Forgot I necro'd this thread, LOL. Yes I meant "destroyed."
Okay, so if there is no RAW on this, it seems like the closest we can get to RAI is to compare the GM guidelines giving magic items and currency per level, and see whether it assumes characters will be spending money to replace their at-level runes.
(I am assuming that the game's math assumes that characters have at-level fundamental runes.)
Because the top tier fundamental runes are L19 and L20, these would not be included as "safe" loot drops to add onto NPCs.
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?
Dude, I'm not talking about free replacement wealth. Adventure paths and modules litter the game with magical weapons all the time. They do so at specific points to ensure that the party has the tools they need to stay at least somewhat competitive. I haven't seen all the published modules, but the ones I've played in seem to actually give MORE than what is needed to stay competitive.
Siege of the Dinosaurs (Extinction Curse #4), for example, grants a +1 striking weapon in the very first chapter. If that weapon gets destroyed somehow, the PC only needs to go without it until chapter 2, in which several weapons of equal or greater strength are given out.
Even if some adventures have the weapon runes spread out (say in chapter 1 and 4, for example), they often give lots of other valuable treasure in between which can be easily sold to replace the weapon.
This is a trend in every published adventure by Paizo and it seems to be the intent that a similar sprinkling of assets exist even in homebrew games.
Unless your GM is deliberately screwing everyone over by denying the expected standard treasure, losing your weapon is not usually a very big deal for long.
(I am assuming that the game's math assumes that characters have at-level fundamental runes.)
See, this is a frequent assertion that I really object to.
Magic (whether in the form of runes, other items or spells) isn't **essential** in PF2, even less than in previous iterations of our game (PF1, DD3.x...).
It's not something that your character can't live without.
Sure, at-level runes and other gear is a huge help towards success in adventures, especially in the extant Paizo APs, which have a well-deserved reputation for being very, very difficult and deadly.
But, can you survive without your precious gear? Sure. Can you succeed without it? You won't know until you try. Will getting back equivalent gear make for a good story? I'm convinced it will, because if your DM arranged the situation that got your gear destroyed in the first place, he better have a plan in place to allow you to compensate for this setback.
Fantasy fiction is *full* of stories where the hero has to bounce back from some terrible setback. It's a major part of most definitions of "the hero's quest". Issues with gear can be part of that story.
(I am assuming that the game's math assumes that characters have at-level fundamental runes.)See, this is a frequent assertion that I really object to.
Magic (whether in the form of runes, other items or spells) isn't **essential** in PF2, even less than in previous iterations of our game (PF1, DD3.x...).
It's not something that your character can't live without.
Sure, at-level runes and other gear is a huge help towards success in adventures, especially in the extant Paizo APs, which have a well-deserved reputation for being very, very difficult and deadly.
But, can you survive without your precious gear? Sure. Can you succeed without it? You won't know until you try. Will getting back equivalent gear make for a good story? I'm convinced it will, because if your DM arranged the situation that got your gear destroyed in the first place, he better have a plan in place to allow you to compensate for this setback.
Fantasy fiction is *full* of stories where the hero has to bounce back from some terrible setback. It's a major part of most definitions of "the hero's quest". Issues with gear can be part of that story.
This isn't a question of what being a "good" player is or a "heroic character."
As a GM, I'm trying to intuit the designers' intentions. They calculated the stats of the monsters and they named encounter levels "Low," "Moderate," and "Severe" in a deliberate manner to give GMs the tools they need to calibrate the difficulty of their encounters.
I really wish that Automatic Bonus Progression gave clearer guidance and was used more often. This topic is a nightmare. -w-;
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, can you survive without your precious gear? Sure.
[...]
Fantasy fiction is *full* of stories where the hero has to bounce back from some terrible setback.
Most traditional fantasy fiction doesn't have characters nearly as gear dependant as PF2 heroes, though.
In a book, a paladin who loses their weapon might be able to pick up a rock or throw a punch and do just fine. In PF2, a high level paladin is losing upwards of three quarters of their damage if you break their greatsword.
