Sorcerer Build Up

[Mistwell]

I'm annoyed, because it seemed like you were taking my jest (regarding a comma) literally, and arguing with me based on it. Also, this is the Rules form, not the Intent forum, so what a Feat was *intended* to do is not relevant. What it *does* do is relevant.

Didn't answer my question.

It means exactly what it meant before, but it's slightly harder to parse because there is no comma.

I disagree, and the folks in your own thread on the optimization board disagree with you on this point as well.

Now it makes no sense. This would have been what they wrote if they had intended it to work like you seem to think it should work:

I disagree. It makes sense. It makes sense to me, and it made sense to the people in your own thread on the optimization board. I think it doesn't make sense to you because you might have lost a bit of perspective in getting caught up in your position on this one.

WRONG. Without the comma, the sentence does not change.

Yes, it does. It changes exactly as I argued, and as I said earlier the folks in your own thread that you claimed agree with you said the exact same thing that removing the comma brings it over to my interpretation.

With an extra comma, as it would be formed if the central clause were indeed subordinated, it would NOT BE ENGLISH.

Yes, it would. It makes perfect sense. What is not english about it?

And that is also annoying to me... that you don't see the what seems to me obvious. I'm sure you're not dumb, but it feels like you're playing dumb to make a point about how your house rule should apply in this not-house-rule forum.

I'm not playing dumb. I believe yours is the house rule. I also believe that auto-correcting obvious errata is not house-ruling. And by the way, I'm a lawyer, so I am used to dealing with massive grammar issues in RAW all the time.

That is NOT a well-formed sentence. "caster level" does not apply to "energy descriptor".

Ah now see "not a well-formed sentence" is totally different from "not an english sentence". I agree it isn't well-formed. I think you would also agree with me that a TON of stuff in the "Complete" books is not well-formed sentences. Regardless of it being a well-formed sentence, it is an english sentence that makes perfect sense. You know what it means, I know what it means, and I think any D&Der would know what it means. Energy descriptors come up with spells and spell-like abilities. They always have a caster level associated with them. Therefore having a +1 caster level associated with energy descriptors for you makes sense. What do you think the sentence would mean other than that?

Given that the rules are communicated only in English text, saying that an interpretation is "merely grammar based" could be seen as rather disingenuous.

You claimed you were not arguing from a single comma. You are. English text uses more than just grammar for intepretation. You use context, sometimes often. Sometimes words have two meaning, and you MUST use context to know what they mean. When you limit english intepretation to JUST grammar, without the context portion, you are not using all the rules of english, just some select ones. I've given you the context issue, and you have not responded to it beyond telling me you are ignoring it.

I'm not sure how it was inteneded, which is different yet again from how it should work. See below.

Ah, but I think you are sure. You read the definition of draconic feats, you read the first sentence of the feat, and you ignored both. I think ignoring something and then saying you are not sure isn't a genuine response. I think you are sure, but just don't want to talk about those portions.

As written, it does apply to all spells. Given how poor a Sorcerer usually is as a choice for half of a Mystic Theurge or Cerebremancer, perhaps that's exactly how it's intended.

I doubt you believe that, given the context issue.

Compare to an Orange Prism Ioun Stone. +1 Caster Level (to all casting classes) is 30kgp.

Yes. And you are claiming a 30K magic item PLUS the energy focus abaility is equivelent to a second-tier feat chain (meaning it can be taken at first level by a human). You know from a balance perspective that such a context means it's unlikely the feat means what you say you think it means.

Anyway. With luck there will be errata, and it will either be changed or not. Just so you know, I brought this up on the WotC Char Opt forum, and those rules lawyers agree with my reading.

-- N

No, they did not. You got a mixed response. And, I wonder why you claimed they did all agree. I also brought it up (a couple of threads below yours). Mixed responses also. And this, from guys looking for any conceivable power loophole possible.

 

[Nifft]

No, they did not. You got a mixed response. And, I wonder why you claimed they did all agree. I also brought it up (a couple of threads below yours). Mixed responses also. And this, from guys looking for any conceivable power loophole possible.

You must be kidding.

What's the name of the guy who says different?

I guess we're really not speaking the same language.

-- N

 

[Seph]

thanks for the help guys.....

 

[Seph]

so how does a sorcerer learn new spells....does he have to have a scroll to learn it for a higher power sorcerer teaches him to learn a new spell....for instance if u lvl and 6th lvl spells u cant just a get a 6th lvl spell u have to learn it in a way....is that right?

 

[mikebr99]

so how does a sorcerer learn new spells....does he have to have a scroll to learn it for a higher power sorcerer teaches him to learn a new spell....for instance if u lvl and 6th lvl spells u cant just a get a 6th lvl spell u have to learn it in a way....is that right?

He just gets it... no study or training required (other then the DM's std. level up training).

Unless the DM says different of course.

Mike