Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 3435743" data-attributes="member: 4722">... What do you mean &quot;why&quot;? What do YOU call them? What do you define as a &quot;special effect&quot;?Right, I'm with you so far.I'm glad you're finally acknowledging that it's not my fault that I'm misinterpreting this. I'm a reasonably intelligent person; I have an English degree. I think I can read a section of text and puzzle out the meaning, but this one is, like you said, rather poorly worded and leads to silly rules arguments like this one.Let's trot out that paragraph again, shall we?Any additional ability. Not &quot;special effects&quot; or &quot;common effects&quot;. Here's the clincher, the part where it implies that order DOES matter. (BTW, I left out part of that; I'm surprised someone didn't call me on it.) If the new ability costs LESS than the existing item, you multiply the new ability by 1.5. If the new ability costs MORE than the existing item, then you add the new ability's cost and multiply the existing item's cost by 1.5.You know... once I wrote that out, and looked at it, it actually made sense. It's 1.5 times the lesser ability. Why the **** couldn't they have said just that, instead of making some convoluted, obscure sentence that idiots like me are bound to misinterpret?Didn't you hear, flagellation leads to enlightenment? You should try it some time. Worked for me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kerrick, post: 3435743, member: 4722"] ... What do you mean "why"? What do YOU call them? What do you define as a "special effect"? Right, I'm with you so far. I'm glad you're finally acknowledging that it's not my fault that I'm misinterpreting this. I'm a reasonably intelligent person; I have an English degree. I think I can read a section of text and puzzle out the meaning, but this one is, like you said, rather poorly worded and leads to silly rules arguments like this one. Let's trot out that paragraph again, shall we? Any additional ability. Not "special effects" or "common effects". Here's the clincher, the part where it implies that order DOES matter. (BTW, I left out part of that; I'm surprised someone didn't call me on it.) If the new ability costs LESS than the existing item, you multiply the new ability by 1.5. If the new ability costs MORE than the existing item, then you add the new ability's cost and multiply the existing item's cost by 1.5. You know... once I wrote that out, and looked at it, it actually made sense. It's 1.5 times the lesser ability. Why the **** couldn't they have said just that, instead of making some convoluted, obscure sentence that idiots like me are bound to misinterpret? Didn't you hear, flagellation leads to enlightenment? You should try it some time. Worked for me. [/QUOTE]

Verification