Conductive Weapon
You channel powerful electric current through the metal of a weapon, zapping anyone the item hits. The target becomes a +1 shock weapon. If any target of an attack with the weapon is wearing metal armor or is primarily made of metal, the electricity damage die from the shock rune is 1d12.
What happens if you cast it on a +1 striking weapon - I assume it just adds the Shock on. But what if the weapon has a property rune does it stack or not?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The target becomes a +1 shock weapon.
I see no room for any stacking here. The weapon becomes +1 shock. Period. You could cast it on a +3 Major Striking Keen Speed Vorpal Greatsword and turn it into a +1 shock greatsword for the duration.
That's probably why the spell specifically requires an unattended weapon or one held by a willing target. Could be fun to "debuff" a high-level enemy by Disarming him and casting this on his high-level weapon before he has a chance to pick it up.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't run it like Blave suggests.
I would run it as it adds the effect of a +1 potency rune and a shocking rune. So if your weapon already has a +3 potency rune, it doesn't get downgraded. It's supposed to be a buff, not a penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Claxon.
With the addition that if you cast it on a weapon that is already at max capacity of property runes (casting it on a +1 flaming longsword for example), you can have one of the existing runes disabled and use the shocking rune effect instead for the duration of the spell since that is what other things like Runic Impression do.
I mean, the question was what the spell does, not how anyone would run it. And by RAW it turns a weapon into a +1 shock weapon because that's literally what it says.
Anything beyond that is RAI speculation or homebrew.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW also has statements about how if something is effectively too good or too bad to be true that you shouldn't run it that way.
To me, making you weapon less capable than it already is falls into "too bad to be true".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a level 1 spell, and is clearly meant to be competitive with (original) Magic Weapon. Like Magic Weapon, this spell rapidly becomes obsolete past the first few levels. It's less a case of "to bad to be true" and more that it was designed under a paradigm that is changing with the remaster.
This is what drives me to despair with the rules. Paizo know this is a problem. They acknowledge that Magic weapon was a problem and scales poorly. The comment on it in the release. So they fix Magic Weapon with Runic Weapon but then go and generate exactly the same problem with
Conductive Weapon
I know. It's like the rules were written by several different people or something.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a level 1 Spell. Run it as written and then immediately train OUT Of it after you access 2nd level Spells if you do happen to pick it up IMO.
That said, this is a TERRIBLE Spell and nobody should ever take it, full stop. It has no Heightening functions at all and after levels 3-4 it will only ever serve to help give a minor and electricity-only bump to mundane weapons as anyone with half a brain is always going to get Striking Runes on important equipment.
Maybe I could see this being useful in a game after that point if you are running some kind of gritty optional house rules with Weapon durability and extremely rare useful Runed up Weaponry that themselves will still end up breaking after a handful of combats ala the new Zelda games.
At higher levels the benefit would be having the damage type literally on a stick (make sure it is a metal stick though) for the rest of the battle. With no further action or resource cost needed. A single rank 1 spell and that's it.
If fighting an enemy weak to electricity, that is going to be very nice.
If the ranger's sword has a flaming rune on it and you are fighting a fire elemental, being able to change that weapon to a shocking rune instead would certainly be an improvement over having the Ranger lose out on a bunch of damage over the course of the battle.
It is also a low enough spell that the Ranger could get it themselves for only a couple of archetype feats.
Echoing Weapon does scale. Does that mean that it is a better weapon enchantment spell?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Electric Arc exists, doesn't require a check to land and has the same Traditions.
And you have to continue spending two actions casting it each round in order to do the damage once each round.
Or you could cast Conductive Weapon on your martial ally's weapon and then spend the rest of the battle casting Electric Arc.
I gotta say I agree this spell overrides striking, and wasn't mean to be used after you obtain striking, much like Magic Weapon. Runic Weapon eventually becomes useful again... At level 11. And honestly, that seems fine? I don't really see the problem with having first level spells you retrain. It's essentially free for prepared casters, and spontaneous get to do it for free every level up.
