LordIX's page

Nice job bro! I'm taking notes, be sure! :)
Always a pleasure playing with you, very well deserved!

It's "transfer" of wealth because you can now allow any wizard in your party to save the money he'd have to spend on scrolls to get those spells otherwise.

Also, the cost to scribe a spell into your book from an NPC spellcaster is the cost to use his book, not the cost for him to waste his time doing it for you.

Spellbook users trade spells in their party all the time - that's part of their class feature. If you want in on the fun, take a level in the class.

I agree with both of your points, however, I do have a caveat for each!

Your point about a non-spellbook user being able to pass spells on to any spellbook user at a reduced cost is certainly a "transfer of wealth", as far as I can see it... However, I also see any spellbook user being able to pass spells on to another player (spellbook user) as a "transfer of wealth" as well... it's just a legal "tranfer". I don't perceive "tranfer of wealth" as specifically a "class feature" and should be allowed across the board to anyone who wanted to make that sacrifice, or play up a creative role... would seem to me that the "transfer" rules should apply the same either way.

I also agree with your point that in the Core Rulebook, the cost described for copying an NPC spell into your own spellbook is intended simply for the privilege of examining the spell and not the service of the lender to actually copy the spell for you. I do not, however, believe that's an explicit interpretation of the text... and without clarification from higher sources, I would allow that it could be argued as a valid point, with rules to support it, and would therefore allow it at a PFS table I was running. (even though I don't believe that was necessarily the intent).

Certainly still a grey area that probably needs some clarification...

I have the same question myself.
The description of the trait states earlier as a sort of "flavor" description: "... You have mastered the use of a cantrip" (note the use of the word "cantrip")
It then goes on to specify how the trait works: "choose a 0-level spell. You may cast that spell once per day as a spell-like ability." What type or class of spell (cantrip, orison or something else entirely) is not specified, even though "cantrip" was used earlier in the description.
Is the intent to allow ANY 0-level spell, or is this a specifically "magic" trait (as opposed to a "faith" trait), and intended to allow only arcane spells (or cantrips)?

LordIX wrote:

Still frustrated after voting just about every day and seeing the same items 9 or 10 times, and occasional new items here or there, and never seen my own submission... Makes me paranoid that maybe I missed something- that I didn't hit all the right buttons on submission and my item just never made it in there... Making me very anxious these last several hours...

Anyone else not finding their submission at all?

Well, if it helps at all:

I didn't see my item until after I was a few votes into dedicated. I saw it a second time 5 minutes later, but didn't see it a third time until well after I hit marathon. Try looking at the post-cull database list and see if someone saw your item after the "culling". It isn't 100% accurate, but might give you some peace of mind. Also, on the front of the RPGSS home page, it should still have the date/time you submitted your item.

Very much appreciated. Thank you!

Still frustrated after voting just about every day and seeing the same items 9 or 10 times, and occasional new items here or there, and never seen my own submission... Makes me paranoid that maybe I missed something- that I didn't hit all the right buttons on submission and my item just never made it in there... Making me very anxious these last several hours...
Anyone else not finding their submission at all?

Both help. Thank you!

LordIX wrote:

I understand that repeats should be possible, but should it be the standard? I'm sitting with another voter, and as we're cycling through the voting process, it seems that we're working with the same pool of about 30 different items, while a new item will show up here or there- my partner even had the same item show up again immediately after she had voted on it... Is this the norm? Feels like ridiculous odds to just be coincidental...

It could be submissions were lower this year (timing with the playtest, or over the holidays, or whatever). Also, sitting with another person and comparing, you'd get repeats quite a bit faster. If there were 500 entries, you'd average a duplicate by the 7th vote for each of you.

Of course, there can be something wrong with the voting.

I appreciate the insight and perspective. Just to clarify, however, when I say "same pool of items" I mean that she's seen the same few items herself repeatedly, and then noticed that I was getting those same items repeatedly, and vice versa.

I have been making every effort to make a choice between each of the two items that I'm shown, but there have been times that both items are just so rediculous (IMO) that I have a hard time "picking" one because I just don't feel that either deserve any recognition at all, although I have had one situation where I felt both items I was shown were fantastic!
My question is " if I were to choose the 'equal' button, do both get a vote, or do neither??"

I understand that repeats should be possible, but should it be the standard? I'm sitting with another voter, and as we're cycling through the voting process, it seems that we're working with the same pool of about 30 different items, while a new item will show up here or there- my partner even had the same item show up again immediately after she had voted on it... Is this the norm? Feels like rediculous odds to just be coincidental...