Post/Author/DateTime	Post
shuntsbe 07-24-06, 07:54 PM	If a sorcerer finds a spellbook that contains a limited spell, but the sorcerer does not purchase the spellbook, can they learn the spell at a later time? If no, then if the sorcerer buys the spellbook now and learns the spell later, can they sell the spellbook or would that mean they lose access to the spell? Usually sorcerers do not need spellbooks, but I am unclear about how the limited spell rules work for sorcerers, when access is through a spellbook.
diamotsu 07-25-06, 01:00 PM	sorcerers only learn spells through natural progression by gaining levels... They cannot use any spells out of spell books, and technically speaking, the sorcerer would have already had access to select the spell, after reaching the appropriate level to cast it, providing that the DM said that it's okay for her to have such access
kenobi65 07-25-06, 01:57 PM	sorcerers only learn spells through natural progression by gaining levels... They cannot use any spells out of spell books, and technically speaking, the sorcerer would have already had access to select the spell, after reaching the appropriate level to cast it, providing that the DM said that it's okay for her to have such access I don't think this is correct, for purposes of sorcerers' access to limited spells in LG, but someone who knows more should feel free to chime in -- "providing that the DM said that it's okay for her to have such access" works just fine for a home game, but LG works differently. In LG, you can only have access to Limited spells that you've "seen" -- i.e., on a scroll or in a spellbook as detailed on an AR, and I believe that this is true for any spellcasting class. I seem to remember reading that a sorcerer can buy a spellbook, then use it for access to a Limited spell, but I could be mistaken.
trollbill 07-25-06, 02:00 PM	sorcerers only learn spells through natural progression by gaining levels... They cannot use any spells out of spell books, and technically speaking, the sorcerer would have already had access to select the spell, after reaching the appropriate level to cast it, providing that the DM said that it's okay for her to have such access I think you are missing the point. He is asking what consitutes having access to Limited spells for a sorcerer. The rules are rather vague as to exactly how a sorcerer learns spells from a flavor standpoint. What the LG rules don't clearly state is how a sorcerer can gain access to a Limited Spell. One would presume they would at least have access in the same way Wizards do, but it just doesn't say. Is having the spell on a scroll or book 'gaining access' for a sorcerer? It clearly states that Wizards can gain access to Limited spells on scrolls and books they purchase by copying them into their own spellbooks, but since sorcerers don't use spell books, this rule does not directly apply.
Sieylianna 07-25-06, 09:17 PM	If a sorcerer finds a spellbook that contains a limited spell, but the sorcerer does not purchase the spellbook, can they learn the spell at a later time? If no, then if the sorcerer buys the spellbook now and learns the spell later, can they sell the spellbook or would that mean they lose access to the spell? Usually sorcerers do not need spellbooks, but I am unclear about how the limited spell rules work for sorcerers, when access is through a spellbook. 1. No. The spellbook is campaign documentation. 2. Selling the spellbook would cause you to lose access. Ed
Madfox11 07-26-06, 08:00 AM	Ed is correct. Note that the same is true for scrolls. Pieter Sleijpen Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
Lightblade 07-26-06, 09:09 AM	If scrolls serve as campaign documentation, can my Druid prepare a limited spell he has on a scroll? If so, can he only do it while in posession of said scroll?
trollbill 07-26-06, 09:42 AM	Also, since sorcerers do not actually learn their spells from books and scrolls, can they gain access through other items such as a wand?
Mommy was an Orc 07-26-06, 10:04 AM	Hmm...that seems to open up a couple cans of worms. Example: Abu Sif the Sorcerer finds a scroll of a 2nd level limited spell when he's 3rd level. He picks the spell upon hitting 4th. At 10th level, the 2nd level limited spell has lost its overall usefulness, so he sells the scroll, thereby losing access and opening up the slot for a better spell as he no longer knows the spell. Instead of gaining the ability to swap out just 1 spell at 10th, he gets to pick 2 spells. Example 2: Miss Fortu Nate the Sorcereress gets hit with a fireball, rolls a 1 on her saving throw, and the scroll gets destroyed. The spell blinks out of her head? Does she therefore instantly pick a new spell? In the middle of that combat? After the mod? Doesn't get one back at all? It would seem to make more sense that the Sorcerer has to pay for the item(to study it), perhaps pay some kind of additional fee to 'scribe' it into his head, and then be able to get rid of it. That way he can't lose the spell(either by abusing the rules or misfortune), but at the same time he's paid an appropriate Living Greyhawk cost for it. Ed is correct. Note that the same is true for scrolls. Pieter Sleijpen Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
Iswald 07-26-06, 11:01 AM	"Spells: ...These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page 192), 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 spell level." While not a typical method, I would have to say that using a scroll or spellbook is a valid route for a sorcerer to learn a spell. To me, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to require the sorcerer to keep the spellbook or scroll to claim they have access. It shows up on ARs that they carry around with the character and the MIL, right? Purchased on AR x and used on AR y. As long as the spell is learned in between, what's the problem?
Lupo 07-26-06, 11:34 AM	Hmm...that seems to open up a couple cans of worms. Example: Abu Sif the Sorcerer finds a scroll of a 2nd level limited spell when he's 3rd level. He picks the spell upon hitting 4th. At 10th level, the 2nd level limited spell has lost its overall usefulness, so he sells the scroll, thereby losing access and opening up the slot for a better spell as he no longer knows the spell. Instead of gaining the ability to swap out just 1 spell at 10th, he gets to pick 2 spells. Example 2: Miss Fortu Nate the Sorcereress gets hit with a fireball, rolls a 1 on her saving throw, and the scroll gets destroyed. The spell blinks out of her head? Does she therefore instantly pick a new spell? In the middle of that combat? After the mod? Doesn't get one back at all? It would seem to make more sense that the Sorcerer has to pay for the item(to study it), perhaps pay some kind of additional fee to 'scribe' it into his head, and then be able to get rid of it. That way he can't lose the spell(either by abusing the rules or misfortune), but at the same time he's paid an appropriate Living Greyhawk cost for it. i just checked, because :rolleyes: **************************************** ****************** srd: Spells Copied from Another’s Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Next, she must spend a day studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from her specialty school. She cannot, however, learn any spells from her prohibited schools. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into her spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, below). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment. If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. She cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until she gains another rank in Spellcraft. A spell that was being copied from a scroll does not vanish from the scroll. In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level x50 gp. **************************************** ****************** so any scroll is used up during any successful attempt to "copy" the spell anyway, so no "keeping" of the scroll for a wizard. there is nothing about "learning" the spell for sorcerers, as they don't have to "copy". :rolleyes: it seems, the lgcs is in desperate need of a chapter on sorcerers, warmages, bards, favoured souls etc. and limited spells. ciao martin m.
Mommy was an Orc 07-26-06, 11:38 AM	The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment. That's not actually a problem - the spell on the scroll is now in the spellbook - i.e. it still has a physical form of some kind. It isn't clear though why a Wizard couldn't take Spell Mastery and thereby not need to memorize that limited spell.
Lupo 07-26-06, 11:46 AM	That's not actually a problem - the spell on the scroll is now in the spellbook - i.e. it still has a physical form of some kind. It isn't clear though why a Wizard couldn't take Spell Mastery and thereby not need to memorize that limited spell. but that is where the problem sets in: 1. No. The spellbook is campaign documentation. 2. Selling the spellbook would cause you to lose access. Ed Reply With Quote Ed is correct. Note that the same is true for scrolls. Pieter Sleijpen Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns so a wizard has to show the consumed scroll to proof that the copy was "legal". ciao martin m.
JamesMaissen 07-26-06, 12:08 PM	Ed is correct. Note that the same is true for scrolls. Pieter Sleijpen Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns How is *access* dependant upon purchase? Either one has access to something or one does not.. right? Now perhaps you mean that a sorcerer needs to have a source for taking a spell known (and that core spells are assumed to be readily available for sorcerers to learn from)? Otherwise you are creating a very wierd exception to access that I frankly don't understand whatsoever. How does a wizard take a limited spell from a scroll and scribe into their spellbook in such a fashion as to be able to use it? What would happen if a sorcerer 'used' a scroll to pick a limited spell as a known spell and then read or otherwise lost the scroll? Why is an item on one's character sheet being used for 'access' to a limited spell??? Shouldn't that be something out of game? This doesn't make much sense to me, nor I suspect to others, James
JJeff 07-26-06, 01:34 PM	Just muddy-ing the waters here. What if in an adventure the players find some books in a library that detail a few spells form the Complete series and the module states that you can learn spells from the books in the library if you take time but the spells do not exist in the AR. How does the player record down that he learnt the spell? I assume that he can only learn the spell immedeatly after the adventure or during it, but what proof is there that he found the spell? If a fellow player has access to a limited spell and has the spell in the spellbook, and his fellow player copies it after an adventure when the pass around spellbooks, how does the wizard that just copied the spell into his own spellbook maintain access to the spell?
trollbill 07-26-06, 01:56 PM	Just muddy-ing the waters here. What if in an adventure the players find some books in a library that detail a few spells form the Complete series and the module states that you can learn spells from the books in the library if you take time but the spells do not exist in the AR. How does the player record down that he learnt the spell? I assume that he can only learn the spell immedeatly after the adventure or during it, but what proof is there that he found the spell? If a fellow player has access to a limited spell and has the spell in the spellbook, and his fellow player copies it after an adventure when the pass around spellbooks, how does the wizard that just copied the spell into his own spellbook maintain access to the spell? If you don't have it on the AR you don't have documentation for it so you can't get it. If the DM meant to give you access to this spell within the module, then he should include it on the AR. Otherwise he has made a mistake unless there is a compelling reason for allowing only temporary access. In other words, this should never happen. You must have documentation to support access to Limited Spells. This can be an AR, a Metaorg document or some other official piece of paperwork. Now the rules pretty clearly explain gaining access to new spells for Wizards such as copying from a purchased scroll or spellbook from an AR or buying the right to copy them from a Metaorg, but it inexplicably ignores the concept that spellcasters who don't use spellbooks might like to gain access to limited spells and what their requirements are for 'proof of access.' You can assume the same things that apply to wizards applies to everyone else, but it doesn't always make sense, especially when they keep harping on copying them over to spell books.
chesspiece 07-26-06, 03:29 PM	The water is indeed muddy but here's what I've heard. Back in May, information came out on the Y! lgwizards board from Triad members that there would be a Dispel Confusion clarifying access rules for Limited spells (among other things). The information was pretty much as described above. And the replies at that time had as much concern & confusion as what I'm reading here. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/lgwizards/message/9122 http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/lgwizards/message/9152 The last thing I heard was that the Circle and Triads were re-opening their discussions on the matter to ensure the obvious problems were resolved. Here's hoping... I'm guessing this is why an article that was "coming soon" in May hasn't arrived in July. Well, that and Convention Season. Cheers, Stephen Martin
JJeff 07-26-06, 09:45 PM	If you don't have it on the AR you don't have documentation for it so you can't get it. If the DM meant to give you access to this spell within the module, then he should include it on the AR. Otherwise he has made a mistake unless there is a compelling reason for allowing only temporary access. In other words, this should never happen. You must have documentation to support access to Limited Spells. This can be an AR, a Metaorg document or some other official piece of paperwork. Now the rules pretty clearly explain gaining access to new spells for Wizards such as copying from a purchased scroll or spellbook from an AR or buying the right to copy them from a Metaorg, but it inexplicably ignores the concept that spellcasters who don't use spellbooks might like to gain access to limited spells and what their requirements are for 'proof of access.' You can assume the same things that apply to wizards applies to everyone else, but it doesn't always make sense, especially when they keep harping on copying them over to spell books. So if the module text states that "A number of books can be found in the XXXX library. While none of these books are magical, and unsuitable as spellbooks, a number of them have detailed description of arcane spells in them. Wizards may use these to learn spells as if learning from a spellbook.", the GM has to note it down on the AR that a character has learnt the spells if the spells listed are not found anywhere on the AR? Does the character need to make any rolls for the learning of spells (as per mastering spellbook)? And if anyone here recognises the quote I made above, can you tell me how this was resolved in your game?
