| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo just released Lost Omens Ancestry Guide and in it is the Conducting Rune. That rune when etched onto a weapon gives the weapon the Resonant Weapon Trait (new weapon trait they introduced in the same book).
So with that in mind.... Why not have an Agile Rune that makes your weapon Agile or a Deadly Rune that makes your weapon? They would be property runes so that alone would limit how many you can have by level and make it so weapons that already have those traits would not gain a benefit from the a rune of the same type (agile weapon gains nothing from an agile rune). Also make it so you can't have a fatal deadly weapons and certain runes would be limited to certain types of weapons like Backstabber Weapon Trait could only be etched onto a slashing or piercing weapon.
Even if limited to one Weapon Trait rune per weapon, I think it would be a cool way to enhance weapons via the rune system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might work for some traits, but probably not for Agile. They use Agile and Finesse a lot to gatekeep which class abilities can be used with which weapons, to prevent you stacking all the good stuff together on one thing.
Yeah, agile, Finesse, Reach and probably Deadly and Fatal are a big no.
What I want to see the most is a Thrown Rune. Maybe something like thrown 20ft if the weapon has no thrown trait or increase the range for that amount if the weapon has it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose the real question is "what does Resonant do, and is there any weapon that has it naturally"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It won't be runes, but there will be some options for adding various traits to weapons, once the inventor class is out, sometime next fall.
IMHO it's not a good plan to enable players to endow their weapons with just any trait. Breaks verisimilitude, for me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Wish weapons of Geniekin have Resonant. Which is mostly about manipulating energy, and thus extremely close to what the energy Runes bring to weapons.
It being a trait is the outlier here IMO, rather than the ability being available as a Rune.
I do not think we will see Runes giving other existing traits to weapons. At most, we might see new weapon traits giving a lesser version of an existing Rune's benefits.
Come to think of it, the Modular trait feels a little like this for the Shifting Rune.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think many traits aren't fit to be freely added to weapons. Many weapons are balanced around having a particular trait, and pay with it by decreased weapon damage dice or exclusivity from other traits.
Maybe some very specific traits could be turned into runes, but I think it's going to be extremely uncommon.
If we are talking runes that add traits, or things similar to them, I think the only ones I'd take are:
- reach
- modular
- grapple or adds grab/improved grab
- trip, and likewise with the monster abilities
- the ranged varients
- brutal
- thrown
- range increment enhancement
Otherwise, properties are just so much better than traits that the only reason I could conceive taking them is just as low level stuff to be swapped out or really niche builds.
A balanced system could have Runes for any trait if one were willing to add stipulations to which weapons could take that trait or had drawbacks.
So for Reach you could lower the die type by one and require it to be a two-handed melee weapon (much like the Leshy feat does).
These wouldn't be that powerful, especially since weapons cover most combos already.
--
As for traits being the main weapon component I'm tied to, I'm not sure I agree since I put a lot of weight into die size then might look for which high-die weapons w/ the number of hands I wish then have the better trait(s). I also rate bludgeoning over slashing over piercing, so prefer hammers to axes despite axes having a better trait w/ Sweep.
Of course certain builds require certain traits so preference fluctuates.
--
Hopefully the book with an Inventor would include ways to invent new weapons. I'd expect that a point system, perhaps with variance for what the base Weapon Group is, would work.
So for axes, Sweep might be cheap (or even built in) while that might cost a point more on a sword and be impossible (or cost-prohibitive) on a spear.
Even if the builds were slightly worse than current weapons (to guarantee balance), it'd be neat to make some unseen combos.
On the other hand, there's a good chance we just keep getting new weapons anyway that fill in the niches.
Given the inventor, I think runes adding weapon traits are fine.
Worst case, you can require particularly powerful weapon traits to take up multiple rune slots, like say "the Agile rune adds the agile trait to this weapon. It counts as 2 runes on your weapon."
That would allow them to still keep certain combinations from happening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if there was a point buy system, I would expect it in a Gamemastery guide, not Guns and Gears.
I'm actually hoping they DO come out with some of the back-end matrixes they've been using in office to build ancestries, creatures, spells, and items. It would give newer DMs something to start homebrewing with, and give more experienced DMs a list of ideas to gather inspiration from.
