Potions... items... useable by others?

[Arcteryx]

Potions... items... useable by others?

Not clear on this. Can a crafter make potions for others? Or items? Am I missing the big section in the rules that explicitly explains how this goes? i.e. Luccio is able to craft a sword for others to use. In the stories, Susan has drank one of the potions that Harry makes.

I thought I had read something about paying FATE points for sharing but it turned out that was tied to IoPs.

Thanks in advance for the clarifications folks.

[Haru]

As far as I remember, potions can be used by anyone. If you want an enchanted item to be usable by others, you have to lower its power by 1. Potions don't suffer this penalty, because they are by default only usable once.

[EldritchFire]

Potions, by their very nature, can be used by anyone. "A given potion can only be used once, period, but it doesn’t face a surcharge for being usable by someone else," YS280, right above the bullet list on the right.

As for items, "The strength of an enchanted item may be reduced by one to make it usable by someone other  than  the  caster,  such  as  a  magically armored coat that anyone can wear," YS179, second-to-last indent on the right column.

Unless designed otherwise, only the creator can use an enchanted item.

-EF

[Arcteryx]

Thanks folks, y'all the best

[EldritchFire]

Thanks folks, y'all the best

Glad to be of service!

-EF

[sinker]

Seems like there's also some allowance for people using enchanted items made by others. If I recall correctly when asked about warden's swords the response from Fred (or someone semi-official) was that the sword was the warden's item using the warden's slots, regardless of who made it. Dunno how far one could take that concept, I would think it would be irritating if a focused practitioner kept coming up with enchanted items outside of his bailiwick and he keeps saying "Oh, I know a guy, but it's still my item."

[wyvern]

I'd also allow an item that normally couldn't be used by others to get handed off for a fate point, much like loaning an item of power.

And a character who functions on enchanted items from "I know a guy..." is perfectly valid - if that's the character's concept, and it's been approved by the GM as such.  For example, this guy.

[bibliophile20]

I'd also allow an item that normally couldn't be used by others to get handed off for a fate point, much like loaning an item of power.

And a character who functions on enchanted items from "I know a guy..." is perfectly valid - if that's the character's concept, and it's been approved by the GM as such.  For example, this guy.

Then just comes the question: "Does a pure mortal with access to someone else's enchanting shop lose that bonus refresh?"  (I've got a prankster NPC in my game who would love to have access to bottled veils, for example, but if giving him regular access to that will cost him that bonus refresh, I can't do it without dropping him into negative refresh)

[devonapple]

Then just comes the question: "Does a pure mortal with access to someone else's enchanting shop lose that bonus refresh?"  (I've got a prankster NPC in my game who would love to have access to bottled veils, for example, but if giving him regular access to that will cost him that bonus refresh, I can't do it without dropping him into negative refresh)

I'm conflicted on that question.

If it is another PC giving you the potions, then they are ultimately sacrificing some of their own utility to give you that magical advantage, which means they are bearing the burden of the character existing simultaneously as a Pore Mortal and a magically-supported  character, so it's not something I would use to remove one's Pure Mortal bonus.

If this is something the character accomplishes by making Contacts or Resources checks, then the GM has the option to increase the difficulty of acquiring these potions to reflect the impact this has on the NPC providing them. And if these are ultimately just magic-themed Aspects being placed on the character using Resources/Contacts declarations, then their plot importance is not any more overpowered than other Declarations. As long as it isn't that easy to do, I would similarly not use this to remove one's Pure Mortal bonus.

[UmbraLux]

Then just comes the question: "Does a pure mortal with access to someone else's enchanting shop lose that bonus refresh?"  (I've got a prankster NPC in my game who would love to have access to bottled veils, for example, but if giving him regular access to that will cost him that bonus refresh, I can't do it without dropping him into negative refresh)

For PCs, I'd say it's fine as long as he's getting the potion from another PC.  That 'other PC' has already paid the cost.

For NPCs, do what you want.  They don't need to follow PC character rules.  That said, I wouldn't do it without a very good in-game reason for the NPC to have access to said powers / potions.  Even then I'd be wary of it.  Characters are often more memorable when they overcome weaknesses by working around them.  The 'every thief has an invisibility potion' trope gets old fast...very fast.

