Post/Author/DateTime	Post
copper_wyrmling 06-13-06, 09:58 PM	What exactly constitutes access to a Limited spell? Does it vary between spellcasting classes? For example, which of the following grant access? 1) I have a favour that says, "You have access to the following Limited spells" 2) I find a spellbook containing Limited spells which is listed on the AR 3) I find a scroll of a Limited spell which is listed on the AR 4) I find a staff containing a Limited spell which is listed on the AR 5) I find a wand of a Limited spell which is listed on the AR 6) I find a potion / oil of a Limited spell which is listed on the AR 7) I find a wondrous item which reproduces the effect of a Limited spell when activated, which is listed on the AR 8) I have a spellcasting favour which can be redeemed to have an NPC cast a Limited spell on me 9) I find an item which required a Limited spell to craft (I assume that (1) definitely works and (8) and (9) definitely don't, but I'm not sure about the others) Are the answers different if the access comes from an item which was present in the module but not listed on the AR (e.g. a friendly NPC's spellbook)? Are the answers different for wizards and sorcerers? How about clerics, druids and favoured souls? Best regards, Tracy
Sieylianna 06-13-06, 10:32 PM	What exactly constitutes access to a Limited spell? Does it vary between spellcasting classes? For example, which of the following grant access? 1) I have a favour that says, "You have access to the following Limited spells" 2) I find a spellbook containing Limited spells which is listed on the AR 3) I find a scroll of a Limited spell which is listed on the AR 4) I find a staff containing a Limited spell which is listed on the AR 5) I find a wand of a Limited spell which is listed on the AR 6) I find a potion / oil of a Limited spell which is listed on the AR 7) I find a wondrous item which reproduces the effect of a Limited spell when activated, which is listed on the AR Are the answers different if the access comes from an item which was present in the module but not listed on the AR (e.g. a friendly NPC's spellbook)? Are the answers different for wizards and sorcerers? How about clerics, druids and favoured souls? Yes - #1, #2, #3 (Note that you need to purchase the spellbook or scroll from the AR.) No - all the others. If it's not listed on the AR, it doesn't count. You must have "campaign documentation". THis is true for all spellcasters, to the best of my knowledge. Ed
JohnduBois 06-13-06, 10:55 PM	One thing that I'd like to advocate to authors is finding a way to get Limited spells to PCs in ways other than scrolls/spellbooks. There are nine classes (IIRC - wizard, sorceror, bard, favored soul, cleric, druid, ranger, paladin, hexblade) that can cast spells, and only one of them allows you to use scrolls to learn new spells. Getting favors saying "NPC XYZ will teach this PC how to use this spell" works for everyone; scrolls don't.
copper_wyrmling 06-13-06, 11:14 PM	Yes - #1, #2, #3 (Note that you need to purchase the spellbook or scroll from the AR.) No - all the others. If it's not listed on the AR, it doesn't count. You must have "campaign documentation". THis is true for all spellcasters, to the best of my knowledge. Ed Can you please give a source for this ruling? (Especially for the "must purchase the spellbook or scroll", I know a number of wizards who are using Limited spells from spellbooks they found but didn't purchase.) If scrolls work, does it matter if the scroll is divine or arcane? Do spellbooks give access for sorcerers, clerics etc (assuming they have Read Magic or enough Spellcraft to decipher written spells), or only wizards? If wizards only, then I think that's both unfair (from a class balance perspective) and illogical: I find it odd that a sorcerer who's read and understood a spell and cast it from a scroll can't then learn it when levelling, while a wizard who scribes the scroll to his book can cast it freely. Please, if your answer is only your opinion, note it as such. If there's an answer in the LGCS (or a Circle ruling), please cite it.
Madfox11 06-14-06, 03:49 AM	Ed is quite right - unlike any other item scrolls are the actual spells and they can be used to copy a spell in ones spellbook. The scroll must be of a type that can be used by a character before access is granted. Right now only wizards have access to spells granted through scrolls and spellbooks, which is indeed why I prefer favors to provide access. There is something to be said for sorcerers gaining access to limited spells through spellbooks, especially if they are willing to pay the cash for the whole book. It is not an official rule though. Pieter Sleijpen Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns Metaregion
kjenks 06-14-06, 11:13 AM	Does a PC wizard need to buy an NPC's spellbook to copy a spell into his own spellbook? Or is the mechanism the same as copying a spell from another PC's spellbook?
