Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 2567118" data-attributes="member: 2525">Didn't answer my question. I disagree, and the folks in your own thread on the optimization board disagree with you on this point as well.I disagree.  It makes sense.  It makes sense to me, and it made sense to the people in your own thread on the optimization board.  I think it doesn't make sense to you because you might have lost a bit of perspective in getting caught up in your position on this one.Yes, it does.  It changes exactly as I argued, and as I said earlier the folks in your own thread that you claimed agree with you said the exact same thing that removing the comma brings it over to my interpretation.Yes, it would.  It makes perfect sense.  What is not english about it? I'm not playing dumb.  I believe yours is the house rule.  I also believe that auto-correcting obvious errata is not house-ruling.  And by the way, I'm a lawyer, so I am used to dealing with massive grammar issues in RAW all the time.Ah now see "not a well-formed sentence" is totally different from "not an english sentence".  I agree it isn't well-formed.  I think you would also agree with me that a TON of stuff in the "Complete" books is not well-formed sentences.  Regardless of it being a well-formed sentence, it is an english sentence that makes perfect sense.  You know what it means, I know what it means, and I think any D&Der would know what it means.  Energy descriptors come up with spells and spell-like abilities.  They always have a caster level associated with them.  Therefore having a +1 caster level associated with energy descriptors for you makes sense. What do you think the sentence would mean other than that?You claimed you were not arguing from a single comma.  You are.  English text uses more than just grammar for intepretation.  You use context, sometimes often.  Sometimes words have two meaning, and you MUST use context to know what they mean.  When you limit english intepretation to JUST grammar, without the context portion, you are not using all the rules of english, just some select ones.  I've given you the context issue, and you have not responded to it beyond telling me you are ignoring it.Ah, but I think you are sure.  You read the definition of draconic feats, you read the first sentence of the feat, and you ignored both.  I think ignoring something and then saying you are not sure isn't a genuine response.  I think you are sure, but just don't want to talk about those portions.I doubt you believe that, given the context issue.Yes.  And you are claiming a 30K magic item PLUS the energy focus abaility is equivelent to a second-tier feat chain (meaning it can be taken at first level by a human).  You know from a balance perspective that such a context means it's unlikely the feat means what you say you think it means.No, they did not.  You got a mixed response. And, I wonder why you claimed they did all agree.  I also brought it up (a couple of threads below yours).  Mixed responses also.  And this, from guys looking for any conceivable power loophole possible.</blockquote>

Verification