>
> Hmm, no, but there is a case to be made that if say a god
"acquires"
> the Elixir of Life or whatever, thats "really" just a metaphor for
> having "uncovered an aspect".
Only after he drinks it. If it's one-use, then the Elixir is gone, and he now has a replacement ability, NOT an item. If the sword transfers it's power to the character, THEN it becomes an ability. While it's a sword, it's an item. The cementing rules state specifically (can't remember the exact wording) that cemented items can be stolen or lost, but the narrator should provide opportunity for the character to recover or replace them. But therefore until he DOES recover or replace them, he cannot use their powers.
>And seeing as all characters are
> implicitly on the hero path, one could make the argument that,
> indeed, the item is just a prop, a key to unlock a power which is
> tacitly present in the character rather than the item proper.
Agreed, and unless you really, really, positively do not want the item improved, you shouldn't flat ban it. You can still restrict the methods which can be used to do so. But without that prop, he cannot use the power at all. And the prop defines the power. And the Narrator defines the prop. Certainly, there is, and should be, no rule which says 'Cemented items CANNOT be improved', but they are certainly different from normal ability rules.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail