Quick Clearification

[ColorBlindNinja]

Nope. 1 sigil when you are level 1, and 2 sigils when you have at least two levels in a single class.

Ah, too bad.

[HouseRules]

Power Sigils (Su): In addition to the array of dimly glowing luminous sigils that orbits her head, a 1st-level illumian has a single brightly glowing power sigil that grants her certain bonuses (see below). A power sigil can be discerned from other sigils surrounding an illumian with a DC 10 Spot check, and identified with a DC 15 Knowledge (arcana) check. On attaining 2nd level in any class, an illumian gains a second different power sigil, and the bonus granted by each power sigil increases to +2. Depending on the combination of power sigils she chooses, an illumian gains one or more extra special abilities (see Illumian Words, below). The benefit of each power sigil is given below, along with the Common translation of each sigil's Illumian name.

It is limited to 2 because of the emphasized parts. Remove the word "second", and replace the "to +2" with "by +1" , and an Illumian could get all 6 sigils, but they would need 2 levels of 5 different classes.

[RoboEmperor]

+1 caster level. Fixed value. Does not scale up.
Up to a maximum. Means it scales down. So +0 or +1.
If the caster level scaled up and has a maximum, you'd be right. Just like Fireball.
But this doesn't scale up. Period. it's a fixed +1, and it has a maximum, which means it scales down. At level 2 it increases to +2 but again it's a flat +2 with a maximum.
In your interpretation there is literally no reason for that word "maximum" to exist in text. At all.

It doesn't matter how much you deny it. It is PS. If you argue like you did in this thread to your DM and managed to strong arm him into breaking the rules, sure. Just know that any campaign you complete with this Illumian is only because you cheated. And as this thread shows no one in this forum, or anyone for that matter, is gonna acknowledge you didn't cheat and ever consider using your character's build because it's illegal.

d&d is written in layman's language instead of lawyer language and you are trying to abuse this by picking it apart until it looks like something else. Just like a person arguing Shades replicates any conjuration spell of any spell list instead of just creation and summoning. Doesn't matter how much you want it to work that way, it doesn't.

The intent is clearly there that it is PS. There's no denying it. So go ahead and ignore it and warp the text so it suites your needs. Just don't deny that you're cheating.

[Hunterx]

+1 caster level. Fixed value. Does not scale up.
Up to a maximum. Means it scales down. So +0 or +1.
If the caster level scaled up and has a maximum, you'd be right. Just like Fireball.
But this doesn't scale up. Period. it's a fixed +1, and it has a maximum, which means it scales down. At level 2 it increases to +2 but again it's a flat +2 with a maximum.
In your interpretation there is literally no reason for that word "maximum" to exist in text. At all.

It doesn't matter how much you deny it. It is PS. If you argue like you did in this thread to your DM and managed to strong arm him into breaking the rules, sure. Just know that any campaign you complete with this Illumian is only because you cheated. And as this thread shows no one in this forum, or anyone for that matter, is gonna acknowledge you didn't cheat and ever consider using your character's build because it's illegal.

d&d is written in layman's language instead of lawyer language and you are trying to abuse this by picking it apart until it looks like something else. Just like a person arguing Shades replicates any conjuration spell of any spell list instead of just creation and summoning. Doesn't matter how much you want it to work that way, it doesn't.

The intent is clearly there that it is PS. There's no denying it. So go ahead and ignore it and warp the text so it suites your needs. Just don't deny that you're cheating.

Lets break this down step by step by step for the highly uneducated so that they may understand how this is not PS in any way shape or form.

First PS: Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by +4.

This first part tell you exactly what you are going to get increase in your spellcasting to a +4


This can't increase your caster level beyond your HD. However, even if you can't benefit from the full bonus immediately, if you later gain noncaster-level HD you may be able to apply the rest of the bonus.

This next part tell you exactly what you can not do, it says that this bonus can not increase your caster level beyond your HD. However the moment you take a noncaster level you can apply the bonus up to a +4. There is an example

For example, a human 5th-level cleric/3rd-level fighter who selects this feat would increase his cleric caster level from 5th to 8th (since he has 8 HD).
If he later gained a fighter level, he would gain the remainder of the bonus and his cleric caster level would become 9th (since he now has 9 HD).

A character with two or more spellcasting classes (such as a bard/sorcerer or a ranger/druid) must choose which class gains the feat's effect. This does not affect your spells per day or spells known.

