Wizard's new spells each level

[Caliban]

And what does that have to do with the fact that there have been many post wars like this on the subject?

If there is confusion on the scale like this, they FAQ or Errata to make it more clear.

Maybe that's because Skip doesn't think there is any confusion.

In my experience, it's been generally accepted that it costs nothing to scribe spells into the book for the last couple of years. The only people who have claimed otherwise in [my] recent memory are you and Hypersmurf.

Here is a link to a google cache from Eric's old site. It shows a ruling from the Sage from 2001 that confirms the "no cost to scribe" interpretation.

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cach...freely+accepts"+"blessed+book"&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

No such thing has happened.

So then its your word vs mine.

My word isn't really involved in this.

It's the author of the DMG's word, the Sage's Word, and the RPGA campaign administrators word versus yours.

What do you have that makes your interpretation more valid than theirs? That's all I'm asking.

 

[Pax]

How are people still arguing this, when the writer of the passage in question has clarified its meaning? Jimminy cricket, fellas! This isn't corporate contract law, here!

* Oni No Snippage pays a visit *

Why, when the author of the passage has told you which definition he was using, would you insist on using an alternate definition?

Daniel

For one, Monte isn't a WotC employee anymore. Ergo, no matter WHAT he says on ANY topic, it's not Official D&D™ anymore.

For two -- go open your copy ofSword and Fist. Look at the credits -- see how Monte is credited there?

Notice (if your printing is early enough) how the Halfling Outrider has no BAB column in it's level-benefits table.

Remember, if you can, how WotC said -- when, IIRC, Monte was still with them -- "oh, yeah, um ... we meant to do that, yeah, really we did!" ... only to, later, put the BAB column back IN, via the errata ... at the full fighter-class +1/level rate!!! (Specifically, the V2 errata for Sword and Fist, bottom of page 4 to top of page 5).

IOW, it is entirely possible (and IMO probable) that Monte is merely taking the "pathof least resistance" and CLAIMING, now, that his badly-worded description of the BBB was, after all, meant to be the misinterpreted, munchkinish nonsense people assert it is, today.

It's happened once with a book Monte worked on; why couldn't it have happened MORE than once?

 

[Pax]

Maybe that's because Skip doesn't think there is any confusion.

Given the fairly freqwuent furor this issue incites just HERE, then, Skip (who's not at WOTC anymore, anyway) would have to be loody well blind not to realise there is dispute over the meaning of those passages ... dispute worthyof an official, FAQ- or Errata-born clarification of the issue.

In my experience, it's been generally accepted that it costs nothing to scribe spells into the book for the last couple of years. The only people who have claimed otherwise in [my] recent memory are you and Hypersmurf.

What am I, chopped liver?

 

[Hypersmurf]

In my experience, it's been generally accepted that it costs nothing to scribe spells into the book for the last couple of years. The only people who have claimed otherwise in my recent memory are you and Hypersmurf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What am I, chopped liver?

We also have Ranes on our side, by default...

-Hyp.

 

[bret]

Andy Collins has said that the scribing rules are changing, "Much to the wizard's glee". That suggests scribing is going to be cheaper.

-Hyp.

I missed that. Where did he say it, and did he give any kind of details?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I missed that.

Don't you read the News Page?

Where did he say it, and did he give any kind of details?

WotC boards, and no, not yet

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Given the fairly freqwuent furor this issue incites just HERE, then, Skip (who's not at WOTC anymore, anyway) would have to be loody well blind not to realise there is dispute over the meaning of those passages ... dispute worthyof an official, FAQ- or Errata-born clarification of the issue.

The fact that Monte Cooke and Skip Williams are no longer with WOTC has absolutely no bearing on this.

They were both with the company in an "official" capacity at the time they made the original statements. The ruling from Skip that I linked to dates back to 2001.

They have been consistent from the very beginning on this issue, and no other official or semi-official source has contradicted them. Not one.

It won't matter soon anyway. I've seen the new writeup on the book, it's significantly different from the current one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I've seen the new writeup on the book, it's significantly different from the current one.

1. Balanced?

2. Unambiguous?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

1. Balanced?

2. Unambiguous?

-Hyp.

It's not ambiguous. I can't really say more.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I can't really say more.

You mean you'd put some silly inconsequential Non-Disclosure Agreement above making everyone here really, really happy?

-Hyp.