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

RPG Superstar 2015

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


Rules Questions

951 to 1,000 of 1,171 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

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.

There's a difference between arguing what the rules actually say vs how you play them. Saying that sunder should work with iteratives is different from saying it does. There's nothing hypocritical about saying "The rules say Sunder is an attack action, but in my games, it can replace any attack."

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

I'm not talking about the OP. Diego just wanted an answer. I was suspecting someone of purposefully arguing ridiculous points in order to keep people responding, to keep the thread alive, in hopes Paizo would answer it. Looking back, I'm not sure that's what he was saying, so my last three posts here should probably be ignored if not deleted.

Silver Crusade

@ Grick: I was trying to guess which post you meant.

I obviously guessed wrong. : )


So very many pages. I thought I knew what was going on in this thread for a while but I just ended up even more confused.

Are there people trying to argue that sundering is a standard action and can't be made as part of a full-round action, but tripping and disarming are different? Or that sundering, tripping, and disarming can't happen on an attack of opportunity?

Are we arguing that sundering multiple times on a full round action op?


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

So very many pages. I thought I knew what was going on in this thread for a while but I just ended up even more confused.

Are there people trying to argue that sundering is a standard action and can't be made as part of a full-round action, but tripping and disarming are different? Or that sundering, tripping, and disarming can't happen on an attack of opportunity?

Are we arguing that sundering multiple times on a full round action op?

Some people are arguing that sunder must happen as an Attack action (a standard action) and cannot fold into the Full-Attack action (a full-round action). Others are saying that anything that can be made as an Attack action can be used with Full-Attack because the bolded part designates it as an attack action. Or, to put it another way, the controversy is over whether the word 'Attack' in Attack action is a proper term or a generic term.

There's another discussion happening in parallel as to whether Sunder is written properly or if they poorly worded it. Another discussion concerns whether it's balanced in the game to be able to sunder multiple times per round or not. So there are really 3 discussions happening: What is RAW as it stands now, Does RAW match RAI, and Is full-attack sundering OP or not. Some people agree on some topics while disagreeing on others.


Thanks for the summary that didn't instill your own opinion.

For the most part this thread got absolutely no where. We are exactly where we left off when Diego first posted this issue of RAW vs common play. The one thing that surprised me was the resurgence of the attack action argument. I was pretty sure we had killed that one off by the 10th vital strike thread. So for those of you still with us. Hit the FAQ on the first post and lets hope the Devs finally drive a stake through the attack action argument.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Indeed.

It is more of a multiple of discussions, but all involved in the mechanics of sunder.

Also, if you have not hit the FAQ button next to the OP, please do so now.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:


Some people are arguing that sunder must happen as an Attack action (a standard action) and cannot fold into the Full-Attack action (a full-round action). Others are saying that anything that can be made as an Attack action can be used with Full-Attack because the bolded part designates it as an attack action. Or, to put it another way, the controversy is over whether the word 'Attack' in Attack action is a proper term or a generic term.

That's almost a perfect summation. Confusion over the wording and what it means to be part of an attack action or if it's part of the attack action.

The attack action being referenced by the vital strike dev comments (and some 3.5 history). The RAW (opinion) don't really define the difference well enough - and Sunder gets left in the dust as the rest of the CM's got wording that made it pretty clear how they were used. The whole attack action thing changes how sunder worked previously if you read it as the attack action.

I'm not sure how people could think the intent here was just to increase post count - I think a good chunk of this thread was arguing over the attack action viewpoint and people unwilling to even grudgingly admit that it could work either way without breaking the entire system.

And the concession that Sunder is OP as part of full attacks certainly stems from the (recent) errata that magic weapons only add hardness/hps now as that makes Sunder much more dangerous.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Ckorik wrote:
Confusion over the wording and what it means to be part of an attack action or if it's part of the attack action.

