Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Anthtriel" data-source="post: 3870458" data-attributes="member: 13764">So as it turned out, you actually have fine reading competence (I suppose), you just didn't bother to read, with the same result. Very well then, let me sum up:There is one thing in this thread that you just have &quot;to get&quot;, to understand. That there could be a text that read &quot;Recharge after x minutes of resting&quot; which would be different from &quot;Recharge after x minutes&quot;. If you don't bother to read through the thread, then it's possible to confuse the two and wonder what everyone is talking about, especially as some apparently confused people have posted here, and beyond my example I haven't been very clear (in part because it's impossible not to get it after you read the example). I also acknowledge that I can be pretty unintelligible at times, and my English is nowhere near as good as I would like it to be.&quot;The point of the thread&quot;, i.e. &quot;the point I wanted to make&quot; or &quot;the reason why I wrote all that&quot; is to create an awareness that &quot;per encounter&quot; is very misunderstood, and implies rules that are very different from the rules actually employed. Saga doesn't ever actually say &quot;per encounter&quot;, if I'm not mistaken. It's a horrible name, that's why I don't want it in the 4E rules (hence the thread title).Of course, objectively, the &quot;point of this thread&quot; is that some people in the ENworld forums don't bother to read other posts, not even if they find apparently odd discrepancies. Posting without reading other posts, especially the opening post, is pretty much the worst thing you can do in a forum. That behauvior turns meaningful, linear discussions into a chaotic mess.Someone who posts without reading others somehow believes others care about his opinion when he doesn't care what they think, or whether he contributed in any meaningful way, or just rehashed what has been discussed dozens of times before.Well, the good thing is, I can start my ignore list. Should save me some time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Anthtriel, post: 3870458, member: 13764"] So as it turned out, you actually have fine reading competence (I suppose), you just didn't bother to read, with the same result. Very well then, let me sum up: There is one thing in this thread that you just have "to get", to understand. That there could be a text that read "Recharge after x minutes of resting" which would be different from "Recharge after x minutes". If you don't bother to read through the thread, then it's possible to confuse the two and wonder what everyone is talking about, especially as some apparently confused people have posted here, and beyond my example I haven't been very clear (in part because it's impossible not to get it after you read the example). I also acknowledge that I can be pretty unintelligible at times, and my English is nowhere near as good as I would like it to be. "The point of the thread", i.e. "the point I wanted to make" or "the reason why I wrote all that" is to create an awareness that "per encounter" is very misunderstood, and implies rules that are very different from the rules actually employed. Saga doesn't ever actually say "per encounter", if I'm not mistaken. It's a horrible name, that's why I don't want it in the 4E rules (hence the thread title). Of course, objectively, the "point of this thread" is that some people in the ENworld forums don't bother to read other posts, not even if they find apparently odd discrepancies. Posting without reading other posts, especially the opening post, is pretty much the worst thing you can do in a forum. That behauvior turns meaningful, linear discussions into a chaotic mess. Someone who posts without reading others somehow believes others care about his opinion when he doesn't care what they think, or whether he contributed in any meaningful way, or just rehashed what has been discussed dozens of times before. Well, the good thing is, I can start my ignore list. Should save me some time. [/QUOTE]

Verification