RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm trying to set a NON-INFLAMATORY ... tone
....
...for PFS and some lawyer type GMs you have to spell it out instead of use common sense.
...made a lot of nitpicky people immediately run to the books to jump on other ways to mess up the rules...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"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."
I never realised there was an issue with this wording. It seems pretty clear cut.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never realised there was an issue with this wording.
Here.
Your life is now complete.
Or ruined, possibly.
Ruined. Thanks Jiggy :)
Are you a Mythic Ruiner?!
If a pc has grappled an animated object is he considered holding it?
If he is, can he then lower his CMD vs sunder attempts on this object he is holding?
I hate to be the one who begins this again, but sunder clearly states "...as part of an attack action, replacing a melee attack.' Since iterative attacks can be melee attacks (which are attacks but don't use the standard action rule) then sunder can replace those. The vital strike quandry doesn't apply because the wording isn't wonky.
Sadly animated objects are considered constructs, so they only get those downsides, which are few and far between...
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The writer of those 'Quick...' feats, Jim Groves, posted that he did not write a 'Quick Sunder' feat because he believed that sunder replaces any attck; he told SKR this (by e-mail), and was not corrected.
If sunder was a standard action, Jim would certainly have written a 'Quick Sunder' feat.
If Vital Strike and Overhand Chop replaced the 'Attack Action' wording with 'Standard Action', they would no longer function together.
They don't. Both are standard actions.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So...we have a 1200 post thread about sunder that causes quite a stink, and gets locked as a result, because people have opinions. This thread garners 92 FAQ requests. More than most issues ever get. After all of that you want to start another thread in the hopes of getting more FAQ requests?
How about we just wait and see what happens with the original thread. Paizo has stated in the past that anything over about 40 FAQ's is something that they will look at no matter how straight forward they may see it.
TLDR: Redundant thread is redundant.
The attack action isn't why vital strike can't be used in a full-attack - it's because the feat itself saysAttack Action cannot be used as a reason as to why Vital Strike cannot be folded into a Full-Attack at the same time as it is used as a reason as to why Quick Sunder is not needed because Attack Action can already be folded into a Full-Attack Action.
you can make one attack
You can only make one attack - it's in the feat - no more - no less - one
One attack = a standard action = can't use other feats that use the standard action.
People were trying to use this feat with others that also use a standard action (but make an attack as part of the action) and this feat is incompatible with those because it uses the attack action and only allows a single attack.
No matter what you do with 'the attack action' it will never matter for vital strike as it only allows a single attack, which means it will always be a single attack that uses a standard action.
"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."
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Full-Attack
-D20PFSRD Editor Note
You can use sunder as part of a full round attack. Done and done.
Geez. Just ban Sunder and there's no problems.
You know over in the Off Topic section, James Jacobs has answered many, many questions. He does so with speed and good humor. (Thanks James). Now, sure, James is all about the RAI, not so much RAW. But this is PF not 3.5. Pedantic Talmudic debates about the placement of a comma are not really the Paizo style.
But this is PF not 3.5. Pedantic Talmudic debates about the placement of a comma are not really the Paizo style.Hence all the current problems. Pedantic refers to "unimportant" differences. The nature of the Attack action and how it's used in the system is hardly pedantic.
So, have you asked the Creative Director this burning question? Really, he never eats posters alive. ... well hardly ever.
The problem with that deth is that some poster will not simply take James rulings since as he puts it they are just how he would handle it.
I hate to be the one who begins this again, but sunder clearly states "...as part of an attack action, replacing a melee attack.' Since iterative attacks can be melee attacks (which are attacks but don't use the standard action rule) then sunder can replace those. The vital strike quandry doesn't apply because the wording isn't wonky.
Sadly animated objects are considered constructs, so they only get those downsides, which are few and far between...
Wrong for reasons mentioned in the other thread...I am too lazy to rehash old arguments. I am just here to inform you that your argument was already made and not accepted in the other thread. We FAQ'd the other thread so I won't be FAQ'ing this one.
Hint:You ignored the word attack action when making your point...Check the other thread for Jason's comments on what an attack action is... :)
The problem with that deth is that some poster will not simply take James rulings since as he puts it they are just how he would handle it.
Well, that thread is very long, so was the question asked and how did James answer it?
And, since I have almost never seen Sunder even come up in a game, how often would you want to do repeated sunderings? Does this actually come up in some games that often?
