could a bc vamp with magic use clothing wards ?

[Drulinda]

I remember a Woj somewhere that you need a threshold to make a ward on a house without some alternative power source which is why dresden dosent have any on his office but dose that apply to the spells he uses on his duster? Im trying to figure out if a bc vamp or some other monster type with magic could pull it off.

[devonapple]

Harry's duster isn't "Warded" in the thaumaturgical sense - Wards are a specialized, powerful type of Block applied to a treshold. True, Harry's duster is described as having sigils stitched into the leather, but as far as the rules go, Harry's duster is simply a magical item with a Block/Armor effect.

A Spellcasting BCV could make enchanted items like any other spellcaster.

If you honestly want a "Ward" like described in the Thaumaturgy rules, in a wearable format, most people are going to say "no, it's against the rules," followed very distantly by "your table, your rules."

[Becq]

My opinions on my interpretation of the questions asked:

Harry's duster is warded.  Could a vampiric caster do this?  No.  And Harry can't either.  Wards are build on thresholds, which are fixed to places, and are not mobile.  Harry's dusted is "magically strengthened", rather than warded.

Harry's duster is "magically strengthened".  Could a vampiric caster do this?  Yes.

Harry's home has powerful wards protecting it.  Could Harry do the same thing to his office?  Yes.  While it is true that his office -- as a place of business -- would not have a natural threshold, wards require a threshold, not necessarily a natural threshold.  An artificial threshold can be created by something as simple as drawing a circle on the pavement in chalk, then powering it up.  That said, Harry likely finds it useful to have things like a (mostly) working telephone and lighting in his office; these would not be possible if it was warded.  (Note that Harry's ward at home is not 'up' all of the time.)

Harry's home has powerful wards protecting it.  Could a vampiric caster do the same thing to its lair?  Yes, with the same reasoning and limitations above.

[Drulinda]

Thnx

[ways and means]

I allow my players to use something called ward powder (enchanted item) which when formed in a circle creates a ward protecting those inside (this is legal by the raw as enchanted items can do thamaturgy and a circles counts as a +1 threshold. Wouldn't help with the clothes though.

[zcthu3]

Wards are a specialized, powerful type of Block applied to a treshold.

While slightly off-topic, and in no way changing the answer regarding the OP's "warding of clothing" question, I keep seeing the "fact" that wards must be tied to thresholds stated on these boards and feel a need to correct this misconception. While wards are immobile and limited in size if not tied to a threshold, by the rules they don't have to be applied to a threshold. YS277 specifically states:

Wards don't have a "scale" concern, the way that veils do, and they cannot move. They are almost always tied to a particular place's natural threshold - think of them as a super-boosted immune system - so they are limited by the size of that threshold. Without a threshold they can only be set up to cover a small area at most - usually a point of transition such as a doorway or intersection.

Emphasis mine.

Basically, ward are typically cast on thresholds, but by the RAW you can cast them on doorways to motel rooms etc., if you so desire.

[Becq]

I disagree, though I'll admit it's mostly semantics involving the difference I pointed out between "natural thresholds" and "artificial" ones.  In the examples you quoted, the caster would still need to mark out the area covered by the wards, probably by carving runes or chalking a line to denote a boundary.  When he powers this boundary he is creating a threshold (though not a "natural" one) which he then ties the ward to.  I'd reference the section on thresholds (YS230) to back my assertion; this section tells us that the term "threshold" is commonly used to refer to the supernatural protections of a home, but can also be used to describe any supernatural barrier between any two points, which is what you do when you create a ward on a doorway.

[zcthu3]

While a doorway etc is a threshold, it's not a Threshold in terms of what the word means in Dresden, being the metaphysical barrier created by humans living in a location, which is how the word is routinely used on these boards.

The point I'm making is that it is routinely on these boards that wards can only be enacted on top of a Threshold, when they can by the RAW (see my previous post which quotes the relevant section) be enacted over any small area - they could, in fact be placed on book, piece of cutlery or a car tyre, if someone wanted.

While they are usually placed on Thresholds or at "points of transition", by the RAW (see previous post) they are not limited to be placed on Thresholds or "points of transition".

[Becq]

I suppose so.  And they would defend against anything that tried to cross through the book's cover, I suppose.  And even then only until the book moved, since wards are always immobile.

In any case, you are using the geometric definition of area, while DFRPG uses a geographical one.  The basic definition is given in the second sentence of the Wards section on YS276:

"It’s intended to protect an area—usually a home or sanctum—from physical or magical intrusion."

You don't like that ambiguous bit with the word usually?  Ok, remove it, leaving the unambiguous remainder behind:

"It’s intended to protect an area from physical or magical intrusion."