The use case for the spell is interesting. You don't tend to see enemies who resist or are weak to electricity outside of Numeria or Starfinder. It will be a worse option than Runic Weapon if you're casting it on a chunky d12 weapon. But if you're casting it on a d6 or lower weapon it is wash without metal targets and a major buff with them. Seems like a pretty solid choice for an urban game with humanoid enemies, especially if your party is finesse based or only uses one handed weapons.
There would not be any need for "Targets 1 metal weapon that is unattended or attended by a willing creature" unless it overwrites what the weapon normaly have.
Shock Rune:
"Electric arcs crisscross this weapon, dealing an extra 1d6 electricity damage on a hit. On a critical hit, electricity arcs out to deal an equal amount of electricity damage to up to two other creatures of your choice within 10 feet of the target."
I guess there is also use with crit fishing VS metal foes, as the rune just says "weapon" so it presumably functions with guns. And that +2 extra targets on crit seems to also be boosted by the spell, meaning a Crit can do 3d12 bonus electric damage.
Like a lot of other things that technically have the potential to do a lot, it seems that this spell is more than a bit underwhelming outside that hypothetical.
.
Man, I wish these "copy spells" actually made an effort to do something with a significant side-niche. Fundamentally not the same, but close.
For example, if you tweak Conductive Weapon just a bit:
Conductive Weapon
Spell 1
Concentrate Electricity Manipulate Metal
Traditions arcane, primal
Cast [two-actions]
Range touch; Targets 1 stowed metal weapon that is unattended or attended by a willing creature
Duration until next daily preparations, 1 minute
You channel powerful electric current through the metal of a weapon, leaving it charged and ready. Once drawn, the electricity is released, and for the next minute it zaps anyone the item hits. The target adds or overrides its property rune with a shock rune during this minute. If any target of an attack with the weapon is wearing metal armor or is primarily made of metal, the electricity damage die from the shock rune is 1d12.
.
You can get something a little weaker early, without the +1 part, but adds neat flavor that fits the electricity idea and changes the niche into a prep spell.
As this would generally be better, there's also the sneaky balance factor of the weapon needing to be sheathed and drawn, not already in-hand. Trading that potential cost of a draw action for the norm of a 2-action combat cast seems plenty balanced, IMO
Quick draw makes the action cost obsolete, and this then just becomes "spend a 1st level slot for free action damage buff for a whole fight." That just doesn't feel consistent with PF2 design.
Y'all are being too hard on this spell. It is a Runic Weapon alternative for finesse or ranged builds that likely aren't dealing more than a d6 anyway. For classes like that, it is a straight better buff thanks to the crit rider and can become a significantly stronger buff against any enemy in chain mail. It isn't like fire breath or any other 1st level damage options scales well either.
can I share the benefits of the conductive weapon with the eidolon strike as the fundamental and proprietary runes?
Yes.
Quick draw makes the action cost obsolete, and this then just becomes "spend a 1st level slot for free action damage buff for a whole fight." That just doesn't feel consistent with PF2 design.
I'm all for encouraging synergies across party members like that. Not sure how many take Quick Draw, but as an Alch that's stuck w/ Quick Bomber, I certainly think about that Feat a lot.
I'd caution against the calling spells that fill niches previous empty "[inconsistent] with PF2 design" like it's a demerit against it.
As, yes, that is explicitly the design intent. A spell comparable to the Magic Weapon that is fundamentally a different use-case. Not just a change of dmg type, or the 2x weapon dmg --> flat d6, but a different "when do I use this" question.
The idea that when prepped, the weapon can no longer be drawn without burning the enhancement adds a wonderful wrinkle to it, IMO.
If a 1d6 (1d12 crit VS metal) sounds too strong, I'd much rather something be tuned down instead of the idea tossed out. Such as 6 round duration instead of 1 min, ect. IMO the decreasing dmg die might be a bit overplayed, but from a design standpoint it is very good, normalizing the effect. So a d12-->d10-->d8, ect would be fine too (but IMO is not worth the complexity in this case).
