| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This may be a dumb question, since I have yet to glance over the Combat Maneuvers stuff to search for this, but when you make a Combat Maneuver check with one of your extra attacks from having high BAB, is it at the BAB for the attack you're making the maneuver or is it at your full BAB?
For example, I have +11/+6/+1, and I decide to sunder on my last attack. I am assuming my CMB check to sunder is used with the +1 BAB, not the +11?
|
This may be a dumb question, since I have yet to glance over the Combat Maneuvers stuff to search for this, but when you make a Combat Maneuver check with one of your extra attacks from having high BAB, is it at the BAB for the attack you're making the maneuver or is it at your full BAB?
For example, I have +11/+6/+1, and I decide to sunder on my last attack. I am assuming my CMB check to sunder is used with the +1 BAB, not the +11?
You use your combat maneuvers at the current BAB for that attack, so if you sunder on your last attack with 11/6/1, you use the +1.
I think i agree with snorb.
Going over each maneuver, they are either Standard actions, meaning you wouldn't get to attack anyway, or in place of a melee attack (presumably during an attack or full attack action). Since a standard attack is at highest BAB and maneuver is based on highest BAB, I would argue that a maneuver made on the third attack would take the -10 penalty, same as a regular 3rd attack would. Rules are a bit fuzzy, but that would be my Ruling in the group GM for.
It does say in the rulebook that CMB checks are nothing but special attack roles. Just remind them that all attack roles go off of BAB if they want to be difficult.
You apply any penalties you have to your attack to your CMB. The last attack doesnt use a Base attack of +1 it uses +11 then has a -10 applied to it (maybe this is nitpickng though :P)
Power attack also lowers your CMB
Bonuses to hit like from the fighter weapon talents adds to your CMB etc.
So going by that, if I had enough attacks due to a high BAB, could I theoretically Sunder my opponent's sword and shield, trip him, and then attack him while he's prone? I imagine the chance of that succeeding would be low, but is that allowed by RAW?
yes, and Tripping them first would make sundering easier. Although Unless you have a really High CMB it would be probly pretty hard to do. Though i suppose if you cornered the Enemy wizard and your playing Zorro :)
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.
It has diferent wording than other abilities talking about the Standard Action Attack.
The wording there suggests to me it could be part of a Full Attack action as well.
Though i had thought of that and looked it up in the PFSRd before i posted. Though you could be write.
Given how little players use Sunder im not sure its an issue. Though i think alot dont realize you dont have to destroy the item and can fix it after.
The attack action is a specific standard action. Nice catch EB. At least my players will be lucky to know I can only sunder one item per round.
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.
It has diferent wording than other abilities talking about the Standard Action Attack.
The wording there suggests to me it could be part of a Full Attack action as well.
Though i had thought of that and looked it up in the PFSRd before i posted. Though you could be write.
Given how little players use Sunder im not sure its an issue. Though i think alot dont realize you dont have to destroy the item and can fix it after.
Thanks to the expenses involved with repairing Sundered items (or the danger of outright destroying it), my group prefers not to use Sunder at all.
I've suggested a homebrew system to my group -- that magic items Sundered in combat are only temporarily destroyed, and can repair themselves over the course of a day; that complete destruction would require deliberate out-of-combat attention (or perhaps a Disintegrate).
Still, even with rules that would allow them to Sunder items without obliterating or reducing the loot they expect to gain from an encounter, they're really apprehensive about the idea. So Sunder remains a set of rules we don't use : /
This is probably nitpicking English, and given how often i make typoes in this post a giant hippocrit hammer may strike me down :P
There is the Attack Action. And there is the Full Attack action. If it says something can be part of 'an attack action' It is technically Refering to both.
Where as Vital strike specificaly talks about using the Attack action.
In regards to Fixing Items If the party is sufficient level to make the item fixing it is pretty damn easy. Make whole is a level 2 spell and can fully Fix an item. But you have to Have enough level to make the item (IE be level 9 to fix a +3 sword) Which obviously in combat you wont know what + the bad guys shiney weapon is.
