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

301 to 350 of 1,171 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Karlgamer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
See here.
That only lists a "full attack" not a "full attack action"

In this, you are correct.

When it's your turn and you tell the DM what your fighter is doing, many of us use imprecise language. You might say 'I'm using the full attack action' when 'I'm using a full-round action to full attack' would be correct.

We might say 'I'm using a 20-feet move action and then hitting the Orc using an attack action' when 'I'm using a move action to move 20-feet then using a standard action to attack' would be correct.

The action types in 3.5 and Pathfinder are:-

• Full-Round
• Standard
• Move
• Swift
• Free
• Immediate

You'll note that neither 'attack' nor 'full attack' nor 'cast spell' are game actions, these things use actions! And the type of action they use varies:-

• 'Attack' may use a free, standard or full-round action, or may not be an action at all
• 'Full Attack' may use a full-round action, or may not use an action at all but be part of a pounce which uses a full-round action
• 'Cast a Spell' may use a free or swift or standard or full-round action

So, RAW, there is no such thing as an 'Attack Action'.


malachi, you just used a list of 'action types' to justify that 'attack' and 'full-attack' are not ACTIONS.
that just doesn't make sense. that list supports the idea that 'attack' and 'full-attack' are not action TYPES.
this is exactly the point that skip williams made in the last posted quote of his,
while explicitly regognizing that there IS an action named 'attack'... directly contradicting your claim.
nobody has every claimed in this thread that 'attack' and 'full-attack' are action TYPES.

the claim that there is no such thing as an attack action, besides suggesting that vital strike et al simply don't function, logically means that every other instance that references 'full-attack action', 'charge action', and other specific named actions, also simply doesn't work, because all of those actions are defined exactly like the attack action is.

you're just getting yourself all twisted up, because you haven't considered the possibility of extricating yourself from your assumptions. certainly, i'm sure you and i both may use terminology inexactly in actual game play, but that doesn't mean all terminology is meaningless. saying 'full-attack action' verbally in your home-games is just as valid as a host of other abilities which reference the exact same thing in the written text.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


• 'Attack' may use a free, standard or full-round action, or may not be an action at all

There are two different words here you are confusing.

One is an action it's called 'attack'

one is a descriptive word it's also called 'attack'

the action called 'attack' is a standard action we call it 'attack action'

'attack' the word isn't an action it's a word used to describe an action. The best definition for this word is:

Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
See here.
That only lists a "full attack" not a "full attack action"

In this, you are correct.

When it's your turn and you tell the DM what your fighter is doing, many of us use imprecise language. You might say 'I'm using the full attack action' when 'I'm using a full-round action to full attack' would be correct.

We might say 'I'm using a 20-feet move action and then hitting the Orc using an attack action' when 'I'm using a move action to move 20-feet then using a standard action to attack' would be correct.

The action types in 3.5 and Pathfinder are:-

• Full-Round
• Standard
• Move
• Swift
• Free
• Immediate

You'll note that neither 'attack' nor 'full attack' nor 'cast spell' are game actions, these things use actions! And the type of action they use varies:-

• 'Attack' may use a free, standard or full-round action, or may not be an action at all
• 'Full Attack' may use a full-round action, or may not use an action at all but be part of a pounce which uses a full-round action
• 'Cast a Spell' may use a free or swift or standard or full-round action

So, RAW, there is no such thing as an 'Attack Action'.

So Malachi when RAW and RAI collide and you know they are they are not saying the same thing how do you run your games?


Does no one see a problem with sundering multiple items a round? Items are WAY easier to hit and are trivial to destroy by any who specialize in melee. You aren't rolling against a CMD you are rolling against a near non-existant armor class.

Greater Sunder basically becomes 'LOL I DESTROY YOU AND ALL OF YOUR SHINIES' in a single round. Go ahead, next time you are a DM use a BBEG that uses greater sunder with an equivilent weapon to the PCs armor. It will probably be one of the most effective BBEGs you will ever make if you sunder with iterative attacks.

The reason this doesn't work is the bad guys typically don't have the wealth to do it or are monsters with natural weapons that by RAW can't sunder magical ones. On the flip side players are greedy bastards who don't want to destroy that magical loot - they want to take it for themselves.

Sunder makes the game less fun but that is another conversation.