More stipulations that it has to go to one spellcaster or the other

It only increases your caster level, which would help you penetrate SR and increase the duration and other effects of your spells.

This tell you exactly what part of the spell it effects.


Now the sigil

Krau ("magic"): +1 bonus to caster level for all spells and spell-like abilities

This tells you what you are getting a +1 bonus to caster levels for all spells and spell like abilities

(up to a maximum value equal to the illumian's character level).

This tell you the limit. up to the illumians character level.

So lets review shall we. PS tells you what you are getting a +4 Sigil tells you what you are getting +1

PS tells you that this can not increase your caster level past your HD
Sigil tells you, you get a bonus up to a maximum of your HD

PS tells you that if you multiclass you can gain the full effect
Sigil no such thing

PS if you more than one spellcaster you have to pick which spell caster this go to
Sigil no such thing

Now aside form them both telling you exactly what you are getting and exactly what the limit is on them how are they even close to being the same thing, There is nothing that even comes close. Even if it was like PS, which it is not, PS gives you a +4 to your caster level sigil would give you the following with how you are thinking.
Wizard 2 Fighter 2 Cleric 2 Rogue 2 Bard 2 Duskblade 2
So if it worked like PS, You would have
wiz 2 caster level 12 fighter 2 cleric 2 caster level 12 rogue 2 bard 2 caster level 12 duskblade 2 caster level 12

so the wizard would be casting lv 1 spells as a caster level 12, ckeric would be casting lv 1 spells as a caster level 12 bard casting lv1 spells as a caster level 12 and the duskblade level 1 spells at caster level 12.

Now if you add in PS to this because it is a feat and this is a racial ability. and you have 4 levels of non caster you could pick which one you wanted and be casting those spells as a level 16 whatever spellcaster you picked.

So in conclusion this is not like PS this gives you a +1 (+2 at level 2) to your caster levels period. I do believe the maximum to your character level was an over sight. However this is still giving you a +2 to your caster level no matter what caster class you are and branches to multi class casters.

This is not PS this is not intended to be PS this is not even close to PS.

[RoboEmperor]

Lets break this down step by step by step for the highly uneducated so that they may understand how this is not PS in any way shape or form.

I understand your frustration. I do, because I used to Rule Lawyer like you do. I used to say the errata for Water Devotion did not apply to Water Devotion because the general rule for Devotion feats overcomes the Errata's attempt to nerf the feat. But guess how many people accepted that argument? Grand total of 0 despite being technically correct by RAW lawyering.

In any case, by your own admission in your interpretation "maximum" makes no sense because there is literally no scenario where it wouldn't give you its full value. So by this alone your interpretation is not correct. Again d&d is written in layman's language so multiple interpretations to the same thing is rampant. So it's up to us to find the correct interpretation instead of dissecting something until you get what you want.

Since you took the time to write a wall of text, let me try my hand at one too.

Krau ("magic"): +1 bonus to caster level for all spells and spell-like abilities (up to a maximum value equal to the illumian's character level).

Turns into
boosts caster level by 1
boosts caster level up to a maximum value equal to the illumian's character level.

Ergo a Cleric 10 has caster level 10 therefore gets no bonus from the sigil. A cleric9/fighter1 with an orange ioun stone has caster level 10, character level 10, so he gets +0 from the sigil as well.

Now your interpretation is this
You get a +1 bonus to caster level
The maximum bonus to caster level is equal to the illumian's character level.

Now if we assume both interpretations are "valid" by reading the sentence in different ways, which is the one true interpretation? From the start you said you get +1 bonus to caster level per illumian level and therefore this sigil doubles your caster level. Then you changed your tune to always gets +1 and the word maximum is redundant, needless, and makes no sense.

So we have one interpretation where no word is useless, and one interpretation where it's very confusing and has useless words. Which is more likely to be correct?

We say it's similar to PS not because of its RAW wording, but in intent. This sigil lets you regain lost caster levels from multiclassing which is why we keep bringing in PS because that's what PS does.

The "maximum" applies to your "caster level", not "bonus to caster level"

[Hunterx]

I understand your frustration. I do, because I used to Rule Lawyer like you do. I used to say the errata for Water Devotion did not apply to Water Devotion because the general rule for Devotion feats overcomes the Errata's attempt to nerf the feat. But guess how many people accepted that argument? Grand total of 0 despite being technically correct by RAW lawyering.

