|
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
The repair kit weighs and costs half the numbers for the artisan's tools.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is zero reason to think "attached" and "affixed" things work the same. Hint: two different terms were used.
There is 0 reason to think they do not work the same: they are synonymous terms and the game seems to expect you to read it in a casual way unless the game goes out of it's way to define something. This is hardly the first time they've used multiple terms for the same thing.
Also, they lump multiple things in the rules already for defined things too: for instance, under usage there is an entry for "items enhance other items" that includes "Affixed or Etched". It's not a big leap to think that other things like that work in a similar way. Also note, attached says "attached weapon can be affixed to an item" [and takes the same amount of time to do] which further intertwines the terms and affects.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been thinking this over and I'm not sure I have all the answers, but I do have a few thoughts.
* I don't think it's fair to call players entitled or belittle how screwed they feel if you've only experienced this from a GM viewpoint.
* "They should take their punishment and like it" is BS. This isn't a job and this isn't boarding school.
* Realism should never get in the way of good game design. Realism and immersion aren't the same thing anyway.
* Etching runes is weird. Etching normally means removing some material. If you etch a rune into your sword, it might end up a few grams lighter. There's material missing on your sword. But you can somehow move over those gaps to another sword... how? Are you scooping out material from the new sword and glueing it into the old sword? Given how unrealistic etching runes is anyway, I don't feel super compelled by "realistically, the runes are gone if the sword is gone". Actually, a quest to recover free-floating runes from a long-destroyed weapon sounds like an interesting premise for an adventure.
* Let's take a hint from Shadowrun. People there often said that if you got captured and lost your gear, you might as well write off the character and start over because you're never recovering from that. The lesson is that anything that makes people want to retire a character like that, is bad game design. Retiring a character because their story arc is finished - fine. Retiring a character because some random monster screwed you over so badly that you don't want to continue, that's not good.
With that out of the way, let's actually get into the meat of the matter.
Arguments for total destruction
In theory, you get exponentially more treasure each level, so if you lost your +1 striking sword at level 5, it would hurt a lot then but by level 8 you've probably found so many +1 striking weapons that it's not a big deal anymore. The question then is, how much do you lose and how long does it take before that loss is a marginal amount of your current wealth?
Apart from your gear being destroyed, it's also possible that you just miss some treasure (enemy escapes, you didn't find something because you all flubbed search checks, you had to run away from a fight, you didn't earn a reward etc.). Also, it's possible sometimes you lose gear in other ways (stolen, impounded, or maybe you even gave away significant wealth to some worthy story thing instead of buying better gear).
Also, the book encourages the GM to add more treasure if the PCs are undergeared, so if you lose out, you should get it back at some point.
Arguments against total destruction
Which monsters you encounter is somewhat random. One AP might stock level 15 with monsters that destroy your gear, the other AP stocks level 15 with monsters that just try to bash in your face but are otherwise perfectly nice. It would be strange if one monster was intended to have permanent consequences for the rest of your adventuring career, while the other monster only has consequences until your next lunch break. That doesn't seem like balanced monster design.
When looking at other monsters with long-term consequences like curses and diseases, those are nasty and something like a PC becoming permanently blind can certainly bring the adventuring day to a halt, much like a champion losing their heavy armor can bring the day to a halt. But these things are generally fixable, perhaps for an amount of money but depending on the party's level, it's mostly a matter of time. Find a friendly cleric to cast condition removal spells until they ace the Counteract check and you're fine. The most expensive condition to remove seems to be DEATH, for which we might need a Resurrect ritual or a Raise Dead spell. Looking at the cost of a Resurrect ritual (1 day casting time) compared to the Lump Sum WBL for a new character, it starts out as 1/30th of that amount, and shrinks to 1/112th of that amount. Clearly, getting resurrected gets relatively cheaper (though more expensive in absolute terms). Raise Dead follows a similar pattern but is about twice as expensive, but takes only 10m and doesn't require a risky roll.
So if losing some prime pieces of gear is vastly more expensive than actually being brought back from the dead, maybe that interpretation of the destruction rules is too extreme?
