In the new Ancestry Guide I saw that new weapon trait (and the Conductive Rune that grants/upgrades it) and I really like it.
But I am unsure about something, would a Strike with a weapon inscribed with a Flaming Rune (or the activation of the flaming effect ?) trigger the Resonant trait ? The Strike itself doesn't have the trait, but the Rune (and so the weapon) has it. In the case of a Flame Tongue, the weapon itself has the Fire trait too.
I guess that would be too strong if every subsequent attacks could get an extra d8 of elemental damage, but I'm just not sure of if it works that way or not.
So... does a Strike with a Flaming (or shock etc) weapon, triggers Resonant/Conductive effects on subsequent Strike ?
The fire damage of a fire rune isn't done through an action so no, it doesn't apply.
The fire damage of a fire rune isn't done through an action so no, it doesn't apply.
I see, like that it makes sense. I guess lorewise it has to be a "new source sprouting energy" and not something constant.
Edit: Someone brought to me a rule from page 451
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.
So by RAW it would, color me surprised !
Edit: Someone brought to me a rule from page 451
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.So by RAW it would, color me surprised !
That is very surprising to me, because it also means that you cannot use a weapon with a flaming rune underwater - at all!
That is very surprising to me, because it also means that you cannot use a weapon with a flaming rune underwater - at all!Edit: Someone brought to me a rule from page 451
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.So by RAW it would, color me surprised !
Makes sense to me. Even if it's magically produced, fire still goes splat in water.
Makes sense to me. Even if it's magically produced, fire still goes splat in water.That is very surprising to me, because it also means that you cannot use a weapon with a flaming rune underwater - at all!Edit: Someone brought to me a rule from page 451
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.So by RAW it would, color me surprised !
What's shocking about this, is that the sword itself and the strikes you do with it, don't function underwater-- it doesn't just negate the fire damage, it makes the whole kit and caboodle not work.
What's shocking about this, is that the sword itself and the strikes you do with it, don't function underwater-- it doesn't just negate the fire damage, it makes the whole kit and caboodle not work.Makes sense to me. Even if it's magically produced, fire still goes splat in water.That is very surprising to me, because it also means that you cannot use a weapon with a flaming rune underwater - at all!Edit: Someone brought to me a rule from page 451
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.So by RAW it would, color me surprised !
You can just turn off the Flaming effect.
You can just turn off the Flaming effect.What's shocking about this, is that the sword itself and the strikes you do with it, don't function underwater-- it doesn't just negate the fire damage, it makes the whole kit and caboodle not work.Makes sense to me. Even if it's magically produced, fire still goes splat in water.That is very surprising to me, because it also means that you cannot use a weapon with a flaming rune underwater - at all!Edit: Someone brought to me a rule from page 451
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.So by RAW it would, color me surprised !
There appears to be no such rule?
What's shocking about this, is that the sword itself and the strikes you do with it, don't function underwater-- it doesn't just negate the fire damage, it makes the whole kit and caboodle not work.Makes sense to me. Even if it's magically produced, fire still goes splat in water.That is very surprising to me, because it also means that you cannot use a weapon with a flaming rune underwater - at all!Edit: Someone brought to me a rule from page 451
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.So by RAW it would, color me surprised !
Sounds like an oversight to me.
You can just turn off the Flaming effect.Could you point me to where you've located the ability to suppress or turn off Rune effects then, please?
There was an example mentionning it in the CRB that was removed from 2nd printing:
"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."
It was also the case in 1e that you could activate and deactivate elemental enchantments
Curious why that was removed from the second printing. If it was for space reasons or because the ruling was incorrect/redundant, etc.
Curious why that was removed from the second printing. If it was for space reasons or because the ruling was incorrect/redundant, etc.
If it wasn't addressed in errata, i'd say for space
Edit: Someone brought to me a rule from page 451
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.So by RAW it would, color me surprised !
I can't find that quote anywhere in the CRB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find that quote anywhere in the CRB.Edit: Someone brought to me a rule from page 451
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.So by RAW it would, color me surprised !
It was removed from second printing apparently. It also gave an example of Seelah putting her sword in a campfire to deal some fire damage on her next Strike, saying it would add the Fire trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The quote about Seelah appears in the "Special Circumstances" section of Gamemastering. It doesn't mention anything about fire runes, but that bit is still in there.
As far as I know, weapons gain all of the traits of any runes that are etched onto them. This is why etching a Fundamental rune onto a weapon makes it a Magical Weapon. If you read the Runes section carefully, it says nothing about etching a fundamental rune onto a weapon or suit of armor making it magical specifically. Instead it's the runes magical trait that confers that trait to the weapon.
If you look at Specific Magical weapons like Flame Tongue it has the Fire trait. Why wouldn't your +2 Greater Striking Flaming Longsword you etched yourself not have the fire trait?
I have a 1st print version of the rulebook and the quote appeared in the "Determine the Damage Type" section under "Special Checks/Damage". It was omitted in the 2nd printing.
This could mean that Paizo no longer wants attacks to gain traits from the weapon used to make the attack. Or it could be that they never intended that to be the case and the old quote is an artifact from a previous version of the rules. Or it could have been cut to save word count. We can't be sure.
As to whether Resonant Weapons can trigger based on dealing rune damage on your weapon, I don't think so. The trait feels designed to compliment spellcasting more than anything else, and reminds me of the Bespell feats. It would be quite handy for a Magus to be able to fire off a cantrip, then deal a bit of extra damage with their weapon. The Ifrit also have a few actions that can trigger a conducting rune, one of which is a 1/day metamagic free action.
But I'm not 100% sold either way to be honest. It may be a bit strong, but it can only ever trigger on your second attack a turn if you did allow it trigger from runes. Maybe that's not too powerful.
The quote about Seelah appears in the "Special Circumstances" section of Gamemastering. It doesn't mention anything about fire runes, but that bit is still in there.
As far as I know, weapons gain all of the traits of any runes that are etched onto them. This is why etching a Fundamental rune onto a weapon makes it a Magical Weapon. If you read the Runes section carefully, it says nothing about etching a fundamental rune onto a weapon or suit of armor making it magical specifically. Instead it's the runes magical trait that confers that trait to the weapon.
If you look at Specific Magical weapons like Flame Tongue it has the Fire trait. Why wouldn't your +2 Greater Striking Flaming Longsword you etched yourself not have the fire trait?
I have a 1st print version of the rulebook and the quote appeared in the "Determine the Damage Type" section under "Special Checks/Damage". It was omitted in the 2nd printing.
This could mean that Paizo no longer wants attacks to gain traits from the weapon used to make the attack. Or it could be that they never intended that to be the case and the old quote is an artifact from a previous version of the rules. Or it could have been cut to save word count. We can't be sure.
As to whether Resonant Weapons can trigger based on dealing rune damage on your weapon, I don't think so. The trait feels designed to compliment spellcasting more than anything else, and reminds me of the Bespell feats. It would be quite handy for a Magus to be able to fire off a cantrip, then deal a bit of extra damage with their weapon. The Ifrit also have a few actions that can trigger a conducting rune, one of which is a 1/day metamagic free action.
But I'm not 100% sold either way to be honest. It may be a bit strong, but it can only ever trigger on your second attack a turn if you did allow it trigger from runes. Maybe that's not too...
Thanks a lot for all the clarifications.
It is true that it seems to be more intended for spells and spell-like or other actions producing fire, though by RAW it would seem to apply. I guess this is a situation of DM interpretation.