This post state clearly that a Attack action is a Standard action:

As of the current rules, you cannot use Vital Strike as part of a charge. Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action. Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine the two. The preview was in error. Alas I did not catch it until weeks later, and by then, there was no point in digging up old topics.

Hope that helps...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

the combat section of the PRD seem to imply that you can make multiple sunder attempts in a full attack.

Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

I have seen multiple posts stating that sunder can be used in a AoO or as part of a full attack, but no proof that Bulman ruling is limited to Vital strike only. So there is any evidence that it is possible to make multiple Sunder attempts in one round?

(For the record, I think it should be possible and was convinced there was a official ruling allowing that, but I can't find it)

I just posted this in the thread that this question came up in but for completeness I'll re-post it here.

I believe that the ruling from Jason Bulmahn doesn't apply to sunder on the basis that Vital Strike says, "when you use the attack action..." and Sunder says, "as part of an attack action." The difference being that Vital strike references the attack action (the standard action) and sunder references any type of attack action (such as full attack, AoO's, and the standard attack action.)

The difference being that Vital strike references the attack action (the standard action) and sunder references any type of attack action (such as full attack, AoO's, and the standard attack action.)

Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.

Your argument is invalid.

You can Sunder as part of a Full Attack though. You can not use Vital Strike with a Full Attack so there is a difference.

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

So yes to Sunder on a Charge.

You can Sunder as part of a Full Attack though.

Source?

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

Excluding "attack action" from your bolding doesn't make it go away. Sunder uses an "attack action". "Attack action" is defined as a type of standard action. Ergo, sunder uses a standard action.

Charge is not a standard action.

Just So You Know...

Any combination of a creature's attacks during a melee full attack can be replaced by a trip, disarm, or sunder maneuver (any maneuver that says "in place of a melee attack"). When doing this, the calculation for the creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus uses the base attack bonus of the attack that was exchanged for a combat maneuver. For example, a creature with a BAB of +6/+1 who performs a trip with her second attack uses +1 as her BAB for the CMB of the trip.

Here is the answer.

Combat wrote:

Just So You Know...

Any combination of a creature's attacks during a melee full attack can be replaced by a trip, disarm, or sunder maneuver (any maneuver that says "in place of a melee attack"). When doing this, the calculation for the creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus uses the base attack bonus of the attack that was exchanged for a combat maneuver. For example, a creature with a BAB of +6/+1 who performs a trip with her second attack uses +1 as her BAB for the CMB of the trip.

Here is the answer.

Who are you quoting, and what is their authority?

Sleet Storm wrote:

You can Sunder as part of a Full Attack though.

Source?

Are you kidding me,..... when I tell you that you need to roll a D20´for your attack roll would you ask me for a source too...

I would be quoting the rules by the authority of RAW.

Go here.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat

Scroll down to Full Attack. It's on the right.

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Combat wrote:

Just So You Know...

Any combination of a creature's attacks during a melee full attack can be replaced by a trip, disarm, or sunder maneuver (any maneuver that says "in place of a melee attack"). When doing this, the calculation for the creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus uses the base attack bonus of the attack that was exchanged for a combat maneuver. For example, a creature with a BAB of +6/+1 who performs a trip with her second attack uses +1 as her BAB for the CMB of the trip.

Here is the answer.

Who are you quoting, and what is their authority?

The CRB

I would be quoting the rules by the authority of RAW.

Go here.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat

Scroll down to Full Attack. It's on the right.

That's actually not the rules. That's a fan-written sidebar on a fan-maintained site. Paizo never published the words you quoted. Ever.

The CRB

See above. Those words are not in the CRB, anywhere.

Disarm, Sunder, and Trip, all have the "in place of a melee attack" language.

All other Combat Maneuvers call them out as Standard Actions.

If all these were the same thing, then why the different wording?

Sleet Storm wrote:

The CRB

See above. Those words are not in the CRB, anywhere.

Page 199 of the CRB:

In case there is a Missunderstanding here CRB means Core Rule Book...

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 specif ic action

Pg 199, combat section.

Sunder says "in place of a melee attack" so it can be done as a std, FA, or AoO

Ninja'd

Jiggy wrote:

Sleet Storm wrote:

The CRB

See above. Those words are not in the CRB, anywhere.

