How do the new runes work...


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So i was looking over the thread where they are currently talking about the spoiler #XXX, and i noticed there is the striking rune... But i also noticed that this one:
Spoiler #99
It's a +2, Greater striking, Greater frost. So that means the blades go up to +3 extra dies of damage and then go up to +6 using striking? Or +3 now it's only to hit? Anyone else noticed that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That is indeed confusing.
+X being a thing besides the Striking Runes means I'm wrong with my prediction of it being gone. But it also would be confusing... because with Striking giving extra dice, what could +X give? Attack bonus? But then what do E/M/L weapons give you? Oo


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Possibly the +2 is the attack bonus from being Master quality. They might have just decided "+2 greater striking greater frost greatsword" looked better than "greater striking greater frost master greatsword."


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Possibly the +2 is the attack bonus from being Master quality. They might have just decided "+2 greater striking greater frost greatsword" looked better than "greater striking greater frost master greatsword."

I would rather have a master greater striking greater frost greatsword than a +2 greater striking greater frost greatsword. But i guess they might have went with +2 instead of master.

Edit: Also went to look on 'Treerazor sheet' that was posted somewhere in this forum. It seems that indeed +5 just means +5 to hit so damage does not scale with that. Since with his teeth he has +43 and with the axe he has +45(Could also be that he just scales differently but i would rather believe that's how runes work for now.)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm guessing here that +1/+2/+3 replaced E/M/L item quality respectively, possibly requiring EML crafting to make an item of that quality. Now that item bonuses (+1-3) no longer pair up with proficency levels (+4-8) like they did in the playtest, it might be confusing to use EML to describe the bonuses they give.

So a +2 weapon is essentially a master quality weapon that gives a +2 item to hit. A greater striking weapon deals 3 dies of damage. So the frostbrand has a +2 item bonus to hit and deals 3d12.

Also, since Resilient runes only grant bonuses to saves, I'm gonna guess that increasing the armor's base AC comes from the same +1/+2/+3 crafting quality. I'm betting tools work similarly. Saying these are +1 healer's tools seems very straightforward.

I suppose it is possible that +1/2/3 could come from some sort of other enchantment or rune instead of mundane crafting quality, but I hope not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

+2 meaning Master quality would be nice. And yes, now that TEML is +2 per tier, giving direct numbers to higher quality items is neccesary to avoid misinterpreting.

And I would have prefered "+2 Greater Striking Greater Frost Greater Sword".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I that interests me about this is if striking takes the same slot as flaming, and if those are still constant d6. If so, then we get to make a choice like in Monster Hunter World, where big raw d12 weapons want striking, but a weak d4 dagger would be better with elemental first.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BinbouMiko wrote:
One thing I that interests me about this is if striking takes the same slot as flaming, and if those are still constant d6. If so, then we get to make a choice like in Monster Hunter World, where big raw d12 weapons want striking, but a weak d4 dagger would be better with elemental first.

That actually makes it interesting, i mean probably it will be 3 runes max like it was before. But someone might instead of getting striking go for a greater rune that gives elemental damage all 3 times getting +xd6 of acid, +xd6 of fire and +xd6 of good. Would be pretty nice even if they were less than the +3dX from striking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not liking the apparent combination of Potency and Property runes. I thought that was one of the better innovations of the playtest. It meant the special abilities and base enhancement bonus didn't compete like they do in PF1. In PF1, it's much more expensive to upgrade a +1 holy weapon to +2 holy, than it is to just upgrade a standard +2 weapon to +3. I liked how having separate runes for Potency and Property meant that these were now independent. Going from +1 to +2 was the same regardless of it was already holy or whatever. And by having the limit being number of Property runes instead of total enhancement bonus equivalent, it opened things up quite a bit. This seems to go back to making the base ability for extra damage having to compete with all the other abilities, making the other abilities less likely to be used.

