Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tiluvias99 04-29-06, 09:33 PM	Is an opponent's weapon considered part of the opponent? Is a foe's weapon considered part of the foe? Is a creature's weapon considered part of the creature? Essentially, by the Rules As Written, if I can make an attack that can only target the opponent, or the foe, or the creature, may this attack be a sunder attempt, considering that a sunder attempt, even though it requires an attack roll from the opponent, or the foe, or the creature, still deals damage to an opponent's weapon, not the opponent, or a foe's weapon, not the foe, or a creature's weapon, and not the creature?
Bulletproof_Condom 04-29-06, 09:37 PM	Is an opponent's weapon considered part of the opponent? Is a foe's weapon considered part of the foe? Is a creature's weapon considered part of the creature?That's the same question three times. "Opponent" and "foe" are synonyms and "creature" is merely less specific. The answer is no, manufactured weapons are not, in any way, shape, or form, part of the weilder. Natural weapons are, but you can't sunder natural weapons anyway, so it doesn't matter.
tiluvias99 04-29-06, 09:41 PM	The answer is no.So, by the RAW, when using the Cleave feat to get an extra attack against an opponent after dropping another opponent, or when using the Sundering Cleave function of the Combat Brute feat to get an extra attack against a foe who's weapon you've destroyed, or when using the extra attack against a creature tripped by a character with the Improved Trip feat, you may not use a sunder attempt in place of a normal attack, because it doesn't target the opponent, or the foe, or the creature?
fatal error 04-29-06, 10:01 PM	I would say you could use the extra attack from cleave or imp. trip to do any 'attack' (a sunder, a trip, a disarm, a normal attack, a grapple attempt). For the combat brute I would say you could only cleave into another sunder attempt, though I'm not sure as I forget the wording exactly.
Thorak 04-29-06, 10:22 PM	Warning; highly nitpicky use of language ahead Yes, you can use the attack for any of those special combat actions. Here's why; the attack isn't made on the opponent, it's made against the opponent (or foe, or what have you). At least in the two specific cases, the text always says against the opponent. Even if it doesn't deal direct damage, it's an attack against them, aimed at harming their ability to fight back in this case. The key word here is "against". It's unclear what the meaning would be without it, because of how D&D uses the term "opponent" and such, but with it, you don't have to be attacking the creature itself, just making an attack against it somehow.
tiluvias99 04-30-06, 01:22 AM	Hm. Thank you, Thorak. That's just what I needed. So it does work. Mwa ha ha ha ha.... http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=622921 Say goodbye to balance... Edit: My apologies for tainting the normal boards with CO disgustingness.
Thorak 04-30-06, 01:52 AM	That's . . . amusing. But so is Pun-Pun, and he's perfectly by-the-book legal too. Yes, you can break things. If it were my game, it'd be houseruled partway through your first attempt to pull that off. Well, that, or I'd do something nasty like "Now you fight mirror image selves, oops, sorry infinite-swing-guy, you lose initiative to your mirror self. Tough break." I'd dress it up more and make it less obvious, and you might even get to pull it off for a bit, but any cheesy broken combo is asking for the DM to use it on the party. I'd probably suggest the houserule, and then use it against you if you complain. And then suggest the houserule again.
Maat_Mons 04-30-06, 05:39 AM	...the attack isn't made on the opponent, it's made against the opponent ... it's an attack against them, aimed at harming their ability to fight back in this case. Many sunderable items don't contribute to the wearer's combat effectiveness under normal circumstances. A phylactery of faithfulness is a good example of this. This justification doesn't work for all items and, for some items, it would only work for some wearers (those for whom the item is beneficial in the context of combat). I can harm the combat effectiveness of a fighter by killing his supporting cleric. I don't think anyone would argue that a fighter is more effective when he is healed periodically in the course of combat. By this reasoning, an attack which harms the cleric would be an attack against the fighter. I really don't think this is an appropriate interpretation of "against".
tiluvias99 04-30-06, 03:57 PM	I really don't think this is an appropriate interpretation of "against".Regardless of the interpretation's appropriateness, it is a valid one.