Considering sunder isn't even a thing anymore, it should probably be very infrequent that armor or weapons are damaged, let alone destroyed.
Shield are the only thing that should be damage or destroyed with any regularity from what I see.
There are some creature special abilities that can damage or destroy armor. For example the Ankheg.
I don't believe we have the answer to this question in the current RAW. My gut feeling would be that when an item is destroyed, all parts of it (including runes) would be destroyed as well. Cut & paste runes are silly to begin with.
The following thread on the subreddit got me to visit this thread. The balor demon looks like an Equipment Killer:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/kheo3i/the_balor_statblock_i s_terrifying/
So, if you're a 20th level fighter with 10,000s of gold invested in your runes, does your weapon breaking make you lose those runes?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Remake spell restores the magical abilities of an object that was destroyed. This very heavily implies that a destroyed object loses all magical abilities, including Runes.
Broken is a condition for objects. It does what it states, nothing more. So it does not affect Runes.
I could have sworn that I read a rule somewhere that explicitly stated that runes were destroyed along with their respective armor or weapon.
I could have sworn that I read a rule somewhere that explicitly stated that runes were destroyed along with their respective armor or weapon.
Me too.
I think it'd also help if we knew what Runes were!
Other than that they must be physically etched into an item, there's no indicator of their substance, whether it's physical itself, metaphysical (whatever that means), or merely a pattern. And since that etching can be moved, it's not an etching in any earthly way.
Runes cannot exist in any way without being on an item, needing a Runestone in order to be relocated w/o an appropriate base item. So I can't see them as physical. What would you be looking at if the armor the Rune was on turned to dust? Or the weapon melted away?
A Rune...which is what? So IMO if the base item's destroyed, it seems the Rune would cease to exist.
But then what? If the item's renewed, wouldn't a pattern on the item which stirs up eldritch power also return? Yet if the Rune holds (rather than stirs up/creates/summons) eldritch power, wouldn't that power have dissipated when the Rune was gone? But then what would we be looking at? An etching that looks a lot like a Rune, but wasn't? Why wouldn't it be? And what's the gold buying that would restore this dead pattern's functionality?
Again, I don't think we know because there's no description of what Runes are that doesn't immediately spin off into mechanics. They are plot devices obviously, and exist in some vague, floaty, anime way which does little to help us determine its non-rule attributes.
So at best guess, Runes are made of handwavium.
And then there are the balance/wealth issues... :/
I did a search on AoN PF2 with "destroyed" and "runes". It brought back very little and nothing clearly specifying what happens when the weapon or armor gets destroyed.
Really, the wording of the Remake spell is what I found closest to the topic at hand.
I did a search for "destroyed" in the Core Rulebook and GameMastery Guide and didn't find anything either.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not believe they are destroyed. I believe that is by designer intent. I would not have the runes destroyed unless I read somewhere that is what happens.
There are abilities such as the corrosive rune and the wrecker demon which can destroy armor or weapons with ease unless it is metal armor. A corrosive rune crit pretty much wipes out any armor that isn't steel. A greater corrosive rune can wipe out even steel armor.
High level runes are enormously expensive compared to the amount of coin you receive. Runes do not increase the hardness or hit points of an item. I see no reason why the runes would be destroyed with the armor when it is penalty enough that the armor if destroyed would require you to survive absent armor or weapons for a combat or series of combats until you can get to an area where you can transfer the runes from the destroyed weapon to a new weapon.
That's how I play it. I have not read a rule yet saying the runes are destroyed. After measuring the cost of obtaining new runes at high level, I think a transfer cost is a sufficient penalty for destroyed weapons or armor on top of having to survive that combat or several combats without access to your armor or most powerful weapon.
|
|
Description of the 10th level Remake spell :
"You fully re-create an object from nothing, even if the object was destroyed. To do so, you must be able to picture the object in your mind. Additionally, the material component must be a remnant of the item, no matter how small or insignificant (even a speck of dust that remains from disintegrate is enough). The spell fails if your imagination relied on too much guesswork; if the object would be too large to fit in a 5-foot cube; if the object still exists and you were simply not aware of it; or if the object is an artifact, has a level over 20, or has similar vast magical power.
The item reassembles in perfect condition. Even if your mental image was of a damaged or weathered object, the new one is in this perfected form. If the object was magical, this spell typically restores its constant magical properties, but not any temporary ones, such as charges or one-time uses. An item with charges or uses per day has all of its uses expended when remade, but it replenishes them normally thereafter."
It is pretty obvious to me from this that destroyed is the worst that can happen to an object. If nothing but dust is left, there is no way for Runes to still be there. So I think destroyed object means destroyed Runes.
Also the part I mentioned before of the spell restoring constant magical properties (such as those bestowed by Runes), which means they were gone when the object was destroyed.
Obviously, the GM can rule that if the destruction was partial, you can salvage the Runes, but I put it in houserules territory.
Raven Black's post suggests we also need to know what "destroy" means.
If Runes have a substance, they could be destroyed alongside the item (depending on effect). But what does this mean when faced with rust or other effects that only target specific types of substances? The metal armor rusts away, but leaves behind Runes. Okay, what's that mean? What would one see? Since Runes can only be transported via Runestones, I think this doesn't make sense.
And if the Runes are instead a pattern, they need a medium in which to exist, so if the medium's totally obliterated, what would it even mean to say that the pattern etched in that medium survived? If you destroyed the Mona Lisa's canvas, in what way would the Mona Lisa exist? As written, there is no way for a Rune to exist outside of being on an object.
Of course those might be taking "destroy" too far. Or might not be. Which is an issue. It's more than "broken" (unusable unless armor-at a penalty), yet other than not being repairable it seems the same. So "destroy" could be like "totaled" (for cars), which would leave a lot of substance for a Rune to exist upon.
So does the answer vary? Is that why there's no definitive explanation because there are too many variants of "destroy" in a fantasy setting to give a set answer?
-------------
Paizo had made a point with the last errata that items were too fragile to be exposed to all the AoE damage (et al) being tossed around at high levels. This is why even unattended items are typically immune unless called out specifically. It's meta, yet intentionally so for game enjoyment. In 3.X/PF, my players had learned to dread dying more because it made their gear unattended than that their PC was dead (which was easier to fix). So I understand the reasoning.
To me Paizo's mindset would suggest that if there is enough material left for a Rune to exist upon, we should let the Rune survive. If...
Personally, for a home game) I would rule it depending on the nature of the damage that reduced the item to 0hp.
Acids from some oozes that affect weapons/armor? Yes the runes are destroyed if the item is reduced to 0 hp.
Normal physical damage that chipped away at an item over time? Might give some form of flat check to see if a remaining piece is large enough to have the intact rune.
For PFS play, I continue to pray it never comes up. (Situations have arisen where its possible, but I've only gotten things to the broken condition not destroyed).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be left open ended deliberately precisely so the GMs could decide for their own tables.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not believe they are destroyed. I believe that is by designer intent. I would not have the runes destroyed unless I read somewhere that is what happens.There's no point discussing this since the rules doesn't say either way.
I think you are wrong and that the RAI is for runes to be destroyed with the gear they're etched to, since otherwise getting your gear destroyed would be a trifle costing you pocket change. 99% of the cost is in the runes.
But until Paizo speaks up I will never be able to convince you otherwise.
Do you have experience with destroyed armor or weapons?
First, it is incredibly easy to destroy an item and you get no save. What taught me this lesson was a corrosive rune in the hands of an enemy Challenge+2 combatant. He crit my monk wearing armored clothing. Armor vaporized with no saving throw. We calculated the average damage of a corrosive rune critical hit and it could come close to destroying or breaking with average damage every type of armor save metal armor. A greater corrosive rune could ruin metal armor and obliterate leather or less.
Most of the abilities like a wrecker demon or other creatures that destroy items can rip them apart pretty easily.
If it is so easy to ruin items, then hopefully it must be easy to recover your runes or they would have made it clear the runes are destroyed. In fact, why even move to a rune system for enhancing weapons if it was intended that the runes get destroyed with the item.
I have not found it to be pocket change to transfer level appropriate runes. So far gold has been incredibly tight with players able to obtain maybe one fully runed weaapon and some armor that keeps up with expectations. The transfer cost of moving a rune is 10% of the cost. It takes a day or more to transfer runes, which can leave a player in a real bind for a dungeon or something of the kind.
In PF1 this would not have been an issue because they did not use a rune system and magical items were plentiful as was gold. But that is not the case in PF2. Gold is very tight. Level appropriate items are not plentiful. Losing your items for even a single battle is very dangerous increasing your chances of getting crit, hit, or missing your attacks substantially.
You could have a +3 major resilient rune on your leather armor or armored clothing, one critical hit from a greater corrosive rune weapon and 70,000 gold is gone, poof, if runes are destroyed. I don't know why you think 70,000 gold is a trivial cost.
When my runed clothing was destroyed on my monk at lvl 9, it was a real bind. The enemy I was fighting hit me much easier and my saves dropped. I did not have the money to replace the runes as magic armor and resilient runes are quite expensive if level appropriate. I would have been severely screwed if the DM did not allow the runes to survive.
That's my take on it based on experience with items getting destroyed. It's very easy to destroy items now. It's very costly in battle. Transferring runes is not cheap and is time sensitive based on where you are in the adventure.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
since otherwise getting your gear destroyed would be a trifle costing you pocket change. 99% of the cost is in the runes
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Given the extraordinary price of magic weapons and armor and how immensely important they are to your overall effectiveness, not having a random monster potentially derail the campaign because it wrecked your sword seems more reasonable than the alternative.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the rules don't have an answer, isn't that the most important time for GMs to discuss game mechanics? Share their reasoning & play experience? Discuss ramifications & balance?
I'd say so, but then again I don't have a rule to cite to prove that...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, why even bother including monster abilities if they have zero impact on the game?
Being weaponless until you get a chance to get a new one is anything but zero impact. A high level martial without a weapon is pathetically weak against any meaningfully difficult foe. Stripping a character of their weapons effectively removes them from that combat and any subsequent combats until they have suitable downtime to replace it.
Besides, you make it sound like PF2 depend on their gear more in other D&D games which is just untrue.
Fully upgraded weapons have never been more important to your overall damage output than they are in PF2.
It boils down to: can heroes lose their gear?
Sure, but as a GM you have to be cognizant of the fact that the game's math absolutely falls to pieces without that gear and you need to re-equip them if you want them to continue functioning normally.
And if you're just going to quickly re-equip them anyways, then even bothering with this song and dance feels unnecessary.
Being weaponless until you get a chance to get a new one is anything but zero impact. A high level martial without a weapon is pathetically weak against any meaningfully difficult foe. Stripping a character of their weapons effectively removes them from that combat and any subsequent combats until they have suitable downtime to replace it.
Most parties I've seen generally have one or more backup weapons. The fighter will be reduced in effectiveness for a little while sure, but they'll hardly be "pathetically weak against any meaningfully difficult foe" while they wait for the GM to toss them a new weapon as part of the standard treasure allotment.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
since otherwise getting your gear destroyed would be a trifle costing you pocket change. 99% of the cost is in the runesYou make that sound like a bad thing.
Given the extraordinary price of magic weapons and armor and how immensely important they are to your overall effectiveness, not having a random monster potentially derail the campaign because it wrecked your sword seems more reasonable than the alternative.
No, why even bother including monster abilities if they have zero impact on the game?
If you just shrug and bring out a new sword from your bag of holding for the party crafter to set up with the existing runes, then I'd rather just skip the entire thing, thank you very much. Would save on needless admin.
So it would be a bad thing alright.
Besides, you make it sound like PF2 depend on their gear more in other D&D games which is just untrue. Whether items are "immensely" important or not I leave for the reader to judge, but fact is you rely on items much less than in, say, PF1.
It boils down to: can heroes lose their gear?
Of course they can. Anything else and you would be playing the game with the training wheels still on.
This is a very specious argument that doesn't take into account both the ease to obtain gear in PF1 and the huge sums of gold you obtained as a player on top of the very friendly Crafting rules.
You're once again making this argument for something you obviously haven't experienced on the basis of what you think is right versus what happens in the game.
You must also note that when you find a runestone by itself, you can put it on an item. It is clear that rune is separate from an item. Very clear.
We can use an example. Let's say your +2 greater resilient armor is destroyed at lvl 12.
For you to transfer the runes in the field as you seem to think is so easy, the following has to happen:
1. You have to be able to purchase materials to transfer worth 10% of the cost to transfer. You don't get to just make a crafting check because you carried around a new suit of armor.
2. The crafter in question must have the Greater Resilient and +2 greater potency rune on their crafting list.
3. It takes a day of downtime. That means the character must go a day without a key item.
4. His saves and AC drop by 2 points each, which as you can see in PF2 is immense especially against Challenge+2 creature with high DCs and hit rolls.
5. +2 Greater Resilient armor is 4500 gold. That is literally the entire gold worth of items for a lvl 12 character. As in if they had this time, it would be worth all the gold they had. It is half the worth of a lvl 14 character.
It costs 450 gold to transfer. As in this would take 10% of all the gold they had to transfer. They would have to have this gold on hand.
6. They would have to be close to a settlement to purchase the materials to transfer the runes.
So if you lose your item during an adventure, it is not as easy as having an extra suit of armor or weapon in your backpack. It's in fact quite a process. I found this out the hard way when I lost a maxed out for my level item.
It is not an easy process. I can see why the rules seem to allow rune transfer. Level appropriate items are extremely expensive compared to the gold you obtain. Destroying a character's high level items they sunk gold into permanently forcing them to rebuild the item from scratch with gold that will take a while to obtain isn't fun for the player.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being weaponless until you get a chance to get a new one is anything but zero impact. A high level martial without a weapon is pathetically weak against any meaningfully difficult foe. Stripping a character of their weapons effectively removes them from that combat and any subsequent combats until they have suitable downtime to replace it.Most parties I've seen generally have one or more backup weapons. The fighter will be reduced in effectiveness for a little while sure, but they'll hardly be "pathetically weak against any meaningfully difficult foe" while they wait for the GM to toss them a new weapon as part of the standard treasure allotment.
Wasn't really the case when I lost +2 resilient armored clothing against a Challenge+2 enemy. I started getting crit every round from that 2 point drop in AC. I'm glad I wasn't fighting some caster attacking my saves.
I can't imagine this happening to a high lvl character where he lost +3 on his AC and saves. If your weapon or armor get destroyed, you don't lose one rune. You lose all of them. Every property and fundamental rune on the item. Depending on how you much you invested, that can be 50% or so of your overall character wealth.
And you don't get more hardness or hit points on your items from boosting the runes on them. We looked for that for ages. But nope, your lvl 17 armor with +3 potency and resilient runes has the same hardness and hit point as though you had a suit of nonmagical armor.
It's funny that this thread has devolved from the question of whether or not the rules mandate that runes be destroyed when the item bearing them is destroyed, to how screwed PCs would be if they lost part of their all-important set of gear.
The RAW don't answer the first question, even though it is inconceivable to me that a cloak or a shield or a sword or a suit of armor that is completely destroyed could have salvageable runes.
But the other part of the discussion seems to be focusing on how essential a level-appropriate set of gear is to PC success and survival. I won't argue that having level-appropriate weapons and armor isn't a great boost to the PCs' success in their adventuring career, but surely any PC is far from helpless without their precious gear, whether they be spellcasters or martial characters.
And any DM worth their salt will surely arrange for the adventure to replenish their supplies in fairly short order if for some story-linked reason they lose their gear.
Lastly, PF2 has taken significant steps to reduce and limit the opportunities for loss of gear. Disarm attacks are far less likely to succeed, and sunder attempts no longer exist. Monster abilities that impact armor are few and far between, and PCs have ways to find out about thier existence in order to take steps to counter them before they are surprised by sudden gear destruction.
So while I too would have prefered for there to be a RAW answer to the OP's question, the plain fact is that it will remain the province of DM fiat until or unless it's dealt with in some future set of errata or a new book.
after the first couple of levels we end up with spare weapons and/or runes.
Well, sure but that, IMO, only lasts until the group gets to someplace to sell off the extra. Why are you carrying around weapons you aren't using when they could be converted into something you COULD use? [or saved for a future upgrade?]
Law of averages indicates the party should receive no less than 24 meaningful new weapon runes throughout 20 levels (to ensure that everyone ends up equipped appropriately). Assuming an even distribution throughout the game, the party should receive a meaningful new rune roughly every 3/4 levels.
Not sure why any of this matter. Between upgrading existing runes and selling off unneeded ones, why would a 20th level party be sitting on 24 weapon runes? And why would there be a need to give out runes instead of loot and items they can use to buy rune and/or upgrades instead ALL runes?
It demonstrates that you won't be without your precious runes for long, even if you can't get to a town or can't afford one.
|
Just get some Black Dragonhide armor, Corrosive runes are useless against it. Or get adamantine armor for the massive hardness increase. Or you know, any of the other harder materials available at higher levels.
Why would a level 18 not have some sort of special material on their armor at that point, even just standard adamantine armor? That's relatively cheap at that point.
As for Wrecker Demons, they're low enough level that any damage done to armor or weapons wouldn't be THAT bad in the grand scheme of things.
The highest level creature I can find that can deal direct damage to armor is the Shuln. Yes it does a LOT of damage ((3d10+10)x2), but hardness over 10 still applies. Strange since the rules of adamantine has changed since 1E, but this creature still uses the old rules.
In the end, the GM should take the possibility of permanent equipment damage into account for encounters with creatures that can do this. It's very rare, with only 7 creatures that either deal direct damage to armor or worn objects. It's really up to them if they want to allow for salvaging of runes, I believe it's really up to what kind of damage destroyed the item, like if it was disintegrated or rusted or corroded away, vs being shattered by a huge hit or spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It demonstrates that you won't be without your precious runes for long, even if you can't get to a town or can't afford one.
But it didn't do that... All Party Treasure by Level table shows in what the expected number of items and their levels. What it never does is list what type of items there are: the party might never find any runes but took treasure and bought what is on that chart. Or they found the base runes and upgraded them. It in no way shows that the number of runes ever increases much less that it increases to 24. Honestly, I'd be worrying about the sanity of a party that has "24 meaningful new weapon runes" laying around...
Got pulled away for Christmas with family before I could hit submit on my finished thoughts.
Well, sure but that, IMO, only lasts until the group gets to someplace to sell off the extra. Why are you carrying around weapons you aren't using when they could be converted into something you COULD use? [or saved for a future upgrade?]
Why wouldn't you have a backup weapon for situations in which your weapon is destroyed or inappropriate (such as when fighting a creature with certain resistances)?
Not sure why any of this matter. Between upgrading existing runes and selling off unneeded ones, why would a 20th level party be sitting on 24 weapon runes? And why would there be a need to give out runes instead of loot and items they can use to buy rune and/or upgrades instead ALL runes?
It demonstrates that you won't be without your precious runes for long, even if you can't get to a town or can't afford one.
Honestly, I'd be worrying about the sanity of a party that has "24 meaningful new weapon runes" laying around...
24 for their whole career mind you, and they are only meaningful for a couple levels after you get them. Many will be upgraded or sold. If the party is smart they'll hold onto a couple for specific scenarios.
That is to say, you aren't going to have 24 potency +3 runes or major striking runes in the party at level 20, probably something more like 4-6 of each.
Why wouldn't you have a backup weapon for situations in which your weapon is destroyed or inappropriate (such as when fighting a creature with certain resistances)?
Because there are non-weapon magic items and you only have so much money? It's the same reason I don't follow the 'blow through consumables every level to stay competitive' method of playing. For instance, between an extra weapon with striking or a bag of holding, I'm taking the bag.
It demonstrates that you won't be without your precious runes for long, even if you can't get to a town or can't afford one.
No, it doesn't. You take the entire value of your weapon and reduce that amount by it... You do NOT instantly return to those values, nor should you if it's meant to be a lose. You can't use 2,250 gp worth of consumables, for instance, and expect it to all come back next time you go to town: why would you expect a 15 level weapon to show up in your backpack?
Why are you carrying around weapons you aren't usingTo use when your primary weapon gets destroyed...?
;)
Ok, so buy the base weapon and transfer the rune that's left over when the old weapon got destroyed? Sounds good! ;)
Now if you mean buy another FULL magic weapon... Heck no. :P
That is to say, you aren't going to have 24 potency +3 runes or major striking runes in the party at level 20, probably something more like 4-6 of each.
WHY would you have more than one set of rounds sitting around? [IE: why 4-6 of each] Do you expect to have those extra for weapons and those for armor too just sitting there and NOT getting used to upgrade things when you got them and had no use for them? I just don't get it.