I'm finally getting on with C&G, after having waited for AnM also and then having swallowed that one first, and I really like it. A few things so far have made me wonder so even if I havent finished reading it yet I wanted to pop them here. I haven't posted them in the Errata because I wouldn't necessarily qualify them as such.
They are both addressed at p. 21 and at p. 81. At the first mentioning they seem somewhat rare, whereas in the second one they seem prolific (the grandest inns). I wonder if this is intentional or caused by the book being written by several authors (which otherwise is not a bad thing). It troubles me a bit since on the one hand I've got, probably most of us have, the traditional fantasy RPG picture of the inns and on the other I have heard both one or the other argued concerning medieval Europe. Basically I reckon both parts in C&G are somewhat fitting and that his across Europe, but I was still curious to what might be somewhat more authentic.
As a sidenote I've read elsewhere that as a consequence of the 'naturalisation' af people living within city walls for a certain amount of time, which is also mentioned in C&G, many towns and cities had rules on how long you might stay; at times limited to a few nights. And if you wanted to stay longer someone had to vouch for you, and thus be partly responsible for any misdeeds, and that this limited who and for how long a houselord or inn keeper might let stay. I know this also finds mention in other Ars books, but I wondered if anyone knew of its authencity and how widespread the tradition might have been?
The rules state that when crafting Wondrous Items you add the Effect Frequency as with a Hermetic item, yet none of the examples on p. 72 or p. 76 state the number of uses per day. Is that to be understood to be that they all are made to be used only once per day?
Workshop Extertion Results
This is just a minor one (p. 74): I know that the proportional chance/risk of getting an unwanted result is the same regardless of the order in which they are listed, but it still comes of as a little wierd that they aren't ranked. When rolling that die I know the tension of the player involved is really geared best toward a clear ranking - the higher (or lower) you roll the better - but in this case it's just a bit muddy. What would be the worst result will always be a bit different from player to player, but that the No Special Result is ranked lowest is a bit curious. This really isn't a big deal and it doesn't bother me the least, I just couldn't help noticing and wonder.