Monte Cook's BoEM2 Sorcerer Variant

[I'm A Banana]

Is the Bard likewise OGL? Would a kind soul be willing to pass that out?

Oh, and what "cool bits" did you have to remove from the Sorcerer, other than the new spells? Any?

I mean, I plan on buying the BoEMII as soon as possible, but my computer is unreliable, so I don't want to blow cash on something that may get deleted by my hard drive soon...so until it comes out as a hard copy....

 

[RogueJK]

Is the Bard likewise OGL? Would a kind soul be willing to pass that out?

Unfortunately, while the Bard variant itself is OGC, it looks like the spellsongs that replace the bard's spells aren't. So it wouldn't be much use to you, since the entire class is pretty much structured around these spellsongs. (Not to mention the fact that, even if we could, it would take entirely too much time and space to post every new spellsong.)

It seems that you'll just have to wait until you get a copy.

[Edit] At second glance, it appears that the spellsongs might be OGC after all... The point still stands about the amount of material that would need to be posted, though. [/Edit]

 

[Mistwell]

First, let me just say that I understand why the moderators of this board would want to remove the link. They have a relationship with Monte Cook, and want to foster it. They don't like to piss good people off. And they have respect for the intellectual property of others, and don't want to jeopardize any money that might be lost by posting their writing for free. Those are all good reasons to remove a link like that, and I apologise if my posting it caused the moderators or anyone else some stress.

That said, to those of you that continually whip out the "It's illegal to post that" "It's illegal to put that on your website" and "it's illegal to link to that", PLEASE STOP. Unless you are a lawyer, it is unlikely that you have a full enough understanding of US copyright laws (which are fairly complex) to make a claim with any confidence that something is "illegal". My post might have fallen under the fair use doctrine as a non-commercial partial-use for discussion purposes, and would therefore have been protected under the US Copyright Laws (and I believe, for example, that the web site shown in my sig line is 100% legal). Then again, my post might not have fallen under that doctrine. I'd be happy to debate it with copyright attorneys here. I'm not happy to debate it with non-lawyers.

I'm sorry if that sounded snippy, but I'm just sick of people thinking legal education and experience as a lawyer has no meaning for ones ability to understand and interpret the law. I wouldn't tell a plumber how to do their job, nor a doctor, a police officer, or any other profession. And I wouldn't spout off about plumbing, medical practice, arrest procedure, or the details of any other profession either. Why should the law be any different for people?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd be happy with e-mail. ^_^

Seriously, if it's too much work don't worry about it too much....but I would pay money to Monte or anybody else who would point me to where I could find that without having to buy the BoEMII....

Still would buy it, but at least I could use his ideas without blowing yet another $5.

 

[RogueJK]

I would pay money to Monte or anybody else who would point me to where I could find that without having to buy the BoEMII....

Well, I'm sure there are plenty of illegal (whoops... there's that word, Mistwell. So let's call them... immoral) ways of getting a copy of Monte's variant bard, but you won't learn of any of them from me.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Unless you are a lawyer, it is unlikely that you have a full enough understanding of US copyright laws (which are fairly complex) to make a claim with any confidence that something is "illegal". My post might have fallen under the fair use doctrine as a non-commercial partial-use for discussion purposes, and would therefore have been protected under the US Copyright Laws (and I believe, for example, that the web site shown in my sig line is 100% legal). Then again, my post might not have fallen under that doctrine. I'd be happy to debate it with copyright attorneys here. I'm not happy to debate it with non-lawyers.

And then there is the whole question about those laws actually applying here, since this IS NOT a website hosted in the USA but in the UK, where the english copyright laws apply, and does those laws apply to me, if I'm posting from my country, namely Denmark, which have entirely different copyright laws, especially in regards to electronic material.

But of course, I agree that the ripping of somebodys livelyhood is a bad thing.

 

[Shaele]

<quote>
But of course, I agree that the ripping of somebodys livelyhood is a bad thing.
</quote>

Agreed, and this is the salient point.

Here's a thought for you Mistwell:
If there's _any_ chance that someone will use the material you post, instead of paying Monte $5, then you should refrain from posting it. The OGL-snips that were also posted were clever, and a more reasonable compromise, since anyone that was tempted by it would need to buy the PDF to get full use of the material.

From now on, instead of getting ruffled over issues of legality, ask yourself this: if I was a writer, trying to make money by selling my work, would it be fair for someone to post my writing without my permission? If there was a chance it would impede my livelihood?

You may be legally justified in competely posting everything Monte has ever written, but that's not the issue, is it?

 

[Storm Raven]

And then there is the whole question about those laws actually applying here, since this IS NOT a website hosted in the USA but in the UK, where the english copyright laws apply, and does those laws apply to me, if I'm posting from my country, namely Denmark, which have entirely different copyright laws, especially in regards to electronic material.

It is highly likely that the laws are very similar in all three countries, since the US, UK and Denmark are all signatories to the Berne Convention and have implemented it into their copyright law. For the most part, copyright protection in one Berne Convention nation is very similar to copyright protection in others.

I am a lawyer, but I don't play one on TV.

 

[Storm Raven]

That said, to those of you that continually whip out the "It's illegal to post that" "It's illegal to put that on your website" and "it's illegal to link to that", PLEASE STOP. Unless you are a lawyer, it is unlikely that you have a full enough understanding of US copyright laws (which are fairly complex) to make a claim with any confidence that something is "illegal". My post might have fallen under the fair use doctrine as a non-commercial partial-use for discussion purposes, and would therefore have been protected under the US Copyright Laws (and I believe, for example, that the web site shown in my sig line is 100% legal). Then again, my post might not have fallen under that doctrine. I'd be happy to debate it with copyright attorneys here. I'm not happy to debate it with non-lawyers.

I am a laywer, and if you were my client I would advise you that it is unlikely that the material you originally linked to would be covered by Fair Use. I won't go into the detailed reasons why, because, as you have said, Fair Use is a complicated subject, but my initial assessment based on the information I have is that the Fair Use exception would not apply to your usage.

I have not checked the link in your .sig yet, but I will give it a quick look later.

 

[FullTinCan]

Hey Everyone,

A friend mentioned Monte's sorcerer variant to me, and I am curious about it, since magic is a bit different in the campaign I DM. Can anyone give me the low-down on his sorcerer variant?
Thanks!

We have been using the alternate Sorcerer in our campaign, and find that it is ideal for our needs.

It does add the complexity of a new spell list for the Sorcerer class, which is a pain if you have mutliple sources of spells.