Always on Enchanted items

[Hogeyhead]

So I have several always on enchanted items, however I've been looking, and it seems that that rule has (possibly) been removed. I'm sure this is old hat, and has been asked before, however if you will indulge me and tell me if I am or am not allowed to have always on items I would greatly appreciate it.

[dragoonbuster]

You are not allowed to have always-on items. That was a Beta version rule that was changed before the release--you've just informed everyone here that you probably pirated the book you referenced, or someone did

I would absolutely NOT house-rule this back into the game.

[Hogeyhead]

I don't have the physical book, my friend does. However it seems the PDF he had was old or pirated, I will need to speak to him about it. In any case I always thought the inconsistency was on the side of the physical book, since it was an old copy. It seems that was not the case.

Thank you for extending the benefit of the doubt so graciously.

[dragoonbuster]

Well, in my experience the ratio of people with legit Beta test books versus people who pirated them is quite high. Sorry to offend. Welcome to the forum, and hope you enjoy your Dresden gaming!

[Taran]

You are not allowed to have always-on items. That was a Beta version rule that was changed before the release--you've just informed everyone here that you probably pirated the book you referenced, or someone did

No worries Hogeyhead, I still have a (legitimate) beta but have always been too lazy to upgrade to the updated version.

[Lavecki121]

The amount of times the Beta has caused confusion based questions is staggering.

[Lonelylurker]

Always On items are easily abuse-able, but in certain cases they're what makes the most sense(eg. Harry's armored coat).

[Lavecki121]

That's just an enchanted item used to block defend. No reason for it to have to be an always on item.

EDITED block to say defend. Forgot how much of a difference there was in those two words in this game.

[Cadd]

While Harry's coat is narratively an "always on" item, so it would make sense to make it work that way, I'm really agreeing with the final book on not allowing any items to be always on, it's just way to powerful. Throw in an extra slot for frequency, along with a specialization, and you're not really likely to run out of uses in a session; worst case there's always to "extra uses for 1 stress" rule. Looking at the books, Harry doesn't rely on the coat all the time. It usually protects him from surprise hits, and the rest he brings up a shield for.

[Hogeyhead]

Sigh. My sword for melee defense... I would need so many uses to account for one session, for some sessions.

[Taran]

put duration in an armour item, so it lasts a few rounds after it's triggered

[dragoonbuster]

That's just an enchanted item used to block defend. No reason for it to have to be an always on item.

EDITED block to say defend. Forgot how much of a difference there was in those two words in this game.

Harry's coat is equivalent to a reactive Armor:1-3 or 4 as the series goes on. It by no means replaces his defense roll (which is what a Block would do). There is no such thing as a "defense" item; you build Block items that can be used instead of a defense roll.

put duration in an armour item, so it lasts a few rounds after it's triggered

I don't allow this, personally. "Reactive" items burn up one use on a failed defense but have no duration. If you want duration on that Block/Armor, I require a full action to activate.

[Haru]

I don't allow this, personally. "Reactive" items burn up one use on a failed defense but have no duration. If you want duration on that Block/Armor, I require a full action to activate.

My thoughts exactly.

Though this whole "always on" thing, especially for armor stuff has me confused quite a bit. The game offers mundane gear with weapon and armor rating and doesn't require you to take a stunt for that. Yet something like Harry's coat, which could be seen as a fancy way of doing a kevlar vest, needs some amount of refresh.
Going by that, the only logical step for a wizard would be to wear mundane armor of some kind and some enchanted block together, for maximum protection. Yet, this would run counter what we see in the book, where Harry just relies on his coat. And why wouldn't he? It's a hell of a lot cooler for a wizard to do, yet mechanically, an armor:2 kevlar vest would be cheaper than an armor:2 enchanted coat. And it is always on.

This feels like something that needs fixing. Especially since the values for mundane armor and weapons are kind of random and don't hinge on anything. A wizard is limited by his skills. A mundane is only limited by the GM saying "no" at a more or less arbitrary point.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yet something like Harry's coat, which could be seen as a fancy way of doing a kevlar vest, needs some amount of refresh.

Not necessarily. You can use the kevlar vest rules for Harry's jacket. Wouldn't even be a houserule.

[dragoonbuster]

Not necessarily. You can use the kevlar vest rules for Harry's jacket. Wouldn't even be a houserule.

Yeah...this...



EDIT: Though, it was brought to my attention that there is a distinct advantage to being able to walk into a place in an enchanted hoodie versus a kevlar vest. I'm maybe thinking you still have to spend a single EI slot on one of these items, but that instead of traditional math you can just have an magic item that functions exactly like a mundane one.