I still like the Idea of using Sunder to carve your initials in the bad guys armor :P
This is probably nitpicking English, and given how often i make typoes in this post a giant hippocrit hammer may strike me down :P
There is the Attack Action. And there is the Full Attack action. If it says something can be part of 'an attack action' It is technically Refering to both.
Where as Vital strike specificaly talks about using the Attack action.
In regards to Fixing Items If the party is sufficient level to make the item fixing it is pretty damn easy. Make whole is a level 2 spell and can fully Fix an item. But you have to Have enough level to make the item (IE be level 9 to fix a +3 sword) Which obviously in combat you wont know what + the bad guys shiney weapon is.
I still like the Idea of using Sunder to carve your initials in the bad guys armor :P
Do you have a situation(rule) that shows precedence for this? So far everytime I have seen attack action in reference to a type of attack it only means 1 attack because that attack(Vital Strike or Sunder) is a standard action.
To be Honest? The only Abilities i can think to look up are Vital Strike and the Fighter Two handed thing. And both of these are /very/ clear in their wording that they use the standad attack action.
Sunder would be kind of a Piss Poor Ability if you can only sunder once around.
Brognar, you must destroy the 5 Crystal orbs of Evilness. You have 24 seconds to save the world.
*all 5 hang in a row next to eachother)
And Brognar has to Sunder Each of them once a round and the world is destroyed :P
Maybe its worth Faqing?
for the record I agree it probably is the attack action. but ad I said in my previous pos saying something is part of "an attack" action isn't the same as " the attack action"
say I do a full attack and I use my first attack to trip and then two more attacks. I have done trip as part of "an attack action" in this case the full attack action.
I hadve not done so with the attack action.
really don't know if the use of an overbthemeans anything as far as the game is concerned. I was justbpointing put it is important in english.
it's never come up in our games because like most players none of us want to damage the loot.
I think my point was missed. but as I said it probably is intended as the attack action. and I understand why these rulings are needed. though I think a player making a item destroying Hal Orc barbarian will be quickly killed by the other sobbing Pc's.
I think my point was missed. but as I said it probably is intended as the attack action. and I understand why these rulings are needed. though I think a player making a item destroying Hal Orc barbarian will be quickly killed by the other sobbing Pc's.
I do agree that it sucks as a standard action. I would houserule it to work multiple times per round if anyone in my group used it.
I have sundered hydra heads, but that is it. usually players only do cm they have the imp feat for or not at all.
I had a long discussion with a friend about repairing items and thought about a item destroying barbarian but have only made one char since then and went with a different idea.
|
the pre-written campaing that i am running has a npc that sunders, i. Think i will destroy the short bus barbarians ridiculous vicious, bezerking, keen (and some other enchant i can't remmember)falcion... I should have know better than to allow 3.x enchants.Yeah, the silly players and their wanting to sell everything, after reading this thread and sunder more carefully, i smirk that the barbarian brought up the argument for more attacks on sunder, but not the ability to leave the weapon intact if you so choose. I'm not tellin him mwahahahahah
Just be sure to keep a mind to the rules. Remember a weapon cannot deal damage to another weapon if it does not have at least the same enhancement bonus, regardless of what type of metal they are made of.
I have sundered hydra heads, but that is it. usually players only do cm they have the imp feat for or not at all.
I had a long discussion with a friend about repairing items and thought about a item destroying barbarian but have only made one char since then and went with a different idea.
Multiple sunders per round would make hydras significantly easier, more so with haste, i think that is most of all what i would consider unbalancing. Short bus Sammy the fighter could easily sunder 3 heads off at level 6 with a haste from wizard, making any hydra remotely withing cr range essentially a 2 round encounter, unless the Gm roles a 1 for the first set of heads for duration time to regrow.
Have hydra rules changed significantly in PF? I don't currently have acces to a bestiary. :(
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterIndex.html
All Paizo's core rules are on this site.