[bibliophile20]

For PCs, I'd say it's fine as long as he's getting the potion from another PC.  That 'other PC' has already paid the cost.

For NPCs, do what you want.  They don't need to follow PC character rules.  That said, I wouldn't do it without a very good in-game reason for the NPC to have access to said powers / potions.  Even then I'd be wary of it.  Characters are often more memorable when they overcome weaknesses by working around them.  The 'every thief has an invisibility potion' trope gets old fast...very fast.

The NPC in question is a ROTC cadet with a fondness for pranks and letting the air out of overinflated egos.  His trouble is "Conduct Unbecoming An Officer". Giving him semi-regular access to magic items would make sense (he's made friends with a bunch of the local lesser practitioners), and doing it in line with wyvern's above example (taking a point or two of "refinement" to indicate/limit how much he can have on him at any given time, and a strength of his Contacts skill) would keep things reasonable.  And, really, it would just get him in deeper trouble further in, once he starts *really* upgrading his pranking...

[UmbraLux]

The NPC in question is a ROTC cadet with a fondness for pranks and letting the air out of overinflated egos.  His trouble is "Conduct Unbecoming An Officer". Giving him semi-regular access to magic items would make sense (he's made friends with a bunch of the local lesser practitioners), and doing it in line with wyvern's above example (taking a point or two of "refinement" to indicate/limit how much he can have on him at any given time, and a strength of his Contacts skill) would keep things reasonable.  And, really, it would just get him in deeper trouble further in, once he starts *really* upgrading his pranking...

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment, mostly because I think access to supernatural items shouldn't be given lightly.

How many of those lesser practitioners are willing to give up a portion of their power?  How many would give said power to a prankster?  Do they really trust him enough for that?  Assuming they do give him one or two, would they continue to do so after figuring out how he's using the potions?

I can see a supernatural organization passing a potion around to mortal members to improve chances of accomplishing an important mission.  It's like passing out a grenade or two.  Handing those "grenades" to a clown seems a bit of a stretch.  After all, however temporary it is, they are giving a portion of their power to someone else.

[TheRealMe]

My feeling is, if a pure mortal character has regular access to supernatural powers, then he or she is not a pure mortal and should lose the extra two refresh.  But instead of going negative refresh, just drop a stunt or two.

I can see an exception being made if a PC wizard occasionally hands out potions as it is the wizard sacrificing his or her own power (as long as the wizard is part of the storyline).  But if this happens all the time, I don't know. 

[Masurao]

My feeling is, if a pure mortal character has regular access to supernatural powers, then he or she is not a pure mortal and should lose the extra two refresh.  But instead of going negative refresh, just drop a stunt or two.

I can see an exception being made if a PC wizard occasionally hands out potions as it is the wizard sacrificing his or her own power (as long as the wizard is part of the storyline).  But if this happens all the time, I don't know. 

So you would consider John Marcone not to be a Pure Mortal? Or Murphy? She's been swinging around a Sword of the Cross a couple of times now... I understand it is your feeling, but a Pure Mortal with high Resources might also be able to procure grenade launchers for his own use. Or to give them to his Wizard friend (they should work, especially if you get those big 'revolver-like' launchers .

It all depends on what flavour character you'd allow or want to play. Perhaps you could 'demand' a Pure Mortal to take a Stunt for Resources that allows him better access to mystical equipment. Or a Stunt that mirrors Refinement, but limited to enchanted items/potions. That's how I might see it work: you partially off-set the Pure Mortal's +2 Refresh, but you don't make him 'a supernatural'.

[TheRealMe]

Well, for an extra-special session, such as the attack on Chicken Pizza, I would allow Murphy to use a Sword of the Cross and maybe charge her player a Fate point for that session.  However, if Murph continues to use it in all furture sessions, then I would say that a change of her high concept is in order and yes, she would have to account for no longer being Pure Mortal. 

Frankly, I'm not sure how to handle somebody who is super rich who hires wizards and werewolves to work for him or her.  If the hirelings are all PCs, there would be no problem.