Silver Crusade

Quandary wrote:

malachi, you just used a list of 'action types' to justify that 'attack' and 'full-attack' are not ACTIONS.

that just doesn't make sense. that list supports the idea that 'attack' and 'full-attack' are not action TYPES.
this is exactly the point that skip williams made in the last posted quote of his,
while explicitly regognizing that there IS an action named 'attack'... directly contradicting your claim.
nobody has every claimed in this thread that 'attack' and 'full-attack' are action TYPES.

the claim that there is no such thing as an attack action, besides suggesting that vital strike et al simply don't function, logically means that every other instance that references 'full-attack action', 'charge action', and other specific named actions, also simply doesn't work, because all of those actions are defined exactly like the attack action is.

you're just getting yourself all twisted up, because you haven't considered the possibility of extricating yourself from your assumptions. certainly, i'm sure you and i both may use terminology inexactly in actual game play, but that doesn't mean all terminology is meaningless. saying 'full-attack action' verbally in your home-games is just as valid as a host of other abilities which reference the exact same thing in the written text.

Although these things are actions, they are not action types, nor are these actions tied to any particular action type

You can say 'attack action' and mean 'attack as a standard action', but it doesn't work the other way around! Just because something takes an 'attack action' to use doesn't mean it must take a standard action, in the same way that under the heading Standard Actions it says 'making an attack is a standard action' does not mean that any attack uses a standard action!


"attack action" is a standard action. That is how it is defined.

attack is defined as: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.


Malachi I will also add that even if you argue that "attack action" has no meaning that does not mean sunder gets to be used as a part of a full attack. Remember "full attack action" was listed separately from "attack action" in that section. At best you have sunder referencing a phrase with no meaning, and I am sure you saw my post with the made up word. You can't just sub in "full attack action".

Now since full attack action and attack action are listed seperately it is reasonable to say they don't work the same. So how would you say they are intended to work if a post PM'd you. Also how you say sunder is supposed to work?

For reference:

Quote:
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), others require a specific action.

Remember the sunder calls out the attack action, not the full attack action.

edit:Of course "full attack action" is also not a defined term according to you so I expect that this will be interesting.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
'making an attack is a standard action' does not mean that any attack uses a standard action!

Malachi why do you getting trying to assign an argument to us we are not making? You as well be saying 1+1 is not 343424 since we are not saying that either.

I have said this 4 times already. Do you need for Quandry to also say he is not making that statement. I am sure if I was incorrect that he would say "Actually Concerro I am saying that any attack uses a standard action".


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Just because something takes an 'attack action' to use doesn't mean it must take a standard action

That's exactly what it means. When the rules refer specifically to 'an attack action', they mean the standard action used to make an attack. This is clear because every other reference to 'an X action', such as full attack action, aid another action, charge action, and so on refer to the respective standard or full round actions, and because the FAQ has stated as much with regard to Vital Strike.

Yes, there are other ways of making attacks. But these are not attack actions. They are full attack actions, charge actions, non-actions such as AoOs or Panther Style, actions associated with using a feat such as Spring Attack, and so on.


yeah, i think i am done with malachi...

@Hawktitan: I think your concerns are misplaced. ANYTHING carried or worn by a character must be Sundered via CMB/CMD, not Item AC. Item AC is used for UNATTENDED objects, which worn armor is not... Which brings up another difference of PRPG Sunder vs. 3.5: in 3.5 you simply couldn't Sunder worn Armor at all, while in PRPG it's the same CMB/CMD check. I'm pretty certain that James Jacob or Jason Bulmahn DID express similar concerns (during Beta playtest?) re: PCs items being commonly Sundered, and I believe that is a gamist reason why Paizo went with the Attack Action restriction for Sunder vs. any and every attack, effectively making it kind of a 'called shot'.


I love reading these threads every 8 months :) I believe concerro is correct but I believe it is not meant to be that way, which is about where the last 3 of these threads have ended up.


Last 3 of what?

glutton they seem to be closer than 8 months to me. :)


I'm sure there is a reason for one sunder per creature per turn.

I don't feel like doing the math.

Someone give us the math.

What would it mean if you could sunder with each attack as a full attack action?


