In any case, all we know for sure right now is:
• Sunder says it uses the attack action,
• The attack action is always a standard action,
• At some point in the past, the intent was different than the current wordingEverything else is...
In point of fact, Sunder says it uses *AN* attack action, not THE attack action. And though this brings us to the realm of pedantic syntax, it makes a world of difference.
I'm curious about something. I am seeing this phrase pop up a lot about "folding" standard actions into full-attacks. Is this language used anywhere in the rules? Ive only seen it in posts. Did we just make it up? Has it been in use a long time? Just curious.
And this functionality isn't achieved by saying "make a single melee attack as a standard action"?
NO! i really can[t waste my time repeating this any more after this.
your phrase there misses out on BOTH features enabled by the current RAW:using the Attack action, uniquely benefitted by Vital Strike, as well as usable w/ Monk of 4 Winds ability,
AND not having the crucial 'in place of melee attack' wording, i.e. in place of an 'existing' melee attack, which logically must be made with a weapon, thus indicating the maneuver is using said weapon and benefitting from it's bonuses.
Grapple has functionally identical wording to what you suggest, yet it doesn't have the above features.
In point of fact, Sunder says it uses *AN* attack action, not THE attack action. And though this brings us to the realm of pedantic syntax, it makes a world of difference.
Yes, to say 'you can sunder as part of an attack action' is entirely accurate because billyjoebob's attack action vs. his drunk goat is an attack action, sielyana the elf's attack action vs. an illusionary opponent is an attack action, etc. 'A' or 'An' action, JUST LIKE 'a melee attack', means ANY given example of the indicated subject. you're taking it as if said phrase can only imply the existence of multiple things called 'attack actions' WITHIN THE GAME RULES, ignoring the obvious case that WITHIN THE GAME WORLD there are many thousands of attack actions, since every character and monster can potentially be taking one every single round. TONS of other abilities use 'a'/'an' when referencing the action/action type that they use... This is consistent with that usage.
In point of fact, Sunder says it uses *AN* attack action, not THE attack action. And though this brings us to the realm of pedantic syntax, it makes a world of difference.
Okay how?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In point of fact, Sunder says it uses *AN* attack action, not THE attack action. And though this brings us to the realm of pedantic syntax, it makes a world of difference.Okay how?
Please do me the courtesy of reading my previous posts in this thread. I will not fall into the trap of repeating myself.
I've said my piece. I haven't seen any evidence strong enough to persuade me to change my opinion. I suspect that some of your are just trolling now. I would like to see an unambiguous official ruling, but other than that I'm done.
In point of fact, Sunder says it uses *AN* attack action, not THE attack action. And though this brings us to the realm of pedantic syntax, it makes a world of difference.
In any case, all we know for sure right now is:
• Sunder says it uses the attack action,
• The attack action is always a standard action,
• At some point in the past, the intent was different than the current wordingEverything else is...
The game always use "a" or "an", not "the" before the important instruction. By your logic the entire rules system falls apart.
And this functionality isn't achieved by saying "make a single melee attack as a standard action"?Those are quotes of "as part of an attack action". There are a few of those. There are places where "in place of a melee attack" are used. That, however, wasn't the statement I made. There was only one place that I found that used "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack". You can find things that use one phrase or the other. Sunder is the only one that uses both phrases.It's already been covered that the COMBINATION of BOTH action phrasing and in place of attack phrasing results in a unique functional combo: Attack action usage AND weapon usage, benefitting from weapon bonuses. If it missed the latter part, Sunder wouldn't have the words to indicate it's using the weapon, any more than if I wrote a Feat that let you cast a spell with the Full-Attack Action would, because choosing an action doesn't correlate to using a weapon, making an attack with a weapon is what correlates to using a weapon. Said functionality could not have been achieved if either half (action/in place of melee attack) had not been included.
Nope. I posted a link as to how using the term "attack action" allows things to stack but the term "standard action" does not.