Just came across this thread, and hope to go back to the original topic for a sec.... my monk replaces BAB with Monk Level for CMB. Any views on iterative attacks for that? My BAB goes down, but my level stays static (clearly!)
Thanks!
it would not affect your iterative attacks at all. if you did a flurry it would. but the -2 for doing flurry would affect your cmb.
The attack action is a specific standard action. Nice catch EB. At least my players will be lucky to know I can only sunder one item per round.
Just to point out sundering is a lot more difficult than it use to be -- most monsters will not be able to sunder anything since you need an enhancement bonus equal to the weapon to be destroyed (please note this is for weapons only) -- there was a thread called something along the lines of "sundering -- harder than you think" that would be good to resurrect on this topic.
Just be sure to keep a mind to the rules. Remember a weapon cannot deal damage to another weapon if it does not have at least the same enhancement bonus, regardless of what type of metal they are made of.
the pre-written campaing that i am running has a npc that sunders, i. Think i will destroy the short bus barbarians ridiculous vicious, bezerking, keen (and some other enchant i can't remmember)falcion... I should have know better than to allow 3.x enchants.Yeah, the silly players and their wanting to sell everything, after reading this thread and sunder more carefully, i smirk that the barbarian brought up the argument for more attacks on sunder, but not the ability to leave the weapon intact if you so choose. I'm not tellin him mwahahahahah
That was removed in 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
it would not affect your iterative attacks at all. if you did a flurry it would. but the -2 for doing flurry would affect your cmb.
Sorry - maybe badly phrased...
My monk is 7th level, so flurry base attack is +5 / +5 / +0. I can substitute a CM like Trip into my flurry rather than one of the attacks, and that obviously uses CMB. The question is, with my CL rather than base attack used for CMB (Maneuver Training), could I do 2 strikes with a +5 base attack and then a Trip with full CMB as my flurry?
That was removed in 3.5.
And added back in with pathfinder. Go look in the magical weapons section.
That was removed in 3.5.And added back in with pathfinder. Go look in the magical weapons section.
Yeah, ever-careful, I went hunting through the archives, and found a (your?) post referencing the page number.
Lo and behold, page 468 Core rulebook, a weapon must be given an enhancement bonus.
I must say, I consider that a step backwards.
Multiple sunders per round would make hydras significantly easier, more so with haste, i think that is most of all what i would consider unbalancing. Short bus Sammy the fighter could easily sunder 3 heads off at level 6 with a haste from wizard, making any hydra remotely withing cr range essentially a 2 round encounter, unless the Gm roles a 1 for the first set of heads for duration time to regrow.
Have hydra rules changed significantly in PF? I don't currently have acces to a bestiary. :(
A base hydra is CR 4.
Are we really concerned that a level 6 fighter who spent a feat on Improved Sunder for some reason and who is additionally hasted can blow through the hydra pretty quickly?
Just sayin' that it seems to me that a full attack is an attack action, just not THE attack action.
Sunder in 3.5 has always been in place of an attack, not an attack action, and that's how we'll be running it until Paizo says otherwise.
As for the fighter blowing through hydras 1) He invested in Sunder and 2) Send more than one hydra :P
The attack action is a specific standard action. Nice catch EB. At least my players will be lucky to know I can only sunder one item per round.Just to point out sundering is a lot more difficult than it use to be -- most monsters will not be able to sunder anything since you need an enhancement bonus equal to the weapon to be destroyed (please note this is for weapons only) -- there was a thread called something along the lines of "sundering -- harder than you think" that would be good to resurrect on this topic.
I noticed that also. I just say stock monster that have improved sunder dont have to worry about it as a houserule. It does need to be fixed though.
The "attack action" was one of the stupidest, buggiest, least worthwhile additions to the Pathfinder ruleset. It was completely un-needed and has done nothing positive. All it does is muck up issues that were perfectly clear in 3.5. I very strongly suggest ignoring everything having to do with the "attack action" and instead just using the 3.5 "replaces an attack" type rules.
