The rules are clear that you can transfer fundamental runes from a specific magical item (such as an oathbow), but what happens when you remove all such runes? Are you left with a fully functional and magical+0 oathbow? Or is it a non-magical bow with suppressed specific abilities? Does it need a minimum +1 like property runes do?
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't keep its other abilities.
I looked into the title question before reading the post though, and found that you can make a +0 magic weapon by inscribing a dart umbrella or umbrella injector with a soft-landing accessory rune.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think with specific magic items their fundamental runes would already be at their minimum, in that one can buy them at that strength, but not any lower, or buy them at higher strength by adding the upgrade costs.
So in that instance I'd say its other abilities get suppressed if below that threshold. Ex. a Dwarven Thrower wouldn't work w/ a +1 fundamental rune. So I'd say yes, it's like property runes w/ the item's special abilities filling that role/slot (which explains why the item cannot take further property runes).
Of course, we're simply outside the rules and extrapolating so answers shall vary I'd think...therefore ask one's GM.
The Beginner's Box has examples of lesser weapons which are nonetheless magical, though I think that's only the PF1 version. It's not unheard of before that though to have +0 magical items with some minimal perk, it's just kinda pointless except vs. DR. In PF2 though I don't think there's much point to such minimal items since +1 weapons & armor come so early now, much like masterwork items in previous editions.
I think with specific magic items their fundamental runes would already be at their minimum, in that one can buy them at that strength, but not any lower, or buy them at higher strength by adding the upgrade costs.
So in that instance I'd say its other abilities get suppressed if below that threshold. Ex. a Dwarven Thrower wouldn't work w/ a +1 fundamental rune. So I'd say yes, it's like property runes w/ the item's special abilities filling that role/slot (which explains why the item cannot take further property runes).
Of course, we're simply outside the rules and extrapolating so answers shall vary I'd think...therefore ask one's GM.
I initially made a similar ruling as a GM, but then stumbled upon this rule, under Specific Magical Arms and Armor:
It clearly states you can transfer the runes. And we understand this to mean "transfer away" specifically since it already lists "add."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd agree that they're already at their minimum functional value. Transfer would refer to swapping out the minimum rune and swapping in a higher one (rather than upgrading in place).
I initially made a similar ruling as a GM, but then stumbled upon this rule, under Specific Magical Arms and Armor:
It clearly states you can transfer the runes. And we understand this to mean "transfer away" specifically since it already lists "add."
Personally I don't even like the idea of transferring away the fundamental runes included automatically in specific magic items. I think it should mean that if you add/upgrade the runes that it comes with, then you can transfer those additional ones away later.
But that is something that I would houserule. It isn't what the rules actually say.
However, I do also think that the rules do support the idea that if you drop the magic item below what it has as its minimums, then all of the other magical properties also stop working - same as what happens if you transfer away all the fundamental runes of a standard item that has property runes also. Those magical properties stop working.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are +0 magical weapons possible?
Without a potency rune, a weapon isn't a magic weapon.
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. |
Are +0 magical weapons possible?Without a potency rune, a weapon isn't a magic weapon.
A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).
Scrollstaff is listed as a magic weapon but has no potency runes on it.
Scrollstaff is listed as a magic weapon but has no potency runes on it.Are +0 magical weapons possible?Without a potency rune, a weapon isn't a magic weapon.
A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).
It's identified as a magic item, but I don't see where it is identified as a magic weapon.
Magaambyan Magic Item
The following magic item is uncommon, but characters who are Magaambyans of at least attendant rank have access to it (see the sidebar on page 65). PCs who start a game as members of the Magaambya typically begin at attendant rank.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's identified as a magic item, but I don't see where it is identified as a magic weapon.
Yes, it looks like without any fundamental weapon runes it would just be a non-magical staff weapon that you could add a scroll to.
It's identified as a magic item, but I don't see where it is identified as a magic weapon.
Look at Nethys under specific magic weapons: it's the first one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...the rules do support the idea that if you drop the magic item below what it has as its minimums, then all of the other magical properties also stop working...
Oh? Where?
The only thing specified in the rules that I can find is that potency runes are required in order to be able to slot property runes.
Specific magical abilities are not property runes.
By all accounts, it appears as though a +0 striking weapon is totally possible, and magical.
If you removed all runes from a magic weapon, I would say it would be residually magical but would have no actual effect from being magical. Like how you could hit someone with your Endless Grimoire, but it would just be a normal improvised weapon.
As for "what happens if I remove the potency rune but not the property rune" I would say that's not possible, since the "grammar" of magical runes requires property runes to be associated to a potency rune to give it context to be metaphysically meaningful (and thus cause fires, touch ghosts, etc.) Remove the potency rune and the property rune becomes meaningless. It would be like removing the letter "t" from the word "at"- the "t" by itself doesn't have the same kind of semantic content as the word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's identified as a magic item, but I don't see where it is identified as a magic weapon.Look at Nethys under specific magic weapons: it's the first one.
