While I think it's a bit silly for the GM to allow putting any runes on an alchemical bomb, I can't find anything that actually prohibits this.
Book details Alchemical Bombs as: "Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feet." And, being Martial Weapons with the Thrown trait... should allow runes to be etched.
My assumption is that if you could and did put a +1 striking rune on a Lesser Alchemists Fire, it would more or less turn into a very slightly worse Moderate Alchemists Fire, by gaining +1 item bonus to attack and an extra die of damage to make it deal 2d8, but would still deal 1 persistent fire damage and 1 fire splash damage.
Presumably the runes that was on the bomb would then be destroyed along with the bomb if you threw it.
If you could put fundamental runes on it, presumably you could put property runes on it as well. Unfortunately Grievous doesn't even list "Bomb" so it wouldn't do anything, and Returning also likely wouldn't as the item is destroyed after the attack.
Shock and Corrosive would work though if the rest does, dealing some more damage from your extremely expensive bomb.
Does this work, even if it's kinda stupid to do?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Affixed or Etched
Source Core Rulebook pg. 535
"Runes must be etched onto permanent items, such as armor, weapons, or runestones to grant their benefit."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And even though bombs are categorized as weapons, they still have the consumable trait and are not permanent items.
What about the bomb launcher?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about the bomb launcher?
It's not a weapon or armor and there aren't any special rules for adding them [like handwraps have].
What about the bomb launcher?
The more interesting version of this question is the Thrower’s Bandolier
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about the bomb launcher?The more interesting version of this question is the Thrower’s Bandolier
That more interesting question has the same boring answer though. Runes must be etched on permanent items to have their effect.
What about the bomb launcher?The more interesting version of this question is the Thrower’s Bandolier
Well the runes ARE etched into a permanent item and that item replicates the runes on the weapon in it. Nothing prevents consumables from benefiting from duplicated runes as here is no etching involved and bombs are thrown weapons so qualify for use in the item.
The real question you should ask if it's intended to work that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The copied runes on the bomb items would not have any effect because they are not on a permanent item.
So while you could argue that the bombs have runes etched on them, they won't change the stats of the bomb or have any other effect.
The copied runes on the bomb items would not have any effect because they are not on a permanent item.
I disagree completely: the runes are etched as required and the item is only giving the benefit of the runes and not giving a permanent effect. I can't see any rule being broken. For instance, nothing prevents a champion from using blade ally on a bomb or a Duskwalker using Ghost Hunter from having a ghost touch bomb either. There is a difference between actual etching and just handing out the benefits of one.
So while you could argue that the bombs have runes etched on them, they won't change the stats of the bomb or have any other effect.
That's the thing, you CAN'T argue that "bombs have runes etched on them" and I sure am not doing so. What you can argue, and what I'm doing, is arguing that you can temporarily gain the benefits of a rune with a bomb as no etching is involved: nothing stops consumable weapons from gaining the effects of a rune by means other than etching.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Runes must be etched onto permanent items, such as armor, weapons, or runestones to grant their benefit.
Well, if we want to be completely pedantic about it - if the runes aren't etched onto the bombs then they wouldn't have their effect on the bombs anyway. But that is just silly.
And an argument that you can 'replicate' a rune effect onto an item that couldn't have the rune on it in the first place doesn't pass any litmus test of reasonable ruling that I can come up with.
I also don't let Champions have Returning Longswords either.
Well, if we want to be completely pedantic about it - if the runes aren't etched onto the bombs then they wouldn't have their effect on the bombs anyway. But that is just silly.
It'd be EXREMELY silly as you have a more specific rule that allows it: "Whenever you draw a weapon from the bandolier, the bandolier's runes are replicated onto that weapon." Bombs are weapons and a replicated rune isn't an etched one.
And an argument that you can 'replicate' a rune effect onto an item that couldn't have the rune on it in the first place doesn't pass any litmus test of reasonable ruling that I can come up with.
I can't see a reason a Duskwalker can't ghost touch a bomb. As far as reasonable, that's getting into RAI: I'm talking about that the rules actually say. Reasonable is another debate entirely and I know a few DM that would be ok with it [My duskwalker HAS ghost touched bombs before {not a melee weapon and a consumable}] so getting an agreement on reasonable might be an issue.
I also don't let Champions have Returning Longswords either.
