Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 3239700" data-attributes="member: 1465">It's not. It's clearly a mistake by the writer.1) '(the rod) only (confers) the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day'2) "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are enlarged as though using the XY feat"You are giving all weight to the first, despite the fact that it is a sentence in the middle of an explanation about secondary things (what the rod "doesn't do"). And you're then trying to justify the second assuming that it can still be "logical" if you assume that preparation is implicit and doesn't need to be mentioned.I'm instead just trying to tell that the second, in its simplicity, makes perfect sense if you assume the opposite (that preparation isn't mentioned because it is not in fact part of the scenario at all).I know that as soon as you consider the first, which is anyway an accessory sentence to help explaining something else, then the whole text is not perfectly logical. But your concern with "flawless logic" is making you miss the real meaning  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> You're trying to derive the truth from all the smallest details, but you don't try to see the (imperfect) bigger picture.</blockquote>