Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Sunder is an attack action = Sunder is a standard action?


Rules Questions

901 to 950 of 1,171 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
As to your point, we've managed to play 3.0, 3.5 and PF using the same interpretation of 'attack action' that was true for 13 years or so,

Except some sources say it worked the opposite way all that time.

Quote:
the same interpretation that James Jacobs told me that it was a few days ago,

He said the opposite before, as did Jason Bulmahn.

Quote:
To think that we have to jump through intellectual hoops now or for 13 years is simply not true!

So picking one of two contradictory statements from one person to believe, even while being contradicted by the Lead Designer, doesn't qualify as hoop-jumping?

I'm really struggling to come up with any explanation for your posts other than trolling. You cherry-pick statements that are heavily contradicted, you get basic english wrong and build entire arguments out of the errors, and you just keep going. My ability to believe you could actually think these things is dwindling.


Ckorik wrote:
sometimes common sense wins out.

"not an action" is an action?!?

What was that about common sense.

Or are you saying that "not an" is the name of the action?

AoO isn't even listed as a Miscellaneous Action.

Quote:

Miscellaneous Actions

The following actions take a variable amount of time to accomplish or otherwise work differently than other actions.

If AoO was an action then it would certainly be an action that worked differently then other actions.

What was that about common sense.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
stringburka wrote:
The thing is, if there are two interpretations that aren't completely impossible, and one is very easy for most to understand, produces few weird results, and definately works (attack action is the specific Attack standard action), and one interpretation requires like 8 pages on a forum to explain to those who don't share it, still produces a lot of weird results, has the proponents contradicting themselves by accident, and just probably works - the first one is probably the intended one. I guess it's a variant of Occam's Razor.

Occam want's his razor back! You're using it wrong!

It's human nature to characterise the 'other side' as full of morons who's motives are entirely selfish/misguided, while characterising 'your side' as being peopled with those of a higher understanding and morally superior motives. It doesn't help anyone's case, though.

As to your point, we've managed to play 3.0, 3.5 and PF using the same interpretation of 'attack action' that was true for 13 years or so, the same interpretation that James Jacobs told me that it was a few days ago, without any trouble. To think that we have to jump through intellectual hoops now or for 13 years is simply not true!

Actually, I know it isn't occam's razor. That's why I explicitly noted it as a _variant_.

And when I first read in this thread, I really had no idea what to think. I've been back and forth on the issue in the beginning of the thread, seeing both as possible, but the more examples people made of what your interpretation leads to, and the more pages had to be spent detailing exceptions to that by you and Ckorik (and I still don't know if you both use the same interpretation - his is very contradictory to itself all the time but I don't know if you share that part of the interpretation).

My main point was that if we use your interpretation (if I even understand it correctly - since you and Ckorik seem to say different things at times) a lot needs to be explained. Like, can you vital strike on a charge. Can you overhand chop on an AoO. Can you vital strike with a polar ray. And there's a lot more - I could probably make half a page of questions. And there's still the fact that you have to prove the interpretation possible with a lot of 3.5 sources. I'm not saying your interpretation isn't possible, I'm saying it's a lot of work to assume it as a standard, it will require a lot of exceptions and minor errata, and would need a big rewrite of the combat chapter.

You've (collectively) explained a few of them, but using arbitrarily defined terms that aren't game terms (such as "single attack" prohibiting vital strike/overhand chop on a charge/AoO/full attack, which doesn't really have rules support). This is where something similar to occams razor comes in.

If we use the other interpretation, everything works out fine. And it's a valid interpretation using just the rules as they are.

And if we use "how was it 13 years ago?" as a main reason for using a certain interpretation, that hurts everyone that joins now, in this version of the game - because they have to go back to sources they've never even heard of to learn how to interpret the rules now correctly.

I don't really care which interpretation can find more backup from 10 year old sources for a different version of the game. For me, the relevant thing is "what is simplest to implement without breaking the game?".

If "attack action" means "any action involving an attack" we have to go into the whole "is AoO an action?" debate. We don't need that if attack action is the Attack action. And we also have to go into the whole "what is the difference between a single attack and an attack that is the only attack in an action and an attack that is the only attack in a round and an Attack action" debate.

