Can I pay someone to craft runes?


Advice


I don't have crafting as a skill. Can I pay someone to craft runes for me?


Someone who?

You mean like a NPC crafter? As long as your GM agrees, you can simply purchase a rune from the store, and affix it. (No need to have the Craft skill)

You can't save money by trying to find the crafter in person, though.

So this simply boils down to a trip to the magic shoppe, assuming the settlement is large enough (as determined by the GM).

(If you play in a low-magic campaign without magic shoppes, someone in the party better have or retrain into Crafting, though.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unclear, and not written out explicitly in CRB what types or levels of runes a settlement can produce. May need to wait for the GMG for those details.

For now, I would personally put the rule of thumb as close to the rules for finding jobs in settlements. In a village you might find up to level 1 or 2 gear (but not all level 1 or 2 gear, just a few pieces), in a small city up to level 5 or 6, and in a capital or metropolis up to level 10. You can probably procure stuff at half that level with little trouble (no searching required, just buy it). Past level 10 gear you may need to find the best runesmiths in Golarion or travel to other planes to find a Crafter for your needs. To be clear, this is just a houserule/rule of thumb I use when GMing, no real basis in the rules text, and many tables will find it more fun to simply assume you can always buy the stuff your character wants.


Zapp wrote:
As long as your GM agrees, you can simply purchase a rune from the store, and affix it. (No need to have the Craft skill)

I thought you needed the Magical Crafting feat to transfer/etch runes?


Salamileg wrote:
Zapp wrote:
As long as your GM agrees, you can simply purchase a rune from the store, and affix it. (No need to have the Craft skill)
I thought you needed the Magical Crafting feat to transfer/etch runes?

I think Zapp may have been talking about house-rule territory, because even buying a rune on a runestone to put on your item still requires Craft by the rules.


thenobledrake wrote:
Salamileg wrote:
Zapp wrote:
As long as your GM agrees, you can simply purchase a rune from the store, and affix it. (No need to have the Craft skill)

I thought you needed the Magical Crafting feat to transfer/etch runes?

You do. I just can't imagine a Magic Super-Mart not providing this service for you.

After all, assuming the rune you purchased gets delivered on a runestone, it's a one-day job (and zero additional cost) to transfer it onto your weapon.

And not all customers have the Crafting skill.

Quote:
I think Zapp may have been talking about house-rule territory, because even buying a rune on a runestone to put on your item still requires Craft by the rules.

Houserule and houserule - I'm predicting that Golarion cities will have NPC crafters added when upgraded to 2E rules.

The only alternative is to make Magic Crafting a mandatory feat tax for every adventuring party. If you want that, sure.

My point is that the rules doesn't actually say that. They only require SOMEONE to have crafting.

In my view, it is entirely reasonable to think that any seller that somehow has a +2 greater resilient fire-resistant chain mail for sale, also knows someone that can transfer its runes for his customers.

That is, I don't consider it a "houserule" to populate the world with the requisite NPCs should I choose not to force one party member in every team to become a crafter.

Cheers :)


Zapp wrote:


The only alternative is to make Magic Crafting a mandatory feat tax for every adventuring party. If you want that, sure.

I'd only like to point out that parties are much less tied to specific weapons than in PF1 (even when the weapon groups alternative rule was added) thanks to feats like Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec before. It's viable now to simply use the weapons you find while adventuring, since most fighting styles have broad weapon requirements like 2 hand weapons or 1 hand agile weapons, so you don't have to transfer runes unless you have a build tied to one weapon like longbow or thrown weapons. Of course transferring runes will be preferable at some point but I think a party could survive without it.

I do agree though that any NPC who can make or sell weapons of a certain level should be able to help you transfer runes of that level, if not themselves then they know someone who can, unless they have no Crafter connections like a merchant who only does resales like some magic pawn shop (which seems like a viable business with all these adventurers selling magic weapons at half price :)


I am currently using the earnings table to determine how much the Crafter charges to transfer the rune (expert column), CRB 236.


Zapp wrote:

quote

Ah, I think it was just a misunderstanding. The way you worded it I thought you meant buying the rune and then affixing it yourself.


Talsharien wrote:
I am currently using the earnings table to determine how much the Crafter charges to transfer the rune (expert column), CRB 236.

Please remember: rune transfers cost nothing.

(It still makes sense that a skilled NPC fleeces charges wealthy adventurers for services rendered, of course. Just that this isn't mandated by the CRB.)


Salamileg wrote:


Ah, I think it was just a misunderstanding. The way you worded it I thought you meant buying the rune and then affixing it yourself.

No prob. Doing that does require Crafting.