I don't see the issue: the weapon gets an effect, it just doesn't DO anything [there isn't a way to throw a non-Thrown in a Strike as far as I know]: it's just a wasted use of an ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a replicated rune isn't an etched one.
That is too fine of a line for me. The meaning is clear enough.
In order for the rune effect to work, the rune effect has to be on an item that qualifies for it.
A consumable item such as a bomb cannot have a weapon rune effect on it.
That is too fine of a line for me. The meaning is clear enough.
Sure a permanent rune has to go on a permanent item: what about the bandoleers affect on thrown weapons is permanent?
In order for the rune effect to work, the rune effect has to be on an item that qualifies for it.
Agreed. *looks at bandoleer* Nothing about the replicated effect though. For instance, Ghost Ammunition has "the benefits of the ghost touch property rune" even though it's ammunition and not a melee weapon. The Ghostbane Fulu is affixed to a weapon [not melee weapon] and it grants "the benefit of the ghost touch property rune". here are a least 3 ranged weapons with ghost ouch on it. Ghost Hunter gives "the effects of a ghost touch property rune" to "Your weapon and unarmed attacks". If here is a hard line in the sand, I don't know where it is.
A consumable item such as a bomb cannot have a weapon rune effect on it.
I agree on 'A consumable item such as a bomb cannot have a weapon rune effect on it.
Nothing about the replicated effect though. For instance, Ghost Ammunition has "the benefits of the ghost touch property rune" even though it's ammunition and not a melee weapon. The Ghostbane Fulu is affixed to a weapon [not melee weapon] and it grants "the benefit of the ghost touch property rune". here are a least 3 ranged weapons with ghost ouch on it. Ghost Hunter gives "the effects of a ghost touch property rune" to "Your weapon and unarmed attacks".
Those are all specific overrides.
And I'm sure you will argue that I am reading too much into developer intent, but those all also seem to be borrowing existing rules text in order to avoid reprinting it. It is easier and faster to say that some effect copies the effects of something else - such as the Ghost Touch rune - than to repeat the entirety of that effect and then say that it interacts in the same ways with all of the other things and then be sure to remember that...
But have fun convincing your gaming group that bombs should be able to have rune effects on them. And defining exactly how that works.
Those are all specific overrides.
If so, how is the bandoleer any less specific other than it being 'runes that work on thrown weapons' instead of 'ghost touch'.
And I'm sure you will argue that I am reading too much into developer intent
IMO, it's an issue that you're reading any intent into it at all. All of them and things like the bandoleer and handwraps use the same or near identical wording: I could care less WHY they used it as what's important in RAW is the actual words used. I'm not arguing RAI.
But have fun convincing your gaming group that bombs should be able to have rune effects on them. And defining exactly how that works.
Here's the thing though: I'm debating RAW. I couldn't care less if it actually sees play as that was never the point. As to what works, how is that hard? Strike bonuses do no stack and weapon dice are set to a new total so they are simple: what's left is property runes and those too are pretty simple. What do you see as problematic?
Secondly, it'd only work on bombs you put in it before you invest it, meaning you're either buying bombs to put in it or spending reagents on them [no perpetuals] and it only fits 20 weapons total. I'm having trouble seeing how this would be an issue if allowed.
EDIT: you asked about Alchemist's Fire and Acid Flask: the weapon damage die for Alchemist's Fire is 1d8 and Acid Flask is 1 [like the blowgun].
This has been the "talk of the town" ever since the Thrower's Bandoleer was revealed... Are people asking if they can slap a Major Striking rune on the bandoleer so their Major Alchemist's Fire can deal 8d6 points of fire damage instead of 4d6 or something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing though: I'm debating RAW. I couldn't care less if it actually sees play as that was never the point.
Well, here is some RAW for you to remember.
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
So maybe stop arguing RAW to the point where it becomes more of a problem than it is worth. That isn't helpful to people actually trying to play the game.
no, i think it's universally accepted that this doesn't work:
I've seen both being argued for.
The real question is about property runes.
so this could potentially allow for such runes like flaming and etc to be applied to the bomb strike.
But that is the more common one. Basically people want to be able to combine Ghost Charge and Alchemist's Fire as though they had Combine Elixir (except for bombs instead of elixirs, and without having to use bombs two levels lower than maximum, or taking a feat, or even being an Alchemist).
Edit: Oh, and forgot the Additive 2 cost that makes it cost extra reagents and extra actions.