An explanation that just gives more questions is not a preferable explanation.

Silver Crusade

There was a lovely little RPG called Lace & Steel. Proper swashbuckling. It had a set of rules for duels involving a deck of cards. The cards were one of two suits-Rapiers and Roses-and three lines of attack-high, mid and low. These cards interacted with the duelist's abilities by things like: max hand size determined by Dex, the more skilful duelist getting to draw extra cards equal to the difference in skill between the duelists and keep the card he wants. Hits reduced max hand size, more serious hits reduced Con, or whatever they used instead of hit points.

The same deck and similar rules were used to adjudicate repartee! High line cards represented the more intellectual comments, low line attacks were cruder comments! Max hand size was determined by Int instead of Dex, etc.

This approach, where witty repartee is seen as as important to your character as duelling, was extremely rare in RPGs, and still is. This system needed to have rules as detailed for conversational interaction as it did for violent interaction.

The reason I'm boring you all in this thread is not to indulge in pointless reminiscence, but to illustrate that both D&D and PF do not weigh personal interaction as anywhere nearly as crucial to playing the game as they do combat. The combat rules, especially weapon-like combat, are really, really detailed while staying this side of playable. What about 'witty repartee'?

'Say what you're character would say then make a Diplomacy roll. Depending on what you said I'll apply a modifier of +2 or -2.'

Not very detailed, compared to combat. The reality of gameplay is that, frequently, rules won't be used at all, just 'role-played'.

I'm not disparaging role-playing BTW. I'm pointing out the extremely high level of rules support for weapon-like combat! Combat in our game absolutely requires this level of rules!

This is why weapon-like attacks have to have lots of game terms so that we can adjudicate it. When the original devs of 3.0, who created the system we now use, wrote the combat chapter, they had to explain this new idea that if you have a high base attack bonus you can get more than one attack in the same round. Since players of 3.0 may well have been playing 1st/2nd edition AD&D with it's own system of multiple attacks for high level warriors, this concept had to be explained in detail. So instead of having to write out 'use a full-round action to take all of your iterative and other attacks if you're entitled to more than one' every time, they coined the term 'full attack'.

This didn't (and doesn't) mean that the attacks in a standard action were each any different than the attacks in a full attack or at the end of a charge or used as an AoO.

If the game had a rule that you could cast a spell as a standard action and multiple spells (based on high caster level) as a full-round action, they would have coined the term 'full spellcasting' or something; it would have been absolutely required! But the spells cast in a 'cast a spell' action would be the same spells as those used in the 'full spellcasting' action!

There has never been any controversy about 'attack action' referring to 'whatever action used to perform weapon-like attacks', until Jason made comments online, regarding a subject which was not 'has the definition of attack actionchanged! And by definition online comments such as this are not 'Rules As Written'; the combat chapter uses the same wording in this regard as the previous editions.

I understand the concept of 'errata', and JB's comments are not errata. The confusion caused by JB's comments have created a situation where dev intervention is required!

'...help us, Obi-Wan! You're our only hope...!'


Quote:
There has never been any controversy about 'attack action' referring to 'whatever action used to perform weapon-like attacks', until Jason made comments online,......

Malachi Skip said it first back in 3.5. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok people, the cake is a lie so lets drop that analogy before someone develops diabetes from it.

Regarding Ckorik:

Spoiler:
I think I've finally nailed the precise cognitive disconnect that is the source of Ckorik's misunderstanding on the matter.

'Attack' is a type of Standard Action.

'Cast a Spell' is also a type of Standard Action.

I've placed the appropriate terms in single quotes to designate them as "system functions" in the game. Now, the big issue.

'Cast a Spell' can be either a type of Standard Action or a kind of Full-Round action. Therefore, cannot 'Attack' be either a type of Standard Action or a kind of Full-Round action? The answer is a definite... maybe.

However, under Full-Round actions, there is no action that's also called 'Attack'. Since we've shut down the cake analogy, lets go with the pie one.

Apple Pie is a kind of Fruit Pie; all Apple Pies are Fruit Pies but not all Fruit Pies are Apple Pies.

Strawberry Rhubarb Pie is also a kind of Fruit Pie, but it could also be considered a vegetable pie.

