Post/Author/DateTime	Post
trollbill 11-06-06, 10:21 AM	IIRC, the LGCS says you are supposed to use the latest version/erratta/update of any given rule. How does this work if the latest version is in a limited sourcebook? Specifically, I have a Sorcerer with the Draconic Heritage feat from the Complete Arcane. This is Core in the LGCS. There is an updated version of the feat in Races of the Dragon, but this book is currently Limited. Which version do I use? The only real difference between the two is that in the Races of the Dragon version, characters are considered to have the Dragon-blooded subtype.
JamesMaissen 11-06-06, 02:38 PM	IIRC, the LGCS says you are supposed to use the latest version/erratta/update of any given rule. How does this work if the latest version is in a limited sourcebook? Specifically, I have a Sorcerer with the Draconic Heritage feat from the Complete Arcane. This is Core in the LGCS. There is an updated version of the feat in Races of the Dragon, but this book is currently Limited. Which version do I use? The only real difference between the two is that in the Races of the Dragon version, characters are considered to have the Dragon-blooded subtype. Its another problem with the lack of having a limited list. You might not know which source to reference. For example there is a feat, Daunting Presence I believe. I think it was first in Miniature's Handbook. Now it's in Libris Mortis. At all times it was limited. It would be very easy to have an AR granting this to you and saying it's from MH and not realizing it's updated to LM. It would be very nice for such a list to be maintained. If it is too much work for our overworked Circle, why not farm it out to a volunteer? I believe Ken Jenks has taken much of the onus of this upon himself in regards to the limited spells. I don't think that with a little encouragement and support it would be hard to get someone to do this more officially if people are already willing to do so on their own. What could it hurt? -James
_m_ 11-06-06, 07:44 PM	IIRC, the LGCS says you are supposed to use the latest version/erratta/update of any given rule. How does this work if the latest version is in a limited sourcebook? Specifically, I have a Sorcerer with the Draconic Heritage feat from the Complete Arcane. This is Core in the LGCS. There is an updated version of the feat in Races of the Dragon, but this book is currently Limited. Which version do I use? The only real difference between the two is that in the Races of the Dragon version, characters are considered to have the Dragon-blooded subtype. by and large, they seem to try and use the most recent versions (like bladesinger in CW), so my gut instinct would be races of the dragon version, unless it seems uncommonly different.
paigeoliver 11-06-06, 11:31 PM	The two versions of the daunting presence feat are identical save for three words, all of which are meaningless. I have a character who has it. I carry the minis handbook since all that character's non PHB stuff is already in that book. Luckily, other than the spell compendium I have never actually seen the "newest source" rule exercised. Everyone knows it was forced onto us in order to sell more books. There could be no other reason since in almost every case the rules will be identical from one book to the next. I for one refuse to buy a $30 book I don't want just because they reprinted a rules item verbatim that I was already using from a book I did pay for.
_m_ 11-07-06, 12:03 AM	The two versions of the daunting presence feat are identical save for three words, all of which are meaningless. I have a character who has it. I carry the minis handbook since all that character's non PHB stuff is already in that book. Luckily, other than the spell compendium I have never actually seen the "newest source" rule exercised. Everyone knows it was forced onto us in order to sell more books. There could be no other reason since in almost every case the rules will be identical from one book to the next. I for one refuse to buy a $30 book I don't want just because they reprinted a rules item verbatim that I was already using from a book I did pay for. aye, thats fair enough, though there are a number of newer versions that do have differnt rules to there older counterparts. but if its not one of those cases, then i dont think it matters either :D
trollbill 11-07-06, 09:34 AM	The two versions of the daunting presence feat are identical save for three words, all of which are meaningless. I have a character who has it. I carry the minis handbook since all that character's non PHB stuff is already in that book. Luckily, other than the spell compendium I have never actually seen the "newest source" rule exercised. Everyone knows it was forced onto us in order to sell more books. There could be no other reason since in almost every case the rules will be identical from one book to the next. I for one refuse to buy a $30 book I don't want just because they reprinted a rules item verbatim that I was already using from a book I did pay for. One of the reasons...probably. Only reason...no. Unless you think fixing broken spells like Quill Blast doesn't benefit the game, or that consistancy in everyone using the same rule somehow has no benefit.
Hand_OF_Mystra 11-08-06, 09:55 AM	I for one refuse to buy a $30 book I don't want just because they reprinted a rules item verbatim that I was already using from a book I did pay for. One of the reasons...probably. Only reason...no. Unless you think fixing broken spells like Quill Blast doesn't benefit the game, or that consistancy in everyone using the same rule somehow has no benefit. I think the point is that fixing errors is the job of errata, not new books. If WotC publishes the "Really, Super Complete Magic User" with a better version of Hail of Stones, for the sake of fairness in the RPGA campaigns it would make sense to publish an errata to the SpC and call that the LG-current version of the spell. This meets your criteria without punishing people who already have a big investment in books.
The_Jester 11-08-06, 11:15 AM	But they're not publishing books just to update spells or feats. If, while they're publishing the book, they decided to revise a broken feat or spell it's strictly a bonus. I don't think the writers even consider the RPGA when revising stuff. At all. They likely want to make something cool more available to people by doubling the books its in (and the chances someone will buy one) or fix something they personally don't like or a made a mistake on earlier. Or, in the case of feats, they make a double and it is pointed out to them and the wording is changed. If a revision comes along and you need a new book... well, it sucks but it happens. It's no one's fault.
Hand_OF_Mystra 11-08-06, 04:50 PM	I don't think the writers even consider the RPGA when revising stuff. At all. They likely want to make something cool more available to people by doubling the books its in (and the chances someone will buy one) or fix something they personally don't like or a made a mistake on earlier. Or, in the case of feats, they make a double and it is pointed out to them and the wording is changed. . The writers need not consider the RPGA, but the publisher (WotC) also runs the RPGA. It would be simple enough in this for WotC to issue (ao add to) an errata that would immediately become LG-legal and accessible to everyone.
Gelth 11-09-06, 02:42 PM	I believe that the campaign uses the latest version in any book that is listed as a player resource. For example, Improved Toughness as reprinted in Libris Mortis, without the note that it's a Fighter bonus feat, but because that book isn't on the list of player resources, we don't use that version, and it still is (for now) a fighter bonus feat, for LG purposes. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. --Penn, Ket Triad
Madfox11 11-13-06, 11:19 AM	Gelth is quite right, although of course, the Circle can always make specific exceptions. It is a point that I am going to take into mind while working on the 597 version of the LGCS... Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns