|
I also have a necromancer character who animates former enemies. Though I only got to use it for the first time yesterday. It was cool riding my skeletal Chimera.
From the SRD:
Components V, S, M (an onyx gem worth at least 25 gp per Hit Die of the undead)
[...]
Regardless of the type of undead you create with this spell, you can't create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. The desecrate spell doubles this limit.
Make sure he pays the 25gp for each HD animated. 28hd of animated will put him back 700gp AND require him to cast the spell in a desecrated area. Desecrate carries with it a 25gp cost for unholy water. And it assumes that he animates all the undead at the same time (which would surprise me). Eschew Material won't help him here. A fair chunk of change @ 7th level, and a limiting factor by itself.
That's 725+gp of consumables per adventure... Steep.The rule, it is my interpretation, is to allow a DM's game to flow as smoothly as possible for all. If that players' undead disrupt your game (for whatever reason), you are fully entitled to ask him to stop doing that (yes, let him whine) because it disrupts the game. Talk to the player. Most are good people who see no problem in rectifying situations.
Don't nerf him with it, using Animated Dead is a nasty but valid tactic and use of ability in the campaign. But if his turn takes hours or his mob keeps blocking and annoying the rest of the table (make you GM Sense Motive), then you are fully entitled to do so. In LG, certain druid players (oops, I meant the animal companion's cohort) were asked to limit their summons for that particular reason.
Then again on certain tables of 4, those minions are a very welcome addition. But on tables of 6...
JP
|
Well - the first question I have is cost. These 28 HD of monsters will have cost that player 700 GP by the end of the adventure. This isn't a cheap undertaking. So I hope that was taken into account and he paid for it. I assume here he is using animate dead - the spell. Appology if there is a special ability that allows the same for free.
It was stated somewhere else that the undead would disappear at the end of an adventure. This is from memory - does someone have the link to this topic. So this money would need to be spend again and again.
This leaves your problem with how to run such a table where this happens.
How does he justifies raising undead but not being evil? The spell has the evil descriptor. While I would allow a neutral character to cast that spell to get out of a very difficult situation, I would give a warning to a player who is doing raise undead for any person killed, that he risks to become evil. The issue is - that would remove him from PFS play. So it isn't anything done lightly. And without details I don't want to chime in if I would regard the way he plays as evil aligned or not. But that surely could be an issue on my table. I would chat with that player ahead of the next spell and if I regard the way he indiscriminately raises slain people as possible evil - with the consequences that would have for his character.
Another grey area is player vs player. If you have a paladin at the table - or someone following Sarenrae or similar, then raising indiscriminately undead could be a PvsP issue.
A very difficult position to be in as GM. I wouldn't want rules to ban such behavior completely - but this is a very fine line where it becomes non acceptable to me.
Thod
|
|
See above
Raising a chimera and riding it is a far cry from just indiscriminately raising everything. Also - personally for me raising intelligent beings seems more leaning towards evil as raising an animal.
The issue here is - there are no hard rules. It is a difficult area. A lot depends on circumstances - something most players here won't want to hear as this makes it difficult from one table to another.
Thod
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
No offense to anyone on here, but why is the player vs. player instigated at the point the paladin takes exception to what is occurring? Why is the player vs player not being instigated by the necromancer who is doing something specifically abhorrent to a paladin? What about a priest of Pharasma? If I were a priest of that god, animating dead in front of me would be tantamount to peeing on a Christian's cross. The way that you're portraying this, I'm free to piss away, but the moment the Christian takes exception to it is when the "pvp" rule kicks in. I find that a little stupid.
|
|
Well what constitutes PvP definitely varies from one person to another. I was told I was doing PvP once when I had a summoned creature move another PC out of the way so I could complete (what I thought at the time) was my mission.
There is room to play nice, no matter which side you come from.
Personally, I am not surprised or offended (player-wise, PC-wise is a different story) if a PC smacks or destroys one of my undead creatures. If the guy does it just to be an a-hole, that falls into another category... Not PVP, but a-hole-ism...
Paladins are always a sore spot... But until I meet one...
JP
|
|
Michael
I wasn't saying that casting the spells would make the person evil - I said that depending on circumstances it might be seen as an evil act.
Kill a slave in front of the andoran paladin and raise him to add to your Amy - even if the slave was working for the enemy - could be a step to far.
The way it was written it more or less described an indiscriminate raising of an army. This to me is worrisome. But I haven't been at the table - so I can't tell.
Thod
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
PvP is meant to be a rule adhered to by players. Remove the players (and the open play) from the table, and the characters would simply go at it. The fictional Pathfinder Society can have whatever lax regulations it wants, but our society here on Planet Earth insists that we all get along at the role playing table. If that's the case, then why is a necromancer doing necromancer things not considered by us to be actively baiting a player who, according to the Core Rule Book, must uphold a Code of Conduct as laid out in the Paladin character class? If that paladin adventures with someone who willingly commits evil acts, she either has to leave the table (there's a cool rules debate in the making) or has to pay for an Atonement (500gp or 2 PA, assuming she doesn't lose her powers).
If I am the paladin and you are the necromancer, your acts are either forcing me to not play at that game or are costing me money/prestige award. How is that act not a player vs player action?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I paid 425 gp to animated the chimera and the 4 drow thugs my party had nicely sliced for me (one of those drow was swiftly sliced in two by another player).
:(
@Drogon -> Forcing a player not to play their character (one way of the other) is covered by the "Do not bully others" rule. There is room on both sides for characters to spew hatred and dislike at each other, while still engaging in a fun. I would expect my necromancer to get an earful from the paladin for doing bad things.
Would I expect the paladin to destroy everything I do all the time? No.
Would I expect a paladin to go around and destroy every fiendish creature I summoned? No.
If your Paladin requires a table of only good characters who submit to his moral code, to his ideals, to his religion, constitutes IMO what the Campaign Guide call "Extreme Dysfunction". Use that for role-play and have fun with it. The Society is a gathering of all sorts of adventurers...
If I am the paladin and you are the necromancer, your acts are either forcing me to not play at that game or are costing me money/prestige award. How is that act not a player vs player action?
Take that the other way... I am forced not to play because your paladin is there... There MUST be a willingness on BOTH sides to compromise. Maybe the necromancer tones it down or does other things during the game? Maybe the paladin keeps lecturing the necro about the wrongs of his ways.
Turning those situation into RP tools give the game SO MUCH.
JP
|
OK, sorry if this throws another monkey wrench in, but he keeps hitting me with it...
What about the rule of only ONE combat 'pet'?
Summoners can't summon more than one thing at a time + 1 from a spell. Druids have been weakened to the same, as have Rangers. I have a character that rides a dog and summons creatrues. My dog cannot attack.
So if you have a necromancer summoning more than one creature - the others are just shuffling along behind carrying gear and generally hanging out. When the ONE combat 'pet' dies, he has another in the chamber sure, but only one gets to fight.
As a judge, that's how I'd rule it. As for how it plays out at the table, that's up to the table. Personally I DO view creating undead as evil the way the rules are laid out Josh's comment not-with-standing. Unfortunately too....
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
@ JP - You'll never catch me playing a paladin at a PFS table for this very reason. I don't even want to have to think about dealing with all the things that come up at these tables from a "moral" standpoint. Seeing as this is a GM discussion, however, I want to know how to deal with it when it comes up. Because it *will* come up, eventually.
Also, for what it's worth, I've shared a table with you many times (Drogon=Jeff), and will never have an issue calling you out on something right then and there (and have). I respect how you think, and how you play your characters, and know that you'll be aware of where my actions are coming from, and how far each of us can/will go. My Andoran fights with Dave's Chelaxian every time we sit at a table together. It obviously never goes beyond squabbling, though. I'd view you the same way.
I'm worried about people who aren't you.
@ Euan - I thought that "rule" covered animal companions only. I wasn't aware of any rule that said you couldn't have more than one summoning spell active. I'd like to see your reference.
|
|
Drogon-
In the general case, in the Guide to Pathfinder Society for Ganized Play page 19. The section is titled animals and companions. Sure it spends its time on animals largely, but I view it as a wider rule particularly if you focus on the first paragraph:
"Animals and companions are a sticky subject in organized play and can be one of the most annoying ways to min-max the rules and slow down play. Thus, the rules for animals and companions need a few clarifications to ensure they do not impede play."