I don't see anything in the book that supports that designation, so I'm going to assume that Archives of Nethys simply made a mistake in placing it there.
It's easy to see how they could have missed the rule that I cited and simply assumed that any magic item that is a weapon would automatically be a magic weapon.
But even if the scrollstaff is a specific exception to the rule, the general rule remains: a potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon.
So a +1 striking, ghost touch sword isn't a magic weapon if you remove it's potency rune. From what I recall from various comments by Paizo staff, the striking rune would still function, though.
You could, of course, use the magic weapon spell or doubling rings to temporarily give the sword a potency rune and make it a magic weapon again (and also "wake up" the property rune).
-----
Edit:
It's also possible that this is another case of Paizo having two different meanings for the same phrase. It's possible that the categories of 'magic weapons' and 'specific magic weapons' contain items which are not 'magic weapons.'
After all, in PF2 all actions are actions, but not every action is an action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's identified as a magic item, but I don't see where it is identified as a magic weapon.Look at Nethys under specific magic weapons: it's the first one.
I don't see anything in the book that supports that designation, so I'm going to assume that Archives of Nethys simply made a mistake in placing it there.
It's easy to see how they could have missed the rule that I cited and simply assumed that any magic item that is a weapon would automatically be a magic weapon.
But even if the scrollstaff is a specific exception to the rule, the general rule remains: a potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon.
So a +1 striking, ghost touch sword isn't a magic weapon if you remove it's potency rune. From what I recall from various comments by Paizo staff, the striking rune would still function, though.
You could, of course, use the magic weapon spell or doubling rings to temporarily give the sword a potency rune and make it a magic weapon again (and also "wake up" the property rune).
-----
Edit:
It's also possible that this is another case of Paizo having two different meanings for the same phrase. It's possible that the categories of 'magic weapons' and 'specific magic weapons' contain items which are not 'magic weapons.'
After all, in PF2 all actions are actions, but not every action is an action.
For me, I think it's that it's a weapon and it has the magical trait: I have a hard time saying that [magical]+[weapon] doesn't equal a [magical weapon].
Secondly, you have this quote in Basic Magic Weapon Core Rulebook pg. 599: "Many magic weapons are created by etching runes onto them, as described on page 580." If runes are a requirement, then it's an odd sentence as it would be 'all' instead of "many." This leads me to wonder if the page 580 quote might be the one that's wrong as either it or page 599 is wrong.
...
As for "what happens if I remove the potency rune but not the property rune" I would say that's not possible, since the "grammar" of magical runes requires property runes to be associated to a potency rune to give it context to be metaphysically meaningful (and thus cause fires, touch ghosts, etc.) Remove the potency rune and the property rune becomes meaningless. It would be like removing the letter "t" from the word "at"- the "t" by itself doesn't have the same kind of semantic content as the word.
It is possible to remove the potency runes, but not the property runes that depend on them. The 'bare' property runes just go dormant.
If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can’t benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.
For me, I think it's that it's a weapon and it has the magical trait: I have a hard time saying that [magical]+[weapon] doesn't equal a [magical weapon].
Secondly, you have this quote in Basic Magic Weapon Core Rulebook pg. 599: "Many magic weapons are created by etching runes onto them, as described on page 580." If runes are a requirement, then it's an odd sentence as it would be 'all' instead of "many." This leads me to wonder if the page 580 quote might be the one that's wrong as either it or page 599 is wrong.
Let's make things even more confusing with this text I just noticed below your quote from p. 599.
MAGIC WEAPON
A magic weapon is a weapon etched with only fundamental runes.
So apparently a +1 striking, ghost touch sword isn't a magic weapon because it has a property rune and hence isn't etched only with fundamental runes.
(I'd guess that this was meant to define basic magic weapons rather than all magic weapons, but that isn't what it actually says.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, I think it's that it's a weapon and it has the magical trait: I have a hard time saying that [magical]+[weapon] doesn't equal a [magical weapon].
I tend to go with a more practical meaning. A weapon is a magical weapon if the damage that it does has the magical trait.
So striking someone with an unmodified Scrollstaff wouldn't. The staff part doesn't deal magical damage.
A scrollstaff serves as a weapon just like an ordinary staff and can be improved via runes...
And since the scrollstaff costs 12 GP and a +1 Weapon Potency rune costs 35 GP, ruling that the scrollstaff does deal magical damage would make it the best weapon for fighting Ghosts at level 1. TGTBT.
So apparently a +1 striking, ghost touch sword isn't a magic weapon because it has a property rune and hence isn't etched only with fundamental runes.
LOL.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to go with a more practical meaning. A weapon is a magical weapon if the damage that it does has the magical trait.
"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.": Step 2: Determine the Damage Type, Core Rulebook pg. 451. A scrollstaff without runes still has the magical trait and would be a magic attack. All that matters is the trait: I don't know of anyplace other than the trait magical that makes the damage magic. I don't see it under runes...
Note the traits the staff has without any runes.
