Someone on social media recently pointed out to me that the Returning rune does NOT appear to require that you apply it to a weapon with the Thrown trait (which is what I originally thought), only that its usage be with a weapon that is thrown. Since any weapon can be thrown, even if only as an improvised weapon, it was posited that the Returning rune can technically be applied to any weapon.
Is that true? I'd like to hear the community's thoughts and arguments on the matter.
Here's the relevant rule:
Usage etched onto a thrown weapon
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would rule that it's intended to be etched onto a weapon with the Thrown trait on it, since it is a weapon trait that is used for weapons meant to be thrown. Javelins, Bolas, Spears, etc. all have this trait.
|
I would rule that it's intended to be etched onto a weapon with the Thrown trait on it, since it is a weapon trait that is used for weapons meant to be thrown. Javelins, Bolas, Spears, etc. all have this trait.
Agreed. This seems supported by other descriptions on what weapons can have other specific Runes etched on them.
This seems supported by other descriptions on what weapons can have other specific Runes etched on them.
Like?
Last I checked, Usage was not the same thing as a Prerequisite or a Requirement. It merely describes how the item in question is properly used.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems supported by other descriptions on what weapons can have other specific Runes etched on them.Like?
Last I checked, Usage was not the same thing as a Prerequisite or a Requirement. It merely describes how the item in question is properly used.
Right, the Rune can be used to do X, that's what the Usage is for so you can apply it to a Thrown Weapon, the closest meaning we can reasonably derive from that is a Weapon that has the Thrown Trait or is otherwise meant to be thrown by design.
That said, this Rune COULD potentially allow Weapons that are Shifted into non-thrown weapons to retain the Returning Trait but it has to start its life being applied to a Weapon with the Thrown Trait already.
The way I usually approach these situations is to imagine what the implications would be in the exceptional cases. For example, you would likely not want a rune of returning to be able to work on all objects, like houses, boulders for mechanical reasons, nor would you want it to work on all weapons (which come in ALL shapes and sizes).
I think the most fun and consistent way to rule this would be that a rune of returning would work on any object under a certain level of bulk, where both the weight of the object is important (force exerted by the rune) and the size of the object is important (propagation of the rune effect through the item).
That would be fun, consistent, and would not add undue power to the intended effect. It could also result in some creative gameplay. The bulk restriction would help with the edge cases and make sure the rune isn't abused with like... a great hammer...
But in the end I am a rules-as-intended kind of guy and not a rules-as-written. I value consistency of the world and its rules. If there is a world where a dagger can have a rune of returning but a 15 inch steel dowel can't until you sharpen it, it's a little harder for me to stay immersed.
If you want to go strictly with rules as written and ignore any intent here, it seems that the "Usage" section is both description and restriction. The etching is a necessary part of the usage, and a weapon without the "thrown" property is not a "thrown weapon" unless it is actively being thrown, and etching the rune onto a weapon while someone is throwing it seems impractical. I think it's safe to say they are referring to the "thrown" property here and not the act of the object being hurled.
You could etch it in a way inconsistent with the "usage" but then you could not expect it to work. The effect only comes into play after appropriate "usage", so you could no more etch it onto a non thrown weapon than you could dye it onto a thrown weapon or crayon it onto a thrown weapon.
Looking at Disrupting and Wounding, 'Usage' is the common way to refer to how a rune is set up on a weapon.
That said, I'd agree with Ph1l1p. This is one of those situations where 'breaking' a rule (letting you put that Returning rune on a longsword) leaves the user in a worse situation than otherwise (you spent how much on an improvised weapon?!).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That logic around usage not being a requirement would imply that things like the fortification rune can be applied to light armour or dancing applying to ranged weapons, and that doesn't seem right.
That logic around usage not being a requirement would imply that things like the fortification rune can be applied to light armour or dancing applying to ranged weapons, and that doesn't seem right.
I agree, and I wouldn't argue against that being the intended reading.
This seems supported by other descriptions on what weapons can have other specific Runes etched on them.Like?
Last I checked, Usage was not the same thing as a Prerequisite or a Requirement. It merely describes how the item in question is properly used.
In the case of runes Usage has a formal meaning.
Each rune can be etched into a specific type of armor or weapon, as indicated in the Usage entry of the rune’s stat block. Explorer’s clothing can have armor runes etched on it even though it’s not armor, but because it’s not in the light, medium, or heavy armor category, it can’t have runes requiring any of those categories.
The first quoted sentence shows that Usage indicates a specific type of weapon that the rune can be etched onto---not that the rune is properly etched onto. The second sentence backs this up by referring to the Usage entry as the rune requiring a category.
|
|
This seems supported by other descriptions on what weapons can have other specific Runes etched on them.Like?
Last I checked, Usage was not the same thing as a Prerequisite or a Requirement. It merely describes how the item in question is properly used.
Right, the Rune can be used to do X, that's what the Usage is for so you can apply it to a Thrown Weapon, the closest meaning we can reasonably derive from that is a Weapon that has the Thrown Trait or is otherwise meant to be thrown by design.
That said, this Rune COULD potentially allow Weapons that are Shifted into non-thrown weapons to retain the Returning Trait but it has to start its life being applied to a Weapon with the Thrown Trait already.
The Shifting rune specifies that "Any property runes that can’t apply to the new form are suppressed until the item takes a shape to which they can apply."
Thus your Longsword shifted into a Club is no longer Wounding. And your Trident shifted into a Warhammer no longer Returning.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I strap a bastard sword to my chest and wear it as armor can I apply an armor rune to it?
No, I can not. Just because you can throw a weapon doesn't mean you can apply a rune that requires it to be etched onto a thrown weapon. I can smack people with a bow, but I wouldn't be able to put any rune that requires a melee weapon to it.
Mjolnir is a Light Hammer, which has the Thrown trait and thus can be etched with a Returning rune.The Dwarven thrower is a standard warhammer.
However I'm not sure specific magic weapons count either. Like artifacts, they may be cheating.
'Craft Cheating Artifact' should be a 20th or 21st level skill feat.