My point is that I wouldn't say the CRB necessarily makes crafting mandatory, even if you aren't interested in actual crafting, and just want that shiny new rune you found/bought transferred to your weapon of choice.

(You *can* run your game that way, but you don't *have* to.)


BellyBeard wrote:


I'd only like to point out that parties are much less tied to specific weapons than in PF1 (even when the weapon groups alternative rule was added) thanks to feats like Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec before. It's viable now to simply use the weapons you find while adventuring, since most fighting styles have broad weapon requirements like 2 hand weapons or 1 hand agile weapons, so you don't have to transfer runes unless you have a build tied to one weapon like longbow or thrown weapons. Of course transferring runes will be preferable at some point but I think a party could survive without it.

Thank you.

Still, certain broad groupings prevail.

There's still greatweapon users (2H), finesse weapons, thrown, ranged and unarmed (handwraps) apart from the "regular" (1H) weapons used by people fighting with two weapons or with weapon + shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even more to the point:

I don't think the following is a viable argument:

"If you want the ability to transfer runes, the rules tell you to get Magical Crafting"

I think requiring the skill + feat JUST for transfers is overly ungenerous.

>>> You can still require the skill + feat. That's fine. Just as long as you don't argue that's the only way to interpret the CRB! <<<

Requiring the skill + feat in a campaign with few or no Magic Shoppes is fine. Or campaigns where Shoppes only carry a limited selection of pre-selected items.

That is, I would definitely tell my player he or she needs the skill + feat in order to enjoy the benefits of CRAFTING: making items otherwise unavailable.

But not merely to purchase runes and add them to your weapons.


Zapp wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
Salamileg wrote:
Zapp wrote:
As long as your GM agrees, you can simply purchase a rune from the store, and affix it. (No need to have the Craft skill)

I thought you needed the Magical Crafting feat to transfer/etch runes?

You do. I just can't imagine a Magic Super-Mart not providing this service for you.

After all, assuming the rune you purchased gets delivered on a runestone, it's a one-day job (and zero additional cost) to transfer it onto your weapon.

And not all customers have the Crafting skill.

Quote:
I think Zapp may have been talking about house-rule territory, because even buying a rune on a runestone to put on your item still requires Craft by the rules.

Houserule and houserule - I'm predicting that Golarion cities will have NPC crafters added when upgraded to 2E rules.

The only alternative is to make Magic Crafting a mandatory feat tax for every adventuring party. If you want that, sure.

My point is that the rules doesn't actually say that. They only require SOMEONE to have crafting.

In my view, it is entirely reasonable to think that any seller that somehow has a +2 greater resilient fire-resistant chain mail for sale, also knows someone that can transfer its runes for his customers.

That is, I don't consider it a "houserule" to populate the world with the requisite NPCs should I choose not to force one party member in every team to become a crafter.

Cheers :)

I like the idea of a specialized shop which sells magic items and also provvides you Services like runeswap/runeforge and so on.

Maybe they could be not so common, and only available in medium/large cities, but the idea itself, given the large amount of magic and trade for adventurers, id definitely nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

FWIW, I really, really dislike the notion that nearly all weapon properties can be easily removed from one weapon and pasted onto another. Having a system for magicl runes is all very thematic, that's great. But the idea that a rune carved into the very steel of a magical longsword can be just ripped off like a used post-it note and pasted on any other weapon at a whim is disturbing to my sense of epic fantasy.

Your mileage may vary. But that's the RAW of PF2, sad to say. I love this game system for many reasons, but the notion of cut & paste runes isn't one of them.


Wheldrake wrote:

FWIW, I really, really dislike the notion that nearly all weapon properties can be easily removed from one weapon and pasted onto another. Having a system for magicl runes is all very thematic, that's great. But the idea that a rune carved into the very steel of a magical longsword can be just ripped off like a used post-it note and pasted on any other weapon at a whim is disturbing to my sense of epic fantasy.

Your mileage may vary. But that's the RAW of PF2, sad to say. I love this game system for many reasons, but the notion of cut & paste runes isn't one of them.

I think it's more meant to be portrayed as transferring the magic from one rune to another. Like, you can carve the shape of the rune, but that doesn't do anything on its own. You have to imbue it with other magical materials (which can be covered by a runestone).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's a weird line to draw at what magic is capable of, since the process of transferring a rune is a magical one.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

This said, yes, you should be able to pay someone to scrine/ carve/ engrave runes on your weapon, or transfer the rune from one weapon to another, according to the RAW. What that would cost isn't specified, though. Using the Earn Income table is as good a method as any.


