items usable by others?

[Rubycon]

Hi,
I don't know if tis topic has been covered already... I was wpndering if focus items and enchanted items are usabe by others or can even be retrieved from beaten enemies...?

[Tsunami]

In general it makes little sense to use anothers focus items.
There are situations that make it useful, Like Harry using Ebenezer's staff in Changes. So if you have a good enough rationale, then i would allow one character to use anothers focus for a Fate point. But in the long run you will have to make your own.
(since Eb told Harry all about making staffs, their staffs are similar enough for harry to use Eb's. but even then his own staff would have served him better)


Enchanted Items

YS:279
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.

The Item can then be loaned out. But the Creator is still paying for it in slots.


You can also adopt anothers Enchanted items permanently. The other gives up the item, you pay slots for it, its yours.
(see for example the Wardens swords)
If you allow that to be done with items looted from enemies is totally up to you.

I would still require a good rationale behind it. The Wardens swords for example are specifically tailored for their recipients.

[Richard_Chilton]

In the Dresden Files, magic isn't the external thing that it is in many settings.  Energy for magic might come from outside but the magic itself is in the practitioner's heart and soul.

That's why Lawbreaker exists - you can't do anything with magic that you don't believe in, so if you kill with magic it's because you have murder in your heart.  (No, I don't want to reopen that discussion - just using it as an example.)
That's where the Death Curse comes from - using the magic that is you as one last "go to hell" strike.
That's why Harry doesn't even try to use other people's magic - it's not part of him but is part of it's crafter's.

When Harry finds the scorpion, does he go "Hey, a new magic item for me to play with"? No, he goes "the vibes coming off this is wrong - I better put it away".

When Harry fights warlocks he doesn't try to take their stuff.  He didn't take anything from Kravos (not even his book of shadows) because Harry didn't want any ties to the yucky magic that Kravos was practicing.


Which has me thinking of a way of handling "looted" magic items - compels.  Bits of the crafter's soul leaking in and mingling with yours.  Treat using other people's power as a weak form of sponsored magic (with a different use/compel ratio).  Sure, you can use that focus you found, but the guy who made it wanted to burn the entire world and now you're opening yourself up to being compelled to use your magic for pyromania.

Richard

[Radijs]

I don't think per sé that Harry felt the magic was wrong for him in Storm Front. But he didn't want to risk being associated with it. pspoiler]Remember that the Doom of damocles was still over him in that book.[/spoiler] He didn't want to get in to trouble with the wardens and it was black magic.

Now referring to changes where Harry borrows

(click to show/hide)

Ebenezer's

staff. he recognizes the item as familiar because his own staff was similar

(click to show/hide)

made from the same tree and under the tutelage of his master Ebenezer.

which was why he could use it.

I would suspect that another focus item that Harry wasn't familiar with wouldn't fit him so well and he wouldn't be able to use it effectively. Probably not before he had a chance to familiarize himself with how it functioned through study and practise.

[EldritchFire]

Two page discussion here:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27186.0.html

[Rubycon]

I like the fate pint idea. So, if one of the characters reetrieve an item from someone else, he could use it (for a scene?) by spending a fate point - compels inclusive...
This discussion brought me to another question: What happens with an item when the owner dies? As the rules state, an item used by others still uses the item slot of the owner. So, the item is still attuned with it's maker. In case of a stolen item, the owner could simply clear the item slot and what happens then? Would the attunement with the item be disrupted and the magic of the item destroyed?

[Tsunami]

I like the fate pint idea. So, if one of the characters reetrieve an item from someone else, he could use it (for a scene?) by spending a fate point - compels inclusive...
This discussion brought me to another question: What happens with an item when the owner dies? As the rules state, an item used by others still uses the item slot of the owner. So, the item is still attuned with it's maker. In case of a stolen item, the owner could simply clear the item slot and what happens then? Would the attunement with the item be disrupted and the magic of the item destroyed?

I guess one could call the Item slots the "source" of the item's power. So once the owner dies the slots are gone, and with them the items power-source.
In case of a player using another player's item, i would probably let the surviving player use up the remaining charges. But the item would not recharge anymore, so once the charges are used, the enchantment is gone.

I think that models a fading enchantment quite well.

The same could work for a stolen item that the owner chooses not to maintain. The magic simply fades because it is no longer fueled by the slots.

[Rubycon]

This seems to be a very pragmatic solution. No hoarding of items by the character (or anybody else).
This way, an item (focus or enchanted) simply becomes an object in the hands of those who have retrieved them - some kind of souvenir 
Then, how about "recharging" such an object? The new owner could give the object one of his slots, invest the time (like with a new item) and can use it. The GM could rule that recharging of such an ex-item would oly work if the old powers are replicated exactly, thus giving the characters something to research. And the recharged item could still hold the imprint of the old owner, thus giving GM and players lots of oppurtunities to compels and great roleplaying.