Conversely, if destroying gear is more limited - the runes can be salvaged and transferred - then it's just one more of the "interrupt the day, a few days of recovery, then back into actions" things that can happen at any level. This makes those monsters much more normal in balance compared to other monsters of similar level.
The existence of some specific items (black dragonhide armor) that resist some equipment-destoying things (corrosive rune) doesn't strike me as an argument that permanent destruction is intended. Overall the game doesn't want there to be mandatory items, but considering the enormity of the risk, this would become a mandatory item.
Compared to other catastrophic conditions, there isn't very much you can otherwise do to prevent gear-destroying enemies. If you're fighting a boss 2-3 levels above you, he's just going to crit a few times, that's how it goes. But if every time he permanently destroys a large part of your wealth, that becomes ridiculous. It seems unlikely that one of the worst consequence things has the least opportunities to prevent it.
Conclusion
Overall I'm leaning against permanent rune destruction. I think it could be done in a campaign where the GM carefully monitors WBL and has a "give and take" approach, where gear gets lost all the time but PCs also find new gear to replace it. But that's extra bookkeeping and planning and I don't think that should be the default assumption.
Item destruction with rune salvaging, taking the PCs a few days off-track, seems more like a normal nasty-creature ability, just like a curse or disease that requires some high level spells to fix before the party can continue with the adventure at full strength. It also creates interesting situations: after your sword was destroyed, maybe now is a good moment to consider whether you'd like to try out a different main weapon?
I agree w/ Ascalaphus mostly.
I don't think Runes can exist sans connection to a material object, yet
I think we should default to "destroy" leaving enough of the original item to salvage Runes off of. The item cannot be repaired, but that doesn't mean it's utterly ruined so no possible pattern on it could survive.
Except when it is...like Disintegrate. But such effects would be exceptions because of their explicit descriptions, not because "destroy" always means obliterated. A car can get "totaled" so that's it's beyond repair, yet much can be salvaged off it. It just has to go on a new car.
And Runes are something added, not intrinsic to the building of the items. It seems a minor step to imagine they cling to the item's remnants, yet it makes a major difference in campaign dynamics, combat mechanics and perhaps most importantly, game enjoyment.
(Which is to say, if your squad's into that, have at it w/ the destruction, but the rules don't encourage such a playstyle.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would have been SO much easier if they'd have made it like Final Fantasy materia, crystallized magic you attach to items to power them up. That way you could make it an item and unify Attaching to all things you attach under ONE rule.
|
|
It would have been SO much easier if they'd have made it like Final Fantasy materia, crystallized magic you attach to items to power them up. That way you could make it an item and unify Attaching to all things you attach under ONE rule.
Why do you think it is intended as one rule?
I believe using different words here was done on purpose and that the rules are different too.
But maybe I missed something.
It would have been SO much easier if they'd have made it like Final Fantasy materia, crystallized magic you attach to items to power them up. That way you could make it an item and unify Attaching to all things you attach under ONE rule.Why do you think it is intended as one rule?
I believe using different words here was done on purpose and that the rules are different too.
But maybe I missed something.
You misunderstand: I'm saying that it would have been SO much easier if it was clearly unified: they instead made nearly identical rules [and use interchangeable terms] that are just different enough to confuse the issue. You're doing the same thing [taping or removing something from another object in the exact same amount of time] and this edition has gone out of it's way to simplify and condense things so I have to wonder what is gained by doing so. Why adding something to another item resulted in 3 slightly different entries on how to do it is a mystery to me and, IMO, is an unneeded complicating without any redeeming value. :P
I trust you understand my meaning now?
Not really. Your options are having a defined way of adjudicating it or you're making stuff up... While EVERYTHING in the game is a choice [you can roll d30's if you want], some choices just make more sense and in this case those 2 things have FAR more in common than they differences: IE there is a clear reason to link them, IMO, and not much reason not to as the alternative is to go back to the starting point where you're shrugging your shoulders without any guidance on how it works.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been thinking this over and I'm not sure I have all the answers, but I do have a few thoughts.Thank you for not arguing that the possibility that Paizo does intend runes to be destroyed cannot be.
You are of course free to interpret the rules as you wish, since we all agree Paizo isn't saying either way.
I think actually Paizo might be intentionally not defining this too strictly. As we've seen from some of the earlier discussions you instigated about encounter pacing (which turned out to be really interesting!), it's their policy to let GMs set their own policy that works for their table. Unfortunately, they didn't really communicate to GMs where they were expecting the GMs to apply their own preferences to difficulty/pacing buttons.
But that doesn't mean it's complete anarchy either. WBL is a thing. The CRB does suggest adjusting future treasure if you notice some or all of the PCs are under-geared. The GMG goes further in suggesting ratios of main useful gear that the PCs should get one way or the other, and how to handle that in games with more or less market access.
I think a good analogy is to say that WBL is a mean for how much stuff the PCs should have. A mean is a number, but it doesn't tell the whole story; you also need to know the variance. And how much variance you like is a matter of taste for the GM and players to agree on.
So if you run a "simple" game where you don't use monsters that destroy gear, don't have thieves steal the PCs' gear, the PCs don't really "miss" any treasure due to flubbed Perception checks, and the PCs don't find above average amounts of loot or get any bonus loot either, you have a low-variance game. This is simple because assuming the AP has reasonable amounts of the various types of loot written into it, you don't really need to do all that much monitoring to see if the PCs are above or below average. If you strictly feed them average, average is what they'll be.
Now you can also do a high-variance game. Sometimes you kill a dragon and find a hoard that's a lot bigger than normal for your level. Sometimes a monster destroys your sword and all the runes on it. This definitely makes the game much more swingy. It can be more immersive, too - monsters that destroy your stuff really destroy it for real. And if you do something really clever to get extra loot, you really get it, it doesn't immediately get docked from the payout of the next encounter which is mysteriously low.
But a high-variance game does require more monitoring and balancing from the GM. If all that happens is losing gear because some monster just keeps critting and destroying more and more stuff and it keeps critting faster and faster, you're going to swing far away from the mean. If you want the rest of the game and balancing system to stay on its feet, you're going to have to give the PCs some extra loot in some way to make up for it. Because if all the variance is happening below the mean, then actually your mean is lower than you think (and you have a party below WBL with all the balance problems that come with it).
I think if done well a more high-variance game is actually nicer. Plenty of epic stories from real-world literature feature heroes who lose their weapon but then manage to get an even better one just before a major trial. But whether it really works well in an actual campaign I think depends on whether the GM can smoothly and easily keep an eye on where the PCs are with regards to WBL. If you don't have those methods sorted, then you're making players do painstaking audits "for no reason" or you're negotiating with them for how much extra loot they should find to make up for the stuff that just got destroyed. That's not fun. So having good methodology here is really important. That's why I said the low-variance game is simpler.
Simpler, not necessarily better. But if you can't pull off the work to make the complex high-variance game work well, then simpler is indeed better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would have been SO much easier if they'd have made it like Final Fantasy materia, crystallized magic you attach to items to power them up. That way you could make it an item and unify Attaching to all things you attach under ONE rule.
I've simply house rules it to work like that, runes are gems, gems go into sockets, socketting or unsocketing a gem requires is a exploration activity that takes roughly 15 min To complete. I also use high quality items from the Gmg and use that as a basis for how many sockets an item has. Fundamental runes and rhinestones are not a thing. In my experience this makes things waaaaay easier.
Edit: Oh and on the thread topic I rule these gems are broken, but not destroyed when the object they are in is destroyed.
|
|
For a frame of reference on the topic, let's use a similar example.
What happens to the Spell inside of a Scroll if the Scroll is broken or destroyed? Do you think it should be recoverable or transferable to another Scroll because its value is lost? Should the Spell just magically disappear when the Scroll is Broken/Destroyed?
Personally, I think it should work like I would run it with Armor. If it's broken the Spell/Runes do not work because... well the item can't be used effectively the way it's supposed to be and it will need Repair. If it's Destroyed, POOF, sucks to suck, go replace it from scratch your magic is gone because the (for lack of a better term) container is Destroyed. NOW: If you have access to a way to fix something that's actually Destroyed I do think that restoring the Rune or Spell is appropriate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The level 10 Remake spell repairs destroyed objects (even those that got destroyed by a Disintegrate spell) and it does indeed restore their magical properties.
