| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| JamesMaissen02-02-06, 12:51 AM | I think not detailing out what is on the limited list might not be a good idea. First and foremost it was good as having it clearly spelled out what was, in fact, limited (very important for when a favor gives a blanket access to a 'limited' spell, etc). What sources do we draw this catch-all limited list from and what sources are not included (though still available as a source via campaign documentation just like limited items)? It's probably spelled out, but it's probably also easily missed or missunderstood. Secondly it made it easier to figure out how something you were looking at was classified (rather than you just happened to miss the item on one list or another). I'm sure there are other reasons. On the other side I'm sure it's a pain to maintain such a list, but I think for clarity it would be best if it were so maintained. Thanks, James |
| NetJohn02-02-06, 12:59 AM | I agree. I was looking at the "Changes in SC" part and was trying to find several of the spells. When I didn't see them, I was making a list of "errors" that should be corrected... then I realized they must be Limited. Now when a spell isn't there, you'll wonder if it's Limited, or should it be Core that somehow got dropped off of the list accidently. And then, as you stated, there's the blanket favor of gaining access to any Limited spell that could be ripe for abuse. "It just came out, it's not listed, therefore I can use this favor to get it." I assume the assumed Limited was to reduce the necessary LGCS update, but I think here is an instance where an ounce of prevention will beat a pound of cure (or any other metaphor that fits). John |
| MatBlack02-02-06, 01:04 AM | the sources that feats, spells, and PrCs are drawn from is clearly listed at the beginning of the chapter. any confusion is more likely to come from someone simply not reading the document than from exclusion of a limited list. my first reaction to "assumed" limited status was similar, but now that i've had a while to read it over and work with it, i like it. a lot. first off, it takes a good number of pages out of the document, especially with the publication of the Spell Compendium. it also sets a good base for future LGCSs. as the campaign continues, and more books are published, the size of the Core/ Limited/ NPC Only/ Restricted list is only going to grow and grow. the Limited list is usually the longest of the four lists. i think they hit on a good thing with "assumed" status. |
| MatBlack02-02-06, 01:11 AM | And then, as you stated, there's the blanket favor of gaining access to any Limited spell that could be ripe for abuse. "It just came out, it's not listed, therefore I can use this favor to get it." not even a little. the chapter states pretty clearly what sources can be used for choosing feats/ spells/ PrCs. this one isn't a question of potential abuse or ambiguity, it's a question of reading the campaign material or not reading it. Ectoplasmic Armor, for instance, isn't on the Core list, the NPC Only List, or the Restricted list. But since Libris Mortis isn't listed as one of the sources that PCs can draw upon, it can't be taken by a favor that allows access to any Limited spell. |
| Arvagor02-02-06, 01:15 AM | And then, as you stated, there's the blanket favor of gaining access to any Limited spell that could be ripe for abuse. "It just came out, it's not listed, therefore I can use this favor to get it." On this point I would disagree... First and foremost, to assume that all books published by WotC will become LG-legal is a poor way for a player to manage his perceived access. If an AR does not specifically mention what sourcebook an item/spell/feat/etc. comes from, then the player must assume that the item comes from one of the "player-permitted" sources at the beginning of chapter 5. That automatically rules out an item from a book "that just came out". This is also specifically covered by the following statement (also at the beginning of chapter 5): "If something is not specifically named as useable from the following sources in this document then it cannot be used by players in the campaign without campaign documentation on an AR." |
| WotC_Tulach02-02-06, 01:22 AM | I think not detailing out what is on the limited list might not be a good idea. First and foremost it was good as having it clearly spelled out what was, in fact, limited (very important for when a favor gives a blanket access to a 'limited' spell, etc). This will be changing soon. There will not be any more favors granting access to "any one limited" rules item. This was a mistake on the adventure ARs where such access occurred. All favors should specifically name the rules items they give access to. |
| Starfox_SFX02-02-06, 01:31 AM | Ectoplasmic Armor, for instance, isn't on the Core list, the NPC Only List, or the Restricted list. But since Libris Mortis isn't listed as one of the sources that PCs can draw upon, it can't be taken by a favor that allows access to any Limited spell. But it is in the spell compendium which is a legal source, so wouldn't it be considered a legal limited spell? |
| mendahu02-02-06, 01:32 AM | I agree with James on this. I've found with my experience in Living Greyhawk and getting campaign or rules messages to the players that being explicitly clear, even repetative, is the only way to ensure understanding. Personally, I would like to see a single list of all the items available through the campaign sources in a big table which has three four columns after the item name: Core, Limited, NPC, Restricted. Then, just add "x"s where the item lies. This would be convenient in that you could look up every item on one big list and discover its position in the campaign, instead of trying to go over 4 and seeing where it is (or three now, and hoping it was on core so you didn't have to worry about whether it was Limited or missed or something else untold). -Jake Robins Edmonton, AB |
| MatBlack02-02-06, 01:38 AM | But it is in the spell compendium which is a legal source, so wouldn't it be considered a legal limited spell? you are correct. that was a hastily put together example, and i forgot that the SC included the LM spells. so change that example to, oh, say... Instant Diversion (from Races of the Dragon) thanks for pointing that out. |
| redgamer02-02-06, 01:39 AM | Can we at least have favors that give access to any one non resticted feat/spell from one specific book rather than wasting AR space giving access to a feat or spell that no one actually wants? For instance who would want a ring a free magic-its Very expensive and literally worthless on the material plane (and most other planes) Much of the specific feat and some of the specific spell access I've seen its possible no one in the campaign would ever use. |
| Iswald02-02-06, 09:38 AM | It's better to list all of the limited feats, PrCs and spells. The reduced confusion about the status of a feat, PrC or spell is worth the minor effort required to add it to an existing list. The length of the LGCS shouldn't really be an issue except for those who are printing it out. If printing the list of limited classes is a burden, it is always possible to just not print those pages. |
| GreySector02-02-06, 09:45 AM | I agree that the 'definition by absence' rule is a bad idea. Whenever you start doing that, you run into the problem of not knowing whether something was excluded because it was meant to be excluded or because of an editing mistake or oversight. I also really like the big chart idea (one for feats, one for spells, one for prestige classes, etc.) that another poster proposed. It would have the advantage of listing everything while not having to pour over several different list catagories for the same rules item. -Michael Eshleman |
| Mortepierre02-02-06, 10:17 AM | first off, it takes a good number of pages out of the document, especially with the publication of the Spell Compendium. it also sets a good base for future LGCSs. as the campaign continues, and more books are published, the size of the Core/ Limited/ NPC Only/ Restricted list is only going to grow and grow. the Limited list is usually the longest of the four lists. i think they hit on a good thing with "assumed" status. Hear! hear! :clap: |
| GreatEscape_1302-02-06, 10:50 AM | Yup. A limited list will make my job as special missions co-coordinator for my region much, much easier... Cheers, Andrew Lotz Keoland Special Missions Co-Coordinator |
| theliel02-02-06, 10:59 AM | This will be changing soon. There will not be any more favors granting access to "any one limited" rules item. This was a mistake on the adventure ARs where such access occurred. All favors should specifically name the rules items they give access to. What happens to the ARs that already have "One limited x"? Are they going to be erratted or will there just be no more of these in the future? |
| The_Voice_Of_Reason02-02-06, 11:18 AM | I heartily Agree... an explicit Limited List is a GOOD THING!!!! The LGCS does not need to be small. It needs to be unambiguose! Remember there will be hundreds of rules lawyers out there looking to twist the words of the LGCS so that they can get off their cheezy-combo-of-the-week. The fewer ambiguities in the LGCS document gives them, the fewer head-aches ya'll and the triads will have later. Also, the idea of one table with an X in the appropriate collum for Limited, Core, Restricted, etc. is a GREAT IDEA and would dramatically improve the ease of use of the document. Just because there will be no-more any limited access favors, doesn't meen LG has dodged that bullet, as there are already quite a few of them out there... unless you intend to revoke all of them with the establishment of the new LGCS? --Michael Montague |
| Moryath02-02-06, 11:38 AM | Also agree - the Limited list is a great resource when planning characters as well. "It's not here so it must be limited" is a great way to get yourself confused on a feat/spell/class, especially when I could just (previously) open up the LGCS, scan to the letter associated with it on either the Core or Limited lists, and be 100% sure that I knew what the status was. In fact, here's a suggestion: Why not make the Core/Limited/Restricted/NPC-Only lists into appendices in the back of the LGCS, for easy reference? Just my two cents, of course. |
| CSHunt6802-02-06, 11:42 AM | Hearty agreement. Regards, Sean Hunt |
| gomeztoo02-02-06, 11:45 AM | I agree a list may be useful, BUT I don't think a full list of Limited spells should be in the LGCS. It should not be too hard for those volunteers who desire it enough top put effort in it, to make such a list and share it as an unofficial, though helpful, source on the boards or list. |
| Britt02-02-06, 11:46 AM | I've only heard of two problems with eliminating the Limited list: 1. Authors/Administration need a list for some of the things they do. 2. Some favors say "any one limited x." The Circle has a solution to #1 and Chris said that #2 is going away, so what remaining issues are there? |
| Moryath02-02-06, 12:09 PM | I've only heard of two problems with eliminating the Limited list: 1. Authors/Administration need a list for some of the things they do. 2. Some favors say "any one limited x." The Circle has a solution to #1 and Chris said that #2 is going away, so what remaining issues are there? As for #2 - people sit on favors for years. Whether they are "going away" or not, the fact remains that these favors REMAIN in play until used. Or if they don't and there's some secret expiration date on favors, I want to know about it so I can go ahead and die and use some of my free Raise Deads before they expire. As for #1, I'm sorry, but just because the Circle is planning on passing out a private listing to authors/triads doesn't mean that they should be making it *harder* for players to look things up. A simple listing of what's Limited or not isn't so hard to put in. And it saves players no end of grief when trying to work out a new character build or figure out what feat they want to take or spell they want to learn, and they're trying to cross-check the LGCS, their access, and their books. I already made my suggestion. Just move the lists into an appendix in the back of the LGCS. Easier for printing out, easier to find when looking things up. |
| GreySector02-02-06, 12:15 PM | I've only heard of two problems with eliminating the Limited list: 1. Authors/Administration need a list for some of the things they do. 2. Some favors say "any one limited x." The Circle has a solution to #1 and Chris said that #2 is going away, so what remaining issues are there? It is at the very least a great error checking tool. Every rules item should be on one of the lists, so that way when something is missing you know you have a problem. Under the proposed new system it would be easy to just assume that the missing item is supposed to be limited (even if it isn't) and never correct the problem. Any time you are looking at an official rules document and have to start assuming things, something is wrong. Big status tables for feats, spells and prestige classes are also extremely useful for character planning. -Michael Eshleman |
