| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like a stupid question, but we ran into the seemingly-common golem conundrum. They're listed as immune to "magic", except within the purview of their Golem AntiMagic, but only energy types are listed under the latter. Nowhere in the damage rules is something listed as "magical damage", only types like physical, mental, energy, etc, with the latter occasionally having magic listed in the flavor text, like Force being made of pure magic.
Trying to sort through this has had my GM trying to qualify whether damage is done from an attack based on whether it has the "magical" trait on it or any of the schools of magic in the traits, like Evocation. So in the case of a stone golem, it would be immune to damage from a fire rune or fireball, but take damage from a fire bomb. It would take AntiMagic damage from conjured water, but not from being submerged in a lake.
So are the listed energy damages (acid, cold, electricity, fire, sonic, positive, negative, force) considered inherently magical, or is the concept of magical vulnerability needlessly complicated?
It isn't needlessly complicated, it is just a bit more complex.
And correct immunities to magic do not make you immune to bonfire, torches or alchemical flasks.
It is why creatures like a stone golem have immunity to acid for instance.
Also, its "harmed by" effect won't be triggered by frost vials either.
Also it isn't immune to a fire rune afaik, it isn't a spell or magical ability. Same with striking runes. A weird side case for golems, but seemingly intentionally there just so martials can function.
A frost rune would trigger its harmed by effect though, due to the difference in wording of "Any magic of this type" rather than "spells and magical abilities".
Energy damage is just a type of damage. Just like Piercing damage.
You can have both non-magical piercing damage from a non-magical dagger. You can also have magical piercing damage from a dagger with a +1 rune on it. (Not sure if a golem would be immune to this magical piercing damage or not. I know that having magical piercing damage is what makes incorporeal creatures easier to fight against, so I don't see why it wouldn't make it harder to fight against golems).
Similarly you can have both non-magical fire damage. From a torch, or an alchemical bomb. You can also have magical fire damage from a fireball, a flaming rune, or other such magical effects.
So things are only magical if they say that they are. Energy damage is just energy damage - not inherently magical.
You tell if something is magical by looking for keywords or traits on the ability that generates that effect. Typically it is a magic tradition or magic school tag on the feature that does it.
Though there are some hidden gotchas. Such as any attacks made by an unarmed attack where the unarmed attack is the result of a morph or polymorph effect. Those are also magical. Even if it is caused from a class feature or alchemical item. So Animal instinct Barbarian Rage attacks are magical from level 1.
Animal Instinct has the Primal and Transmutation traits so it is caught by this. Giant's Stature has them too even though Giant Instinct does not. So I think they are covered. Fury and Superstition don't have them by the way.
They probably state the Polymorph trait as being inherently magic somewhere....
They probably state the Polymorph trait as being inherently magic somewhere....
If it is, I haven't seen it. Though any of the polymorph effects that I have looked up also have one of the magical tradition traits or the Magical trait.
So things like Anadi Change Shape. I guess the effect is magical because of the tradition trait - and could therefore be dispelled or fail to function in an area of non-magic. Though I am not sure what happens to the character at that point. And for this one, the natural state of the creature is apparently the spider form - so since the spider form is where the ancestry Fangs attack comes from, then the Fangs are not magical. Maybe the Beastkin would be a better example since their attacks are gained as part of the polymorph Change Shape action. So their unarmed attacks are magical.
How very inconsistent and arbitrary.
The Change Shape in Anadi is magical. The general text lets us know that the base shape is spider and the humand form is transmutation and illusion. So yeah the spider fangs are not magical.
It doesn't seem inconsistent to me, just arbitrary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, a couple things.
1. No, energy damage is not inherently magical. Nor is physical damage inherently non-magical. It all depends on whether the ability came from, well, magic (typically signaled by having the magical trait and/or the trait of a school of magic like evocation, illusion, etc.)
2. Golems are NOT immune to all magic. They specifically say
"Immunities... magic (see below)"
So, we have to "see below" to know what this immunity means. Specifically, this is laid out in "Golem Antimagic" where it talks about what it is and isn't immune to. And, outside of any specific "harmed by", "healed by", "slowed by", or "vulnerable to" entries Golem Antimagic works as follows:
"A golem is immune to spells and magical abilities other than its own"
With that out of the way, weighing in on a more specific topic, I'd say a +1 rune is not a magical ability, and it certainly isn't a spell. I think there's some room for different interpretations about what counts as an ability, but I think there are some things that clearly count and others that clearly don't. I'd defer to the GM for anything that could go either way.