The thing is, Bombs are a bad fit with Runes all the way around. Bombs are counted as weapons, but virtually everything about them uses their own rules, not the standard weapon rules.
On the Fundamental Rune side, Weapon Potency Runes grant an Item Bonus to Strike Actions. Bombs have their own Item Bonus to Strike Actions. (For most Bombs, coming in one level behind the Weapon Potency Rune.)
For Striking Runes, Striking Runes specify the number of Weapon Damage dice the weapon they're inscribed on do. Bombs don't use Weapon Damage dice. Instead, they do a specified amount of damage that usually (but not always) includes a roll. A standard weapon does one damage die. A Greater Alchemist's Fire does 4d8 fire damage... but is it a standard weapon? A Lesser Alignment Ampoule does 1pt Alignment Damage + 1 Splash. Is it a standard weapon? Acid Flasks do 1pt Acid + Splash, and then a varying amount of Persistent Damage... are *they* standard weapons?
Heck, Bombs aren't even *thrown* the same way as other weapons. A Strike with a Bomb gains the Manipulate trait. Most Bombs have Splash, but not all. And the reason that Bombs, being thrown weapons, don't have the Thrown trait, is that the Thrown trait specifies you add your Strength modifier to damage... which you never do with Bombs (even those without the Splash trait, like Tanglefoot Bags... probably because a Tangelefoot Bag does no damage at all.)
So the notion of somehow applying Weapon Property Runes to Bombs, even through something like the Thrower's Bandolier seems ridiculous to me, considering how few of the rules for Bombs are rules for other thrown Weapons.
My thoughts on the matter. My mind isn't made up per se, but this is basically my thoughts as they sit now.
1. Bombs do not have a weapon damage die listed in their weapon profile, instead dealing specific damage called out in their rules. This is similar to say, the Fire Damage dealt by the lit Fire Poi, and thus would not be adjusted by Striking Runes, even if you were to let runes on a Thrower's Bandoleer work with bombs. So no big deal there as far as I am concerned.
2. The only property runes I can see having value with bombs are flaming/shocking/etc... that grant extra damage dice. These runes tend to only grant such damage on a hit, so no worrying about splash benefiting from such runes. Not many other runes have any real benefit for bombs. Especially runes that thrown weapons qualify for at any rate.
3. The greatest benefit that I can see bombs gaining from runes working for them is increased item bonuses to attack rolls for lower level bombs. So you can keep your lesser bombs a bit more relevant this way. They still won't be dealing spectacular damage, but they will hit that much more. Which could impact the balance considerations for weapon property runes working.
Honestly, 3 being a thing makes me want to accept that this works purely because it makes bomber alchemists just a bit more bomb-y. Bonus damage from Damage property runes is just icing on the cake, and not the buff you probably are worried about since it requires a hit to happen, and a bomber alchemist is about as inaccurate as you can be without purposefully self-sabotaging.
I don't see this necessarily being intended, as it would be weird for Paizo to "fix" a subclass with one specific item. Especially an item that isn't tailored to them from the top down.
So, call me undecided. RAW, I agree with Graystone, I think the way everything is worded does not preclude thrower's bandoleer runes from being copied onto a bomb.
RAI... I am not really certain to be honest. Until and unless we get official word though, I will probably allow this at my table. Unless I find some reason that it is too good to be true in the meantime.
Regardless if someone is for or against, your comparison is just silly here. (as an example I'm still undecided)
You are comparing adding 1d6 damage from a rune (or even 2d6 from 2 runes) to getting 2d8+6+persistent +6 aoe, or/and other riders.
Perhaps. Though I think it depends on what you are fighting and which direction you are combining things.
Against a ghost using a Ghost Charge normally would be baseline.
Using Alchemist's Fire would likely be a bad choice because the ghost would have a lot of resistance against the non-magical fire damage.
Using a Ghost Charge with a Flaming rune may not be all that much of an addition.
But how about using Alchemist's Fire with a Ghost Touch rune? It removes the double resistance that the ghost has against non-magical fire damage and even the normal resistance that it has against magical fire damage.
I'm not trying to argue that bombs are less powerful that other weapons and may need a buff. What I am trying to point out is that using the Thrower's Bandolier to put rune effects on bombs is a huge buff to bombs that is very likely not intended and is rather undefined according to the current rules of how runes work.
Abusing the Thrower's Bandolier to put rune effects on bombs is not the right way to buff bombs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'll admit to a bit of hyperbole in my comparison there. I think it is warranted and justified though to convey how I feel about the arguments people are proposing.
