Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kreynolds" data-source="post: 290403" data-attributes="member: 2829">I know what it says, and for a short time, I interpreted the description literally, and I would have agreed with you. But as I said, that was only for a short time, and later, I concluded that was not how the spell was intended to function. Just to be sure that I was on the right track, I emailed Skip. He confirmed that I was correct in my thinking.Now, I'm fully aware of how Skip doesn't do this and doesn't do that and rarely explains this or rarely explains that or how he never calls when he says he will, but that's immaterial to me in this particular case, as I'm confident in my interpretation.I assume you feel that Skips reply to me was rather vague and lacked an explanation, thus you are still confident in your opinion of the spell. Conversely, I feel the spell was rather vague and lacked an explanation, but I got confirmation of my opinion, thus I'm confident in it.Kinda like a figure eight, isn't it?Very true. That was an oversight on my part.No. You're blanketing my interpretation of one spell across the board for the entire rule set. I understand how Bluff works, that it only applies to your next attack, and I've always run it that way. Like I said, my statement was an oversight on my part.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kreynolds, post: 290403, member: 2829"] I know what it says, and for a short time, I interpreted the description literally, and I would have agreed with you. But as I said, that was only for a short time, and later, I concluded that was not how the spell was intended to function. Just to be sure that I was on the right track, I emailed Skip. He confirmed that I was correct in my thinking. Now, I'm fully aware of how Skip [i]doesn't do this and doesn't do that and rarely explains this or rarely explains that or how he never calls when he says he will[/i], but that's immaterial to me in this particular case, as I'm confident in my interpretation. I assume you feel that Skips reply to me was rather vague and lacked an explanation, thus you are still confident in your opinion of the spell. Conversely, I feel the spell was rather vague and lacked an explanation, but I got confirmation of my opinion, thus I'm confident in it. Kinda like a figure eight, isn't it? Very true. That was an oversight on my part. No. You're blanketing my interpretation of one spell across the board for the entire rule set. I understand how Bluff works, that it only applies to your next attack, and I've always run it that way. Like I said, my statement was an oversight on my part. [/QUOTE]

Verification