|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further circumstancial evidence as to possible intent... Ultimate Combat has Feats for Quick Bull Rush, Quick Dirty Trick, Quick Drag, Quick Reposition, and Quick Steal. That's every combat maneuver except Grapple (completely different system), Overrun (only usable when moving, so not applicable to AoO or full attacks), Disarm and Trip (already replace a melee attack), and... Sunder (because the game designers are so fearful of multiple sunders in a round that they specifically excluded a 'quick' version?).
|
Grick, using the same Socratic reasoning:-
A single attack in your turn=Attack Action
Attack Action=Standard Action
Therefore every single attack =Standard Action
Therefore full attacks and AoOs are not possible in the game system.
We know this to be untrue!
There is a fallacy here. That fallacy is that although:-
One of the possibilities for a standard action is a single attack
This does not mean the reverse is true! Namely:-
Therefore every single attack takes a standard action
That's the fallacy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further circumstancial evidence as to possible intent... Ultimate Combat has Feats for Quick Bull Rush, Quick Dirty Trick, Quick Drag, Quick Reposition, and Quick Steal. That's every combat maneuver except Grapple (completely different system), Overrun (only usable when moving, so not applicable to AoO or full attacks), Disarm and Trip (already replace a melee attack), and... Sunder (because the game designers are so fearful of multiple sunders in a round that they specifically excluded a 'quick' version?).
Lol. A +1 to you ProfPotts.
Speaking as the author of the Quick Maneuver feats in Ultimate Combat.
If I thought we needed Quick Sunder, I would have written it. I think SKR, Stephen, and Jason would have asked me why I didn't write it, if it was needed. Or another member of Team Gruntwork would have written it in my place.
But every time I try to get involved in a rules discussion it doesn't end well for me. Frankly, I'm not sure why I'm screwing up my courage now when I see the beating SKR takes. :D (just kidding folks!) My opinion is that Sunder can be used in the place of an attack, and is not in of itself a standard action.
I never wrote Quick Sunder because I didn't feel it was necessary, as with Trip and Disarm. No hidden agenda or message about too many potential sunders factored into its exclusion. Just lack of need. But I'm not a Developer.
Good luck all, I probably won't reply to this thread again.
Edit: I removed one word from my previous post, changing the phrase "attack action" to "attack". But no more. I'm not going to chase my tail or bend into a pretzel to parse my language to adhere to what I believe is the correct intent. The language is tricky and confusing, no one disputes that.
|
|
Further circumstancial evidence as to possible intent... Ultimate Combat has Feats for Quick Bull Rush, Quick Dirty Trick, Quick Drag, Quick Reposition, and Quick Steal. That's every combat maneuver except Grapple (completely different system), Overrun (only usable when moving, so not applicable to AoO or full attacks), Disarm and Trip (already replace a melee attack), and... Sunder (because the game designers are so fearful of multiple sunders in a round that they specifically excluded a 'quick' version?).Lol. A +1 to you ProfPotts.
Speaking as the author of the Quick Maneuver feats in Ultimate Combat.
If I thought we needed Quick Sunder, I would have written it. I think SKR, Stephen, and Jason would have asked me why I didn't write it, if it was needed. Or another member of Team Gruntwork would have written it in my place.
But every time I try to get involved in a rules discussion it doesn't end well for me. Frankly, I'm not sure why I'm screwing up my courage now when I see the beating SKR takes. :D (just kidding folks!) My opinion is that Sunder can be used in the place of an attack action, and is not in of itself a standard action.
I never wrote Quick Sunder because I didn't feel it was necessary, as with Trip and Disarm. No hidden agenda or message about too many potential sunders factored into its exclusion. Just lack of need. But I'm not a Developer.
Good luck all, I probably won't reply to this thread again.
Thankyou Mr. Groves. You're my hero!
That should convice everyone, but it probably won't. : /
Grick, using the same Socratic reasoning:-
A single attack in your turn=Attack Action
Attack Action=Standard Action
Therefore every single attack =Standard Action
Therefore full attacks and AoOs are not possible in the game system.
A single attack during your turn may very well use the Attack Action. It might also be a free action (if it results from casting a touch spell) or not an action (if it results from something provoking an AoO). It might also be a full-round action (Charge).
Of the many options to make an attack, one options is the Attack Action.
The Attack Action is always a standard action.