Madfox11 07-27-06, 03:22 AM	If I remember correctly, if the spells in that library are core, a wizard could copy the spells without AR access upto his caster level and each spell copied would be one spell less he can copy from fellow players. He would need to pay to normal amount of gold, and make the spellcraft checks just as per the rules. The DM is the witness for the rolls, and I usually let players note it down in the Items Bought section on the AR (or at least a reference with total money spend and the actually list on the back of the AR). Access to limited spells though MUST be on the AR. In case of a scroll or spellbook the PC must actually bought it to gain access. I would guess that a sorcerer would keep access if the scroll or spellbook is destroyed, just as a wizard would not loose access either (there are rules concerning regaining lost spells for wizards and they are considerably easier than learning new ones). As for the silly idea of wands granting access, wands do not grant access to wizards either. Just remember that if it is something that would allow the wizard to put the spell in his spellbook than it would work for a sorcerer as well to gain access. Just remember though that this is a bit of a compromize to allow sorcerers (and to a lesser extend bards) a bit easier access to limited spells. Otherwise the only way they would gain access is through specifically worded favors on the AR or meta-organizations. It raises a few questions, and we are working on answering them. Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns Metaregion
shuntsbe 07-27-06, 03:42 AM	If I remember correctly, if the spells in that library are core, a wizard could copy the spells without AR access upto his caster level and each spell copied would be one spell less he can copy from fellow players. He would need to pay to normal amount of gold, and make the spellcraft checks just as per the rules. The DM is the witness for the rolls, and I usually let players note it down in the Items Bought section on the AR (or at least a reference with total money spend and the actually list on the back of the AR). Access to limited spells though MUST be on the AR. In case of a scroll or spellbook the PC must actually bought it to gain access. I would guess that a sorcerer would keep access if the scroll or spellbook is destroyed, just as a wizard would not loose access either (there are rules concerning regaining lost spells for wizards and they are considerably easier than learning new ones). Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns Metaregion Please allow me to reiterate the offical ruling on this so that I am clear. If a sorcerer finds a spellbook that contains a limited spell, the sorcerer may purchase the spellbook. This grants them access to the limited spell. The sorcerer may learn this spell in the future, as normal for sorcerers. They also gain access to any other spells that are in the same spellbook. If the sorcerer learns a limited spell from a spellbook, and the spellbook is sold or otherwise lost, they maintain access to limited spells learned. They lose access to any limited spells that have not been learned yet. If a sorcerer finds a spellbook that contains a limited spell, and they do not purchase the spellbook, they do not gain access to the spell. Pieter, could you please confirm this is correct? Thanks for your help!
trollbill 07-27-06, 10:16 AM	So if the module text states that "A number of books can be found in the XXXX library. While none of these books are magical, and unsuitable as spellbooks, a number of them have detailed description of arcane spells in them. Wizards may use these to learn spells as if learning from a spellbook.", the GM has to note it down on the AR that a character has learnt the spells if the spells listed are not found anywhere on the AR? Does the character need to make any rolls for the learning of spells (as per mastering spellbook)? And if anyone here recognises the quote I made above, can you tell me how this was resolved in your game? Sorry, I meant to say that if the author meant for you to gain access, not the GM. While it is possible to gain temporary access to a spell within a module, if it isn’t on the AR, you lose it after you complete the module, and the GM cannot add it to the AR. As for the silly idea of wands granting access, wands do not grant access to wizards either. Just remember that if it is something that would allow the wizard to put the spell in his spellbook than it would work for a sorcerer as well to gain access. Just remember though that this is a bit of a compromize to allow sorcerers (and to a lesser extend bards) a bit easier access to limited spells. Otherwise the only way they would gain access is through specifically worded favors on the AR or meta-organizations. It raises a few questions, and we are working on answering them. The following is from the SRD: A sorcerer’s selection of spells is extremely limited. A sorcerer begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of your choice. At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by his Charisma score; the numbers on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known are fixed.) 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. Now, according to that, the only requirement for a sorcerer learning a spell is that they gain some understanding of it by study. By that wording, the restrictions on sorcerers and bards should be even less that than wizards, not more. And since ‘some understanding of by study’ is rather vague, I fail to see why it would be silly to assume you could gain ‘some understanding’ by studying the effects of the spell when cast through a wand. This is the big problem with some of the assumptions made by the LGCS regarding this. It seems to think that sorcerers are, at best, as restricted as wizards in how they learn their spells, but by the rules that’s not true. Sorcerers are more restricted than Wizards in the number of spells they can learn but not in how they learn them. In this regard, wizards are actually more restricted. Hence the need for the clarification.