Hawktitan wrote:

Does no one see a problem with sundering multiple items a round? Items are WAY easier to hit and are trivial to destroy by any who specialize in melee. You aren't rolling against a CMD you are rolling against a near non-existant armor class.

Greater Sunder basically becomes 'LOL I DESTROY YOU AND ALL OF YOUR SHINIES' in a single round. Go ahead, next time you are a DM use a BBEG that uses greater sunder with an equivilent weapon to the PCs armor. It will probably be one of the most effective BBEGs you will ever make if you sunder with iterative attacks.

The reason this doesn't work is the bad guys typically don't have the wealth to do it or are monsters with natural weapons that by RAW can't sunder magical ones. On the flip side players are greedy bastards who don't want to destroy that magical loot - they want to take it for themselves.

I agree with your message, but a couple quick corrections. You do roll against CMD not AC (bear in mind that you get all attendant to hit bonuses from the weapon you're using for the sunder attempt on your CMB roll so this should still be fairly easy), and magic items can be sundered by non-magical attacks (enhancement bonuses improve their hardness and hit points though).

To put this into practical perspective, a sundering monster such as a CR 16 Nightwalker could make four sunder attempts per round (two claw attacks, hasted attack, and swift sundering) at +35 CMB for average 32 damage per success. Against a +5 two-handed sword (hardness 20 hp 60) it would take on average three hits to break and five to destroy. A level 16 fighter would probably have a CMD around 41 (just an estimate, could be wrong), so on average it would take the Nightwalker two rounds to destroy that sword if he was wielding it.

EDIT: To put that in a less hypothetical terms, the party I am running through an adventure path (which shall remain unnamed for spoiler reasons) will be facing a Nightwalker with four Greater Shadows at level 15, armed with +3 to +4 weapons, as one of several encounters before the final boss. I estimate he could take out their weapons in one round per character, likely wiping the party or at least crippling half the characters.


One good thing about these discussions is that I will now definitely know how to sunder in case it comes up in any following sessions.


Thanks Mog. I really did not feel like crunching any numbers.


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

"Attack action" and even "full-attack action" are NOT defined terms. What they are, are unofficial shorthand.

Defined terms include "attack" and "full attack." They happen to be located in the action section of the Combat chapter (where standard actions, move actions, et al. ARE clearly defined). Hence, designers used the shorthand "attack action" and "full-attack action." Sadly, this has caused much fuss (as evidenced by this thread and multitudes of others), so much so that using the former term, "attack action" has been actively avoided by designers for a long time now.

Designers have indeed clarified (for better or for worse) that an "attack action" is supposed to be a standard action which, as has been said, can't really be true without all attacks being standard actions--hence why I see it as muddled shorthand rather than a clearly defined term (they are clearly separate). Why they deigned to "bless" us with that particular "fruit of knowledge" is beyond me. All it's done is cause trouble. It would have been much better to errata all instances of the shorthand "attack action" to "standard action."

That's my observation anyways. Take it as you will.


Karlgamer wrote:
One good thing about these discussions is that I will now definitely know how to sunder in case it comes up in any following sessions.

So are you going to use it as a standard or as part of a full attack

:D


hm. perhaps while they're at it, they could errata the title of the 'actions in combat' table to be 'unofficial shorthand in combat'.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
hm. perhaps while they're at it, they could errata the title of the 'actions in combat' table to be 'unofficial shorthand in combat'.

Touche.


:-)


Wow... people can really stumble over simple English terminology when trying to exploit loopholes, can't they? Ok, lets break this down so that people can understand.

Types of Actions:
Standard
Move
Full-Round
Swift
Immediate
Free
Not an Action

Everyone's clear on this, right? These are the broad categories of actions.

Now, under Standard Actions, we find a list of "Standard Actions" one can perform. One of these actions is Attack. This is the Attack Action. Not "Attack Action" but "Attack" Action. You also have a "Aid Another" Action, a "Channel Energy" Action, a "Cast a Spell" Action, and several others. Under Move Actions, you have the "Move" Action (which is functionally different from the category "Move Actions"), "Draw a Weapon" Action, etc. There's a "Full-Round Attack" Action under Full-Round actions. So, saying there's no such thing as an "Attack Action" is, technically, correct. However, there is an "Attack" Action. It's used to make a single melee attack. "Full-Round Attack" does not consist of a number of Attack Actions. It's a single action that encompasses a number of "just plain attacks".