mthlr 06-14-06, 01:33 PM	Yes - #1, #2, #3 (Note that you need to purchase the spellbook or scroll from the AR.) No - all the others. If it's not listed on the AR, it doesn't count. You must have "campaign documentation". THis is true for all spellcasters, to the best of my knowledge. Ed Where DOES it say that you NEED to purchase the spellbook? How is that the rule? I understand that it's been discussed on the Triad list and there is 'eventually' going to be a Dispel Confusion about it, but this ruling has never been officially announced... All the LGCS says is that you need "campaign documentation". An AR that lists access to the spellbook should be enough, as a PC would normally get to copy spells from that book. Why does the PC need to PURCHASE the spellbook? confused, Mike M
Arvagor 06-14-06, 02:02 PM	IMO, he doesn't, and the LGCS says as much on page 69: Q: How do I determine what spells are available to copy into my wizard’s spellbook during an adventure? A: If an NPC doesn't have a spellbook listed in inventory, spells cannot be copied. If an NPC does have a spellbook listed in inventory but the spellbook is not certed, spells can be copied immediately after the adventure only, for the usual costs. Same applies for unattended spellbooks found as treasure. If a spellbook appears on a cert, adventure cert, or adventure record, and it is purchased, then spells can be copied at a later time. Scrolls that are found in an adventure should be "obviously" copyable during the course of the adventure (removing their gold value from the party treasure), but cannot be copied after the adventure unless they are purchased from the AC or AR.
Sieylianna 06-14-06, 10:44 PM	Where DOES it say that you NEED to purchase the spellbook? How is that the rule? I understand that it's been discussed on the Triad list and there is 'eventually' going to be a Dispel Confusion about it, but this ruling has never been officially announced... All the LGCS says is that you need "campaign documentation". An AR that lists access to the spellbook should be enough, as a PC would normally get to copy spells from that book. Why does the PC need to PURCHASE the spellbook? It's also been discussed on the wizards list. When the ruling comes down, you're going to need to have purchased the spellbook. I take a conservative approach in LG, which means that I'm not adversely affected when things change. The rules don't currently require you to purchase the spellbook, but don't come crying to me when they change and you lose access to the limited spells, since there has been extensive discussion of the upcoming change in various groups. Ed
copper_wyrmling 06-14-06, 11:55 PM	It's also been discussed on the wizards list. When the ruling comes down, you're going to need to have purchased the spellbook. I take a conservative approach in LG, which means that I'm not adversely affected when things change. The rules don't currently require you to purchase the spellbook, but don't come crying to me when they change and you lose access to the limited spells, since there has been extensive discussion of the upcoming change in various groups. I think that's a little unjust. I've seen it discussed on exactly one group, and the Triad member who posted about it gave the impression that the change was imminent, and that was a month or two ago iirc. Not everyone reads all the groups, and there were Limited spells in expensive Adventure-access spellbooks well before that discussion started. I would hope that if the rules do change in this way, there is once-off retroactive access to purchase the spellbook (i.e. you must purchase it on your next AR or not at all), since otherwise it's a bit unfair to PCs who had Adventure access to the book, copied all the Limited spells they wanted, and didn't buy the book because they didn't need to according to the rules at the time. Note that I have no PCs in this situation: I don't play a wizard, and while my sorc does have a book with Limited spells in it, she bought the book (and if sorcs can't learn spells from books, I guess that means she has a 4500gp paperweight, which is somewhat annoying since the spells are all dragon-related and sorcerers get CL bonuses when casting them). To get back to my original question: as far as I can tell, at present the LGCS says only that "regional or campaign documentation is required" to learn or copy non-Core spells. I searched the LGCS for every instance of the words "limited" or "non-core" and found no description of exactly what entails "regional or campaign documentation" for the purpose of learning spells - which is why I started this thread. I'll abide by Pieter's ruling as a Circle member, of course, I just don't think there's anything in the current LGCS that either supports or contradicts what he and Ed said. Btw, Pieter, thanks very much for the fast reply. The rest of this post is just some comments on the system that Ed and Pieter described, and some changes that I'd find more logical - I'm not expecting much to come of them, but it's a little rude to complain about a rule and not propose any alternatives ;) Who knows, if there's a Dispel Confusion coming up, some of these issues might actually get addressed or at least discussed. I think it's somewhat unbalancing to have a category of access which is only available to wizards, as well as being illogical - in a normal game, sorcerers can learn any spell that wizards can, the fact that wizards have to scribe the spell into their book before using it (or choose it when levelling) is a limiting factor, not an advantage over sorcs. I've always considered not having access to spells as meaning that they effectively don't exist for you - hence why wizards can't copy or prepare Limited spells from other PCs' spellbooks. It would make more sense to me if gaining access to spells effectively meant becoming familiar with them, similar to the way that crafters can become familiar with items - which may or may not equate to finding a source to scribe it into one's spellbook. So if I was designing the system, with this concept of access in mind, it would work something like: 1) To gain access to a spell, you must either have a favour explicitly granting that access, or the spell must be listed on an AR in a purchasable form (such as a spellbook, scroll, staff, potion or wand). This works like familiarity with an item for the purposes of Craft Wondrous Item: if you have ever had access to a spell, you retain it indefinitely. (Alternatively, you could require PCs to buy the items, and retain scrolls, wands, potions, staffs etc until they actually learned the spell.) 2) For a wizard, access to a spell does not necessarily mean you can scribe the spell to your spellbook. If access is granted via a spellbook or scroll you may scribe that spell to your book as normal. If access is granted by another means, you can either choose the spell when levelling, or scribe it from another source (such as another PC wizard's spellbook, now that you have access). Also, having access to a spell means that you can emulate it by spells such as Limited Wish and Shadow Conjuration / Evocation, even if you don't actually know the spell. It seems to me that this would do a better job of maintaining the original game balance among the spellcasting classes. If spellcasters can learn how to make a complicated magical item by carrying it around for a few days, it seems reasonable that having the essence of a spell at hand and available for study would allow them to understand (and subsequently learn) that spell. It seems a little odd to me that my sorc could cast a Limited spell 50 times from a staff (or from 50 scrolls) and never be able to learn it herself, while a wizard given a single scroll of that spell could scribe it and then cast it as much as he wanted. Anyway, just my 2cp.
