attack action in place of of a melee attack.
This would indicate it replaces a melee attack, whether it's a standard attack action or a single melee attack of many within a full round.
Another example would be its use in combination with Great Cleave ...
You have three targets for Great Cleave, and you have struck the first one. Now, you may use Sunder in place of your next Cleave attack, since it is a melee attack. If you do so, and hit, however, it is no longer a Cleave attack, since you've chosen to Sunder, and your attack would end.
That's how I'm seeing the RAW.
A single class in a particular situation/using a specific ability being able to do something is NOT grounds for everyone being able to do the same thing. This is called an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.I beg to differ. It could very much be an indication of intent FOR THE NORM, and the sunder text is simply an editing error.
So many people seem to discount some of our arguments because of what the RAW says. Please realize that many of us are not arguing RAW at all, but RAI, which we do have support for. You don't have to agree with us, but please don't discount the possibility so quickly.
For me, it's more that I'm arguing that the view that opposes yours still remains internally consistent because of general vs. specific.
To be concise, I'm not saying that it does mean that you are wrong, but rather, that your evidence does not guarantee that you are right. Taking it into consideration, I simply remain unconvinced.
I don't really like discussing RAI that much; the only time I'm comfortable discussing it is when it's clear what RAI is, and if it's clear, there's hardly any point discussing it.
It reminds me of conversations where people try to discern the will of god, and wind up with as many theories as there are people speaking.
|
|
I don't think I'm being understood here ...
It specifically states it's used as part of an attack action in place of of a melee attack.
This would indicate it replaces a melee attack, whether it's a standard attack action or a single melee attack of many within a full round.
I understand your point, but Vital Strike's wording mentions an attack action (which Sunder is) and an attack (which Sunder is also : "If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally.", p201 of the core rulebook). Thus, from my understanding, Sunder and Vital Strike can be used together.
Another example would be its use in combination with Great Cleave ...
You have three targets for Great Cleave, and you have struck the first one. Now, you may use Sunder in place of your next Cleave attack, since it is a melee attack. If you do so, and hit, however, it is no longer a Cleave attack, since you've chosen to Sunder, and your attack would end.
That's how I'm seeing the RAW.
Sunder and Cleave looks tricky, but only because Cleave mentions attacking a foe. Either your Sunder attempt is not considered attacking a foe, and you do not get the additional attack provided by the Cleave, or it is and you can again attack after the Sunder attack. And this new attack could well be a Sunder.
IMO, the "in place of a melee attack" only means that you do not inflict damage to your opponent in addition to trying to sunder one of his items.
I understand your point, but Vital Strike's wording mentions an attack action (which Sunder is) and an attack (which Sunder is also : "If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally.", p201 of the core rulebook). Thus, from my understanding, Sunder and Vital Strike can be used together.Sunder and Cleave looks tricky, but only because Cleave mentions attacking a foe. Either your Sunder attempt is not considered attacking a foe, and you do not get the additional attack provided by the Cleave, or it is and you can again attack after the Sunder attack. And this new attack could well be a Sunder.
IMO, the "in place of a melee attack" only means that you do not inflict damage to your opponent in addition to trying to sunder one of his items.
I understand your perspective, and sadly, either one of us could be correct (my issue with RAI(Interpreted)).
In your Vital Strike/Sunder concept, I would find it very difficult to 'vitally' strike, meaning strike with such precision as to deal extra damage, a weapon or held item.
So many people seem to discount some of our arguments because of what the RAW says. Please realize that many of us are not arguing RAW at all, but RAI, which we do have support for. You don't have to agree with us, but please don't discount the possibility so quickly.The problem with RAI, is that there are as many RAI as people involved and then some more. Also, most GM I know work with RAW and houserules. Not with RAI.