The problem with that deth is that some poster will not simply take James rulings since as he puts it they are just how he would handle it.Well, that thread is very long, so was the question asked and how did James answer it?
And, since I have almost never seen Sunder even come up in a game, how often would you want to do repeated sunderings? Does this actually come up in some games that often?
His first answers agreed with Jason. His last answer would allow for multiple Sunders a round.
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.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
I don't get the misunderstanding on the rules here. The wording that gives it away:
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 Sunder can only be done as a standard action, it can never be "part of" an attack action. It would be the entire attack action.
Therefore, you have to be able to do a Sunder as part of a full attack action, because otherwise, that whole "part of" wording wouldn't make sense.
His first answers agreed with Jason. His last answer would allow for multiple Sunders a round.The problem with that deth is that some poster will not simply take James rulings since as he puts it they are just how he would handle it.Well, that thread is very long, so was the question asked and how did James answer it?
And, since I have almost never seen Sunder even come up in a game, how often would you want to do repeated sunderings? Does this actually come up in some games that often?
Cite? Linky? Quote?
The problem, for the umpteen billionth time, is that Jason Bulman, the Lead Designer for Pathfinder stated in response to controversy over Vital Strike that since Vital Strike is an attack action it cannot be used as part of a full-attack. Prior to that, people were folding Vital Strike into Full-Attack by having the first attack do double as per VS and then the remainder of attacks doing normal damage. The intent of Vital Strike was to only be used as a standard action so you have a decent damage option for when you need to move in to deliver your damage for the round. It was never intended to boost the damage of a full-round attack. He basically said, quite explicitly,...
Thus, the question has been asked and answered. Now, sure with a answer from James, one could argue that it's more a RAI than a RAW answer. But not so with Jason. Jason *IS* RAW.
No wonder they aren;t bothering to answer repeated FAQ hits, it has been already answered.
Anyway, like I asked- in what game is Sunder such a important option that this has become a life and death question? We have never used it in 9 levels+ of playing, iirc.
Thread cloning: it's like thread necromancy +.
Ah, k.
Proposal for you. Not trying to be snarky - legitimately offering a possible way of thinking about this:
Jason's usage of the term "Attack Action" isn't an exact match of the term "Attack Action" in the Sunder Rules.
Hear me out. When Jason refers to an "Attack Action" in his post, he's explicitly referring to a Standard Action - Attack (method). But that phrasing doesn't make sense with how the Sunder Rules are written. That'd mean the Sunder rules could have been phrased like:
Sunder: You can attempt to sunder as part of a standard action attack (melee) or standard action attack (unarmed.)
Which begs the question: what part is left? If that's all Sundering is, what part of the standard action is left over? Why did the rules for Sunder say "Part of"?
Seems like, either way of parsing this, something has to give. It makes a lot more sense to me that the phrase simply isn't being used in the exact same way, than it is that the Sunder rules have an extremely misleading phrase thrown in for no apparent reason.
Attack action: Roll d20 + Attack Bonus, Roll Damage, apply damage to target character.
Sunder as part of Attack action: Roll d20 + CMB, Roll Damage, apply damage to target item.The Roll Damage part is left when Sunder replaces your normal Attack Roll with a Combat Maneuver Roll and targeting parameters. If there were different rules for rolling damage on a Sunder, then it would be more appropriate to say that the whole Attack Action is replaced. Moreover, it can simply be a case of "inelegant words". The whole book isn't written by a single person and many people will have different nuances as to how they write. Lastly, the word 'part' doesn't always refer to a subdivision of a whole. Sunder can have a part to play in the execution of an Attack Action.
I agree with the Inelegant words bit.
I really don't agree with the usage of Part you offered. That use of Part is as a noun, a subject. If the Sunder rules said "... opponent as a part of an attack action..." I could buy it. But it's not referring to "a part" or "a part to xxx", it's referring to "part of" - a portion of something. As it is, it looks pretty straight-forward in its writing: some portion of the attack action can be replaced by taking out a melee attack and replacing it with Sunder.
So it really comes down to which you think is more likely:
A) "Part of" is used inelegantly, being added despite being unnecessary and confusing.
B) "Attack Action" not referring to the Standard Action - Attack (method), but an action that is an attack.
Unfortunately, now I can't even make up my own mind. Both seem equally silly and confusing.
If A is the correct, why didn't they simply phrase it like Vital Strike? Why is the Monk's Flurry of Blows ability phrased like it is (or for that matter, why does the Monk get to flurry Sunders while the Fighter's Full Attack can't?) Why add "Part of" to sunder's definition?