Note however that Broken is a condition and thus does what it says. And Broken's description does not mention losing magical properties.
Note however that Broken is a condition and thus does what it says. And Broken's description does not mention losing magical properties.
But it does say the following:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the text of the broken condition for armour is slightly ambiguous:
A broken object can’t be used for its normal function, nor does it grant bonuses—with the exception of armor. Broken armor still grants its item bonus to AC, but it also imparts a status penalty to AC depending on its category: –1 for broken light armor, –2 for broken medium armor, or –3 for broken heavy armor.
I can see 2 readings:
1) Broken armour grants no bonuses with the exception of its item bonus and also inflicts a status penalty.2) Broken armour works as normal but inflicts the status penalty.
I personally think 2 is the correct reading, since the "armour exception" is presented as part of the first sentence with no other qualifiers, suggesting armour ignores the whole sentence.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A great summary from Ascalaphus in regard to both sides.
From my experience - taking away wealth and items in a game can be very contentious and has to be done carefully. In 35 years of playing and GMing I only walked from a table twice. In either case it was because the GM took away items.
First time I was robbed while sleeping in an Inn. Inexperienced GM - rolled a 1 on a d20. My character depended on jewels to fuel his magic. Without them I was a peasant with a dagger. GM graciously dropped a few coins to buy the smallest possible gem (to enable the equivalent of a cantrip).
Went to a jeweler to pretend to buy a tiny jewel - but in reality used it as an opportunity to scout out the place while asking a lot of questions around security. Summoned a tiny air elemental to send literally through the holes in the fluff description of the security given to me and stole back an equivalent amount of gems stolen from me (maybe even a little bit more).
I saw it as heroic recovery - the GM saw it as misusing the rules and the description was just fluff and meant to be impenetrable and that I tricked the GM - so ruled out what I was doing. I walked from the table. GM said something would have dropped later to make my character viable again - but the point was - control was taken from player to the mercy of the GM.
Second time the whole party gets captured (in my view partly due to a (very experienced) GM mistake - but me and the GM never got to an agreement). GM proudly announces instead of killing us that we would be stripped of all items (level 11, wizard without a spellbook or any money to buy a new one). Again I try a heroic recovery. Bound and without spellbook I still have one spell left that could free the group. Needs two high concentration checks - unlikely to succeed - but possible. Our capturer is 50 feet away - I ask others in the group to give me cover / make a diversion and wait for a good time when the capturer seems occupied with something (after all - we would have hours to wait for a good opportunity). I do 2 rolls - succeed against expectation. Doesn't matter - GM rules casting a spell will be autodetected.
Naked, without weapons - the whole group decides to go for a suicide TPK and walks the table instead of being stripped of all items.
It is interesting that I have been killed numerous times, TPKed once or twice - but the above are the two incidences that I feel most emotional about - even years after they happened.
GMing isn't just about being correct by RAW. If you drive away your table in the process then nobody did win.
If you now ask me how I would rule myself? My ruling would decide on a) how the items was destroyed and b) how I expect the players to react.
Bad planning and stupid actions should have consequences - but randomly occurring acts that seem out of proportion will feel unjustified by players.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are some people conflating destroyed with obliterated?
While there are certainly examples of obliterated equipment, i.e. Disintegration, those aren't the default. Simple bashing can destroy something too. And given the only addition to destroyed vs. broken is that it becomes irreparable, that leaves plenty of leeway to allow enough remnants to hold a Rune until it can be transferred. Unless the effect describes specifically an obliterating level of destruction, why would one rule against Runes surviving on the detritus?
As Thod wrote, undermining a PC's agency brings on hard feelings.
I'm reminded of the beginning of an AP where the players lose agency as part of the setup, but that's before the players ever control their PCs. One GM wanted to roleplay that portion and the response was a loud "NO!" because that could only lead to harsh feelings since you do have to railroad the PCs to launch the AP and they almost certainly will find a way to disturb events (even if it's as simple as rolling a nat 20/auto-succeed at a few points).
