Search Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.Yes, there needs to provide some justification for the stance 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.
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.That does mean the instruction manual is probably in some foreign language.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. You mean "never mind" or possibly "let alone".
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.
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:
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.
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: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""you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank instead of choosing either on or the other benefit" "or" "you can choose an alternate class reward." How exactly are you parsing that sentence?
Each sound hits one target. If all 10 sounds hit the same guy, they've each only hit one target.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. 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.
Let's break this down:
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.
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.
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.
|
