Powers = Tools ?

[Richard_Chilton]

It's my most charitable interpretation of how that passed printing.

No one was being lazy.

The Sword was legal under a previous version of the rules.  When those changed they tried to fit the sword into the new 'enchanted items' rules and couldn't.  When face between working within the mechanics or modeling the world, they took the obvious choice and went with the latter.

Wow if we assumed the purpose thing was worth a rebate (a disadvantage which isn't all that disadvantageous for the sort of character that would own such a weapon) and you applied it to other IoP that could be quite broken especially the +3 (+5 total rebate more than the difference in refresh between the weakest and the strongest template). I like that idea a lot

In this case the purpose prevents it from being used. Glancing at the genetic IoP write up, I don't see "purpose" as one of the musts.  Instead it talks about:
Simply possessing the Item of Power is not enough to use the abilities. Rules must be followed, bargains must be made.

It doesn't say that you can't assign a positive refresh to represent a bargain that dramatically limits who can and cannot use it...

But there's another way of looking at it.  The Swords are linked to the Champions of God template.  Just add that templates Musts as "Musts to use ACaEBG", which adds another -5 to the cost and keeps them in the hands of those who serve a divine power and goes with the "Rules must be followed, bargains must be made" bit.

Richard

[atavistic]

Warden's swords are really powerful, they're 7 strength of enchantment (+6 with one purchase of '2 additional uses')  and they're listed as costing 2 slots if you're not Luccio.  But you can't just announce "I have one cause I found it", because they arn't so much 'given' to just wardens as they are 'made for' specific wardens.  Both by RAW and in canon only the person from whom it was forged can wield it.  By RAW an enchanted item cannot be loaned to another (except potions) without spending one strength on that feature (which this item hasn't had). In canon the non-transitory ownership of the swords is stated and demonstrated (Luccio after body swap uses it as proof of identity to Morgan).

If you feel it is a broken rule in the book, I would like to point out that it is implied that all warden swords are like this and that any warden my get one for two item slots, that is never explicitly stated.  The "Example enchanted item" warden sword is a 2 slot legendary lore item, while Harry's force ring is a two slot good lore item.  No one assumes that a character may have 'Harry's force ring' at 2 slots at good lore just because they pick it, theirs would be a force ring like Harry's which would be at their lore rating.  By the same virtue, the slight ambiguity of the RAW can let a GM say that your warden issue enchanted sword is likewise not a "Warden sword" but rather similar but at the character's lore ratings.

[ways and means]

It doesn't say that you can't assign a positive refresh to represent a bargain that dramatically limits who can and cannot use it...

But you see the sort of person who would have the sword would also be the sort of person who could use it, so the refresh rebate would give a massive bonus merely for playing in character.

[devonapple]

But you see the sort of person who would have the sword would also be the sort of person who could use it, so the refresh rebate would give a massive bonus merely for playing in character.

Conversely, I would like to see a massive penalty for a character who wanted this type of item/power without the same or equivalent moral/ethical restrictions on its use.

[Mr. Death]

It's my most charitable interpretation of how that passed printing.

The sidebar isn't even helpful. "Comes with job responsibilities" except it doesn't, no Must: Aspect or note that only Wardens can have them. They're limited in supply and only get GIVEN to Wardens. Great. But Wardens die, lose things, offer their loved ones some tangible form of protection...there's another bit of commentary I really wish had a rule attached.

I think, and I know this might be a long shot, that the writers figured the players and GMs could look at something called the Warden Sword, the description about how they're in short supply and made for the Wardens, by a powerful Warden, and conclude that you'd have to be a Warden to use one.

Also, as atavistic pointed out, you don't get to use a Warden Sword just by finding one.

"I'm part of an ancient order of riflemages who get AK-47s that make Weapon:12 attacks against any three zones of my choosing."

...

By RAW it's there, yes. Can't fight city hall. Warden Swords for every PC with Channeling or better. Just note that you found one or killed a Warden or made out with a Warden or whatever.

Also, can we please avoid this needless, ridiculous hyperbole and at least take it as a given that we're intelligent enough that we wouldn't allow something so utterly broken and, again, ridiculous?

[toturi]

Also, can we please avoid this needless, ridiculous hyperbole and at least take it as a given that we're intelligent enough that we wouldn't allow something so utterly broken and, again, ridiculous?

Can we not? I'd allow it.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'm looking at the stated mechanics behind the power.

That isn't mechanics, it's fluff. There are no rules associated with it.

Speaking of the point cost, how many positive refresh is Divine Purpose worth?

0. It's just a guide to compels. Compels are not bad.

It is what it is. It's in the book, it's RAW. You don't have to like it, but if the RAW drum gets beat, it gets beat for those, too.

I know.

See, I don't particularly like the Warden Sword. But I understand the reason for the way it was made, I think. (And no, it's not overpowered to balance out the job requirements. Harry has those with no Sword.)

Let me quote myself ranting about narrative mechanics:

If you assign a mechanical value to a narrative decision, then everyone ought to make that decision. So you don't do that, ever, unless you're trying to force people in a certain direction for some reason.

The Warden Sword is probably the way it is in order to push people in the direction of being a sword-swinging Warden. It kind of has to be overpowered to do so, because taking Weapons on a character with Evocation is not a great idea.

If you take it as a precedent, then the whole thing collapses. Which is part of why I dislike the thing.

[Becq]

Mmmm, pie.  Tasty, tasty, pie...

[Sanctaphrax]

Huh?

[Becq]

I like pie.  I just thought I'd remind everyone.

[Tedronai]

Pie's pretty good, but I prefer cheesecake.

[Becq]

What?  How can you possibly support cheesecake!  It's not RAW -- er, nemmind.

[Richard_Chilton]

That isn't mechanics, it's fluff. There are no rules associated with it.

Again we disagree.

There are two basic types of games - generic games and those set in specific worlds.

D&D, GURPS, FATE - those are generic games.

Empire of the Petal Throne, Shadowrun, Vampire: the Masquerade - those are set in specific worlds.  yes, the systems could be moved to other worlds, but those games are set in specific worlds where the setting and mechanics intertwine.

I place DFRPG firmly in the "specific world" category.  The fact that FATE had to be twisted so much to find the world shows that the system is intertwined with that world.  That setting pushed mechanics.

Richard

[Viatos]

There are many more then two types of games. The setting is, as always, a backdrop to the rules, but Dresdenverse proper does not interwine with DFRPG mechanics. That's why you're allowed to do things like kill off Harry or make up an Autumn Court and still be supported by the game.

[Locnil]

Thing is, even though it's an altered version of FATE, it's still FATE. There are many setting elements, but the core of it is still a generic system. Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, etc are all sperate games, but in the end use a generic system.