Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nifft" data-source="post: 2566906" data-attributes="member: 6562">I'm annoyed, because it seemed like you were taking my jest (regarding a comma) literally, and arguing with me based on it. Also, this is the Rules form, not the Intent forum, so what a Feat was *intended* to do is not relevant. What it *does* do is relevant.It means exactly what it meant before, but it's slightly harder to parse because there is no comma.Now it makes no sense. This would have been what they wrote if they had intended it to work like you seem to think it should work:... but that's not what they wrote. Not at all.WRONG. Without the comma, the sentence does not change. With an extra comma, as it would be formed if the central clause were indeed subordinated, it would NOT BE ENGLISH. And that is also annoying to me... that you don't see the what seems to me obvious. I'm sure you're not dumb, but it feels like you're playing dumb to make a point about how your house rule should apply in this not-house-rule forum.That is NOT a well-formed sentence. &quot;caster level&quot; does not apply to &quot;energy descriptor&quot;.Given that the rules are communicated only in English text, saying that an interpretation is &quot;merely grammar based&quot; could be seen as rather disingenuous.I'm not sure how it was inteneded, which is different yet again from how it should work. See below.As written, it does apply to all spells. Given how poor a Sorcerer usually is as a choice for half of a Mystic Theurge or Cerebremancer, perhaps that's exactly how it's intended.Compare to an Orange Prism Ioun Stone. +1 Caster Level (to all casting classes) is 30kgp.Anyway. With luck there will be errata, and it will either be changed or not. Just so you know, I brought this up on the WotC Char Opt forum, and those rules lawyers agree with my reading.&nbsp;-- N</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nifft, post: 2566906, member: 6562"] I'm annoyed, because it seemed like you were taking my jest (regarding a comma) literally, and arguing with me based on it. Also, this is the Rules form, not the Intent forum, so what a Feat was *intended* to do is not relevant. What it *does* do is relevant. It means exactly what it meant before, but it's slightly harder to parse because there is no comma. Now it makes no sense. This would have been what they wrote if they had intended it to work like you seem to think it should work: ... but that's not what they wrote. Not at all. [b]WRONG.[/b] Without the comma, the sentence does not change. With an extra comma, as it would be formed if the central clause were indeed subordinated, it would NOT BE ENGLISH. And that is also annoying to me... that you don't see the what seems to me obvious. I'm sure you're not dumb, but it feels like you're playing dumb to make a point about how your house rule should apply in this not-house-rule forum. That is NOT a well-formed sentence. "caster level" does not apply to "energy descriptor". Given that the rules are communicated only in English text, saying that an interpretation is "merely grammar based" could be seen as rather disingenuous. I'm not sure how it was [b]inteneded[/b], which is different yet again from how it [b]should[/b] work. See below. As written, it [b]does[/b] apply to all spells. Given how poor a Sorcerer usually is as a choice for half of a Mystic Theurge or Cerebremancer, perhaps that's [b]exactly[/b] how it's intended. Compare to an Orange Prism Ioun Stone. +1 Caster Level (to all casting classes) is 30kgp. Anyway. With luck there will be errata, and it will either be changed or not. Just so you know, I brought this up on the WotC Char Opt forum, and those rules lawyers agree with my reading. -- N [/QUOTE]

Verification