Anyone else find this really irritating?

Elfcrusher said:

Are you proposing that there are people out there who don't buy either PHB or XGtE because all they want are the spell descriptions, and websites like that one give those away for free?

Click to expand...

Maybe people who only use the free basic rules or the SRD and then bypass buying a book with ripoff sites like that who "give away" stuff for free that does not belong to them in the first place to give away?

As DM (if I had interest to check if my player isn't cheating), when my player leveled up, I just need to check if the spells he adds to his prepared/learned spells list are for his class, don't need to know what they actually do at this point of time; when my players uses the skill, I check his prepared spells list to see if he can cast it, not the class spell list, here I'm only interested on what the spell does, since I already made sure the prepared spells list is checked.

So I'm never in the situation where I need to check the class spell list and the spell effect at the same time.

I guess as a player you might want to check what spells you can use, plus what those spells do to decide which to take, BUT even if all spells listed the classes they were available for, it would be annoying to read through ALL spells just to find the ones for your class (and level). Much better to search for a spell guide online (there are many really good ones, even alone on this very forum).

Oh yes! It is VERY annoying. Granted in earlier editions I was annoyed when a Magic-User spell told me to look at the Cleric spell, but this is way more annoying than that.

Honestly, if WotC put out a Class-driven spell book (with multiple listings for spells that overlap to different classes) I would buy it (*HINT HINT HINT* WotC!!!). I hate having to go through the list and keep turning back to the class spell lists earlier on to find out which spells classes can do.

robus said:

I dunno, it’s really pretty useless on its own. No book sales were harmed in its creation IMHO, it’s just making some data more accessible.

Click to expand...

Elfcrusher said:

Wait...what? How does it lower the value? I would argue that the referenced website increases the value of the authors efforts....
Are you proposing that there are people out there who don't buy either PHB or XGtE because all they want are the spell descriptions, and websites like that one give those away for free?

Click to expand...

"A little bit" of theft is not ok. And its actually against the posted rules of this website, though one of the longest and most active threads on this forums is all about this type of theft and actually was given XP by the owner of this site, so yea, it doesn't surprise me that this attitude is prevalent here. Funny thing is, this owner is actually an RPG publisher, perhaps he doesn't think piracy hurts his business.

As others have mentioned, site like the linked one, along with the free basic rules and SRD actually means that for many players they may not have the need or desire to buy the actual books.

But, the bigger point is that by accepting theft and piracy as ok under some conditions, makes it easier for people to justify theft under more conditions (too expensive, not going to pay if I don't know its any good, it doesn't cost them anything since its just a digital ciopy...). It leads to the devaluation of the property and similar works.

These views means that the work and effort by the people who create such materials is devalued ('hey,if I can get something that's almost as good for free...'). It means that many people who want and are capable of having a career in the RPG industry can't do so, because the customer base artificially lowers the value of their work through theft.

LordEntrails said:

"A little bit" of theft is not ok. And its actually against the posted rules of this website, though one of the longest and most active threads on this forums is all about this type of theft and actually was given XP by the owner of this site, so yea, it doesn't surprise me that this attitude is prevalent here. Funny thing is, this owner is actually an RPG publisher, perhaps he doesn't think piracy hurts his business.

As others have mentioned, site like the linked one, along with the free basic rules and SRD actually means that for many players they may not have the need or desire to buy the actual books.

But, the bigger point is that by accepting theft and piracy as ok under some conditions, makes it easier for people to justify theft under more conditions (too expensive, not going to pay if I don't know its any good, it doesn't cost them anything since its just a digital ciopy...). It leads to the devaluation of the property and similar works.

These views means that the work and effort by the people who create such materials is devalued ('hey,if I can get something that's almost as good for free...'). It means that many people who want and are capable of having a career in the RPG industry can't do so, because the customer base artificially lowers the value of their work through theft.

Click to expand...

I both partially agree with you, and your exultant use of the word "theft" makes it tempting to write you off as a rabid zealot.

My take on patent and copyright protections is that we as a society have an interest in giving creators an incentive to work, and so we give them legal protections. It's not because they have some kind of natural right to their creative output that we have a moral duty to protect. Unfortunately, Disney and the like have waged a successful campaign (with terms like "intellectual property") that have convinced too many people that ideas are like property, and they should be protected as such.