And I don't like the idea of a "temp fix". If bombs need fixed, get a real fix. Don't abuse rules like this - because it will have a lot more undefined consequences and will cause more problems than it fixes. And I don't think that is hyperbole.
|
I, quite simply, do not think these are intended to work with Runes no matter what, full stop. No etched Runes, no "applied" Runes, no "gain the effects of" a Rune, none of it. As far as I see it, Alchemical Items should probably just see some Errata to the Alchemical Trait that wholesale indicates that no Runes or effects that rely on the rules of Runes such as Magic Weapon, the Champion Blade Ally, and other similar options, should or can ever work with them.
If a Magic Item of ANY kind, in my view, that is intended to work with Alchemical Items of any sort (be it a Bomb, Healing Elixir, Mutagen, etc) then it should always explicitly spell that distinction out in every case.
Basically the bandolier really isn't breaking the game by letting property runes apply and its not even economically feasible...
Or to rephrase...
Even if you abuse the mechanics and do things like allow rune effects to be applied to consumable items and give bombs the Thrown trait that they don't have so that Raging Thrower adds Rage damage to them, that this still isn't enough of a hot fix and you are better off just using a regular martial weapon.
This has been the "talk of the town" ever since the Thrower's Bandoleer was revealed... Are people asking if they can slap a Major Striking rune on the bandoleer so their Major Alchemist's Fire can deal 8d6 points of fire damage instead of 4d6 or something?no, i think it's universally accepted that this doesn't work:
striking rune SETS the dices to X, it doesn't multiply dices or anything like that.
Actually, if you would add a Major Striking Rune to an Alchemist's Fire, it would deal 8d6 points of damage (4d6 + 4 dices), while with a regular Striking rune, it would deal 5d6 (4d6 + 1 die).
"A striking rune stores destructive magic in the weapon, increasing the weapon damage dice it deals to two instead of one."
So that would not work with any Bomb but the lesser versions.
And even if you ignore the "instead of one" part, it would just put it to 4 dice like the Major Alchemist's Fire, so no change in damage for them.
Actually, if you would add a Major Striking Rune to an Alchemist's Fire, it would deal 8d6 points of damage (4d6 + 4 dices), while with a regular Striking rune, it would deal 5d6 (4d6 + 1 die).
A striking rune stores destructive magic in the weapon, increasing the weapon damage dice it deals to two instead of one.
The weapon deals four weapon damage dice.
Actually, if you would add a Major Striking Rune to an Alchemist's Fire, it would deal 4d6 points of damage (4d6 => 4d6 dices) because the rune explicitly sets the number of dice to use. While with a regular Striking rune, it would deal 2d6 (4d6 => 2d6) for the same reason.
Or...
Actually, if you would add a Major Striking Rune to an Alchemist's Fire, it would deal 4d6 points of damage (4d6 => 4d6 dices) because the rune explicitly sets the number of dice to use. While with a regular Striking rune, it would still deal 4d6 (4d6 => no change) because the Striking rune says that it only 'increases' the amount of damage that it does.
Or...
You can't apply a Striking rune to an Alchemist's Fire unless it normally only deals 1 dice worth of damage in the first place because of that 'instead of one' clause.
See... Isn't arguing about this so much more fun than actually playing the game?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. Here it is. I finally figured out where I had seen this precedent being set.
The rings also replicate property runes from the weapon in the gold-ringed hand, so long as the weapon in the iron-ringed hand meets all the prerequisites for a given rune
So with the general requirements of runes
Runes must be etched onto permanent items
I don't know how much more clear the rules need to be.
"A striking rune stores destructive magic in the weapon, increasing the weapon damage dice it deals to two instead of one."
So that would not work with any Bomb but the lesser versions.
And even if you ignore the "instead of one" part, it would just put it to 4 dice like the Major Alchemist's Fire, so no change in damage for them.
because all weapons deal 1 damage die... Bombs don't, so the rules don't apply normally, if they would.
Point is that people want their alchemists to throw 3 mega bombs that deal up to twice the damage, and the Bandoleer looks like the solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. Here it is. I finally figured out where I had seen this precedent being set.
The rings also replicate property runes from the weapon in the gold-ringed hand, so long as the weapon in the iron-ringed hand meets all the prerequisites for a given runeSo with the general requirements of runes
Runes must be etched onto permanent itemsI don't know how much more clear the rules need to be.