| CSHunt6802-02-06, 12:18 PM | Even the simple list, the way it was, would be _very_ useful. |
| Britt02-02-06, 12:19 PM | I know they remain in play, and I assume Chris knows that as well. As such, any solution the Circle puts forth will probably accomodate that fact. I agree that it's not a huge deal to include a list of currently Limited items, but what about in the future? It's much easier to just list new Core and Restricted items than to go through and list every item in a book and its status. As for players looking things up and planning, I don't see what is any more difficult with this system than listing every item. If it's in one of the approved books and not listed on the Restricted or NPC only list, then you /might/ find access to it during gameplay. That's exactly the same as if it's on the Limited list then you /might/ find access to it during gameplay. The Restricted and NPC only lists are very short compared to the Limited list, so I think it's actually easier this way as a player. |
| Marshall02-02-06, 12:19 PM | Better idea. Get rid of the limited list. If it aint broke enough to be restricted, and not abuseable enough to be NPC only...make it Core. |
| Moryath02-02-06, 12:25 PM | As for players looking things up and planning, I don't see what is any more difficult with this system than listing every item. If it's in one of the approved books and not listed on the Restricted or NPC only list, then you /might/ find access to it during gameplay. That's exactly the same as if it's on the Limited list then you /might/ find access to it during gameplay. The Restricted and NPC only lists are very short compared to the Limited list, so I think it's actually easier this way as a player. And the first time someone wants to request a special mission to get a "Limited" something, what list do they point to for it? It's not that hard to have a list, and it clears up SO much confusion. |
| Britt02-02-06, 12:25 PM | Michael: I don't see what error checking needs to be done. If you don't see it, it is Limited. If it is Limited, you have to find access on an AR. If it's on an AR, then the Circle looked at it and made sure it was OK to give out. There's no error-checking needed. |
| Britt02-02-06, 12:28 PM | Moryath: You have to ask your Triad for a SM, and they will ask their Circle member if they can do a SM to give out the requested item. That goes on behind the scenes, so the player just sees a request to the Triad and either an approval or denial. What's so hard about that? I really don't see what confusion there is to be cleared up. If the player doesn't see it listed, they have to find access. That seems very simple to me and accomodates new source material very easily. |
| Iswald02-02-06, 12:42 PM | Britt, It seems like there is a very large majority of players who prefer to have a list of the limited feats, PrCs and spells available to examine at leisure. Since this is something that the players desire, where is the problem in letting them have it? |
| GreySector02-02-06, 12:44 PM | Michael: I don't see what error checking needs to be done. If you don't see it, it is Limited. If it is Limited, you have to find access on an AR. If it's on an AR, then the Circle looked at it and made sure it was OK to give out. There's no error-checking needed. What if a rules item is supposed to be Core (or NPC Only, or Restricted) and it is unintentionally dropped from its repsective list for whatever reason? If we just assume that the missing item is supposed to be Limited then it will never get added back to the proper list. How can we tell if it is a mistake or a deliberate change? Relying on a document's infallibility is a bad idea IMO. If this change goes through, there are going to be an ungodly number of posts to the Living Greyhawk list (and private e-mails to POCs and Circle members) asking, "The feat/spell/prestige class X isn't on the Core, NPC Only or Restricted list. Is it supposed to be limited (because everything listed is limited) or did the Circle/Triad/whoever just forget to include it?" The answer? "Well, since there couldn't possibly be an error in the LGCS, the feat/spell/prestige class X you are asking about is limited." -Michael Eshleman |
| Britt02-02-06, 12:51 PM | Iswald: The problem, IMO, is the amount of work it takes to create a list when you could just tell them that if they don't see it it's Limited. I just don't see a reason to need a list of every item that isn't on one of the other two lists. It's not my decision, I'm just giving my opinion on why not listing them is better. Michael: The only time something could be dropped off the Core list is during an LGCS edit, which is posted for draft discussion right here. If a rules item was moved from Core, NPC, or Restricted, multiple people inevitably bring it up, so there isn't an issue of something moving without notice. There are many people that carefully compare previous versions of the LGCS with the new version to find these things. Also, who cares if it's "supposed" to be limited? If it's not on the Core list you either can't get it or need access to it on an AR. You can't plan what AR access you're going to get, so the only information that can really help you is what access you'll never get. That list is given and can be updated as new books come out. What other information does the player need? |
| Nutation02-02-06, 12:55 PM | In the past, the simple rule has been "If it's not in the LGCS, it's Restricted". New source - restricted. Accidental omission - restricted until an erratum is issued. Now we have two defaults, one for sources in the first two lists on p. 62 and one for the third list and everything else. Are a few pages saved in the LGCS worth the cross talk and clarifications that will be generated now? |
| SteveMND02-02-06, 01:00 PM | I, for one, happen to like the idea of there not being a specific Limited list. First and foremost, it makes it much easier all the way around when new books come out. People won't have to scrabble and whine and such about "Is Feat X core?," etc. etc. as soon as the book hits the shelf at their FLGS. Any campaign element that may become introduced for LG is automatically Limited by default, so you don't have to worry about it (and shouldn't plan on it!) until it either is added to the LGCS or shows up on an AR. |
