Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 5080262" data-attributes="member: 59248">You're wrong.1. It's not a run on sentence, and I'd bet that you don't know what a run on sentence is.  A hint here: you can build arbitrary long sentences without making them run-ons.  In this case, it's a construction that you were (I hope) TAUGHT IN SCHOOL.2. Adding ", and" does not suddenly turn a concise sentence into a non-consice one.  What it does (in this case) is make things correct, whereas what was printed is incorrect.And is two unrelated sentences, and has departed to the point of no longer being related to the Longtooth Shifter.This is a matter of opinion; mine happens disagree with you and think that on a rules-level, D&D4 -should- be as rigourous as MtG is (and that, in fact, one of the good things 4e did was making D&D more like a CCG).Lets go back to the original:This is pretty clearly not correct, because of what I've called out in the second phrase -- it lacks an endpoint, which is sloppy.  It's not very important, since this is an encounter ability, and sanity argues for giving the second part an implied "until the end of the encounter".   And even if one went for a RAW interpretation, this would mean that you'd get an extra Regen 2 in all encounters after your first one, and only need to spend a minor action if you wanted the +2 damage (which you always will). But it's very sloppy, and unnecessarily so.Compare to:That's the simplest surgery one could made to have this work correctly--the duration clause in this case clearly applies to both parts of the compound sentence.  Of course, the "in additon" bit is completely redundant; a good way to word this would be:But the "in additon" does add a certain artistic space, so I'm not that attached to this.</blockquote>

Verification