If a specific attack (like Sunder) uses the Attack Action (which it does) then, since the Attack Action is a Standard Action, you cannot use Sunder with a full-attack or AoO.
If a specific attack (like Trip) can be made in place of any attack (which it can), then the action doesn't matter, and it can be used with an attack action, or full-attack, or AoO.
|
|
Grick, using the same Socratic reasoning:-
A single attack in your turn=Attack Action
Attack Action=Standard Action
Therefore every single attack =Standard Action
Therefore full attacks and AoOs are not possible in the game system.A single attack during your turn may very well use the Attack Action. It might also be a free action (if it results from casting a touch spell) or not an action (if it results from something provoking an AoO). It might also be a full-round action (Charge).
Of the many options to make an attack, one options is the Attack Action.
The Attack Action is always a standard action.
If a specific attack (like Sunder) uses the Attack Action (which it does) then, since the Attack Action is a Standard Action, you cannot use Sunder with a full-attack or AoO.
If a specific attack (like Trip) can be made in place of any attack (which it can), then the action doesn't matter, and it can be used with an attack action, or full-attack, or AoO.
What do you make of Mr. Groves' post?
He wrote those 'Quick (combat manoeuvre)' feats. He had contact with SKR [i
|
|
Grick, using the same Socratic reasoning:-
A single attack in your turn=Attack Action
Attack Action=Standard Action
Therefore every single attack =Standard Action
Therefore full attacks and AoOs are not possible in the game system.A single attack during your turn may very well use the Attack Action. It might also be a free action (if it results from casting a touch spell) or not an action (if it results from something provoking an AoO). It might also be a full-round action (Charge).
Of the many options to make an attack, one options is the Attack Action.
The Attack Action is always a standard action.
If a specific attack (like Sunder) uses the Attack Action (which it does) then, since the Attack Action is a Standard Action, you cannot use Sunder with a full-attack or AoO.
If a specific attack (like Trip) can be made in place of any attack (which it can), then the action doesn't matter, and it can be used with an attack action, or full-attack, or AoO.
What do you make of Mr. Groves' post?
He wrote those 'Quick (combat manoeuvre)' feats. He had contact with SKR et al. He is certain that sunder replaces an attack, and doesn't need to be a standard action. He is confident that SKR would have corrected him if he were wrong.
Are you willing to accept that?
My opinion is that Sunder can be used in the place of an attack action, and is not in of itself a standard action.
The problem is, for this to work, the solution is not to change the Attack Action into something else (which breaks Vital Strike, fighter archetypes, etc.) but rather to just remove that text from the Sunder rules. If you take "as part of an attack action" out of the Sunder text, then it works exactly as you (and many others) feel it should.
The confusion around what Attack Action means is why you told us that contributors are told "If it's not really an action, don't call it an action, call it an attack."
But every time I try to get involved in a rules discussion it doesn't end well for me.
We're not picking on you (now, or in the thread last year). Your contributions are appreciated, and dissecting language in a rules discussion shouldn't result in any hurt feelings. If it does, we're doing it wrong.
The problem is, for this to work, the solution is not to change the Attack Action into something else (which breaks Vital Strike, fighter archetypes, etc.) but rather to just remove that text from the Sunder rules. If you take "as part of an attack action" out of the Sunder text, then it works exactly as you (and many others) feel it should.
The confusion around what Attack Action means is why you told us that contributors are told "If it's not really an action, don't call it an action, call it an attack."
That is correct. That's why I edited my post above. Even a year later I tripped right over that "don't say action" rule again. :D
Its a bad habit.
I should refrain from further comment.
|
|
My understanding is that any CM made with a weapon (trip, sunder, disarm, whatever) can take the place of any attack with that weapon, no matter the type of action taken to make that attack.
What's more, any dev feat, comment, ability etc. which references this either agrees with this or does not disagree. I believe the devs think the same way, that sunder can replace any attack.
I believe the devs think the same way, that sunder can replace any attack.
If this is the case, can anyone find a problem with this alteration to the rules?
Sunder: "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent in place of a melee attack."
Remove the blue text to result in:
Sunder: "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent in place of a melee attack."
It would be much easier to remove six words in errata than to implement, for example, AvalonXQ's proposed fix. (-edit- despite that fix being a better change overall)
I believe the devs think the same way, that sunder can replace any attack.If this is the case, can anyone find a problem with this alteration to the rules?