| Moryath02-02-06, 01:03 PM | I, for one, happen to like the idea of there not being a specific Limited list. First and foremost, it makes it much easier all the way around when new books come out. People won't have to scrabble and whine and such about "Is Feat X core?," etc. etc. as soon as the book hits the shelf at their FLGS. Any campaign element that may become introduced for LG is automatically Limited by default, so you don't have to worry about it (and shouldn't plan on it!) until it either is added to the LGCS or shows up on an AR. And best of all, with the Circle's stance that they want as little as possible to be Core access, our characters can now be COMPLETELY randomized based on the circumstances of which character played what adventure at what APL. And of course, certain regions will continue to have almost no access, while certain other regions will just continue handing out access to feats/spells/items jammed into their AR's in font so small you need a microscope to read it. |
| GreySector02-02-06, 01:08 PM | I see the list of limited items as an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. The time you invest in adding items to the limited list will save you boatloads of time answering questions about things that aren't in the LGCS. Britt: Even with the review the LGCS goes through mistakes still creep in. I prefer the certainty of an exhaustive list over the ambiguity of a 'list-by-omission'. Regardless, we both seem entrenched in our positions and I don't see either of us changing our minds. -Michael Eshleman |
| Britt02-02-06, 01:09 PM | And best of all, with the Circle's stance that they want as little as possible to be Core access I'm not sure how you get that opinion with the extremely large Core access list. Some argue that the Core list is too big. our characters can now be COMPLETELY randomized based on the circumstances of which character played what adventure at what APL. Isn't that kind of the point? I mean, shouldn't your character's items and abilities reflect their adventuring experience? Most home games I've played restrict PrCs and non-core feats (if allowed at all) to what training you can find. And of course, certain regions will continue to have almost no access, while certain other regions will just continue handing out access to feats/spells/items jammed into their AR's in font so small you need a microscope to read it. That's been addressed by the Circle already. |
| dr_who02-02-06, 01:14 PM | The only time something could be dropped off the Core list is during an LGCS edit, which is posted for draft discussion right here. If a rules item was moved from Core, NPC, or Restricted, multiple people inevitably bring it up, so there isn't an issue of something moving without notice. However, I just read that topics involving changing the status of certain rules items are disallowed :). I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I will say this. When I first got the LGCS5.0 I searched it for 5 different items (two feats and three spells) and not a single one showed up. I figured that my adobe software had finally quit on me until reading this and related topics on the boards. It's very simple. Listing limited items removes all doubt. |
| Iswald02-02-06, 01:20 PM | Iswald: The problem, IMO, is the amount of work it takes to create a list when you could just tell them that if they don't see it it's Limited. Once an item's status has been determined, it doesn't take long to enter it. The exception is when you end up changing a large number of existing items or if a book adds a large number of items. SpC comes to mind. On the other hand, it's much simplier for players if it's listed. Having everything in a table would be nice, though not necessary. The default of making everything limited doesn't work very well. Read some other threads if you disagree. |
| Britt02-02-06, 01:21 PM | Michael: Yep, I see it as an ounce of cure for a pound of prevention. There's really no way to resolve that kind of debate without statistics that are unavailable :) Dr. Who: It only removes all doubt until the next book comes out, at which point I invariably get a ton of questions about when such-and-such item will be in the LGCS. I would rather the current system and when a new book comes out, everything is limited. |
| WotC_Tulach02-02-06, 01:27 PM | I, for one, happen to like the idea of there not being a specific Limited list. First and foremost, it makes it much easier all the way around when new books come out. People won't have to scrabble and whine and such about "Is Feat X core?," etc. etc. as soon as the book hits the shelf at their FLGS. Any campaign element that may become introduced for LG is automatically Limited by default, so you don't have to worry about it (and shouldn't plan on it!) until it either is added to the LGCS or shows up on an AR. Steve has hit upon one of the big reasons why this was done. Now, players will potentially see "the new hotness" right away on ARs, even at the regional level, instead of waiting months for new books to be integrated. This was done as a player-friendly move as well as a workload issue. |
| dr_who02-02-06, 01:55 PM | It only removes all doubt until the next book comes out, at which point I invariably get a ton of questions about when such-and-such item will be in the LGCS. I would rather the current system and when a new book comes out, everything is limited. But when a new book comes out, it's not in the campaign at all, right? I mean, if it's not listed as a sourcebook in the LGCS, then nothing from it should be allowed at all until a new LGCS comes out. Perhaps I have misunderstood, though. Is the new position that regional triads may begin allowing limited access to spells and whatnot as soon as something is published by WotC? |
| Marshall02-02-06, 01:57 PM | Steve has hit upon one of the big reasons why this was done. Now, players will potentially see "the new hotness" right away on ARs, even at the regional level, instead of waiting months for new books to be integrated. This was done as a player-friendly move as well as a workload issue. HUH?!? With the lead time for getting new adventures out, its MUCH more likely that the 'new hotness' will be addressed by an updated LGCS before anything appears on AR's. Even then, the 'new hotness' isnt even available UNTIL it has become available thru a new LGCS. I dont know, it just looks to me like the list is there only to limit player options, and by extension, FUN. |
