Divine Vigor good ?

[Trainz]

According to the 3E FAQ, at least, temporary hit points from multiple sources don't stack.

-Hyp.

Oh... then it's DEFINITELY not a good option. Only good for the battle sorceror from UA (with Divine Might, and of course Arcane Strike).

Thanks Hyp.

 

[Scion]

According to the 3E FAQ, at least, temporary hit points from multiple sources don't stack.

-Hyp.

doesnt that faq also state that hp from a body feeder weapon stack with themselves?

So then you could just keep on useing divine vigor on yourself to have a whole lot of hp for several minuts.

 

[jgsugden]

Is this a local policy? Retyping small portions of a book (such as a feat or spell) for discussion purposes is well within the law. Retyping portions of a book just so that someone who doesn't have the information can get it would be wrong.

Not quite. There are laws in the US (and a growing number of countries) that allow for using portions of a protected work for certain purposes. These are often referenced as 'Fair Use' laws.

These laws, however, are widely misunderstood. Further, the interpretation and enforcement of these laws have been erratic and contradictory. Very little in this area is clear enough to be 'well within the law'.

Before reprinting or reproducing protected text, I highly advise you to *do your research* on the subject. We've already seen WotC crack down on violations of the OGL. You don't want to be the guy that ends up as the straw that broke the camel's back - and gets sued for thousands of dollars (even if they don't win, the hassle they cause you would be enough of a deterent to others for them to get benefit out of the suit).

A starting point for that research can be found here: http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

 

[Scharlata]

Not quite. There are laws in the US (and a growing number of countries) that allow for using portions of a protected work for certain purposes. These are often referenced as 'Fair Use' laws.

These laws, however, are widely misunderstood. Further, the interpretation and enforcement of these laws have been erratic and contradictory. Very little in this area is clear enough to be 'well within the law'.

Before reprinting or reproducing protected text, I highly advise you to *do your research* on the subject. We've already seen WotC crack down on violations of the OGL. You don't want to be the guy that ends up as the straw that broke the camel's back - and gets sued for thousands of dollars (even if they don't win, the hassle they cause you would be enough of a deterent to others for them to get benefit out of the suit).

I don't wanna be a straw to break a camel's neck, but isn't it contraproductive to argue in public all in vain about a topic that a legitimate and registered user on a messageboard can't discuss correctly because of a lack of written material. This board or most others do not exist for the purpose of clandestinely colportage a hidden agenda to write non-OGL material in little bits to puzzle them together someday so that the ones to not own a copy of the original published material may save 25,- Euro.

It is, IMHO, a commonplace that "research" is a top-secret thing, but the "discussion" of "research" after its publication is not. If it is only the retyping of the wording of the original material that violates the OGL, than we will be reading "reworded" texts "rewritten" for better understanding of the publically discussed topics. And we know that happens around the world. This inclination towards the methods of discussion of non-OGL is mostly seen in the States, not in other countries - as mentioned above. The misunderstandings and irritations of understanding licences properly are enforced by a great amount of incertainty about regulations and copyrights.

But what about the mention of words in the "right order" from non-OGL material. Do I have to "reparaphrase" texts so to not violate the OGL? What kind of discussion may arise, if we must communicate in another terminology or nomenclature to be "within the laws" of the OGL. What will be, if someone decides to use translated non-OGL material, i.e. in Latin - as the Old School *pardon the pun* of scientists and sages did?

Maybe there is room for discussion of topics -- OGL and non-OGL alike -- that everybody knows they are not violating the OGL for its own sake. Maybe there are people sophisticated and well-learned enough to see and read the difference between retyping non-OGL material and a normal discussion between interested players and DM's alike.

So let me assure all who have seen the transgression, that I do not want to be the one to "break a poor animal's back".

Kind regards

 

[Hypersmurf]

doesnt that faq also state that hp from a body feeder weapon stack with themselves?

But it also states that multiple castings of the same spell are considered separate sources.

I'd be inclined to treat two instances of Divine Vigor as being more like two castings of the same spell, rather than two attacks with a single body feeder weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Trainz]

Bye bye thread, it's been fun !

 

[Darklone]

doesnt that faq also state that hp from a body feeder weapon stack with themselves?

So then you could just keep on useing divine vigor on yourself to have a whole lot of hp for several minuts.

By that ruling I'd agree, but I lived fine so far with no stacking for temporary hitpoints at all as I understood it after I first read the 3.0 PHB...