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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pauljathome" data-source="post: 5765832" data-attributes="member: 21807">He is a professional writing in the prime work aimed at GMs. One can presume that he chose his words carefully. I don't know the WOTC process but I also will presume that at least one or 2 other people looked at his words prior to them being published (if WOTC didn't review every word in the PHB and DMG several times then they're idiots).As the AuldGrump pointed out the addition of a single word ("if") would have changed that quote immensely.Pretty much every defence of his quote that I've seen here implicitly assumes that he meant to put that "if" in that quote and are reading it as if that word was present.I basically see two alternatives.1) He (and the reviewers of his prose) DID mean what they said. They purposefully did NOT put in the word "if"2) He (and the reviewers of his prose) badly worded that paragraph so as to significantly obfusate the intended meaning. Ie, they were basically incompetentNow, we all make mistakes and its hard to read the actual words when you know what they "mean". But that is exactly the kind of mistake that I'd expect reviewers to catch (and yes, I've both reviewed documents and had documents that I write be reviewed)I tend to agree with Auld Grump due to memories of the roll out and believe that it was deliberate. But I could be convinced it was incompetence. I've always liked the quote "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence". But it pretty much is one or the other. Either Wyatt MEANT BadWrongFun or he and WOTC chose sufficiently bad prose that I believe that calling them incompetent is justified.</blockquote>

Verification