Then in every case I can think of, the specific rules are limited to one companion when and where possible.
In the case of a summoner, check page 56 of the APG in the section on Summon Monster I (Sp) "Drawing upon this ability uses up the same power as the summoner uses to call his eidolon. As a result, he can only use this ability when his eidolon is not summoned." and "A summoner cannot have more than one summon monster or gate spell active in this way at one time."
In my opinion, allowing multiple undead creation for the purpose of gathering a small corps of troops (OK that was bad) is the same thing. Great idea on the part of the player, but the Judge must mitigate it to one active combatant I think.
|
|
I hope I got the right link - postings ten and eleven.
1) Casting Animate dead is not necessarily evil
2) destroying undead of a fellow player is not PvP
3) Josh leaves it up to the GM to determine under which circumstances it is evil
That is my interpretation.
Doesn't say anything about numbers. But you better check with a GM if you want to animate a lot undead as a player to avoid issues at the table.
Thod
Edit seems something wrong with the link. I will try to correct it later
|
There is no rule prohibiting multiple castings of summon this or that nor is there against using summon to bring 1d3 or 1d4+1 of the lower group.
I think the best way to deal with the undead horde, if it is disrupting, is to bring it to the players attention tactfully. he may not be aware of it.
As for codes and such, I watch whats at the table and compromise. Sometimes its not even character problems as much as it is players not liking something too. Some people do not like undead in their party.
I try to compromise.
It is worth being noted that Josh has stated that the Pathfinder Society is neither Lawful nor distinctly good. That alone means mr pally has some rough roads ahead of him if wants to hang with open glyph. Same for the player wanting to play one.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Euan, there's a general game rule that discourages the Summoner class from using her Summon Monster N SLA while her Eidolon is active. That's a very specific case.
A Summoner can have her Eidolon out and still cast summon monster n spells. Any character can cast summon monster n multiple times, and have all the forces in play on the tabletop simultaneously.
Let's say my 9th-Level Summoner is surrounded by trolls and casts summon monster 5, asking for for 1d3 hell hounds. Would you suggest that only one of those summoned monsters could attack?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Hmm. I think it's pretty clearly directed at animal companions, Euan. PFS has no real repercussions for your companion dying during a scenario (you just show up with a new one the next time you play). So, the idea of a druid/ranger/summoner with the Boon Companion feat could be pretty powerful. They're trying to curtail that with the rule in the guide.
The rule in the APG for summoners was meant specifically for the summoner. There were concerns raised in the playtest that the summoner would essentially become a solo character if given carte blanche on his abilities. I.E., why have an adventuring party when the summoner can simply go it alone, and not really risk himself in the process? The APG rule addresses that.
In terms of our discussion, if a wizard wants to blow all his spells on summons and blows them all in one encounter, then so be it. He'll be next to useless (and bored) for the remainder of the game. It's a self-mitigating situation. Likewise on the necromancer.
Except that the necromancer's "pets" don't have a rounds-per-level restriction, I guess. I can see that playing into the "companion" rule.
Thoughts?
|
|
Clarification - never meant to imply you couldn't get them from spells - in fact I noted it, but said '1' when I meant to say more. :D
The intention though I think is clear. We can rules-lawyer all day, but the intent is to limit the number/type of critters a given player has at the table. It slows things down and makes the other players wait around while you do your thing - no matter how good you are.
And I certainly wouldn't disallow a single undead from doing his thing or a d3 or whatever Hell Hound set. However those Hell Hounds are either coming in for a fairly short time (a few rounds) or a few minutes if you're a Summoner - and then the limitations kick in (one 'Sp' casting at a time).
Again, that's how I'd rule it as a judge. That's our job, avoid the rules-lawyers and focus on the intent of the law.
Naturally your view will differ - you aren't in my head. I know all those voices...
EDIT: Oh, and yes Drogon, the duration is what moves it from a 'simple spell' to a companion. It's the companion term that has me looking for the spirit of the thing.
|
|
I am cool with limitations on undead. However, I would also at that point want for the undead creature in question to be added to the players chronicle sheet under items gained, and allowed for the next game.
In my opinion, if one places the limitations of the special friends rule, the benefits should come too. Especially since one pays for that friend.