| Britt02-02-06, 02:02 PM | HUH?!? With the lead time for getting new adventures out, its MUCH more likely that the 'new hotness' will be addressed by an updated LGCS before anything appears on AR's. While the lead time for getting an adventure out is long, it's still shorter than the frequency of LGCS updates. Also, the lead time for the entire adventure is long, but the AR information can sometimes be updated rather easily and quickly when a new book comes out. Even then, the 'new hotness' isnt even available UNTIL it has become available thru a new LGCS. If it's not in the LGCS it is Limited; so if a new book comes out it is Limited and an author can use it with Circle approval. |
| dr_who02-02-06, 02:09 PM | If it's not in the LGCS it is Limited; so if a new book comes out it is Limited and an author can use it with Circle approval. Nothing that I can see in the LGCS indicates that this is the case for *new* books coming out. I still say new materials are restricted until addressed in the LGCS. This isn't a particularly important point (since there's no difference between "restricted" and "limited-but-you'll-never-find-access-to-it"), however it does nullify the argument that we are somehow saving work for someone by making limited the default category. I still say that listing limited items is the best way to go for the benefit of all players and judges in the campaign. That's just my opinion. If it means a little more work for the writers of the sourcebook, well, you have my sympathy. |
| Britt02-02-06, 02:15 PM | Nothing that I can see in the LGCS indicates that this is the case for *new* books coming out. I still say new materials are restricted until addressed in the LGCS. The LGCS is a source of options commonly available to PCs; it is a set of rules for players. Authors have a different set of restrictions for what they can offer. The Libris Mortis and Book of Exalted Deeds items are not listed in the LGCS because they are not commonly available; however, authors can sometimes provide access to items from these books. The LGCS does not state that items not found on the lists cannot be found in adventures (woot, triple negative). |
| theliel02-02-06, 02:21 PM | The LGCS is a source of options commonly available to PCs; it is a set of rules for players. Authors have a different set of restrictions for what they can offer. The Libris Mortis and Book of Exalted Deeds items are not listed in the LGCS because they are not commonly available; however, authors can sometimes provide access to items from these books. The LGCS does not state that items not found on the lists cannot be found in adventures (woot, triple negative). Point of order - both are listed in the LGCS and the following books are offical sources....BoED and LM are both listed as available to authors and "maybe" players. |
| Britt02-02-06, 02:37 PM | Point of order - both are listed in the LGCS and the following books are offical sources....BoED and LM are both listed as available to authors and "maybe" players. The books are listed; the items are not. That's to what I was referring. |
| Mommy was an Orc02-02-06, 02:46 PM | It seems relatively clear that someone will eventually compile a list of limited things. Is it possible for someone to volunteer to do this now and offer to maintain it - and then have a link to it in the LGCS 5.0 with some kind of warning that only the LGCS is authorative on this? (not me) |
| JamesMaissen02-02-06, 03:41 PM | Steve has hit upon one of the big reasons why this was done. Now, players will potentially see "the new hotness" right away on ARs, even at the regional level, instead of waiting months for new books to be integrated. This was done as a player-friendly move as well as a workload issue. I don't understand how this has changed anything. Before there were lists for 'Core', 'Limited', 'NPC/Companion type' hybrid, and 'Restricted' that came from one list of source material. But that didn't stop you from getting access to something that was from a book other than what the lists covered. You had a second supplemental list of books/source materials that could be taken from infrequently (by authors). For example one of my characters got access to some Libris Mortis spells despite the fact that they were not on any of these lists. So other than not having to maintain a list of 'limited' items, what really does this change accomplish on the positive side? Is it that you are now officially combining the prior 'limited' list with full inclusion of specific books? Sure there's a list in the LGCS but from what I'm reading that's not exaustive.. right? I've been reading these threads, thought I understood how LG worked and I'm confused by the new state of things, I don't think I'm going to be alone in this. What's lost by maintaining a 'current' list of 'limited' things? Is it going to balance out the resulting confusion that is going to permeate the common player's response to this? Thanks for your time, James |
| NetJohn02-02-06, 08:52 PM | The only time something could be dropped off the Core list is during an LGCS edit, which is posted for draft discussion right here. If a rules item was moved from Core, NPC, or Restricted, multiple people inevitably bring it up, so there isn't an issue of something moving without notice. However, as someone has already pointed out (but people seem to be ignoring it) is that we have been told with this current LGCS draft discussion that we are not to question why something is Core, Limited, NPC Only, or Restricted. So, if a spell isn't listed, given the current rules, we have to assume it's Limited and wasn't accidently deleted from the Core (or other) list. I'll make a prediction: If LGCS 5.0 doesn't have Limited lists included explicitly, by GenCon there will be a Dispel Confusion declaring some spell or feat Core or NPC or Restricted that was originally Limited. (Now, of course, we have no way of knowing if they decided to change it from Limited to the other state because of balance issues or if it was an accidental omission. I will admit also that inclusion of a Limited list does not preclude this happening, either.) (And yes, I realize it's probably a safe prediction.) If a Limited list makes the LGCS too long for you to print out, don't print it. There's always an "official" copy at the DM station at conventions, and if you're playing at home, you can always pull up the PDF. |