I don't see a problem. There are already creatures that have the "double damage against objects" ability when they make a full attack on objects and structures. Since attacking objects are done through a sunder (standard action), that ability is broken.
There are already creatures that have the "double damage against objects" ability when they make a full attack on objects and structures. Since attacking objects are done through a sunder (standard action), that ability is broken.
Smashing an Object: "Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC.... Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon."
It's weird enough that I could see unattended non-weapon objects using different rules. IE it's "like" sundering, but it targets AC, full-round no-miss, and I don't see why a monster special ability (like the Treant Double Damage Against Objects (Ex)) couldn't also be different.
However, it's more evidence that the designers assume Sunder isn't an attack action.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Attack Action" is an archaic term that is actively avoided by Paizo in all of their newer books precisely because of the confusion it causes.
The problem is that "attack action" has been in the rules so long, they would not only have to fix the Attack Action section, but also change every instance of attack action in all the books since then.
It does not appear as much as one might think.
In fact, in the whole of the Pathfinder line of hardback books, the term "attack action" only shows up 19 times, specifically in the...
- Mounted Skirmisher feat
- Overhand Chop fighter class ability
- Automatic Misses and Hits rule
- Slow Time monk class ability
- Snap Shot rogue talent
- Skirmisher rogue class ability
- Vital Strike line of feats
- Gory Finish feat
- Felling Smash feat
- Sunder combat maneuver (which I believe to be an error)
- Hunter's Tricks rules for ranger
- Gaze Attack universal monster rules
- Performing a Combat Maneuver rules
- Raging Hurler feat
- Sunlight Powerlessness ability of the shadow demon
- Heated Rock ability of the fire giant
- Slime ability of the omox
- Great Cleave feat
- Siege Engine rules for rams
That's 19 times in at least ten books (fully half of which are from the core rulebook). Some of those instances use the term inconsistently.
The term needs to be removed from the system entirely. It was never properly defined in an official source and has only ever caused confusion.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think it would make perfect sense to remove the offending words, leaving us only with the phrase 'in place of a melée attack'.
If the reference to the Attack Action were removed from sunder's text, then yes, the result would be that it would work exactly like disarm and trip.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about the fact that one of the full round action options is listed as a "full-attack action? Is that not the required wording for sunder? I can live with not sundering on an aoo, but it is within the rules to sunder with a full-attack action.
"Full-attack action" is not the same as "attack action". How you can think that adding "full-" to a term doesn't change its meaning in any way whatsoever is beyond me.
|
|
I think it would make perfect sense to remove the offending words, leaving us only with the phrase 'in place of a melée attack'.If the reference to the Attack Action were removed from sunder's text, then yes, the result would be that it would work exactly like disarm and trip.
Good!
I (and others) already believe it works this way, but a wording change should eliminate confusion.
(or am I being too optimistic?)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
An attack action is a type of standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action.
Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
Since vital strike requires an attack action (a specific KIND of standard action...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sunder calls for AN attack action.
Did you miss it, or just ignore it?
Even aside from the Lead Designer using "an" in a way that directly contradicts your opinion, your idea of how the indefinite article works in english is incorrect (or rather, incomplete).
You're treating the usage of the indefinite article as meaning "one of a group" - i.e., there are multiple "attack actions", and any one of them is being referred to. However, the indefinite article can also mean "one of multiple iterations" - i.e., you can use the "attack action" any number of times without having to modify all/none of them with sunder. For example, if you make three attack actions in a given combat, you can modify an individual attack action with sunder, without modifying any others.
You have no case here.
Grick, using the same Socratic reasoning:-
A single attack in your turn=Attack Action
Attack Action=Standard Action
Therefore every single attack =Standard Action
Therefore full attacks and AoOs are not possible in the game system.A single attack during your turn may very well use the Attack Action. It might also be a free action (if it results from casting a touch spell) or not an action (if it results from something provoking an AoO). It might also be a full-round action (Charge).
Of the many options to make an attack, one options is the Attack Action.
The Attack Action is always a standard action.
If a specific attack (like Sunder) uses the Attack Action (which it does) then, since the Attack Action is a Standard Action, you cannot use Sunder with a full-attack or AoO.
If a specific attack (like Trip) can be made in place of any attack (which it can), then the action doesn't matter, and it can be used with an attack action, or full-attack, or AoO.