You can be done, but you are wrong. If anyone is trolling it is not us. We are not making up the use of the word "the" knowing that the words "a" and "an" are the ones commonly used.
|
in fact it seems that all sunder does is ask
---- is it an attack action
Yes - replace Melee attack with Sunder
No - Still being debated but as RAW don't Sunder
which would combine with Both Overhand Chop, And Vital Strike
Vital Strike - Attack Action - Replace the Melee attack with Sunder
Overhand Chop - Attack Action - Replace the Melee attack with Sunder
By RAW that works ... even after clarifications to Vital strike
I Understand that RAI makes this a muck and one thing I did see in the previous versions was that the language for Sunder was used on SEVERAL Combat Maneuvers and I wonder if the editors just missed it
That is how I see it to Wraith235. I don't think any of us can prove intent here. We are going in circles at this point anyway. I am happy just to wait for errata since the "attack action" verbage does not support a "full attack action", but at least at one point we know Sunder was allowed for a full attack action, even if the words were never mentioned.
|
|
That is how I see it to Wraith235. I don't think any of us can prove intent here. We are going in circles at this point anyway. I am happy just to wait for errata since the "attack action" verbage does not support a "full attack action", but at least at one point we know Sunder was allowed for a full attack action, even if the words were never mentioned.
Im well beyond the argument
Im just tired of one group Claiming RAW and using Both RAW and RAI to validate the point
as for if / when we'll get a clarification ? who knows ... were 8 months out from the flurry issue and haven't gotten anything yet
unfortunately I am resigned to the You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action(Standard action) in place of a melee attack (replace melee attack roll with Sunder Combat Maneuver)
I love Pathfinder - but I am not a fan of the Clunky Writing ... regardless of what is intended
edited to stand out
The flurry issue is on the table though. :) They said it is next up after the mythic rules and the mythic campaign book is out.
I do agree that the writing could be better in certain places.
For now I am sticking with attack action = standard action until errata is put out also. I really do hope this one gets errata instead of an FAQ if the intent is for it to be used on full attack actions.
|
I will Grin when a GM tries to sunder my +3 weapon with a +2 .. and I point out that you cant damage a magical weapon with an inferior Enchantment bonus
This is not true.
In the 3.5 PHB the rules on hardness/hit points of enchanted objects was that each +1 enhancement bonus gave +2 hardness/+10 HP.
In the 3.5 DMG a different author wrote different rules: each +1 enhancement bonus gave +1 hardness and HP, but said that you can't sunder a weapon with a higher plus (I forget what happened on a tie).
Because of the rules of precedence the rule in the PHB stayed and the rule in the DMG fell away.
When PF cut and paste the 3.5 rulebooks, both the PHB and the DMG were included in the PF CRB. Both rules were copied, but only one can be true.
The current PF rule is +2 hardness/+10 HP per +1 enhancement bonus, and there is no restriction about weapons with lower plusses damaging weapons with higher plusses.
CRB 468I will Grin when a GM tries to sunder my +3 weapon with a +2 .. and I point out that you cant damage a magical weapon with an inferior Enchantment bonusThis is not true.
In the 3.5 PHB the rules on hardness/hit points of enchanted objects was that each +1 enhancement bonus gave +2 hardness/+10 HP.
In the 3.5 DMG a different author wrote different rules: each +1 enhancement bonus gave +1 hardness and HP, but said that you can't sunder a weapon with a higher plus (I forget what happened on a tie).
Because of the rules of precedence the rule in the PHB stayed and the rule in the DMG fell away.
When PF cut and paste the 3.5 rulebooks, both the PHB and the DMG were included in the PF CRB. Both rules were copied, but only one can be true.
The current PF rule is +2 hardness/+10 HP per +1 enhancement bonus, and there is no restriction about weapons with lower plusses damaging weapons with higher plusses.
Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage
a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his
weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the
weapon struck.
That one is pretty plain as day - the items do get enhanced hardness and such but that doesn't overrule the magic item + rule.
I don't know offhand what the rule is for monsters - I believe they have to have DR/magic to sunder a magic weapon? I'd love someone to clear that up for me.
