Price this IoP

[blackstaff67]

Our game has come to the point where Denarians are putting in appearances.  The True Believer in our group is tasked with defending  Holy Site that's a nexus of ley lines that the Denarians would like to destroy/corrupt.  Trouble is, as a group, we're not even Fully Submerged yet as characters: Wizard, Sorcerer, WCV (Despair), True Believer and a Wizard-Sniper (the latter getting his butt kicked by a BCV--moral: Don't leave the church!).
The group has nothing outside of the Trappings of Faith (holy water, etc.) to fight a Denarian should one show up and neither GM is comfortable calling in the Knights of the Cross as we feel the game should be about the PC's.

I proposed an IoP that only functions on/near the site and its ley lines that gradually loses power the further you got from it.  It's basically equivalent to a Sword of the Cross with all its powers and limitations, save that
1) Wielder loses the +1 bonus away from the sight of the site or the ley lines feeding into it.
2) Beyond X number of miles if functions as a normal sword ("X" to be determined later).  At that point the wielder is acting "off the clock" as it were.

Cost: -2 Refresh

[cold_breaker]

Sounds like a pretty decent catch to replace the normal one set on a sword of the cross. I wouldn't use a sword though - perhaps some other holy relic?

[Quantus]

Are you attached to the Sword/weapon idea?  I only ask because it makes it limited to a single character that is "Wielding" it.  If instead the IoP was some kind of Holy Relic or some such, it could provide an affect over the entire site that all the player could take advantage of.  And if we are talking something that is particularly large, maybe a statue or blessed Cross or Saint's tomb or something, it would by nature be impractical to remove from the site so you wouldnt have to worry about those limitation mechanics.

[Wordmaker]

If you want to stick with a weapon, there's always the Spear of Destiny. Make the case that Golgotha was smack dab on top of a ley line and it should do the job.

[blackstaff67]

Are you attached to the Sword/weapon idea?  I only ask because it makes it limited to a single character that is "Wielding" it.  If instead the IoP was some kind of Holy Relic or some such, it could provide an affect over the entire site that all the player could take advantage of.  And if we are talking something that is particularly large, maybe a statue or blessed Cross or Saint's tomb or something, it would by nature be impractical to remove from the site so you wouldnt have to worry about those limitation mechanics.

I think we can be flexible about the sword/weapon paradigm only because I'm not sure the TB wants to acquire an additional Aspect (as the weapon/sword concept would require).  That said, we're kinda okay as a group if the item were designed for her in mind, as her High Concept is Defender of ("insert site name here") and could easily tie into that.

My thanks for everyone's input.

[Wordmaker]

I was pretty sure you have to take a related aspect with any Item of Power, weapon or not.

[Quantus]

I was pretty sure you have to take a related aspect with any Item of Power, weapon or not.

If the character's High Aspect is a Defender of that site specifically, wouldnt that satisfy the requirement for most any IoP that was specifically bound to protecting the Site?

[Wordmaker]

Sounds like a grey area to me.

If your High Concept is Knight of the Cross, for example, that doesn't mean you're off the hook when it comes to needing the aspect for whichever of the three swords you carry, even though as far as character concepts go, the Knights are inextricably tied to their swords.

[Quantus]

Then my though would be that it depends on the stated purpose of the IoP.  If the IoP is specifically intended to defend the site, then Defender of the Site would be the be the logical aspect anyway. If on the other hand it has some other primary purpose and just happens to be useful in defending the site in this instance, it might require something else. 

[Taran]

Why not just stat out your IoP and add
+1 human form (only works within "x" miles of the site/or while on the site)

So it'd look like this:

Minoshepp Forest Sword of Defending (yay for tacky names!)
+2 (obvious)
    +1 human form - only works while in the forest (affecting)
     -1 True aim
     -2 Inhuman str
      -"X" etc...

This way, the draw-back is taken into consideration and it's defined.  Depending on how limited it is, it might be worth +2 (involuntary form)

I'm going to echo Quantus in regards to the aspect:
Every item has a purpose.  Only certain people can use IoP's and therefore, in order for the item to work for a person, they must have some aspect that reflects the items purpose.