Also Potency +1 - +5 was more intuitive than Striking, Greater Striking and Major Striking. I've always hated this kind of progression, I keep having to go back and say "Is major more than greater, or is greater more than major?" A number makes it obvious, 2 is higher than 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
I'm not liking the apparent combination of Potency and Property runes. I thought that was one of the better innovations of the playtest. It meant the special abilities and base enhancement bonus didn't compete like they do in PF1. In PF1, it's much more expensive to upgrade a +1 holy weapon to +2 holy, than it is to just upgrade a standard +2 weapon to +3. I liked how having separate runes for Potency and Property meant that these were now independent. Going from +1 to +2 was the same regardless of it was already holy or whatever. And by having the limit being number of Property runes instead of total enhancement bonus equivalent, it opened things up quite a bit. This seems to go back to making the base ability for extra damage having to compete with all the other abilities, making the other abilities less likely to be used.

We have no basis to say right now whether Striking runes use the same "slots" as property runes. Of note, the striking runes didn't mention any restrictions on what weapons they could be placed on like we had in the playtest. Even if Striking Runes did use Property slots, it would at least create interesting differences between what runes pair best with which weapon. So I'd wait to see on this.

Quote:
Also Potency +1 - +5 was more intuitive than Striking, Greater Striking and Major Striking. I've always hated this kind of progression, I keep having to go back and say "Is major more than greater, or is greater more than major?" A number makes it obvious, 2 is higher than 1.

This, I agree with, but if they standardize the language across all items (instead of having some items have lesser/minor/standard/greater/true/etc while others don't) it will just be one more trait to learn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
I'm not liking the apparent combination of Potency and Property runes. I thought that was one of the better innovations of the playtest. It meant the special abilities and base enhancement bonus didn't compete like they do in PF1. In PF1, it's much more expensive to upgrade a +1 holy weapon to +2 holy, than it is to just upgrade a standard +2 weapon to +3. I liked how having separate runes for Potency and Property meant that these were now independent. Going from +1 to +2 was the same regardless of it was already holy or whatever. And by having the limit being number of Property runes instead of total enhancement bonus equivalent, it opened things up quite a bit. This seems to go back to making the base ability for extra damage having to compete with all the other abilities, making the other abilities less likely to be used.
We have no basis to say right now whether Striking runes use the same "slots" as property runes. Of note, the striking runes didn't mention any restrictions on what weapons they could be placed on like we had in the playtest. Even if Striking Runes did use Property slots, it would at least create interesting differences between what runes pair best with which weapon. So I'd wait to see on this.

There's no reason to believe they don't. They're just labeled Weapon Rune, with no qualification or any keyword indicating a different type than other runes. So I think it's reasonable to assume that there are no longer distinct rune types. Yeah, I'm still wait and see on this, but it does feel a bit like a step back from the playtest, even if it might still be on par or a step forward form PF1.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Also Potency +1 - +5 was more intuitive than Striking, Greater Striking and Major Striking. I've always hated this kind of progression, I keep having to go back and say "Is major more than greater, or is greater more than major?" A number makes it obvious, 2 is higher than 1.
This, I agree with, but if they standardize the language across all items (instead of having some items have lesser/minor/standard/greater/true/etc while others don't) it will just be one more trait to learn.

True. If it's standardized it'll help, but it's still less intuitive than higher numbers are higher. But I've had this problem from PF1, with feat chains and the like using a similar progression, and I never did quite get it down. Even the size categories, at the extremes I still can't recall which comes first; is it Gargantuan and then Collossal, or the other way around? Same with Diminutive and fine. At least there's less room for confusion with the extreme size categories removed.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The runes' price doesn't change anymore depending on current runes. So it's less competition. Also, you'll always only have one striking rune, so that's only one slot "lost" to it. If they give the same number of non-striking slots + 1 they had in the playtest, that will probably end up the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weasel, keepin mind that unlike PF1, prices do not vary depending on runes already applied. A Flaming rune on a nonmagical weapon costs the same as a Flaming rune on a Greater Striking magical weapon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

In the playtest; a weapon had to be at least 'Expert' quality in order to have a rune placed on it. An Expert item had room for a potency rune up to +1, and one other rune.

A bare 'Expert' blade gave a +1 to hit, but no damage bonus. Once a +1 potency rune was added, it was +1 to hit and then +1 die to damage.

Striking was not available as a rune in the playtest.

The only thing that indicates that might have changed is the entry for Treerazor and his axe, Blackaxe... But I'm confused about the math of that entry too. It has Major Striking rune, which is +3 die according to spoiler#97. It does 4d12+15 slashing... so 1d12, +3d12 from Major Striking, +12 from strength, and +3 from ???

