Count Aericnein Neska

Grammar Nazi's page

91 posts. Alias of Jiggy (RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32).


RSS

1 to 50 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
Since it's a made up word, we can agree to disagree or try in vain to prove the other wrong.

Do you know what "murder" means? Do you know what "hobo" means?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't make me make that true.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
And WHO whom you want.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy Z wrote:
AN SNARKY

>:(

Dark Archive

Ross Byers wrote:
I haven't had 'amazing mod powers' in quite some time now...but I'm feeling like I missed something here. I consider Crystal a friend, and I was just trying to be supportive and encourage her to be happy that there are so many people that care about her and are willing to pitch in. Or was it merely grammar I assaulted in some way?

If you are confused by the bird's post, it's because it was a reply to me, not to you. In fact, your own post was removed from the quotation chain within the bird's post.

Dark Archive

Ross Byers wrote:
Crystal Frasier wrote:
We aren't not a family that accepts charity.
My (completely unsolicited) advice is think of it as accepting gifts.

My completely unsolicited advice is to clean up that sentence and align it with her intended meaning.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Effect".

Dark Archive

Tormsskull wrote:
If someone rolls an 18 I feel like they earned it
Tormsskull wrote:
TOZ wrote:
I can't for the life of me understand such a view.
It's probably due to starting with Basic D&D and roll 3d6 in order stat gen method.

It's probably due to you not knowing what "earned" means.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Though that just changes the question to "Is introductory text on monsters and feats irrelevant".

Typically, a short statement that introduces a more in-depth description (such as the opening sentence of a paragraph, or a line leading into a list) is understood to be loosely accurate. The purpose of such an introduction is to take the full data that follows and compress it into a single idea that mentally prepares the reader to properly frame the information they're about be given. It intentionally sacrifices precision for the sake of brevity. When you want the full details, you read the full details. When you want a general idea (such as because there were too many details for you to process), you read the introduction. An introduction is a loose and imprecise summary.

However, the italicized text at the top of a monster entry in the Bestiary is not exactly an introduction. You can tell it's different both by its different formatting (being italicized) and by the fact that it's written in a narrative tone rather than a descriptive tone. The "voice" of this text is that of a GM describing to the players what their characters see, not of a manual informing the GM of how the mechanics work. Its purpose is not to summarize, but to provide an example of the mood and tone of a scene in which the monster might appear. It is a narrative suggestion.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was promised a semantics question. I'm still waiting.

Dark Archive

This thread is what happens when we teach people to recognize commonly-used phrases and expressions (instead of teaching them the underlying mechanics of how phrases are constructed from words and syntax) and then pretend we've taught them how to read.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How and with whom do you game?

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My main takeaway here is that Gary Gygax wasn't very good at writing.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:
I just do the best I can

Your best is not good enough.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
If we have Wizards so mighty they can create whole dimensions, why don't we have Fighters so skilled they can slice a hole into a new dimension with nothing but a sword and some elbow greese?

Because there's no such thing as 'greese'.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
don't worry, I'm brother's with the commission of Internal consistency's director, i'll be out in no time.

>:(

Dark Archive

Bandw2 wrote:
ah yes, that would definitely put the expectation that the have in the 2nd part is the determining verb. That definitely is an editing error though, not really needing a FAQ, but an error all the same.

I'm sure it's probably a mere typo, but I still couldn't let "it is written correctly" stand.

While I have your attention, you missed your appointment in the torture chamber to atone for your own capitalization and punctuation errors. Expect a knock on your door soon.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
LIKE A BAWS.

>:(

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whenever you have a list of lists, semicolons separate the lists from each other while commas separate the items within the sub-lists.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Grammar Nazi wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I can literally taste the salt in this post.

>:(

I promise I'm not being figurative. Quite literal in fact. Try tasting it.

I could accept a claim that you literally tasted salt on your monitor, but not in the post.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
I can literally taste the salt in this post.

>:(

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:

Katina It's a QUESA-dilla.

Katina YOU PUT A LOT OF QUESA IN...

Katina AND THAT'S THE DEAL-AH.

>:(

Dark Archive **

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
This is I always recommend hit Preview

>:(

Dark Archive **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Message board troll wrote:
Has anyone been called a nazi yet?

Your sentence uses the passive voice, and—

Oh. Hm.

Dark Archive **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

At first I was sad that I could no longer be visibly affiliated with the oppressively-lawful nation of Cheliax, but I think a book of dark flame will be a suitable alternative.

