Regarding potency versus striking runes and what constitutes a magic weapon or armor:(source.):
A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon or armor magic armor.
For instance, what if a weapon had only a striking rune? Doesn't that alone make a weapon "magical"?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only rune you can etch onto nonmagical weapons are potency runes. Once a weapon has one, you can then etch other runes along side them. If you ever see loot that says a weapon is just a "striking" weapon, it at least has a +1 rune as well.
Nope, you could have a striking weapons without a potency rune, but it's fairly unlikely since potency is cheaper...
That being said, a striking rune does not make a weapon 'magic' by itself:
Source
Core Rulebook pg. 580 2.0
That being said, a striking rune does not make a weapon 'magic' by itself:
Interesting and thank you! This seems like an odd RAW, as I would have surmised that ANY rune etched onto a non-magical weapon would make the weapon "magical" (i.e. my morningstar has only a striking rune and no potency). However, this does not seem to be the case. Only a potency rune makes a weapon or armor magical.
Is there some mechanical reason why this rule does not extend to ALL runes?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there some mechanical reason why this rule does not extend to ALL runes?
Well, since "The number of property runes a weapon or armor can have is equal to the value of its potency rune", you need a potency rune first, which then makes the item magic to begin with.
...you need a potency rune first, which then makes the item magic to begin with.
The RAW is a bit hazy regarding this. I don't believe a weapon MUST have potency + striking. Is it not possible to have a weapon with only a striking rune? I see no rule expressly forbidding it.
...you need a potency rune first, which then makes the item magic to begin with.The RAW is a bit hazy regarding this. I don't believe a weapon MUST have potency + striking. Is it not possible to have a weapon with only a striking rune? I see no rule expressly forbidding it.
You have to have the potency: check out the example "For instance, a +1 striking dagger would deal 2d4 damage instead of 1d4 damage." The +1 is from the potency rune and there really isn't a reason to eat up space if the +1 isn't needed.
This is further illustrated in Table 11-7: Weapon Upgrade Prices.
Starting Weapon -> Improved Weapon
+1 weapon -> +1 striking weapon
+1 striking weapon -> +2 striking weapon
+2 striking weapon -> +2 greater striking weapon
+2 greater striking weapon -> +3 greater striking weapon
+3 greater striking weapon ->+3 major striking weapon
You'll note striking is the first upgrade step in upgrading a weapon, requiring a +1 weapon to upgrade to it.
The RAW is a bit hazy regarding this. I don't believe a weapon MUST have potency + striking. Is it not possible to have a weapon with only a striking rune? I see no rule expressly forbidding it.
See page 582, CRB Table 11-6 Weapon Upgrade Prices.
The headings for that table are
Starting Weapon, Improved Weapon, Price and Process
The very first line says that the starting weapon is the +1 weapon, and the improved weapon is the +1 striking weapon. It costs 65 gp to improve the starting +1 weapon to a +1 striking weapon.
Starting Weapon.....Improved Weapon.........Price and Process
+1 Weapon.............+1 Striking Weapon.......65 gp to etch striking (4th level)
Yes, I see now. Thank you for the clarification. The fact that both runes are a "package deal" is not stated upfront.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Source
Core Rulebook pg. 580 2.0
An item can have only one fundamental rune of each type, though etching a stronger rune can upgrade an existing rune to the more powerful version (as described in each rune’s entry). As you level up, you typically alternate between increasing an item’s potency rune and its striking or resilient rune when you can afford to.The CRB lists the typical combinations, but they are not the only combinations:
- You can have a weapon with only a Potency +3 rune on it.
- You can have a weapon with only a Major Striking rune on it.
- You can have a weapon with any combination of these two fundamental runes on it.
You can have a weapon with only a Major Striking rune on it.
The question posed though, was whether the weapon with only a Major striking rune on it was a magic weapon.
I'm inclined to agree with the idea that once a piece of equipment has ANY rune, that item becomes magical. That is the interpretation that makes the most sense to me.
|
|
Earlier you said "ALL", and right now you're saying "ANY", so I just want to clarify again the quote that you cut out last time:
"The number of property runes a weapon or armor can have is equal to the value of its potency rune"
As far as Striking goes, I can understand where Taja is coming from, but that doesn't mean "ALL/ANY" runes can be placed on equipment without first etching a potency rune.
Just wanted to make sure that point wasn't being missed.
I'm still not seeing an explicit rule stating that a potency rune is a prerequisite for a striking rune to exist on a weapon. Thus, I tend to agree with Taja's interpretation. In my case, I had just enough gold to buy a striking rune, but not enough gold for both striking & potency. It was a no brainer to choose the more effective of the two, so striking it was, thinking I will add the +1 potency when I had the cash.
|
The +1 rune is actually the better option in this system. I PF2 your chance to hit is much more important since it also determines your crit chance. A +1 is way more important than more damage die, which is why spells and abilities rarely give a boost beyond +3. It's also sufficiently cheaper to get, only being 35g rather than 65g. Basically, extra damage doesn't matter when you miss.
The +1 rune is actually the better option in this system.
Are you certain of that? Scratch out a quick example on paper and let's see the results. I already have... *wink*
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't dispute the math, a 5th level character is going to have +1 striking. It does not make sense otherwise.Well, yes. But the question was: "If you only have the money to get one of the runes, is +1 potency or striking better?"
Hmmm I guess that was a new question, not asked in the first post.
So to answer that question, in my view, a +1 is better because it can be added much sooner and be usable for longer than an striking rune.
Hmmm I guess that was a new question, not asked in the first post.
For instance, what if a weapon had only a striking rune? Doesn't that alone make a weapon "magical"?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm I guess that was a new question, not asked in the first post.For instance, what if a weapon had only a striking rune? Doesn't that alone make a weapon "magical"?
Yes, you are quoting a response to Staffan.
I understand what the "First Question" was.
Thanks for being so helpful.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can first purchase a Striking rune at level 4, so I will go with that as an example.
You're a level 4 Fighter with a Greatsword, and have Power Attack. You and your party are fighting an Annis Hag (AC 24) who has been causing trouble for the nearby town (it's very common to fight creatures at your level +2 as a boss, please don't complain about the matchup.)
You have +14 to hit without the item bonus. You make your Power Attack:
With Neither: CF 5%/F 40%/S 50%/CS 5%, av. Damage 10.2
With just Striking:5/40/50/5 av. Damage 14.2
With +1: 5/35/50/10 av. Damage 11.9
With Both: 5/35/50/10 av. Damage 16.45
And here's the same as a Raging Giant Barbarian, who's only Trained at that level. Lets also say they have Power Attack through the Fighter Dedication:
With Neither: CF 5%/F 50%/S 40%/CS 5%, av. Damage 11.5
With just Striking:5/50/40/5 av. Damage 14.75
With +1: 5/45/45/5 av. Damage 12.65
With Both: 5/45/45/5 av. Damage 16.225
So yes you're right, on average the damage dealt is higher with just a striking rune, but I've also shown combining the two is still the most practical option here. Also humans don't think in rational ways like this. If you have a 50/50 chance to land your hits, you will feel like it's way worse. We feel losses way more than we feel gains.
The assumption is that you get the +1 rune at level 2, when it's first available, and add Striking at level 4. The amount of gold earned should be increasing at a rate where having a single +1 Striking weapon at level 4 isn't breaking the bank. If you're in a situation where you have to chose between the two, ask the GM why you have so little money. 100g at level 4 should be less than half your net worth, and as a martial character your weapon is your most important asset.