BellyBeard wrote:
Zapp wrote:


The only alternative is to make Magic Crafting a mandatory feat tax for every adventuring party. If you want that, sure.

I'd only like to point out that parties are much less tied to specific weapons than in PF1 (even when the weapon groups alternative rule was added) thanks to feats like Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec before. It's viable now to simply use the weapons you find while adventuring, since most fighting styles have broad weapon requirements like 2 hand weapons or 1 hand agile weapons, so you don't have to transfer runes unless you have a build tied to one weapon like longbow or thrown weapons. Of course transferring runes will be preferable at some point but I think a party could survive without it.

Aren't warpriests super tied to a certain weapon type?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Razgriz 1 wrote:
Aren't warpriests super tied to a certain weapon type?

Not really.

They gain Deadly Simplicity class feat at 1st level, but only if the deity's favored weapon is simple. At 3rd level, they gain trained proficiency in all martial weapons. At 7th level, they gain expert proficiency in and can apply the critical specialization effect for their deity's favored weapon.

A cleric (warpriest) with Fighter Dedication (such as through the human ancestry feat Multitalented, if they weren't already going that route) can take Diverse Weapon Expert at 12th level to gain expert proficiency in all simple and martial weapons (plus trained in advanced weapons).


That's what I mean, from level 7 onwards he is tied to a weapon type. After level 12 he can get a higher amount of freedom if he choses to use a feat for it.


Adding runestones and the concept of movable runes to the game is great. It solves the problem when a player must decline to use a weapon because its form is inconvenient for his character.

Mandating runestones and the concept of movable runes, on the other hand, is not great. The GM should totally be able to hand out a magic item whose abilities are locked to that item.

I know there are such abilities - a Bloodletting Kukri, for instance, deals persistent bleed damage, and since this isn't represented by a rune, it can't be moved.

But while I guess I can technically hand out a Flaming Longsword whose Flaming ability is a non-removable part of the item, I cannot do so without coming across as miserly, screwing the players out of their Flaming rune. This is because the rulebook doesn't even for a second discuss this possibility.

The rules went too far. Adding transferable runes is okay (great even). Stipulating that every weapon with an ability that matches a rune does have a rune is taking it too far.

I want to be able to hand out a Fighter's Fork, say, without the players instantly scavenging the Striking rune and trying to sell the trident, or just throwing it away.

tl;dr: The rulebook sorely needed at least one example of a specific magic weapon whose ability duplicates a rune without actually having it, making this practice explicitly supported canon rules usage.


Wheldrake wrote:
This said, yes, you should be able to pay someone to scrine/ carve/ engrave runes on your weapon, or transfer the rune from one weapon to another, according to the RAW. What that would cost isn't specified, though. Using the Earn Income table is as good a method as any.

I don't disagree.

If a GM ends up saying this service is free when you purchase a rune from a Shoppe, however, I would totally understand.


Zapp wrote:

Adding runestones and the concept of movable runes to the game is great. It solves the problem when a player must decline to use a weapon because its form is inconvenient for his character.

Mandating runestones and the concept of movable runes, on the other hand, is not great. The GM should totally be able to hand out a magic item whose abilities are locked to that item.

I know there are such abilities - a Bloodletting Kukri, for instance, deals persistent bleed damage, and since this isn't represented by a rune, it can't be moved.

But while I guess I can technically hand out a Flaming Longsword whose Flaming ability is a non-removable part of the item, I cannot do so without coming across as miserly, screwing the players out of their Flaming rune. This is because the rulebook doesn't even for a second discuss this possibility.

The rules went too far. Adding transferable runes is okay (great even). Stipulating that every weapon with an ability that matches a rune does have a rune is taking it too far.

I want to be able to hand out a Fighter's Fork, say, without the players instantly scavenging the Striking rune and trying to sell the trident, or just throwing it away.

tl;dr: The rulebook sorely needed at least one example of a specific magic weapon whose ability duplicates a rune without actually having it, making this practice explicitly supported canon rules usage.

Aren't the unique magic weapons already like that?

Core Rulebook page 600 wrote:

Specific Magic Weapons

These weapons have abilities far different from what can be gained by simply etching runes. A specific magic weapon lists its fundamental runes, which you can upgrade, add, or transfer as normal. You can’t etch any property runes onto a specific weapon that it doesn’t already have.

So in your example of the Bloodletting Kukri even though it is a +1 striking kukri you won't be able to remove the generic runes in addition to not being able to remove the unique runes.