Dark Archive

I'm trying to follow the dialogue between Chess Pwn and shroudb, but I'm failing. I think there's a disagreement in there somewhere, but I'm not entirely sure.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Morgen wrote:
Yes, there needs to provide some justification for the stance

Okay, here you go:

There are many magic items which straight-up let you cast a spell. For example, the cloak of arachnida says, "Once per day, the wearer of this cloak can cast web." Several other items use the same language: the user/wearer/item can cast [spellname]. Scabbard of keen edges, strand of prayer beads, ring of friend shield, ring of telekinesis, etc.

Meanwhile, the ring of invisibility instead says, "the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell." The hat of disguise similarly says, "...allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell." There are plenty of other items which use wording like this as well.

So I ask you, what is the functional difference between those items that refer to actually casting the spell and those which reference a spell to describe the effects of using the item? I believe that in attempting to answer that question, you will see why the issue is not as clear as you think.

I don't see any real difference here. if it says AS the spell, it means it operates AS the spell. The items have spell effects and caster levels built in. Ipso Quacko Dotto.

If you don't see any real difference, then you need to brush up on sentence structure. (Though really, who doesn't?) The phrase "as with a disguise self spell" is defining "alter her appearance". That means that the parameters of the spell are only relevant insofar as they pertain to the manner in which the appearance is altered, not to a broader event such as the activation of the item or how long it lasts.

Dark Archive

LeesusFreak wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Brf wrote:
That depends on your campaign. If you are not running an Eastern-flavored campaign you would probably want them all considered Exotic.
Right, because sticks and knives get a lot more complicated to use if you live far enough away from the manufacturer.
That does mean the instruction manual is probably in some foreign language.
I'm almost certain that anyone who doesn't innately understand "Put pointy end in bad guy" doesn't belong running around the countryside, nevertheless fighting dragons and liches and beholders.

You mean "never mind" or possibly "let alone".

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Buri wrote:
One rule for every each thing!
The d20 battle-cry.

I think this is what you meant.

Dark Archive

insaneogeddon wrote:
that can also read and has brain enough to rpg.

-_-'

Dark Archive

This thread makes me sad.

"May" can introduce a list of options without necessarily making the list itself optional in its entirety.

Dark Archive

Shadowlord wrote:

I still have a question about the Favored Target action. At 7th level when the Slayer is able to perform his FT study as a move or swift action,

Playtest Revision wrote:
At 7th level, the slayer can study an opponent as a move or swift action.
Is it possible for the Slayer to spend a swift action to study one target and spend a move action to study a second target in the same round? IF it is allowed, the insertion of an and in the description might be a good idea for PFS and the rules lawyers out there.

No. That would cause a single activation of the ability to require expenditure of both actions. The current wording is correct for the functionality of being able to activate the ability twice and still have a standard action remaining. Your proposed change would remove the possibility of two activations in the same round.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The comma mentioned by Dylos would not change the meaning of the text, but would probably help more people to read it correctly. I endorse said comma.

Dark Archive **

BigNorseWolf wrote:
English simply isn't precise enough to definitively say,

Yes it is. People just don't always read carefully enough.

Then I arrest them.

Dark Archive **

Azouth wrote:

But that is not what it says.

If you possess a class feature that permits you to take a bear as an animal companion or mount that progresses as an animal companion, you may instead gain the service of an owlbear.

You appear to be parsing that sentence like this:

Global: "If you..."
Option 1: "possess a class feature that permits you to take a bear as an animal companion"
or
Option 2: "mount that progresses as an animal companion"

-------------------------

The above is incorrect. The correct way to parse the sentence would be:
Global: "If you possess a class feature that permits you to take a bear..."
Option 1: "as an animal companion"
or
Option 2: "mount that progresses as an animal companion"

The qualifier of it having to be a bear applies to the entire condition, not just to the first of the two versions of the condition.

Dark Archive **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mystic Lemur wrote:
That is incorrect, at least as far as the English language is concerned. You can trade either the+1 hp or the +1 skill point for the alternate favoredd class bonus. You still get the benefit of the other option. A human wizard can take that feat and get both the +1 hp and the +1 spell per level.

Not so.

Look again:
Fast Learner wrote:
When you gain a level in a favored class, you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank instead of choosing either one or the other benefit or you can choose an alternate class reward.

The structure of that sentence is as follows:

"When you gain a level in a favored class"
^ This is the condition under which the rest of the sentence applies.
"you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank instead of choosing either on or the other benefit"
^ This is your first option.
"or"
^ This shows us that there is about to be a second option besides what we've just read.
"you can choose an alternate class reward."
^ This is the second option.

How exactly are you parsing that sentence?

Dark Archive

Hmph.