Basically, I think they should get to keep said undead friend if it gets restricted to one. Additional ones can be made to follow in the background but they go away at the end of the scenario.
I.e. Cool Chimera Zombie is treated as a companion, but he gets to come along next time too.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Am I seeing the right of it? If so...I am never playing a Paladin or a moralistic Lawful Good Character in PFS.
Yep. That's what I said above, essentially. Sadly, the PFS Guide says pretty specifically, "If you want to play a Good Guy, you'll have issues." I.E. don't bother. Kind of sad.
|
|
Jerric
Yes - the important bit is - we should all just get along with each other. This means that both as paladin or necromancer you might have to compromise.
Roleplay is no excuse to be a jerk towards others.
But I have played with a paladin at least half the games I played and the only problem was when one character thought she had to cut parts of the beard from a just rescued dwarves prisoner as part of her mission.
The whole party - including GM were backing up the paladin preventing that character fulfilling her act.
I should add - the paladin later helped her to fulfill the mission in a less controversial way,
To make it worse - the player herself was a dwarf and should have known better that
A) dwarfs are not stealthy and she wouldn't manage without being noticed
B) cutting the beard of a dwarf is just a no-no
Thod
|
|
Not sure what's wrong with the link.
Here is the important part
So: no, you can't summon skeletons and keep them from one scenario to the next. Yes, you can use animate dead so long as your alignment and deity are okay with that. Yes, your fellow PCs might destroy them. No, you can't really do anything about that.
The bit that says - your fellow PCs might destroy them and No, you can't really do anything about that for me means that this wouldn't be PvP - othervice it the players shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Thod
It is working this time - and it also answers the question of samerandomhero - no - you can't keep them from one scenario to the next.
|
Gotta agree with most of what's been posted so far - juggling multiple ethos within the party can end up making folks walk a fine line.
Personally, I have a great deal of fun playing my paladin of Abadar. It puts him in the position of treading his own fine line between adhering to the legalese of the ultimate moneylenders while finding ways to serve the greater good. He works well with others, so long as they're willing to avoid pushing his hot buttons & he does what he can to offer them the same consideration.
That being said though, I'm pretty sure that he's be first in line to disrupt certain spells (Animate Dead is high on that list) & dismember the undead that resulted from those spells he failed to disrupt. In his words "That's just wrong." But that's just how he rolls. My Chelaxian sorcerer would be just fine with that kind of situation (though she certainly wouldn't let them touch any of her things - eewww!)
Joe
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So basiclly what I am understanding from the rest of the debate is that a person who comes to a Pathfinder Society Table, who want to experience a game world that is rich with history, and color. And options to play a character that has a high moralistic view point (i.e. is a Paladin of Sarenrae, or a Cleric of Pharasma) and that person wishes to Role-Play that character is then put into a situation by another player who has slaves/raises the dead/commits an act that in fact violates his chosen code of ethics that players' two choices are in a very watered down nut shell "put up or shut up" or "GTFO" because the "Pathfinder Society" doesn't want them (Not the Organized Play Group, the actual Society whom the Characters are all a part of).
So the Player has to put on a big filter, and ultimately can't play his character the way he intends to.
Well, Jerric, that's sort of a loaded question.
The in-world Pathfinder Society is part of a world with a rich history. In particular, it's the amoral part of that world. If "high moralistic view point" means that you hold not only yourself but other companions as well, to strict ethics, you may be on the road to disappointment when your colleagues don't comply.
You could make the same case with any adventurer who places certain demands on her colleagues, or who carries his own agenda with him on missions. A Chelaxian who demands deference from halflings, a cleric of Callistra who requires her allies to have congress with her in order to receive healing, a follower of Norgorber who habitually leaves no witnesses to his Pathfinder missions ... all of these characters are rich with history and color. All of them will run afoul of the dictates of the Decembrivate.
I think it's cool that you want to play a character with a strict moral code. But is it possible that such a code applies only to the man himself?
Bear in mind that,
I don't imagine there are a lot of paladins accepting assignments under those circumstances.
|
|
So the Player has to put on a big filter, and ultimately can't play his character the way he intends to.