So do potency runes now do... nothing? Or just give + to hit, and item quality does nothing but allow enchantments?

That seems rather lame, for the potency rune. Now it's not even as good as the +1 enchantment from PF1. It kinda looks like the same thing happened to the armor runes, as spoiler#96 seems to have an effect that potency runes on armor used to have.


Ediwir wrote:
Weasel, keepin mind that unlike PF1, prices do not vary depending on runes already applied. A Flaming rune on a nonmagical weapon costs the same as a Flaming rune on a Greater Striking magical weapon.

Yeah, it's good that that sticks around. My main concern is around total number of runes. There's still likely to be a rune limit, but now the basic runes will probably contribute to it. Will the total number of runes allowed be increased to compensate? Hopefully, but I find that doubtful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Skidmore wrote:

In the playtest; a weapon had to be at least 'Expert' quality in order to have a rune placed on it. An Expert item had room for a potency rune up to +1, and one other rune.

A bare 'Expert' blade gave a +1 to hit, but no damage bonus. Once a +1 potency rune was added, it was +1 to hit and then +1 die to damage.

Striking was not available as a rune in the playtest.

The only thing that indicates that might have changed is the entry for Treerazor and his axe, Blackaxe... But I'm confused about the math of that entry too. It has Major Striking rune, which is +3 die according to spoiler#97. It does 4d12+15 slashing... so 1d12, +3d12 from Major Striking, +12 from strength, and +3 from ???

So do potency runes now do... nothing? Or just give + to hit, and item quality does nothing but allow enchantments?

That seems rather lame, for the potency rune. Now it's not even as good as the +1 enchantment from PF1. It kinda looks like the same thing happened to the armor runes, as spoiler#96 seems to have an effect that potency runes on armor used to have.

There is no such thing as potency as far as we currently know, with the exception of an unclear armour reference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
Weasel, keepin mind that unlike PF1, prices do not vary depending on runes already applied. A Flaming rune on a nonmagical weapon costs the same as a Flaming rune on a Greater Striking magical weapon.
Yeah, it's good that that sticks around. My main concern is around total number of runes. There's still likely to be a rune limit, but now the basic runes will probably contribute to it. Will the total number of runes allowed be increased to compensate? Hopefully, but I find that doubtful.

The other consideration is that Striking doesn't give accuracy, so it's competing in a different way.

For example, on a longsword, the decision between Striking and Flaming is "do I want an extra d8 of slashing damage, or an extra d6 of fire damage?", which is a much closer call than it was with Potency runes.

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
BinbouMiko wrote:
One thing I that interests me about this is if striking takes the same slot as flaming, and if those are still constant d6. If so, then we get to make a choice like in Monster Hunter World, where big raw d12 weapons want striking, but a weak d4 dagger would be better with elemental first.

*pssst* one of the advantages of fundamental runes is that they don't count toward the item's total number of runes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
BinbouMiko wrote:
One thing I that interests me about this is if striking takes the same slot as flaming, and if those are still constant d6. If so, then we get to make a choice like in Monster Hunter World, where big raw d12 weapons want striking, but a weak d4 dagger would be better with elemental first.
*pssst* one of the advantages of fundamental runes is that they don't count toward the item's total number of runes.

Thanks for clarifying this. That's how I thought it worked, but it's good to have official word on this mechanic to assuage players


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When he puts it that way it seems obvious. I mean, Potency runes didn't count toward the limit...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Are they labeled fundamental runes anywhere? I didn't see that anywhere on the resilient or striking rune spoilers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Are they labeled fundamental runes anywhere? I didn't see that anywhere on the resilient or striking rune spoilers.

Doesn't seem to be a trait in the spoiler cards, and I really hope it isn't. Not looking forward to a bunch of freely applicable runes in the future... But if Striking and Resilient are free, and only those two... That's fine I guess.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm really trying to avoid having house rules before the game is even out, but man am I tempted to tweak that to "weapons have one free slot for a dice-add rune, which can be any level of Striking, Flaming, Frost, etc."... Mostly because I like the idea of weapons that do piles of elemental damage and relatively little physical damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
BinbouMiko wrote:
One thing I that interests me about this is if striking takes the same slot as flaming, and if those are still constant d6. If so, then we get to make a choice like in Monster Hunter World, where big raw d12 weapons want striking, but a weak d4 dagger would be better with elemental first.
*pssst* one of the advantages of fundamental runes is that they don't count toward the item's total number of runes.

I would hazard that these runes are effectively the replacement for the big 6, and that there are only a handful of them.

While the other runes let you add the flavour and special abilities you want.

Or alternatively, items are also limited to a maximum of one fundamental rune. Or both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think we've seen anything about Fundamental Runes. Are these things like Striking, or are these the +1-+3 (or +4 in Treerazer's axe's case) we still see on weapons? Or are they something else entirely? From what we've seen, the plus just applies to attack rolls and not damage. Does weapon quality still add to attack rolls?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
I don't think we've seen anything about Fundamental Runes. Are these things like Striking, or are these the +1-+3 (or +4 in Treerazer's axe's case) we still see on weapons? Or are they something else entirely? From what we've seen, the plus just applies to attack rolls and not damage. Does weapon quality still add to attack rolls?

Indications are that +1-3 is likely still weapon quality, but they likely renamed it to avoid confusion because weapon quality boosts don't match up with the numbers for their respective proficiency levels anymore.

+2 and 3 probably require Master and Legendary respectively to craft but I dunno that for sure.


Edge93 wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
I don't think we've seen anything about Fundamental Runes. Are these things like Striking, or are these the +1-+3 (or +4 in Treerazer's axe's case) we still see on weapons? Or are they something else entirely? From what we've seen, the plus just applies to attack rolls and not damage. Does weapon quality still add to attack rolls?

Indications are that +1-3 is likely still weapon quality, but they likely renamed it to avoid confusion because weapon quality boosts don't match up with the numbers for their respective proficiency levels anymore.

+2 and 3 probably require Master and Legendary respectively to craft but I dunno that for sure.

Higher level items in general require master or legendary so I'd say you're making a safe guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If the +1-3 is weapon quality, it must go above Legendary in some cases, since Treerazer's axe is +4. Which could be why they list it as a number instead of naming the quality.

Personally I'll probably come up with descriptive names for each quality but not just expert/master/legendary, because "expert longsword" sounds weird to me.

Probably something like "exceptional, masterwork, starforged", with a bit of lore about how the process for making legendary-quality weapons uses starmetal flux or something like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

If the +1-3 is weapon quality, it must go above Legendary in some cases, since Treerazer's axe is +4. Which could be why they list it as a number instead of naming the quality.

Personally I'll probably come up with descriptive names for each quality but not just expert/master/legendary, because "expert longsword" sounds weird to me.

Probably something like "exceptional, masterwork, starforged", with a bit of lore about how the process for making legendary-quality weapons uses starmetal flux or something like that.

I'd imagine +4 or +5 is going to be tied to artifact status in some way, possibly as a descriptor or trait.

Edit: also, I imagine expert, master, and legendary will still be useful as as a way characters can identify items in fiction without sounding as meta as +1, +2, etc. Making this the standard has advantages because it will be easier to understand what bonus any given item bestows rather than just weapons and armor using pluses. +2 thieves tools and what have you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

If the +1-3 is weapon quality, it must go above Legendary in some cases, since Treerazer's axe is +4. Which could be why they list it as a number instead of naming the quality.

Personally I'll probably come up with descriptive names for each quality but not just expert/master/legendary, because "expert longsword" sounds weird to me.

Probably something like "exceptional, masterwork, starforged", with a bit of lore about how the process for making legendary-quality weapons uses starmetal flux or something like that.

Expert-crafted, master-crafted, legendary (stays legendary because it sounds okay)?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Mythic?

Also, the reason Legendary is fine is because it's an adjective rather than a noun - what we would need for item quality is Exceptional, Masterwork, Legendary, Mythic...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

Mythic?

Also, the reason Legendary is fine is because it's an adjective rather than a noun - what we would need for item quality is Exceptional, Masterwork, Legendary, Mythic...

LOL to use the old marvel game chart: Feeble, poor, typical, good, excellent, remarkable, incredible, amazing, monstrous, unearthly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't use mythic because I stubbornly hold on to hope that in 2e the devs will somehow manage to rework the mythic rules and we'll all be able to use them without having characters who are too damn op.

I also need to homebrew an analogous system as soon as we continue WotR, so mythic is a concept space that's already taken in my case.