With that out of the way, weighing in on a more specific topic, I'd say a +1 rune is not a magical ability, and it certainly isn't a spell. I think there's some room for different interpretations about what counts as an ability, but I think there are some things that clearly count and others that clearly don't. I'd defer to the GM for anything that could go either way.
I'm not seeing much wiggle room in this.
A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With that out of the way, weighing in on a more specific topic, I'd say a +1 rune is not a magical ability, and it certainly isn't a spell. I think there's some room for different interpretations about what counts as an ability, but I think there are some things that clearly count and others that clearly don't. I'd defer to the GM for anything that could go either way.I'm not seeing much wiggle room in this.
A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).
Are you saying that it clearly is a magical ability or clearly isn't?
I would say it clearly isn't. How is having a weapon an ability? It's not activated, it's just magic. Yes, a potency rune clearly makes the weapon magical, but I fail to see how an attack from a weapon that's magical is you using a magical ability rather than just attacking.
The ability part would be the rune's ability to make the attacks from the weapon magical. So it isn't your ability to swing the weapon that is magical, but the increased accuracy and damage from the weapon is.
As I mentioned earlier, I am not sure entirely how to map the rules to a working and functional game in this case. The Incorporeal trait mentions that the damage reduction is doubled for 'non-magical' damage. I have always ruled that this means that a weapon without a fundamental rune on it would be causing non-magical damage. So having a weapon with a rune on it is preferred when fighting an incorporeal creature.
But by that same logic, a golem would work the other way. A weapon with a fundamental rune on it would be causing magical damage - which would trigger the resistances/immunities of a golem. At least the additional weapon damage. I think it would be too bad to be true to say that the magical weapon does no damage at all. It is already bordering on that by reducing the weapon damage down to just the single die.
Another point would be the spells Magic Weapon or Shillelagh - which nicely references the fundamental runes for their effects (saving on rule count). But now the increased damage of the weapons are clearly coming from a magic spell. Even though all they are doing is adding the effects of fundamental runes.
And finally, there is ABP and High Quality Items which replace fundamental runes with non-magical mechanics instead. So those would be better weapons for fighting golems with, but worse at fighting incorporeal enemies.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm not really sure I agree that swinging a magic sword is a "magical ability"
And golems being essentially immune to strikes trips the way too good to be true test for me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, based on how it is written, golems are immune to seemingly anything considered magical that is not specified by the golem to have alternate effects. Technically, that includes weapons whose damage is considered magical.
That said, that is not how I would rule it. I'd probably go more along the lines of magical spells or effects not considered fundamental. (i.e. the weapon and fundamental runes are fine, but everything else is not)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, expanding a golem's immunity to magical weapon strikes is not just an unbelievably bad idea. It is also absolutely going beyond what is written. This isn't a "technically immune, but don't run it that way". They aren't technically, practically, or in any way immune. Full stop.
Nah, expanding a golem's immunity to magical weapon strikes is not just an unbelievably bad idea. It is also absolutely going beyond what is written. This isn't a "technically immune, but don't run it that way". They aren't technically, practically, or in any way immune. Full stop.
I agree its is stupid. But I do think that a weapon with a striking rune is magical
I see this as a gap in the rules.
Contrast this with a couple of creatures that have resistance or in these cases extra resistance to non magical. Is this resitance ignored by having a weapon with a striking rune?
Wraith
Banshee
As opposed to
Stone Golem
Yes Golem magic resistance has a special section of rules all on its own. Check link. So if you really want you can read in a rules difference here. Which is probably the right thing to do.
For me the problem is that the term magical ability is just too wide. "Ability" doesn't really put any limitations on it, it means everything.
Contrast this with a couple of creatures that have resistance or in these cases extra resistance to non magical. Is this resitance ignored by having a weapon with a striking rune?
Wraith
Banshee
As opposed to
Stone Golem
Yeah, that is my thinking on it too. You can run it either way - either the runes make the weapons and their damage magical or they don't. But it should be consistently applied to both types of creatures.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really agree. The wording for the golem ability and the ghost ability are different, there's no reason they need to be run the same way and there's nothing to suggest they're supposed to be run the same way and outside this thread I've never seen someone try to run them the same way.
