Runes

My group is starting a pathfinder game for the first time, I was wondering can you have a striking rune on a weapon without having to put a potency rune on it.

You can.

It's unlikely to happen due to being more expensive, but it can happen since they're both fundamental runes.

It's only property runes that require potency.

That's really weird, since it's the potency rune that renders the item magical.

Fundamental Runes

That's really weird, since it's the potency rune that renders the item magical.

Fundamental Runes

Weird or not, that is how the rules are currently written.

As mentioned, because of the costs of the runes involved, it isn't a scenario that is likely to happen very often or for very long.

A weapon in that state with no Potency rune, but with Striking rune(s) would be a detriment when fighting a Wisp or a Ghost - but would be a benefit when fighting a Legacy Golem if the GM rules that they are immune to magical weapon Strikes.

I suppose, but since that was never how Golem Antimagic worked, it isn't a meaningful edge case.

Probably not. But it is the only one I can think of. I don't know of any other places where it would be beneficial to have non-magical attacks.

There probably are some, but I don't know them.

Whenever an enemy lists magic as an immunity, there's always a note in the stat block clarifying which magic it is immune to.

Fine. I will just leave it at:

That's really weird, since it's the potency rune that renders the item magical.

Fundamental Runes

Weird or not, that is how the rules are currently written.

As mentioned, because of the costs of the runes involved, it isn't a scenario that is likely to happen very often or for very long.

As mentioned, because of the costs of the runes involved, it isn't a scenario that is likely to happen very often or for very long.

Funny thing, it happened for one of my players just now, because of the costs, but the other way around: he had money for both, bought Striking, but didn't want to spend less money on Potency (he is new, but I told him that +1 matters). Though yes, I suspect he would buy +1 as soon as he gets enough money. Or not. I'm not even sure. At least in the end he would have to...

"Magical enhancements make this weapon strike true. Attack rolls with this weapon gain a +1 item bonus, and the weapon can be etched with one property rune.
You can upgrade the weapon potency rune already etched on a weapon to a stronger version, increasing the values of the existing rune to those of the new rune. You must have the formula of the stronger rune to do so, and the Price of the upgrade is the difference between the two runes' prices."

And Striking:

"A striking rune stores destructive magic in the weapon, increasing the weapon damage dice it deals to two instead of one. For instance, a +1 striking dagger would deal 2d4 damage instead of 1d4 damage.
You can upgrade the striking rune already etched on a weapon to a stronger version, increasing the values of the existing rune to those of the new rune. You must have the formula of the stronger rune to do so, and the Price of the upgrade is the difference between the two runes' Prices."

And Magic Weapon:

"A magic weapon is a weapon etched with only fundamental runes. A weapon potency rune gives an item bonus to attack rolls with the weapon, and a striking rune increases the weapon's number of weapon damage dice. <...>"

Actually, I re-read most parts of rules concerning this... and lost again that snippet which says magical damage is only given by Potency. Where is it again?
I'm very close to just overrule this and count Striking as magical damage. To make it easy.

The "known fact" that a potency rune is necessary for a weapon to be considered magical is likely from this line in the pre-master CRB p.580 under Fundamental Runes, "A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556)."

That line's wording has been changed in GMC p.225 under Fundamental Runes to, "A potency rune is what makes a weapon a runic weapon (page 240) or armor magic armor (page 229)."

Incidentally, p.240-241 of the GMC don't feature the words "runic weapon" but they are the pages for the entry for magic weapon. I suspect they changed the wording from "magic weapon" to "runic weapon" in order to eliminate this argument

In PC1 p.409, the Damage Types page, under Physical Damage there is a bit mentioning creatures with resistance to non-magical damage, "(attacks that lack the magical trait)", and mentions they might have lower resistance to magical physical damage, "(such as damage dealt from a mace with the magical trait)"

On p.221 of the GMC in the Notable Item Traits sidebar under Magical, it begins with, "Items with this trait are imbued with magical energies."

The wisdom of not spending the pittance for a basic potency rune notwithstanding, since the striking rune has the magical trait I think it's RAW to treat damage from weapons with a striking rune as magical, even if they lack a potency rune

The "known fact" that a potency rune is necessary for a weapon to be considered magical is likely from this line in the pre-master CRB p.580 under Fundamental Runes, "A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556)."

That line's wording has been changed in GMC p.225 under Fundamental Runes to, "A potency rune is what makes a weapon a runic weapon (page 240) or armor magic armor (page 229)."

Incidentally, p.240-241 of the GMC don't feature the words "runic weapon" but they are the pages for the entry for magic weapon. I suspect they changed the wording from "magic weapon" to "runic weapon" in order to eliminate this argument

I'm almost completely sure it's a typo that appeared when they were making search and replace Magic Weapon (spell) with Runic Weapon (spell). Magic Weapon (item) remains the same and in the name too.

In PC1 p.409, the Damage Types page, under Physical Damage there is a bit mentioning creatures with resistance to non-magical damage, "(attacks that lack the magical trait)", and mentions they might have lower resistance to magical physical damage, "(such as damage dealt from a mace with the magical trait)"

Aaand we also come to our favourite discussion of <trait> actions and activities and <trait> damage from those activities. In this case it's only damage which should be made magical, not the attack itself (Strike).

On p.221 of the GMC in the Notable Item Traits sidebar under Magical, it begins with, "Items with this trait are imbued with magical energies."

The wisdom of not spending the pittance for a basic potency rune notwithstanding, since the striking rune has the magical trait I think it's RAW to treat damage from weapons with a striking rune as magical, even if they lack a potency rune

Yeah, despite that we've found (kind of) this snippet again, I think this is the right way.

The "known fact" that a potency rune is necessary for a weapon to be considered magical is likely from this line in the pre-master CRB p.580 under Fundamental Runes, "A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556)."

That line's wording has been changed in GMC p.225 under Fundamental Runes to, "A potency rune is what makes a weapon a runic weapon (page 240) or armor magic armor (page 229)."

Search and replace error possibilities (the clbuttic mistake) aside, the rule very clearly specifies Potency rune, and Potency rune only, that does the job.

It may be RAI to treat damage from weapons with a Striking rune as magical because the Striking rune has the Magical trait, but is it written somewhere that weapon item traits are propagated to the damage? If it is not written, then it is not RAW.

Don't use examples as though they are rules.

Yes, I did Fing read that. A mace with the magical trait would be a mace that has a Potency rune on it. Because the Potency rune is what makes the mace a Magic Weapon (or a Runic Weapon if that is somehow supposed to be different).

The example is still valid even if a mace with only a Striking rune on it doesn't qualify because it is not considered a magical weapon and therefore the weapon itself doesn't have the Magical trait. A mace that has a Potency rune would have the Magical trait and would qualify.

I have no problem with being shown to be wrong. But, 'I don't like what you say, so therefore you are wrong' isn't going to do the job. Neither is 'I'm going to insult and shame you, so therefore you are wrong.'

And I may be wrong. There may be somewhere that says that a weapon gains the traits of any and all of the runes etched on it. Or that the damage does. But I am not aware of one. If you are, cite it.

I'm pretty sure that somewhere it says that the Strike action doesn't. I think that was there so that weapons with Flaming runes could still be used underwater. Strike doesn't inherit the Fire trait, so it doesn't run into problems with the Aquatic Combat rules saying that you can't use actions that have the Fire trait. But other than the Aquatic Combat rules alluding to it, I don't remember where that rule is printed.