JohnduBois 06-15-06, 12:57 AM	I think it's somewhat unbalancing to have a category of access which is only available to wizards, as well as being illogical - in a normal game, sorcerers can learn any spell that wizards can, the fact that wizards have to scribe the spell into their book before using it (or choose it when levelling) is a limiting factor, not an advantage over sorcs. While many DMs in home games allow any caster to learn a spell from a scroll (and should, in my opinion), to my knowledge, the rules, core or otherwise, possess no mechanic for a sorceror or any other non-wizard caster to learn a spell from a scroll. Why, then, do you expect the campaign to automatically "allow" the learning of spells from scrolls, when the campaign only varies from core rules for documentation, balance, or other necessary reasons (for what it's worth, I consider "other necessary" to include things like ignoring the polymorph errata to prevent a riot)? Now, I'm not saying that I think it's right for wizards to have a means of accessing spells that other casters don't have; in fact, I think it's ludicrous and that whenever possible, a means for other casters to learn a Limited spell should be provided. However, I find this particular comment to be a little off-target. (And I'm not discounting the possibility of me being incorrect; I recognize that the window for my error is in fact quite large.)
pedr 06-15-06, 05:44 AM	While many DMs in home games allow any caster to learn a spell from a scroll (and should, in my opinion), to my knowledge, the rules, core or otherwise, possess no mechanic for a sorceror or any other non-wizard caster to learn a spell from a scroll. Why, then, do you expect the campaign to automatically "allow" the learning of spells from scrolls, when the campaign only varies from core rules for documentation, balance, or other necessary reasons (for what it's worth, I consider "other necessary" to include things like ignoring the polymorph errata to prevent a riot)?Possibly because (as far as I know) core D&D rules contain nothing equating to the core/limited/NPC Only/Restricted classification that LG uses. By the Core RAW, a sorcerer can choose any spell when gaining a new level. It is only the DM's right to decide what material exists in the game-world that limits that to a smaller choice. Logically, in a home game, if the DM has an enemy spellsword use Wraithstrike, a PC spellcaster - of whatever type - should be able to choose it when gaining access to new spells. Worldwide campaign balance is, I assume, the justification for the concept of 'limited spells' but they do cause this problem if only wizards are being given access to them. They strike me as making slightly less in-campaign sense than limited feats and PrCs. Of course that's true (for spontaneous casters, and the 2 spells/level for wizards) of NPC Only and Restricted spells as well - we know 'permanency' actually exists in the game-world as there are magic items which require it, so it is only out-of-campaign logic that makes it unavailable for PCs. Perhaps in the interests of verisimilitude, there ought to be the occasional sorcerer bad-guy who has permanency as a spell known and CWI, but I guess that would make the encounter 'too easy' :) Incidentally the first game I played was Hunt for the Rogue which had a favour giving access to limited divine spells, though you had to spend a TU to do it. Perhaps it would be sensible to create a campaign rule that, for instance, spontaneous casters can spend a TU finding someone to decode the odd writing in a spellbook for them to such an extent that they can then tap into that chunk of power the next time they level.
Madfox11 06-16-06, 05:15 AM	In general limited spells has nothing to do with game balance. Spells that disbalance things tend to be restricted. Limiting things has to do with either a need for special training (mostly feats and prestige classes) or the fact that there simply is too much material out there to make freely available to the players.
jmweber9 06-17-06, 10:03 AM	Actually the mechanic for a sorcerer learning a spell (limited or otherwise) from a scroll or spellbook is provided in the PHB. On page 54 (Sorcerer) under the heading of Spells, 4th paragraph it states: "At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells. These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer / wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer / wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level, provided that it is of the right sell level. The sorcerer can't use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however." So long as you're in possession of the book or scroll when you level you can use it to learn the new limited spell. Just keep in mind that simply reading through (and not purchasing) a scroll or spellbook to understand the spell and then hope to take it as a learned spell 5 modules later wouldn't count since you can't learn it before you're ready to acquire a new spell. Hope this helps. John