Well It depends HOW you want to play you character. In general characters who are unable to compromise in any situation (the uber-rigid paladin) are not great concepts for PFS. If you cannot adventure with people of different morals, then PFS may not be a perfect fit for you.
The next character I have is a paladin (of Sarenrae), and I fully expect to give parsimonious speeches to my fellow PCs.
By all means, play paladins in PFS. Playing someone like that in an ambivalent world is EXTREMELY rewarding from a RP perspective. Anguishing over decisions you KNOW are not black and white... That's why I love the class! Just don't make your character so inflexible that he/she can't play well with others.
Use that for Role-play. Yes, grumble, whine, b~+&!, jest with the rest of the table. That is what makes the PFS Community so rich and fun to play with.
JP
|
|
JP, when you start that character please let me know so I can sit at that table. After this long with you, I can't imagine what that will be like, and will have to see it for myself!
Sahba al-Zawree is the sister of Naadhira and Katharan... Her sisters sold her mother into slavery and now toils under foreign masters to free her mother... ;)
JP
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I currently play a 6th level Cleric (Necromancer) of Ydersius. I have sat down at the table with a Paladin, and resolved the issue this way:
Paladin: "I cannot abide with these undead abominations in my presence. I am going to kill them." (or words to that effect)
Cleric: "Ah, Paladin. I see that you carry the symbol of Iomadae upon your chest. That symbol is an affront to me, and I too feel that I should not have to abide by its presence. Shall I then sunder it to remove the offense? But that symbol is your property, and for me to destroy it would be an unlawful act, and even more, an affront to the camaraderie that we Pathfinders should hold for each other, no matter our personal religious beliefs."
Paladin: "Unlawful...hm." (skeptically)
Cleric: "These creatures are the tools of my trade. They will help to see us safely through what lies ahead. I will offer you this: endure their presence until our goal is complete. At which time, I will gladly allow you to destroy that which you view so horrid. The choice is yours - unlawfully destroy my property, or respect the law and my property and in the end I will grant you the pleasure of destroying them with my blessing. Hopefully some time before the stench becomes too unbearable."
(Rolls Diplomacy d20+15) [Not as "mind control" on fellow PC, but more to allow the PC the role play that the cleric made a convincing case.]
Paladin: "On your word?"
Cleric: "I give you my word. Come, let us slay our enemies together."
yadda yadda yadda.
|
|
I currently play a 6th level Cleric (Necromancer) of Ydersius. I have sat down at the table with a Paladin, and resolved the issue this way:
[SNIP]
That is EXACTLY what I would expect to see and do. It promotes role-play and adds to the party dynamic. I fully expect those two to be constantly eying each other to make sure they don't break that deal...
Very nicely done.
JP
|
I played my cleric of Sarenrae with JP's oracle of Rovagug(Moriarty=Kris). We did quite a bit of bickering but otherwise got along okay. Thankfully Sarenrae is a goddess of patience and compassion and her description doesn't specifically state that she has a thing against undead (like many other sun gods do) so my cleric was able to tolerate the undead minions with minimal fuss, so long as they were being put to good use. So the oracle and I would never be great friends but we could put our differences aside long enough to get a mission done.
However, I didn't go out of my way to exclude the undead minion from my bursts to harm undead when we faced some undead enemies and JP was okay with that. If I had known that the minion was completing part of my faction mission when I blew it up, I probably would have excluded it. In the end, that one minion was the only one of JP's raised creatures I destroyed.
It does sadden me that PFS gives rise to characters that most home groups would never tolerate. I seriously doubt a homebrew game of good characters would tolerate the presence of an oracle of Rovagug (there would be exceptions, of course). But in PFS you pretty much have no choice but to put up with anybody's wacky, antagonistic character because you're forbidden to do anything about it. If the above situation had been a homebrew game then the cleric of Sarenrae would have been the least of the oracle's problems. The fighter who hates undead enough to carry a undead bane shovel would probably have killed the minion the instant it was raised if the druid (who hates unnatural things) didn't get to it first.
|
|
That is EXACTLY what I would expect to see and do. It promotes role-play and adds to the party dynamic. I fully expect those two to be constantly eying each other to make sure they don't break that deal...
Very nicely done.
