Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2945515" data-attributes="member: 31734">I object to your use of this word.&nbsp; You are begging the question and it is incorrect to use that word because it assumes that there is a conflict.&nbsp; The proper word you should use is something like &quot;clarifies.&quot;The key to this discussion is that there is no conflict between the text and tables, thus all of the rules have merit.&nbsp;Just iterative?&nbsp; That's different than anyone else's ruling in this thread.&nbsp; I believe the two sides are: (a) as a standard action, or (b) substitute for a melee attack.&nbsp; The difference between this and your suggestion (which you may not realize or intend), so that your suggestion disallows natural weapons from sundering at all, and you cannot use two-weapon fighting to Sunder.The obvious point at which sundering becomes terrible is when you have a two-weapon fighter with dual adamantine shatterspikes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 2945515, member: 31734"] I object to your use of this word. You are begging the question and it is incorrect to use that word because it assumes that there is a conflict. The proper word you should use is something like "clarifies." The key to this discussion is that there is no conflict between the text and tables, thus all of the rules have merit. Just iterative? That's different than anyone else's ruling in this thread. I believe the two sides are: (a) as a standard action, or (b) substitute for a melee attack. The difference between this and your suggestion (which you may not realize or intend), so that your suggestion disallows natural weapons from sundering at all, and you cannot use two-weapon fighting to Sunder. The obvious point at which sundering becomes terrible is when you have a two-weapon fighter with dual adamantine shatterspikes. [/QUOTE]

Verification