Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Verequus" data-source="post: 2280158" data-attributes="member: 9135">
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> </li>
</ul>I doubt it - this would be only the case, if someone has never looked for a patch and has turned all notifications from RPGnow off. And then I don't expect, that someone reads the FAQ, because everything indicates, that the buyer wasn't pleased.&nbsp;<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li>
</ul>No, not the entire question, but the page reference. Those page references aren't really necessary, because one can search through the PDF or is already familiar enough with the layout to find the relevant section. Furthermore, the compilation can and will probably outdate those references and I prefer FAQ entries, which are as much independent on a certain revision as possible. (That answers the other question, too.)&nbsp;LA and EoMR are one work - if you don't buy LA, then you aren't interested in EoMR anyway. IMO, of course. Furthermore, the compilation will reorganize the feats, so this question wouldn't be entirely correct.&nbsp;&nbsp;In the Spell Focus description this is already explained - no need for a FAQ question.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;If you don't forget to remove the question after the publishing, then can you leave it in.&nbsp;In this case, only someone familiar with EoMR could have told him that - moreover, I'd like to have only entries in the FAQ, which aren't obvious or clearly stated in EoMR. Reexplaining the book does defeat its purpose.&nbsp;No it doesn't. Grammar errors, typos and superflous text hinder the comprehension.&nbsp; It was me, who was curious about the spelling. While it is interesting to know this, it doesn't have a relevance to EoMR itself. If you don't want to remove this, then move it to the Miscelleneous section.&nbsp;----I hope this clarifies everything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Verequus, post: 2280158, member: 9135"] [list] [/list]I doubt it - this would be only the case, if someone has never looked for a patch and has turned all notifications from RPGnow off. And then I don't expect, that someone reads the FAQ, because everything indicates, that the buyer wasn't pleased. [list] [/list] No, not the entire question, but the page reference. Those page references aren't really necessary, because one can search through the PDF or is already familiar enough with the layout to find the relevant section. Furthermore, the compilation can and will probably outdate those references and I prefer FAQ entries, which are as much independent on a certain revision as possible. (That answers the other question, too.) LA and EoMR are one work - if you don't buy LA, then you aren't interested in EoMR anyway. IMO, of course. Furthermore, the compilation will reorganize the feats, so this question wouldn't be entirely correct. In the Spell Focus description this is already explained - no need for a FAQ question. If you don't forget to remove the question after the publishing, then can you leave it in. In this case, only someone familiar with EoMR could have told him that - moreover, I'd like to have only entries in the FAQ, which aren't obvious or clearly stated in EoMR. Reexplaining the book does defeat its purpose. No it doesn't. Grammar errors, typos and superflous text hinder the comprehension. It was me, who was curious about the spelling. While it is interesting to know this, it doesn't have a relevance to EoMR itself. If you don't want to remove this, then move it to the Miscelleneous section. ---- I hope this clarifies everything. [/QUOTE]

Verification