| Iswald02-02-06, 09:32 PM | Steve has hit upon one of the big reasons why this was done. Now, players will potentially see "the new hotness" right away on ARs, even at the regional level, instead of waiting months for new books to be integrated. This was done as a player-friendly move as well as a workload issue. This is untrue. I've had access to items from Stormwrack since November. It's still not an 'official' source for LG and won't be until LGCS 5.0 is released. |
| Britt02-02-06, 10:00 PM | However, as someone has already pointed out (but people seem to be ignoring it) is that we have been told with this current LGCS draft discussion that we are not to question why something is Core, Limited, NPC Only, or Restricted. Actually, you're not supposed to ask for something to move up the access lists. That doesn't mean you can't ask if something is intentional, AFAIK. Asking if something was purposely taken off the Core list is a lot different than asking for something on the Limited list to be made Core. |
| NetJohn02-02-06, 10:13 PM | Actually, you're not supposed to ask for something to move up the access lists. That doesn't mean you can't ask if something is intentional, AFAIK. Asking if something was purposely taken off the Core list is a lot different than asking for something on the Limited list to be made Core. So, basically, I can ask: Are the following spells in fact Limited and not supposed to be Core, NPC, or Restricted: ... and then list every spell they didn't list? Wouldn't an explicit Limited list do this? I have a feeling we both have our opinions on this and won't waiver no matter what argument is made. I just think an implied Limited is ripe for abuse and is asking for trouble. |
| RAM02-03-06, 12:32 AM | It is, quite simply, impossible to find something that does not exist. If there is no limited list it is quite possible for Players to miss things that are core/NPC only/Restricted. (And I would suspect quite possible for authors, judges and anyone else.) It is much easier to find something then it is to not find something. With the limited lists gone people who look for limited items will waste a significant amout of time with no certain result. If they were moved to the end of the LGCS as an appendix it would not be overly difficult to avoid printing them if that was an issue. The idea of putting all items in a table sounds nice for reference purposes, but would require a compete rewrite of the lists and would use significantly more space. New items must already be addressed on an individual basis and adding them to one additional list(per category) would not seem so much extra effort on top of the admittedly considerable requirements of updating the other lists. Removal of a limited list does not increase player options, that can only be acomplished by changing the status of the list so that it is not exhaustive. The list of limited items is therefore irrelevant, however it would seem to be a worthy goal to categorise all material available at the time. Perhaps it would be profitable to seperate the items by source, having all items from the same book listed together. I imagine it could be quite trying to include new material item by item in its appropriate position in a universal alphabetical listing. However this could cause confusion where the same item had a different status in different sources :mad: . It seems to me to be impratical to remove the limited lists, an exhaustive listing of all reviewed items is a valuable tool. Simply assuming the status of rules which have, presumably, been judged and chosen to be limited seems to be perilously open to mistakes and unnecessary. Additionally this does not address sources that have been removed. For example I have a wizard that has bought several spellbooks, none of these list the spell compendium as a source, the assumtion that all items not listed are limited would suggest to me that I would be able (and expected) to use whatever sources they reference, which would include (I think) books from the 'complete' series and 3rd edition D&D books, I could see this and similar situations could cause considerable complications. |
| Elfen_Archangel02-03-06, 12:44 AM | It seems to me to be impratical to remove the limited lists, an exhaustive listing of all reviewed items is a valuable tool. Simply assuming the status of rules which have, presumably, been judged and chosen to be limited seems to be perilously open to mistakes and unnecessary. Additionally this does not address sources that have been removed. For example I have a wizard that has bought several spellbooks, none of these list the spell compendium as a source, the assumtion that all items not listed are limited would suggest to me that I would be able (and expected) to use whatever sources they reference, which would include (I think) books from the 'complete' series and 3rd edition D&D books, I could see this and similar situations could cause considerable complications. I was with you until this last part. It sounds like an argument that's just trying to pick a fight. We have to use the most recent book with the spells inside of them. If they're in the Spell Compendium, we cannot use the Complete version. Period. Done. Dead subject. Move on. Matthew Schad |
| SteveMND02-03-06, 12:44 AM | "If there is no limited list it is quite possible for Players to miss things that are core/NPC only/Restricted" I would have to disagree. With the new system, say I want to use Feat X. Is it on the Core feat list? Yes? Fine, I take it. No? Then I won't have access to it until i find in a module or some other way. To be honest, the LGCS doesn't even really need the NPC/Restricted list included either, as that really is only of concern for authors. Any way you slice it, if it's not on the Core list, you still can't take it without documentation. |
| Elfen_Archangel02-03-06, 01:04 AM | Steve, that is by far the most brilliant way to put it that I've seen yet. Cheers! Matthew Schad |
| haferka02-03-06, 02:00 AM | I would have to disagree. With the new system, say I want to use Feat X. Is it on the Core feat list? Yes? Fine, I take it. No? Then I won't have access to it until i find in a module or some other way. To be honest, the LGCS doesn't even really need the NPC/Restricted list included either, as that really is only of concern for authors. Any way you slice it, if it's not on the Core list, you still can't take it without documentation. I agree with this statement. Limit the lists to CORE access for the LGCS. Move the other lists to the mod authors documentation. BUT... for the purpose of yearly discussion... list all the access lists (including limited) just so we have a consensus that nothing has been forgotten. |