Players often can accept narration, but seldom can tolerate railroading that strips them of agency (not that that fully equates with major item loss, but they're similar).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are some people conflating destroyed with obliterated?
I think part of it is the English language vs Pathfinder terminology.
This reminded me of part 1 of the Lord of the Rings that I watched with the family just after Christmas. How would you describe Narsil - the sword that cut off the ring from Sauron when it is on display in Rivendell.
Using English language (not my primary language) I would describe it as broken in multiple pieces.
Using Pathfinder terminology I clearly would describe it as destroyed.
|
|
Why are some people conflating destroyed with obliterated?
While there are certainly examples of obliterated equipment, i.e. Disintegration, those aren't the default. Simple bashing can destroy something too. And given the only addition to destroyed vs. broken is that it becomes irreparable, that leaves plenty of leeway to allow enough remnants to hold a Rune until it can be transferred. Unless the effect describes specifically an obliterating level of destruction, why would one rule against Runes surviving on the detritus?
As Thod wrote, undermining a PC's agency brings on hard feelings.I'm reminded of the beginning of an AP where the players lose agency as part of the setup, but that's before the players ever control their PCs. One GM wanted to roleplay that portion and the response was a loud "NO!" because that could only lead to harsh feelings since you do have to railroad the PCs to launch the AP and they almost certainly will find a way to disturb events (even if it's as simple as rolling a nat 20/auto-succeed at a few points).
Players often can accept narration, but seldom can tolerate railroading that strips them of agency (not that that fully equates with major item loss, but they're similar).
Speaking only for myself, I find that PF2 is very much a RAW game where each word is important. And we have only 2 conditions (with mechanical impact) for damaged objects : Broken and Destroyed. Disintegrated does not exist as a game term.
So I tend to think of Destroyed objects as following all the same rules.Now, thanks to this thread, I believe that the impact of the Destroyed condition on the Runes an object bears is left to the GM to adjudicate. I just regret that such was not explicitly stated, as it would have avoided so many people spending so much time and effort on this topic.
|
|
Note however that Broken is a condition and thus does what it says. And Broken's description does not mention losing magical properties.But it does say the following:
Quite true. I meant to say that the Runes are unaffected by the condition and thus Runes on a broken weapon can still be transferred.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that Paizo has been more consistent and deliberate with wording, yet I protest PF2 being "very much a RAW game". There's a sidebar that establishes that by RAW, RAW is no longer king. Reasonable adjudication & game balance matter more.
Heck, by RAW the Runes are a separate item from what they empower, so they'd need to be targeted & destroyed separately, which would be difficult since they lack stats. But them surviving off of an item also makes no sense, so ultimately we're referencing our judgment more than RAW anyway unless one want free-floating Runes out there (which I'm not sure could ever be transferred since they're not on an object...somehow).
Paizo has let the secret loose that they don't want to get into minutia in their rulings (hence the lack of FAQs) as that leads down a rabbit hole into even more corner cases and exceptions, the body of which clogs up the system as well as robs GMs of agency. And too often GMs are doing research like a paralegal (often at the table!) when they should be developing their personal RPGing skills.
Which is to say I don't think pointing out that there are only two terms for states of item damage makes for good evidence, nor do I think all items using the same term must be treated exactly alike when it's obvious the in-game effects vary extremely.
Obvious is very dependent on the observer ;-)
I appreciate the philosophy. :)
It touches upon the "reasonable observer" phrasing so often found in law (and which is somewhat loosely defined).Do you not think there are "obvious" differences in-game between destroying via dissolving the portion of an item immersed in acid, disintegrating the whole item into dust, and bashing it with a mace?
|
|
In-world, yes.
In-game ? I do not know in which case Runes should be considered salvageable or not, nor on which basis. Of course, I can imagine something, but what I take from this thread is that what matters most is the impact on the fun of the players and the GM, which comes from the kind of game they enjoy. Verisimilitude in one way or another does not matter as much. And I can always devise some plausible explanation :-)
I just wish we had some guidelines for what was intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obvious is very dependent on the observer ;-)I appreciate the philosophy. :)
It touches upon the "reasonable observer" phrasing so often found in law (and which is somewhat loosely defined).Do you not think there are "obvious" differences in-game between destroying via dissolving the portion of an item immersed in acid, disintegrating the whole item into dust, and bashing it with a mace?
Don't we already have 2 distinct conditions that describe a destroyed object already though?
Broken and destroyed.
So, the "obvious" to me is that broken is the condition you are referring to (aka salvageable) and destroyed is so mashed up that's basically debris.
As far as disintegrate comparisons go, while "destroyed" in disintegrate is "dust" and "destroyed" by suffering 150 bludgeoning damage from a dragon crushing an object to a "amorphous pulp" goes, in game effects the obvious to me is that they function the same.
"Function the same" as in it's broken when broken and irreparably broken when destroyed, I agree that the method doesn't matter (except for theatricality, I suppose).
But when talking about the ability to salvage Runes from the ruins (or even salvaging enough to say, "Here's what's left," to a quest-giver), it should matter. It's much like how a creature dies matters to how much of its corpse you can utilize (or return to its widow). Doesn't change the mechanics of Dead, but does have in-game ramifications.You can choose destroyed (or dead) to mean "amorphous pulp", but there's nothing in the meaning (real world or mechanically) of destroyed that requires that level of obliteration. And for a dragon doing an overwhelming amount of damage I might agree the Runes don't survive, but that's because of the dragon, not the destroyed condition which might come from Orcs w/ clubs instead.
If a wagon were destroyed, it's not like everything unattended inside it, hanging on it, or that's subsection of it has to get equally destroyed. Though I can imagine some effects that would achieve that!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I empathize with your interpretation, yet find it unnecessary to always insist destroyed means such obliteration. If my magic carpet (or magic adamantine ring or wand in an adamantine case) were destroyed because a boulder crushed the carriage it was in, I'd walk away from that table.
I think "remotely reparable" may lead to some issues given the creativity of players and the extreme lengths they'll go to (and via their PCs can).
Sometimes "repair" in the real world more resembles rebuilding than fixing. And it's pretty easy to destroy a real world bow to where it can't be repaired, yet all its parts are present. Or a sword so that it requires reforging (which is beyond repair IMO and more along the lines of using the original as raw material for the new one). I'll also refer again to my example of the totaled automobile: Destroyed in game terms (because mechanics will say it's beyond repair), yet many parts can be salvaged and what happens to its contents will vary a lot.
As a side note I haven't fully factored in yet, PF2 repairs can be done with kits. If something is broken beyond what an appropriate, most often portable kit could accomplish, then it can't be repaired, a.k.a. it's destroyed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I wouldn't use destroyed Runes to validate walking off a table. I like setbacks and resilience in my heroes. I try not to depend on specific items and encourage my players to make PCs that can handle adverse situations, i.e. what does your trip-pony PC do in the "Temple of Untrippable Serpents"? I'd see the adventure through first.
Had the Runes been destroyed by GM whimsy or malice? What sub-genre are we playing in? Etc. Personally, I don't even like worlds that contort to suit the levels and needs of the PCs. (Though if I'm going to be railroaded, the world might need to be adjusted.)
This is one reason I'm pro-Rune salvaging, since I don't want monster treasures to oddly expand due to such setbacks (and some required items do need to be replaced rather quickly because math.)
But I would use GM motivation and their ability to balance & narrate.
I'd hope there'd be times when my PC has to escape or infiltrate a prison (or social venue) and work without their tools, as long as the obstacles are suitable for the new power dynamic. If my gear gets disintegrated (or otherwise obliterated) I understand IF that's within the effect's dynamics and not merely to round up all examples of destroyed to obliterated for the illusory sake of consistency.
And I would use unreasonable repercussions to non-targeted items as in the examples given.
And the fact you started with two states of disabled to justify your interpretation shows we're coming from different directions. I'd start with what can happen in-game, then see what the rules say about various situations. The rules use broad strokes (two in this case) to label a wide variety of disabling situations. It does a disservice to the game to force all those situations to be equivalent in all other ways because of that. I'll once again reference how "Dead" equals "Dead", but the state of the body can vary tremendously for other purposes, this despite the game only having one term for having died. Some bodies you might be able to cut off the tattoo map, and on some you can't.