I could potentially see higher level runes that give a trait in addition to another effect.
Like, the Shock rune gives 1d6 extra damage, and the greater version ignores resistance. At those high levels maybe you don't care enough about negating resistance that the Greater Shock doesn't do it for you, so you get Flashing Shock! Gives you 1d6 electricity damage and the Sweep weapon trait.
This would really be about making property runes more interesting though...
This would really be about making property runes more interesting though...
That's not an unimportant point.
A Property Rune which only added a weapon trait would be boring, a mere mechanical notation. That'd be another reason for Paizo not to bother.
Heh. A rune that adds the Monk trait would be insane.
I could potentially see higher level runes that give a trait in addition to another effect.
I agree with this. One perfect example is Nonlethal. On its own it would make a pretty meh rune, but if you combine it with an additional effect for a, let's say "meciful" rune, it could get really interesting.
Heh. A rune that adds the Monk trait would be insane.
This would throw Monks balance out of the window.
Heh. A rune that adds the Monk trait would be insane.This would throw Monks balance out of the window.
Yes. Insane.
Yes. Insane.Heh. A rune that adds the Monk trait would be insane.This would throw Monks balance out of the window.
Just imagine a Stand Still monk with Gnome Flickmace and a shield.
That's a dark place I wouldn't like to go.
Yes. Insane.Heh. A rune that adds the Monk trait would be insane.This would throw Monks balance out of the window.Just imagine a Stand Still monk with Gnome Flickmace and a shield.
That's a dark place I wouldn't like to go.
Agreed. That would be very bad. That's what I've been saying.
Yes. Insane.Heh. A rune that adds the Monk trait would be insane.This would throw Monks balance out of the window.Just imagine a Stand Still monk with Gnome Flickmace and a shield.
That's a dark place I wouldn't like to go.
That's already a possibility since you can use Unarmed Strikes & Flurry with hands full, then smack them with the Flickmace w/ your Reaction.
There's the downside of buffing two weapons and figuring out how to advance proficiency in both, yes, yet you could also do this a martial/MCD Monk simply to pick up Stand Still. It'd most likely fit well on a class that didn't have an excellent Reaction built in, like Ranger or Barbarian (who could also benefit from the defensive nature of halting some incoming enemies).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many weapons are balanced around having a particular trait, and pay with it by decreased weapon damage dice or exclusivity from other traits.
I mean, strictly speaking that would be true here too.
Trading your Flaming rune for a Trip rune means you're giving up 3.5 damage.
A Shortsword with a Flaming rune would just be strictly better than Longsword with a hypothetical Agile rune until you hit Major Striking, and even then the Longsword would only come out .5 average damage ahead (while weighing more and lacking the finesse trait).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many weapons are balanced around having a particular trait, and pay with it by decreased weapon damage dice or exclusivity from other traits.I mean, strictly speaking that would be true here too.
Trading your Flaming rune for a Trip rune means you're giving up 3.5 damage.
A Shortsword with a Flaming rune would just be strictly better than Longsword with a hypothetical Agile rune until you hit Major Striking, and even then the Longsword would only come out .5 average damage ahead (while weighing more and lacking the finesse trait).
But then you get the obvious two hander d12 weapons and finesse rune optionson rogue.
Also, what level is the property rune. Too high and people would complain they can't build concepts around them. Too low and it is better to throw the weapon trait system out the window.
Personally I would rather see property runes that enhance weapon/armour traits.
Oh and I would like to see precious material items be given traits unique to their material in addition to the standard traits.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of this assuming that rune would simply add the trait with no drawbacks.
I expect some trade.
Want agile or finesse?
Your weapon will use a lower dice, and it has to be 1d6 or 1d4 after have etched the rune ( the weapon also lose the two handed or jousting trait while the rune is etched)
So a longsword etched with your agile rune would go from 1d8 versatile to 1d6 agile versatile.
That's literally just a short sword you can't finesse and missing a property rune slot.
Not a good suggestion.
Yeah adding a drawback is not a good suggestion.
Squiggit has it right; this IS coming from your weapon’s power budget in the form of runes you’re not taking.
Also, what level is the property rune. Too high and people would complain they can't build concepts around them.
That doesn’t really sound like a problem to me. They shouldn’t build around a rune.