Page 199 of the CRB:

Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a
combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to
the maneuver you are attempting to perform. 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.

In case there is a Missunderstanding here CRB means Core Rule Book...

That's not the paragraph that I just said wasn't in the CRB, so I don't know why you framed it as a reply to me.

Sleet Storm wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Sleet Storm wrote:

The CRB

See above. Those words are not in the CRB, anywhere.

Page 199 of the CRB:

Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a
combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to
the maneuver you are attempting to perform. 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.

In case there is a Missunderstanding here CRB means Core Rule Book...

That's not the paragraph that I just said wasn't in the CRB, so I don't know why you framed it as a reply to me.

He just posted something you couldn't refute. Or do you still not think it works like that?

Because it says the same thing.

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

So the CRB lists "attack action", then "full-attack action", then "attack of opportunity" as three discrete items in a list, and yet people want to argue to the first of the three can also refer to the others? Why list all three if the first covers them all?

CRB wrote:

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

So the CRB lists "attack action", then "full-attack action", then "attack of opportunity" as three discrete items in a list, and yet people want to argue to the first of the three can also refer to the others? Why list all three if the first covers them all?

No, the point is that CMB calls out "in place of a melee attack" and shows you that you can do any that say as much in any of those actions.

CRB wrote:

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

So the CRB lists "attack action", then "full-attack action", then "attack of opportunity" as three discrete items in a list, and yet people want to argue to the first of the three can also refer to the others? Why list all three if the first covers them all?

The point is that many combat maneuvers(the ones that use the phrase "in place of a melee attack") can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity, while others require a specific action(you know the ones that call out for a Standard Action).

So, you could combine Spellstrike with Sunder.

Neat.

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

Sunder requires a specific action, the attack action.

Sunder says "in place of a melee attack" so it can be done as a std, FA, or AoO

You can't just ignore the six words in front of that.

Sunder: "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."

There are two clauses there:
1) "as part of an attack action" (this means you use the attack action standard action)
2) "in place of a melee attack" (this means the combat maneuver replaces the attack, so no vital strike sundering)

You can oink as part of a chicken dance in place of clucking. You still have to do a chicken dance to oink.

You can sunder as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. You still have to do an attack action.

A paizo staff member marked the Sunder FAQ thread as "no reply required"

I take this to mean the rules are correct as written. Others have taken it to mean that the rules are so clearly incorrect that they don't need to bother mentioning it until the next errata is released.

However, the last post in that thread was on April 8, 2011. The last errata was released on Nov 22, 2011, but we don't know for certain when the thread was flagged no response, so it's possible that they waited 7 months then released errata, then later flagged the thread.

So, you could combine Spellstrike with Sunder.

The answer to this depends on what happens with a normal combat maneuver is combined with a held charge. Here's a FAQ request thread to find out.

Borthos Brewhammer wrote:

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

Sunder requires a specific action, the attack action.

Borthos Brewhammer wrote:

Sunder says "in place of a melee attack" so it can be done as a std, FA, or AoO

You can't just ignore the six words in front of that.

Sunder: "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."

There are two clauses there:
1) "as part of an attack action" (this means you use the attack action standard action)
2) "in place of a melee attack" (this means the combat maneuver replaces the attack, so no vital strike sundering)

You can oink as part of a chicken dance in place of clucking. You still have to do a chicken dance to oink.

You can sunder as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. You still have to do an attack action.

A paizo staff member marked the Sunder FAQ thread as "no reply required"

I take this to mean the rules are correct as written. Others have taken it to mean that the rules are so clearly incorrect that they don't need to bother mentioning it until the next errata is released.

However, the last post in that thread was on April 8, 2011. The last errata was released on Nov 22, 2011, but we don't know for certain when the thread was flagged no response, so it's possible that they waited 7 months then released errata, then later flagged the thread.

Exactly, they are correct as written. You can sunder in place of a melee attack as an AoO, standard attack action, or FA.

This is why Disarm, Sunder, and Trip are viable options for a Flurrying Monk.

This is why Disarm, Sunder, and Trip are viable options for a Flurrying Monk.

Or it could be because Flurry explicitly says so.

I think I'll link to this thread whenever anyone claims Paizo cleaned up the combat maneuver rules..

Exactly, they are correct as written. You can sunder in place of a melee attack as an AoO, standard attack action, or FA.

The rules as written explicitly require the attack action to sunder.

By claiming that you do not need to use the attack action, you are claiming that the rules are wrong. While this would be a reasonable argument from someone who feels the intent behind the rules was that the attack action is not required, and that the writers of the CRB (and every edition of errata since then) left in the text by mistake, (despite it being pointed out and addressed by staff in the FAQ thread), it's not a valid argument from someone claiming that the rules are correct as written, then immediately claiming otherwise.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

This is why Disarm, Sunder, and Trip are viable options for a Flurrying Monk.

Or it could be because Flurry explicitly says so.

I get that you are fighting this, but why?

Disarm, Sunder, and Trip all have the same wording.

To say one is a standard action, is to say they all are.

How does Sunder used to work in 3.5? Until Paizo clear this up I'll run Sunder as in 3.5.

Disarm, Sunder, and Trip all have the same wording.

Incorrect.

Trip: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack."

13 words.

Disarm: "You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack."

13 words. Identical except for changing "trip" to "disarm"

Sunder: "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."

25 words.

Lets remove the first half and just leave the part starting at "opponent"

"opponent in place of a melee attack."
"opponent in place of a melee attack."
"opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."

Hey, look at that! There's six extra words there!

"as part of an attack action"

That text appears in the Sunder text, but not the Trip or Disarm text.

Trip says you can do it in place of a melee attack. It doesn't limit it further. It doesn't specify an action you have to use.

Sunder does specify an action you have to use. The attack action.

How does Sunder used to work in 3.5? Until Paizo clear this up I'll run Sunder as in 3.5.

3.5 Sunder

You make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons, with bonuses based on weapon and character size.

Edit: Ninja'd.

Okay.

Why would every other standard action Combat Maneuver call them out as "as a standard action", but this one, is a special case?

Seems odd, no?

These extra words are a pain.

If someone has not hit the FAQ button, do it.

I hate needless confusing words.

Okay.

Why would every other standard action Combat Maneuver call them out as "as a standard action", but this one, is a special case?

Seems odd, no?

Approximately as odd as having trip/disarm not mention an action type, but this one is a special case.

If you only make a single attack in a round then that attack consumes a standard action.

It's not the other way around! If the argument was 'an attack action is a standard action, therefore any attack can only be taken as a standard action' were true, then it would be impossible to use a full attack action, take an AoO, attack at the end of a charge, or attack as a free action in the same round as casting a touch spell.

Maerimydra wrote:

How does Sunder used to work in 3.5? Until Paizo clear this up I'll run Sunder as in 3.5.

3.5 Sunder

You make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons, with bonuses based on weapon and character size.

I remember the opposed attack rolls part, I was just curious about the kind of action required to perform a Sunder attempt. Seems it was "in place of a melee attack" back then, but is now made as part of a standard action in Pathfinder. Maybe the devs felt the need to nerf Sunder a bit after adding the new rules for "broken" items.

If the argument was 'an attack action is a standard action, therefore any attack can only be taken as a standard action' were true,

No one's saying that. Where are you getting that idea?

Why would every other standard action Combat Maneuver call them out as "as a standard action", but this one, is a special case?

Probably because in the early days, they didn't really understand what the attack action was. However, given how often it's been pointed out (many, many times), and given that the staff have specifically addressed the issue (flagging the FAQ thread), yet in five printings they have yet to change it, the only reasonable assumption is that whoever is in charge doesn't feel it needs to be changed.

Anyone who wants to can house-rule that iterative sunders are OK. I often do it. James Jacobs does it. I suspect most tables do it even if they don't know they're doing it (like most of the people posting upthread). But the RAW is still written, and so it applies. If Mike Brock thought it was an issue for PFS, he could certainly change it for his campaign.

If someone has not hit the FAQ button, do it.

Staff reply on the last one was "no reply required." I'm not sure why they would suddenly change their minds. Especially given the recent community reaction when they do change rules (or point out how they think the rules have been all along).

