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

PaizoCon 2014!

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


Rules Questions

1,001 to 1,050 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

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Krome wrote:
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.

Unless I've gotten the dates wrong, all three of Jason's clarifications about the attack action being a type of standard action came AFTER the CRB was published.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krome wrote:
Attack is NOT defined as Attack Action in Standard Action, it is defined as Attack.

Because that's the name of the action.

Just like the full-attack action doesn't say "full-attack action" in the title, it just says full-attack. Because we know it's an action, since that's what it's talking about.

So when the rules reference "a full-attack action" they're talking about the action named "Full-attack" which is a full round action.

And thus also when the rules reference an "attack action" they're talking about the action named "Attack" which is a standard action.

And when the rules mention making "an attack" with no mention of action, they're talking about any attack, not a specific action.

The action named Full-Attack is a full round action.
The action named Attack is a standard action.

Both of which involve making an attack, but that's just an attack (English) not an action type.

This has all been covered in the thread.


Whatever the Grick said. Plus, otherwise, you could Vital Strike something like a Polar Ray for hilarious damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No, Jason's posts were how the rules are and how they are intended. His posts, generally on the 19th of August, are after the book was released, which was about the 13th of August.


This has been argued ad nauseam. If your not satisfied one way or the other by the discussion of 1000 posts on what is an attack action....you never will be.


though it's a bit sad because it means no vital strike polar ray :(


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

IN the Core Rule Book Multiple Attack is listed as an Attack Action right along with Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, Natural Attack and Unarmed Attack. 5 Attack actions only the Multiple Attack say you use Full Attack to make additional attacks. That's just weird if you ask me. Why put it under Attack actions if it's not an attack action but full attack action? Unless that's to say Full Attack Action are Attack Action but then why separate the two. Confusing!

Personally I say you get standard action to attack with using an attack action. If you want to use additional attacks you must use your move action to do so. What this house rule has lead to is Cleave working with a Full Attack for example. I found that works nicely and make the feat more worth while at higher levels.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
I can not believe this thread reach the 1000th post.

they can go for 2000 now!

I offered my opinion, and it was just that, an opinion.

I also believe that once the book is in a GM's hands even the designer's comments are now only opinions. They wrote the rules. If the rules do not what they intended, too bad. That was what next editions are for.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Because it makes it more clear that you can't use a standard action to get multiple attacks by explicitly saying so.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

voska66 wrote:
IN the Core Rule Book Multiple Attack is listed as an Attack Action

You mean that somewhere there's a heading that reads "Attack Action" and one of the items beneath it is "Multiple Attack"? If so, I must have missed that. Can you point it out?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Krome wrote:
I offered my opinion, and it was just that, an opinion.

Sure didn't read like an "opinion". Things like "that is NOT the way the rules work" sound much more like a claim of fact.

I guess it's helpful to start with a claim of fact so that you can be "right", then if that doesn't work, retcon it into mere opinion so you can't be "wrong". Nice strategy.


voska66 wrote:
IN the Core Rule Book Multiple Attack is listed as an Attack Action right along with Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, Natural Attack and Unarmed Attack.

No, it's not. The attack action is the one in header 3 non bold, right after Standard Actions.

"Attack
Making an attack is a standard action."

The things after that in bold are talking about different things that are not different types of that action. Melee Attacks, Unarmed Attacks, Ranged Attacks, Natural Attacks, Multiple Attacks, Shooting or Throwing into a Melee, Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action, and Critical Hits are not all attack actions.

Just like Spell Components, Concentration, Concentrating to Maintain a Spell, Casting Time, etc are not all Cast a Spell actions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again, it helps if you think of it in computer function terminology. Attack() is your function. You could apply parameters to it such as Attack(melee) or Attack(unarmed) or Attack (melee, defensive). Charge() is a function in and of itself, however and while it calls up, among other things, the same routine that Attack(melee) uses, it's still not the Attack() function.

And regarding opinions: matters of opinion are one thing. "Cheese tastes good" is a matter of opinion; one person can agree and another can disagree and neither is wrong. Oxygen has 6 valance electrons is a matter of fact. If two people disagree on it, they can't both be right. How the Attack action works and is defined in the Pathfinder system is a matter of fact. When/if the devs ever bother to put the wording of the rules in no uncertain terms, one side will be shown to be wrong. It's possible both sides will be wrong as they can possible be a third option that no one is considering. So, no, it wasn't an opinion you offered, Krome. You made an assertions as to a matter of fact; that assertion can be right or it can be wrong. Making something an opinion isn't so simple as prefixing it with "I believe that..." because "I believe that the Earth is flat" is still regarding a matter of fact... and it's an incorrect assertion at that.


Sunder NEEDS to be made as part of an attack, not as a standard action. Too many things get wonky if you take it the other way: You can't effectively sunder armor and shields in one go at any level (and you can't use things like vital strike in conjunction to make such things possible), you can't sunder potions during an attack of opportunity, etc.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:

Again, it helps if you think of it in computer function terminology. Attack() is your function. You could apply parameters to it such as Attack(melee) or Attack(unarmed) or Attack (melee, defensive). Charge() is a function in and of itself, however and while it calls up, among other things, the same routine that Attack(melee) uses, it's still not the Attack() function.

Sure as a class:

Class TCombatAction{

private:
TAction Standard
TAction Move
TAction NotAnAction
TAction FullRound
TAction Quick
(etc.)
}

Class TAction Standard{
private:
Attack
Cast a Spell
}

Class TAction FullRound{
private:
Attack
Cast a Spell
}

And using polymorphisim you override the Attack type depending on the object called thus you don't need to worry about the kind of object calling attack - because an attack is an attack.

makes sense - but I don't know why you want to keep using program analogies to make this point - the rules are meant to be read with common sense - which doesn't lead to a special attack action understanding or it would have never needed dev clarification on intention to begin with.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ravingdork wrote:
Sunder NEEDS to be made as part of an attack, not as a standard action. Too many things get wonky if you take it the other way: You can't effectively sunder armor and shields in one go at any level

Bull. I've sat at a PFS table with a paladin whose sundering saved the party against some nasty NPCs. It's not that hard, especially when you consider you already have Power Attack and by mid levels the price of an adamantine weapon is trivial.

Quote:
you can't sunder potions during an attack of opportunity, etc.

The potion AoO rule doesn't even reference sunder - it says you make the attack against the potion. The difference is relevant not only for the whole "sunder = attack action" issue, but also because some bonuses apply to combat maneuvers but not to ordinary attacks, and vice-versa. An AoO against a potion is a special case explicitly defined in the rules, and it's an attack, not a sunder.


Ckorik wrote:
Kazaan wrote:

Again, it helps if you think of it in computer function terminology. Attack() is your function. You could apply parameters to it such as Attack(melee) or Attack(unarmed) or Attack (melee, defensive). Charge() is a function in and of itself, however and while it calls up, among other things, the same routine that Attack(melee) uses, it's still not the Attack() function.

Sure as a class:

Class TCombatAction{

private:
TAction Standard
TAction Move
TAction NotAnAction
TAction FullRound
TAction Quick
(etc.)
}

Class TAction Standard{
private:
Attack
Cast a Spell
}

Class TAction FullRound{
private:
Full Attack
Cast a Spell
}

And using polymorphisim you override the Attack type depending on the object called thus you don't need to worry about the kind of object calling attack - because an attack is an attack.

makes sense - but I don't know why you want to keep using program analogies to make this point - the rules are meant to be read with common sense - which doesn't lead to a special attack action understanding or it would have never needed dev clarification on intention to begin with.

Fixed it for you.


Ckorik wrote:

Class TAction FullRound{

private:
Attack
Cast a Spell
}

That should be "Full-attack" not "Attack", since the attack action is a standard action, not a full round action.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This may have over a 1,000 posts, but only 84 FAQ hits.

If you have yet to hit the FAQ button next to the Original Post, please do so now.


Jiggy wrote:
An AoO against a potion is a special case explicitly defined in the rules, and it's an attack, not a sunder.

Actually, it's still a combat maneuver, just not a Sunder combat maneuver. It's an attack, because all CMs are attacks. It's a weird case where you make an undefined (but not Sunder) combat maneuver that targets AC instead of CMD.


Ravingdork wrote:
Sunder NEEDS to be made as part of an attack, not as a standard action. Too many things get wonky if you take it the other way: You can't effectively sunder armor and shields in one go at any level (and you can't use things like vital strike in conjunction to make such things possible), you can't sunder potions during an attack of opportunity, etc.

Actually the discussion isn't on sunder as a standard action but as part of an attack action and attack action being a standard action. Which means Vital Strike and Sunder stack since they both affect the same action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
Which means Vital Strike and Sunder stack since they both affect the same action.

They use the same action, but since Sunder replaces the attack, you don't get the extra dice from Vital Strike, because the Vital Strike attack never happens.

It's not so much a discussion as continually answering the same claims.

Someone new will jump into the thread, become incensed, not read anything, and post something incorrect. Then we correct them, then they try again, etc. Once they give up, someone else is waiting to do the same thing.

The Thread of Sundering turns, and pages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the page that gave it birth comes again. On one page, called the Third Page by some, a page yet to come, and page long past, an argument rose in the messageboards of paizo. The argument was not the beginning, there are neither beginnings nor endings to the arguments in The Thread of Sundering. But it was a beginning...


Grick wrote:
Ilja wrote:
Which means Vital Strike and Sunder stack since they both affect the same action.
They use the same action, but since Sunder replaces the attack, you don't get the extra dice from Vital Strike, because the Vital Strike attack never happens.

You might be correct, but as I see it it can be interpreted both ways.

"Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."
We are using the attack action to sunder.

If we want, we can make one attack (i think this refers to attack as in something with an attack roll rather than the specific attack action because otherwise it wouldn't make sense) at our highest base attack bonus (as is normal) and it deals bonus damage.

I see no language here that prevents it from being combined with sunder, but I agree it's some pretty vague wording and the intent could be that they should not stack.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Grick wrote:
Someone new will jump into the thread, become incensed, not read anything, and post something incorrect. Then we correct them, then they try again, etc. Once they give up, someone else is waiting to do the same thing.

And then on every seventh repetition of the same two pages' worth of discussion, someone announces that the presence of X pages of discussion proves just how unclear things are.


Jiggy wrote:
Grick wrote:
Someone new will jump into the thread, become incensed, not read anything, and post something incorrect. Then we correct them, then they try again, etc. Once they give up, someone else is waiting to do the same thing.
And then on every seventh repetition of the same two pages' worth of discussion, someone announces that the presence of X pages of discussion proves just how unclear things are.

Sounds like politics at its finest.


Ilja wrote:

"Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage."

We are using the attack action to sunder.

If we want, we can make one attack (i think this refers to attack as in something with an attack roll rather than the specific attack action because otherwise it wouldn't make sense) at our highest base attack bonus (as is normal) and it deals bonus damage.

It's not about Vital Strike wording, that's fine. It's about Sunder's wording: "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."

In place of a melee attack. So you perform the attack action, which would normally benefit from Vital Strike, Overhand Chop, etc. But in place of that attack (which would deal additional damage) you instead attempt to sunder an item.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.

you would still probably deal the additional damage, nothing says your damage gets altered when replacing the attack with a sunder. You still deal damage as normal, unlike with trip / disarm or other combat maneuvers where no damage is assigned.


Seraphimpunk wrote:
you would still probably deal the additional damage, nothing says your damage gets altered when replacing the attack with a sunder. You still deal damage as normal

Vital Strike gives you additional damage on your attack.

That attack never happens, it's replaced with a Sunder attempt, which deals normal damage. Extra damage from Vital Strike is not normal damage.

To work together Sunder would have to say something like "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as an attack action."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:


Fixed it for you.

No you broke the program and made it so that in the future if someone wanted to add another type of action to the combat system they would need to go back and modify old code every place that calls for attack.

overly complex and breaks the entire reason compilers support polymorphism to begin with - much like trying to say that attacks are only standard actions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Grick wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Class TAction FullRound{

private:
Attack
Cast a Spell
}

That should be "Full-attack" not "Attack", since the attack action is a standard action, not a full round action.

While I understand what you are trying to say - that's not the way you'd code the class.