Malachi is correct. That rule for damaging weapons has been errata'd out. It is not in the PRD, nor is it in my PDF(latest update) of the CRB.
Concerro you finally got a CRB? I thought you didn't have one. Or am I thinking of someone else?
Edit:Maybe it was the physical hardcover you said you didn't have?
Malachi is correct. That rule for damaging weapons has been errata'd out. It is not in the PRD, nor is it in my PDF(latest update) of the CRB.
Wow that's very good to know - in case anyone is curious it was only removed in the 5th printing.
Concerro you finally got a CRB? I thought you didn't have one. Or am I thinking of someone else?
Edit:Maybe it was the physical hardcover you said you didn't have?
I don't have a physical copy yet, but soon....
I should buy you one for all the stuff you've schooled me on! But I know you are probably waiting for the latest possible errata ;)
LOL. I figure I can wait for one more book version to come out. I have waited this long. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok folks here ya go. Look at the PRD, which is the most current and correct version of the rules and includes currently published errata.
Combat Section
Scroll to; Table Actions in Combat.
Find; "Perform a combat maneuver"
Read; Notation 6
Copy and pasted here for ease and the lazy:
6 Some combat maneuvers substitute for , not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, . Others are used as a separate action.
Why does this discussion have 500+ posts of circular semantic arguments.
IMHO because people fail to read the whole rules and look thoroughly at the rules.
Love you guys!!!
PS - bold and bigger were added by me.
If there is no response required then all we must do is simply ask how this has been ruled in PFO all the time.
Uses Attack Action to use Overhand Chop(NOT CHARGE)
as part of the attack action in place of the melee attack - uses Sunder
VERY EXPLICITLY Allowed
Except for the part where sunder replaces the attack that would be adding double his strength bonus. Since that attack is replaced, the attack that would have had overhand chop and vital strike and stuff doesn't happen, instead a sunder attempt happens, in which you deal damage to the item normally.
and iterative overhand chopsthis was explained in the ability by "Makes a single attack"
Yes, but if, as some people say, a full-attack consists of many attack actions, each of which consist of a single attack, then iterative all that stuff would happen. It doesn't happen, because they're wrong, but it would otherwise.
In point of fact, Sunder says it uses *AN* attack action, not THE attack action. And though this brings us to the realm of pedantic syntax, it makes a world of difference.
The exact same wording the developers used in the clarification of the attack action. This has all been covered in the first couple pages.
I'm curious about something. I am seeing this phrase pop up a lot about "folding" standard actions into full-attacks. Is this language used anywhere in the rules? Ive only seen it in posts. Did we just make it up?
Someone just made it up to try to make multiple standard actions work.
Someone just made it up to try to make multiple standard actions work.
They don't use the word fold - but the devs of 3.5 and pathfinder (the only time they actually talked about it) said
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.'
Fold is an appropriate word - perhaps it should have said 'fold[sic] attacks into full attacks' to be more correct.
The thread has the other quotes - the vital strike ruling is the only thing that confuses the issue - without that all evidence and dev quotes going back say the same thing.
Hmm, let me ask you a question what does a 3.5 ruling from a questionable source have to do with a different system that already has a more recent ruling.
the question answered had nothing to do with a ruling.
|
|
Yesterday I noticed James Jacobs posting in a thread about the Dervish Dance feat. I found myself wishing that he would post in this thread.
I started to reply to his post, to ask him to comment on our sunder question. I then thought it unfair to hijack another thread like that.
Then I had a cheeky idea! Why not send a personal message? I thought that he's probably too busy to answer this way, and it is cheeky. But I tried anyway.
And it worked!
In the interests of full disclosure I'll copy and paste as much of our (brief) correspondence as I'm able. I don't know how to navigate to and from my messages while in the middle of a post, so I'll have to post three times to get all the messages in.
Anyway, here goes:-
Sent
Yesterday, 09:00 PM
From
Malachi Silverclaw
Pathfinder Society character of Matt Bray
To
James Jacobs Add to Contacts
Subject
Sunder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
James, I'm sorry to bother you like this, but I'm rubbish with computers and I don't know another way to ask:-
Can the sunder CM be used in place of a melee attack like disarm/trip, or must it be used as a standard action like bull rush/overrun.