After seeing the prepared spells that straight-up offer Reactions to their use, I'm not super worried about the "oh no, prep spells" thing.
Reactions are always there, all day. Gotta always be aware of their triggering condition, cognitive load, blah blah.
This is Cast, and it's there. The question of "when do I draw my sword" is something already there, and this enhances that question, not asks a new one, like w/ the many of the Reaction spells.
.
Moreover, this change would be a straightforward, understandable **alternative** to the standard weapon buff. IMO, there's really not all that many options that casters have in each tradition & spell level. As such, it considerably rustles my jimmies when these "exact same use-case" spells fluff the spell list.
You realize it is a d12 all the time against metal foes, not just on crits, right?
That aside, while I agree with a lot of the principles you're citing, I don't think your implementation is strong here. This spell doesn't create tactical decisions or encourage fun teamwork, it just straight buffs damage for one fight per cast. You'd continue to use the same spell the same way until at least level 7. It's power creep, and not even conceptually interesting power creep. It functions a lot like the toxicologist ability you were complaining about, only instead of a good ability a bad class gains eventually, half the classes can spam it from level 1.
I'd rather see a spell that lets you target a more common weakness or perhaps lets you choose between elements to adapt to what you're fighting with a similar effect. Or if you were going to try and salvage your idea, you could raise the level of the spell while letting it replace the striking rune. You could build it to be a way of making a back up weapon competitive for a fight instead of your go to weapon better.
You realize it is a d12 all the time against metal foes, not just on crits, right?
That aside, while I agree with a lot of the principles you're citing, I don't think your implementation is strong here. This spell doesn't create tactical decisions or encourage fun teamwork, it just straight buffs damage for one fight per cast. You'd continue to use the same spell the same way until at least level 7. It's power creep, and not even conceptually interesting power creep. It functions a lot like the toxicologist ability you were complaining about, only instead of a good ability a bad class gains eventually, half the classes can spam it from level 1.
I'd rather see a spell that lets you target a more common weakness or perhaps lets you choose between elements to adapt to what you're fighting with a similar effect. Or if you were going to try and salvage your idea, you could raise the level of the spell while letting it replace the striking rune. You could build it to be a way of making a back up weapon competitive for a fight instead of your go to weapon better.
The Property Rune slot filler --> Striking Rune slot filler is a great idea, as it's more relevant early.
.
I'm honestly not much a fan of the "does more dmg to this enemy type" kind of effects in spells, as that kind of binary leads to the least amount of interesting complications/player choices, but *does* put a problem into the power balancing of said spell.
.
With the Alchemical Crossbow, Weapon Siphons, ect, IMO it does not seem like Paizo is super worried about Strike enhancers. And getting 3x 1d4 or 1d6 for juicing a bomb is super low-cost.
.
The "cast to store a charge that's unleashed when drawn" idea was a mechanic derived from the flavor of an electricity ability.
I'd be curious how you'd change it for some form of "precast option select" damage type, or just a different flavor mechanic for another element.
Like Fire being cast in combat w/ a 1 action ignition spark, but needs a turn or two grow in damage to mimic a wildfire. Like + 1d4, 1d4, 1d6, 1d12, gone.
The wild fire idea is interesting, though likely needs some fine tuning.
The problem with using the alchemical crossbow and weapon siphon as counterpoints is both have significantly higher action costs and drawbacks. Both items likely require you to either be holding the bomb already or use an action to draw it, so we are already up to 2 actions. The crossbow (or a two handed weapon if using a siphon) then requires a 3rd action to regroup. A nice GM might let you compress actions 2 and 3 using the reload rules.
You then get a whopping 3 attacks in the next minute, which will wind up spread across multiple turns because of reload and avoiding the awful MAP increase. Compare this to your spell, which costs a martial one action, or no actions with quick draw, and lasts the whole fight. I know which one I'd rather have.