(Side story: a friend of mine was a junior lawyer on the team that went around suing college students for downloading music. She reflexively use the words "piracy" and "theft". She also, in her spare time, did pro bono work for "undocumented immigrants" and was ferocious in her condemnation of the term "illegal aliens". When I started calling music downloaders "unauthorized music fans" she, to her credit, acknowledged the point I was making.)

Anyway, if you can demonstrate that the owner of the grimoire actually took some money that was due to WotC, instead of theorizing that maybe they possibly might have, then I'll be with you on the "theft" thing. Otherwise, I will agree that while they are probably in technical violation of the law...or somebody's laws...they are doing so in a way that actually adds value to the copyright holder, and are certainly not in violation of any moral law. Not any more than going 56 in a 55 zone is.

Hosting PDFs of the actual books, on the other hand, would be a different matter.

LordEntrails said:

No, cuz what happens when a new sub-class comes out that has spells? You going to say, sorry, that spell from the PHB doesn't have 'new sub-class' listed so it can't use the spell?

Click to expand...

Subclasses either cast from a given class' list (e.g. eldritch knight casts from the wizard list), use the list of their parent class (e.g. wizard subclasses) or offer access to a few extra spells that are listed in the subclass itself (e.g. cleric domain spells), so I don't really know what you think is going to happen here. Labeling the classes that, by default, have access to a given spell is a no-brainer to me.

Elfcrusher said:

I both partially agree with you, and your exultant use of the word "theft" makes it tempting to write you off as a rabid zealot.

Click to expand...

Funny how such a simple word, 'theft' is prone to be considered the language of rabid zealot. Taking a ten cent pack of gum from a convenience store is theft, yet I doubt using the word in such a way would be considered the language of rabid zealot. Interesting how using the word for such a low monetary harm is ok, but using it in a way that might indicate many orders of magnitude more in loss is zealotry.

(Side story: a friend of mine was a junior lawyer on the team that went around suing college students for downloading music. She reflexively use the words "piracy" and "theft". She also, in her spare time, did pro bono work for "undocumented immigrants" and was ferocious in her condemnation of the term "illegal aliens". When I started calling music downloaders "unauthorized music fans" she, to her credit, acknowledged the point I was making.)

Click to expand...

I like your point, and it's pretty much the same with 'theft'. "We" often change the meaning or innuendo of a word slowly through cultural pressures. Changing the language of an issue is a means to influence the result, so is using 'older' terms to keep the issue from shifting.

Anyway, if you can demonstrate that the owner of the grimoire actually took some money that was due to WotC, instead of theorizing that maybe they possibly might have, then I'll be with you on the "theft" thing....

Click to expand...

So theft or crimes can only occur when monetary harm occurs? Or is is just "moral laws" that require monetary harm? Is a life worth money? A reputation? Honesty or Integrity? how about the truth?

Those are rhetorical questions, and not meant as specifics to be debated, but rather as a point and for consideration of the larger issue.

Side story: I myself have digital product for sale online. They also happen to be available for free and without my permission on various websites. How could I possible ever prove those sites are taking sales away from me? And even if they are not, are you really arguing that they are not doing anything morally wrong? And, is that really the world wish to live in?

James Grover said:

Oh yes! It is VERY annoying. Granted in earlier editions I was annoyed when a Magic-User spell told me to look at the Cleric spell, but this is way more annoying than that.

Honestly, if WotC put out a Class-driven spell book (with multiple listings for spells that overlap to different classes) I would buy it (*HINT HINT HINT* WotC!!!). I hate having to go through the list and keep turning back to the class spell lists earlier on to find out which spells classes can do.

Click to expand...

The spell cards might make that a bit redundant, they are super useful IME.

Bootlebat said:

Anyone else hate how in the spell descriptions it lists the level but doesn't say WHAT classes can use it, forcing you to go back to the beginning of the chapter to check?

Click to expand...

Yes, it's annoying.

No, I have a tab in my PHB at the start of the spell lists (and at all the other chapters) so reference is quick and easy. Even if they could keep it to a single line per spell, listing those classes on every spell for hundreds of spells equates to 2 pages. I would prefer to keep the 2 pages of spells instead of adding in a cross-link back from the spell to the class.