Vital strike wouldn't realistically work together with Sunder. Items don't have vitals to strike.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
overly complex and breaks the entire reason compilers support polymorphism to begin with - much like trying to say that attacks are only standard actions.

No-one is saying that attacks are only standard actions. That's a strawman argument.

An attack action is a type of standard action. This is a fact. Anything that uses the attack action must be made as a standard action. The name of the attack action is "Attack" just like the name of the full-attack action is "Full-Attack."

There are lots of actions that involve making an attack (not an attack action, just an attack), each of those use whatever type of action category the specific action requires. The attack action and an attack are not the same thing.

But you know all this.


Grick wrote:

In place of a melee attack. So you perform the attack action, which would normally benefit from Vital Strike, Overhand Chop, etc. But in place of that attack (which would deal additional damage) you instead attempt to sunder an item.

But a sunder attempt IS an attack.

Grick wrote:
That attack never happens, it's replaced with a Sunder attempt, which deals normal damage. Extra damage from Vital Strike is not normal damage.

The same could be said for weapon specialization, that extra damage from it is not "normal" damage. What is normal damage anyway?


Nicos wrote:
I can not believe this thread reached the 1000th post.

And I've read. Every. Single. One. :|

Cheliax

Ravingdork wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I can not believe this thread reached the 1000th post.
And I've read. Every. Single. One. :|

Glutton for punishment I see..

(not that I can say different)...

Silver Crusade

Grick wrote:
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.

'Third party contributers', eh?

On Oct 18th

James Jacobs wrote:
Sunder attempts are made as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. You can basically declare any melee attack to be a sunder attempt, in other words.

When I mentioned our 'attack action' controversy, he replied on Oct 19th

Quote:

Yeah... the confusion comes from the use of the word "action" attached to the word "attack." Since the word "action" has certain connotations, it's a word we really shouldn't use in print all that much, unfortunately. (This is why, as an aside, the spell "free action" was re-named to "freedom of movement" back during the creation of 3rd edition.)

What an "attack action" is in the game is, unfortunately, not defined. An attack action is the exact same as an attack, though... be that a single attack on its own as a standard action or a single attack as part of a suite of attacks made as a full round action or a single attack made as an attack of opportunity. It's no more complicated than that.

Granted, when Jason B was trying to clarify Vital Strike, he said some things which had unitended consequences for 'attack action', but he said nothing about sunder.

Silver Crusade

Grick wrote:
For instance, the person who wrote the quick maneuver feats didn't know that sunder can't be made with iterative attacks.

I submit that he did know that sunder can be made with iterative attacks! Just as it could in 3.0, 3.5 and beta, and with the wording of both sunder and attack action unchanged; sunder unchanged from beta and attack action unchanged from 3.0, where attack action most definately was used just as James Jacobs understands it now!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Malachi, why do you keep bringing up James Jacobs agreeing with you and ignoring the times he's said the exact opposite? You're being dishonest by presenting partial and therefore misleading information.


Ckorik wrote:
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

I have the opposite reaction to this text. Why spell out the possibility of directing an AoO at a potion if you can already direct an AoO at any attended object via sunder attempts?

In other words... Exception.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Grick wrote:
For instance, the person who wrote the quick maneuver feats didn't know that sunder can't be made with iterative attacks.
I submit that he did know that sunder can be made with iterative attacks!

Much in the same way that people "knew" that the Earth was flat and was the center of the universe?

Silver Crusade

Jiggy wrote:
Malachi, why do you keep bringing up James Jacobs agreeing with you and ignoring the times he's said the exact opposite? You're being dishonest by presenting partial and therefore misleading information.

The conversation I had with him is his opinion now and is the opinion he started with.

The time he said 'the exact opposite' (that was posted on this thread) was after he gave his opinion someone told him the James B said he was wrong (not that JB actually said that; the poster just told James that he did). It's quite obvious that JJ didn't want to be seen to publicly disagree with JB, so he withdrew.

This is not the same thing as changing his mind, or sometimes having one opinion and sometimes another.

Since that exchange, JJ has had plenty of time to discuss the matter with the other devs, including JB, and after all that his opinion remains as it was, both about sunder in particular and about 'attack action' in general.

