Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8086464" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I disagree. This reads as a post-hoc justification rather than a natural interpretation of the text. “A character needs one pound of food per day and can make food last longer by subsisting on half rations.” Regardless of what the ration equipment weighs, the implication of this sentence is that one pound is what is needed, but eating half as much as you need can extend how long you can subsist on limited resources. The following sentence, “eating half a pound of food in a day counts as half a day without food,” further clarifies the long-term effects of eating half as much food as your daily requirement.Ask yourself, if the weight of a ration had been one pound, as it is in other editions, would reading this sentence have made you think it should be two pounds? Would you have questioned the apparent incongruity, as many people have done with the two-pound ration?</blockquote>