[Tsunami]

This seems to be a very pragmatic solution. No hoarding of items by the character (or anybody else).
This way, an item (focus or enchanted) simply becomes an object in the hands of those who have retrieved them - some kind of souvenir 
Then, how about "recharging" such an object? The new owner could give the object one of his slots, invest the time (like with a new item) and can use it. The GM could rule that recharging of such an ex-item would oly work if the old powers are replicated exactly, thus giving the characters something to research. And the recharged item could still hold the imprint of the old owner, thus giving GM and players lots of oppurtunities to compels and great roleplaying.

I think the fallout of something like this would be better expressed as a character aspect, than as any kind of mechanical effect on the item itself.
"My Mentor's Staff" for example.

[Rubycon]

Agrred.
But the way to such an aspect would be more or less the same. Take an item without power (object) and invest time and a slot. Everything else additional, be it an aspect or compels by the GM, ist a matter of the story...

[Tsunami]

Agrred.
But the way to such an aspect would be more or less the same. Take an item without power (object) and invest time and a slot. Everything else additional, be it an aspect or compels by the GM, ist a matter of the story...

The Way to such an Aspect would be to write it on your character sheet as one of the aspects of your character. :-)
The way to create/take over an item mid-game is to wait for a significant milestone and then reconfigure your slots.

How you describe that in terms of story is up to you.

As a general statement i would say this:

Follow the Rules when creating/calculating the item.
As long as you do that, you can explain and rationalize the item however you want. Be it a family heirloom, a scavenged Staff from some sorcerer or your very personal wand made from the tooth of that dragon you killed... If it fits your game, go for it.

[Rubycon]

I just started to read the Grave Peril case file, where Harry is giving his wristband to this "Lydia". So, it seems to be fairly easy to give some item of power to someone else to  use it for more than a scene, or is it not (I'm just at the beginning of the book). The question would be, is it still Harry's wristband (and occupies one of his item slots) or is it now hers (and occupies one of her item slots?

By the way: I'm I right that items are only usable by people that have item slots? So, a pure mortal could not use any item?

[Todjaeger]

I just started to read the Grave Peril case file, where Harry is giving his wristband to this "Lydia". So, it seems to be fairly easy to give some item of power to someone else to  use it for more than a scene, or is it not (I'm just at the beginning of the book). The question would be, is it still Harry's wristband (and occupies one of his item slots) or is it now hers (and occupies one of her item slots?

By the way: I'm I right that items are only usable by people that have item slots? So, a pure mortal could not use any item?

Second question first.  RAW doesn't specify that only people with item slots can use an item which the creator made usable by others, so it is up to a group's campaign.  Food for thought though, per canon from Storm Front, potions are usable and effective on anyone, regardless of whether they are 'vanilla' mortals or not.

The bracelet/wristband mentioned early in Grave Peril might have been some form of enchanted item, or it might have been an IoP Harry created.  Apart from providing protection vs. ghosts and/or spirits, not much is known about what it was composed of apart from some rather rare items.  Enough for Bob to nag Harry about anyway. 

-Cheers

[Masurao]

Would I be right in saying that the advantages of having item slots is that you can make Declarations about having a potion, without having to actually go through the process of making it in game? A vanilla mortal would not be able to just declare that he/she has a potion of invisibility handy, but someone with Thaumaturgy or Ritual (crafting) and an unused/empty slot could.

[Tsunami]

I just started to read the Grave Peril case file, where Harry is giving his wristband to this "Lydia". So, it seems to be fairly easy to give some item of power to someone else to  use it for more than a scene, or is it not (I'm just at the beginning of the book). The question would be, is it still Harry's wristband (and occupies one of his item slots) or is it now hers (and occupies one of her item slots?

Lydia was a minor talent with Cassandra's Tears. Rules wise she does not have Items slots.

So, the Wristband is still Harry's, and it still occupies his slots. He obviously made it with the extra slot that let's him loan it out to other people. He can loan it out and get it back again.
This loan is not restricted to one scene. Theoretically it can go on for a long, long time.

You could of course say that Lydia has her own slots, and that Harry permanently transferred the item to her, in that case there would have been no need for the item to have the extra slot, but Harry would not be able to get the item back. However, his slots would be free again.

Which leads us to the next question.

By the way: I'm I right that items are only usable by people that have item slots? So, a pure mortal could not use any item?

If an item is made with the extra slot, then anyone can use it. Even someone without slots, even a pure mortal.
Examples include Lydia, who has no slots of her own.
Thomas, who used Harry's duster and also has no slots of his own.
Buzz, from "The Warrior"

(click to show/hide)

who had a protective amulet,

and is a pure mortal.

Items made without this slot are only usable by the creator. Or their "adoptive parent".


Potions are another matter, they are usable by anyone, without need for an extra slot.