Shatter their +3 plate armor and they go from being hit on a 14 and crit on a 20 to being hit on a 5 and crit on a 15. More than tripling the amount of damage they take.
Frankly, there's a reason it's so difficult to actually lose your gear in PF2, because this:
Magic (whether in the form of runes, other items or spells) isn't **essential** in PF2, even less than in previous iterations of our game (PF1, DD3.x...).
Is one of the biggest myths perpetuated about the system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I can say is that in AoA volume 2 it is possible to find an intact fundamental armor rune on an otherwise unrecoverable piece of armor, so if this is not just some narrative maybe there is a general rule?
Even if some adventures have the weapon runes spread out (say in chapter 1 and 4, for example), they often give lots of other valuable treasure in between which can be easily sold to replace the weapon.
Right here is the crux of my argument... In that same place where you're getting rid of "valuable treasure" you could be trading out those dozens of spare runes you seem to be getting and buy useful items. As such, everyone in the party SHOULD NOT be carrying a couple extra in their pockets...
Unless your GM is deliberately screwing everyone over by denying the expected standard treasure, losing your weapon is not usually a very big deal for long.
Nothing in the standard treasure tables saying anything about specific items. You can get getting the full amount of items and cash and not getting runes. YOU are taking some published adventures and making them a 'standard' and they aren't. There is no standard rune that runes drop like candy when someone makes up their own campaign and used the actual treasure/loot tables and expected treasure by level.
As for a lost weapon might not be a loss for long, sell it's a substantial loss in cash and if you're 10 level deep into a dungeon, it's not like a Wild Willies magic emporium will just show up to buy a new one.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right here is the crux of my argument...I find it hard to believe what my eyes are telling me - are you saying heroes should not keep a spare weapon around?! Is *that* your argument why we should dismiss the possibility the RAI is that runes can get destroyed?! :-o
I think what they're trying to say is that one should not be considered to be expected to keep a spare weapon that is just-as or nearly-as good as your primary one. Keeping another backup around is totally feasible and normal but taking pains to ensure that it too has a "competitive" number of Runes on it isn't a great idea for your pocketbook or your other equipment, it will really only serve to drain coin away from improving other gear or having access to a wider breadth of equipment options and consumables.
Taking care to ensure you always have a second +1 striking corrosive weapon on backup for when your main +2 striking weapon gets destroyed is more paranoid and wasteful than it is wise.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, since that paladin will easily have access to one-step lower gear.
Hopefully for the paladin, yes, but the post I was responding to specifically used the phrase "without their gear" so my analysis was reflecting just how much trouble the paladin would be in, as stated, without their gear.
PS. Of course, since we can assume you are playing in a campaign where runes never get destroyed.
I'm not playing in a campaign at all right now. Nothing I've talked about has made any assumptions about what kind of campaign you're in, it's just a reporting of the numbers as they exist in PF2, which seems to upset you a lot for whatever reason, what with all the lashing out.
Though if we are talking anecdotally:
And if a +3 major resilient plate armor is nuked, then perhaps use +2 greater resilient half plate.
I can't say I've ever seen characters just walking around with redundant backup armor sets on hand at all times. If that's how you play your characters, more power to you, but I'm skeptical of this being a regular thing.
Though it also takes 10 rounds to don light armor and 50 for heavy (5 and 25 with Armor Assist), so you're probably not switching into your backup suit mid fight either.
It just isn't convincing to argue "it cannot be that runes are meant to be destroyed in the game for everyone since *I* never carry backup gear".
Agreed, so it's a good thing no one at any point has made that argument then. :>
I find it hard to believe what my eyes are telling me - are you saying heroes should not keep a spare weapon around?!
Yes, I'm saying that there shouldn't be a requirement to carry around a golfbag of weapons. The game has gone out of it's way to make it so you do NOT have to do this by allowing the magic to be transferred from one weapon to another. Why then turn around and make a situation where you have to horde extra weapons?