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
concerro wrote:


A full round action is not a combination of other actions. It is its own action. If it were just a combination of other actions then charge would not be possible since it would potentially use up 2 move actions, and one standard action.

What you quoted is a rule allowing you to use 2 standard actions to complete a full round action across 2 rounds as a special exception to the rules, since not all full round actions can cross 2 rounds/turns.

No I was pointing out that a full round action does allow some types of standard actions.

Your point was that a full attack action doesn't allow standard actions because (above that) it states that you can't use standard actions as part of a full round action.

My point was they show standard actions *can* be part of a full round action depending on how you choose to complete it.

That's why a 'full attack' is still a 'standard action' - just because you are using a full round doesn't change the type of action it is - it's just a special rule to allow iterative attacks (or offhand) to occur.

Nothing you have pointed out shows that attacks during a full round are special and not standard actions. You only show a rule saying you can't take other types of standard actions (there are 5 other types) during a full attack action.

Saying something exists by omission doesn't make it true.

There is nothing in the rules that change what type of action the 'attack' is - which is why trying to restrict sunder to a single attack is not correct


If each of those attacks is a standard action then vital strike must have huge use in your games.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
If each of those attacks is a standard action then vital strike must have huge use in your games.

Vital strike - a feat - which has already been corrected - is not what we are talking about :)

Note that as a feat it's not even using the same part of the rules we are discussing - which are the CM rules what *only* cover the specific CM's that can be used in place of an attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Moglun wrote:
Hawktitan wrote:

Does no one see a problem with sundering multiple items a round? Items are WAY easier to hit and are trivial to destroy by any who specialize in melee. You aren't rolling against a CMD you are rolling against a near non-existant armor class.

Greater Sunder basically becomes 'LOL I DESTROY YOU AND ALL OF YOUR SHINIES' in a single round. Go ahead, next time you are a DM use a BBEG that uses greater sunder with an equivilent weapon to the PCs armor. It will probably be one of the most effective BBEGs you will ever make if you sunder with iterative attacks.

The reason this doesn't work is the bad guys typically don't have the wealth to do it or are monsters with natural weapons that by RAW can't sunder magical ones. On the flip side players are greedy bastards who don't want to destroy that magical loot - they want to take it for themselves.

I agree with your message, but a couple quick corrections. You do roll against CMD not AC (bear in mind that you get all attendant to hit bonuses from the weapon you're using for the sunder attempt on your CMB roll so this should still be fairly easy), and magic items can be sundered by non-magical attacks (enhancement bonuses improve their hardness and hit points though).

To put this into practical perspective, a sundering monster such as a CR 16 Nightwalker could make four sunder attempts per round (two claw attacks, hasted attack, and swift sundering) at +35 CMB for average 32 damage per success. Against a +5 two-handed sword (hardness 20 hp 60) it would take on average three hits to break and five to destroy. A level 16 fighter would probably have a CMD around 41 (just an estimate, could be wrong), so on average it would take the Nightwalker two rounds to destroy that sword if he was wielding it.

EDIT: To put that in a less hypothetical terms, the party I am running through an adventure path (which shall remain unnamed for spoiler reasons) will be facing a Nightwalker with four Greater Shadows at level 15, armed with +3 to +4...

Combat Maneuver Bonus: Each character and creature

has a Combat Maneuver Bonus (or CMB) that represents
its skill at performing combat maneuvers. A creature’s
CMB is determined using the following formula:
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier
+ special size modifier

If you use a CM on iterative attacks then the CMB will go down, just like for PC's.

Not many monsters in the bestiaries have Improved sunder - which means that those that don't will provoke when they use these - if you do things like use multiple sunders provoking each time you increase the value of feats like combat reflexes.


Ckorik wrote:
That's why a 'full attack' is still a 'standard action' - just because you are using a full round doesn't change the type of action it is - it's just a special rule to allow iterative attacks (or offhand) to occur.

You're the first person I've ever seen claim that a full-attack is a standard action. Using a full-attack actually does mean you must use a full-round action instead of a standard action:

PRD wrote:

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.


