Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nifft" data-source="post: 2565896" data-attributes="member: 6562">*sigh* this is what I get for being tongue-and-cheek with punctuation.No. No it cannot be interpreted that way.Here's how you can tell. Delete the part that you are claiming is a subordinate clause, and you will have a passage that makes no sense.I'll show you. Here's a sentence that has two parts, each being modified by the same clause:This is how you can tell those two parts are related: delete the stuff in the middle.Now here's an example of a conjunction which does NOT imply that the final clause modifies the first:Can you spot the difference? Yes, the second clause has its own subject! Can you guess what will happen when we delete the stuff in the middle for this passage? Don't worry, I won't keep you hanging!See that? Now, compare:Benefit: Your caster level increases by 1, and you add 1 to the save DC of all arcane spells with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage.With:Benefit: Your caster level <s>increases by 1, and</s> you add 1 to the save DC of all arcane spells with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage.See that? Does it look like "not so good", listed above? Yes, yes it does!There is no doubt. There is no room for interpretation. There is certainly room for a house rule based on what YOU think the authors WANTED to write, but what they actually wrote is clear. I'm very sad now that I made a joke about a coma in my earlier post.@Seph: ...so the moral is: if a DM tries to pull crap like this, don't argue, just take a different Draconic feat.Cheers, -- N</blockquote>

Verification