If you answer and with your permission I'll post your reply on the relevant thread.
Thankyou for you time.
Matt Bray
I'll post this now, then do some copy & pasting and post again in a moment.
|
|
This is the reply I got from James Jacobs:-
Sent
Yesterday, 10:54 PM
From
James Jacobs Add to Contacts
To
Malachi Silverclaw
Pathfinder Society character of Matt Bray
Subject
Re: Sunder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Hi Matt!
Sunder attempts are made as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. You can basically declare any melee attack to be a sunder attempt, in other words
As elated as I was, both by getting a reply from an new personal hero of mine and by the content of the reply, I even more cheekily replied with a suplimentary question, so I'll post this one now and go and do some more cutting & pasting. Back in a mo!
|
|
Here is my reply to James:-
Sent
02:31 AM
From
Malachi Silverclaw
Pathfinder Society character of Matt Bray
To
James Jacobs Add to Contacts
Subject
Re: Sunder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Thankyou. : )
I really appreciate your help! Unless you ask me not to, I'll post this in the thread about sunder.
In case you haven't seen it, the disagreement stems from the use of the phrase 'attack action'. On the one hand are those who take the phrase 'attack action=standard action' to mean that anything described as needing an attack action can only be used as a standard action.
In the other corner are those who understand 'attack action' to mean the action used to attack, whether that means standard, full-round, free (touch attacks) or non-action (charge, attacks of opportunity).
I believe the second definition is the way 'attack action' was understood in 3.5; is that still the case in Pathfinder?
Again, many thanks!
Matt Bray
As of right now James hasn't replied to this one. He may not, but I'm grateful he replied at all!
Malachi,
good job.
Should have sent it to JB as well.
(PMing James Jacobs)
This has all happened before in a public thread.
So here are the major questions:
Can you use Sunder as part of a Full Attack Action?
Can you use Vital Strike as part of a Full Attack Action?If not, please explain to me why the words Attack Action are used at all?
You can sunder as part of a full attack.
You cannot vital strike as part of a full attack. Vital strike is intended to REPLACE full attacks when you can't make a full attack because you have to move up to the target.
Why is the term “Attack Action” used?
What is it about an “Attack Action” that is a “specific kind of standard action” that makes it different than a typical Standard Action?
What exactly IS an “Attack Action”?
Where is Attack Action defined in the core rule book?
How can I reasonably be expected to adjudicate all the feats and abilities that use the term “Attack Action” when “Attack Action” has only been ambiguously defined as a “specific kind of standard action” in message board posts?
When you roll a d20 because you're attempting to hit a creature... THAT ROLL is your attack action, basically.
AND: We can't define every single term in the game. Some times we have to rely on common sense and context providing all the definition that's needed.
Whether or not we made the right choice in not specifically calling out what an "attack action" I can't say... but the fact that these boards exist helps with confusing parts I hope.
You can sunder as part of a full attack.Wait, what? So then is it an editing error where Sunder says it must be made as part of an Attack Action (same term as in Vital Strike)?
You can sunder as part of a full attack.Wait, what? So then is it an editing error where Sunder says it must be made as part of an Attack Action (same term as in Vital Strike)?Vital Strike is, apparently, the one that's poorly written. I don't know why the design team hasn't just put into that feat's description that it's a standard action to use it.
An attack action is still an attack action, whether or not you make it as part of a full attack or a standard attack (which Vital Strike SPECIFICALLY requires) or an attack of opportunity or whatever.
An attack action is merely you taking an action to attack.
Okay, now I'm confused. A few months ago, you said that an Attack Action was "a specific kind of standard action". Did something change between then and now? Am I just misunderstanding you? Is it really butter in spite of my disbelief? Why is the sad cebu sad? Okay, those last two questions might not matter, but I'm very confused about the rest.You can sunder as part of a full attack.Wait, what? So then is it an editing error where Sunder says it must be made as part of an Attack Action (same term as in Vital Strike)?Vital Strike is, apparently, the one that's poorly written. I don't know why the design team hasn't just put into that feat's description that it's a standard action to use it.
