[skalchemist]

I feel certain I have seen this answered someplace, but the search tool is just giving me piles of 5E and older stuff, so I can't locate it.  So I will ask.

When something says it reduces an Edge cost (for example, many Mentor Spirits), how exactly is this reduction applied when you are using more than one "instance" of the same boost?  The errata states that the cost can never go below one.  So, lets say I spend Edge to 3 of my own dice on a roll to summon a spirit of the air, and I have the Thunderbird mentor (which reduces edge spends on summoning them by 1).  How much does this cost me:
* 3.  Each boost cannot be reduced below 1.
* 2. Total spend is reduced by 1.

Now lets say I use the 2 Edge boost to add +1 to 3 dice.  How much does that cost me:
* 5. Total spend is reduced by 1.
* 3.  Each instances has cost reduced by 1.

Again, sorry, I feel certain this has been discussed by I cannot find the answer.

[Michael Chandra]

Opinions and interpretations vary. I don't know which it will be, I personally lean towards total expenditure being discounted to prevent it from being too OP while at the same time making 1-Edge expenses (rerolls!) actually get a discount this way, but we're still awaiting clarification.

[skalchemist]

It occurs to me the easiest solution to this issue would simply be to reword any effect that says "Edge Boosts cost 1 less" to "you gain 1 Edge on".   This assumes that such effects break the "cap" on Edge earned for the round, which is in itself a controversial subject, but at least then there would only be one variety of controversial wording, not two.

On the other hand, maybe the designers really did intend Mentor Spirits to be that powerful (because the "cost 1 less wording seems to only appear in the Mentor Spirit section, unless it is worded slightly differently elsewhere and not showing up in my "find" search in the PDF).

[Michael Chandra]

The downsides of that change would be that indeed you'd face the limit of Edge gain, plus it'd mean free Edge which the current implementation explicitly doesn't want. I'd just make it either 'Edge Expenditures', or 'Edge Boost within an Edge Expenditure'.

[skalchemist]

The downsides of that change would be that indeed you'd face the limit of Edge gain, plus it'd mean free Edge which the current implementation explicitly doesn't want. I'd just make it either 'Edge Expenditures', or 'Edge Boost within an Edge Expenditure'.

It took me a second to see the difference, but now I see it.  If the person has zero edge, my suggested change would give them some to spend.  That is a big difference, I withdraw the suggestion.

[Xenon]

There is a cap on how much edge you are allowed to earn during a combat turn.

Gaining a point of edge count towards the limit of edge you can gain this turn.
Reducing edge cost does not count towards the limit of edge you can gain this turn.