The course is clear. Go bard, get roseglasses, go Telekinetic with forcefield, profit.

That's actually issuable / illegal.

You're not allowed to keep a trade trans skill item when you're of a class that can't learn that tradeskill.

That's the opposite of profit.

What's the old saying....
if you don't get caught it's legal!

So alchemists have to destroy their stone, and enchanters have to get rid of their crown?

If the Alchemist or Enchanter goes to, say, Warrior archetype... yes. Or put it in a shop or something if they plan to switch back.

If they're still in a class that has access to their trans tradeskill item they're fine. Losing the skill isn't the issue. Changing classes to something that cannot choose that skillset is.

No one was 'given the shaft'. Once the tradeskills were broken up, Lorecraft had next to nothing left - so they were given some things to make up for it. You still have your 10 class-specific enchantments, plus wands, crowns, magicrown, statues, paintings. And I'm pretty sure Tinkering being able to enchant figurines is a bug, so you'll have something else unique, too. You also got Hexangle and Pentangle, nice boosts to your attacks that the communes didn't get. Really, you weren't screwed at all! You were just ahead of the game.

I don't know about that. I'm not certain, but the only time I've ever seen that applied is Full plate for forging, which is an oddity of its own, because it never decays and offers amazing defenses for a weakling mage.

That said, it doesn't mean a rule won't be instituted along those lines. But I've not heard of anything like that in all my years, beyond full plate!

Once again:

http://forums.lusternia.com/index.php?show...mp;#entry204704

Policy hasn't changed since then (at least, none of you have ever said otherwise).

You did notice the source you were quoting right?

Who was, at the time, a paid member of Lusternia's staff and a primary policy enforcer.

Just because he screwed up later doesn't actually change anything in that respect, and the policy's never been rescinded.

Actually the fact he was a major player in breaking admin policy, (fired for it in fact) that discredits any points he made on policy right then and there.

It was some spat he had with Amaru and him lying about what he was doing, as I recall. At least, that's what was publicly announced.

I don't see how that invalidates policies posted to the playerbase that were never rescinded.

Calm down you two. All I see in that thread, Xenthos, is a really vague statement in a single sentence by an administrator who is no longer with us for whatever reason, and the statement is years old.

I suspect that so long as it isn't game breaking (a philosopher stone on a celestine, for instance) it's fine. If it is game breaking (full plate on a tae'dae celestine healer), it's not so fine.

If it becomes apparently game breaking, we can certainly look into setting a policy regarding it.

The statement is years old, yes, but it's just as applicable now as then. I'm not sure why you'd want to disavow it yourself just because that person ended up leaving for a completely different reason.

Tradeskills and their trans items that are limited to guilds are, well, meant to apply to just the classes they're designed for. I mean, philosopher stone to a warrior is a VERY significant health sip bonus, because warriors have more health than the archetypes with a stone. Rose-colour glasses to a Mage with forcefield. Fullplate to a Celestine.

You have a very good policy in place already to counter these sort of things; are you really sure you want to disavow it?

Well it has been disavowed in strange ways:

For example, you've always been able to keep a magi crown if you runed it making it a non-decay artifact. I think the issue is that there used to be a policy, there isn't really one anymore, and it's partially enforced depending upon who handles it on case by case scenarios.

Which is unfortunate, because this is a very clear-cut stance. It's tough to get it wrong.

We've just discussed this upstairs and this is what we've agreed:

If you have transcended a tradeskill and created a trade item, then it is permissible to continue to use it subsequently irrelevant of whether or not you are able to take up the tradeskill again because of subsequent skill or guild choices. The exception (rather than the rule) is forging.

This isn't something we particularly want to have to run around policing. It's preferable if all tradeskill artefacts have decay times and any restrictions are coded. If there is use of the trans tinkering artefact by non-tinkers and the result is game-breaking then, then the optimum fix would be coded.

If this seems arbitrary and inconsistent and anyone who has scrupulously obeyed what was thought to be the rules has suffered as a consequence, then we're sorry. This isn't something that has come up as an issue for a long while.

Sorry Xenthos!

Edit: The runing of magi crowns is a loophole we're aware of and which is to be closed.

Well, if you change policy, you don't really have to apologize.

With coded restrictions / decay time, I guess it'll all work out. But there're still going to be some major issues with things like the rose glasses and forcefield.

I'm sorry, it's late in the civilised part of the globe and I had to edit my post several times before it became coherent. We'll keep a look out - and if there is a problem, hopefully there will be a codeable solution. It's just not really practical to go sniffing around people's inventories trying to catch them out.

I don't understand why anyone would use rose glasses with forcefield. It just doesn't make any sense.

The rose glasses make abilities that COST ego cost LESS. They have nothing to do with abilities that DRAIN ego. My magicrown is exactly the same way with mana. It only reduces mana costs when I actively use mana. It doesn't reduce mana costs on something like Amissio, Lash, or Succumb.

Therefore unless Rose Glasses are strangely different than magicrowns, they shouldn't help someone with forcefield whatsoever.