Can Items of Power give a wizard Refinement slots?

[JediDresden]

I'm not sure, I think I have seen some here on the boards that do, and I think Madge's ring in OW does.  I don't have books with me right now.  Can someone help?

[Mr. Death]

Well, there really isn't much restricting what an Item of Power can offer, so yes, I think it can offer a refinement. I have a player who just got an Item of Power that had the +1 Power/Control for fire attached to it. Or, alternatively, there's nothing stopping you from putting a Focus Item slot or two into an Item of Power.

[EdgeOfDreams]

I would say an Item of Power can offer bonuses on par with Refinement, but that they should be specific to the Item, not chosen by the wielder.  So, a "Staff of Magma" might have "Refinement: +1 Fire and Earth Power".

[Haru]

I believe there was a discussion about this a while back, and the consensus was along the lines of "specialisations and bonus elements yes, focus items and enchanted items no". The reason being that focus and enchanted items already are bound to an item, so you would benefit for no additional downside, which the item of power should represent.

[wyvern]

It's technically not illegal, but the entry for item of power suggests that it's one of the sorts of things a GM should look at very carefully before allowing - and allow on a case-by-case basis rather than a broad "yes that's always ok".

Plus, what Haru said.

[Sanctaphrax]

I believe there was a discussion about this a while back, and the consensus was along the lines of "specialisations and bonus elements yes, focus items and enchanted items no". The reason being that focus and enchanted items already are bound to an item, so you would benefit for no additional downside, which the item of power should represent.

I don't think that there's much of a consensus about this. And for what it's worth, I might recommend the exact opposite of what you just said.

Possibly relevant links:

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php?topic=21893.0

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,22358.msg977074.html#msg977074

[Katarn]

tbh, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just take the refinement, rather than the IoP.  I guess it's more interesting in terms of mechanics (the potential to lose your refinements).

If you were set on using the IoP, I see no reason it couldn't grant refinements.  I would personally lock in into a specific boosts (such as +1 fire defense), or for a very special cases perhaps something that "locks in" when a spellcaster picks up said IoP and chooses its effect (for just them).  I agree FI and EI can't do refinements.

[UmbraLux]

I'm pretty much ok with granting any power that fits thematically.  So a wand might grant a +1 to Wind control and a set of tools might grant a couple extra enchanted items.  I don't like the IoP of "do anything" though...pick something and go with it!    It's also worth noting that specialization bonuses from an item won't stack with yours (if you have any).  You'd just get the larger of the two and both would need to follow the skill ladder / pyramid.  So probably only worth it if you don't have any specializations yourself. 

[Becq]

Elaborating on wyvern's comment, I'll reference the book:

Abilities outside of the Minor Abilities, Strength, Toughness, and Speed categories must be examined closely by the GM and may be disallowed. Simply possessing the Item of Power is not enough to use the abilities. Rules must be followed, bargains must be made. Work out the particulars with the GM.

That's not a "no, you can't do that", but it's not a "sure, why not?" either.  And it's absolutely a strong invitation to provide strong limits to the use of an IoP based on a purpose that may often not align well with the wielder's current needs.  It seems fairly common when building IoPs to neglect paying attention to the second sentence onward in the quote above, or to have an IoP whose purpose is basically to help its owner do stuff -- and to do it at a discount.

[Mr. Death]

Thinking about this a bit more, I'd say that the specialization slots should be particular to the item in question--they should be part of their own pyramid stacking, not the wizard's normal stacking.

[Becq]

Thinking about this a bit more, I'd say that the specialization slots should be particular to the item in question--they should be part of their own pyramid stacking, not the wizard's normal stacking.

Or you could go a step further and require them to fit into BOTH the wizard's stacking as well as their own stacking.  That is, the item has to satisfy stacking requirements on its own, and on top of that the wizard can only use the bonuses that fit into his own personal stacking requirements.

[Orladdin]

Or you could go a step further and require them to fit into BOTH the wizard's stacking as well as their own stacking.  That is, the item has to satisfy stacking requirements on its own, and on top of that the wizard can only use the bonuses that fit into his own personal stacking requirements.

This is probably the best option.  If it gives +1 whatever and their pyramid doesn't support another +1 to whatever, they can't use that bonus until their pyramid does.  But if it also supports +1 to somethingorother and they can support that, they get one, not the other.

[Richard_Chilton]

tbh, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just take the refinement, rather than the IoP.  I guess it's more interesting in terms of mechanics (the potential to lose your refinements).

I can think of one reason - the refund for the first IoP you buy.  Carrying a staff around would be cheaper than buying the refinements the staff gives you.

I agree that the IoP should have its own pyramid.  That it couldn't be able to anticipate its wielder's needs well enough to adapt its power to the wielder's strengths.

Richard