Powers = Tools ?

[ways and means]

I do not feel that is factual in all circumstances, even in the game.  I know only Swords of the Cross have this function in the Dresdenverse.  Therefore it is not  canon setting the game is based on.  I feel you express your opinion as fact.  It is clearly not.

No you don't there could be all kind of Ultimate Weapons lying around the Dresden Verse that we haven't seen yet.

[Silverblaze]

No you don't there could be all kind of Ultimate Weapons lying around the Dresden Verse that we haven't seen yet.

I know it as well as I know Harry Dresden is not a drug dealing murderer psychopath who targets schoolgirls.

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29901.msg1269254.html#msg1269254

-Thanks Richard btw.

I know it as well as the fact that nicodemus is the only one with the Noose.

I know it as well as Ferrovax is the strongest of his kind.

I know it as well as I know the Laws of magic.

I know it as well as : etc etc etc (facts from novels insert here).
If it changes later, then sure, the setting and rules change...currently.  My assessment is true.

[Viatos]

But what you don't seem to know is that ACaE is a power. Anyone with 3 Refresh to spare can take it. That is factual, not anyone's opinions. It's rules as written. Your assessment is irrelevant; there's no canon on who might have a given generic power.

[ways and means]

I know it as well as I know Harry Dresden is not a drug dealing murderer psychopath who targets schoolgirls.

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29901.msg1269254.html#msg1269254

-Thanks Richard btw.

I know it as well as the fact that nicodemus is the only one with the Noose.

I know it as well as Ferrovax is the strongest of his kind.

I know it as well as I know the Laws of magic.

I know it as well as : etc etc etc (facts from novels insert here).
If it changes later, then sure, the setting and rules change...currently.  My assessment is true.

In order yes we know Nicodemus is the only one with the noose though we certainly don't know he is the only one with a invulnerability artifact (actually given how many ways there are to become invulnerable in Dresden files it seems unlikely).   

As for Ferrovax is the strongest of his kind that is debatable given there is every hint that Drakul (Dragon) might by a Dragon and might be stronger or at least more menacing.

As for the laws of magic we have seen both the enforcement and the corruption directly in the books so yes we know it exists as far anyone know anything exists in the setting.

What we know about the Swords of the Cross is that they are very important holy artifacts which can equalize a fight between incredible powerful individuals nothing about that knowledge precludes the existence of other very important holy artifacts (Spear of Loginus, Angel Weapon etc) which fulfill a similar function, actually given what we know of the setting there are probably some very powerful relic of the outsider wars floating about somewhere which could even be more powerful than the swords.   

[Locnil]

But what you don't seem to know is that ACaE is a power. Anyone with 3 Refresh to spare can take it. That is factual, not anyone's opinions. It's rules as written. Your assessment is irrelevant; there's no canon on who might have a given generic power.

Well, technically, the 3 refresh cost was extrapolated from the swords write up, and is not RAW. Also, technically, you need at least 4 refresh, even if you could take it as a [-3] power.

[Viatos]

Well, technically, the 3 refresh cost was extrapolated from the swords write up, and is not RAW. Also, technically, you need at least 4 refresh, even if you could take it as a [-3] power.

That's why I said 3 Refresh to spare.

[Locnil]

Right. Sorry. Comprehension mistake on my part, there.

[Silverblaze]

But what you don't seem to know is that ACaE is a power. Anyone with 3 Refresh to spare can take it. That is factual, not anyone's opinions. It's rules as written. Your assessment is irrelevant; there's no canon on who might have a given generic power.

You seem to like to ignore that text states many powers are designed for NPCs and may not be appropraite for PCs.

Why can't I assess things opposite to you?  Because you don't like my viewpointor opinion? 

You also seem to think that things that can exist on an item translate well to a character without an item to grant the power.

Therefore your assessments are equally irrelevant, in that they are opinions and interpretations of what you have read.

In order yes we know Nicodemus is the only one with the noose though we certainly don't know he is the only one with a invulnerability artifact (actually given how many ways there are to become invulnerable in Dresden files it seems unlikely).   

As for Ferrovax is the strongest of his kind that is debatable given there is every hint that Drakul (Dragon) might by a Dragon and might be stronger or at least more menacing.

This is supposition. Not yet fact, may never be fact.

As for the laws of magic we have seen both the enforcement and the corruption directly in the books so yes we know it exists as far anyone know anything exists in the setting.

What we know about the Swords of the Cross is that they are very important holy artifacts which can equalize a fight between incredible powerful individuals nothing about that knowledge precludes the existence of other very important holy artifacts (Spear of Loginus, Angel Weapon etc) which fulfill a similar function, actually given what we know of the setting there are probably some very powerful relic of the outsider wars floating about somewhere which could even be more powerful than the swords.   

Thank you. Then we also know every other statement written in the books as factual to the setting until something proves it otherwise.

[ways and means]

Thank you. Then we also know every other statement written in the books as factual to the setting until something proves it otherwise.

Which doesn't preclude the existence of other holy artifacts of power, Harry said the Swords of the Cross where incredibly powerful and important he never said their weren't other artifacts equally so, there is nothing in the books that preclude the existence of a Spear of Loginus with the exact same power compliment as the Swords of the Cross. There is no way to know such an artifact does not exist and given what we have seen of the Swords of the Cross (crucifixion relics bathed in the Lords blood) the spear actually fits in quite well. I personally think it is a bad idea to assume anything not shown in the Dresden verse does not exist in the Dresden verse.

[devonapple]

How conversations like this used to go:
Poster 1: I want to do this cool thing. What do folks think?
Poster 2: Well, it sounds like it wouldn't work for [insert reason]
Poster 1: Gosh. Well, how about this modified cool thing?
Poster 2: Well, I wouldn't allow it at my table, but this seems alright.
Poster 3: That's great! I want to use that.