I don't really agree. The wording for the golem ability and the ghost ability are different,
OK. So, what is the difference, in practical terms, between 'resistance to non-magical damage' and 'immune to magical effects'? How does the same sword being swung by the same character that interacts with one ability not also interact with the other?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're changing the wording. Golems are immune to spells or abilities. A sword is neither. Acid Arrow is a magic spell. Dragon's Rage Breath is a magic ability. Striking someone with a sword is not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really agree. The wording for the golem ability and the ghost ability are different,OK. So, what is the difference, in practical terms, between 'resistance to non-magical damage' and 'immune to magical effects'? How does the same sword being swung by the same character that interacts with one ability not also interact with the other?
The difference is that one says "... resistance vs non-magical", meaning all we have is the term "non-magical", which is well defined in pf2 as being anything without the "magical" trait or the trait of a spell school.
Meanwhile, the other says "Immunities... magic (see below)" and then an entire paragraph describing, in detail, how the immunity works.
The difference is that one says "... resistance vs non-magical", meaning all we have is the term "non-magical", which is well defined in pf2 as being anything without the "magical" trait or the trait of a spell school.
Meanwhile, the other says "Immunities... magic (see below)" and then an entire paragraph describing, in detail, how the immunity works.
Not in enough detail.
And I am not meaning to be obstinate about this. I just think it is very complex and is worth hashing out fully.
I am still seeing the "Immunities... magic" as being anything that does have the magical trait or the trait of a spell school - the opposite of non-magical.
The paragraph for the Golem monster traits says
A golem is immune to spells and magical abilities other than its own...
So 'spells' is defined well enough. But 'magical abilities', I'm not so sure on.
For example, if we are allowing weapon runes to work, how about the Shillelagh spell? It isn't targeting the golem. If that works, how about everyone's favorite cantrip - Inspire Courage? Does the added damage from that also affect the golem?
Is that what the difference is? A magical ability that the golem is immune to would be something that directly targets the golem rather than targeting something else and just having an indirect effect on the golem?
An Ice Golem is Harmed By: fire. So it takes damage from any fire 'type' magic. I assume that means both fire damage and spells with the fire trait. Also, when it starts its turn in an area where a spell with fire trait exists it takes its weakness damage - even if the spell doesn't deal damage.
So Elemental Zone, which adds the trait for the element being chosen, would cause the Ice Golem to take damage if fire was chosen. Would it also still have the normal effect of adding damage to any fire spell cast on the golem?
How about Elemental Betrayal - a very similar spell. But this one does not take on the trait of the element chosen. So, I guess, the Ice Golem is completely immune to it? Not only does it not take damage from being affected by a fire spell, other fire attacks don't even have the increased damage that Elemental Betrayal normally adds. It seems unfair, but it fits the pattern.
Hi, GM of the OP here. Running an Extinction Curse campaign and we've hit the 'golem heavy' portion of the campaign.
For me the problem is that the term magical ability is just too wide. "Ability" doesn't really put any limitations on it, it means everything.
This is where I'm at too. I don't know if there ever needs to be a true delineation on what is or is not a magical ability, but better verbiage on what does and doesn't affect this class of monsters would help immensely in fielding them.
One of my players is a Ki Monk and things like Clinging Shadows Stance pose a peculiar question, where the focus spell is obviously magical but if the strikes are magical abilities or are not is less clear. (My inclination is that they are by association)
Another is a Alchemist bomber and as the op mentioned: play-wise it feels bad to say that a Ray of Frost triggers the satisfying Harmed By condition of a Stone Golem's Antimagic, while a Frost Vial does not. I don't have a good answer for my players as for why it wouldn't.
Is that what the difference is? A magical ability that the golem is immune to would be something that directly targets the golem rather than targeting something else and just having an indirect effect on the golem?
I think from everything I've read, both in this forum and others, this is kind of the natural conclusion. Things like weapon runes and magical buffs generally fall under the category of things that 'should affect' the golem. While spells and magical feats fall under 'shouldn't affect'.
Traits go either way with some things that should affect them having the magical or a school trait, while other things that shouldn't lack either. The only commonality appears to be if it's directly targeting the golem or not.
While I'm sure that leaves plenty of room for shenanigans where players could abuse things or specific cases that feel unfair, it at least provides a guideline for a GM to apply some consistency to their rulings and provide some common sense explanations that the players can work with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it is easier to delineate between direct and indirect. Ray of Frost directly affects the golem whereas a shilleliegh indirectly affects.