And one thing I'd note, if the original item gets reduced to raw materials (as per your wording), I'd lean toward the Runes (being somewhat ephemeral entities) continuing to exist on those materials. (IF solid.)
Where the rules are fairly clear, however, is if you enter the evil overlord's lair and start off by casting a giant fireball or other area spell.
The only direct way to read the rules is that every unattended magic item (the magic sword lying on a cusion, all the magic items in the bookshelves, the potions standing on the table etc) will be irrevocably destroyed.
This is not true:
CR pg 46: "Damaging an unattended item usually requires attacking it directly, and can be difficult due to that item’s Hardness and immunities. You usually can’t attack an attended object (one on a creature’s person)."unattended items do not usually take damage unless directly attacked.
One of the Paizo folk was saying that damage in PF2 ramped up too high for items to survive if subjected to AoE (etc). So they put this rule in place, yet left room for if the narrative calls for it, i.e. Fireballs in a dry, old library. So collateral damage of unattended objects is firmly in the purview of the GM/author as suits the story > mechanics.
Having seen AoEs destroy the wealth of a dead PC several times, I understand this ruling now that damage has escalated even higher.(I often would have villains refrain from destroying their future treasure, but there'd always be mindless, cruel, or simply losing villains willing to burn the castle down. Plus Frost Worms.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So ... alot of this talk has been about high level and home games... there is an actual AP out were 3rd level characters who have basically invested ALL thier loot to get a +1 weapon for thier two Martial characters (no backup weapons yet because even 1gp is scarce) and there are two creatures in a room that can basically DESTROY A WEAPON in one action... (3 broken weapons in the first round of combat) now to be fair there were a lot of weapons we had collected prior to the fight (10 tridents)... and the barbarian pick fighter easily switched... (albeit with a huge reduction in damage output) the twin feinting rogue (thief racket) was pretty hard up... (we survived the fight and the last two encounters using trident and improvised clubs... no big deal just increased the challenge...now... when the level was finished we went back to town sold all the loot and leveled up... the total value of sold loot was 208 gp (52 per party member)... putting us at about 96 gp per party member total treasure since the start of the module about avg for 4th level characters... the barbarian spent 4.5 g
p to buy a new pick and transfer the rune and the rogue did the same to buy two weapons and transfer the rune... if our GM had said we need to spend 35 gp each to buy 3 new items. The rogue essentially would have played that entire level with NO TREASURE and a net 18gp loss... this did not seem fair...
Part of the thought was the fairness issue... the other part was that the critter that broke the item just used his hands (no acid just tore the weapon apart so the rune should still be intact on the weapon)
BtW ... this same critter also appeared at 2nd level luckily we had no runes yet...
|
I ask to my GM about this question.
from his point of view, a equipement (weapon, armor o shield) and rune are two diferent objects, then, RAW, only there rules for destroy weapons and shield (and I suppose armors too) and a rune is its own object...
i mencioned:
"Rune-etched armor and weapons have the same Bulk and general characteristics as the non-magical version unless noted otherwise. The level of an item with runes etched onto it is equal to the highest level among the base item and all runes etched on it; therefore, a +1 striking mace (a 4th-level item) with a disrupting rune (a 5th-level rune) would be a 5th-level item."
and he explain me:
"This is done for simplicity and so that breaking a weapon is not so easy. The problem is that in the playtest they had different qualities of weapons with different levels and when removing it they needed some way to make it more difficult to break a weapon. Because now they are all level 0 or 1 and a level 10 enemy breaks them from you in one attack."
For him, destroy a equipement don't destroy a rune (remember is his point of view), and another thing, nobody prevents you from carrying destroyed equipment in your inventory.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I mean... something that's a huge problem in combat but relatively easy (albeit potentially time consuming) to fix after the fact doesn't actually sound that out of line with PF2's general design.
An ability that might completely cripple a high level character through massive offensive or defensive penalties for weeks or months because of the incredible resource requirements to recover from it however does sound a bit extreme.
Gut reaction of 'of course the runes break' because it 'makes sense' but looking at the mechanical implications and how helpless Paizo made higher-level PF2 characters without gear it seems perhaps a little too extreme.