kenobi65 07-27-06, 10:49 AM	And since ‘some understanding of by study’ is rather vague, I fail to see why it would be silly to assume you could gain ‘some understanding’ by studying the effects of the spell when cast through a wand. The distinction is this: With a spellbook, or a scroll, you "see" everything that goes into the spell. When casting from a scroll, you still have to provide the verbal and somatic components. With a scroll, you are still fundamentally casting the spell (reflecting the failure chance if you use a scroll that's too high level for you). Compare that to a wand, when all you do is point it, say a command word (which I don't think is the same as the verbal component of the same spell), and it goes off. There's no failure chance, it just happens. If you can "learn" the spell from a wand, what's to stop you from learning it by drinking a potion of the spell? How about just seeing someone else cast the spell? The line has to be drawn somewhere.
trollbill 07-27-06, 11:03 AM	The distinction is this: With a spellbook, or a scroll, you "see" everything that goes into the spell. When casting from a scroll, you still have to provide the verbal and somatic components. With a scroll, you are still fundamentally casting the spell (reflecting the failure chance if you use a scroll that's too high level for you). Compare that to a wand, when all you do is point it, say a command word (which I don't think is the same as the verbal component of the same spell), and it goes off. There's no failure chance, it just happens. This is a perfectly reasonable justification for why a particular DM might choose to limit a sorcerer's options in this manner. It is not, however, what the rules say because what the rules say is vague. Though I will note that you must have a spell on your class spell list in order to use a wand which implies some basic understanding of the spell. Also note that I have yet to meet a DM that put even that sort of restriction on a sorcerer learning a new spell. Every DM I have me lets a sorcerer learn any spell that DM allows in the game that is a sorcerer spell. It is only an issue in LG because of the issue of Limited spells. If you can "learn" the spell from a wand, what's to stop you from learning it by drinking a potion of the spell? How about just seeing someone else cast the spell? The line has to be drawn somewhere. There is nothing that stops it other than DM interpretation because the rules themselves do not draw the line. But because of that vagueness, there is nothing either silly or unreasonable about any of the above interpretations you just mentioned. I am not disagreeing that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Or even that the line you are talking about is unreasonable. The problem with both RAW and the LGCS is that they do not clearly draw that line. Its the clarification of that line I am looking for. In a normal game, you just leave it up to the DM, no problem. But in LG you have to have a consistant, official ruling that doesn't change from DM to DM. I would argue, however, that the wording of how a sorcerer learns new spells implies that it would be easier for a sorcerer to gain access to one than for a wizard. How this might translate into additional options for sorcerers that wizards don't have is something for the LG people to discuss if they decide to make it that way. And also note that the rules only state that a sorcerer must have 'some' understanding of a spell, not 'complete' understanding. The rules strongly imply, however, that a wizard must have 'complete' understanding in order to learn it. So if you limit a sorcerer to the same restrictions as a Wizard, you are going against the spirit of the rules.
Nutation 07-27-06, 03:43 PM	Access to limited spells though MUST be on the AR. In case of a scroll or spellbook the PC must actually bought it to gain access. I would guess that a sorcerer would keep access if the scroll or spellbook is destroyed, just as a wizard would not loose access either ... That may be the intent, to require purchase, but the LGCS (particularly p. 69) pretty clearly allows scribing without purchase. Quite a few wizards have taken this route. The case for sorcerers is murkier. In any case, you'll need a Dispel Confusion to disseminate the desired procedure.