"A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows"
I'm sure monks are not supposed to be considered special with respect to their sunders, and take this to mean that "sunder" may be used in stead of any melee attack.
Just sayin' that it seems to me that a full attack is an attack action, just not THE attack action.
Thats what i was trying to say.
@ Zurai Its only confusin because of poor Wording of stuff and many players dont seem to fully read the rules to be even aware that ' the standard attack action' even exists.
The "attack action" was one of the stupidest, buggiest, least worthwhile additions to the Pathfinder ruleset. It was completely un-needed and has done nothing positive. All it does is muck up issues that were perfectly clear in 3.5. I very strongly suggest ignoring everything having to do with the "attack action" and instead just using the 3.5 "replaces an attack" type rules.
Yeah, let's try that. Just remove where it says "attack action" from sunder.
Sunder:
You can attempt to sunder a item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of your melée attack...
Sunder:
You can attempt to sunder a item held or worn by your opponent in place of your melée attack...
BUT WHEN CAN I DO THIS? Oh right, anytime I'm making a melee attack, which can happen during an attack action or a full attack action.
Just sayin' that it seems to me that a full attack is an attack action, just not THE attack action.
Not necessarily - RAW, if you choose to start your round with an attack, after the first attack, you can decide whether you want to continue to attack or not. If you don't it's an attack action - if you do continue to attack, it's considered a full round action.
Just sayin' that it seems to me that a full attack is an attack action, just not THE attack action.Not necessarily - RAW, if you choose to start your round with an attack, after the first attack, you can decide whether you want to continue to attack or not. If you don't it's an attack action - if you do continue to attack, it's considered a full round action.
it would also be considered a full attack action.
there are /two/ ways of doing melee attacks in what we are discussing
The Standard action called "attack"
and the full round action called "Full attack"
a pity these wrnt worded better as i have said.
"A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows"I'm sure monks are not supposed to be considered special with respect to their sunders, and take this to mean that "sunder" may be used in stead of any melee attack.
+1 I am going to plus 1 this because the monk leaves precedence that you can sunder on a full attack, and it is unfortunate this post was missed
+1 I am going to plus 1 this because the monk leaves precedence that you can sunder on a full attack, and it is unfortunate this post was missed"A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows"I'm sure monks are not supposed to be considered special with respect to their sunders, and take this to mean that "sunder" may be used in stead of any melee attack.
+2 my thoughts exactly.
With that above passage about the monk, i might say the rule of specific vs general applies, in that, that might be a specific exception to a general rule. As i was rereading this rules again just now, i came up with another thought.
Let's look at trip. It states, "you can attempt to trip an opponent in place of a melée attack". You could substitute all of you attacks in your full attack for trip attempts. If sunder was meant to be used the same way, wouldn't it be worded the same?
Instead, it is worded, "you can attempt to sunder... As part of an attack action in place of a melée attack". It specifically says attack action. If you look more closely at the action table, "Attack" is a standard action, and "Full Attack" is a full round action. Although we can argue all day that "Attack" and "Full Attack" are both actions that involve attacking, the table ( and the rules ) specifically reference the "Attack Action".
I think you should consider the argument from the other angle: all actual standard-attack maneuvers state "as a standard action". Which is far more succinct than saying "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack".
It is possible that the case of the monk is one of specific vs general; but in context I doubt it: the description (carried over from 3.5) merely ensures to inform that the maneuvers that can be used instead of attacks also apply to attacks made during a flurry. It should not be necessary to spell that out (since those maneuvers are specified to replace melee attacks) but we do have a bit of 3.5 legacy in the text.
Consider it another way: doing multiple attacks on a target is about the same regardless of whether the target is human or the armor the human is wearing. From a mechanical standpoint it is also suspect to have only one attempt a round: many objects require multiple sunder attempts to break due to high HP and hardness - if you cannot do so with a full-round attack, then the sunder maneuver becomes a theoretical anomaly and has no real in-combat application as you generally do not want to spend 3 rounds sundering something.