Magical items and non-magical PCs

[Wyldfire]

This came up in a game the other night.  Can a non-spellcasting character gain a magic-item slot?  Say a Wizard creates a magical item for another character; is there some way that character can "buy" the right to own the item, or is it permanently tied to the wizard who made it?  Am I missing this in the book?  Should I home-brew a rule?

Opinions?

[MWKilduff]

The rules are pretty straight forward when it comes to this topic.  I do not necessarily agree but the mortal can not have any magic that is not paid for by another character otherwise the mortal character will lose the 2 bonus mortal refresh.

[Sanctaphrax]

Well, I created a stunt that would allow you to have enchanted items without the ability to make them. It's on the Homebrew Stunts thread. I'm not sure if it is reasonable or balanced, since nobody gave me any feedback.

[Kaldra]

i think its fine, allot of my players have made use of it just fine.

[babel2uk]

This came up in a game the other night.  Can a non-spellcasting character gain a magic-item slot?  Say a Wizard creates a magical item for another character; is there some way that character can "buy" the right to own the item, or is it permanently tied to the wizard who made it?  Am I missing this in the book?  Should I home-brew a rule?

Couldn't the non spell caster could just buy the item as an Item of Power, with the cost based on what it does?

[admiralducksauce]

Couldn't the non spell caster could just buy the item as an Item of Power, with the cost based on what it does?

This is what one of my players did.  While his concept is a pure mortal, the magic rings he has technically are an Item of Power and he loses his refresh bonus according to the rules.

[Kaldra]

hmmm i dont know if i would make my pure mortals loose refresh from pure mortal, if it works into the story or if they work with one of the other players to make it work out because honestly in the end the casters could just make the items usable by others and pass em around, all it requires is a tad more work on the casters end.

and by making them spend a point of refresh on a stunt or power however you classify it to be able to use the item they are already giving up part of themselves to use that item.

[tymire]

Should depend on if the wizard is still keeping the items listed on his refresh cost.  If he has them sure they are equivant to "potions" he passes around.  Imo if the wizard makes magical items to hand out the mortals will have to pay the refresh cost for them based on "item of power" prices, which means you are no longer a full mortal.  The Hexenwolf FBI guys are a good example... 90% sure they are not listed as pure mortals.

[the_glasglow]

Don't enchanted items technically require "topping up" by the wizard/enchanter that created them? I thought that was the reason you only get so many uses per scene, so the wizard needs to spend the slot  (and reduce the strength to allow another character to use it)

Anything enchanted enough not to require "topping up" I would class as an item of power, though I wouldn't make a mortal pay for it if they were not aware of the full abilities

One of the PCs in my last game had an aspect of "Heiroglyphic pendant" that I could compell to give the character prophetic dreams, but I didn't make the character pay for it in powers.

[Ranma1558]

I'm not too sure about the Topping off by a wizard, remember Harry's rings held back a bit of kinetic energy each time he moved his arms and once he did a half an hour of heavy bag to grab a charge back instead of just looking at it all cross eyed saying strange words. This strikes me that you can make an item that can be recharge by alt. methods, Elaine, if I'm remembering right, said one of her items could be charged from a wall outlet. Maybe you need to toss a ring in a fire for a bit so you can let a jet of flame out again, the possibilities are varied.

[Ryan_Singer]

For my games, I'd say that whoever pays the refresh for the items is the one who sets item power with Lore.

[Ryan_Singer]

For my games, I'd say that whoever pays the refresh for the items is the one who sets item power with Lore.

Of course, for Item's of Power, Lore doesn't set power, embedded abilities do.

[Ryan_Singer]

On a related note: I was talking to my GM the other day, and I expressed my displeasure that Ritualist (Crafter) didn't give you anything that you don't get from Ritualist (Anything Else), and thus shouldn't be worth the same -2 Refresh.

It was only after reading this thread tonight that I realized Ritualist (Crafter) should be a -1 refresh power, and is basically Refinement without casting. -1 refresh, and you get 2 Focus Item slots, or 4 Enchanted Item slots. When I built my artificer, I wondered who in their right mind wouldn't pay the extra 1 refresh to get to thaumaturgy with a specialty, instead of ritual. But if you're only in it for the items, it should be 2 extra refresh, and you might rather have an extra 4 focus item slots instead.

Imagine an Alchemist: 7 refresh spent on items gets you 14 focus item slots. Superb Lore.

+5 Craft Power. +5 Crafting Frequency.

8 enchanted items or potions, all at 10 shifts or power, and 6 uses per session free. Arguably, the enchanted items get additional uses for mental stress. It depends on whether such a character meets your definition of "practitioner". Your "gun" and your "armor" are both enchanted items. The rest should probably be potions.

As we know from my Artificer thread, such a character isn't as powerful or as versatile as a wizard, but he's also only spent 5 skill points. Spend the rest on becoming a face, knowing that your magic can cover for you in most combat and utility situations.

[MyNinjaH8sU]

Um, just pointing this out, as it might be relevant, but:

YS279: "The strength of an enchanted item may be reduced by one to make it useable by someone other than the caster, such as a magically armored coat that anyone can wear."

Does that solve the problem? The crafter still has to use the slot, but as expenditures go, a single enchanted item slot isn't that bad. I know it was about a non-spellcaster gaining a slot, but that seems like trying to warp the rules, and this seems to work well with them. As others have pointed out, you don't really need a wizard to charge up an item if you decide to write it that way. Or, maybe you do, but that's up to the group.

[babel2uk]

YS279: "The strength of an enchanted item may be reduced by one to make it useable by someone other than the caster, such as a magically armored coat that anyone can wear."

As I understand it it does still take up one of the caster's item slots, not taking this option just limits the use of the item to the caster alone. (Well, a staff of fire blasts could be used by someone else as a club, but not to hurl flaming death).