JamesMaissen 07-27-06, 10:41 PM	Access to limited spells though MUST be on the AR. In case of a scroll or spellbook the PC must actually bought it to gain access. Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns Metaregion Umm I don't understand why must one buy a scroll/spellbook to gain access? Isn't the AR containing scrolls/spellbooks with the limited spell constitute access to the spell? I don't understand both the reasoning involved here nor where this is in any way said in the LGCS. How is purchasing an item giving someone access when they wouldn't otherwise have it? Is retaining this item also part of this strange access? If my wizard finds a spellbook with a limited spell in it, why can't I simply copy it into my spellbook as per the LGCS rules for doing so? Why can't the spellbook detailing the spell be considered access for having the spell in one's books? If my wizard really does need to purchase the entire spellbook, can I destroy most of the spellbook to lower it's value? (i.e. tearing out the rest of the pages in the 'found' book) If such a spellbook were so damaged in game, would it not both lower the value and yet retain the access to what was left in the book? How the heck would scrolls of limited spells work?? You can't scribe it in game (for some reason), but can do so out of game but then promptly loose access because the scroll is now used up in the scribing?? I'm very confused over this. Until a rumor to this effect began circulating I never even considered that this could be the case and figured at worst it would be a new rule that the circle would be making at some time in the future (have I missed this?). I mean as I understand it there are two ways of looking at things currently. If the spellbook containing the limited spell on an AR doesn't constitute access to the spell, then even should one purchase the spellbook they cannot cast the spell because they do not have access to it. If it does give access to the spell, then by the LGCS rules for copying spells one could copy the spell during the game and not have to purchase the spellbook. What am I missing here? I thought I understood the rules in this case (as I'm sure did many others). A very confused, James Maissen
Japangirl 07-28-06, 02:09 AM	It depends on the access to the spellbook. If the spellbook is adventure access, you can scribe the spells in it/buy the spellbook for the next three adventures you play. After that, you lose all access to anything you didn't buy, just like all other adventure access. A spellbook always gives you two options: 1) buy the whole book and everything in it, or 2) scribe the spells you want from it into your own personal spellbook. For an adventure access spellbook, that means you have three adventures to do either option 1 or option 2. You can also buy/scribe in the adventure you got access. If you got access to a limited scroll, and bought the scroll then scribed it, you would show that expense on your AR items bought section and thus would have proof that you could scribe it into your spellbook, and now have access. I am not sure how it works for sorcerors, but that's my understanding of how it works for wizards. I think for sorcerors, all you have to have is proof that at some point, you saw it on an AR. Access at any time to a scroll or spellbook that has the spell in it would be enough. It's either this really loose interpretation, or something really strict and awful like a sorceror has to start wasting money on scrolls and spellbooks, which wouldn't make any sense at all.
JamesMaissen 07-29-06, 02:53 AM	It depends on the access to the spellbook. If the spellbook is adventure access, you can scribe the spells in it/buy the spellbook for the next three adventures you play. After that, you lose all access to anything you didn't buy, just like all other adventure access. A spellbook always gives you two options: 1) buy the whole book and everything in it, or 2) scribe the spells you want from it into your own personal spellbook. For an adventure access spellbook, that means you have three adventures to do either option 1 or option 2. You can also buy/scribe in the adventure you got access. As I understand things you can do 1 of 2 things when finding an enemy spellbook (or both): 1> Scribe upto your level in spells from it (and other player's spellbooks) into your own spellbook. This is allowable even if the spellbook is not on the AR (except for limited spells which must appear on the AR to be scribed and cannot come from either other PCs nor spellbooks that don't appear on the AR). 2> Purchase a spellbook on an AR within the time given for the access to the spellbook. You could not subsequently scribe any spells from the spellbook after the adventure that you find it in unless you bought it and had it at the time as you suggest. But that is talking about 'access' to the spellbook and not the spell. As to 'access' to a limited spell, I had assumed that finding such a spell in a scroll or spellbook form allowed one to have 'access' to it. It seemed like campaign documentation to me and that's how I've seen everyone else treat it. Otherwise purchasing the spellbook or not, you still would not have 'access' to the limited spell in order to memorize and cast it. As it's being said now in this thread by a Circle member it seems that copying it into your spellbook is not a valid option. You must purchase the book. How that gives you 'access' to the spell I don't understand. This is not yet addressing the problems with finding such access via scroll, nor what would happen to a sorcerer 'learning' such a limited spell then loosing the access. I'm sorry if I was not clear in distinguishing 'access' to the spell as opposed to 'access' to a spellbook or scroll containing the spell. I hope it is clearer, so it can be addressed that I might understand how things have either changed or always were that I (and many others) didn't realize. For example in the past atleast metaorgs were able to offer limited spells and once you had them in your spellbook you did not need to maintain the metaorg status to maintain the access to those in your spellbook or those you chose as known spells (while clerics for example by not having the scribe/pick learned spells would gain/loose access depending on status in the metaorg). I guess I had assumed that found spellbooks would function likewise. I don't know how your PC purchasing said spellbooks changes whether or not you have AR documentation. -James Maissen
