Fundamental Runes

[Grumpus]

Is it possible to ONLY have a "striking" rune on a weapon without having a "potency" rune?
Every example of a magic weapon I found always seems to have a +1 or some number along with it. But as far as I can tell, I don't see a requirement to have the potency rune.

The same question would also apply to Armor having ONLY a "resilient" rune without a potency rune.

[lordcirth]

Grumpus wrote:

Is it possible to ONLY have a "striking" rune on a weapon without having a "potency" rune?

Every example of a magic weapon I found always seems to have a +1 or some number along with it. But as far as I can tell, I don't see a requirement to have the potency rune.

The same question would also apply to Armor having ONLY a "resilient" rune without a potency rune.

Afaik, it's just that +1 is cheaper/lower level than Striking, so it would be odd to have only Striking.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

I suspect the lack of +0 striking weapons is left over from before the playtest, when (IIRC) you had to have an Expert-quality or better weapon to have runes on it at all, and being Expert-quality gave the +1 that's given by magic now. Just a guess though.

[Captain Morgan]

It is a little funky how somethings scale with potency runes (how many property runes you can have) while others scaling with striking runes (how many deadly dice you add.)

[Biojoe56]

The fact that a +1 striking weapon cost 100 gp in the treasure list (page 600), and the rune cost are 35 gp for potency rune and 65 gp for striking rune (page 581) leads me to assume that you need a potency rune on a weapon before you can have a striking rune. If you look at level 4 permanent items in the treasure list, you can see a +1 striking rune (65 gp), OR a +1 striking weapon (100 gp) implying the presence of a potency rune also.