>>96753621
>I would move the sentence to the Attribute section
You would reference Abilities before they are introduced? How come? I know they are already referenced before that, but I dont see it as more important in the other.
>You reference types without defining them
Your own sentence does the same though? Or at the least, does no more effort to define type beyond semantics
>In your effort to remain consistent, you have a singular “one extra free” next to the plural “[Abilities]
Because its one extra free per Attribute? In your sentence, it could be construed that you gain free Abilities to the limit of three total.
>The Sire information and spacing also confuses the sentence structure
Where else would you communicate it?
>Your subject is the [Abilities] but you move on to say [Attributes] before you say type which makes it unclear to what the undefined type refers to
I agree that moving type to before [Attribute] would make more sense, so that it would be "for every type of [Attribute] that you have picked".

However, you sentence lacks the following in my optics
>call to action that there is a choice or choices to be made
>that the action is not mandatory
>that the ability chosen is extra on top of your originally allowed economy for that choice

>>96753632
They're just too strong anon.