Really? So can dead characters still take actions. By RAW such things are not restricted by the dead condition. Did monks take penalties in 3.5 for not being proficient with unarmed strikes. The improved unarmed strike feat only allows you to do lethal damage with it, but it does not make you proficient with it. There are several other cases like this.
|
Really? So can dead characters still take actions. By RAW such things are not restricted by the dead condition. Did monks take penalties in 3.5 for not being proficient with unarmed strikes. The improved unarmed strike feat only allows you to do lethal damage with it, but it does not make you proficient with it. There are several other cases like this.So many people seem to discount some of our arguments because of what the RAW says. Please realize that many of us are not arguing RAW at all, but RAI, which we do have support for. You don't have to agree with us, but please don't discount the possibility so quickly.The problem with RAI, is that there are as many RAI as people involved and then some more. Also, most GM I know work with RAW and houserules. Not with RAI.
Which is what GM's are for. Rule 0 is to patch up these little cracks. It is the bondo, the rustoleum, the system band-aid and it is RAW.
The problem occurs when one of two things occur in the mind of someone involved the discussion (Particularly in online forums).
1) The GM is a dope.
2) They do not account for a GM.
Really? So can dead characters still take actions. By RAW such things are not restricted by the dead condition. Did monks take penalties in 3.5 for not being proficient with unarmed strikes. The improved unarmed strike feat only allows you to do lethal damage with it, but it does not make you proficient with it. There are several other cases like this.So many people seem to discount some of our arguments because of what the RAW says. Please realize that many of us are not arguing RAW at all, but RAI, which we do have support for. You don't have to agree with us, but please don't discount the possibility so quickly.The problem with RAI, is that there are as many RAI as people involved and then some more. Also, most GM I know work with RAW and houserules. Not with RAI.Which is what GM's are for. Rule 0 is to patch up these little cracks. It is the bondo, the rustoleum, the system band-aid and it is RAW.
The problem occurs when one of two things occur in the mind of someone involved the discussion (Particularly in online forums).
1) The GM is a dope.
2) They do not account for a GM.
I only brought those up because the other posters says GM ignore RAI and go with RAW, which basically means "we go by the letter, not the spirit of the rule". I seriously doubt my two examples are really what it taking place at his table.
Of course it may be, but it would be a corner case, and not a general one as claimed.
[...]Which is what GM's are for. Rule 0 is to patch up these little cracks. It is the bondo, the rustoleum, the system band-aid and it is RAW.
The problem occurs when one of two things occur in the mind of someone involved the discussion (Particularly in online forums).
1) The GM is a dope.
2) They do not account for a GM.
I've read similar comments a lot here. If you've ever played with some of the GM's I've played with, I don't believe this would be the prevalent opinion.
I don't account for the GM, since the GM is a dope is more like it. Fortunately, I have played with some solid GM's, but they are few and far between. You don't just pick this game up and start running a campaign. It requires a lot of preparation and dedication.
I strongly feel this is a game that should be played by the RAW. If, when you say RAI you mean rules as intended, then you are just saying RAW, but implying some ambiguity or error in which it is written.
If, by RAI you rules as interpreted, then you just opened the door wide for inconsistencies.
When I think of not playing by RAW, I think of other games and the silly house rules that ruin them ...
Monopoly - Progressive pot rewarded by landing ... silly.
Deuces wild in poker - Game breaker.
M:TG - So many I can't even mention them all.
The preceding message is a message of opinion only and is not intended as an insult to those that disagree.
|
|
My statement was meant as one of support wraith, not a contrarial or argumentative one.
RAI has always been rules as intended, with a larger sweeping meaning that each bit of the system has been designed with the idea of a cohesive, and workable whole. Even if there are small bits that have problems, they can usually be solved by using a pinch of common sense, in text rules comparison to its context, or in the rare exception, by going strait to the source and simply asking. The latter are few and far between and I believe that these forums (Regardless of the problems with them) serve that purpose a thousand times better than endless DCI type judgment erratas.
My statement was meant as one of support wraith, not a contrarial or argumentative one.