A Rune of Frost on a weapon? Traits for that are Cold, Conjuration, Magical
Ray of Frost Traits are Cantrip, Cold, EvocationGetting back to Runes. The rules do state Rune-etched armor and weapons have the same Bulk and general characteristics as the non-magical version unless noted otherwise Runes are both fundamental and property. So Weapons with Fundamental only Runes are magical by the rules. The Fundamental Runes also have the traits Evocation, Magical.
It all looks magical to me. Which means maybe a Fighter might like an unetched weapon, so he can do some damage to a Golem. Because the Golem is immune to his +1 sword.
Again unless this is really how you want Golems to play. Paizo please errata A golem is immune to spells and magical abilities other than its own to A golem is immune to spells and spell-like abilities other than its own
Paizo please errata A golem is immune to spells and magical abilities other than its own to A golem is immune to spells and spell-like abilities other than its own
Seconded that a change / clarification is needed, maybe even involving statements about targeting.
It is rules text like this that probably only works if you already know how to play out said rule.
(sometimes it may not be especially easy to put something that you know by heart in writing, so that a 3rd party will immediately and fully understand it properly, especially when using a more colloquial style)
I think golem anti-magic in general needs clarification. Like if I target a golem with a ray of frost do I need to roll?
According to Reading Spells everything below the line is the effect which I'm replacing with just the damage.
The difference is that one says "... resistance vs non-magical", meaning all we have is the term "non-magical", which is well defined in pf2 as being anything without the "magical" trait or the trait of a spell school.
Meanwhile, the other says "Immunities... magic (see below)" and then an entire paragraph describing, in detail, how the immunity works.Not in enough detail.
.
.
.
(Read above for more detail. Trying to reduce clutter)
I definitely agree that it could be clearer. Even in my original answer I stated that there are many things that I think could fall under a magical ability or not depending on how you read it. And I don't have a good answer to exactly how to rule many of the questions that you posed afterward, as I believe that to be up to the GM at the moment (not the ideal solution, but I'd take unclear over what I see to be incorrect any day).
I just wanted to make that clear: the only thing I was arguing against was the statement that attacks with weapons that have potency runes are clearly magical abilities when the way I see it they're one of the few things that are "magical" but "clearly" (imo) don't fall under "magical abilities"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another is a Alchemist bomber and as the op mentioned: play-wise it feels bad to say that a Ray of Frost triggers the satisfying Harmed By condition of a Stone Golem's Antimagic, while a Frost Vial does not. I don't have a good answer for my players as for why it wouldn't.
Similar with an Ice Golem and both Kitsune Foxfire and Automaton Energy Beam. Neither have any magical traits. So I guess they don't trigger the Harmed By: fire?
-----
Also, more rules pedantry. Making a Strike is technically an ability. A standard ability. One that every character has without paying a feat. But it is something that they are able to do. So when that Strike has the magical trait because of a magical weapon... magical ability.
I still think it is completely unbalanced to run a Golem this way. But even if I give an exception for Strike with weapons, I don't know where to draw the line for other abilities.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of magical abilities, in an errata they removed the text that strikes inherit traits from their weapon. Maybe to remove weird interactions where you couldn't strike underwater if you had a flaming rune.
So strike doesn't seem like it could be a magical ability when it only has the Attack trait.
So Elemental Zone, which adds the trait for the element being chosen, would cause the Ice Golem to take damage if fire was chosen. Would it also still have the normal effect of adding damage to any fire spell cast on the golem?
Reading through the rules on Golem Immunities again, I found the answer for this.
Actually, no. Elemental Zone wouldn't increase the amount of damage taken by the Golem. Because all amounts of damage caused by magic get replaced.
Harmed By: Any magic of this type that targets the golem causes it to take the listed amount of damage (this damage has no type) instead of the usual effect.
So it takes a fixed (ususally rolled) amount of damage for every spell. Doesn't matter if that spell is a 12d6 fireball or a 2d4 produce flame. And actually, for the Ice Golem specifically, the 2d4 produce flame would be better because it would be triggering the 4d6 from targeted damage rather than the 1d10 from area damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of magical abilities, in an errata they removed the text that strikes inherit traits from their weapon. Maybe to remove weird interactions where you couldn't strike underwater if you had a flaming rune.