I hate needless confusing words.

They're only needless if the writer actually wanted Sunder to not use the attack action. If he meant what he wrote, then they're needed to prevent sunder from being used on AoOs and iterative attacks. Something I think the players would generally be really in favor of.

Getting HP damaged by a monster isn't such a big deal. Having 3-5 pieces of equipment destroyed in one round sort of is.

As others have pointed out the Monk can use Disarm, Trip, and Sunder with Flurry of Blows.A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows.
Thats exactly the maneuvers everyone can use with a Full Attack action.

If not why do you think the Monk would add Sunder and only Sunder of all things,why not also Bull Rush.

As others have pointed out the Monk can use Disarm, Trip, and Sunder with Flurry of Blows.

Yes. Flurry of Blows specifically says so.

Thats exactly the maneuvers everyone can use with a Full Attack action.

No, Sunder uses the attack action, which is a specific standard action, which cannot be made as part of a full-attack.

If not why do you think the would add Sunder and only Sunder of all things,why not also Bull Rush.

Because a flurry of bull rushes doesn't make any sense.

Sleet Storm wrote:

If not why do you think the would add Sunder and only Sunder of all things,why not also Bull Rush.

Because a flurry of bull rushes doesn't make any sense.

This Statement doesn´t make any Sense:P

My Point was that Flurry of Blows specifically mentions this because it is different from a normal Full Attack and without that Paragraph RAW wouldn´t allow any Maneuvers with Flurry.The Maneuvers listed are just what anybody gets,nothing more nothing less.

I realise it's no more than circumstancial evidence, but this blog post does point out that disarm, sunder, and trip are the three combat maneuvers which all intrinsically utilise the weapon you're swinging about. Coincidence? Well... maybe... But combined with the seeming logic that using a weapon to hit another weapon (or the other guy's armour, or the other guy's shield) shouldn't take any longer than using a weapon to hit... well, anything else at all, really... I'd go with sunder taking the place of a melee attack.

Now, this being a rules thread and all, I'm not going to claim that the above conclusion is RAW, but I'd probably find myself questioning the priorities of a GM who thought that strict, word-for-painfully scrutinised-word, RAW was that much more important than blindingly obvious logic. I'm pretty sure that at least some of the guys up-thread who are pointing out that, RAW, a sunder is technically an attack action which is technically a standard action would whole-heartedly agree when actually playing the game. But, again, it is a rules thread after all! ;)

So... how many people actually enforce sunders-as-standard actions when they play the game?

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If the argument was 'an attack action is a standard action, therefore any attack can only be taken as a standard action' were true,

No one's saying that. Where are you getting that idea?

In other threads there was an argument that an 'attack' consumes a standard action on the grounds that the attack action is described under the heading 'Standard Actions'. If this reasoning were extended to mean that, therefore, every attack consumes a standard action, then there could be no full attacks or attacks of opportunity or etc.

But we know that, although if you only take a single attack in your turn that attack consumes a standard action, it is possible to attack as part of a full attack or an AoO etc.

A sunder attack is an attack. It can be a single attack (standard action) or one or more of the attacks in a full attack (full-round action) or as an AoO (not an action).

The problem here stems from the imprecise wording of the feat Vital Strike! In 3.5, if an attack were meant to consume (specifically) a standard action, but not be intended for use as part of a full attack, then they would use phrases like 'as a special standard action'! This was the case with Manyshot, which required a special standard action so couldn't be folded into a full attack.

The 'Hideous Blow' Warlock invocation reads 'As a standard action, you can make a single melée attack. If you hit, the target is affected as if struck by your Eldritch Blast...' this also meant that it couldn't be folded into a full attack, or used as an AoO.

The language used in Vital Strike should have been equally clear. This lack of clarity led to confusion, and the 'correction' of saying that attack action=standard action, although true, had the unintended consequence of leading some to suppose that attack actions themselves cannot be folded into full attacks or used as AoOs!

An attack that is an attack action can be folded into a full attack or used as an AoO unless it specifically says that it cannot. Left as is, Vital Strike would have been such an attack. This is why the clarification came at all! If the wording stood, as was, and if the default was that attack actions could not fold in, then the devs would have replied 'no clarification needed' or words to that effect. The fact that they answered at all indicates that they made a boo-boo in the wording.