In any case, by your own admission in your interpretation "maximum" makes no sense because there is literally no scenario where it wouldn't give you its full value. So by this alone your interpretation is not correct. Again d&d is written in layman's language so multiple interpretations to the same thing is rampant. So it's up to us to find the correct interpretation instead of dissecting something until you get what you want.

Since you took the time to write a wall of text, let me try my hand at one too.

Krau ("magic"): +1 bonus to caster level for all spells and spell-like abilities (up to a maximum value equal to the illumian's character level).

Turns into
boosts caster level by 1
boosts caster level up to a maximum value equal to the illumian's character level.

Ergo a Cleric 10 has caster level 10 therefore gets no bonus from the sigil. A cleric9/fighter1 with an orange ioun stone has caster level 10, character level 10, so he gets +0 from the sigil as well.

Now your interpretation is this
You get a +1 bonus to caster level
The maximum bonus to caster level is equal to the illumian's character level.

Now if we assume both interpretations are "valid" by reading the sentence in different ways, which is the one true interpretation? From the start you said you get +1 bonus to caster level per illumian level and therefore this sigil doubles your caster level. Then you changed your tune to always gets +1 and the word maximum is redundant, needless, and makes no sense.

So we have one interpretation where no word is useless, and one interpretation where it's very confusing and has useless words. Which is more likely to be correct?

We say it's similar to PS not because of its RAW wording, but in intent. This sigil lets you regain lost caster levels from multiclassing which is why we keep bringing in PS because that's what PS does.

The "maximum" applies to your "caster level", not "bonus to caster level"

You would be 100% correct if there was not a key word. That key word is bonus. Bonus the pure meaning of the word mean an addition to. So a +1 bonus is an addition to what you have. There is no other intent except this and since you are not the writer you can not say other wise. I full believe that even if you were to have it give you a bonus of the character level it still would not make a difference as most spells have a capstone for damage and what not.

Second stop assuming it dose nothing and is simply an uneducated guess at something. Take what it says at face value as that is the way it is writte. Stop making up stuff to make it fit what you want. Read what it says and except it, don't look deeper because there is nothing because if there was than they would have erratad it.

[MoogleMcGee]

Second stop assuming it dose nothing and is simply an uneducated guess at something. Take what it says at face value as that is the way it is writte. Stop making up stuff to make it fit what you want. Read what it says and except it, don't look deeper because there is nothing because if there was than they would have erratad it.

But the only one here not taking it at face value is you. Everyone else has explained how it works and they only use practiced spellcaster as an example because that is the closest example to the racial trait in question. I really feel this is a failure to communicate brought on by a lack of understanding of the English language.

Honestly I think a mod needs to lock this thread before it gets anymore toxic than it already is.

[Crake]

But the only one here not taking it at face value is you. Everyone else has explained how it works and they only use practiced spellcaster as an example because that is the closest example to the racial trait in question. I really feel this is a failure to communicate brought on by a lack of understanding of the English language.

Honestly I think a mod needs to lock this thread before it gets anymore toxic than it already is.

I'm honestly surprised it got to 8 pages and still going strong. I think, if after 8 pages OP still isn't convinced, then he's irrationally attached to his reading, so trying to reason with logic is a fruitless endeavour.

[Florian]

I'm honestly surprised it got to 8 pages and still going strong. I think, if after 8 pages OP still isn't convinced, then he's irrationally attached to his reading, so trying to reason with logic is a fruitless endeavour.

Hehe, but it makes for a fun read. I'm visualizing the whole discussion like what happens when once comic book mad scientist tried to defend his theory against negative peer reviews and goes on railing, ranting a threatening to destroy the world.....

But the threat had one positive aspect so far: Talking about charge and interrupt.

I find it interesting that the 3.5E designers could make up their mind whether combat is continuous or simultaneous and what a combat round now represents. When they came up with the clarifications and FAQs on how interrupts work, I immediately thought about the resolution chains of MtG and found that to be absolutely stupid.

[HouseRules]

It's a RAW vs RAI argument.

The RAW says that caster level is not capped by character level. If fact, the relation is only addressed in Practiced Spellcaster feat as a specific rule.

The RAI says that caster level is capped by character level. They take the Practiced Spellcaster specific rule and enforce it generally.