This confusion exists only for one or two people, who choose to ignore things like this:

Quote:
The attack action being referenced by the vital strike dev comments
The dev you're referring to wrote:
Vital Strike is an attack action

I pointed this out early in the first page of this thread. You claim developer comments refer to "the" attack action, but they actually refer to "an" attack action.

There may be valid arguments that sunder works a certain way, but this whole "the/an" thing is not one of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:

Confusion over the wording and what it means to be part of an attack action or if it's part of the attack action.

The attack action being referenced by the vital strike dev comments

Sunder says "an" attack action.

Jason Bulmahn clarified "an" attack action. Three times.

Ckorik wrote:
The RAW (opinion) don't really define the difference well enough

There is no difference. Just like how rules mention "the full-attack action" and "a full-attack action" they both reference the same action.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Confusion over the wording and what it means to be part of an attack action or if it's part of the attack action.

This confusion exists only for one or two people, who choose to ignore things like this:

Quote:
The attack action being referenced by the vital strike dev comments
The dev you're referring to wrote:
Vital Strike is an attack action

I pointed this out early in the first page of this thread. You claim developer comments refer to "the" attack action, but they actually refer to "an" attack action.

There may be valid arguments that sunder works a certain way, but this whole "the/an" thing is not one of them.

See? :)

But that's ok - you can be wrong I won't mind one bit.


Maybe I was right after all.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Grick wrote:
Maybe I was right after all.

I'm pretty sure I've admitted that I might be wrong - in case that seems unclear let me make it perfectly clear.

I might be wrong.

It certainly won't be because it's clear as mud and defined with perfect clarity though, as you claim. Thank god I FAQ'd the thread back on the 2nd page.

Marathon Voter 2013

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

I do find it really strange that sunder is, RAW, the only combat maneuver you do with a weapon that you cannot replace in an attack routine.

Did we ever figure out what are possible reasons it would only replace an attack on an attack action, and it wasn't just a standard action? What differences could there be? I think some of us brought up Vital Strike. Would that apply?

It sounds like it would, but that's with just a quick reading.

Maybe it's this way to prevent being able to completely wreck a character in a round, due to the reliance on gear this game has? I know that the reason grapple couldn't be used in AoOs was because it being "too good", so maybe this is also the reason here?

Of course, I still like Jim Groves' explanation on the intent. The developers are generally sharp cookies :)


Cheapy wrote:

I do find it really strange that sunder is, RAW, the only combat maneuver you do with a weapon that you cannot replace in an attack routine.

Did we ever figure out what are possible reasons it would only replace an attack on an attack action, and it wasn't just a standard action? What differences could there be? I think some of us brought up Vital Strike. Would that apply?

It sounds like it would, but that's with just a quick reading.

Maybe it's this way to prevent being able to completely wreck a character in a round, due to the reliance on gear this game has? I know that the reason grapple couldn't be used in AoOs was because it being "too good", so maybe this is also the reason here?

Of course, I still like Jim Groves' explanation on the intent. The developers are generally sharp cookies :)

That's basically what I've been saying. Even with three essential topics at hand (ambiguous RAW, Unknown RAI, Is it OP), you can't look at each one in a vacuum. Each one is an individual subject but they do interact with one another. If it's OP and the Devs knew it was OP, they'd obviously intend for it not to be possible, thus the state of RAW is an issue of poor wording. If it's OP but the Devs didn't realize, then this debate may well bring something previously unconsidered to their attention and, even though they might have previously intended for it to be possible but wrote it in an ambiguous way, they might re-write it clarify it the opposite of what they originally intended. But, all in all, I feel that attack action needs to be clarified, Sunder is most likely written correct given my interpretation on how Attack works, and the intent was for Sunder not to be able to wreck someone's whole inventory with impunity because it would be OP to do so. The clarifications that the Devs have given on other related and similar situations backs me up on this.


If the Devs somehow reverse course and bring sunder back in line with disarm and trip it will be a huge difference. I have a GM who plays sunder in this manner. We can't have nice things. The street goes both ways. The GM may just turn the tables on you with a monster that has a much higher CMB and damage potential.