Is *that* your argument why we should dismiss the possibility the RAI is that runes can get destroyed?! :-o
I'm suggestion that having runes destroyed seems counter to the abilities that allow you to condense the runes you get into 1 weapon instead of forcing you to keep runes attached to a specific weapon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it hard to believe what my eyes are telling me - are you saying heroes should not keep a spare weapon around?!Yes, I'm saying that there shouldn't be a requirement to carry around a golfbag of weapons. The game has gone out of it's way to make it so you do NOT have to do this by allowing the magic to be transferred from one weapon to another. Why then turn around and make a situation where you have to horde extra weapons?
Is *that* your argument why we should dismiss the possibility the RAI is that runes can get destroyed?! :-oI'm suggestion that having runes destroyed seems counter to the abilities that allow you to condense the runes you get into 1 weapon instead of forcing you to keep runes attached to a specific weapon.
Interesting point. But then how can one destroy a Rune?
Why are there not Runes everywhere if they can be created through etching but never destroyed?
Full plate comes with an undercoat of padded armor as part of it. I would be totally fine with letting a player apply runes to that and having them apply their benefits to the full suit of fullplate (I see this as no different than placing the runes on the armor's pauldron, plackart, or other piece of the armor).
As I'm a generally easygoing GM, I too would be fine with the notion that the runes survived the plates' destruction because they continue to exist on the undamaged padded armor.
In general, I believe that runes are destroyed along with whatever they are inscribed upon, but I'm willing to make exceptions based on varying circumstances. Someone who's breastplate was destroyed by a giant's steel-toed kick to the chest, for example, might still have the runes unharmed upon their undamaged helmet. The helmet is not enough on its own to provide any benefits, and so the runes are effectively dormant, but they are not destroyed.
Interesting point. But then how can one destroy a Rune?
How does one destroy a unused talisman or a Third Eye tattoo? Do we expect attached things to be destroyed when the object/creature they are attached to dies/gets destroyed? We're talking about things meant to be moved around and destroyed doesn't mean disintegrated. Are there attacks that affect things that aren't weapons or armor [neither of which runes are]?
Why are there not Runes everywhere if they can be created through etching but never destroyed?
Aren't there? Isn't that why they are common? If you read Ravingdork's post, the adventures are giving them out like candy at Halloween. ;)
Why are there not Runes everywhere if they can be created through etching but never destroyed?Aren't there? Isn't that why they are common? If you read Ravingdork's post, the adventures are giving them out like candy at Halloween. ;)
Like candy indeed! I went through a couple 1-20 adventure paths and tabulated how many runes there were.
I did not tabulate Age of Ashes because (1) they were still resolving issues with the system and (2) because they had not started with the oh so convenient treasure sidebars.
# WEAPON RUNES
26 +1 potency
12 +2 potency
09 +3 potency
22 striking
13 greater striking
04 major striking
06 property runes
01 special material
01 equivalent item (such as doubling rings or handwraps of mighty blows)
10 specific item (such as a holy avenger; excludes magical staves that do not possess fundamental runes and consumable weapons/ammo)
# ARMOR RUNES
06 +1 potency
10 +2 potency
03 +3 potency
06 resilient
09 greater resilient
01 major resilient
05 property runes
03 special material
02 equivalent item (such as bracers of armor)
05 specific item (such as breastplate of command)
# WEAPON RUNES
83 +1 potency
08 +2 potency
09 +3 potency
59 striking
08 greater striking
03 major striking
11 property runes
04 special material
03 equivalent item (such as doubling rings or handwraps of mighty blows)
11 specific item (such as a holy avenger; excludes magical staves that do not possess fundamental runes and consumable weapons/ammo)
# ARMOR RUNES
35 +1 potency
05 +2 potency
01 +3 potency
04 resilient
05 greater resilient
00 major resilient
00 property runes
00 special material
01 equivalent item (such as bracers of armor)
08 specific item (such as breastplate of command)
Like candy indeed! I went through a couple 1-20 adventure paths and tabulated how many runes there were.
Cool. I play AP far less often than home-made adventures so I didn't recall that many. That and when I did play the AP's, I most likely sold 99% of them. [who could ever use 118 +1 potency runes?] They just kind of blend in with the other things I sell like potions, scrolls, talismans, ect that just taking up way more space that the gp it's worth. :P
If all you're saying is that you're leaning towards the interpretation "runes survive destruction" that's cool - we simply do not know.
Damaging and attacking items is a part of the game that's been left almost entirely up to the DM. Myself, I'd prefer some kind of default but that seems unlikely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are there not Runes everywhere if they can be created through etching but never destroyed?Aren't there? Isn't that why they are common? If you read Ravingdork's post, the adventures are giving them out like candy at Halloween. ;)Like candy indeed! I went through a couple 1-20 adventure paths and tabulated how many runes there were.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
That is not like candy. Tallying a total up absent the context of when you receive them does not give an accurate view of how runes are doled out.
Most of those Greater Striking runes likely came when characters are moving up to Major Striking runes, which as this list shows are extremely rare and costly. It would take approximately 31 greater striking runes sold at full price (which they are not) to equal the cost of one Major Striking Rune. Thus it would take 62 greater striking runes sold at half price to purchase one Major Striking Rune.
So no, they are not handed out like candy. You need to look at the price of one level appropriate rune and compare it to the cost of a lower level rune. The game factors in damage by what striking rune you have within a given tier. Having that rune destroyed is enormously costly to recover on top of it taking time and possibly leading to your complete ineffectiveness for that battle and possibly several battles to follow.
One Major Striking Rune: 31065 gold
One Greater Striking Rune: 1065 gold.
One Striking Rune: 65 gold
The cost of level appropriate runes is substantial, meant to take up a great deal of your wealth by level calculation. Yet they did not include a mechanic for enhancing the hardness or hit points of a magical item.
So even your +3 major striking greataxe has a wooden haft which would count a thin wood. Thus its Hardness would be 3 and its hit point/BT 12/6. A high level monster who can harm your weapon would likely destroy it quite easily. You are out a substantial portion of your wealth hoping the caster you are with has a Remake Spell if you survive the battle against such a creature.
Normally I would be of the mind that an item destroyed is gone like PF1. After seeing how this system works with items including the cost, I can't punish a player that way unless the ability says everything is destroyed. It would be a game ruining ability to given how easy it is to destroy items and how hard it is to recover them or afford them.
It would give players a reason to hate PF2 as it reaches a level of grittiness that isn't fun. GM destroys your +3 major striking greater acid greater shocking vorpal great axe with a 30 point damage hit. Tells you that your 56300 gold weapon is gone. Half the worth of your character shattered with not much of a way to resist it. That's not much fun at all.
Not something I plan to do as a DM myself. It's bad enough they lose the weapon they invested nearly all the gold they had in for that battle and for the day, but to have it permanently gone then expect them to rebuild it with a few adventures to go left is not the type of GM I want to be.
Yeah the values are mega disproportionate. So what? We're talking about the impact on play, not about monetary value.
Or are you going to try and convince me that a martial character accustomed to a major striking weapon is really going to be "totally unbearably crippled" when he has to use his backup greater striking weapon for a couple in-game days to, at most, a level or so later?
Note that I did not include any of the miscellaneous treasure, much of which is incredibly valuable in its own right. The party could easily drop one or two current items to be able to afford a replacement weapon if really necessary.
Now, that being said, after performing my analysis, I think those saying destroyed armor would have a big impact are correct. They by and large are not as common and are more spread out.
|
|
As to the wider forum topic, or rather discussions as to the developers' intent regarding the forum topic, I think that due to the fact that they deliberately made effects that can target attended objects pretty rare, there is a good argument to be made that permanently destroying equipment in a way that makes it prohibitively difficult to recoup would go against their wider intentions for the game.