I copied & pasted (my only computer skill, BTW) JJ's entire answers, and he and I really do agree! This is not his 'partial' opinion, it is his actual opinion, with all the benefit of being able to discuss it with JB and the other devs, and with plenty of time to give the matter his due consideration.

It is also specific, in that it is specifically about sunder, and then it is specifically about the 'attack action'; in contrast to the posts by JB which were not about sunder but about Vital Strike; and JB never said anything about sunder and he was not answering specifically about how 'attack actions' are or are not exclusively standard actions in all circumstances.

In short, your attack on my integrity is unwarranted and unappreciated. We can disagree without attacking each other's honesty.

It seems increasingly likely to me that the delay in the devs' response to our FAQ requests may be because there is a difference between the devs themselves about how they understand the 'attack action'! They may not have come to a consensus; if so they are not in a position to answer the FAQ! I'm speculating, of course.

If it wasn't for JB's 'clarification' of how Vital Strike works, I think there would be no reason to doubt that, as James said, 'An attack action is the exact same as an attack, though... be that a single attack on its own as a standard action or a single attack as part of a suite of attacks made as a full round action or a single attack made as an attack of opportunity.'

This is the way it was in 3.0 and 3.5, and the wording wasn't changed in th CRB. Are the players of PF really supposed to run PF based on some obscure posts about Vital Strike?

Silver Crusade

Kazaan wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Grick wrote:
For instance, the person who wrote the quick maneuver feats didn't know that sunder can't be made with iterative attacks.
I submit that he did know that sunder can be made with iterative attacks!
Much in the same way that people "knew" that the Earth was flat and was the center of the universe?

Kazaan, your reply applies to both Grick and that dev equally, if it applies at all!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Malachi,
James Jacobs had the grace to admit he was confused about all of this. I know he doesn't love when we point out that he's "not the rules guy" but honestly how could he have time to be the rules guy on top of creating vast worlds for all of us to use as a playground? The guy is prolific.

So he took time out of his day to answer you privately, and you are using it over and over as ammunition in this thread. But you know by now how often he has presented the caveat that his rules advice is only a reflection of the way he runs things in his own games. You know by now that he favors a fast and loose play style where the rules serve the story. You know he doesn't care for rigid analysis of the rules. (At least those are things I have inferred.)

So he shares your interpretation on this. That's great, but why are you wearing it like a badge? What does that accomplish?

No one is saying that the way you and JJ run this is badwrongfun. I'm sure JJ's games are absolutely amazing to play in, and his rulings on attack actions don't detract from that one bit. I bet no one in JJ's game has to worry about having their whole inventory sundered by a barbarian frost giant, not because he thinks the rules don't allow it, but because he's not a "jerk DM". That's just an educated guess based on his posts.

These little rules discussions are a humble contribution to the game compared to JJ's body of work. It's his imagination that fuels a lot of our games, but rules discussions can be positive as well if we do it in the right spirit. It's still a constructive endeavor to seek clarity in the rules. We all love pathfinder but most of us agree that some of the mechanics could be a little more elegant in execution. Eventually the time will be right for a new edition or revision of the rules or whatever, but in the meantime we're just trying to make sense of what we have here.

Silver Crusade

Good points all, Grimmy. : )

Why do I present JJ's opinions on this thread?

• He has been involved with the devs of D&D for over a decade, and he has played in games run by those devs. Although his rulings on corner cases my not be perfect, both sunder to a lesser extent and 'attack action' to a much greater extent are fundamental to the basics of the game, part of the combat chapter since 3.0 and 'attack action' unchanged in all that time. I find it strains credulity past breaking point to believe that 'attack action' didn't come up in all that time in such a way as to be unequivocal.

• His understanding of 'attack action' exactly matches that of the 3.0/3.5 'rules guy' Skip Williams, and JJ's post was both recent and succinct.

• Again, any dev in 3.0, 3.5 or PF, when talking specifically about sunder, has confirmed that sunder may be made as any attack, from Skip Williams onward. Even the guy who did the 'Quick' CM feats saw no need to write 'Quick Sunder', and no-one in the dev team thought it was strange.