| JamesMaissen02-03-06, 02:03 AM | I was with you until this last part. It sounds like an argument that's just trying to pick a fight. We have to use the most recent book with the spells inside of them. If they're in the Spell Compendium, we cannot use the Complete version. Period. Done. Dead subject. Move on. Matthew Schad Don't dismiss this out of hand. Look to the first page of this discussion where someone lists a Libris Mortis spell as something that wasn't in the Spell Compendium. It is in the book.. oops. Honest mistake. Anyway, I think it's going to cause all kinds of headaches by it's absence. Far more than the headache of typing in each and every named spell in the SpC. Barring another such compendium coming out and 'updating' all of the spells all over again, I don't see maintainence of the list as problematic. All it would involve is adding them to a given list when they come out. I assume each spell is gone over when a book comes out and examined. If that's the case then taking a second to enter a spell on a list is insignificant comparatively. If they are not looked at then they should definately default to RESTRICTED rather than limited until they can be gone over (at which time, again, its not much work to enter in a name on a list). Why play with fire here??? -James |
| RAM02-03-06, 03:53 AM | "If there is no limited list it is quite possible for Players to miss things that are core/NPC only/Restricted" I would have to disagree. With the new system, say I want to use Feat X. Is it on the Core feat list? Yes? Fine, I take it. No? Then I won't have access to it until i find in a module or some other way. To be honest, the LGCS doesn't even really need the NPC/Restricted list included either, as that really is only of concern for authors. Any way you slice it, if it's not on the Core list, you still can't take it without documentation. ummm, I don't quite follow, you seem to have missed the intended point of the line you quoted. My point was that people could miss things if there was only a core list. To go into Details... If you miss something in the core list, and there is no comprehensive listing then you have missed it and must assume it is limited. If tthere is a comprehensive listing then you can keep going over the lists until you find it and know it's status. If I could not find an entry after checking the lists 3 times then I would start to suspect that: 1: it was not an accepted source. 2: it was missing. 3: I was mistaken about it's name, phrasing or similar. In any case I would much rather have a complete list to verify if I had made a mistake or if it really was limited/restricted/NPC only. |
| SteveMND02-03-06, 07:23 AM | "If you miss something in the core list, and there is no comprehensive listing then you have missed it and must assume it is limited." I didn't miss the intent of the previous quote, rather, it was irrelevant. Under the new system, you can take a campaign feature if it's on the Core list. If it's not, you can't take it unless you have other documentation. And the list IS comprehensive by definition -- a campaign feature is either available as open access (in which case it will be listed as Core) or it's not, and thereby NOT listed as Core. That automatically and very effectively applies to ever campaign feature from every book that may be used in LG from now until doomsday. :-) It doesn't mattter if the feature is not on the list because it is Restricted, NPC-only, or the Circle simply forgot to add it -- if it's not on the Core list, you simply can't take it without documentation. If you DO take it, a judge will say "let me see the documentation to allow it," and you either have to point to the Core list that explicity allows it, or show other documentation saying you can take it. It's up to the player to provide proof of access; if you can't find it on the Core list because you are sleepy or something, then you wouldn't have taken it to begin with. Plus, if you accidentally miss a campaign feature while searching for the name, there's no guarantee you won't miss it also if was listed elsewhere. |
| Moryath02-03-06, 09:06 AM | I agree with this statement. Limit the lists to CORE access for the LGCS. Move the other lists to the mod authors documentation. BUT... for the purpose of yearly discussion... list all the access lists (including limited) just so we have a consensus that nothing has been forgotten. The NPC Only feats list is freely available for Animal Companions, Cohorts, and Familiars. Which leads to a rather unfortunate situation in which a Cohort Dragon Disciple can take Multiattack, but a PC can't. How silly is that? Plenty. |
| Nutation02-03-06, 12:42 PM | > The NPC Only feats list is freely available for Animal Companions, Cohorts, and Familiars. > Which leads to a rather unfortunate situation in which a Cohort Dragon Disciple can take > Multiattack, but a PC can't. LGCS says these feats are available to "special" cohorts, not all cohorts. What is a special cohort? (Given the context, I expect the intent is nonhumanoid cohorts, but this could easily be construed to mean any cohort off an AR, e.g., the norker from Hidden Fortress.) |
| MatBlack02-04-06, 09:06 AM | I was with you until this last part. It sounds like an argument that's just trying to pick a fight. We have to use the most recent book with the spells inside of them. If they're in the Spell Compendium, we cannot use the Complete version. Period. Done. Dead subject. Move on. Don't dismiss this out of hand. Look to the first page of this discussion where someone lists a Libris Mortis spell as something that wasn't in the Spell Compendium. It is in the book.. oops. Honest mistake. Anyway, I think it's going to cause all kinds of headaches by it's absence. Far more than the headache of typing in each and every named spell in the SpC. my error had nothing to do with the absence of a limited list. the original point actually involved the subject of the list of acceptable player sources. the spell i quoted from libris mortis is still limited, and the only reason that the error would have caused ANY concern in real LG play would have been a "choose to learn any limited spell" favor. we have since found out that those types of favors are no longer going to be gained. so it's mostly a moot point anyway. |
| Itsa_Trika02-04-06, 09:37 AM | That's a very good point, Chris. Perhaps the NPC only and Restricted lists should be moved to accompany the Limited list in the other documentation. That would create a single source for players to search for the items they're looking for. |
