Post/Author/DateTime	Post
armenfrast 06-11-07, 08:49 AM	Two points (1) The articles published in LGJ (and later in Polyhedron) are not mentioned in appendix 4. This should mean that they are not authorized in the campaign, however the special regional prestige classes introduced in those articles are mentioned in the LGCS (Veth, Silent ones - "Clarifications" Page 11 & 12). So it seems that finally they are part of the authorized sources => This should be added to the LGCS appendix 4 (IMO) (2) Polyhedron (LG pages) has introduced new feats for Paladins. This article mentions that these feats are usable in the official LG campaign and that you need to bring the article with you. Dos this mean that those feats are considered open if you bring the article ? - Is this specific mention considered as a "Campaign Documentation" ? - Why is there nothing mentioned in the LGCS ? Armenfrast www.greyhawk.fr
Timlagor 06-11-07, 10:56 AM	1) They are part of the great Unlisted. There are MetaOrgs that give access to some funny things. 2) Beats me. I'd say it doesn't qualify as campaign documentation..so you're certainly going to get table variation.
Britt 06-11-07, 01:25 PM	You need campaign documentation granting access to any of those rules options.
pedr 06-11-07, 04:02 PM	So is a sentence in the LGJ saying: "These feats can be used in Living Greyhawk" campaign documentation or not? (I don't have the magazines so don't know what the wording is.) Forgive my legalese, but between this and the thread on the Griffin's Nest, perhaps it would be useful to have a clear, concise and easily understandable statement of how precisely we recognise what is and isn't a valid rule or practice in LG? It seems as if there are a number of different sets of potential rules sources with uncertain validity and no realistic way for people to know what is and isn't valid.
Britt 06-11-07, 04:21 PM	No, the text in the LGJ does not give you access to use the content in LG. If it did, my comment that you need campaign documentation would be pretty much meaningless, as you always have to have the source with you to use a non-core rules option, even when you have campaign documentation :) If it's not in the LGCS or Dispel Confusion, ask and we will let you know if it's LG legal. I'm not going to make a more specific ruling than that, as it will likely mess me up later.
armenfrast 06-11-07, 05:49 PM	Specifically this article says Each paladin faith includes a special feat unique to holy warriors of that order, allowing you to customize your paladin when playing in the RPGA's official LIVING GREYHAWK campaign or when playing Greyhawk campaigns of your own design. If you plan to use one of these feats at a sanctioned LIVING GREYHAWK event, be sure to bring along this article to show to your Dungeaon Master. I see no restriction in the capacity to use these feats as long as you own this article - for me it is quite similar to the bonus buttons (given in Gen Con 2001) or the LG Cards.
Britt 06-11-07, 06:26 PM	Specifically this article says Each paladin faith includes a special feat unique to holy warriors of that order, allowing you to customize your paladin when playing in the RPGA's official LIVING GREYHAWK campaign or when playing Greyhawk campaigns of your own design. If you plan to use one of these feats at a sanctioned LIVING GREYHAWK event, be sure to bring along this article to show to your Dungeaon Master. I see no restriction in the capacity to use these feats as long as you own this article - for me it is quite similar to the bonus buttons (given in Gen Con 2001) or the LG Cards. The restriction is in the LGCS. And bonus buttons and LG cards are allowed per the LGCS.
pedr 06-11-07, 06:48 PM	Sorry to harp on about this, then, but here's the subsequent question: How do I know that the Living Greyhawk Journal article isn't 'Campaign Documentation'? It certainly looks like it (published by/under license from WotC, uses the Living Greyhawk logo, claims to authorise you to use the feats when playing a paladin in Living Greyhawk ...) In fact, the LGCS says: "The LIVING GREYHAWK Journal, available in back issues of DUNGEON magazine from www.paizo.com, contains LG related articles." Now perhaps the more experienced LG players would realise that something which is intended to be generally available would be listed as Open. But that's a deduction, rather than something that's clearly expressed - and it's an equally valid interpretation from the bare facts to believe that those feats are designed to be available not to everyone, but to anyone who has those issues of the Journal. I suppose my point is that it's confusing, and it seems that - without saying so - the passage of time has changed the status of those feats. That's problematic, I think.
Britt 06-11-07, 07:06 PM	AFAIK, they have always been treated as 'Limited'. I know that there were even a couple of special mission requests for access to them in the BK a couple of years ago. The LGCS does not say that LGJ content, or that article in particular, is Open. The article does not say that it counts as campaign documentation. I do not know of any posts or publications that state that that content is legal without further access. The LGCS very explicitly states that anything not in the LGCS Open category requires campaign documentation of some sort. So, the question should not be: "How do we know LGJ content is not legal?" The question should be: "Does 'allowing you to customize your paladin when playing in the RPGA's official LIVING GREYHAWK campaign' mean that the article counts as campaign documentation?" Since requiring additional access is completely consistent with that statement and the statement does not explicitly state that it counts as campaign documentation, the assumption should be that it does not. Sure, it's a valid question; however, assuming that it counts as campaign documentation smells a little of "it's easier to ask forgiveness later than permission first." I'm sure some people have assumed it honestly, but I'm also sure many people have assumed it dishonestly as well. Anytime you are in doubt, anytime something is not explicitly stated, you should ask.
waynemarkstubbs 06-14-07, 12:16 PM	Well, that's all very well if you're only interested in catering to a hard-bitten, cynical bunch of cheeseweasels who are trying to mess with the rules to their maximum benefit. If however, like me, you have had to explain to a couple of RPGA newbies who have come along to their first ever game exactly why they can't use the feat, when the wording in the magazine they are excitedly clutching would seem to any normal human being to indicate that they can, then you could see how this contributes to the campaign being perceived as unfriendly, unwelcoming and confusing. <breathes> I understand that the current circle isn't responsible for the inconsistencies of the past. However, that doesn't excuse current inconsistencies, such as those listed in the original post, and the ill-thought out stunt with the Griffin's Nest article.