Right, now moving on to the more comprehensive post I said I'd get to.
Note: This is an off-topic rant, and I've made sure that none of my argument rests on it. If you disagree, feel absolutely free to ignore it.
How accurate do you think the NPC writeups are? It always seemed to me that the devs ran headfirst into the Elminster* problem - basically, a situation where they didn't want to make a PC feel absolutely outclassed against certain canon characters, yet also wanted to accurately portray them, and ended up making characters that outclass the PCs while still falling short of what they are supposed to be capable of. Worst of both worlds, which really isn't helped by almost every single supernatural being having a ridiculously high refresh. So, either you accept them as they are, which raises the question of how the hell they're so badass in the fiction, or you insist they're grossly understatted - which makes bestiary books like OW completely useless, causes a breakdown in communications when it comes to discussing those characters, and causes you to do more work if you want to use them.
*If you don't get it, replace Elminster with whatever supposedly high-powered canon NPC that exists in an RPG based on another media. For a whole number of reasons, this appears a near-universal problem
So, basically, a warden needs to have a decent Weapons score to use a sword effectively. Which makes sense, I concede. Doesn't change the fact it's still horribly suboptimal - for an additional three refresh, you can boost your regular spells by a significant amount, thus boosting your counterspelling, your defensive ability, your offensive ability, and possibly even more. End result - no warden player in their right mind would want to be one of those who still have a warden sword. It doesn't even have utility to a high refresh wizard, since by then their natural counterspelling abilties would be so much more effective it's just sad.
Also, regarding the specific example for Morgan, sure, with this power his counterspelling ability goes up. If those three refresh were spent on getting him a focus, his counterspelling, offensive/defensive and maneuvering would also go up. By exactly the same amount. Each.
So the only advatage this grants is that it doesn't costs mental stress. So, I ask - how likely, is it, that it will be an issue? Think about it. Wizards are made for explosive violence. If it becomes an issue that this doesn't costs mental stress, the warden has probably already lost. The one exception is when you're fighting a spellcaster, without any allies on his side whatsoever, whose evocations are at the very specific level where they're powerful yet aren't that powerful (and whose power can't be jacked up in a hurry, which is... odd.) Counterspelling takes up an action. Sure you can wear him down, if he isn't smart enough to just take consequences to ramp up the power, if he has a very specific power level, if he doesn't have allies and/or your allies are stronger/equal to his, if he doesn't get desperate and unleash a death curse, if he doesn't just say fuck it and run away, if no one interrupts you at all during this fight, if he doesn't have any combat ability whatsoever than blasting away, then yes, this power rocks. Still not worth three refresh, at least for a spellcaster.
P.S. Right - might have missed something. If this power doesn't cost an action to use it becomes significantly better than I assumed. If that's to be it's sole advantage however, along with no mental stress, I still think you're going about this the wrong way.
The item seems balanced enough. I'd probably rather have the standard version...but I'd rather have a well made defensive Item created with high Lore than a belt that gave Inhuman Speed, too. It's all in what you're looking for. 3 Refresh for an all-day-every-day free ability to destroy magic and make Weapon 5 attacks is really pretty good...though quite a bit better for non-Wizards. Hmmm.
Sanctaphrax, might I suggest that, like Sponsored Magic, there be a cost break on Might Over Magic for those with Evocation? Its utility is significantly lower if you can already counterspell. A Warden's Sword would then have to grant some other additional bonus (not sure what), but it seems a good idea for the power in and of itself.
On the off-topic note:
I mostly disagree. The Senior Council are deeply under-powered (though this is noted), and Morgan and Luccio maybe slightly so...but most of the rest are fine (well, Harry, Thomas and Murphy are clearly statted per Book 3 or so at the latest...maybe book 6 for Thomas, but they talk about that). And the issues with the real hardcore Wizards are based mostly on the fact that we've almost never seen them go all-out, at least not in Small Favor or earlier. Really, whose statting do you feel was poorly done?
