I didn't interpret the old version to apply when re-inventing a spell from a lab text, so even if it was supposed to, it was definitely not unambiguously so.
1 Like
To me the dichotomy between Inventive Genius and Adept Laboratory Student was always pretty obvious. If one applies, the other cannot do so.
The errata just made it explicit.
1 Like
Introducing adept lab student did point towards inventive genius being written inaccurately, yes. Before that, in the corebook, inventing from a lab text is explicitly referred to as inventing from a lab text. There really wasn't a way to read that and argue that inventive genius shouldn't apply, except by way of "they wrote it wrong".
Which has now been addressed, so that's good
1 Like
But regardless of if one assumed Inventive Genius applied to reinventing spells from a lab text before or not, I'd say Inventive Genius has actually been made more powerful through the latest errata, not nerfed.
Before the bonus applied only to "Lab Totals when you invent new spells, craft magic items, and make potions".
Potions being some remain from older editions since they don't exist as a separate category in this edition.
WIth the latest errata, Inventive Genius now applies to all lab activities where you aren't using a lab text.
Including binding familiars, creating longevity rituals, opening the gift for your apprentice, extracting vis, and more - none of which was included before.
4 Likes
Wow, you're right, Erik, I didn't realize that Inventive Genius had been extended to all lab activities without lab text.
There was: pay more attention to "new." Why is the word included? Perhaps because it doesn't apply if you're inventing something that isn't new?
Yes. I'd looked at it the same way, which is why I didn't see it as nerfed in the vaguest.
Nah, doesn't work. You can't invent something that isn't new, because if it isn't, you're not inventing.
1 Like
Of course you can. If you don't know about it, it is perfectly possible to invent something that already exists.
If you are working from a lab text however, you are obviously not inventing something new, and being inventive shouldn't be much help when you are working from someone elses notes.
1 Like
Then you're arguing that Inventive Genius should never have applied with lab texts because it's all about inventing and if there is a lab text then you're saying you cannot invent it. So now you're pushing opposite to your prior stance.
Your issue seems more with the book saying "invent" with learning spells from a teacher, rather than "reinvent" or similar.
...no, I am saying that inventing spells using a lab text is described as inventing a spell. Ergo, even with a lab text you are inventing.
And because inventing means to make something new, you are making something new when you make a spell with a lab text (if you want an in-fiction argument, this would be why the spell uses your of sigil, not the sigil of the person who wrote the lab text).
You're jumping through hoops redefining "new" to make your argument work. When it comes down to it, the original writing was messy and there was no clear way to read it well. If there were, you wouldn't have to jump through hoops and redefine "new" to be something different in this context. Thus a need for an erratum.
I'd say the hoop being jumped is redefining "invent" to be both not what the word means, and not what it's used like in the source text. But go off I guess.
Either way, it doesn't matter which interpretation was correct previously, now that the text has been changed to something far less ambiguous.
1 Like
The text does also explicitly say creating a spell from a lab text is "re-inventing." Is having noted that it says both and having recognized that the writing is messy so there is no definitively clear reading such a bad thing? My whole point on this was just that we not be so dismissive of different readings when maybe others have just decided certain words are more important than others or have spotted contradictory statements. When it fundamentally comes to a judgement call like that, it's pretty rough to say that everyone on the other side must be unequivocally wrong.
Please could we get a searchable version of the grimoire? Thank you very much for the hard work that went into this, but not being able to search a PDF makes it difficult to use as resource.
3 Likes
Since Elemental Magic got a well earned buff with this errata, why didn't Secondary Insight get similar attention?
2 Likes
No one complained about it?
There was a discussion about it, but there was no consensus on how to fix it, so it didn't make the cut, same as a few other issues.
1 Like
Sorry it's been so long since I've responded about the Grand Grimoire. I haven't forgotten about it. I plan on taking another look at the document (I know I put Voice of the Leucrota in the wrong place, it's MuIm 4 not MuIg 4) and also incorporating the latest errata that I can find. After that, I will make the Word document and PDF available to those of you requesting it.
I'll also try to save the Word document as a searchable PDF. If I can't, everyone out there that has the ability should be able to take the Word document and make it into a searchable PDF (assuming formatting carries over on each person's version of Word).
4 Likes
Yes, I'll go through and do another edit, try to incorporate errata, and then provide the Word document to you. Thank you for helping me out!
2 Likes