If B is correct, why didn't they simply phrase it like Trip? Why is Attack Action used as a definitive phrase in Jason's post on Vital Strike, and why is Vital Strike use the same phrasing with "The attack action" instead of "an attack action".
Bah. I'm going to bed. And clicking FAQ'ing. And hoping the issue doesn't come up in any games.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It makes a lot more sense to me that the phrase simply isn't being used in the exact same way, than it is that the Sunder rules have an extremely misleading phrase thrown in for no apparent reason.
A bit of history for you:
Prior to finally publishing PFRPG, an earlier version of combat maneuver rules had sunder and disarm using identical wording - specifically, the "attack action" wording currently in sunder. At the time, Jason Bulmahn (lead designer) stated that the intent was for both disarm and sunder (which had identical wording at the time) to work with any attack - AoOs, full attacks, etc.
But then, after that statement, the same guy went on to state (three different times) that "attack action" is a specific type of standard action.
"But wait!" you say, "That contradicts what he said the intent was!"
Yes, it does. So you know what happened?
Disarm had the reference to the newly-clarified "attack action" removed from its text in the final version of the CRB, thus preserving the functionality that was originally intended.
But sunder didn't get changed.
Let me reiterate, for emphasis: two maneuvers used the attack action, then the attack action got defined to be something else, then ONE of those maneuvers got edited in response to that definition.
Typo? Change of intent? Nobody knows. All that's clear is that the definition of "attack action" applies as much to maneuvers as to anything else (otherwise disarm wouldn't have needed changing), so currently sunder and disarm do not work the same way as each other.
Thread cloning: it's like thread necromancy +.Last one was locked.
Got too heated.
I know, with a comment to the effect that if the answer hadn't resolved itself in a 1000+ post thread it wasn't going to. Adding another 1000+ posts in a new thread isn't going to make any difference. The old thread was FAQ'd to death, no point in this thread rehashing ALL of it again. i.e., this thread should die and we should patiently wait for the official FAQ that will come out on it at some point (hopefully sooner than later, but it will show up eventually).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thread cloning: it's like thread necromancy +.
Oddly enough this thread cloning followed the rules for Cloning
New thread a duplicate of old thread - Yes (Still wanting FAQs)
Original thread has been slain - Yes (Locked)
Original thread can not be brought back to life - Yes (Locked)
Must have piece of original threads flesh - Yes (OP posted in original thread)
Have all the original threads memories - Yes (Same people in this thread posting the same arguments)
New thread does not get old equipment - Yes (Can not transfer those earned FAQs to new thread)
Just remember, this thread is functioning at a -2 lvls until someone casts a restoration (very unlikely to happen since we have yet to resolve the current arguments and move forward).
Are you a Mythic Ruiner?!
Or a Ruinlord, maybe?
Guys, in this sort of case, where the FAQ has been hit a zillion times, and a couple of devs have weighed in (even tho not with the EXACT wording some would like to see), they have considered this “asked and answered”. To them it is now 100% clear, and to be honest, the intent should be clear to one and all, even if you are not 100% happy with the wording.
Like I asked several times- is Sunder really used so often it needs a special answer? To which no one has bothered to replay. I doubt if this is coming up in IRL gameplay.
PF is just not about nitpicking and legalistic answers.
Now, I went ahead and hit the FAQ just because it can’t hurt. But this really has been asked & answered.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Like I asked several times- is Sunder really used so often it needs a special answer? To which no one has bothered to replay.
Just a few weeks ago in PFS, a paladin had an adamantine polearm with which he spent most of the final combat sundering some pretty effective enemies' weapons, and thereby saving the party's bacon. There were multiple rounds in which, if sunder worked like disarm, he'd have performed 1-2 more sunders per round.
So yeah, it can come up.
|
I imagine sunder would come up more if the issue on how it's meant to work was resolved. Right now it's kind of lurking in the 'at the whims of each particular GM's opinion' void... which, I know, all rules are technically, but you'd expect a GM to point out before you started playing your disarm monkey character if he'd house-ruled that disarm took a standard action. For sunder it's more of a risk to invest anything in the maneuver when any GM could lean either way. That's fine in one-GM home games, less fine in PFS or rotating GM games, and also means that sunder in builds will come up less on places like these boards because you end up with any thread which includes a sunder-based build in it devolving into another one of... well, these types of thread... ;)