Scrollstaff
Item 1
traits [Uncommon, Magical, Transmutation]
Source Character Guide pg. 100
A scrollstaff serves as a weapon just like an ordinary staff
Sure it has the same stats as any staff with the magical trait... It's ordinary as to bonuses to hit and damage dice, hence the comment about runes.
And since the scrollstaff costs 12 GP and a +1 Weapon Potency rune costs 35 GP, ruling that the scrollstaff does deal magical damage would make it the best weapon for fighting Ghosts at level 1. TGTBT.
And? It doesn't have any bonus to hit or damage and you aren't likely to mean many incorporeal creature before you get runes. It's not like staves have awesome stats [there is a reason they are free items theat even wizards can use].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's make things even more confusing with this text I just noticed below your quote from p. 599.
MAGIC WEAPON
A magic weapon is a weapon etched with only fundamental runes.So apparently a +1 striking, ghost touch sword isn't a magic weapon because it has a property rune and hence isn't etched only with fundamental runes.
(I'd guess that this was meant to define basic magic weapons rather than all magic weapons, but that isn't what it actually says.)
That's not indicating that weapons with other runes (or no runes at all) aren't magical; instead, it is referencing the basic magical weapon shown on Table 11-1. (That is, +1 weapon, +1 striking weapon, +2 weapon, +2 greater striking weapon, etc.)
A holy avenger is magical, but it is not a "magical weapon" like those mentioned in Table 11-1.
It's using a name, versus using plain English. I hope that makes sense.
Are +0 magical weapons possible?Without a potency rune, a weapon isn't a magic weapon.
A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).Reading the book, Second Printing, there is no rule I can see that requires you to have Potency, to have Striking. Both properties are individual Fundamental Runes.
It's interesting that all the examples show Potency Runes leading the Striking Runes, but nothing in the rules prohibit Striking without Potency. Either added would make the Weapon a Magic Weapon.
You can have striking runes without potency runes. The question is whether such a weapon would be a magic weapon.
The rule that I cited specifically states that potency runes are what make a weapon a magic weapon. Where does the book state that any fundamental runes make a weapon a magic weapon?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can have striking runes without potency runes. The question is whether such a weapon would be a magic weapon.
The rule that I cited specifically states that potency runes are what make a weapon a magic weapon. Where does the book state that any fundamental runes make a weapon a magic weapon?
You are getting your logic backwards. Yes the rules say that.
But we don't need that rule. It is the trait Magical on the runes both for striking and potency runes that does the job. In fact almost every rune has a trait on it that will make the weapon magical.
I treat potency runes like some kind of "magical power generator". It allows to "energize" a number of property runes. While strike runes are self-powered.
About weapon being magical I agree with Gortle, if some rune add Magical trait it's turns that weapon as a magic weapon except for dormant property runes. While this runes are disable due lack of potency runes they also don't add their traits to it.
A magic shield can be used to shield bash, but is not a magic weapon.
"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.": Step 2: Determine the Damage Type, Core Rulebook pg. 451.
This means that a shield bash from a magic shield IS in fact a magic physical attack, IE a magic weapon. Magical physical damage is damage with weapon that has the magic trait.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the answer to the original post is yes, you can have a +0 magical weapon.I don't think there is a consensus on this.
I agree with Gisher, that a +1 potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon.
A magic shield can be used to shield bash, but is not a magic weapon.
The trait magical says this (CR 633).
Something with the magical trait is imbued with magical energies not tied to a specific tradition of magic. A magical item radiates a magic aura infused with its dominant school of magic.There is nothing in this trait that makes a magic weapon.
I also don't consider a scroll staff a magic weapon by defaalt:
A scrollstaff serves as a weapon just like an ordinary staff and can be improved via runes like any other staff.
Magical weapon is not a specially defined PF2 game concept. It follows the normal rules for effects. A weapon can be magical, an effect can be magical. It is the presence of a magical trait on an item, feat, action, effect that makes it magical. If a weapon has a magical trait on it then when it is used to deal damage that damage has the magical property.
You need a potency rune to put a property rune on weapon, you don't need a potency rune to put a striking rune on a weapon. Basically any rune on an item makes it magical, as I think every rune has a magical trait. A +0 striking sword is perfectly valid by the rules. It is magical. It deals magical damage.
Shields are not weapons. Typically you put runes on the shield boss or the shield spike to do that job. Those can be magical weapons. However a GM might choose to treat a shield as an improvised weapon. If it had runes on it he might also treat it as a magical improvised weapon.
These rules are clear. If people are unclear it then it is likely because they are talking slightly cross purposes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[
These rules are clear. If people are unclear it then it is likely because they are talking slightly cross purposes.Yes, the rules are clear:
CRB, p. 580 wrote:A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).
Yes that is true, but it just one instance of what is a general rule. The magical trait, or a magical school trait or a magical traditional trait makes an effect magical. A potency rune is just one instance of this.
The rules are natural language text not formal logic. There are edge cases, specific rules and exceptions. You can't always strictly imply the reverse. Your rules quote is true. It simply does not consider that there are other ways to do this. Which there are.