Automatic Bonus Progression needs a second look

[fuzzystudios]

breithauptclan wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

Nowhere in the rules for Runes does it say anything about restricting them to Permanent Weapons or Items, the words "Permanent" and 'Consumable" don't appear even once.

Quoting this rule again for clarity.

Quote:

Runes must be etched onto permanent items, such as armor, weapons, or runestones to grant their benefit.

The "such as" is giving a list of examples. And since weapons are generally permanent items (even though consumable weapons do exist), and there are two entire categories of runes specifically meant to be put on weapons, it makes sense that 'weapons' makes it onto the example list.

But the rule is still very clear that your weapon rune has to be put on a permanent item.

Why is everyone ignoring the thrower's bandolier? It should (in practice) apply weapon runes to bombs, regardless of ABP.

[Squiggit]

fuzzystudios wrote:

Why is everyone ignoring the thrower's bandolier? It should (in practice) apply weapon runes to bombs, regardless of ABP.

You're asking this to a two and a half year old post that predates the existence of the thrower's bandolier, friend.

[Super Zero]

Well, the most recent post in this thread was from before that book was released.

[Captain Morgan]

I'm pretty sure the remaster made it clear you can't apply runes to consumables, even with the bandolier. But I can't be bothered to look it up right now.

[NorrKnekten]

I'm unaware of any changes to this during the remaster. But even back then it was somewhat clear that items like the bandolier wouldn't have worked from the quotes in previous posts (AoN is down as i'm writing this, go figures)

Items only grant benefit when the usage entry is met. Which for runes demands both that they are;
*Etched onto a permanent item
*Etched onto an item that matches the usage entry

If a rune through alternate means ends up on an illegible item, such as an item that cannot be etched or the wrong kind of item, then it's usage requirement isn't met and the rune grants no benefits.

[Trip.H]

Captain Morgan wrote:

I'm pretty sure the remaster made it clear you can't apply runes to consumables, even with the bandolier. But I can't be bothered to look it up right now.

Yup, I can vouch for that one.

This was actually a rare case when Paizo very quickly responded to prevent the bandolier from working with bombs, as the initially published version was ~technically "compatible" but resulted in undefined behavior (which would likely be ruled as non-functional anyways).

And instead of something specific to bombs/bandolier, the Paizo language was something like "consumables can never benefit from runes" to close that entire door.

Kinda sad that they'll be right quick to shutdown things like that bandolier, yet the whole Alchemist class right now is, uh, a s!##show.

And not just in an "under-powered" manner, while there are plenty of issues in that bucket in need of doing.
There's also a number of "in the Alch's favor" mis-reads of the text that juice the class's performance upward that need to be clearly ruled out by Paizo, and imo that (false) power(?) is a large part of why Paizo is so scared to touch the class.

[NorrKnekten]

Finally got to see where it is listed, It was added to the definition of alchemical bombs.

Alchemical Bombs wrote:

Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feet. When you throw a bomb, you make a weapon attack roll against the target’s AC, as you would for any other weapon. It takes one hand to draw, prepare, and throw a bomb. The bomb is activated when thrown as a Strike—you don’t have to activate it separately. As consumables, bombs can’t have runes etched onto them, have talismans attached to them, or benefit from runes granted in other ways (such as from spells or from items that replicate runes from other items). Spells and magic items that give you a bonus to all your attacks (or to all thrown weapons, for example) can still apply to them.

[YuriP]

The interesting it that this rule IMO is in the wrong place. This should have to be into the consumable trait or in a general rules area not in the alchemical bombs chapter, once that how this is written it not only affects bombs but every consumable in the game.

[Squiggit]

Are there any other consumable weapons?

[Finoan]

Squiggit wrote:

Are there any other consumable weapons?

Not yet. At least I don't think so.

But I don't think that negates YuriP's line of reasoning. Writing the restriction on putting runes on consumable weapons in the runes rules or the consumable trait preemptively handles problems if another consumable weapon does get created.

Otherwise either the developers have to replicate the prohibition rule on the new consumable weapon, or we are going to get a lot of people arguing a Specific Defines General fallacy that the rule specifically for Alchemical Bombs should also be applied to those new consumable weapons.

[NorrKnekten]

The reasoning is correct that this is better placed placed within the rules for either consumable or runes themselves.

That said we do have a rule that runes only grant benefit when etched onto permanent items. Ofcourse that didn't stop people from arguing that runes do grant benefits if something placed the rune there without etching it.

GM Core pg. 222 2.0 Usage/Etched wrote:

Runes must be etched onto permanent items, such as armor, shields, weapons, or runestones to grant their benefit.

Not the most visible place for it, It's still the same chapter as runes in general and the new text for alchemical bombs but nearly 20 pages appart.

[fuzzystudios]

One thing that makes me concerned is that RAW, the ABP alternate rules STILL needlessly punish alchemists.

You can't benefit from most elexirs and mutagens, and you otherwise gain nothing from potency when using most alchemical items...

[Tridus]

fuzzystudios wrote:

One thing that makes me concerned is that RAW, the ABP alternate rules STILL needlessly punish alchemists.

You can't benefit from most elexirs and mutagens, and you otherwise gain nothing from potency when using most alchemical items...

Automatic Rune Progression doesn't have this problem and IMO is an all around better variant.

This is probably not getting fixed, since with variant rules Paizo assumes if you're using them, you are also experienced enough to deal with issues caused by it. They also don't tend to give much attention to variants in general, like how PWL's simple DCs are just busted at the high end and have been since forever.