Even if the rule book did say "some magic weapons are clearly built with runes like others, but can't have their runes removed or transferred" players would think their GM "miserly" (I'd actually use a different word for it) if the GM uses that option instead of embracing the paradigm change of letting players get the important part of an item and discarding the rest - because the alternative is for the players to discard the entire item and go buy the one they want, not to actually happily hang on to the GM's pet item inclusions.


thenobledrake wrote:
Even if the rule book did say "some magic weapons are clearly built with runes like others, but can't have their runes removed or transferred" players would think their GM "miserly" (I'd actually use a different word for it) if the GM uses that option instead of embracing the paradigm change of letting players get the important part of an item and discarding the rest - because the alternative is for the players to discard the entire item and go buy the one they want, not to actually happily hang on to the GM's pet item inclusions.

If you mean that I'm not supposed to create and hand out a unique item with an atmospheric backstory just because your snowflake character won't use an axe instead of a sword, let's just agree to disagree.

Sometimes freedom makes for a better story.

Sometimes not.

The choice should be there.


Razgriz 1 wrote:

Aren't the unique magic weapons already like that?

Core Rulebook page 600 wrote:

Specific Magic Weapons

These weapons have abilities far different from what can be gained by simply etching runes. A specific magic weapon lists its fundamental runes, which you can upgrade, add, or transfer as normal. You can’t etch any property runes onto a specific weapon that it doesn’t already have.

So in your example of the Bloodletting Kukri even though it is a +1 striking kukri you won't be able to remove the generic runes in addition to not being able to remove...

Interesting.

If I read the rules as RAW:y as possible, it seems specific items have fundamental runes but does not have property runes. In the case of the Kukri, I could remove (upgrade etc) the +1 rune but not the striking rune ability.

Of course, they need to be much much more clear about this if this is the intended interpretation. They should probably not have used the property rune names as a shorthand for the abilities of these weapons.

For instance, a Flame Tongue is described as a +2 greater striking flaming longsword.

If the intention was anything else than what you'd expect, they should probably have described it instead as a +2 Longsword that deals three weapon dice and an additional 1d6 fire damage on a successful Strike, plus 1d10 persistent fire damage on a critical hit (plus light and produce flame etc).

After all, page 580 says this:
An item with runes is typically referred to by the value of
its potency rune, followed by any other fundamental runes,
then the names of any property runes, and ends with the
name of the base item.

Sometimes following this notation without actually meaning any of it, is not intuitive rules language.

Tl;dr: you might well be right, but Paizo needs to tell us what they had in mind.


Edit: Asking this over in Rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
Even if the rule book did say "some magic weapons are clearly built with runes like others, but can't have their runes removed or transferred" players would think their GM "miserly" (I'd actually use a different word for it) if the GM uses that option instead of embracing the paradigm change of letting players get the important part of an item and discarding the rest - because the alternative is for the players to discard the entire item and go buy the one they want, not to actually happily hang on to the GM's pet item inclusions.

If you mean that I'm not supposed to create and hand out a unique item with an atmospheric backstory just because your snowflake character won't use an axe instead of a sword, let's just agree to disagree.

Sometimes freedom makes for a better story.

Sometimes not.

The choice should be there.

Oh no, I'm not saying what you should or shouldn't do as a GM - go ahead and make the special items you think are cool and hand them out to your players.

Maybe don't fling the term "snowflake" around when what you think is cool doesn't line up with what the player thinks is cool, and they express in one or more ways that they'd have preferred that you stick to the rune system in the book.

What I was saying was that the book giving you the specific option to do this thing isn't going to change your player's opinions about you doing it - if they are going to want to part-out magic items to get what they want, they are going to want that no matter what you or the book says is also an option.


thenobledrake wrote:
Maybe don't fling the term "snowflake" around when what you think is cool doesn't line up with what the player thinks is cool, and they express in one or more ways that they'd have preferred that you stick to the rune system in the book.

This is the second time you insinuate that I am in some sort of conflict with my players. Why would you make that assumption? There are lots of perfectly reasonable reasons why you'd want the rules to give authority to the GM, but you keep assuming the worst. I think I'm happy with what I called you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
This is the second time you insinuate that I am in some sort of conflict with my players. Why would you make that assumption?

I'm just going off what you posted before:

"I want to be able to hand out a Fighter's Fork, say, without the players instantly scavenging the Striking rune and trying to sell the trident, or just throwing it away."

^ That's you being at conflict with the players when it comes to thoughts on magic items. And a change of the book's language isn't a solve for that.

Zapp wrote:
I think I'm happy with what I called you.

...and here I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were talking about a hypothetical person...

Personal attacks don't make your arguments more sound, and are against the rules of the board. Probably not great policy to make them and double-down on it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ugh Zapp. Gross.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Can I pay someone to craft runes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.