RAI has always been rules as intended, with a larger sweeping meaning that each bit of the system has been designed with the idea of a cohesive, and workable whole. Even if there are small bits that have problems, they can usually be solved by using a pinch of common sense, in text rules comparison to its context, or in the rare exception, by going strait to the source and simply asking. The latter are few and far between and I believe that these forums (Regardless of the problems with them) serve that purpose a thousand times better than endless DCI type judgment erratas.
Just friendly chit-chat on my part, man, nothing argumentative here, either.
It was brought up, and I felt like expressing my viewpoint on the matter, that's all.
:)
How I see it:
Sunders are pretty much like called shots, instead of targetting generic AC you target their CMD, but can inflict damage against a specific object they are wearing/carrying. You can Crit a Sunder just like any other attack. Vital Strike likewise increases the weapon damage done by a Sunder. A Sunder still counts as ´an attack´ as Vital Strike mentions, and you are obviously using the Attack Action.
To me, it is implausible that ´attack action´ was ACCIDENTALLY added to Sunder. You just wouldn´t accidentally put that in there when Cut + Paste from SRD is otherwise the general modus operandi in the Core Rules. The only glitch there is the minor grammar error of ´a´ attack vs. ´the´ attack, but that is something that of course liable to be just a grammar error.
|
"Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action."
This comes from chapter 8 of the Core Rule Book on page 187.
After reading this and the other things presented on this forum I find it clear that you can take "attack action" as a "standard action", trading out the attack for the sunder, and then decide to to not take a move action to make the "standard action" a "full-round action".
Weather or not you can make iterative sunders idk but it seems clear to me you can at the very least make a sunder as your first attack and then complete the full-round action with attacks.
In the end I respect both interpretations I just wanted to add a little more weight to the pro-sunder side, if you will.
As i said earlier, i think the use of 'an attack action' has seperate meaning from 'the attack action' Sunder appears to be an attack modifier action rather than its own action. This combined with the specifically stated Ability to use Sunder as part of a Flurry of blows i feel supports the use of Sunder for a Full attack.
SciVo, what is with the attitude?
I pleasantly phrase my post with `How I see it...` and `To me...` for you to come back with `If you don`t like it` and `Get over it`, throwing down ultimatums of how people must play. I don`t at all claim to always be right about RAW/RAI interpretations, but I try and stay respectful. So basically, you can take your internet tough guy act and shove it. Where in the hell do you come from posting like this, when you`ve only posted here like 50 times since February?
Jason Buhlman has made explicitly clear that `attack action` refers to a specific action, not all attack rolls.
How else is that action to be distinguished from all attack rolls, if not by ´attack action´?
If you believe `attack action` to refer to any attack roll, where else is that phrase used in that way?
How do you correlate JB`s guidance on Vital Strike with the RAW of that Feat?
Why do all reference to the concept of `any attack` use the phrase `attack` or `attack roll` rather than `attack action`?
JB has clarified what `attack action` means. I`m not aware he`s made claims that all two letter prepositions are gramatically accurate. Take your pick.... Ì`ve taken mine.
Whatever people`s disagreements, just keep it classy people.
Being a dick head doesn`t let you win. Whatever that means.
If you search my posts for `attack action`, you`ll find that Paizo`s own stated RAI for Attack Action isn`t 100% consistent with how it`s presented in the Core Rules, although this is a legacy problem from 3.5 which Paizo probably didn`t think they needed to change since they weren`t actually changing the Attack Action, just leveraging it in ways previously not done. So in many cases, finding the `least bad` interpretation is the best that can be done.
Sunder is NOT a Standard Action, though it can be.
Can I make multiple sunder attempts in one round as part of a full-attack action? The sunder text says that I can make sunder attempts in place of melee attacks in an attack action, which is not technically a full-attack action.
Yes you can. The text is a little unclear here. Instead of saying "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack", the text should read "in place of a melee attack", which would allow you to make multiple attempts in one round, or even make a sunder attempt as an attack of opportunity.
—Jason Bulmahn, 11/30/12
| 1 to 50 of 52 |
|
| Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Sunder *is* a standard action | All Messageboards |
|
Want to post a reply? Sign in. |
|