My observation lately:
Poster 1: I want to do this cool thing. What do folks think?
Poster 2: Well, it sounds like it wouldn't work for [insert reason].
Poster 1: You are wrong! There is no rule specifically forbidding this cool thing!
Poster 2: Well, there wouldn't be. You can't write rules forbidding the infinite variety of things people can invent.
Poster 1: Then this cool thing is allowed by RAW by the fact that it isn't disallowed!
Poster 2: Well, no, it shouldn't be allowed because of [insert reason].
Poster 1: That's just setting and has no impact on mechanics! This cool thing is allowed by RAW!
Poster 2: Umm... why are you playing in this setting again?
[interminable argument]
Poster 1: Fine. How about this?
Poster 2: Well, I wouldn't allow it at my table, but this seems alright.
Poster 3: That's great! I want to use that.

[Viatos]

You seem to like to ignore that text states many powers are designed for NPCs and may not be appropraite for PCs.

What text is this? The text quoted by Richard, which exists to actively enforce the reality that any power is appropriate for a PC if they want it? The text written to explain that clearly, lest anyone get the wrong idea that NPC-only powers existed? That text?

Why can't I assess things opposite to you?  Because you don't like my viewpointor opinion?

You can assess all you like. It's just irrelevant when we have RAW to work from.

You also seem to think that things that can exist on an item translate well to a character without an item to grant the power.

Of course. That's how the game works. All an Item of Power is is a chassis for powers external to the character. It provides a +2 Refresh bonus and is an unbreakable piece of equipment, and in exchange you can lose it and the powers attached to it, and it has a purpose whose agenda you must consider when wielding it.

You can houserule differently, but that's literally all an IoP is. It's built with the same rules characters use.

Therefore your assessments are equally irrelevant, in that they are opinions and interpretations of what you have read.

They're not - they're explanations of DFRPG as it exists today. Completely factual before opinion or interpretation enter into it. Things like "clearly some powers SHOULD HAVE BEEN reserved for NPCS" or "clearly templates SHOULD NOT BE created with the rules to do so" are opinions and interpretations. They're not relevant to the RAW or even the RAI, since they're your opinions and not the authors', which are stated to be "we won't limit your game with RAI".

Thank you. Then we also know every other statement written in the books as factual to the setting until something proves it otherwise.

For example, that a wizard can take True Shapeshifting or

(click to show/hide)

Spirit Form[/quote] if they want to.

[Viatos]

How conversations like this used to go:
Poster 1: I want to do this cool thing. What do folks think?
Poster 2: Well, it sounds like it wouldn't work for [insert reason]
Poster 1: Gosh. Well, how about this modified cool thing?
Poster 2: Well, I wouldn't allow it at my table, but this seems alright.
Poster 3: That's great! I want to use that.

My observation lately:
Poster 1: I want to do this cool thing. What do folks think?
Poster 2: Well, it sounds like it wouldn't work for [insert reason].
Poster 1: You are wrong! There is no rule specifically forbidding this cool thing!
Poster 2: Well, there wouldn't be. You can't write rules forbidding the infinite variety of things people can invent.
Poster 1: Then this cool thing is allowed by RAW by the fact that it isn't disallowed!
Poster 2: Well, no, it shouldn't be allowed because of [insert reason].
Poster 1: That's just setting and has no impact on mechanics! This cool thing is allowed by RAW!
Poster 2: Umm... why are you playing in this setting again?
[interminable argument]
Poster 1: Fine. How about this?
Poster 2: Well, I wouldn't allow it at my table, but this seems alright.
Poster 3: That's great! I want to use that.

There's a difference between "RAW does not forbid", "RAW specifically enables", and "RAW offers no commentary on". RAW doesn't forbid me adding 25 Refresh to my character because I want it, but it DOES enable me to take powers in the Powers section and make new ones, and it offers no commentary on free will outside of Refresh 0 situations.

[Mr. Death]

I think Our World has a sidebar somewhere along the lines of, "Hey, Zombies are only -8 refresh, does that mean I can play one?" "Not really. Just because it's possible to have positive refresh doesn't mean it has free will."

[ways and means]

My observation lately:
Poster 1: You are wrong! There is no rule specifically forbidding this cool thing!
Poster 2: Well, there wouldn't be. You can't write rules forbidding the infinite variety of things people can invent.

I am pretty certain the debate hasn't been about custom powers (I have made a fair few broken power I am not defending them) but powers the Dev's built themselves which should be balanced.

My observation lately:

Poster 2: Well, it sounds like it wouldn't work for [insert reason].

The crux of this debate is that the insert reason is the narrative interpretation of poster 2, narrative is interpretative and it is perfectly possible to come up exposition to support any power combination etc making this argument come down to value judgements.

Value judgment arguments never come to a conclusion and so get repeated a lot I imagine you remember how bad the Lawbreaker argument got before people gave up on it. 

Poster 2: Umm... why are you playing in this setting again?
[interminable argument]

Because I like the Dresden verse setting I like the openness of it and the fact that anything could happen, I like the fact that it is a unexplored world which I can add to as I see fit. I like White Council politics, the black council threat, the monsters who are not monsters and the humans that are. I also like the fact the world is in constant flux and what is true today might not be true tomorrow, also outsiders and scions are cool.

[Viatos]

I think Our World has a sidebar somewhere along the lines of, "Hey, Zombies are only -8 refresh, does that mean I can play one?" "Not really. Just because it's possible to have positive refresh doesn't mean it has free will."

Spectres. Page 57. It just confirms that a spectre doesn't get free will from having positive Refresh. For that, you need an Aspect. If you want free will at all, of course.