Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nifft" data-source="post: 3943498" data-attributes="member: 6562">You seriously think that there's not a single coherent thought running through two sentences, in a paragraph of two sentences, both of which discuss Con damage? Do you have any idea how stupid ALL the rules become if you cut them into unrelated sentences?In case that wasn't clear: you are wrong, and I'll show you how.Sentence 1: Description of ability requirement.Sentence 2: Expansion and explanation of requirement.You're asking that half of a sentence be deemed "fluff" -- the center of a paragraph of rules text -- because that sentence ruins an exploit. Neither the spirit nor the letter of the rules are on your side, though the letter is less clearly against you.However, if this whole "long sentence" thing is too much to grok, let's just talk about the end of that sentence. If your DM tells you to take one point of Con damage, and you tell him you're immune to that effect, you're going to have a hard time explaining that you aren't really "somehow immune" to Con damage at the precise moment that you don't take Con damage.But I'd like to hear you try to dance around it. Go on, tell me how were you not "somehow immune" to Con damage at the moment when you didn't take any?Thanks, -- N</blockquote>