Hello everybody,
can Striking Runes be added as first fundamental rune of a weapon, i.e. without a prior (+1/+2/+3) Weapon Potency Rune? I don't see a ban, but I can't remember any example weapons like that either. The latter makes me suspicious... Maybe I am rule blind here and/or looked at the wrong places, again.
So if anyone knows, I'd be happy for a reference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In pre-remaster I'm pretty sure it was possible. Haven't looked deep into the remaster rules yet to know if that changed.
But given than the +1 run is about half the price of the striking rune, it tends to never come up.
In the playtest it was impossible to have the equivalent of a +0 striking weapon because the +N and the 'striking' were tied together. That probably means the previous draft of the CRB was written accordingly. That means that they'd have examples of +N striking only for N > 0. IMHO, when the +N and the striking were decoupled as a result of playtest feedback, there just wasn't enough reason to go back and add the +0 striking case here and there, especially since +1 is cheaper than striking and they only wanted to print the common cases explicitly.
TL;DR +0 striking is legal and its lack of explicit appearance is largely a historical artifact.
AFAICT nothing about this has changed in the Remaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. You can't add a property rune without first adding a potency rune. But I see nothing preventing adding a striking rune (which is a fundamental rune) as the first rune added.
I checked to see if any language anywhere specifies, and none. Neither under magic weapon rules, striking runes, or weapon potency runes (at least on AoN). You could technically have a +0 major striking weapon if you're willing to sink thirty-one thousand sixty-five gold pieces into it and didn't care as much about minor things like actually hitting enemies. And as noted you're disallowed any property runes as those are capped by the potency rune. It'd be ... very interesting treasure to find.
As you can see in this video, it was certainly possible pre-remaster.
I don't see any remaster text suggesting that has changed. In fact, both rule versions share text specifically stating that, unlike property runes, striking runes don't count against the limit imposed by the potency rune. So while adding a property rune to a +0 weapon would violate the limit of 0 (and thus render the property rune dormant), adding a striking rune to a +0 weapon would not violate the limit of 0 and thus should function normally.
The number of property runes a weapon or armor can have is equal to the value of its potency rune. A +1 weapon can have one property rune, but it could hold another if the +1 weapon potency rune were upgraded to a +2 weapon potency rune. Since the striking and resilient runes are fundamental runes, they don’t count against this limit.
The number of property runes a weapon or armor can have is equal to the value of its potency rune. A +1 weapon can have one property rune, but it could hold another if the +1 weapon potency rune were upgraded to a +2 weapon potency rune. Since the striking and resilient runes are fundamental runes, they don’t count against this limit.
As others have said, creating such a weapon deliberately would be an odd thing to do since potency runes are comparatively cheap, grant the very important benefit of improving your attacks, and allow you to add property runes.
It's also worth considering that it is the potency rune that makes a weapon magical, so a striking-only weapon won't work very well against creatures who are resistant to non-magical weapons (like ghosts).
It's also worth considering that it is the potency rune that makes a weapon magical, so a striking-only weapon won't work very well against creatures who are resistant to non-magical weapons (like ghosts).
This feels like an oversight more than anything, if only because it results in the extremely specific situation of +0 Striking weapons (and, likewise, +0 Resilient armor) technically being nonmagical despite the Striking/Resilient runes having the Magical trait.
This would also technically mean that any specific magic weapons/armor without a Potency rune would also technically be nonmagical. Though I don't know if there's any such weapons officially printed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also worth considering that it is the potency rune that makes a weapon magical, so a striking-only weapon won't work very well against creatures who are resistant to non-magical weapons (like ghosts).This feels like an oversight more than anything, if only because it results in the extremely specific situation of +0 Striking weapons (and, likewise, +0 Resilient armor) technically being nonmagical despite the Striking/Resilient runes having the Magical trait.
It may look like an oversight or a bug, but to me it's a feature. While there's no outright rule forcing you to go with +1 runes before striking ones, you have to eat the fact you're spending more money, not getting that delicious plus one to hit things, AND your weapon's not even magical.
I imagine woodcuts of adventurers showing off +0 striking weapons being published in crafters' gazettes ... along with mocking comments from distinguished smiths and enchanters.
Odd that this is possible, but would be funny to see someone running around with maxed striking runes and foregoing potency for a while.
Scene: the three warriors, in pitched battle, kill the bad guy, thus winning their +2 flaming greater striking club.
None of them know how to use a club, so they divvy up the treasure (that's all of it) by divvying up the runes. Fortunately they have enough Crafting to stick them on their favorite weapons.
One gets the potency, one the flaming and one gets... greater striking! Having no potent weapons to put it on, that third warrior puts it on their heretofore unruned sling.
And that sling, gentlebeings, is this very sling I'm holding! Now what am I bid for this priceless piece of treasure, of history, of adventure!
thx for all the quick answers. So a pretty clear case (unless no one finds any infernal clause still hidden somewhere).
Indeed questionable, whether a weapon like that would constitute a good one. Yet I can imagine it could be an option, e.g. when entering the game at char lvl 4 or 5, with scarce finances, and maximum weapon efficiency was not one's top concern.
For instance a caster taking the +0 striking as backup weapon for seldom occasions. They might have found something they considered more worthy to buy for that another 35 gp, which a +1 weapon potency would have cost.
At least it doesn't sound completely stupid at first glance, IMHO. Though I haven't done a really thorough analysis math-wise.
Scene: the three warriors, in pitched battle, kill the bad guy, thus winning their +2 flaming greater striking club.
None of them know how to use a club, so they divvy up the treasure (that's all of it) by divvying up the runes. Fortunately they have enough Crafting to stick them on their favorite weapons.
One gets the potency, one the flaming and one gets... greater striking! Having no potent weapons to put it on, that third warrior puts it on their heretofore unruned sling.
And that sling, gentlebeings, is this very sling I'm holding! Now what am I bid for this priceless piece of treasure, of history, of adventure!
Indeed, cannibalizing found weapons could result in such remarkable pieces of equipment! 8-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, cannibalizing found weapons could result in such remarkable pieces of equipment! 8-)Scene: the three warriors, in pitched battle, kill the bad guy, thus winning their +2 flaming greater striking club.
None of them know how to use a club, so they divvy up the treasure (that's all of it) by divvying up the runes. Fortunately they have enough Crafting to stick them on their favorite weapons.
One gets the potency, one the flaming and one gets... greater striking! Having no potent weapons to put it on, that third warrior puts it on their heretofore unruned sling.
And that sling, gentlebeings, is this very sling I'm holding! Now what am I bid for this priceless piece of treasure, of history, of adventure!
'Yeah, I got the blade off a bastard sword swung at me by some ba..d guy. Hilt's from a sprite berserker's greatsword, don't ask. Three samurai jumped me once, wizard zapped two while the rogue got the third, and I took their tsubas and made a crossguard. The runes? Don't ask.'
This odd niche case becomes a lot more possible due to how Weapon Potency runes are only an item bonus.
It's the worst kind of buff, and easy to override.
Every Alchemist will have those Quicksilver Mutagens to get 1 additional item bonus ahead of those runes, leaving them potentially skippable for a mutagen junky.
Especially after the Shifting Spider collar was added in the Treasure Vault, it's rather easy for someone to never fight without that mutagen +item bonus active.