Interestingly, I read it the other way around. Why create abilities that have such low impact after all? While having this kind of rare but dangerous abilities around gives good incentive to actually use Recall Knowledge.
|
|
Interesting point. But then how can one destroy a Rune?How does one destroy a unused talisman or a Third Eye tattoo? Do we expect attached things to be destroyed when the object/creature they are attached to dies/gets destroyed? We're talking about things meant to be moved around and destroyed doesn't mean disintegrated. Are there attacks that affect things that aren't weapons or armor [neither of which runes are]?
Why are there not Runes everywhere if they can be created through etching but never destroyed?Aren't there? Isn't that why they are common? If you read Ravingdork's post, the adventures are giving them out like candy at Halloween. ;)
Honestly it was a real question and I would be interested in an answer, as I could again learn something new about the game :-)
To your questions, to destroy a talisman, I just need to use it. And to destroy a third eye tattoo (or rather to change it back), I just need to kill its owner (or otherwise prevent them from investing in it). I take artifacts having specific requirements for their destruction to mean that there are more standard ways to destroy other items (like the Disintegrate spell mentioned in the description of the Remake spell).
Indeed Disintegrated is not a condition. The condition is Destroyed, even with the Disintegrate spell.
And yes I would also prefer clear guidelines. Do Runes on an object survive it being destroyed with the Disintegrate spell?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just saw that the Emblazon symbol feat in the playtest clarified what happened if the symbol was destroyed. But the Emblazon Armament feat in the CRB does not.
Either the devs decided to leave it to the GM, or they took it out of single cases but forgot to put the general rule in the book.
In any case a clarification would be welcome.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that Attached weapon specifies what happens when the object is destroyed : "If an item is destroyed, its attached weapon can usually be salvaged."
This might be intended for Runes too, but why not write it down in the exact same way then?
It ends up pretty maddening to me so far.
To your questions, to destroy a talisman, I just need to use it. And to destroy a third eye tattoo (or rather to change it back), I just need to kill its owner (or otherwise prevent them from investing in it).
I was asking in the context of weapons/armor being destroyed with a talisman attached. I was just pointing out there there are more than runes that run into the question on what happens to them if what you attach them to gets destroyed/killed.
Way I see it, attaching a talisman to an object does not make it a part of the object. And I have the Attached trait's description to fall back on (ie, usually not destroyed). I feel that Runes are pretty different, being etched on the object.
For me, I don't see any difference between a rune and a talisman: both are "affixed" [attached] to a weapon/armor. You have similar activities to add/remove them [Affix a Talisman/transfer a rune]: both are craft related activities. So for me, the answer shold be the same when it comes to what happens to a talisman and a rune when the base item is destroyed.
|
|
Way I see it, attaching a talisman to an object does not make it a part of the object. And I have the Attached trait's description to fall back on (ie, usually not destroyed). I feel that Runes are pretty different, being etched on the object.For me, I don't see any difference between a rune and a talisman: both are "affixed" [attached] to a weapon/armor. You have similar activities to add/remove them [Affix a Talisman/transfer a rune]: both are craft related activities. So for me, the answer shold be the same when it comes to what happens to a talisman and a rune when the base item is destroyed.
I learned new things about Talismans thanks to your post. Thank you. :-)
Note though that affixing a talisman does require a repair kit, but Craft is not mentioned at all.
For what it's worth, a single offhand mention in the playtest rulebook (gone from the final one from what I can see) mentioned that "Runes don't have a Bulk entry because they aren't physical objects."
Note though that affixing a talisman does require a repair kit, but Craft is not mentioned at all.
That's why I said "craft related". ;)
It comes from the kit: it "allows you to perform simple repairs" and "You can use a repair kit to Repair items using the Crafting skill". A repair kit does nothing else from it's item description. It's hard for me to see using a repair kit and not having it be related to craft/repair. Actually, I'm curious why they went with a repair kit instead of Artisan's Tools? You'd think etching tools would be used when dealing with etched runes. :P