Comment on Enchanted items?

[Wolfwood2]

For my "former mercenary" wizard, I am going to try going a little heavier on the Enchanted Items.  Looking for some comments/suggestions/clarifications.  He will have Lore 5 and the Crafting Specialization that adds an extra use/day to every enchanted item.

(1 EI slot) Ghost Dance Bracelet - Provides an automatic 5 shift Spirit Block against an attack twice per session.  (Can I also make it Armor 2, depending on which is better?)

(1 EI slot) Hole in Time - A clockwork pocketwatch with no minute or hour hand but only a second hand that rotates by magic.  Twice per session it can rip a hole into the Nevernever for one exchange allowing a quick escape.  Technically passage into the Nevernever for non-weak areas is "5 and up", but I am starting with Lore 5, so I'm just going to ask my GM that we bend the rules a little and say it 'just works' unless the GM wants to compel some scene aspect about the barrier to the Nevernever being thicker than usual.  The PC has an Aspect, "The Nevernever is my playground" so it seems appropriate.

(1 EI slot) Luck Swallowing Camera - Basically does an Entropomancy curse on a target in plain sight as though with a Complexity 5 Thaumaturgy ritual, placing an Aspect of "Bad Luck" on the target for a scene unless they oppose with a Discipline roll.  There are probably better things to be doing on combat, but this has the benefit of being able to work out of combat on unsuspecting targets.

(1 EI slot) Some generic attack enchanted item.  Still considering.

(2 EI slots) Two potion slots.

(1 focus item) +1 Offensive Fire.

What do you think?  Different enough?

[sinker]

This is a weird minor thing but you might want to consider switching your specialization from frequency to strength. Shifts of power in an enchanted item can be reduced to give you extra uses, however extra uses can't be reduced to give you extra strength, so a strength specialization can be used either way, while a frequency specialization can only be used for frequency. Though to be technical the actual specialization can't be exchanged in that matter, but you can reduce the base strength and then add in the specialization, so in effect it's the same unless you get a ridiculously high specialization.

[InFerrumVeritas]

This is a weird minor thing but you might want to consider switching your specialization from frequency to strength. Shifts of power in an enchanted item can be reduced to give you extra uses, however extra uses can't be reduced to give you extra strength, so a strength specialization can be used either way, while a frequency specialization can only be used for frequency. Though to be technical the actual specialization can't be exchanged in that matter, but you can reduce the base strength and then add in the specialization, so in effect it's the same unless you get a ridiculously high specialization.

This.  Frequency is a good secondary specialization, but for any crafter, Strength trumps Frequency in basically every way (because it can do both).

[Becq]

Just a couple of points:

1)  The bracelet would actually give you it's block against all attacks for one exchange or until it's penetrated (or it's armor for a full exchange regardless).
2)  At the very least, the worldwalking power should probably require you to pay Fate to make up the difference between the item's strength and the local barrier rating.  Ie, if the local barrier strength was 7, the power would fail unless you were willing to toss in a Fate point to make up the extra +2.  It might even be necessary for you to have an aspect to invoke in order to spend each Fate.  (Of course, as a Wizard you'd always have at least one, but unless you had one or more others that were appropriate, it would limit the maximum barrier strength you could get through by limiting the Fate you could spend.)
3)  Keep in mind that going blind into the Nevernever is entirely likely to put you into a worse place than you began: because now you have the local denizens of the Nevernever in front of you ... and possibly the same opposition you were escaping from following you into your own gate.

[Wolfwood2]

2)  At the very least, the worldwalking power should probably require you to pay Fate to make up the difference between the item's strength and the local barrier rating.  Ie, if the local barrier strength was 7, the power would fail unless you were willing to toss in a Fate point to make up the extra +2.  It might even be necessary for you to have an aspect to invoke in order to spend each Fate.  (Of course, as a Wizard you'd always have at least one, but unless you had one or more others that were appropriate, it would limit the maximum barrier strength you could get through by limiting the Fate you could spend.)

That seems like a pain in the butt having to figure out the local barrier strength every time.  That's why I was going to propose to my GM we say it "just works".  To be clear, I was going to propose ignoring the rules on this matter.  Assuming that the rules are just a guideline.  Making an item that's slightly outside the rules.  That is to say, very deliberately not doing it like you just said even though that's RAW.

I was thinking it wouldn't be a big deal since as a Wizard he could open up passages to the Nevernever anyway.  You do have a point that there's an actual "Worldwalker" power, though, and it's probably unfair to duplicate that with a mere enchanted item.  Hmm.  Need to think on it.  Then again, Worldwalker says that if you're a wizard, you probably shouldn't be worrying about that power anyway.

3)  Keep in mind that going blind into the Nevernever is entirely likely to put you into a worse place than you began: because now you have the local denizens of the Nevernever in front of you ... and possibly the same opposition you were escaping from following you into your own gate.

This point of view gets pushed so much that it actually had a bad effect on our last Dresden Files game where all the players were terrified of the Nevernever and were never interested in going there.  I think it's because every time the topic comes up, everyone is all to eager to say how going to the Nevernever is no escape and can never lead anywhere good and won't help you in any way...  yadda-yadda.  It does get laid on a little thick!

I think going to the Nevernever needs to be made a little tempting too, so that it might sometimes seem like a good idea.  Jumping in with such heavy negativity like, "Don't expect it to do you any good!" just seems to kill interest.

[citadel97501]

I personally think that at the most the ST/GM, should decide if he wants to make a compel to the players when they go to the Nevernever, and that should just be for interesting story development. 

For instance, what happened in Changes, was a perfect example of a compel, your previous actions coming back to bite you in the ass. 

[sinker]

I was thinking it wouldn't be a big deal since as a Wizard he could open up passages to the Nevernever anyway.  You do have a point that there's an actual "Worldwalker" power, though, and it's probably unfair to duplicate that with a mere enchanted item.  Hmm.  Need to think on it.  Then again, Worldwalker says that if you're a wizard, you probably shouldn't be worrying about that power anyway.

The book does make a point of saying that many powers are also easily represented by spellcasting and worldwalker is a prime example of this. You can easily go to the Nevernever with thaumaturgy, and as such you can do it with an enchanted item. If you were actually breaking the rules I might worry about that, however you're just bending them for narrative convenience, which I see no issue with.

This point of view gets pushed so much that it actually had a bad effect on our last Dresden Files game where all the players were terrified of the Nevernever and were never interested in going there.  I think it's because every time the topic comes up, everyone is all to eager to say how going to the Nevernever is no escape and can never lead anywhere good and won't help you in any way...  yadda-yadda.  It does get laid on a little thick!

I think going to the Nevernever needs to be made a little tempting too, so that it might sometimes seem like a good idea.  Jumping in with such heavy negativity like, "Don't expect it to do you any good!" just seems to kill interest.

Agreed. If there's something nasty on the other side that's a compel, and every party member better be getting fate for it. Otherwise you're essentially causing them to fail for no reason and its really not good for the narrative or the table environment.

[@BCrosswood]

If I were the GM I would require you to tag an aspect of the location to accomplish the leap into the never never. This accomplishes 2 things. First you've justified jumping across barriers higher than 7. Second, and more importantly, you're helping to define where you end up on the other side. For instance, Tagging the aspect of flowery path would take you to a flowery path. However, as Harry found out when he crossed over from his home, not all flowery paths are nice. Ideally this will at least put you someplace safe enough to catch your breath before the GM figures out how to twist it into a dangerous situation.