| Simpi02-04-06, 10:54 AM | LGCS says these feats are available to "special" cohorts, not all cohorts. What is a special cohort? (Given the context, I expect the intent is nonhumanoid cohorts, but this could easily be construed to mean any cohort off an AR, e.g., the norker from Hidden Fortress.) I believe this means cohorts you get from ARs, like Norker, Dakon, etc. not your mundane 22 point cohorts. However, I believe their entries should also mention if they have access to special feats. For example 'X is a cleric of Hextor with following statistics. She has access to Dread Tyranny feat (RD).' S.H, the guy from Naerie |
| redgamer02-04-06, 02:54 PM | I want a cleric of Hextor as a cohort. I'd even take the penalty for the wrong alignment. |
| A'Talsen02-05-06, 02:05 AM | The LGCS absolutely needs those lists. The whole point of placing Disjunction (for example) on the restricted list is to prevent NPCs from using it, since there isn't much concern about PCs being able to pull off that 9th level spell. Restricted spells represent spells that do not work inside the campaign. Such a list should not be in an 'author only' document, rather it needs to be in the LGCS where everyone can view it. I want to know that things like Disjunction can't happen to my character, and if some makes a mistake and some how tries to use it, I can point to the LGCS amd say 'no'. Michael "Fish" Murphy To be honest, the LGCS doesn't even really need the NPC/Restricted list included either, as that really is only of concern for authors. Any way you slice it, if it's not on the Core list, you still can't take it without documentation. |
| zadoc02-06-06, 09:21 AM | Don't dismiss this out of hand. Look to the first page of this discussion where someone lists a Libris Mortis spell as something that wasn't in the Spell Compendium. It is in the book.. oops. Honest mistake. Anyway, I think it's going to cause all kinds of headaches by it's absence. Far more than the headache of typing in each and every named spell in the SpC. There is another aspect to this argument, beyond the addition of SpC (which will cause problems with all of the non-Complete spells within that people may have access to). If you get your AR and gain access to an unattributed spell (such as, say Ectoplasmic Armor), how can you be sure you're using the correct version of it, or even where to find it? A player owning Liber Mortis but not the Spell Compendium could be completely unaware that it was reprinted, and has no documentation telling him that he should be using the version in the SpC that he doesn't realize exists. Given similarly unaware DMs and co-players, he could easily be using the wrong verion of Ectoplasmic Armor for some time before finding out he needs a different book. It would also add to the confusion of where to even start looking for things. There were plenty of people asking where Shadow Cache was, when an AR granted access to it because, being from the Manual of the Planes, it wasn't listed in on any of the lists in the LGCS. Having no lists seems like it will simply increase the confusion of where you should look for the limited things that access is granted for (unless, of course, the Circle is going to make public announcements as to any unattributed item's location). It seems like the lack of Limited lists will indirectly increase the amount of foreknowledge of what is available on ARs (and which ARs, depending on how well people know each other and the schedule of module premieres), just due to an increase of 'Where do I find X?' questions (just as large numbers of people were well aware that Shadow Cache was a spell available on an AR). |
| Moryath02-06-06, 11:15 AM | There is another aspect to this argument, beyond the addition of SpC (which will cause problems with all of the non-Complete spells within that people may have access to). If you get your AR and gain access to an unattributed spell (such as, say Ectoplasmic Armor), how can you be sure you're using the correct version of it, or even where to find it? A player owning Liber Mortis but not the Spell Compendium could be completely unaware that it was reprinted, and has no documentation telling him that he should be using the version in the SpC that he doesn't realize exists. Given similarly unaware DMs and co-players, he could easily be using the wrong verion of Ectoplasmic Armor for some time before finding out he needs a different book. It would also add to the confusion of where to even start looking for things. There were plenty of people asking where Shadow Cache was, when an AR granted access to it because, being from the Manual of the Planes, it wasn't listed in on any of the lists in the LGCS. Having no lists seems like it will simply increase the confusion of where you should look for the limited things that access is granted for (unless, of course, the Circle is going to make public announcements as to any unattributed item's location). It seems like the lack of Limited lists will indirectly increase the amount of foreknowledge of what is available on ARs (and which ARs, depending on how well people know each other and the schedule of module premieres), just due to an increase of 'Where do I find X?' questions (just as large numbers of people were well aware that Shadow Cache was a spell available on an AR). It's also fun when you start to use a spell-list generator that's not an official LG one (such as one I've found that actually generates your durations and saving throws and all that malarky), and have to strike-out the limited stuff. Far easier to go through and go "that's limited, that's limited, that's restricted" than have to guesswork your way through with the Core list. |
| JamesMaissen02-06-06, 03:18 PM | If you get your AR and gain access to an unattributed spell (such as, say Ectoplasmic Armor), how can you be sure you're using the correct version of it, or even where to find it? Worse, given the turn around time for modules and ARs, instead of the limited spell you get being unattributed, it IS attributed but to the wrong source. I can easily imagine something like Ectoplasmic Armor being out there attributed to Libris Mortis (as it would have been the correct location when the mod was made). Bottom line, as enough people have said, it's bound to cause sufficient confusion to merit the keeping and maintainence of a limited list. Likewise having such a list is a good resource for people to have readily available to them. -James |