Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 2566310" data-attributes="member: 2525">First, not only does it leave room for doubt, but I am the one in this conversation having the doubt.&nbsp; And I am reading the same sentence as you.&nbsp; So unless you are calling my viewpoint entirely unreasonable, apparently reasonable minds can differ on this one, and there IS room for interpretation.&nbsp; Given I cannot tell if you are being intentionally hostile and aggressive, or if that's just how I am viewing what you are writing, I am not sure.&nbsp; Are you calling my viewpoint entirely unreasonable, or is that just my inference?As for the grammar issue, give two experiments a try.&nbsp; 1) Remove the comma entirely and read the sentence.&nbsp; 2) Add a second comma after the word &quot;spells&quot; and read the sentence.&nbsp; Note that both of these experiments result in the feat being just about energy spells and not all spells.I believe, after you do that, you may see what I am getting at.&nbsp; It really is ALL about that comma - a purely grammatical contention.&nbsp; The sentence as written can be broken into two sentences as follows: &quot;Your caster level increases by 1 with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage.&quot;&nbsp; and &quot;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.&quot;&nbsp; Both of those sentences make sense (though are not how I would write the sentences given the opportunity).&nbsp; And, as I said, given there are two reasonable grammatical interpretations of the rule, you look to context, all of which says it's all about energy spells and not about all spells.&nbsp; Again, if you think there is ANYTHING other than grammar which supports your position, I'd like to hear it.&nbsp; But if you also think the feat is &quot;supposed&quot; to mean energy spells, then why are you advocating for anything different? Even IF you are correct about the grammar of the sentence (which I disagree with obviously), I still do not consider it a house rule if you are correcting obvious errata.&nbsp; And, I think that is what we are talking about here, if you were correct about the grammar.&nbsp; The feat is meant to be about energy spells, and not all spells.&nbsp; And so far you have not tried to make the case that it is supposed to be about all spells.&nbsp; Pretending you are required to be slavish to a single comma in a feat knowing full well it's not supposed to be there doesn't seem like a productive use of the rules...that is, unless you think there is some non-grammatical reason the feat is intended to be about all spells.By the way, do you think the &quot;Your caster level increases by 1&quot; applies to ALL spells the caster can cast, even divine spells?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 2566310, member: 2525"] First, not only does it leave room for doubt, but I am the one in this conversation having the doubt. And I am reading the same sentence as you. So unless you are calling my viewpoint entirely unreasonable, apparently reasonable minds can differ on this one, and there IS room for interpretation. Given I cannot tell if you are being intentionally hostile and aggressive, or if that's just how I am viewing what you are writing, I am not sure. Are you calling my viewpoint entirely unreasonable, or is that just my inference? As for the grammar issue, give two experiments a try. 1) Remove the comma entirely and read the sentence. 2) Add a second comma after the word "spells" and read the sentence. Note that both of these experiments result in the feat being just about energy spells and not all spells. I believe, after you do that, you may see what I am getting at. It really is ALL about that comma - a purely grammatical contention. The sentence as written can be broken into two sentences as follows: "Your caster level increases by 1 with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage." 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." Both of those sentences make sense (though are not how I would write the sentences given the opportunity). And, as I said, given there are two reasonable grammatical interpretations of the rule, you look to context, all of which says it's all about energy spells and not about all spells. Again, if you think there is ANYTHING other than grammar which supports your position, I'd like to hear it. But if you also think the feat is "supposed" to mean energy spells, then why are you advocating for anything different? Even IF you are correct about the grammar of the sentence (which I disagree with obviously), I still do not consider it a house rule if you are correcting obvious errata. And, I think that is what we are talking about here, if you were correct about the grammar. The feat is meant to be about energy spells, and not all spells. And so far you have not tried to make the case that it is supposed to be about all spells. Pretending you are required to be slavish to a single comma in a feat knowing full well it's not supposed to be there doesn't seem like a productive use of the rules...that is, unless you think there is some non-grammatical reason the feat is intended to be about all spells. By the way, do you think the "Your caster level increases by 1" applies to ALL spells the caster can cast, even divine spells? [/QUOTE]

Verification