What I wouldn't mind is something that was middle ground. Allow sunder to be used in place of an attack (So you could use it in a full-attack or AoO) but only allow one sunder attempt per round so that it didn't get OP.


I can see it as part of a full-attack if limited to only one sunder per round but not as an AoO. The wording would, of course, have to be changed accordingly.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

I do find it really strange that sunder is, RAW, the only combat maneuver you do with a weapon that you cannot replace in an attack routine.

Did we ever figure out what are possible reasons it would only replace an attack on an attack action, and it wasn't just a standard action?

I have a theory. First, the facts on which my theory is built:

1) Fact: before PFRPG was published, Jason Bulmahn stated the intent was going to be that both disarm and sunder could replace any attack.

2) Fact: at the time of #1, both disarm and sunder used sunder's current wording, referencing "attack action".

3) Fact: at a later date, Jason Bulmahn stated three different times that an attack action was always a standard action (which then conflicts with the combination of #1 and #2 above).

4) Fact: by the time PFRPG actually got published, disarm's text had lost its reference to "attack action", reconciling #1 and #3 as relates to disarm.

5) Fact: sunder kept its original text, instead of getting the same change that disarm got.

------------------------

So, based on those 5 facts, here's my theory: I think that in #4 above, sunder was supposed to get the same correction as disarm, but a typo or similar error caused it to be printed with text which, after #3, no longer conformed to #1. My guess is that Paizo is aware of this but has decided it's not a big enough deal to errata.

A second theory is that sometime between #3 and #4, Jason changed his mind on how he wanted sunder to work, but did not announce that change of intent. This means that sunder not being updated in the same way as disarm is intentional.

My personal leaning is the "error that got kept" version.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:

I do find it really strange that sunder is, RAW, the only combat maneuver you do with a weapon that you cannot replace in an attack routine.

Did we ever figure out what are possible reasons it would only replace an attack on an attack action, and it wasn't just a standard action? What differences could there be? I think some of us brought up Vital Strike. Would that apply?

The vital strike quote makes the wording for sunder confusing - considering that other CM's had wording changed when they broke from the 3.5 way of doing things (to take a standard action) - it seems reasonable to assume that Sunder was intended to work like it did previously (which was FAQ'd in 3.5 to say 'replace any attack in a full attack). It seems reasonable to assume the vital strike ruling wasn't intended to have ripples that changed previous behavior, when they tried to ensure things that changed behavior also had changed wording (also opinion here).

Quote:

Maybe it's this way to prevent being able to completely wreck a character in a round, due to the reliance on gear this game has? I know that the reason grapple couldn't be used in AoOs was because it being "too good", so maybe this is also the reason here?

First printing Sunder on a magic item couldn't happen unless the attacking weapon had a equal or greater + on the weapon.

This kept your (party) stuff from being chopped up unless the mook was going to drop an item at least as good as the one he's destroying.

With the recent changes (errata on 4th printing) a Giant with a non-magical sword could really hurt your equipment. That changes how OP Sunder is considerably (IMO of course).

Silver Crusade

I agree with Jiggy on the 'error' part, in the respect that if the intent was to change how sunder worked, it wouldn't be by leaving the wording unchanged, both for sunder itself and for 'attack action' in general.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Does anyone have experience using Sunder in PFS?

I am curious as to how PFS Judges have ruled this.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Unlike things that could be better known as "corner cases", this is a core issue, and what ever your opinions on it are, we can all agree that it needs resolution.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Unlike things that could be better known as "corner cases", this is a core issue.

In almost all situations, sunder is a poor option for PCs - to the point where it is almost a "trap option". In my years of playing 3.0, 3.5 & PF, I have only seen a PC attempt to sunder once. And I don't think I have ever seen an NPC/monster attempt to sunder.

I suspect that the rarity of its use is the reason why the issue has not cropped up before.

It's only a "core issue" in the sense that it is an ambiguity in the core rules. No matter what the ruling on this (or, more likely, the absence of any official ruling), this is never going to affect my game.


Lab_Rat wrote:
If the Devs somehow reverse course and bring sunder back in line with disarm and trip it will be a huge difference. I have a GM who plays sunder in this manner. We can't have nice things. The street goes both ways. The GM may just turn the tables on you with a monster that has a much higher CMB and damage potential.

Well, yeah, if your high CMB monsters can Full Attack/AoO/etc Sunder, your PCs probably aren't going to have 'nice things' for very long ;-)


Cheapy wrote:
Did we ever figure out what are possible reasons it would only replace an attack on an attack action, and it wasn't just a standard action? What differences could there be? I think some of us brought up Vital Strike. Would that apply?

Yup, Vital Strike's a primary synergy/ core rules case that differentiates vs. generic/unique Standard Action functionalty ala Grapple. 2HandedFighter's Overhand Chop also applies to Attack Actions, and there's probably several other cases that specifically use the Attack Action.


Sunder is a very strong combat option. If it's standard action only it's good, but if it's on any attack it's the best combat maneuver, period, for many many campaigns and characters.

Not only is it good for many monsters, but for player characters too. In many campaigns at least half of opponents use weapons, and other opponents also use gear at higher levels. Being able to AoO-sunder potions would make a huge difference.

Also, look at Spell Sunder.

The Exchange

sunder as a single action sucks. its the worst maneuver ever.
you're wielding a longsword and doing 1d8+4 and you wanna sunder someone's armor? yuck. you gotta do over 10 points base to cut through the steel. so you just did 2hp of damage in your standard action to that armor.

i'm now going to take four attacks on you and kill you.

oh its the best for monsters? against the monk or the wizard? pft.
its the best against the fighters? who have a high CMB as well? they're not going to keep their nice things for very long? i beg to differ. they'll have magic weapons and armor (harder to sunder), maybe adamantine weapons ( SO hard to sunder ).

so unless the enemy is dealing 50 points of damage in one attack. they're not going to be sundering your gear ( 50 - ( 10 + 1 x your armor's enhancement bonus. maybe more if its a harder material), so you're getting DR 10/adamantine for free if they try to sunder your crap )

And even if the enemy succeeds: you're still alive. and you haven't taken any damage yet.
and all of your fun little friends with spells and stuff are going to nuke the monster anyway.

also: you can already AoO the potion.

magic item section wrote:
Drinking a potion or using an oil is a standard action. The potion or oil takes effect immediately. Using a potion or oil provokes attacks of opportunity. An enemy may direct an attack of opportunity against the potion or oil container rather than against the character. A successful attack of this sort can destroy the container, preventing the character from drinking the potion or applying the oil.

The Exchange

there's a lot of protections on PC gear already.

Shatter can't work on magic items.
Rusting Grasp only works on nonmagical items.
Magic enhances the toughness and hit points of items.

Unless every enemy is equipped with an adamantine two handed weapon, you probably don't need to fear Sundering Bears.

in PFS year 1 i thought it would be cool to have a Falcon with Improved Sunder. to destroy spell component pouches and holy symbols. I tried it once on a weapon, and then realized that would never work, because there's no way the animal can overcome the hardness.

Having sunder as an attack like Trip and Disarm is frequently the only way to make enough successful Sunder attacks against a weapon or armor to reduce it to the Broken condition.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Seraphimpunk wrote:

sunder as a single action sucks. its the worst maneuver ever.

you're wielding a longsword and doing 1d8+4 and you wanna sunder someone's armor? yuck. you gotta do over 10 points base to cut through the steel. so you just did 2hp of damage in your standard action to that armor.

i'm now going to take four attacks on you and kill you.

Right, because the guy who bothered to take Improved Sunder would totally be using a one-handed steel weapon with no bonuses, and not Power Attacking with a two-handed weapon, which is adamantine so as to ignore hardness.