So strike doesn't seem like it could be a magical ability when it only has the Attack trait.
That is a very good point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the golem, for people who consider everything magical to to a magical ability. Why do you think it says spells and magical abilities, rather than "any magic", given that the other elements of golem antimagic say "Any magic of this type" quite specifically.
And wow, what a huge downgrade for monks as their unarmed attacks automatically count as magical past a fairly early level.
I jest of course, I lean towards the reading that assumes when the writer used one specific wording 3 times for harmed by, healed by and slowed by. Their specific usage of the word ability is probably intentional, and they weren't just looking for a long way of saying "all magic", "any magic" or "all magical effects".
The issue when searching for ability is that it is a non defined colloquial word in pf2e and used for ability scores too.
BUT, looking in the GMG you will find what it defines as abilities under npc creation. Boiling down to actions, auras and such.
But seriously, the idea of a level 20 monk just looking at an iron golem and sighing because they can't punch it but a level 20 wizard can... is amusing ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But seriously, the idea of a level 20 monk just looking at an iron golem and sighing because they can't punch it but a level 20 wizard can... is amusing ;)
Yep. Mystic Strikes was one of the first things to cross my mind. So this all has clarified a bunch of stuff, mostly in the sense that "the particular wording is SPECIFIC." Potency runes and mystic strikes are magical, but they imbue magical TRAITS while not being magical ABILITIES. A stone golem could stand in a natural snowstorm without issue, take normal damage from an alchemical frost vial, and get wrecked via its AntiMagic if hit by a Ray of Frost spell.
I think golem anti-magic in general needs clarification. Like if I target a golem with a ray of frost do I need to roll?
According to Reading Spells everything below the line is the effect which I'm replacing with just the damage.
I'd also like a little advice on how to define it through Recall Knowledge checks. It is an extremely complex thing, especially if you go with a single success getting you only one piece of useful information. The specific golem antimagic properties are at least three different pieces of info, and arguably four if you count the fact that it is a golem and immune to most magic is itself a piece of useful info. Given golems are uncommon and the rules one repeated DC adjustments, you can't actually get 4 checks on golem. And we haven't even touched the physical resistance or offensive abilities.
On the striking runes: it's too bad to be true. The higher you go in level, the more runes make up a sizable portion of your damage. But you also see higher resistance in higher level golems. An adamantine golem has resistance 20. A champion with a longsword only deals d8+6 (greater weapon specialization)+strength (Max 7.) You can only deal 1 point of damage if you roll your maximum amount. You can shift the numbers a bit with a higher damaging class or d12 weapon, but even the fighter would max their damage at 27 damage a hit without magic. The thing has 255 HP. You'd never kill it.
That is a very good point.On the topic of magical abilities, in an errata they removed the text that strikes inherit traits from their weapon. Maybe to remove weird interactions where you couldn't strike underwater if you had a flaming rune.
So strike doesn't seem like it could be a magical ability when it only has the Attack trait.
Hmm... I recognize this change, but I am not able to find where it is. I don't see it on the errata page.
If someone knows the exact wording of this, I would appreciate seeing it.
-----
Anyway, thinking about the implications of this (and taking the errata as listed here at face value for the moment):
A weapon Strike would not gain the magical traits even if it has a rune on it. Which is good when fighting a golem. Not so good when fighting a ghost.
Also some spells like Spiritual Weapon, Malicious Shadow, and Weapon of Judgement would be able to affect a golem because the Strike actions that they make likely also wouldn't be gaining the magical traits from the spell that is causing them.
Isn't debugging fun?!
On the topic of magical abilities, in an errata they removed the text that strikes inherit traits from their weapon. Maybe to remove weird interactions where you couldn't strike underwater if you had a flaming rune.
So strike doesn't seem like it could be a magical ability when it only has the Attack trait.
Well you will need to produce that. It does not seem to be true to me. There is a direct example in the rules CRB 2nd Printing p452 Damage Types
Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures have a high resistance to physical attacks that aren't magical (attacks that lack the magical trait). Furthermore, most incorporeal creatures have additional, though lower, resistance to magical physical damage (such as damage dealt from a mace with the magic trait) and most other damage types.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of magical abilities, in an errata they removed the text that strikes inherit traits from their weapon. Maybe to remove weird interactions where you couldn't strike underwater if you had a flaming rune.