Some of the people in this chat would hate what I have allowed to happen to some of my players -laughs-... Like the barbarian who had to be recused after they crit failed an athletics check to long jump over lava, and then also crit failed to grab a ledge.
The party shuffled around some items and they used a +2 striking weapon not of their choice for a little couple of combats.
As for corrosive runes, it depends on your reading "(before applying hardness). To me suggests that hardness is applied and that it is there as a reminder that the 3d6/6d6 doesn't bypass the hardness.
If you read it this way corrosive runes are MUCH less likely to be an auto pick on every martial ever and ruin every encounter with higher level enemies. Because 21 average damage on 6d6 is reduced down to 12 and by those levels it is quite reasonable to expect people to have upgraded to more durable materials if they are concerned and or have the ability to repair mid fight if necessary. And base corrosive runes can only chip away at armour, not instantly destroy anything that isn't metal.
Below is evidence to support my belief of intent. Destructive block and Spined Shield being the sturdiest evidence ;).
For a rust monster
" to a metal item the target is wearing or holding, ignoring its Hardness."
For an Ankhrav
"he target’s armor takes the damage and the acid damage bypasses the armor’s Hardness."
Shuln
"it also deals the same amount of damage to the target’s armor, bypassing any Hardness lower than 10"
Vexgit
"ignores up to 5 of the object's hardness" and "metal item the target is wearing or holding, ignoring its Hardness."
Underworld Dragon
"these claw strikes ignore half the hardness"
Kongamato
"their beak strikes ignore half the hardness"
Khravgooon
"that ignores the first 5 of the target's hardness"
Rusty Mae (a unique monster from AoA)
" to a metal item the target is wearing or holding, ignoring its Hardness"
Wrecker (specialized animal companion upgrade) says
"Ignores half and object's hardness"
Shatter
"Ignoring the object's hardness if it is 4 or lower"
Goblin feat, vandal
"you ignore the first 5 points of hardness"
Alchemist, demolitionist charge
"and this damage ignores an amount of the object’s Hardness equal to your level"
Shattering Blows
"your melee Strikes ignore 5 points of an object’s Hardness"
Rusting Grasp, spell
"all damage from this spell ignores hardness"
Corrosive Ammunition
"the armour takes 1d8 persistent damage that ignores the armour's hardness"
We also have stuff like the following that further supports the informative reading.
Spined shield
" When you use the Shield Block reaction with this shield, the spines take the damage before the shield itself does. When the shield would take damage (after applying Hardness), one spine snaps off per 6 damage, reducing the damage by 6. The shield takes any remaining damage. When there are no spines left, the shield takes damage as normal."
Destructive Block
"you can reduce the damage to yourself by double the shield’s Hardness, but if you do, the shield takes double the normal amount of damage it would have taken (before applying its Hardness)."
Curse of lost time
"If the bearer fails or the object is unattended, the object immediately takes 4d6 damage (applying Hardness normally)"
I think something that causes confusion is rune stones - remember that runes aren't rune stones, rune stones are just another item you can transfer a rune to - runes are etched into the item, whether it is armour or a rune stone or whatever, they don't have a physical form independent of the item.
It's like, how would writing survive if you destroy the paper it is on?
|
|
I think something that causes confusion is rune stones - remember that runes aren't rune stones, rune stones are just another item you can transfer a rune to - runes are etched into the item, whether it is armour or a rune stone or whatever, they don't have a physical form independent of the item.
It's like, how would writing survive if you destroy the paper it is on?
Depends how the paper is destroyed : burnt, turned into pulp, shredded.
Also depends on how much of the paper was actually destroyed.
All of these things can only be determined by the GM. Not by the rules.
He didn't have the higher ground, then?
Literally lost flight the round before.
Got me tonight though, the party managed to two round a +3 creature with some stupid dice luck and good debuffing.
Three crit hits and one crit grapple in the first round.
To make more amusing, the rogue rolled extremely high on damage before doubling as well. The alchemist finished the target off by simply splash damaging it to death and avoiding its debuffed AC alltogether (they have dual onslaught so they could have hit normally, it was just unnecessary)