Masterwork and Legendary are fine as descriptions I think.
I would name an expert level item simply "Good" - a coomon term for a common item quality. It's not some pinacle of craftsmanship but it is of good quality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

+6 weapons were mythic in PF1e, so assuming +3 is the normal cap +4 weapons actually could be canonically mythic...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Masterwork is very nice.

For expert quality I'd prefer "fine". Your run-of-the-mill sword can be good quality, but this one here, this is a fine sword.

+4 weapons... yes, they could definitely be mythic. Unless something else is occurring with Treerazer's Blackaxe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Oh, fine is pretty good, I might use that instead of exceptional. Although I do like that "exceptional" and "expert" have the same prefix.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Oh, fine is pretty good, I might use that instead of exceptional. Although I do like that "exceptional" and "expert" have the same prefix.

They do, but experts don't often craft exceptional work... you need, anti-intuitively enough, a master for that...

Btw, did I tell you how happy to see the new dc table I am? I did, right? Because I feel it must be repeated:

Untrained - 10
Trained - 15
Expert - 20
Master - 30
Legendary - 40

... and that is all! So elegant! ^____^

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's probably some guidelines beyond the five categories...but yeah, the base difficulty chart being just that simple is great.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that explicitly for static DCs? I'm pretty sure we are going to get s list of level appropriate DCs as well.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that explicitly for static DCs? I'm pretty sure we are going to get s list of level appropriate DCs as well.

Probably something like that anyway. It's still an incredible ease of use improvement.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly I doubt we will; enough people had a poor reaction to table 10-2 that I suspect nothing even faintly resembling it will be appear in the final book.

Which is a shame, IMO.

Liberty's Edge

MaxAstro wrote:

Honestly I doubt we will; enough people had a poor reaction to table 10-2 that I suspect nothing even faintly resembling it will be appear in the final book.

Which is a shame, IMO.

Upon reflection, I believe they actually specifically said that we will, just with only one DC per level (which you then apply either + or - 2, 5, or 10 to).

Both that and the static DCs table are extremely useful, so having both seems quite plausible to me.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I remember that, too, but I'm worried they ended up deciding that by "level" they actually mean "proficiency tier". :P


"Epic" isn't taken yet, is it? It was +6 (or greater) in PF1, so I'd make it +4 in PF2.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Dumb question along the lines of runes. Are runes basically just making a item magic? or is it literally a item you attach to any weapon so if you have a greater frost rune you could swap as you want to new gear you find?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Alenvire wrote:
Dumb question along the lines of runes. Are runes basically just making a item magic? or is it literally a item you attach to any weapon so if you have a greater frost rune you could swap as you want to new gear you find?

It's weird a bit. It's an engraving/symbol imbued with magic you put on an item, but you can "move" the magic by engraving it in a special stone, transfer the "magic" to the stone, then do the same process with the new item.

(At least, that's what I remember from the top of my head)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alenvire wrote:
Dumb question along the lines of runes. Are runes basically just making a item magic? or is it literally a item you attach to any weapon so if you have a greater frost rune you could swap as you want to new gear you find?

Kinda in-between? They're etched onto your weapon/armor, so you can't quite just pull them off to attach to your new weapon/armor. But the etching can be transferred from one thing to another, or to/from a 3gp "runestone" which has no other function, for 10% of the rune's price and some Crafting time. That's from the playtest, details may have changed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That can make for some cool loot. Getting 3 flaming runestones is a lot better than 3 flaming daggers


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Elfteiroh wrote:
Alenvire wrote:
Dumb question along the lines of runes. Are runes basically just making a item magic? or is it literally a item you attach to any weapon so if you have a greater frost rune you could swap as you want to new gear you find?

It's weird a bit. It's an engraving/symbol imbued with magic you put on an item, but you can "move" the magic by engraving it in a special stone, transfer the "magic" to the stone, then do the same process with the new item.

(At least, that's what I remember from the top of my head)

Thank you. Answers my question. This way a family heirloom passed down to a player no longer gets tossed before level 3.

Can a weapon be upgraded from Expert to say Legendary? I mean, even if it can't I could always use Pathfinder Rule 1 and say it can. Reworked blade, A finer hilt, engravings. Whatever.

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / How do the new runes work... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.