As I said above, maybe there is disagreement among the devs, and maybe that's why it's taking so long to get a FAQ. Both sides on this issue have reasonable points to make, along with supporting evidence. But this dichotomy has only arisen since JB attempted to clarify Vital Strike; before then there was no question about what 'attack action' meant, and JJ's post exemplified this understanding

BTW, when I asked JJ for his help I told him that I would post his answers on this thread, so I think it appropriate to do so.


Grick wrote:

It's not about Vital Strike wording, that's fine. It's about Sunder's wording:

"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."
In place of a melee attack. So you perform the attack action, which would normally benefit from Vital Strike, Overhand Chop, etc. But in place of that attack (which would deal additional damage) you instead attempt to sunder an item.

Paizo has stated that you can choose the order of applying stacking mechanics, basically to your benefit.

Let's apply Vital Strike first, then Sunder:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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 your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally

VS increases the weapon damage dice. Sunder applies damage 'normally', meaning as you would if weren't Sundering. That doesn't impede VS' increased weapon dice from applying, since that IS the 'normal' case for when YOU (with the VS feat) use the attack action.

Let's look at it in the other order, anyways:

Quote:
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 your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally
Quote:
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.

You're Sundering using the attack action. You can choose to use VS on top of that, which says you can make one attack which does more damage. That doesn't 'negate' the Sunder, because Sunder is still an attack / attack roll. Vital Strike doesn't restrict itself to certain 'types' of attacks, nor does it change the 'type' of attack you are doing: melee, ranged, touch, etc. VS isn't imposing a 'normal melee attack', it's merely 'inheriting' that from whatever you were doing with the Attack action to begin with. If you were using a melee weapon whose attack also applied Poison, that 'rider' still occurs with VS. Sunder is basically just a 'called shot' attack against a character, whose effects are targetting items worn by a character, which aren't usually targettable on their own (outside of Sunder). that's still just an attack doing damage, which VS can apply to, since it doesn't care about any parameters of the attack besides the damage which it is increasing.

Fundamentally, you have to realize the first line of VS: "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage." is merely fluff text. We already know that an Attack Action is making one attack at full BAB, VS isn't changing that, saying 'you can' isn't a NEW thing going on, the only new thing going on is that 'you can... deal additional damage... with one attack at your highest BAB.'

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

I can't say I'm surprised that Malachi chose to go off on a tangent re: Monk/Barbarians, basically denigrating their possible importance (as explanation of the Destroyer Feat, as opposed to his pet explanation which challenges the idea of 'attak actin'), while neglecting that many other class combos do the EXACT same thing (Monk/Ranger/Cleric|Druid|Inquisitor|Paladins with Rage/Anger Domain/Inquisition) so it's hardly just 'one niche class combo' (as if that really negates it's relevance in the first place), not to mention the other case I specifically mentioned that doesn't require any specific class at all: Sundering Strike, which lets anybody Sunder on a (any) Critical Hit.

Not to mention the entire concept of writing a rule to be resilient vs. new and unknown future mechanics, specifically mentioning Rhino Hide Armor which DIDN'T 'insure itself' in this manner vs. new material that allows multiple attacks on a Charge. Writing resilient rules would not create the situation where Paizo must make board posts (limiting Rhino Hide to only affecting 1 attack per Charge) that conflict with RAW. Given that Paizo has at least one serious (probably more) case like that that is calling out for Errata NOW, it seems prudent to make sure to avoid such situations in the future.

I'm still waiting for ANY example of another situation in the rules where 'attack action' indeed is referencing 'any attack roll', to counter the hundreds of cases of 'attack' succesfully being used to indicate such things without the need for an additional overlapping term (attack action). Or any explanation for how Paizo's explanation for Vital Strike MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL if you believe 'attack action = attack' (while it clearly makes utter sense if you believe the terms are distinct... i.e. exactly as Jason Bulmahn wrote).

Quote:
Even the guy who did the 'Quick' CM feats saw no need to write 'Quick Sunder', and no-one in the dev team thought it was strange.