Congratulations, you've successfully demonstrated that it's possible to make enough wrong choices about how to go about sundering that you end up being useless. Whoopee.

What you have NOT done is demonstrate that sunder is useless in situations that aren't specifically being engineered to make sunder look bad.

The Exchange

THAT character had to be built to use it properly.

WIthout Improved Sunder, its a combat maneuver that never gets used.

In order to use Improved Sunder effectively, that character has had to invest several feats, and several thousand gold into one large weapon so they can sometimes try to sunder something. But not so much that they'll destroy it, in case they want to use it later.

I'm demonstrating that every PC does not need to fear Adamantine Sunder Bunnies jumping out and attacking them all the time if it is left as a replacement to the melee attack action.

It will likewise not do anything to cripple the ASB's when they move up, and take one attack with vital strike to sunder your spell focus / bonded item / tower shield. They are built that way, and are going to Overhand Chop + Vital Strike + Power attack your weapon with their standard action regardless.

Leaving it a melee attack, allows for sunder to come into play for builds that aren't optimized to it. While not impacting builds that are optimized for it.


Seraphimpunk wrote:

sunder as a single action sucks. its the worst maneuver ever.

you're wielding a longsword and doing 1d8+4 and you wanna sunder someone's armor? yuck. you gotta do over 10 points base to cut through the steel. so you just did 2hp of damage in your standard action to that armor.

"Wish is the worst spell ever. You wanna cast wish to get something and is broke? Yuck."

Uhm... That doesn't work. I mean, what is that, a 1st level fighter sundering a full plate with a longsword? Why would you even want to do that? At 1st level if you're going to sunder something it should be like goblin spears or whatever. But at 1st level I agree it's easiest just to kill them.

Rather look at a mid-level barbarian who's actually put a feat or two in it.

EDIT: Hmmm, just found something interesting that may open up the debate once again (sorry!):
Destroyer's Blessing

It says you can only gain the benefit once per round. If sunder was only 1/round that wouldn't be needed. Now I'm confused... It could be a typo/them not knowing though, seeing as how it's splat and all.


well, paizo's authors certainly have overlooked basic rules functions before, e.g. prone shooter and polearm fighter archetypes, but in this case there certainly is room to sunder more than 1/round within the core rules: monks can do so within a flurry*, there are critical feats that let you sunder on a crit, i believe there are limited ways to gain more than 1 standard action per turn, and there may even be more, but regardless it's good to have that wording just in case something in the future does allow more sunders/round... avoiding cases like rhino hide armor + pounce, for example.

* that can be done as a monk1/barbarian10/etc, i'm not sure of RAI on whether the normal/non-flurry-bonus attacks need to use monk weapons/UAS or not, per RAW it's plausible they don't, but you can always Sunder with UAS if need be...

Silver Crusade

Destroyer's Blessing wrote:
Benefit: When you are raging and you succeed at a sunder combat maneuver, you regain 1 round of rage. If the sunder attempt causes the object to gain the broken condition, you heal 1 hit point. You can only gain these benefits once per round.

Not proof, but it does add weight to the case for 'any weapon-like attack can be a sunder'.


Good points quandary. It might very well be just a safety measure, since otherwise a monk1/barb10 would have more or less infinite rage by spending an hour each morning sundering the ground (though it would be a funny visual, the wizard trying to concentrate at the spellbook while the half-orc goes "GHAARGH G~+@~*N GROUND GHAAARGH G$@#$*N GROUND!!!!")


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Destroyer's Blessing wrote:
Benefit: When you are raging and you succeed at a sunder combat maneuver, you regain 1 round of rage. If the sunder attempt causes the object to gain the broken condition, you heal 1 hit point. You can only gain these benefits once per round.
Not proof, but it does add weight to the case for 'any weapon-like attack can be a sunder'.

Flurry still allows you to sunder multiple times.


Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hum... if i understand well, sunder "is now" a standard action. I had not the heart to read the 984 posts to confirm that. ^^

Some players and me tried the sunder in game and we used "as possible to do a full-round attack with sunder".
My players found it was not very interesting for them, except sometimes, but found it was too powerful for "monsters".
A monster/NPC is "destined to die", not to do successive fights. So a GM may sacrifice a monster and chooses it's here not for kill PC, but to destroy weapons and others equipments of PC. That will help the monsters of the next fight.
And if you make a good build for an NPC (or a group of NPC), it can really be destructive (with full-round).

My players thought Sunder is more an option for GM than for players, but an option a GM must use sparingly, because it's too traumatic for players.


Defraeter wrote:
Hum... if i understand well, sunder "is now" a standard action. I had not the heart to read the 984 posts to confirm that. ^^

It's just a little more complex than that. Here's the basic breakdown:

The rules say that Sunder is an Attack action. One side of the debate says that the Attack action is the specific, properly named action on the list of Standard Actions called 'Attack'. The other side of the debate says that it's a generic term referring to any time you attack a target (be it standard action attack, full-round attack, attack of opportunity, attack in a charge, etc). There was talk of the Devs stating in a magazine article that they are considering changing Sunder from 'Attack action' to 'Standard action' so it would function closer to Grapple or Cleave, having its own unique standard action, but so far it doesn't seem to have been set in stone.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Defraeter wrote:

Hum... if i understand well, sunder "is now" a standard action. I had not the heart to read the 984 posts to confirm that. ^^

More like "always has been" a standard action

Defraeter wrote:


Some players and me tried the sunder in game and we used "as possible to do a full-round attack with sunder".
My players found it was not very interesting for them, except sometimes, but found it was too powerful for "monsters".
A monster/NPC is "destined to die", not to do successive fights. So a GM may sacrifice a monster and chooses it's here not for kill PC, but to destroy weapons and others equipments of PC. That will help the monsters of the next fight.
And if you make a good build for an NPC (or a group of NPC), it can really be destructive (with full-round).

My players thought Sunder is more an option for GM than for players, but an option a GM must use sparingly, because it's too traumatic for players.

Sunder like anything else is a tool for certain situations. Is it the most effective thing you can do if you can damage an enemy - Probably not. Is it a good tactic if the enemy has a devastating ability linked to an item or has an AC so ridiculous that you can sunder him better than hit his AC - Probably so.


Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

After i have completely destroyed 3 weapons and a full-plate armor (non magical) in the same fight, my players made a petition against the use of sunder by GM... :-)
We aggreed i will not use sunder with my monsters because it is too penalizing for the player's budget. Except the cases when "sunder" is the objective of the encounter and when it's the monster's standard tactics. So seldom the case.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Kazaan wrote:
One side of the debate says that the Attack action is the specific, properly named action on the list of Standard Actions called 'Attack'.

Note that Lead Designer Jason Bulmahn is on this side of the debate.

Silver Crusade

Kazaan wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Destroyer's Blessing wrote:
Benefit: When you are raging and you succeed at a sunder combat maneuver, you regain 1 round of rage. If the sunder attempt causes the object to gain the broken condition, you heal 1 hit point. You can only gain these benefits once per round.
Not proof, but it does add weight to the case for 'any weapon-like attack can be a sunder'.
Flurry still allows you to sunder multiple times.

Note that Destroyer's Blessing is an Orc racial feat that only works when raging.

Why did the designers of this feat feel the need to limit it to once per round? There are two possibilities:-

• Sunder, as an attack action, can take the place of any weapon-like attack, such as the single attack made as a standard action, one or more of the individual attacks in a full attack sequence, the attack at the end of a charge, an attack of opportunity, etc.

OR

• The feat was written that way to prevent all the hordes of Orc barbarian/monks getting a slight advantage. Of course, monks must be lawful and barbarians cannot be lawful, but you can't be too careful, can you?

I know which scenario I think is most likely!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Why did the designers of this feat feel the need to limit it to once per round? There are two possibilities:-

Possibility three: 3rd party contributors don't always know how the rules work. For instance, the person who wrote the quick maneuver feats didn't know that sunder can't be made with iterative attacks.


