What happens to runes on weapons and armor when the weapon or armor in which they reside has been broken or destroyed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've been over this a number of times; I don't think a consensus was reached other than:
If you rule they're destroyed, you better have a plan for how the party should recover/re-converge to expected WBL, since otherwise you're basically in a fail spiral.
Correct, the forum did not reach a consensus.
And yes, the huge impact on wealth was a core issue.
It doesn't help that Runes exist in a wibbly-wobbly kinda way, both material and immaterial. Since they're a game conceit at their root, I'd say they should survive in standard games. In a gritty, nihilistic setting where gains are scarce and losses occur regularly, then maybe losing Runes would fit in conceptually. The GM has to factor this in by setting up future obstacles that account for such variance or by giving players the ability to determine their path to suit their fluctuating power levels. I don't think that appeals to many though, since PC growth/progress matters a lot to most players and is embodied in one's equipment (if not using the alternate rules that is, where maybe it's not so bad to lose one's +3 weapon if it only moves you back to your innate/level appropriate +2 bonus.)
|
No consensus was reached indeed, if I recall correctly the question was posed around the time when the devs made the decision to stop participating in public online discussions about the rules, mechanics, FAQs, and errata.
If you want my opinion:
If a weapon is broken but can be repaired then the Runes should be fine though I would note that they would 100% be suppressed until the equipment is repaired with the EXCEPTION that if it is Armor that is Broken then the Armor Potency Runes would still be active given that Broken Armor does still provide the Item Bonus to AC.
If the equipment is Destroyed then the Rune just poofs much like the equipment it is etched onto. Too bad, so sad, you'll just have to stay mad.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Runes already don't quite make sense when you think too much about them; they're etched into an item (thus removing material) but can be transferred to another item (so you're moving an absence of something?).
In a way that makes them a kind of negative substance thing. From there on it's not that much of a leap to say they can be salvaged even if the item in which they were carved is lost. You just have to capture that emptiness and put it somewhere.
That reminds me of another aspect that made a difference:
How was the object destroyed?
If the item's Disintegrated or dissolved, there's no substance to retrieve Runes from, but if crushed there should be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Runes already don't quite make sense when you think too much about them; they're etched into an item (thus removing material) but can be transferred to another item (so you're moving an absence of something?).
...
I've come to think of them as magical constructs that don't require the removal of any material.
Rather, they etch symbols into the item by converting that part of the original material into a different material: silver, mahogany, weirdly glowing red gemstone, etc. When the runes are removed, the sigil converts back to the original material.
Thinking of it this way doesn't make any mechanical difference, but it helps me visualize things.