| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it's been answered in the FAQ:
Can I make multiple sunder attempts in one round as part of a full-attack action? The sunder text says that I can make sunder attempts in place of melee attacks in an attack action, which is not technically a full-attack action.
Yes you can. The text is a little unclear here. Instead of saying "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack", the text should read "in place of a melee attack", which would allow you to make multiple attempts in one round, or even make a sunder attempt as an attack of opportunity.
—Jason Bulmahn, today
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of "just the FAQs please"...
New Sunder FAQ
"Can I make multiple sunder attempts in one round as part of a full-attack action? The sunder text says that I can make sunder attempts in place of melee attacks in an attack action, which is not technically a full-attack action.
Yes you can. The text is a little unclear here. Instead of saying "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack", the text should read "in place of a melee attack", which would allow you to make multiple attempts in one round, or even make a sunder attempt as an attack of opportunity."
So it is now the case that sunder can replace any attack. Resolution at last!
Just sayin'.
Gah! Ninja'd by 36 seconds!
Might've been you're parting shot that you were just sayin'.
jussayin'.
The sunder FAQ also implies that attack action is a standard action, as that phrase "as part of an attack action" is the limiting factor that was holding it back from multiple attempts in a round.
Thankfully, AM BARBARIAN's Build was not harmed by this FAQ. I was afraid he wouldn't be able to ragelancespellsunderpounce walls of force anymore.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sunder FAQ also implies that attack action is a standard action,
And today's new Vital Strike FAQ explicitly states it.
"Attack action" is officially a kind of standard action (for those for whom JB saying it three times on the messageboards wasn't enough). Signed, sealed, delivered.
The official FAQ entry.
Can I make multiple sunder attempts in one round as part of a full-attack action? The sunder text says that I can make sunder attempts in place of melee attacks in an attack action, which is not technically a full-attack action.
Yes you can. The text is a little unclear here. Instead of saying "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack", the text should read "in place of a melee attack", which would allow you to make multiple attempts in one round, or even make a sunder attempt as an attack of opportunity.
—Jason Bulmahn, today
So multiple sunder attempts are allowed. Good to know.
MA
So where are these so called FAQ threads anyways. I may just be blind or dumb.
Core Rulebook. You can find all other FAQs on the sidebar to the right.
Top right of the page, there is a link on the bar called Help/FAQ. Click on that. It brings up the main site FAQ . . . BUT, on the top right of that page are the linked FAQs for Paizo rulebooks. Click on which one you want to read through and you are there.
MA
Ooh, they answered the monk flurry question today too. Go long-awaited FAQs!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Might want to talk to a shrink if internet debates are causing physical responses.
|
Thank you for providing the link for the computorially challenged like me. : )
I've read all the new ones. Flurry goes back to more like the 3.5 version. Sunder is clarified that it's like trip/disarm, has been all along, but a combination of forgetting to change sunder's wording at the same time as they changed trip/disarm's wording, and the re-definition of what 'attack action' means from 3.5 to PF, is what caused the (thankfully temporary) confusion.
Since we're congratulating ourselves on being right all along...
I seem to have a good record. Whenever I've been on one side of a passionate debate in these threads, and whenever the matter has been resolved by the devs, it turns out that the way I thought about the matter coincided with the way the devs thought about the matter. There's sunder, Canny Defence, invisibility/coup de grace...was there a resolution for the areas of light and darkness spells overlapping?
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the eventual FAQs about 'changing grip' and 'deciding between attack and full attack'! : )
Whenever the RAW could be interpreted in two ways, I always choose the way that results in a sane ruling, taking the history of the thing into account. It's worked so far...
Jiggy had the decency to 'hide' his gloating (I mean 'gloating' in a nice way!), and if I had the skill I'd hide mine as well. : )
Finally! Thank all the gentle gods for the FAQ update! Now we all need to get over to the "IF YOU USE SUNDER YOU ARE A BAD PERSON AND SHOULD FEEL BAD" thread! Quickly!
I saved the obnoxious stuff for Facebook. ;-D
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if I already have a degree in psychology, with a minor in counseling? Can I just talk to myself instead?
Wait a second...
I often find talking to myself is the best chance I have for an intellegent conversation.
I am not saying everyone is less intelligent, I am just saying I am smarter than everyone else.
At last!
I just noticed that they also rewrote Prone Shooter to actually do something, too. A good day all around.
Speaking of "just the FAQs please"...
New Sunder FAQ
"Can I make multiple sunder attempts in one round as part of a full-attack action? The sunder text says that I can make sunder attempts in place of melee attacks in an attack action, which is not technically a full-attack action.
Yes you can. The text is a little unclear here. Instead of saying "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack", the text should read "in place of a melee attack", which would allow you to make multiple attempts in one round, or even make a sunder attempt as an attack of opportunity."So it is now the case that sunder can replace any attack. Resolution at last!
** spoiler omitted **
Jiggy I think that means we are still at 100% so far.
I just noticed that they also rewrote Prone Shooter to actually do something, too. A good day all around.Oooh, link?
|
|
Linky!I just noticed that they also rewrote Prone Shooter to actually do something, too. A good day all around.Oooh, link?
Nice!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy I think that means we are still at 100% so far.
I haven't been at 100% for a while. I used to think Weapon Finesse never applied to combat maneuvers, then the maneuver blog came out. So I was wrong on that one and had to adjust my thinking.
Notice how they had to change the text to reflect that functionality? Yep, that means everyone who said that "attack action" meant a type of standard action (a definition which has made it into another new FAQ today) and therefore if they wanted it to replace any ol' attack it needed to be reworded, was right.
Just sayin'.
I was claiming that the textual similarities and their removal of the phrase 'attack action' from sections of the book was more indicative of the correct answer. And I was right.
Just sayin'
In the super-thread, I pointed out you guys were too reliant on unrelated material in your determination of what RAW most likely was, instead of just looking at which other maneuvers Sunder was most closely written to be like.
Rules discussions too often treat the text as a form of legalese, except it wasn't written to be interpreted like that.
Did this FAQ overturn a previous FAQ or clarification involving sunder or another CM?
Well you according to the way it was explain the includsion of "Attack action" which is how it was written would mean only 1 sunder a round. I was not arguring intent. I was arguing RAW combined with devs intent of the correct use of the word "attack action", so we were both correct.
Did this FAQ overturn a previous FAQ or clarification involving sunder or another CM?
It changed Sunder to no longer use the attack action, and instead be made in place of any melee attack.
So while before the FAQ, sunder could not be made as part of a full-attack, now it can, because "as part of an attack action" was removed.
The only other thing approaching a clarification was flagging the old thread "No response needed" which could have implied that Sunder did function as intended. If that was true, then this FAQ overturns it.
Was that reaaalllly necessary?
Was it necessary to finally spread the answer of a question people having been waiting for, and arguing over for years?
Yes. Absolutely.
I think the annoyance is not only a ton of old threads being bumped, but threads in which the FAQ was already posted and discussed. Like this one.
|
|
This 'sunder' question seems to have been disputed from the moment JB 'clarified' that Vital Strike was an attack action therefore a standard action, to the FAQ of a few days ago.
In the intervening time, when there has been such passionate debate in these threads, how do you guys think the devs themselves played it the entire time? Did they play sunder as a standard action, or did they play that any attack could be a sunder attempt?
(by 'any attack', I mean the kind of attack associated with weapon attacks, not spells etc.)
Personally, I'm as confident as I can be that the way they have just ruled it in the FAQ is the way they understood it the entire time!