I like the idea of an upgraded Returning rune which adds the Thrown trait to a weapon as well as giving it the returning property.
Mostly because I've been thinking of how to make the Everstand Stance Shield Ally champion in my party even *more* like Captain America.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then the gain MUST be equal to a rune of the same level.
a +1 hit on a second attack and a +2 on a third one is way more huge than any +1d6 elemental weapon damage, and because so it has not to exist without a drawback.
You sure about that? Right now the gap between an agile weapon and a non-agile weapon of the same tier is usually about one die step (dagger vs club, shortsword vs longsword, pick vs light pick). 1d6 elemental is bigger than a die step until you have 4 damage dice.
Like I get where you're coming from, but your assertions don't really match the game's math right now and the rune you proposed is a trap item in most situations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm perfectly fine with using Runes to adjust some traits on weapons. You could even include restrictions on what weapons those runes can be placed on. A hypothetical Agile rune could only work on weapons up to 1 bulk for example while a Greater Agile Rune would apply to 2 bulk weapons.
This is especially great for underused traits like Twin, or for traits like Non-lethal. A rune that guarantees that all of your damage can be non-lethal without taking a to hit penalty could be valuable in the right campaign.
I'm not as sure about some of the "power" traits that we have though, like Fatal or Deadly. Those probably shouldn't be available to just add to a weapon, though Squiggit is correct that no matter what they are factored into a weapons "power budget" just by taking the place of a regular rune.
Other traits that we can assume will be off the shelf are ones that are tied directly to the construction of a weapon, like Free-Hand or Attached. I'm not saying that you couldn't find a way to "attach" a short sword to your shield, I'm just saying a rune isn't the way I'd go about that.
As it stands runes already offer a decent degree of customization that doesn't turn the balance of weapons on its head, but the value of turning traits into a piecemeal "build-a-beatstick" system doesn't seem in line with most of the things we've seen thus far, and would probably incentivize a direction where players would simply look for the best raw numbers combined with the most valuable traits instead of a thematic weapon for each build; this style of power-driven choice already exists but at least it incentivizes the use of varied weapons for each function and trait for each different build (2H builds will look for big damage dice, Athletics builds for maneuver traits or ways to get a free hand+shield, etc.), and switching weapons as your preparation provides a different feel than simply slotting different runes on whichever premium weapon stands above the rest when the numbers hit the table.
On a shared imagination level an enchantment that makes a weapon return to your hand or deal increased damage of a certain type is also a bit easier to envision than making it expand out of thin air or somehow make a greatsword limber enough to be considered agile or finesse (it's not just about the weight, the dimension of the weapon itself makes it cumbersome even if it was light as a feather), but this is not saying this style of weapon customization isn't completely out of the realm of possibility, but if it does appear it'll probably be balanced around the possibilities of a class (so that a Fighter or Gunslinger couldn't simply add fatal runes to weapons not balanced around the trait or Flurry Rangers couldn't easily get Agile into high damage dice/STR/Forceful weapons) and will probably be the design space explored by the Weapon Inventor whenever GnG rolls around or a possible Weapon Tinker/Blacksmith Archetype in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm perfectly fine with using Runes to adjust some traits on weapons. You could even include restrictions on what weapons those runes can be placed on. A hypothetical Agile rune could only work on weapons up to 1 bulk for example while a Greater Agile Rune would apply to 2 bulk weapons.
THIS kind of limiter makes a lot more sense than a drawback. The designers have similar restrictions for their own designs, it would make sense that a rune that adds a trait would have the same restrictions that they give themselves. Like not having it on a 2 handed weapon, or too heavy of a weapon.
I would like some sort of point buy for weapons in a GM centric book to make it easier to award some cool magic weapons to players or even help them out if their build is underperforming.
Runes that add finesse or agile could be problematic if there's general access to it but I haven't run the numbers but someone theoretically could do such comparisons on
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you very muchI would like some sort of point buy for weapons in a GM centric book to make it easier to award some cool magic weapons to players or even help them out if their build is underperforming.
Runes that add finesse or agile could be problematic if there's general access to it but I haven't run the numbers but someone theoretically could do such comparisons on
TheAzirephale made it and they are taking suggestions for it / talk about it here in this thread Damage comparisons between classes