He never said that he went out of his way to say 'oh, hey guys, i didn't write Quick Sunder because it's not needed given how Sunder works', he just didn't write such a feat, and nobody at paizo commented on it's absense... That hardly indicates that Paizo approves of his rationale for not doing so, any more than they approve of his rationale for not writing a bunch of Ninja Unicorn Feats which he also didn't turn in. There's no reason to think that anybody at Paizo would ever have EXPECTED him to have written a Quick Sunder in the first place. Heck, there is no Quick Grapple ot Quick Overrun Feat, so I don't see the inconsistency with there not being a Quick Sunder Feat (albeit I wouldn't be opposed if there were one).

Malachi wrote:

• His understanding of 'attack action' exactly matches that of the 3.0/3.5 'rules guy' Skip Williams, and JJ's post was both recent and succinct.

• Again, any dev in 3.0, 3.5 or PF, when talking specifically about sunder, has confirmed that sunder may be made as any attack, from Skip Williams onward.

skip williams' specific statements recognizing the specific attack action are clear and have been posted elsewhere on the forums. any developer talking about 3.x sunder was talking about a sunder that simply requires 'a melee attack', and doesn't invoke the attack action at all, a specific change that was made in PRPG. you might as well try and claim that PRPG Grapple still uses a touch attack because it did so in 3.x


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
• His understanding of 'attack action' exactly matches that of the 3.0/3.5 'rules guy' Skip Williams, and JJ's post was both recent and succinct.

Hmm, Skip was he the guy that did the 3.5 faq. I never can remember if he was responsible for that.


Malachi, note that with your reading of attack action you can vital strike with a polar ray.


To be honest, sunder never really comes up in my games.

1) Players never want to use sunder (other than not usually being effective, they actually want to loot stuff that is intact not broken or destroyed)

2) I never use sunder as a GM. It's kind of a dick move to use sunder as a throwaway npc considering that killing the person is often more effective than destroying their stuff (the player characters have backup weapons and even ways of dealing without weapons). It's kind of metagamey, in the sort of way of saying that an npc character has no cash/treasure because he spent it all on buying gear for that specific encounter.

3) None of my players nor I want to deal with the headache of keeping track of item hp and hardness.

Other than not wanting to deal with the extra bookwork, I'm glad that it hasn't come up yet because there is something about the way that sunder works that honestly doesn't sit well with me. Hitting the little fairy's toothpick is easier than hitting the giant's maul, not to mention that hitting these wildly swinging objects in the creature's hands is sometimes easier than hitting the creatures themselves.

Regardless, I see no reason that one shouldn't get their iterative attacks while sundering as it closely parallels disarm and trip (uses the weapon) and doesn't require any special movement (like bullrush or overrun).

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Even the guy who did the 'Quick' CM feats saw no need to write 'Quick Sunder', and no-one in the dev team thought it was strange.
Quandry wrote:
He never said that he went out of his way to say 'oh, hey guys, i didn't write Quick Sunder because it's not needed given how Sunder works', he just didn't write such a feat, and nobody at paizo commented on it's absense... That hardly indicates that Paizo approves of his rationale for not doing so, any more than they approve of his rationale for not writing a bunch of Ninja Unicorn Feats which he also didn't turn in. There's no reason to think that anybody at Paizo would ever have EXPECTED him to have written a Quick Sunder in the first place. Heck, there is no Quick Grapple ot Quick Overrun Feat, so I don't see the inconsistency with there not being a Quick Sunder Feat (albeit I wouldn't be opposed if there were one).

The guy is here.

Quandry, I am not saying this in anger, but I don't like people speaking on my behalf. Please refrain.

I also stepped away from this thread because I don't care for the thread's acrimony and contentiousness. That is not directed solely at you. It also kind of bugs me that, once upon a time, I freely admitted that it is perilous not to choose one's words very carefully. Specifically when referring to an attack versus 'attack action'. Because I misspoke and admitted that I misspoke, it feels like that has become license to dismiss anything I have to say. I can not make anyone refrain from doing that, but I would consider it a courtesy if people would not be blaise and casual about their disregard.

I don't say something is an absolute fact because I can't. It's not my job.

Concerning your post, Quandry.