As I noted above, designers are inconsistent with the term and don't even use the "attack action = standard action" interpretation in some areas of the rules.
|
|
As I noted above, designers are inconsistent with the term and don't even use the "attack action = standard action" interpretation in some areas of the rules.Grick, using the same Socratic reasoning:-
A single attack in your turn=Attack Action
Attack Action=Standard Action
Therefore every single attack =Standard Action
Therefore full attacks and AoOs are not possible in the game system.A single attack during your turn may very well use the Attack Action. It might also be a free action (if it results from casting a touch spell) or not an action (if it results from something provoking an AoO). It might also be a full-round action (Charge).
Of the many options to make an attack, one options is the Attack Action.
The Attack Action is always a standard action.
If a specific attack (like Sunder) uses the Attack Action (which it does) then, since the Attack Action is a Standard Action, you cannot use Sunder with a full-attack or AoO.
If a specific attack (like Trip) can be made in place of any attack (which it can), then the action doesn't matter, and it can be used with an attack action, or full-attack, or AoO.
I know what you mean. 'Wield' sometimes means 'use' and sometimes means 'hold'.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would help quite a lot if rules terminology was consistent, in addition to rules being written clearly and concisely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"an attack action" is defined under "Attack" under "Standard actions" under "Action Types"
There are however many other ways to attack without using "an attack action"
If something asks for "an attack action" you have to use a standard action.
I do wish this was worded slightly differently because I hate repeating myself.
It's pretty easy to figure this stuff out, however. Instead of arguing spend some time reading.
If you want to rule that you can sunder as part of a full attack action then as a GM you can do that.
"Rules Questions" is where we discuss how the rules actually are not how we would like them to be.
So, in PFS, should we expect table variation?
Hit the FAQ button. Then get your whole gaming group to come here and the FAQ button too.
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 attackExcluding "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.
He is right stop bugging him. The bold states an exception clear as day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
because he chose to bold the part of the sentence that he wants to focus on, that means the rest of the sentence doesn't matter... what could I have been thinking?
seriously, have you even acknowledged/thought about the fact that BOTH parts of the sentence CAN be applied and logically combine: in place of melee attack (using weapon) WITH action requirement on top. in other words, there is a logical explanation for the difference in wording vs. trip/disarm, which don't have action requirements and so are usable via 'any' melee attack roll.
if there IS a possible logical application of RAW, shouldn't you consider using that instead of just ignoring parts of it you don't like?
or what is your explanation for why this was FAQ'ed to death before, and marked 'not needing FAQ answer'?
He is right stop bugging him. The bold states an exception clear as day.
"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."
The bold part states the situation clear as day.
If "in place of a melee attack" was an exception then it would have to be an exception from something.
The situation is clearly an "attack action."
If "in place of a melee attack" was an exception to it being an "attack action" then why use the words "attack action?"
sorry Karlgamer, the first person to bold wins, that's the rulez...
sorry Karlgamer, the first person to bold wins, that's the rulez...
Okay, look, I love my sarcasm as much as the next guy, but at least save it for a worthy target. I would generally agree with the Captain on interpretation, though I would disagree with him on the clear as day bit - the wording is difficult and open to multiple interpretations.
But "attack action" is such an ill-defined and often-misused term within the rules that I would be tempted solely on those grounds to follow the interpretation that bases its reading on "in place of a melee attack." Simply because while the side arguing otherwise has some good points, to agree with them would be to base my interpretation on the application of a term that seems to cause problems wherever it appears.
Sunder requires a standard action because it is an attack action.
I know it says that it is use a "attack action in place of a melee attack.", but not all melee attacks require the same action
As an example if you are using a full round action you can make several melee attacks. Trip can be substituted for any of those because trip only references a melee attack which means in can be used with any melee attack.
Sunder specifically calls out "an attack action" in place of a melee attack. An "attack action" is a specific game term that takes a standard action. The only way to use an attack action without a standard action is with a rules exception. Sunder does not say an attack action used to sunder can be used with a lesser action. If they intended for it to be used in place of any melee attack instead of using an attack action it would have been worded like trip is worded.
All they are saying is that instead of a normal attack. You can sunder by using a melee attack.
sure... but it seems a stretch to approach interpreting the rules ny PRETENDING that there ISN'T a rules term/action that has a very confusing name, which is 100% relevant to the rule you are interpreting... not to mention just refusing to explain the difference vs. disarm/trip text (when your interpretation is trying to say it works just like those CMBs).