It isn't a perfect analogy, partially because I can't think of one fruit-only pie and one vegetable-only pie that are called the same exact thing. Not to mention import laws treating 'culinary use' as a valid determination as to plant classification (tomatoes are biologically fruit but considered vegetables for tax/tariff purposes in the U.S.).

But the basic point to be made is that there are actions that can be either Standard or Full-Round or Swift based on their context of usage. 'Cast a Spell' is one such "Swiss-army-knife action". 'Attack', however, is nearly as simple an action as you can get. It represents making a single attack from a selection of attack-types (melee, unarmed, ranged), is only performed as a Standard action, and opens up the possibility for certain abilities to modify the single-attack taken as a Standard Action only without undesired ramifications to the Full-Attack action. 'Cast a Spell' states, quite explicitly, that it is one of a list of action types based on the spell being cast. Neither 'Attack' nor 'Full Attack' say that. 'Attack' has a single reference that says if you have the ability to make multiple attacks from any source, you must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions). Not 'Attack' becomes a Full-Round action, but here's a different action you use in this case. Your reading isn't as logically sound as you give it credit for. It is, furthermore, refuted by statements made by JB (who remained consistent on the matter) and JJ (who flip-flopped back and fourth before ending with "I'm confused, go ask JB"). Your analysis of the verbiage only stands up in a vacuum.

Regarding Malachi:

Spoiler:
Sunder, in 3.0/3.5, by all accounts only required a melee attack. So did Grapple, btw, which now requires a specific Standard Action, 'Grapple'. The 'Attack' action wasn't even an issue. To borrow a line from 'Chaos on B!#@&~&# Mountain', "This is the core of B!+$%&%~ Mountain. Somehow, only since Pathfinder has the 'Attack' action been a separate and distinct entity from 'Full-Attack'." What Pathfinder refers to as 'Attack' and 'Full-Attack' have always been two separate things, even back to 3.0. But no one noticed because there were no actions that relied on 'Attack'. They relied either on a special Standard Action or on a melee attack. Pathfinder defined both Sunder and Disarm as working off the Attack Action replacing the melee attack in Beta. And in Beta, people were abusing both Sunder and Disarm by rolling them into Full-Attack actions. Then, someone realized, "Hey, waitaminute... requiring both 'Attack' action and melee attack is different than 3.x that only required the melee attack. We've been using this thing wrong." Along the same lines, people used Vital Strike wrong until their error was pointed out to them. Whereas you're assuming it was being used correctly in Beta and it was disallowed, it's equally plausible that it was actually being used incorrectly in Beta. And that, weighed with other contextual factors, especially JB's clarification on Vital Strike, leads to the valid conclusion that, according to what's written, Sunder and other 'Attack' action abilities do not work in conjunction with Full-Attack. Will they change what's written? Maybe. Will they come in and say, "It's written fine and it does mean that 'Attack' actions don't jive with Full-Attack"? Maybe. Will they come in and say, "It doesn't make sense the way it's written but we don't care, ambiguity FTW!"? Maybe. But as it stands now, nothing requiring the 'Attack' action can work as part of a Full-Attack by RAW.

Regarding the whole thread:

Spoiler:
Honestly... Chaos on B@#%#*** Mountain, people. JJ is Mittens (no offense comparing the guy to Romney but if the shoe fits...), JB is Obama, Vital Strike is Mother Jones/Jimmy Carter's Grandson, Ckorik is Fox "News", Malachi is Craig Nelson, Getting to keep your shiny equipment is the Obama Entitlement Society, Using Sunder in a Full-Attack is the investor tax break... I had to watch the segment again just to make sure and I got chills from hearing echos of this thread repeatedly come up.


I wholeheartedly award a "+1" to Kazaan's last spoiler.

I have to wonder if SKR deliberately stays away from long threads, simply because this is what they become (he's been around several times recently, answering other minor rules questions).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:

Ok people, the cake is a lie so lets drop that analogy before someone develops diabetes from it.

Regarding Ckorik:
** spoiler omitted **...
Your reading isn't as logically sound as you give it credit for. It is, furthermore, refuted by statements made by JB (who remained consistent on the matter) and JJ (who flip-flopped back and fourth before ending with "I'm confused, go ask JB"). Your analysis of the verbiage only stands up in a vacuum.