Ckorik wrote:
That's why a 'full attack' is still a 'standard action' - just because you are using a full round doesn't change the type of action it is - it's just a special rule to allow iterative attacks (or offhand) to occur.

And just when I thought the thread had hit the bottom the the barrel, someone goes and starts digging. Full Round Attack is, in no way, shape, or form, a Standard Action. Attack, under Standard Actions, even calls it out specifically. 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.

And, yes, there are some instances where a full-round action can call upon a standard action, but those points are explicitly stated. Grapple, for instance, requires a Standard Action, but Flurry of Blows explicitly states that Grapple can be used to replace any unarmed strike therein. The exception doesn't disprove the rule.

Silver Crusade

concerro wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
'making an attack is a standard action' does not mean that any attack uses a standard action!

Malachi why do you getting trying to assign an argument to us we are not making? You as well be saying 1+1 is not 343424 since we are not saying that either.

I have said this 4 times already. Do you need for Quandry to also say he is not making that statement. I am sure if I was incorrect that he would say "Actually Concerro I am saying that any attack uses a standard action".

About the quote from me above: I know you all agree with this!

My point is that every attack type under the heading 'Standard Actions' must folow the same rules! Yet, although we all know that the game's combat system allows attack actions to be folded into full attacks, suddenly you do a u-turn and say that because Sunder says 'attack action' that it cannot be folded into a full attack!

If attack actions couldn't be folded into full attacks (or used as AoOs etc.) there'd be no full attacks!

The game itself is saying that if an action is described as an attack action then it can, by definition, be folded into a full attack. This is why 'multiple attacks' is a sub-section of 'attack' but not a sub-section of 'standard actions'.

Sunder is described as an attack action, therefore by definition of 'attack action' it can be folded into a full attack, used as an AoO, etc.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Are wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
That's why a 'full attack' is still a 'standard action' - just because you are using a full round doesn't change the type of action it is - it's just a special rule to allow iterative attacks (or offhand) to occur.

You're the first person I've ever seen claim that a full-attack is a standard action. Using a full-attack actually does mean you must use a full-round action instead of a standard action:

PRD wrote:

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

I think he means it figuratively. Kind of like how airplane crash investigators will say "the plane is still in the air" until they can figure out what brought it down.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
That's why a 'full attack' is still a 'standard action' - just because you are using a full round doesn't change the type of action it is - it's just a special rule to allow iterative attacks (or offhand) to occur.

And just when I thought the thread had hit the bottom the the barrel, someone goes and starts digging. Full Round Attack is, in no way, shape, or form, a Standard Action. Attack, under Standard Actions, even calls it out specifically. 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.

And, yes, there are some instances where a full-round action can call upon a standard action, but those points are explicitly stated. Grapple, for instance, requires a Standard Action, but Flurry of Blows explicitly states that Grapple can be used to replace any unarmed strike therein. The exception doesn't disprove the rule.

No - if you want to use word semantics to say that an attack is a standard action rather than just a *type* of standard action, then you have to admit there is nothing in the rules that state other attacks change the type of action they are.

The point explicitly stated is that you can use more than one attack as part of a full round action - but nothing in that section says that the attack action which you are making changes type because it's done as part of a full round action.

To say that a full round attack is no longer an attack action but something special isn't in the rules - the only reason to even take that viewpoint is to exclude sunder from being used as an iterative attack CM.

No other CM has that issue based on this stance - it's reading one line in the standard action section (an attack is a standard action) and then using that to say that part of an attack action can only happen as part of a single attack.

Nothing in the rules shows that a full round attack is not an attack action. It's just a special attack action - unless it's called out as such you can't change the type of action it is - which is an attack.

I started this argument believing that attack (like the five foot step) was special and malleable but it's been beat over my head that the rules explicitly call it a standard action. I changed my position - I agree - however you can't show me anywhere that states other attack actions change their type. All I see in the rules are where it shows attack actions that break the 'standard action' rules - but they still don't call out that they change type.

Five foot step is a perfect example as it's a move action (as it uses your move action if you use it) but it's specifically called out as not a move action where it can be used when you otherwise wouldn't have a move action.

RAI it seems that if they wanted the attack action to change type they would mention it - as they don't you can't call an attack a standard action without noting that all attacks are thus standard but explicitly given special circumstances under which they can be used.