Define the items purpose and then have the character take an aspect (or re-word an existing aspect to incorporate it.)  They can always change that aspect at a minor milestone if they don't have access to the item.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'd use the Item Limitation Power, personally. Probably at the Severe level.

I think we can be flexible about the sword/weapon paradigm only because I'm not sure the TB wants to acquire an additional Aspect (as the weapon/sword concept would require).

You need as Aspect regardless. But there's no reason that your High Concept can't be that Aspect.

Every item has a purpose.

Where did you get that idea?

Nothing in any of the books indicates that.

If your High Concept is Knight of the Cross, for example, that doesn't mean you're off the hook when it comes to needing the aspect for whichever of the three swords you carry...

I think it does, actually.

The musts of the Swords Of The Cross are pretty clear: you need a High Concept or a Template and that's it. IoPs in general just require an Aspect, which need not be a High Concept, so that's actually harsher than the normal rule.

Still no mechanical cost, but the narrative limitation is bigger.

[Wordmaker]

If you want to look at it that way, sure. But Michael, Sanya, and Shiro all have Knight of the Cross as their High Concept, and another aspect that relates to their swords. That supports the argument that they still need to take an aspect for their IoP.

It would probably make things more clear if YS gave more IoP examples than just the swords, but I'd say that the Musts for the swords are in addition to the Musts for the IoP power.

It does limit the narrative more, but IoPs aren't like other abilities. They can be loaned out, and offer a massive discount on power cost. I think they're intended to be major focal points of stories.

Of course, your High Concept could be "Bearer of the Holy Spear", and that's fine. Knights of the Cross are different, though, I think, going by what's presented in YS and OW.

[Sanctaphrax]

The musts for the Swords include the musts for a generic IoP. You can't have an appropriate High Concept or Template without a High Concept directly related to the sword.

Of course, you can and likely will have another Aspect related to the item. It's just not mandatory.

It does limit the narrative more, but IoPs aren't like other abilities.

I meant that it limits the narrative more than other IoPs.

[Wordmaker]

The musts for the Swords include the musts for a generic IoP. You can't have an appropriate High Concept or Template without a High Concept directly related to the sword.

Do you have a page reference for that? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just honestly don't think that's correct and I think the characters in OW back up my interpretation.

Plus (and I hate getting into debates on semantics, but this is the only thing I can find that might address this point) the wording on the Musts for an IoP is "An aspect directly referencing the Item of Power is required." The High Concept "Knight of the Cross" does not directly reference the sword, but "Wielder of Amoraccius" does.

I meant that it limits the narrative more than other IoPs.

Ah, well yes, absolutely. And I think they should be more limiting in that regard.

Knights of the Cross are Special with a capital S. They aren't supposed to go hunting random vampires or investigating isolated hauntings. They're meant (in the sense of "this is their purpose and duty" not "they should never do anything else") for standing against the Denarians and the other enemies of God, defending free will and upholding God's plan. It makes sense that they, as PCs, are prone to more compels to steer them in that direction than other characters, and receive the additional Fate Points as a result.

[blackstaff67]

Do you have a page reference for that? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just honestly don't think that's correct and I think the characters in OW back up my interpretation.

Plus (and I hate getting into debates on semantics, but this is the only thing I can find that might address this point) the wording on the Musts for an IoP is "An aspect directly referencing the Item of Power is required." The High Concept "Knight of the Cross" does not directly reference the sword, but "Wielder of Amoraccius" does.

Ah, well yes, absolutely. And I think they should be more limiting in that regard.

Knights of the Cross are Special with a capital S. They aren't supposed to go hunting random vampires or investigating isolated hauntings. They're meant (in the sense of "this is their purpose and duty" not "they should never do anything else") for standing against the Denarians and the other enemies of God, defending free will and upholding God's plan. It makes sense that they, as PCs, are prone to more compels to steer them in that direction than other characters, and receive the additional Fate Points as a result.

Hence the new IoP.  We felt what was needed was a way to combat the Baddies without a) bringing in the KotS or b) acquiring the High Aspect KotS, as the latter would remove local 'feel' for the game.