[Hunterx]

But the only one here not taking it at face value is you. Everyone else has explained how it works and they only use practiced spellcaster as an example because that is the closest example to the racial trait in question. I really feel this is a failure to communicate brought on by a lack of understanding of the English language.

Honestly I think a mod needs to lock this thread before it gets anymore toxic than it already is.

I understand the English language just fine thank you and i know what the word bonus means. This is the key word, if you look at this word and use this word got what it is than you realize this is an addition to, not an addition to if you have another class but a pure addition to.

[Hunterx]

It's a RAW vs RAI argument.

The RAW says that caster level is not capped by character level. If fact, the relation is only addressed in Practiced Spellcaster feat as a specific rule.

The RAI says that caster level is capped by character level. They take the Practiced Spellcaster specific rule and enforce it generally.

I would agree it is RAW vs RAI, and I am following RAW as our game is a RAW based game.

[DwarvenWarCorgi]

I would agree it is RAW vs RAI, and I am following RAW as our game is a RAW based game.

No, you're twisting it to what you want it to be. No where in that sigil description it it WRITTEN "+1 PER caster level."

[ColorBlindNinja]

No, you're twisting it to what you want it to be. No where in that sigil description it it WRITTEN "+1 PER caster level."

At this point, why bother arguing with him?

[HouseRules]

Summary from Page 3 to Page 8:

ColorBlindNinja found that I made a slight mistake between Caster Level and Spell Level for Improved Sigil (Krau), and I made my change.

Hunterx learns that the bonus no longer grows per level.

I try to distinguish Caster Level and Class Level (for the purpose of Spell Level access).

Psychoalpha Trolled Hunterx by calling Hunterx a Troll. Post #73

ExLibrisMortis also tries to remind the difference between Spell Level and Caster Level.

Many people (Deophaun #93 and #97, DwarvenWarCorgi #103, AvatarVecna 105 and 108, RoboEmperor #107, XionUnborn01 #112) keeps trolling upon "bonus is per level" instead of "fixed bonus" of +1, +2, and possibly +3 with Enhanced Power Sigil Feat.

While Hunterx knows it is fixed, Hunterx wishes it would scale by level, and those people are trolling on that wish comment.

Edit: What we need to do is try to get Hunterx to confirm the knowledge the difference between

1. Caster Level and Class Level (for the purpose of Spell Level access) an
2. Spell Level increase does not give Caster Level increase

[RoboEmperor]

Many people (Deophaun, DwarvenWarCorgi, AvatarVecna, RoboEmperor, XionUnborn01) keeps trolling upon "bonus is per level" instead of "fixed bonus" of +1, +2, and possibly +3 with Enhanced Power Sigil Feat.

Quote where I said it was per level instead of fixed. Because it didn't happen.

[Hunterx]

No, you're twisting it to what you want it to be. No where in that sigil description it it WRITTEN "+1 PER caster level."

Krau ("magic"): +1 bonus to caster level for all spells and spell-like abilities (up to a maximum value equal to the illumian's character level).

up to a maximum of the character level how is this not each level again ?

If your character level is 1 you get 1 if your character level is 10 you get 10 but since at level 2 it makes the bonus a +2 you get 20 at 10. This really is not that hard to see, and since you get a new character level each and every single time you gain enough xp points, that is how you get per level. If your levels are in casters that makes it a +2 per caster level.

Read what i said and do not try to twist my words. If you truly can not except the fact that you do not understand the key words in this there is this thing called the internet look it up and see what they mean.

Until you look up these keys words. BONUS maximum value equal level than i can not help you understand this.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Krau ("magic"): +1 bonus to caster level for all spells and spell-like abilities (up to a maximum value equal to the illumian's character level).

up to a maximum of the character level how is this not each level again ?

If your character level is 1 you get 1 if your character level is 10 you get 10 but since at level 2 it makes the bonus a +2 you get 20 at 10. This really is not that hard to see, and since you get a new character level each and every single time you gain enough xp points, that is how you get per level. If your levels are in casters that makes it a +2 per caster level.

Read what i said and do not try to twist my words. If you truly can not except the fact that you do not understand the key words in this there is this thing called the internet look it up and see what they mean.

Until you look up these keys words. BONUS maximum value equal level than i can not help you understand this.

How can you still be on about this?! Several posters have explained to you this isn't how the ability works, RAW or RAI.