The point is - either way sunder can be used on an iterative attack just like the other CM's that state they can be used in place of an attack.


I weep for the lack of orthogonality in Pathfinder.


Ckorik wrote:
*snip*

Yes, something in the rules does say that the full round attack action isn't an attack action; the rules say that. Attack is a standard action. Full-round Attack is a full-round action. You've got to think about it like a programmer, not grammarian.


Attack(type): A standard action attack. Calls up one of Melee attack, Unarmed attack, Ranged attack, or Natural attack.

Full_Attack(number): A full-round action. Calls up multiple recursions of Melee attack, Unarmed attack, Ranged attack, or Natural attack.

Attack calls up melee attack. Full_Attack calls up melee attack multiple times, not Attack. Your problem is that you're reasoning from the subset to a fallacious generalization. All "Attack" actions are Standard Actions. However, not all Standard Actions are "Attack" actions. Full Attack, indeed, is not an "Attack" action, it's not "special" either. You're falling into the trap of seeing "full" as modifying the standard attack action. You have to view it as a single phrase, "Full Attack" and understand that just because they both contain the word 'Attack' is mere linguistic coding and not to be confused with mechanical distinction in the system. If it helps, change the linguistic coding on "Full Attack" to something like "Assault". Then it becomes the "Attack" Action and the "Assault" action with Attack(melee) being a standard action that delivers one melee and Assault(melee, melee) being a full-round action that delivers two melees. Assault (melee, melee) does not call up Attack as the action but rather the function 'melee' which handles rolling of attack dice, damage adjudication, etc.

Silver Crusade

Skip Wiliams wrote:-

'Using eldritch blast requires a standard action, not an
attack action (unlike using a weapon
). If something requires a
standard action (as opposed to an attack action) to use, you
can’t use the full attack action
to gain extra uses of that ability.'

Since the inception of D&D 3.0, through 3.5, and including Pathfinder, anything that requires the 'attack action' can be folded into a full attack or used as an AoO.

If that were not true then what Skip wrote would not have made any kind of sense at all. If an attack action could not be folded into a full attack, then he wouldn't have contrasted 'attack action' with 'standard action'.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Seven pages? Cripes.

Can someone tell me whether anything new has been presented, or if it's still Jason Bulmahn VS Skip Williams?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
*snip*

Full Attack, indeed, is not an "Attack" action,

The rules do not say as such - and the only reason to interpret them as such is to specifically exclude sunder - nothing else in the entire game would be affected.

I refuse to twist words and look at the rulebook as a computer program and on and on and on to make up special rules for Sunder when if it was meant to be special they could have just put 'as a standard action' in front of it - like they do with any other CM that can't be rolled into a full attack action.

On that note I won't argue this point any more - that anyone can sit there with a straight face and say that any attack is not an attack action is beyond belief.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this point.

On that note.

If you believe that an attack is always an attack - then sunder fits the rules like other CM's.

If you believe that some attacks are not attacks but instead they are non-attack full attacks that are not really actions - then you can't sunder during a full attack.

I leave it to you - dear readers - to see which one of those definitions seems to be reaching.

Dark Archive

Jiggy wrote:

Seven pages? Cripes.

Can someone tell me whether anything new has been presented, or if it's still Jason Bulmahn VS Skip Williams?

So far, the only thing that I can see is proven is that the writing for the sunder ability is not 100% clear (otherwise there would be a consensus on the boards).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Happler wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Seven pages? Cripes.

Can someone tell me whether anything new has been presented, or if it's still Jason Bulmahn VS Skip Williams?

So far, the only thing that I can see is proven is that the writing for the sunder ability is not 100% clear (otherwise there would be a consensus on the boards).

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!


Quote:
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action...

What does 'part of' an attack action mean? What can you do during the rest of the attack action?

RAW seems fairly meaningless here. RAI? My guess is that they meant 'in place of a melee attack' rather than 'as a standard action'. But I don't really care as in my experience neither players nor GMs make much use of sunder due to the unofficial 'loot is sacred' rule.

Dark Archive

Jiggy wrote:
Happler wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Seven pages? Cripes.

Can someone tell me whether anything new has been presented, or if it's still Jason Bulmahn VS Skip Williams?