Problem is, Thrower's Bandolier does not contain that sentence. While I agree that Doubling Rings and Thrower's Bandolier are alike, they are not exactly alike. So we have to use their individual wording to evaluate them.
For example, Blazon's of Shared Power share Doubling Rings wording on prerequisites. However, Gunner's Bandolier does Not share that language. This is likely due to the fact that you can only place runes for Ranged Weapons on them, so any weapon placed in the Bandolier would already meet such prerequisites.
In other words, Doubling Rings having that rider does not mean that Thrower's Bandolier must have it either.
Big Spicy However. This leads us to probably the best argument against this working: Bombs are Not Thrown Weapons, so should not be able to be placed in the Bandolier in the first place.
Since it can be etched with runes as if it were a Thrown Weapon, like the Gunner's Bandolier can only be etched with Ranged Weapon Runes, then there is no need for the Prerequisite language.
Bombs not being Thrown Weapons, mean that they aren't able to be placed in the Bandolier in the first place, and even if the gm allowed it, they should not benefit from the magical effect of the Bandolier in any case, similar to non-ranged weapons that happen to be placed in a Gunner's Bandolier.
Thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bombs are specifically martial thrown weapons.
I contend they are not. They do not have the Thrown trait.
I contend they are not. They do not have the Thrown trait.
Straight from the rules:
Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feetFurthermore, from the splash trait on bombs:
When you use a thrown weapon with the splash trait, you don’t add your Strength modifier to the damage roll.
Fair dues and all. In my opinion, they are clearly not a thrown weapon in the way that the Bandolier intends. Weapons with the thrown trait, that could be etched with runes themselves.
They are physically thrown for sure. But I don't think it really counts as a "thrown" weapon in the same way that a dart or shuriken do. At least not in my opinion.
I don't know how much more clear the rules need to be.Problem is, Thrower's Bandolier does not contain that sentence. While I agree that Doubling Rings and Thrower's Bandolier are alike, they are not exactly alike. So we have to use their individual wording to evaluate them.
Thoughts?
I don't see it as an argument in good faith. I don't see it as an argument that is trying to benefit the game and make it more playable, or easier for new players to understand, or consistent and able to remember the rules as a result.
There are so many problems with arguments that start with, "well, the rules don't technically say..."
There is a good reason why the first section of the General Rules include things like "The GM has the final say" and the "Ambiguous rules" rule. We all - including the game developers - know that it is not possible for the rules authors to remember every little fiddly detail for every new item description text. RAW is to use RAI in those cases - not use some undefined behavior because it isn't explicitly forbidden by the strictest reading of the rules.
I don't see it as an argument in good faith. I don't see it as an argument that is trying to benefit the game and make it more playable, or easier for new players to understand, or consistent and able to remember the rules as a result.
There are so many problems with arguments that start with, "well, the rules don't technically say..."
There is a good reason why the first section of the General Rules include things like "The GM has the final say" and the "Ambiguous rules" rule. We all - including the game developers - know that it is not possible for the rules authors to remember every little fiddly detail for every new item description text. RAW is to use RAI in those cases - not use some undefined behavior because it isn't explicitly forbidden by the strictest reading of the rules.
Eh, as I said, it was what I saw as the best argument at the time really. On the one hand, I was likely too selective in my thought process when reading "thrown" weapons. That to me says weapons with the thrown trait.
On the other hand, it is possible to be too broad in defining a thrown weapon imo. Could any item that is placed in the bandolier, and then drawn and thrown, benefit from the runes? A spoon? A fork? A rock?
They would be improvised thrown weapons at that point, no?
They would be improvised thrown weapons at that point, no?
While they are being thrown, yes. They would be improvised weapons and thrown weapons both.
Again the rules don't expressly forbid this from causing problems. I have heard people argue that you can put a weapon rune on anything because it could be a weapon at some point.
I don't follow that. I look at the inherent nature of the item. Much like the inherent handedness of weapons that prevents the Bastard Sword from being a bridge to allow the Shifting rune to shift weapons between one handed and two handed weapons. An improvised weapon is only a weapon while it is being used as one. The inherent nature is that it is not a weapon and does not qualify for runes - etched permanently, or copied temporarily.
Regarding the Permanent vs Temporary Item debate:
As far as I am concerned, the debate isn't between permanent items and temporary items. The debate is between permanent items and consumable items.