JP
Oh, you should have seen Brother Elias and the cleric of Sarenrae. He was so logical in his arguments that the cleric of Sarenrae's player told me he felt like his character should get an atonement because animating undead minions made so much sense now after hearing it explained and seeing how effective they were.
It was great.
After every encounter, I got comments like, "I cannot wait to see that abomination destroyed . . . but I'm very glad it was here . . . "
|
|
In the beastiary 4, it says I can raise beheaded with animate dead, and if I follow that with a fly or air walk spell I can raise swarm beheaded. I have spent quite a bit of time on these labrynthine forums, but haven't found anything either way if this is legal in PFS.
Apparently you can animate long dead threads as well.
I see nothing in the Additional Resources that lets you create a Beheaded from Bestiary 4
|
|
In the beastiary 4, it says I can raise beheaded with animate dead, and if I follow that with a fly or air walk spell I can raise swarm beheaded. I have spent quite a bit of time on these labrynthine forums, but haven't found anything either way if this is legal in PFS.Apparently you can animate long dead threads as well.
I see nothing in the Additional Resources that lets you create a Beheaded from Bestiary 4
Okay then, what if I kill and raise a rat swarm? The skeleton template says it keeps its subtype (swarm) which gives it the "swarm traits" defensive ability and the "distraction" special attack. then the template says it loses defensive abilities and special attacks, but the subtype gives them right back? Are they still a swarm at that point? I'm trying to use a combo of spells and items to make my heal-bot viable in combat and therefore interesting to play in PFS. I have the anniversary edition of RotRL for legal access to the 1st lvl spell Blood Money, and a Neutral 5/1/1 cleric/fighter/sorc w/ the magical knack trait for 7th caster lvl or 28HD of controlable undead.
Currently it looks like this: the night before the scenario Pious Pillsbury casts blood money/desecrate in his chambers that have convenient sewer access. He covers the floor in lamp oil and plays his "Pipes of the Sewers". When the rat swarms come in, he lights the oil killing them. then he casts blood money/Animate Dead and raises the swarms within his desecrated area. He casts lesser restoration to remove his strength damage and repeats until he has his max HD of empowered rat swarms and files them into his "handy haversack"/"bag of holding". In combat he simply commands them out of the bag to deal massive swarm damage to whatever is in his way. Any holes in this theory?
|
|
Lets see:
A swarm isn't a single creature, its hundreds of them.
Lightning lamp oil doesn't instantly kill a swarm, it does it a small amount of fire damage and then they eat you. You gain additional demerits for setting the Grand Lodge on fire.
Animating a bunch of dead rats will give you a lot of undead rats, not an undead rat swarm.
Swarms which are reduced to 0HP break up and disperse.
There is no such time as "the night before the scenario", if you want to do this you need to do it after the briefing/introduction.If you try and use Blood Money at my table I expect to see a watermarked copy of the Rise Anniversary edition.
Okay, let's break this down:
Animate Dead states that it animates "Corpses" plural into skeletons or zombies, not just a single corpse, the only criteria being that the bodies be mostly intact and a single casting can only raise 2X CL HD of undead (4X in area of desecrate).
A swarm takes up 4 squares minimum, A square of lamp oil burns anything that enters it for up to 2 rounds of 1d3 fire dmg (this counts as AoE). So a swarm takes 4d3 X 1.5 Fire dmg per round of contact. Rat swarms only have 16 HP. If they move toward me to attack, they enter more flaming squares taking dmg faster, the same if they try to run away. My room is stone, therefore not being set on fire in the process.
The skeleton template states that creatures gaining the template keep their subtypes. If I was just killing a bunch of rats, they wouldn't start with the Swarm subtype. But since I'm killing Beastiary pg 232 Rat Swarms they do have a subtype, and therefore keep it when animated, don't they? Or are you saying that they cease being a swarm when reduced to 0HP and therefore can't be raised as one? Seem fairly RAI instead of RAW as all the rats are dead and therefore unable to disperse. (This whole idea was conceived with the swarm beheaded in mind)
Many scenario intros say something along the lines of "you get a summons to meet the VL/VC the next morning, etc..." I just stated it this way save in game time.
I play almost exclusively with the VC/VLs of my area, who all have all the books, and yes I have a real copy of the book as well.