[JNAProductions]

So, if I have the following:

"The bonus is equal to +1"
"The bonus may not be higher than your character level"

What's the way to satisfy BOTH of those qualifiers?

[RoboEmperor]

So, if I have the following:

"The bonus is equal to +1"
"The bonus may not be higher than your character level"

What's the way to satisfy BOTH of those qualifiers?

That's his argument. The Bonus is always +1 or +2 regardless of whether you're single classed or multiclassed.

[JNAProductions]

That's his argument. The Bonus is always +1 or +2 regardless of whether you're single classed or multiclassed.

Read his last post. He still seems to think that it's PER character level, not MAX of character level.

And I'm trying to do this one step at a time.

[RoboEmperor]

Read his last post. He still seems to think that it's PER character level, not MAX of character level.

And I'm trying to do this one step at a time.

I think he's refering to the sigil upgrading to a +2 when you reach 2nd level. Not a per level thing.

[JNAProductions]

Krau ("magic"): +1 bonus to caster level for all spells and spell-like abilities (up to a maximum value equal to the illumian's character level).

up to a maximum of the character level how is this not each level again ?

If your character level is 1 you get 1 if your character level is 10 you get 10 but since at level 2 it makes the bonus a +2 you get 20 at 10. This really is not that hard to see, and since you get a new character level each and every single time you gain enough xp points, that is how you get per level. If your levels are in casters that makes it a +2 per caster level.

Read what i said and do not try to twist my words. If you truly can not except the fact that you do not understand the key words in this there is this thing called the internet look it up and see what they mean.

Until you look up these keys words. BONUS maximum value equal level than i can not help you understand this.

I bolded the relevant bit.

[Hunterx]

Summary from Page 3 to Page 8:

ColorBlindNinja found that I made a slight mistake between Caster Level and Spell Level for Improved Sigil (Krau), and I made my change.

Hunterx learns that the bonus no longer grows per level.

I try to distinguish Caster Level and Class Level (for the purpose of Spell Level access).

Psychoalpha Trolled Hunterx by calling Hunterx a Troll.

ExLibrisMortis also tries to remind the difference between Spell Level and Caster Level.

Many people (Deophaun, DwarvenWarCorgi, AvatarVecna, RoboEmperor, XionUnborn01) keeps trolling upon "bonus is per level" instead of "fixed bonus" of +1, +2, and possibly +3 with Enhanced Power Sigil Feat.



Edit: What we need to do is try to get Hunterx to confirm the knowledge the difference between

1. Caster Level and Class Level (for the purpose of Spell Level access) an
2. Spell Level increase does not give Caster Level increase

There is a difference between caster level and class level unless your class is a caster. If your class is a caster your caster level is your class level, with a couple of changes.
Ie feats and what not.

So if you are a Rogue 10 assassin 4 your caster level is 4 because the class you get the spells from is a level 4. If you have the practice spellcaster feat your caster level is 8 because you get the 4 from the assassin and since you are Rogue 10 you get 4 of those levels to your assassin spells.

If you are an illumian rogue 10 assassin 4 with Krau, you are a caster level of 28 because the max you can get is a bonus of your character level. However I have admitted that this is a little crazy as good and as nice as it would be. The reason it is would be your character level which is 14 but at level 2 it increases the bonus to a +2 so 2x14 is 28. Again this would be very nice but is a little crazy. But the character would only be casting level 1 spells 3+bonus spells and level 2 1+bonus spells at these levels.

Now lets take a look at the assassin spells at level 1
Cast Lv 1 3 cast Lv2 1
Spells known: Lv 1 4 Lv2 3
list of spells.
lv1 disguise self, 1 standard action lasts 10 min/level well that is 280 min with my version that is 4.6 hours in game time.

detect poison, 1 standard action duration instant so no effect

feather fall, 1 standard action duration 1 round per level so 28 rounds.

ghost sound, 1 standard 1 round per level 28 levels DC is 10 +0+mod for x

jump, 1 standard 1 min per level 28 min +10 to jump

obscuring mist, 1 round 1 min per level 28 min 20' radius

sleep, 1 round 1 min per level 4 HD of creatures. DC 10+1+Mod

true strike. you +20 on next attack no duration

So using this as an example there are very few spells that have scaling that deal a mess load of damage that do not have a max amount of damage. The DC for the spell never goes up with caster level it is always the same 10 +level of the spell+Mod+x (feats and what not)

Since Krau gives you a +1 (+2) to caster level for spells and spell like abilities the duration the damage area and range are the only things that are effected. The DC for most spells are so easily covered my most creatures that it is not even funny and if the DM has made NPCs they are more than likely going to save vs these spells any ways.