Sean gave the team a huge list of feats to try. Some of them he didn't even expect to see the light of day, because he didn't think they were possible. He does this sometimes because he wants someone else besides him to give it a try. I know, because I tried some of them. So did other Team Members. More often than not these efforts were rejected, with Sean's thanks, because we couldn't figure out a way that didn't spawn a whole bunch of greater problems.

Here's a real example (because you got me digging up old emails from over a year ago!): "Speeding up making a drag maneuver into a melee attack rather than a standard action. This would let you drag multiple people if you space it out correctly with your 5-foot-step... or there could be a followup feat requiring Spring Attack that lets you drag multiple creatures over the course of your movement."

I tried it. Sean thanked me. We ended up with Quick Drag, but none of the special follow-up stuff. He said it was a clever approach, but ultimately it was going to be much more trouble than it was ever going to be worth.

So, my point in that example is: If you think we were trying crazy stuff like that, do you really think we just somehow overlooked Sunder? Forgot about it? No. We did not. I did not. As I will go on record below:

Quandry wrote:
he just didn't write such a feat, and nobody at paizo commented on it's absense...

Actually I told Sean that I didn't write one because Sunder (to me) functions like trip and disarm. That is a subtle but significant difference to this depiction that I just willy nilly didn't write it and no one noticed. Sean didn't reply, but neither did he ask me to go back and write one either. I will not put words in his mouth, but not writing Quick Sunder was a conscious and deliberate decision on my part. Not an oversight.

Quandry wrote:
any more than they approve of his rationale for not writing a bunch of Ninja Unicorn Feats which he also didn't turn in

Not cool. :(

Quandry wrote:
There's no reason to think that anybody at Paizo would ever have EXPECTED him to have written a Quick Sunder in the first place.

Except where they asked for a Quick version for every maneuver where it made sense. They never called out for Quick Bull Rush and Quick Reposition, but they got them anyway. That's because I was examining every possible maneuver. Fact.

Quandry wrote:
Heck, there is no Quick Grapple ot Quick Overrun Feat, so I don't see the inconsistency with there not being a Quick Sunder Feat (albeit I wouldn't be opposed if there were one).

They were kicked around. I don't think we wanted the extra movement complication with Overrun. Originally Quicken Bull Rush just allowed you to push an opponent as an attack (not move with them), to avoid extra movement, but in the end it was decided to allow the character to execute the full maneuver—it was not seen as that unbalancing. Sean specifically put a cautionary note on grapple, citing it could become over-powered easily. Nevertheless, we have Rapid Grappler right in Ultimate Combat, page 114. It has a different surname because it's held to a different set of prerequisites (i.e. a Greater Feat instead of just an Improved feat) and we didn't want it confused with the Quick Maneuver feats. Its named differently to set it apart.

You weren't there Quandry. You're saying a lot of things as if they're facts, when you just don't know.

Now I can predict your rebuttal: "When I elected not to write Quick Sunder, Paizo actually wouldn't have wanted it anyway, and they just didn't tell me that."

I can't disprove it. It seems implausible to me, but I won't presume to speak to things I don't know to be true. Maybe they think I'm a toaster and my name is Samantha. They've never written me and told me otherwise.

Well, they do call me Jim.

Silver Crusade

Ilja wrote:
Malachi, note that with your reading of attack action you can vital strike with a polar ray.

The Actions in Combat section list various actions which may burn a standard action, but are not limited to standard actions.

Among this list are:-
-attack
-activate magic item
-cast a spell
-etc.

Sunder is only possible using the types of 'weapon-like' (for want of a better word-since there is disagreement on the definition of 'attack action') listed under 'attack'. The full attack option is likewise only useable with the kinds of attack listed under 'attack'.

You can't make an AoO with a cast spell, nor can you full attack by casting iterative spells! (unless you have an ability that specifically says you can)

Similarly, you can't sunder with a spell, spell-like ability or supernatural ability unless it specifically says you can; sunder is only available when using the kind of attack listed under the 'attack' action.

Polar Ray uses the 'cast a spell' action or the 'use spell-like ability' action, not the 'attack' action, and 'twas ever thus. : )

1,001 to 1,050 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.