Does specific items have property runes?

[Zapp]

That is, can I transfer/upgrade/etc the Greater Striking part or the Flaming part of a Flame Tongue sword (p600)?

Assuming the answer is "no", why describe it as a "+2 greater striking flaming longsword".

Isn't including "greater striking" and "flaming" just begging for confusion, and players that feel entitled to scavenge those "runes" for their own favorite weapons?

After all, these items follow EXACTLY the format introduced on page 580:
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.

I mean, if Paizo intends for one "+2 greater striking flaming longsword" to have three runes, while another "+2 greater striking flaming longsword" only has one, they could not have been any less clear.

[Zapp]

Does this mean that adding a unique ability to a non-specific item makes its property runes "disappear"? (Question asked more for the benefit of a GM than a PC)

That is, how many runes do these three (existing/hypothetical) weapons have?

A +1 Striking Flaming Longsword?
Q Three

A +1 Striking Flaming Longsword that emits dim light in a 10-foot radius?
Q Is it three, or is it one?

Can it be both? That is, can there be items with unique abilities that still follow the general rules on runes?

Or do the rules proscribe that "as soon as you add even the weakest non-rune ability, the item becomes a specific item" and/or "specific items do not have property runes".

Regards,
Zapp

[Ediwir]

RAW you can upgrade the fundamental runes of specific weapons/armour, such as that having a +3 Flame Tongue is perfectly possible.
I personally would also allow to upgrade the property rune if it had a greater version - I would probably not allow to add or remove any, however. Depends a lot on the item.
That last part is up to GM discretion.

[Zapp]

Ediwir wrote:

RAW you can upgrade the fundamental runes of specific weapons/armour, such as that having a +3 Flame Tongue is perfectly possible.

I didn't ask about fundamental runes, thou'

Anyway, take the Gloom Blade as an example. It specifically talks about upgrading fundamental runes:

"To upgrade the gloom blade’s fundamental runes, start
with the base +1 shortsword, but if you improve it beyond
a +2 striking shortsword, the runes apply in dim light or
darkness as well."

This is wonky. Does it mean that you first have to pay for the +1 to +2 upgrade, that does not apply in dim light or darkness? Only when you keep upgrading (from +2 to +3) does the rune apply in dim light or darkness?

Still, why use that particular phrasing, excluding "striking" in the first mention but including it in the second? Does that suggest you can improve the "striking" part as well?

In general, much headache could have avoided if abilities that are not runes weren't referred by language identical to that which refers to runic abilities!

[Razgriz 1]

In the gloom blade's case, it's because that's a blade that's usually a +1 shortsword that "transforms into" a +2 striking shortsword in dim light or darkness.

If they didn't say that line about improving it beyond a 2+ striking shortsword, you could interpret the blade as getting weaker in dim light once it gets upgraded into a +3 greater striking shortsword, because then going into dim light would transform it back into a 2+ striking shortsword.

[tivadar27]

I think the RAW answer regarding property runes on specific magic items is that they cannot be altered. As others have said, GMs may allow it, but "You can’t etch any property runes onto a specific weapon that it doesn’t already have." Upgrading uses the etching process, and a Greater Flaming and Flaming are fundamentally different runes.