So... how many people actually enforce sunders-as-standard actions when they play the game?

Ask me again when your magic-item-laden PC is facing off against a monster with 5 natural attacks and some tactical acumen.

Jiggy wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If the argument was 'an attack action is a standard action, therefore any attack can only be taken as a standard action' were true,

No one's saying that. Where are you getting that idea?

In other threads there was an argument that an 'attack' consumes a standard action on the grounds that the attack action is described under the heading 'Standard Actions'.

If there was, I missed it. In any case, it hasn't been said in this thread, so refuting it here is pointless.

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

To sum up what is being claimed in this thread, there are multiple ways to make an attack:
1) The "attack action", which is a standard action used to perform a single attack.
2) The "full-attack action", which is a full-round action used to perform (usually) multiple attacks.
3) The "attack of opportunity", which is a miscellaneous or non-action used to perform a single attack under special circumstances.
4) The unnamed chance to make a touch attack as a free action in the round you cast a spell with a range of "touch".
5) Probably others I'm forgetting.

All five of these actions produce an attack. Only one of them is an "attack action". Something that modifies an "attack" (like, say, Inspire Courage) would apply to all 5 of these, because they all produce an "attack". But something that specifically affects one of these 5 things will not automatically affect all the rest. Something that modifies the "attack action" (like Vital Strike or Sunder) only modify #1. Something that modifies the "full-attack action" (like TWF or Rapid Shot) only modifies #2. Something that modifies AoOs (like Combat Reflexes) only modifies #3.

Saying that you can sunder in a full-attack action is no different than saying you can use Rapid Shot in an attack action. Claiming that an attack action can reference the other four sources of attacks is no different than claiming a full-attack action can reference the other four sources of attacks.

The Maneuvers listed are just what anybody gets,nothing more nothing less.

You can do those three CMs with Flurry because Flurry says so.

This doesn't mean you can do those three CMs in place of any other attack at any time, because not only do the rules not say so, they actually specifically state that Sunder uses the attack action.

In other threads there was an argument that an 'attack' consumes a standard action on the grounds that the attack action is described under the heading 'Standard Actions'.

That's not every attack, that's the attack action. That's why up under Combat Statistics it links to that section when it says "(see the attack action)."

The attack action is a specific standard action.

Not every attack uses the attack action.

A sunder attack is an attack. It can be a single attack (standard action) or one or more of the attacks in a full attack (full-round action) or as an AoO (not an action).

While it is an attack, it's specifically an attack that can only be made when using the attack action.

An attack that is an attack action can be folded into a full attack or used as an AoO unless it specifically says that it cannot. Left as is, Vital Strike would have been such an attack. This is why the clarification came at all! If the wording stood, as was, and if the default was that attack actions could not fold in, then the devs would have replied 'no clarification needed' or words to that effect. The fact that they answered at all indicates that they made a boo-boo in the wording.

You're saying the developers wanted the attack action to not be an action at all, and just be an attack. And when people asked about the biggest new feature which used the attack action (Vital Strike) the developers intended to say that VS uses a specific standard action, but accidentally said that VS uses a standard action because it uses the attack action, which is itself a standard action.

A more reasonable version of events is they meant what they wrote, and the rules are correct, and each time JB and JJ say that Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a standard action, they're stating how to figure out the conclusion for yourself, rather than stating an exception and phrasing it backwards so it means the opposite of what they say.

Vital Strike = Attack Action
Attack Action = Specific Standard Action
Thus
Vital Strike uses a Specific Standard Action, namely the Attack Action.

Sunder = Attack Action
Attack Action = Specific Standard Action
Thus
Sunder uses a Specific Standard Action, namely the Attack Action.

I'm fully confident the developers could have said "Vital Strike is a standard action" if that was what they meant. But each time they clarified it, they did so in a way that defined the attack action as a standard action, which allows everyone to interpret every other instance of the attack action to know how it works.

This is why things like Overhand Chop work as intended, using the Attack Action as a specific standard action, rather than applying to every attack and making the later ability Backswing worthless.