HA - I'll give you partial credit - my logic holds up if attack is not always a standard action - if it is - I have no problem saying it must be your way.

I just don't think the case is made that it is that clear - and until I came to this thread I'd never seen anyone make that assumption before. That leads me to the hypothesis where the rules as written without dev comments or the history of 3.5 certainly don't make the case as strongly as you believe, and that most people (who don't come here - at least if other games where numbers have come out hold historically true - messageboards typically only account for 5% or less of a userbase) read the rules using common sense and don't see the correlation that you make.

I did mention before I think full attack sunders would be a jerk move for a DM to use against a player. Although I think it's more broken now with the errata about how damage to magic items works - than it was at first printing (where you had to have a bigger plus to damage an item)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

We are at over 900 posts, so if you have yet to hit the FAQ button next to the OP, please do.

United we stand.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
There has never been any controversy about 'attack action' referring to 'whatever action used to perform weapon-like attacks', until Jason made comments online, regarding a subject which was not 'has the definition of attack action changed!

Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) Aug 19, 2009, 07:02 PM "An attack action is a type of standard action."

Here's a post from over a year earlier wondering if the attack action is a specific standard action or not. He looks up old D&D FAQs trying to see how Spring Attack and Shot on the Run work, and if an attack of opportunity applies.

So there has been 'controversy' about the attack action prior to JB's clarification. If there wasn't, there wouldn't have been any need for him to say anything.

Look at the combat maneuver text from Alpha:
"While most combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action (in place of a melee attack)"

Now look at what it was changed to in release:
"While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack)"

If the attack action was any action in which an attack was made, there would be no reason to list full-attack or AoO. The rules list them separately because they're not all the same. An attack action is not the same as a full-attack action which is not the same as an attack of opportunity.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The confusion caused by JB's comments have created a situation where dev intervention is required!

His comments are dev intervention. Some people were confused and thought the attack action was any attack, so he intervened and told them they were wrong.

Sunder is an entirely separate issue. The question is not "How does the attack action work?" because we already know that. The question is "Is Sunder really supposed to use the attack action, or was that text left in the sunder description by mistake?"


Jiggy wrote:
Majuba wrote:

Couldn't help but share this, from the latest Kobold Quarterly (#23).

Article: Simplifying Sunder wrote:

To balance the new rules ... sunder becomes a standard action rather than part of a melee attack.

Interesting!

Very interesting! That works for me.


Okay, is the official ruling then that Sunder could be used in a full attack but this is a bit OP so the suggested rule change in KQ #23 is to make it a standard action?


I haven't read the whole article yet but maybe someone over there was pondering all this as we have in this thread and arrived at the conclusion they have that way.

In other words, in light of the clarifications we've had about the attack action, and the way that phrase is used in the sunder description, sunder no longer works the way it used to.

Whether this has anything to do with it being perceived as OP by the devs is probably just speculation, but I do notice that you can sunder armor in PF and you couldn't in 3.5, so maybe they think that swapping sunder for any melee attack is a little much now.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Does someone have the entire quote from Kobold Quarterly (#23)?

I would like to know the context in which the comment was made.


The problem lies with the phrase "attack action". It would have been much better not to have this phrase at all.

Just say that an attack can be performed as a standard action.

Similarly, it would better not to have a phrase "full-attack action". (Actually I'm not sure if that phrase is used in the book.)


Axl wrote:

The problem lies with the phrase "attack action". It would have been much better not to have this phrase at all.

Just say that an attack can be performed as a standard action.

Similarly, it would better not to have a phrase "full-attack action". (Actually I'm not sure if that phrase is used in the book.)

If they change said phrases from Attack action and Full-Attack action to Standard action and Full-Round action, then those abilities become unique attacks. Sunder is no longer a normal single attack as a standard action but a unique standard action of its own, like Grapple. Same goes for something like Flurry of Blows which, currently, simply modifies the Full-Attack action. One bit of fall-out from that change would be that you can't Sunder or Flurry defensively because "fight defensively" affects only the Attack and Full-Attack actions. So a Monk would lose a lot of utility from things like Crane Style if Flurry succumbs to the same fate as Sunder.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Axl wrote:

Similarly, it would better not to have a phrase "full-attack action". (Actually I'm not sure if that phrase is used in the book.)