Also, a cost break would be rather inefficient. Like I said, I believe the Warden Sword is best done, mechanically speaking, by having it enchance the wielder's native counterspelling ability. It would also explain why it was considered such a big deal - artifacts that reacted differently but still provided the same effect, that remains constantly useful no matter how powerful or weak the wielder is seems incredibly hard to do given what we've seen of that metaphysics behind magic.
And on that off-topic note: Almost all of them. We've seen highly badass feats pulled off by the main characters, both on-screen and off-screen, that are highly unlikely. It could certainly have happened - a young punk wizard singlehandedly keeping an entire metropolis safe through vigilantism and reputation isn't actually that far-fetched, given the constraints of the setting, but my suspension of disbelief is beginning to break. Also, a more specific example that has been naggin me awhile - Listening is statted up and paid for as an actual ability when Harry uses it what, twice throughout the entire series? Once when there wasn't really a good reason it was necessary? I would have handled it as a combination declaration and apsect invocation. Hell, simply makin Harry pay a fate point for a temporary power on each of those occasions would have been more effectoive, not to mention keeping in line with the way it's used in-series.
Oh, and Harry does what, five or six shifts evocations? That somehow glow hot as the sun, can melt steel, one-shot some creatures and terrify predators into staying away? A guy with a gun and a few stunts can do all that, too.
That's the crux of my problem with it, aye - also the reason I didn't say anything when I first saw it. For some reason I assumed it would only be taken by martial characters.
Also, a cost break would be rather inefficient.
Eh,there's precedent and it seems reasonable.
Like I said, I believe the Warden Sword is best done, mechanically speaking, by having it enchance the wielder's native counterspelling ability. It would also explain why it was considered such a big deal - artifacts that reacted differently but still provided the same effect, that remains constantly useful no matter how powerful or weak the wielder is seems incredibly hard to do given what we've seen of that metaphysics behind magic.
Not a bad idea, though I'm not sure I agree on the commentary on artifacts. The Hexenwulf belts and the Swords of the Cross both seem pretty consistent in what they do.
OT Stuff:
And on that off-topic note: Almost all of them. We've seen highly badass feats pulled off by the main characters, both on-screen and off-screen, that are highly unlikely. It could certainly have happened - a young punk wizard singlehandedly keeping an entire metropolis safe through vigilantism and reputation isn't actually that far-fetched, given the constraints of the setting, but my suspension of disbelief is beginning to break.
How so? I'm really not coming up with any incidents like this. I can explain, casually, how almost every incidentI can think of works in game mechanics. If you can't, maybe start a thread or something, it seems an interesting discussion topic, and I'm pretty sure it'd be informative.
Also, a more specific example that has been naggin me awhile - Listening is statted up and paid for as an actual ability when Harry uses it what, twice throughout the entire series? Once when there wasn't really a good reason it was necessary? I would have handled it as a combination declaration and apsect invocation. Hell, simply makin Harry pay a fate point for a temporary power on each of those occasions would have been more effectoive, not to mention keeping in line with the way it's used in-series.
I actually don't completely disagree here. Still, it's more-or-less an isolated incident. Just about everything else winds up represented pretty appropriately
Oh, and Harry does what, five or six shifts evocations? That somehow glow hot as the sun, can melt steel, one-shot some creatures and terrify predators into staying away? A guy with a gun and a few stunts can do all that, too.
More like 7. And that's as of Small Favor, so he gets better. And that's his bog-standard level, he can pull of 10-12 easily if he's willing to burn some FP and/or sponsor Debt on it (and/or take Consequences)...which is precisely what he does when he does really impressive stuff, he has enough compels to pay for it and more. And if you think 5-6 shift evocations aren't powerful in an objective sense...you aren't paying sufficient attention. That's on par with being hit by a car or ground zero of a grenade blast, never mind what 10 shift ones do.
Wizards are much scarier than gunmen when they start spending FP because they can double-up on it's bonuses by uping their attack and Weapon rating. Also, Harry has a pretty hefty Intimidate skill, and (as he discusses in Turn Coat) has accumulated a scarier rep than he really deserves, capability-wise, basically by being a PC (ie: barely surviving a lot of things, partially by luck, then getting a rep for winning them).