Madfox11 07-31-06, 03:46 AM	That may be the intent, to require purchase, but the LGCS (particularly p. 69) pretty clearly allows scribing without purchase. Quite a few wizards have taken this route. The case for sorcerers is murkier. In any case, you'll need a Dispel Confusion to disseminate the desired procedure. I know what the LGCS states in this regard. I also know that a discussion like this has been held on the Triad list a couple of months ago, and the Circle decided upon what I told here. The ruling should be printed in the next Dispel Confusion, but it is going to be official. Note that the question regarding sorcerer spells and access was not dealt with as extensively in the Triad discussion as in this one. I will forward the questions and see how we deal with them. For now my ruling stands as official, but note that I am not certain whether you keep access if you sell the scroll of spellbook volluntarily. By the book a wizard would loose access well. Best bet would be to keep the thing save at home... Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
GreySector 07-31-06, 09:14 AM	I know what the LGCS states in this regard. I also know that a discussion like this has been held on the Triad list a couple of months ago, and the Circle decided upon what I told here. The ruling should be printed in the next Dispel Confusion, but it is going to be official. Note that the question regarding sorcerer spells and access was not dealt with as extensively in the Triad discussion as in this one. I will forward the questions and see how we deal with them. For now my ruling stands as official, but note that I am not certain whether you keep access if you sell the scroll of spellbook volluntarily. By the book a wizard would loose access well. Best bet would be to keep the thing save at home... Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns WOW. Let me let this sink in for a minute. WOW. OK, I think this is quite possibly the first time in my life I've been in a state of shock and awe. So you are telling me that having been informed of how many problems this is going to cause, and how it is pretty much a 180 degree turn from the rules that have been used for years (and IMO the spirit of the core rules as well), the Circle STILL decided to make this change?
chesspiece 07-31-06, 12:07 PM	WOW. ...the Circle STILL decided to make this change? I had pretty much the same reaction when I first heard about this. But a few things to keep in mind: - Triads have had input in these rules. - This has been under discussion for =months=. - Pieter may be privy to the facts, but he hasn't shared the final version of the rules with us. - It isn't published yet so it may still be changed. - The Powers That Be have been kind enough to "leak" this change (drawing feedback that has hopefully been constructive). I view Pieter's statements as a friendly warning. He's letting us know what changes are coming. If I come across a spellbook with a Limited spell that I -must- have, I know I should buy & keep it. Or else don't get too attached to that spell. I'll be very surprised if the Dispel Confusion doesn't have conversion-style rules that will help fix / legalize PCs (i.e. allowing purchase of needed books / scrolls from long-dead ARs). I'd still feel better if they did a public Draft Discussion on these rules; but regardless I'm going to have faith until I see the final & complete version. Cheers, Stephen Martin
JohnduBois 07-31-06, 02:20 PM	I don't understand this continual demand for a draft discussion of every rules change/clarification out there. There IS a discussion for every major rules change, especially ones that potentially affect a large number of people like this one. At the very least, they're discussed by eight players who volunteer tons of time to the campaign (the Circle). Most of the really big ones (including, for an example that I've asked about, whether to use the stat block formats from the new adventures in LG) involve a discussion between hundreds of players (the Triads and the Circle). It's not like our Triad members and Circle reps are some enigmatic high council like the one in the old Twilight Zone's "The Obsolete Man" or some bizarre 1984-esque arbitrary ruler. These are people who play the game and love the game, and make an effort to keep everything fair and balanced for everyone. Let's try not to make their jobs any harder by asking for a public forum discussion about every single choice they make. I've seen Triad members who spent too much time trying to do the right thing for everyone burn out and quit over it on the yahoo groups. Cut our VOLUNTEER campaign staff some slack, guys.
JayParker 07-31-06, 03:35 PM	I think this is quite possibly the first time in my life I've been in a state of shock and awe. You'd almost think they commited Tournament Fraud or something. I know what's really happening! They are stockpiling "Rules of Mass Destruction" in order to make our lives miserable! Let's invade! Alternately, how about you just calm down a little bit?