You can intrude into a geographical area, you can't intrude into a car tire (except by trying to climb through it; in this case it's basically the moral equivalent of a small doorway).  Also, from the next page:

"Wards don’t have a “scale” concern, the way that veils do, and they cannot move."

Again, "they cannot move".  They are immobile.  Not sometimes or usually immobile; they cannot move period.  Immobile like a doorway is, but like a book tends not to be.

[zcthu3]

I suppose so.  And they would defend against anything that tried to cross through the book's cover, I suppose.  And even then only until the book moved, since wards are always immobile.

Agreed. Wards are immobile, so would be destroyed if you moved the warded object.

In any case, you are using the geometric definition of area, while DFRPG uses a geographical one.  The basic definition is given in the second sentence of the Wards section on YS276:

"It’s intended to protect an area—usually a home or sanctum—from physical or magical intrusion."

You don't like that ambiguous bit with the word usually?  Ok, remove it, leaving the unambiguous remainder behind:

"It’s intended to protect an area from physical or magical intrusion."

You can intrude into a geographical area, you can't intrude into a car tire (except by trying to climb through it; in this case it's basically the moral equivalent of a small doorway).  Also, from the next page:

"Wards don’t have a “scale” concern, the way that veils do, and they cannot move."
 gets
Again, "they cannot move".  They are immobile.  Not sometimes or usually immobile; they cannot move period.  Immobile like a doorway is, but like a book tends not to be.

I wasn’t deliberately using the “geometric” vs “geographic” version of area, and I have no problem with the word "usually", it’s you that seems to have the problem with it. My feeling is that it is there deliberately because while wards are typically used to protect areas, that is not their entire function.

We agree that wards cannot move, and thus if you warded an object the warding would only last while that object was motionless. However, that doesn’t preclude warding an object. I can see reasons to ward objects – you don’t want to ward the door to the hotel room, as that might accidentally harm room service, but you don’t want anyone stealing the valuable statue? Ward the statue (doesn’t have to involve permanent markings) – that way if anyone attempts to steal it, the ward activates and harms the thief, but not the person changing the sheets.

My feeling is that the words "almost always" and "usually" are are a deliberate choice - particularly as the phrasing gets used more than once in regard to warding. By excising those words to suit your argument, you are changing the entire intent of the sentence.

By a reading of the book wards are typically used to protect Thresholds, doorways and windows, but there are other uses (e.g. warding of objects), with the limitiation that whatever is warded cannot move.

You are suggesting that the word "usually" is an anomally, but reading the entire passage shows that the ambiguous phrasing is used multiple times, indicating that it is deliberate, and that you are interpreting the passage in a restrictive manner because that's how you want the rules to work. That's fine, but is not how the rules are written, which is what I was pointing out.

[Taran]

I'm with zcthu3.

I can't ward an entire Motel room, I can only ward an entry-way/intersection.  So if I ward the door, someone can safely bypass the ward by coming through the window.

If I put a ward on a place with a threshold, the ward applies to the entire structure - not just the passageways.  So even if you blow a hole in the wall, you'll still have to deal with the ward when you try to walk past the natural threshold of the house.

I'm not so sure about warding objects.  That would be a case-by-case situation.

[zenten]

I'm having trouble seeing what's unbalancing about warding non-moving objects.

[devonapple]

I'm having trouble seeing what's unbalancing about warding non-moving objects.

Warding a stationary (but potentially portable) object could be plausible, if you want to protect it from intruders and it isn't going anywhere. However, one must consider how fragile that ward is.

What if someone (assuming they are keyed to the ward and can enter/touch without harm) picks up that object and throws it at someone else?

A) If the act of moving the object breaks the ward - and picking it up didn't trigger any traps - then the ward dissipates harmlessly.
B) If the object retains its ward, even when carried, then it could be used as a de facto magical grenade against anything that would trigger the ward ordinarily.

[zenten]

B is pretty unbalancing and seems to be very much against the RAW.  I don't see what's wrong with A though.

[zcthu3]

And how are they picking it up with A?

The whole point of a "standard" ward is that it is a barrier. I would suggest that a warded object couldn't be picked up if it's warded. It's surrounded by a magical barrier that resists with as much force as you try to use to move/grab it, same as if you tried to cross a warded doorway. I would further suggest that it only applies to actually attempting to touch the object itself, although I guess you could create a protective "bubble" around an object if you added a "zone" enhancement (+2 complexity), but if someone inside the bubble moved the object, the ward would collapse.

Or that's how I've been thinking about it, it hasn't actually come up yet.