Just imagine imagine if 1st level Runic Weapon added another damage dice which stacked with striking and lasted 8 hours. Your spell is only a little bit worse than that, but for one fight the action cost is the same. Action costs are a really significant balance factor in this game. If you're interested in lower action spells that actually fit, you probably want to move away from options that just tack on extra damage and into more tactical or situational options. Like a wind enhancement that lets successful strikes double as a Shove action? That could fit.
The wild fire idea is interesting, though likely needs some fine tuning.
The problem with using the alchemical crossbow and weapon siphon as counterpoints is both have significantly higher action costs and drawbacks. Both items likely require you to either be holding the bomb already or use an action to draw it, so we are already up to 2 actions. The crossbow (or a two handed weapon if using a siphon) then requires a 3rd action to regroup. A nice GM might let you compress actions 2 and 3 using the reload rules.
You then get a whopping 3 attacks in the next minute, which will wind up spread across multiple turns because of reload and avoiding the awful MAP increase. Compare this to your spell, which costs a martial one action, or no actions with quick draw, and lasts the whole fight. I know which one I'd rather have.
Just imagine imagine if 1st level Runic Weapon added another damage dice which stacked with striking and lasted 8 hours. Your spell is only a little bit worse than that, but for one fight the action cost is the same. Action costs are a really significant balance factor in this game. If you're interested in lower action spells that actually fit, you probably want to move away from options that just tack on extra damage and into more tactical or situational options. Like a wind enhancement that lets successful strikes double as a Shove action? That could fit.
A good chance for a rule-check:
"An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon. Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon."When you say a nice GM might let you compress the actions, I'm guessing this is what you're referring to?
This does seem to say that reloading a 2-hand weapon like the Alch Xbow includes a free regrip action, which is important for an Alch.
Lets you shoot, drop a hand for Quick Bombing, ect, then reload+regrip.
.
And the siphons/xbows keep the bomb loaded, when combat starts, it's 1 action to "juice" it for a min. Depends on GM, circumstance, but you can sometimes get to juice it before a fight. Either way, 1-action cost is way bigger than the bomb.
.
Woah, never mind. I was using the Alch Xbow when it was 1d6, it's way more generous now.
Both of them seem to have no action tax to juice, and will sit there ready, only eating the bomb when the first strike happens.
... A single lesser alchemical bomb can be fitted to the weapon siphon as an Interact action. The bomb must be one that deals energy damage, such as an acid flask, alchemist's fire, bottled lightning, frost vial, or thunderstone. The next three attacks made with the weapon deal 1d4 damage of the bomb's damage type in addition to the weapon's normal damage. If the second and third attacks aren't all made within 1 minute of the first attack, the bomb's energy is wasted. These attacks never deal splash damage or other special effects of the bomb and aren't modified by any abilities that add to or modify a bomb's effect."
"This crossbow can deliver alchemically infused bolts. The strange weapon has a metal bracket mounted on the side of the stock near the lath. As an action, you can load a single lesser alchemical bomb into the bracket; this bomb must be one that deals energy damage (such as an acid flask, alchemist’s fire, bottled lightning, frost vial, or thunderstone). The next three attacks made with the crossbow deal 1d6 damage of the bomb’s damage type in addition to the crossbow’s normal damage. If the second and third attacks are not all made within 1 minute of the first attack, the bomb’s energy is wasted. These attacks never deal splash damage or other special effects of the bomb and are not modified by any abilities that add to or modify a bomb’s effect. The addition of the bracket serves to unbalance the weapon, reducing its range to 30 feet. It otherwise functions as a crossbow (when determining damage, reload, and so on). Creatures use their crossbow proficiency when using the alchemical crossbow. The alchemical crossbow costs 25 gp."
.
Hot damn, 0 combat action cost?
That's a serious upgrade, and a 100% must grab for a LvL 1, IMO. 2-Hands sucks, reload sucks, but the might have made something genuinely worth it.
Huh. I was misreading that too. The timer not starting until your first attack makes it way more competitive than I thought. I need to revaluate my munitions crafter gunslinger. Shame it competes with crossbow crackshot.
Edit: Still, I'll note those are still less powerful than a generic buff to a short bow would be, like the proposed Conductive Weapon would be.