Hypersmurf said:
No, it doesn't... the text is silent on the matter.
No, not at all. There's also the official errata.
Grapple does damage.
"Step 3: Hold. Make an opposed grapple check as a free action. If you succeed, you and your target are now grappling, and you deal damage to the target as if with an unarmed strike."
Why isn't it listed as a standard action?
Instead, it's listed as Action Type: Varies, and has a footnote that specifically notes it can be used once in an Attack or Charge action, one or more times in a Full Attack action, or as an AoO.
Which makes sense for something that can be used once in an Attack or Charge action, one or more times in a Full Attack action, or as an AoO.
Sunder isn't listed in this way. Which makes sense for something that can't be used once in an Attack or Charge action, one or more times in a Full Attack action, or as an AoO.
-Hyp.
Now read it more carefully. The grapple action itself doesn't cause the damage, parts of later consequences do, and even then it's unarmed damage and not a normal attack. Sunder itself deals direct damage just like a regular attack.
It doesn't have the note because *it doesn't need it*. The fact that it is an actual attack means it behaves in every way as such.
I'm starting to think the collective intelligence of some of you people is questionable.
AGGEMAM said:
What part of the courtesy rules on this board don't you understand, mate?
Well, I just can't tolerate downright stupidity. It's a pet peeve.
To bring up another point, what on earth justifies the position that if the designers meant A thing and wrote it up in such an ambiguous way that it could mean A or B, that the word of the designers specifically stating it means A isn't valid? That makes no sense.
The designers obviously intend sunder to be an actual attack and not a flat standard action. The wording can be interpreted either way based on the errata and the notation that the text overrules any table. Still, it's just "tech talk" and a result of poor wording, so why would you think it's okay to ignore what the designers obviously intended (which most of us can even see in the wording by breaking down the "tech talk", errata, and information from the FAQ)?
I think the wording could be better for the less intuitive, but that still leaves no doubt that the designers meant one thing and worded it in a way at least they understood clearly; you just like ignoring what is clearly factual. Skip Williams designed the damn thing and says it means one thing, yet you still say it means something else even though he freaking wrote it. Explain the logic in that.
I'm not saying whether or not sunder being an attack is a good thing or not, I'm just saying that if you go by the core rules, that's what it is whether you like it or not. To say sunder is a standard action and can't be part of a full attack, that is *a house rule*. Every bit of proof supports what I'm saying, yet you still ignore it.
You wanna know why I refuse to show respect? The reason is simple: you're all too disrespectful toward me to deserve it.