Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Demetrios1453" data-source="post: 8345285" data-attributes="member: 6801060">Actually, the description on the Wizards site (<a href="https://dnd.wizards.com/products/treasury-dragons" target="_blank">Fizban's Treasury of Dragons | Dungeons &amp; Dragons</a>) says :&quot;Adds new player character options, including unique draconic ancestries for dragonborn, dragon-themed subclasses for monks and rangers, and new feat and spell options.&quot;It very much looks like both &quot;feat&quot; and &quot;spell&quot; are modifying &quot;options&quot;. If there were only one feat, it would need to read, grammatically, &quot;... and a new feat and spell options&quot;. Which then throws the &quot;new&quot; into an awkward position, as the spell options are presumably new as well and should be described as such. If &quot;feat&quot; is assumed to be a modifier of &quot;options&quot; then &quot;new&quot; describes both &quot;feat&quot; and &quot;spell&quot;.Also, queue the Oxford comma debate! As an American company, WotC presumably uses the Oxford comma, so that means &quot;new feat&quot; is not a separate item from &quot;spell options&quot; (because there would be a comma between them), but they are one combined item in the list, meaning that &quot;feat&quot; necessarily is modifying &quot;options&quot; and thus is plural.So basically, it seems we are getting (plural) feat options.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Demetrios1453, post: 8345285, member: 6801060"] Actually, the description on the Wizards site ([URL='https://dnd.wizards.com/products/treasury-dragons']Fizban's Treasury of Dragons | Dungeons & Dragons[/URL]) says : "[I]Adds new player character options, including unique draconic ancestries for dragonborn, dragon-themed subclasses for monks and rangers, and new feat and spell options.[/I]" It very much looks like both "feat" and "spell" are modifying "options". If there were only one feat, it would need to read, grammatically, "... and [B]a[/B] new feat and spell options". Which then throws the "new" into an awkward position, as the spell options are presumably new as well and should be described as such. If "feat" is assumed to be a modifier of "options" then "new" describes both "feat" and "spell". Also, queue the Oxford comma debate! As an American company, WotC presumably uses the Oxford comma, so that means "new feat" is not a separate item from "spell options" (because there would be a comma between them), but they are one combined item in the list, meaning that "feat" necessarily is modifying "options" and thus is plural. So basically, it seems we are getting (plural) feat options. [/QUOTE]

Verification