An attack action is still an attack action, whether or not you make it as part of a full attack or a standard attack (which Vital Strike SPECIFICALLY requires) or an attack of opportunity or whatever.
An attack action is merely you taking an action to attack.
Sounds like instead I'm the one who's confused. I recommend taking this question over to the rules forums and ignoring what I've been saying in this case.Sounds like Vital Strike needs some errata then. Because if an attack action could be any action in which you attack, and isn't specifically defined as a standard action, then people are using the ruling on Vital Strike to justify why other types of attack actions cannot be done in a full attack action.You can sunder as part of a full attack.Wait, what? So then is it an editing error where Sunder says it must be made as part of an Attack Action (same term as in Vital Strike)?Vital Strike is, apparently, the one that's poorly written. I don't know why the design team hasn't just put into that feat's description that it's a standard action to use it.
An attack action is still an attack action, whether or not you make it as part of a full attack or a standard attack (which Vital Strike SPECIFICALLY requires) or an attack of opportunity or whatever.
An attack action is merely you taking an action to attack.
Well in that case what does it have to do with a discussion about the rules.
Hmm, let me ask you a question what does a 3.5 ruling from a questionable source have to do with a different system that already has a more recent ruling.
the question answered had nothing to do with a ruling.
The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards
to be a fun and friendly place
In the spirit of RAI the message board seems to want this place to be 'fun and friendly' - as such a simple answer to a question about where a terminology was being used from seems to be within the bounds of politeness, as well and friendly.
:)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If this has the attention of James Jacobs, then perhaps we may get a Developer comment.
We can hope.
Did you see the dialogue with him that Grick posted and linked a couple of posts up?
In summary, first he said it worked with any attack, then the attack action thing was pointed out (including his own past statement of what that meant), and then he retracted his "any attack" statement and said to take it to the rules forum.
In retrospect, I think this also would work with my theory that I posted earlier.
|
|
Sorry this doesn't need FAQ.
It might need language clean up to read like trip and disarm, but not really when you look at the rules it's clear.
You may Sunder in place of a melee attack. If you can make more than 1 melee attack you can replace as many of those as you want with Sunder Maneuvers.
Yes per notation 6 if you could gain multiple attacks on a charge you could gain multiple Bull Rush Maneuvers. If you don't think you can, start a new thread and ask and try not to hijack already overly long threads.
Please stop posting rulings from 3.5 and other Pathfinder clarifications. My understanding is this is not like a supreme court ruling; each ruling relates to itself in it's own bubble of rules and has nothing to do with how other rules are written.
For Clarity the actual text of Sunder;
"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."
Notation 6:
"6 Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action."
Seems clear to me.
Ok folks here ya go. Look at the PRD, which is the most current and correct version of the rules and includes currently published errata.
Combat Section
Scroll to; Table Actions in Combat.
Find; "Perform a combat maneuver"
Read; Notation 6
Copy and pasted here for ease and the lazy:
6 Some combat maneuvers substitute for , not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, . Others are used as a separate action.Why does this discussion have 500+ posts of circular semantic arguments.
IMHO because people fail to read the whole rules and look thoroughly at the rules.Love you guys!!!
PS - bold and bigger were added by me.
Text trumps table
You also should have bolded where it says "Some combat maneuvers.."
You should have also went to the combat maneuver section which is where the more precise rules are. What you quoted does not mean that all combat maneuvers can be used with a full attack action. The word "some" is key here.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Seems clear to me.
Did you miss (easy to do in 10 pages) that the lead designer has affirmed on multiple occasions that the "attack action" which sunder's text requires is a type of standard action, not just any old attack?
Your explanation of how sunder is so clear did not address that part of sunder's text, so one of two things is true:
1) You missed that definition, or
2) You disregard that definition for reasons you have not been explicit about.
If you knew of that definition and are simply disregarding it, explaining your reasoning would be helpful. :)