Second-to-last sentence of the section dealing with the Full-round action called Full Attack:

Quote:
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action : You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn.

It also appears in numerous feats and other places.


Kazaan, I was thinking of defining a new sub-class of combat manoeuvres called attack-like manoeuvres, where the manoeuvre can be used in place of an attack during a full attack. I'll need to work on it a bit to draw up formal rules.

Chemlak, thanks for pointing it out.


Axl wrote:
I was thinking of defining a new sub-class of combat manoeuvres called attack-like manoeuvres, where the manoeuvre can be used in place of an attack during a full attack.

Are you talking about making new rules to change things, or just a way to conceptually group disarm and trip together?


Grick wrote:
Are you talking about making new rules to change things, or just a way to conceptually group disarm and trip together?

New rules, but which don't actually change the way anything works. They just make it easier to understand how it ahould work.


Axl wrote:

Kazaan, I was thinking of defining a new sub-class of combat manoeuvres called attack-like manoeuvres, where the manoeuvre can be used in place of an attack during a full attack. I'll need to work on it a bit to draw up formal rules.

Chemlak, thanks for pointing it out.

That's just re-inventing the wheel. Attack action and Full-Attack action are, more or less, fine the way they are. They need only clarify that Attack refers to the action that allows you to do a single vanilla attack (which can then be modified by abilities like Overhand Chop which trigger "on use" of Attack or abilities like Sunder which "swap out" the melee attack-type with a sunder combat maneuver. I'd vote for changing the wording as follows:

Original:
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.

Change:
Attack
Attack allows you to make a single attack. This is a standard action.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, while you may have good ideas as to how to change the rules, we should have affirmation on how they already work.

With that in mind, if you have yet to hit the FAQ button next to the OP, please do so now.


Combat manoeuvres

A combat manoeuvre can be performed as a standard action. Some combat manoeuvres can be performed in place of an attack; these manoeuvres are called attack-like manoeuvres. Attack-like manoeuvres can replace the attack during a standard action attack, attack of opportunity attack, or iterative attacks during a full-attack. Penalties that normally would apply to an attack are also applied to the attack-like manoeuvre.

Disarm and trip manoeuvres are attack-like manoeuvres. [Whether sunder should be an attack-like manoeuvre is the question.]

Fighting defensively as a standard action

You can choose to fight defensively when attacking or making an attack-like manoeuvre. If you do so, you take a -4 penalty on all attacks and attack-like manoeuvres in a round to gain a +2 to AC and CMD until the start of your next turn.

Fighting defensively as a full-round action

You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack. If you do so, you take a -4 penalty on all attacks and attack-like manoeuvres in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC and CMD until the start of your next turn.

-----------

This text may well need some adjustment to iron out any loopholes or confusion that I haven't spotted.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Biggest problem is you've thrown an extra letter into "maneuver". ;)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Damn.

Guys? They've noticed us Brits are trying to take over. Tone it down a bit for Phase 2, 'kay?


Gnome ask other Gnome what is Phase 2 again. Phase 1 collect under pants, Phase 2 = ???, Phase 3 = Profit. Sorry I had to.


Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KainPen wrote:
Gnome ask other Gnome what is Phase 2 again. Phase 1 collect under pants, Phase 2 = ???, Phase 3 = Profit. Sorry I had to.

:-)

I contribute too... No more than 63 posts to reach 1000!!! Good luck!! Sorry, i hat to...too.


While I pretty much think things are ok the way they are, if people really can't get comfortable with attack meaning one thing while attack action means another... maybe it would help if the attack action was called "basic attack".

Qadira

It is totally botched that a consensus on it can't be reached because of odd wording. If calling it a basic attack will clarify what can be done, I'm all for it.

I find it quirky that things like vital strike and spring attack or cleave and spring attack can I only be combined in home games of the dev who penned them, and not officially in the rules. Or that a monk can sunder with a flurry, or take an archetype to do a flurry of maneuvers but a fighter can't.