So strike doesn't seem like it could be a magical ability when it only has the Attack trait.
Well you will need to produce that. It does not seem to be true to me. There is a direct example in the rules CRB 2nd Printing p452 Damage Types
Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures have a high resistance to physical attacks that aren't magical (attacks that lack the magical trait). Furthermore, most incorporeal creatures have additional, though lower, resistance to magical physical damage (such as damage dealt from a mace with the magic trait) and most other damage types.
So combining the two together, we have: The Strike is no longer magical (it used to be before the stealth errata), but the damage is.
Which puts us back to the physical damage being magical and triggering the interaction with the incorporeal creature's resistances (I keep wanting to say that it interacts with the incorporeal trait, but it doesn't. The incorporeal trait mentions in passing that most creatures that have the incorporeal trait will have an increased resistance to non-magical damage, but the trait itself doesn't actually add that).
But, since the Strike is the ability that is being used and it is not itself magical, then it doesn't trigger golem immunities even though the damage that it causes is magical.
-----
And spells that create Strike actions are questionable against golems. But are niche enough that I am not overly worried about it.
As for Monk and Mystic Strikes - yeah, that is rough. Should probably be errata/houseruled to be that the Strikes are considered magical for purposes of bypassing resistances and immunities (but not for triggering resistances or immunities). Or allow it to be optional at the character's choice. Meaning that the Monk can turn off the magical trait on their Strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a moment I had a vision of another timeline that broke down into arguing whether AoE spells technically 'targeted' those affected, and so whether they triggered Golem Antimagic. I can still hear the screams...
Unrelated I'm only a little disappointed that nonmagical energy damage does not trigger if only because back in Trial of the Beast (Carrion Crown) I made a minor plot point out of
On the other hand this does fit with my headcanon explanation for the Antimagic better. I picture the core of the golem being a kind of magical engine which passively absorbs magic in its environment, but due to the golem's nature, certain types of magic damage the system, while others are like a shot of adrenaline.
For a moment I had a vision of another timeline that broke down into arguing whether AoE spells technically 'targeted' those affected, and so whether they triggered Golem Antimagic. I can still hear the screams...
Heh. That may be only because golems have a specific rule for being in the area of an area effect magic.
For a moment I had a vision of another timeline that broke down into arguing whether AoE spells technically 'targeted' those affected, and so whether they triggered Golem Antimagic. I can still hear the screams...Heh. That may be only because golems have a specific rule for being in the area of an area effect magic.
Hah, you're probably right... Though I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the text of Antimagic suggests that the 'area' only refers to what happens when the golem begins its turn in an area of magic. I still think it can and possibly should be used to adjudicate burst AoEs same as damage over time, but this ability is definitely a critical success for its capacity to confuse and confound XD
It was undocumented errata, however I have an old CRB at home. This section is no longer present in the rules
Ok agreed. CRB p451 this section has gone from the 2nd printing.
Damage types and Traits
When an attack deals a type of damage, the attack action
gains that trait. For example, the Strikes and attack
actions you use wielding a sword when its flaming rune is
active gain the fire trait, since the rune gives the weapon
the ability to deal fire damage.
Though its pretty clear the damage types carry though. They have still left in the text about attack from magical weapons having the magical trait. So I'm not sure there is a gap here.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My read is that "magical ability" is meant to be read basically plain text: An ability that is magical.
The ability to hit someone with a weapon is not magical. You don't need to employ magic to swing a weapon at someone - even a magic weapon.
On the other hand, Wild Winds Stance is clearly a magical ability.
My read is that "magical ability" is meant to be read basically plain text: An ability that is magical.
The ability to hit someone with a weapon is not magical. You don't need to employ magic to swing a weapon at someone - even a magic weapon.
On the other hand, Wild Winds Stance is clearly a magical ability.
Ability is not defined as anything other than a general term. It is used is several contexts with several different meanings. Why is a rune on an item not counted as an ability of that item?
I see it as very grey. But given your outcome has the desired result I will end up using your interpretation. Which is just bad logic.
Paizo shouln't have done this as stealth errata, there should have been an explanation.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My read is that abilities are typically more active - things you activate or do.
If a sword grants you a special action to shoot fire from it, that's an ability. If a sword just happens to be on fire, that's just a passive effect of the sword, not an ability.
That is typically how the term is used in games, in my experience.