Howie23 07-31-06, 03:43 PM	- Pieter may be privy to the facts, but he hasn't shared the final version of the rules with us. - It isn't published yet so it may still be changed. - The Powers That Be have been kind enough to "leak" this change (drawing feedback that has hopefully been constructive). I view Pieter's statements as a friendly warning. He's letting us know what changes are coming. If I come across a spellbook with a Limited spell that I -must- have, I know I should buy & keep it. Or else don't get too attached to that spell. Pieter is a Circle member who has posted a ruling on a campaign-wide issue on an official messageboard. Per the LGCS (pp. 63 and 72), that constitutes an official ruling that is in effect now. As of right now, you must have purchased the scroll or spellbook to have access. This does not need to wait for Dispel Confusion to be in force; the final version that comes via Dispel Confusion may make that statement more user-friendly regarding "what do I do now?" questions. This isn't a leak about something that will happen. It is a statement about what has happened, in a minimal form, and which will be further detailed. Prudence suggests not using spells from long-ago ARs nor fiddling with scribing costs, etc., until full version is available. It also suggests (as posted by another) that you should buy those resources that are important to you until that final form is available. David
trollbill 07-31-06, 05:02 PM	You'd almost think they commited Tournament Fraud or something. I know what's really happening! They are stockpiling "Rules of Mass Destruction" in order to make our lives miserable! Let's invade! Sounds like a good idea for an Interactive. Any volunteers to write it up?
JamesMaissen 07-31-06, 05:10 PM	For now my ruling stands as official Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns As your ruling is now official... what EXACTLY is it? Is it saying that prior AR access is now void? Is it saying that from this date that finding limited spells in spellbooks does not constitute access to the spell? On a side note, as discussions towards this ruling were made behind closed doors, could you explain to the public why such a ruling is needed? It seems to cause all kinds of problems and ripples, and for those of us both confused and perhaps displaced by them it's always helpful to know what this will solve. For you this is months old.. but not for everyone. Which brings up a wierd point about things leaking. It was brought up on other boards when it was being discussed (as rumor/etc). If this is something that should be discussed behind closed doors then it should be kept there. Meanwhile if not then it should be an open discussion. People should not find out first by rumor and because they know a guy who knows a guy... But please forgive that aside, I'm really curious as to the reason for all of this. What was wrong with the older method of taking a spellbook/scroll on an AR as access to the spell and being able to scribe it into a spellbook via the LGCS rules? I mean to me it seems to *GREATLY* diminish the appeal of finding *ANY* spellbook rather than favor access to spells. This seems to attack the whole idea of wizards drooling over finding enemy spellbooks that has been a staple of the game experience from the start. The last bit is of course purely my feelings, but it certainly motivates desire in me to understand what this is solving. Thank you for your time, James
Madfox11 08-01-06, 05:32 AM	My words are taken a bit out of context. There are two things being discussed here, and I should have been a bit clearer on what I was referring to and what not. My appologies for the confusion I am causing. The main point of discussion was about spontaneous spellcasters and access to limited spells. My words were aimed at that part: such character gains access to limited spells at the same time as a wizard (or at least that is my understanding). I added the for now, because the Circle might decide upon another ruling. After all, you did raise a few problems with the ruling that need to be resolved. One of the benefits of a public discussion. The second part of the discussion is about when exactly a character gains access to a limited spell in relation to spellbooks and scrolls. The discussion on Triad list made it clear that there are two possible interpretations for the current rulings (despite people stating here that the intent is perfectly clear as written). Of course, it should be clear that the spell needs to be on the AR in the first place. (1) You need to buy the complete spellbook and scroll. (2) You can simply copy it as per the Core D&D rules. At the time the Circle ruled the intent was (1). Somehow I though this was already adressed in a Dispel Confusion, which it apparently was not. In that regard it is more a slip of the tongue than a conscious leak. For now the rules remain the same as is (which according to a large group of American Triads btw is #1), just be ready for that Dispel Confusion, and of course, we allow people to buy the whole book even if access has passed. Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
kjenks 08-01-06, 09:34 AM	We have to deal with other situations. What do you do if you can't afford to buy the spellbook that you used long ago to document your limited spell access? What do you do if you bought a scroll to to document your limited spell access and you still have the scroll in your inventory? Does it disappear? What do you do if you bought a scroll to to document your limited spell access and you later used that scroll during an adventure? Do you need to buy it again, and then it disappears? (Personally, I think you guys are making a mistake, and you should use your Dispel Confusion article to specifically allow option 1 and clarify what people can do to get a refund for spellbooks and scrolls that they bought to gain access. The spell access is the same for option 1, adding those spells to the campaign, but it's less paperwork and less pain for the players than option 2.)