So far, the only thing that I can see is proven is that the writing for the sunder ability is not 100% clear (otherwise there would be a consensus on the boards).

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Hey, I have seen some threads that went a total of 3 posts, due to the fact that the RAW was nice and clear (just not found by the original poster).

So, off topic, why are not more of us Lawyers? (j/k)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Happler wrote:
Hey, I have seen some threads that went a total of 3 posts, due to the fact that the RAW was nice and clear (just not found by the original poster).

And if you peruse the FAQ, you'll see entries that amount to "yes, this mechanic really does do what it says it does; no more, no less". People not agreeing does not necessarily mean anything's unclear. :/


Ckorik wrote:
concerro wrote:


A full round action is not a combination of other actions. It is its own action. If it were just a combination of other actions then charge would not be possible since it would potentially use up 2 move actions, and one standard action.

What you quoted is a rule allowing you to use 2 standard actions to complete a full round action across 2 rounds as a special exception to the rules, since not all full round actions can cross 2 rounds/turns.

No I was pointing out that a full round action does allow some types of standard actions.

Your point was that a full attack action doesn't allow standard actions because (above that) it states that you can't use standard actions as part of a full round action.

My point was they show standard actions *can* be part of a full round action depending on how you choose to complete it.

That's why a 'full attack' is still a 'standard action' - just because you are using a full round doesn't change the type of action it is - it's just a special rule to allow iterative attacks (or offhand) to occur.

Nothing you have pointed out shows that attacks during a full round are special and not standard actions. You only show a rule saying you can't take other types of standard actions (there are 5 other types) during a full attack action.

Saying something exists by omission doesn't make it true.

There is nothing in the rules that change what type of action the 'attack' is - which is why trying to restrict sunder to a single attack is not correct

We already agreed that "attack action" is not defined.

The issue as RD pointed out is that it is an unofficial term that is used much like precision damage.

The devs quotes tell us what they mean by that phrase.

If you want to argue RAW, then we can't say how Sunder is used because it references attack action which has no RAW definition.

According to the book your other options are "full attack action", which is also not a defined term. Not that it matters because it is not attacked to sunder.

You also have "attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack)". However that is also not an option since sunder references "attack action."

That leave us with two choices.
You can use the unoffical term the devs have given us, or you can't use it at all.

I will give an example.

Let say I write a book, and I say that you should test the dsosss if your computer screen goes black. Let us also say I never tell you what a dsosss is in my book.

Later on I send out an email saying a dsosss is the memory. You will probably wonder why I did not say memory, just like many people are wondering why the word "standard action" is not being used, but that does not matter right now.

What we know is that the writer of the book aka me has told you what a dsosss was. Are you going to do as the writer said or say that fixing the computer is not possible because the definition of dsoss is not in the book?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Skip Wiliams wrote:-

'Using eldritch blast requires a standard action, not an
attack action (unlike using a weapon
). If something requires a
standard action (as opposed to an attack action) to use, you
can’t use the full attack action
to gain extra uses of that ability.'

Since the inception of D&D 3.0, through 3.5, and including Pathfinder, anything that requires the 'attack action' can be folded into a full attack or used as an AoO.

If that were not true then what Skip wrote would not have made any kind of sense at all. If an attack action could not be folded into a full attack, then he wouldn't have contrasted 'attack action' with 'standard action'.

Malachi I am still around, and I killed this earlier when I posted Skip saying an attack action was a standard action.


Ckorik wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
*snip*

Full Attack, indeed, is not an "Attack" action,

The rules do not say as such - and the only reason to interpret them as such is to specifically exclude sunder - nothing else in the entire game would be affected.

I refuse to twist words and look at the rulebook as a computer program and on and on and on to make up special rules for Sunder when if it was meant to be special they could have just put 'as a standard action' in front of it - like they do with any other CM that can't be rolled into a full attack action.

On that note I won't argue this point any more - that anyone can sit there with a straight face and say that any attack is not an attack action is beyond belief.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this point.

On that note.

If you believe that an attack is always an attack - then sunder fits the rules like other CM's.

If you believe that some attacks are not attacks but instead they are non-attack full attacks that are not really actions - then you can't sunder during a full attack.

I leave it to you - dear readers - to see which one of those definitions seems to be reaching.