So who cares if the wizard can cast mage armor for 28 hours big deal, there is no way in any hell that the math I have presented is OP or unbalanced without digging for some crazy ass spells. The most common spells used by a wiz or x are not going to over run the table being cast at higher levels for duration damage area and range, any more than then spell casters do.

However I understand how crazy these numbers look and I do think they did nto mean to put character level there and this is the issue causing the problem.

[RoboEmperor]

I bolded the relevant bit.

Alright, nevermind then. I am blind. Continue brave sir.

[JNAProductions]

So where does it say "Per"?

If it said "Per character level," you would be correct. But it doesn't. It says, in two clauses:

"The bonus is +1" (This later improves to +2, but the number is otherwise static.)
"The bonus may not be higher than your character level"

[Hunterx]

How can you still be on about this?! Several posters have explained to you this isn't how the ability works, RAW or RAI.

RAW is exactly how it is as written, you all are using RAI.

Look at exactly what it says do not think you know what the writer was trying to say see what they did say and except that period full stop. If you want to use RAI in your game go ahead and use it, but RAW is our game and as RAW states to a max of the character level that is true. I have shown how this is not that bad even if you get it as I have stated and that it is no OP as you all claim.

It just makes spells last longer have a greater range and area which is some times capped do more damage but does not effect their DC.

[Hunterx]

So where does it say "Per"?

If it said "Per character level," you would be correct. But it doesn't. It says, in two clauses:

"The bonus is +1" (This later improves to +2, but the number is otherwise static.)
"The bonus may not be higher than your character level"

CHARACTER LEVEL. If you have a CHARACTER LEVEL OF 10 you get a 10 how difficult is this.

You are correct the bonus can not be higher than your character level. But when you get the +2 and at 10 you get 20 which higher than your character level. Yes i understand that 1000% i get that and that is why I have said I think the character level was an over sight.

If it worked like this
lv1 +1
lv2 +2
lv3 +2
lv4 +2
and so on like i said what was the point to putting, to a max of the characters level ? there is not one.

Now if it worked like PS like you all say it does
lv 1 +1 for wiz caster level 2
lv 2 +2 for wiz caster level 4
lv 3 +2 for wiz caster level 5
lv 4 +2 for wiz caster level 6
lv 5 +2 fighter for wizard caster level 7
lv 6 +1 fighter for wizard caster level 8
lv 9 +0 fighter for wizard caster level 9
lv 10 +0 fighter for wizard caster level 9

How is this working because the bonus is not higher than the char level so the bonus if remaining as is at a +2 will just increase the caster level buy 2. which at level 20 will having you casting level 2 spells at a caster level of level 9.

At no point do even come close to going over the character level. for the bonus at no point is this even close to being OP and on top of that if you have 20 levels as a wizard your casting the spells as a level 22 wizard which still does not change the DC for 10+9+MOD which at level 20 creatures/characters are easily able to bypass or even be immune to most effects so i say again how would this be OP even if it is as RAW says it is and lets you cast spells at level 20 as a level 40 wizard if the DC is still going to be so low.

[DeTess]

So who cares if the wizard can cast mage armor for 28 hours big deal, there is no way in any hell that the math I have presented is OP or unbalanced without digging for some crazy ass spells. The most common spells used by a wiz or x are not going to over run the table being cast at higher levels for duration damage area and range, any more than then spell casters do.

So you don't think there's anything wrong with a level 5 Illumian wizard supposedly casting a fireball for 10d6 damage, while any other wizard 5 casts it for 5d6?

Anyway, if you're going to continue talking about the definition, please use the actual text, rather than your interpretation. The actual text states you get a bonus to caster level, not per caster level.

I'm really feeling like a broken record here.

HunterX, just to confirm, English isn't your first language, right?

[ColorBlindNinja]

RAW is exactly how it is as written, you all are using RAI.

Look at exactly what it says do not think you know what the writer was trying to say see what they did say and except that period full stop.

I already have read what the text says RAW, it doesn't say what you think it does.

I have explained this to you over and over again.

If you want to prove your point, then quote text that proves that it scales.

The text you have quoted does not do that.

If you cannot do this, then you have no case.