...incidentally, the sunder text IS badly written, because it should say ...in place of THE melee attack, since the indefinite 'a' doesn't make sense in the context of the previous restriction to attack actions. /grammarnazi
i'm not actually aware of rules that use attack action when it that's not intended (presumably known because attack action couldn't possibly work with said rule) ...is it in a campaign setting item, or the latest ARG stuff?
EDIT: the 'in place of a melee attack' wording is placed where it is, and doing it's job correctly, because it's indicating that the Sunder is still using the weapon (and related bonuses), which WOULDN'T be clear if it was just stated that the action to initiate Sunder was the attack action.
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't dispute that the rule states its an attack action. Sure, it's RAW.
But I challenge that was the intent of the rule and that it shouldn't be clarified, rewritten, revised, or whatever.
I accept that it was marked "FAQ not needed", but that doesn't tell me anything. It amounts to saying, "One of these two positions is correct." Or answering "Yes" to the question, "Sex?" Jason and SKR can be mad at me if they want.
If they say "it's a standard action" then the matter is resolved. We have an answer. No hard feelings. Life goes on. And I expect the same if the reverse happens.
In the meantime, no one should be told that they shouldn't hit the FAQ button. Hit it all you want and as much as you want. This is a safe place to ask Developers questions.
No one else should be threatened by the fact that someone wants to hear it from a Developer.
And for pity's sake, stop this "you just don't like what the rule says" stuff. Maybe someone just thinks someone else is wrong. Stop projecting emotion and agenda onto other people.
Sundering as part of a full round action is not unreasonable. Its still subject to the -5 reduction of BAB on iterative attacks, if its not your first attack.
As for "Paizo knows people don't like sundering", I'm sure Paizo also knows players don't like confusion, fear, paralysis, energy drain, dominate person, swallow whole, receiving critical hits, and a whole lot of other stuff.
.
I do agree that the rule is badly written. It should read something like "You can choose to sunder an object if you use a standard action to make a melee attack."
well that then includes cleave, or potentially other 'special' actions that are standard actions, but are not the attack action.
i maintain that the sole grammatical error with it is the use of indefinite 'a' instead of 'the'.
but i've never seen or heard anybody else actually critique that minor bit of grammar...
certainly not anybody championing the idea that the attack action bit doesn't really apply to sunder.
fundamentally, it's just because the phrase 'attack action' is a confusing name for an action in a game where attacks may come from many other sources besides the 'attack action'. but if you're playing this game, it's kind of imperative to realize that the game does use some confusing terminology, including 'attack action'. just like 'move action' is kind of confusing, but we deal with it. that doesn't mean i wouldn't call those things differently in a PRPG 2.0, but dealing with the here and now, you make do with what you have.
|
|
This is from a 3.5 Sage Advice/FAQ by Skip Williams:-
'Sunder is a special kind of melee attack. If it were a special
standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive
text for the Manyshot feat says).
If you make a full attack, and you have multiple attacks
from a high base attack bonus, you can sunder more than once,
or attack and sunder, or some other combination of attacking
and sundering.'
I realise that PF has changed some things, and the wording of the things that are now Combat Manoevres have changed. I have also seen comments from people like Mr. Groves.
This leads me to believe that Sunder is intended to replace any attack, not just the standard action. YMMV.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't dispute that the rule states its an attack action. Sure, it's RAW.
But I challenge that was the intent of the rule and that it shouldn't be clarified, rewritten, revised, or whatever.
For what it's worth, I don't think any of us who have been arguing "it's a standard action" actually prefer it to be so. For myself at least, I'd rather it function exactly like disarm and trip (partly because it already shares some thing with those two, like utilizing a weapon in the attempt).
Some of us separate how we think things should work from how we believe things do work. We do this because this is the Rules forum, not General Discussion, Advice, Suggestions, or the product discussion page for the CRB.
Others make no such distinction; for some, rules don't exist beyond their own usage of them. "How it is" and "how it should be" are one and the same.
When these two meet, and the former says "X is true", the latter hears "X is how you must play the game". When the former says "you're incorrect about how this rule works", the latter hears "your preferences are bad".
Then things go south. :/
FAQed
Personally I'm on the side of Sunder being similar to Vital Strike.