Well most gamers don't use your rules interpretation. I even had quote saying that you have to make an attack action or a full attack action by a dev. The rulebook and the devs disagree with you.


Ckorik wrote:

Combat Maneuver Bonus: Each character and creature

has a Combat Maneuver Bonus (or CMB) that represents
its skill at performing combat maneuvers. A creature’s
CMB is determined using the following formula:
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier
+ special size modifier

If you use a CM on iterative attacks then the CMB will go down, just like for PC's.

Not many monsters in the bestiaries have Improved sunder - which means that those that don't will provoke when they use these - if you do things like use multiple sunders provoking each time you increase the value of feats like combat reflexes.

We're drifting off topic here, but:

The example I used was a Nightwalker, a monster which does have Improved Sunder (also Greater Sunder), does not have a reduced bonus on multiple attacks, and is specifically described as a creature which enjoys sundering its opponents weapons. It's true that there aren't many monsters like it; however, I think it would be easy to make a CR 16 NPC who specialized in sundering and would be even more effective at it than the Nightwalker, even with the penalty on iterative attacks.


Ckorik wrote:
The rules do not say as such - and the only reason to interpret them as such is to specifically exclude sunder - nothing else in the entire game would be affected.

Your attempt at a strawman at the end aside, there are several actions which set a precedent. Aid another action, charge action, etc all refer to the specific action of that name in exactly the same way that we are saying attack action refers to the standard action called attack. Many actions (and some non-actions) can involve an attack, but only one specific action is called an attack. I understand why it would cause confusion to use two different terms both called 'attack', but there is an identifiable distinction which has been verified by developer comments and FAQs, not to mention the Combat Maneuver rules themselves ("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), others require a specific action.").

As for twisting words, this is just a case of the pot calling the kettle black as they could also have stated 'in place of a melee attack' without mentioning the attack action like they did with Trip.


My 2 cents.

The wording is ambiguous, especially since because of flurry of blows, many try to group sunder, disarm and trip into a bucket together. But the intent is that generally, sunder is a standard action. However, it is specifically described as "an attack action in place of a melee attack" because if they stated that it was a standard action then it would become unclear that the attack is melee weapon dependent.

In otherwords, you get to apply weapon enhancements, feats, etc.

Unlike overrun & bullrush which as standard actions are weapon neutral.

The flurry of blows description is an exception to the generic rule that sunder is an attack action melee attack (using up a standard action).


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
My point is that every attack type under the heading 'Standard Actions' must folow the same rules! Yet, although we all know that the game's combat system allows attack actions to be folded into full attacks, suddenly you do a u-turn and say that because Sunder says 'attack action' that it cannot be folded into a full attack!

You continue to get your terms confused.

Attack is a word it means pretty much the same thing as it does in the dictionary.

It also has an official definition in 3.5 "Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll."

Attack is also the name of a specific action. It is called: "attack action."

It cannot be folded into a "full attack action."

The action called "attack" is a standard action.
The action called "full attack is a full-round action.

You cannot have a standard and a full round action in the same turn.

The word "action" is defined as: "A character activity. Actions are divided into the following categories, according to the time required to perform them (from most time required to least): full-round actions, standard actions, move actions, and free actions."

The word "attack" isn't an action at all. It can be ether a noun, a verb or an adjective. It is often used to describe an action. It also describes an attack of opportunity which isn't an action at all.

Silver Crusade

Every kind of attack under the sub-heading 'Attack' must obey the rule 'Making an attack is a standard action'.

So, either none of the attacks mentioned (melee attacks, ranged attacks, etc) can be folded into a full attack on the grounds that they take an attack action (melee attack action, ranged attack action, etc), OR all of these attacks can be folded into a full attack/used as an AoO/etc.

They are all different kinds of 'attack action', and they all obey the same rules. Those rules make it clear that all of the different kinds of 'attack action' can be used in a full attack! This is what differentiates 'attack action' from 'standard action'. Skip understood this even if Jason didn't.

If you disallow Sunder from being used in a full attack then you must also disallow, following the same rule, melee attacks, ranged attacks, unarmed attacks, natural attacks, even critical hits from being used in a full attack!

How do you justify denying a Sunder attack action being denied use in a full attack when allowing it for the melee attack action?

301 to 350 of 1,171 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.