You don't need a horde of orc barbarian/monks. The rules are primarily designed for an elite few PCs which are looking to game the system however they can. Preventing such an easy thing combo that doesn't give a slight advantage - it gives unlimited raging - should be high priority when it's also so easy.

And martial artists don't have to be lawful. In fact, martial artist barbarians seem quite fitting flavor and easy to build a concept around.

I mean we're looking at a level 2 character with unlimited rage rounds and unlimited healing. That isn't a slight advantage.

EDIT: I mean, if the line wasn't there, can you imagine NOT seeing a thread by Ravingdork explaining how easily abused this is, and SKR having to come in and errata the ability to add that line afterwards?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The Sunder description noted it can be made as part of an attack action.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Seraphimpunk wrote:


also: you can already AoO the potion.
magic item section wrote:
Drinking a potion or using an oil is a standard action. The potion or oil takes effect immediately. Using a potion or oil provokes attacks of opportunity. An enemy may direct an attack of opportunity against the potion or oil container rather than against the character. A successful attack of this sort can destroy the container, preventing the character from drinking the potion or applying the oil.

Perhaps I'm mistaken but the only way to attack an item to destroy it is to use a sunder correct?

And this says you can sunder on an AoO to destroy a potion.

But an AoO is not 'the attack action'.

I'm not sure how this fits into the idea that sunder = standard action. This does give evidence that Sunder is allowed during any attack - even AoO's


Defraeter wrote:

After i have completely destroyed 3 weapons and a full-plate armor (non magical) in the same fight, my players made a petition against the use of sunder by GM... :-)

We aggreed i will not use sunder with my monsters because it is too penalizing for the player's budget. Except the cases when "sunder" is the objective of the encounter and when it's the monster's standard tactics. So seldom the case.

Yep. I had a GM that did this as well but with a Storm Giant. Storm Giant is one of those monsters with a higher than normal CMB/CMD for their CR. Fighter was naked after a round of sundering. It didn't help that the GM also crit one one of them (dang storm giants and their improved everything feats).


Ckorik wrote:


Perhaps I'm mistaken but the only way to attack an item to destroy it is to use a sunder correct?

And this says you can sunder on an AoO to destroy a potion.

But an AoO is not 'the attack action'.

I'm not sure how this fits into the idea that sunder = standard action. This does give evidence that Sunder is allowed during any attack - even AoO's

Probably just a case of specific vs general. Nice catch though...I completely forgot that you could do that.


Ckorik wrote:
Perhaps I'm mistaken but the only way to attack an item to destroy it is to use a sunder correct?

When Smashing an Object you use Sunder to destroy a weapon or shield. Smashing something else is similar, but different. So since it's not a Sunder combat maneuver (just an undeclared similar combat maneuver) and since the potion specifically says you can target it with an AoO, that makes it either an exception or a completely different rule.

Grand Lodge

I understand Jason's post in the OP as the way the rules were INTENDED. However, they are now published and that is NOT the way the rules work.

PRD wrote:

Vital Strike (Combat)

You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
PRD wrote:

Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

An attack action is defined as:

PRD wrote:

Attack

Making an attack is a standard action.

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

The PRD goes on to define the Attack as being subdivided into 4 distinct types: Melee, Unarmed, Ranged, and Natural.

A melee attack is an attack action. So upon reading Vital Strike and Charge as WRITTEN, they can be combined. Obviously that was not the intent, but intent doesn't matter once it is published.

Further more reading the definition of Attack in Standard Action is specifically says that Using more than one attack require the use of a Full Attack. Attack is NOT defined as Attack Action in Standard Action, it is defined as Attack. The types of Attack are the same for Standard and Full Attack. The difference is the quantity.

PRD wrote:
Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.

Star Voter 2013

I can not believe this thread reach the 1000th post.

Star Voter 2013

unveliable.

951 to 1,000 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.