Or that weapons that are historically good enough for sundering purposes to warrant the devs giving them a +2 to sunder attempts, but are completely ineffectual at overcoming hardness and actually breaking weapons (sai, sword breaker , at 1d4 vs most min hardness of 5... And don't jump on adamantine bc an adamantine great sword still works 10x better at sundering than an adamantine sword breaker :p )


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I have seen Developers lurking the rules section, and no comment here.

So, I ask again, if you have not done so yet, please hit the FAQ button next to the OP.

Thank you.


They know about it, but it probably requires a long blog instead of a simple answer. When we get "Return of the Revenge of the Mother of the FAQ", it will probably be answered.


it would seem that the same treatment vital strike got would be sufficient here.
although vital strike itself is still lacking official faq, wierdly...
but if vital strike warranted a messageboard post (or 2 or 3 or 10), i don't see why this doesn't...?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This is not a specific feat or class feature, and is something that has relevance to all games.

I do see that as a reason for it to be looked over carefully, but it also a reason to have clarification.

At this point, debating either way how it works is a worthless endeavor, lest you be doing so with a PFS Judge, and it will only be debated later with the next Judge.

The clarification is in the Developer's hands now.

Note: Paizo bashing will do nothing for anyone. Do not do it.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Any word on the Sunder action type clarification?


bump. hit the FAQ button at the beginning of thread.
until it's answered, i will assume 'attack action' means something distinct,
and that the (non-FAQ) Paizo messageboard posts on Vital Strike thus have a logical rational basis.
NOTE: i also think vital strike should be clarified in FAQ along with Sunder/ attack action in general,
since it was never put in the official FAQ after the relevant messageboard posts.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am not pleased that there seems to be no answer yet.

If you have yet to hit the FAQ button next to the OP, please do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hey, I waited for a year to hear about what Totem Warrior did for Barbs :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:

Hey, I waited for a year to hear about what Totem Warrior did for Barbs :)

What Totem Warrior? Never heard of it. You sure that exists?;)


Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sorry, i take advantage of this thread.
I remember of an "obscure rule" about sunder & enhancement bonus
"You couldn't sunder an ennemy's magic weapon/armor if its enhancement bonus is greater than those of your weapon".
So, for ex, if you have a weapon +2, you cannot sunder a weapon +3 or greater.

But, i don't find this rule. Is this rule erased? Can you break a magic item (except artefact) with any weapon magical or not?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They got rid of that rule, and made it something about increased HP and hardness per enhancement point.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I am not pleased that there seems to be no answer yet.

You seem surprised...


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Axl wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
I am not pleased that there seems to be no answer yet.

You seem surprised...

No, just displeased.

We are at nearly 950 posts, and 80 FAQ hits.

Seems like an issue to me.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

We are at nearly 950 posts, and 80 FAQ hits.

Seems like an issue to me.

Aside from the old FAQ thread being marked, if they are going to say something, they might be wanting to sit on it a while to discourage people from... 'artificially inflating' threads in order to get a response.

Seeing how much of this thread was based on responses to one person who admitted to trying to stir things up, that might be a good policy.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Grick wrote:
Seeing how much of this thread was based on responses to one person who admitted to trying to stir things up,

Wait, really? I must have missed the admission.


Ok. So I FAQed it.

The way I see it though is that "attack action" is the term that needs an FAQ. Once we have that stupid term settled for the doubters (in my opinion its been well documented by devs), sunder fixes itself. If sunder doesn't work the way it's supposed to at that point, then we need an errata to bring sunder back in lines with other weapon based maneuvers.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

What do you mean "stir things up"?


Jiggy wrote:
Wait, really? I must have missed the admission.

Looking back, I might have mis-interpreted what the person was trying to say. It doesn't really matter though, and accusations of trolling are against the rules, so I'll retract what I wrote there and hope they clarify it once things have calmed down.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Bringing up a hot topic does not always mean an attempt to troll the boards.

Silver Crusade

I remember at one point, after hundreds of posts, one guy said that although he was arguing fanatically for one way, he would never actually play that way and didn't think anyone else did either!

That's what came to mind re: stirring up.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Ah. I did not see the OP do such a thing.

901 to 950 of 1,171 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Sunder is an attack action = Sunder is a standard action? All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.