Dark Archive

13 people marked this as a favorite.

"Precedes".

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
Grammar Nazi wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
First, I don't see how it could be read in any other way than allowing all ten to hit one guy.
Then your understanding of the word "each" is incomplete.
Each sound hits one target. If all 10 sounds hit the same guy, they've each only hit one target.

That statement is true. So is this one:

If each of the 10 notes hits a different target, then they've still each only hit one target.
You don't see how it could be read that way?

Additionally, if each note hits the same target, then it would be more correct for the ability to use "all" instead of "each", or to leave out both words entirely.

Dark Archive

mplindustries wrote:
First, I don't see how it could be read in any other way than allowing all ten to hit one guy.

Then your understanding of the word "each" is incomplete.

Dark Archive **

Mystic Lemur wrote:
rulz we're maid too b broked

Sleep with one eye open.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's break this down:

The rules wrote:

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

When the second sentence opens with "This action", it is referring to the titular "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon" action which has just been defined in the immediately-preceding sentence (the first sentence of the first paragraph). Thus, "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon" refers to the action of drawing or sheathing a weapon or weapon-like object.

Now, the divergence of interpretation happens in the second paragraph. The first sentence of that paragraph refers to drawing a weapon. There are two ways to read this. One is that this continues to refer to the titular action, which has already been defined as including things like wands. The other is that this reference to drawing a weapon is separate from the titular action, and is therefore not attached to anything that was established in the first paragraph (such as the inclusion of weapon-like objects).

Which is correct? The former. If the latter were correct, then that would mean that we have two separate "draw a weapon" actions which function differently and affect different sets of objects, yet are also placed under the same header with each other and share an entry on the AoO chart. The former interpretation does not face these problems, and is therefore correct.

Dark Archive **

Drogon wrote:
I don't understand how any of this has anything to do with making one of those characters a paly. d-:

I approve of this post.

Dark Archive **

Danit wrote:
But seeing how bluff is only what is said does how it is said effect the outcome at all.

*twitch*

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
melodywise wrote:
It's so prevalent, just right there.

"Prominent."

Dark Archive

Kazaan wrote:
I get the feeling that "explicitly" is going the same route as "literally"...

Mostly in RPG circles, but yes.

Quote:
RIP, English Language.

Amen.

Dark Archive **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Is there any way to force people to read the rules?

Yes, but I've not yet been granted the necessary tools (or legal protections) to do so.

Dark Archive **

Cheapy wrote:
I'm not entirely sure where people are seeing that they function as the paladin's mount for everything.

When a sentence reads "Do X in the manner of Y," the relevance of Y is limited exclusively to the manner in which one does X. This is basic sentence structure; so basic, in fact, that most readers understand the meaning of the sentence as a whole without even realizing that they followed this rule - much like how people can successfully write a sentence without being able to differentiate the subject from the object (despite using both in said sentence). Their entire understanding of basic grammar and syntax is subconscious.

Similarly, people often "read" by simply skimming over a portion of text. They don't realize that they've only skimmed, because any "holes" created by the lack of thoroughness in their reading gets filled in by their brains with whatever they expect or assume would be there. This is the same phenomenon which allows yuo to raed thsi phraes despite it containing only one actual word. (Incidentally, this is also the source of a lot of messageboard conflicts involving "if you had actually read my post" and "I did read it!" and "stop putting words in my mouth" and so forth.)

Now combine those two paragraphs: a sentence clearly states something, but one or more persons read it too sloppily and only caught a couple of key nouns and the word "as". Their brains filled in the rest with assumptions/expectations based on what they already know about topics related to the few words they actually read, and a conclusion was reached that is contrary to what is actually stated in the text.

That is how the misunderstanding originates.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
logically sound assumptions

*twitch*

Dark Archive **

Darkness wrote:
Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness.

This statement is of the form "X does Y within area Z", with X being light sources, Y being "fail to increase the light level" and Z being the radius of darkness.

Within the structure "X does Y within area Z", the clause "within area Z" defines where Y takes place, regardless of the location of X. Contrast this with "X within area Z does Y", in which "within area Z" defines the set of X which will be doing Y, regardless of where Y would take place. With darkness having used the former rather than the latter, we can conclude that the light level within the radius of a darkness effect is not increased by nonmagical sources of light, regardless of where the sources are. (The parameters of the area are applied to the action of increasing the light level, not applied to the light sources themselves.) For the same reason (the parameter of area being applied solely to the effect of preventing light level increase), we can further conclude that the effect of preventing the increase of a light level is limited to the defined area, and therefore a light source will continue to affect lighting conditions outside the area.

1 to 50 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>