| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well correct me if I’m wrong but it looks like the next step is for Maya to confirm for us how this works and if it’s intentional.And this would be why when I saw that Maya had responded to someone's inquiry with a definitive answer as was done, my only thought was "oh no... here we go again."
This is what always happens when someone presents the potential for a "truly official" answer; some people will argue against anything and everything else no matter the quality of the reasoning behind it or the clarity of cited evidence so that literally only "official comment" counts for anything.
And after "official comment" is made, what happens then? Somebody says the official stance is bad, if not also continuing to insist it is actually wrong.
I think it’s pretty clear cut that it takes a slot and is worthless...Then you have two questions to answer;
What positive evidence leads you to the conclusion? For clarity, I mean which words that are present in the feature itself indicate to you that your conclusion is the clear one, and why.
And why would it be worthless on purpose with the game including guidance telling us to make stuff work with our group instead of sticking to strict wording in the book? By which I mean to question you're entire ability to believe that you are correct when you actually want to be incorrect.
IMO what the wording of the rule says (i.e., RAW interpretation) only matters in the situation where you don't know the designer's intent. If intent is clarified the wording of the rule could be verbatim written as "ASDFASDFASDFASDFASDFASDFASDFASDFASDF" and I would know how to interpret it. It would be silly, inconvenient to explain to other players, and a bad way to do it, but nonetheless we would know that "ASDFASDFASDFASDFASDFASDFASDFASDFASDF" = you get an extra property rune on your weapon.
So what happens if you 'don't like the intent'. Then you can start...
You can scroll up for clear direction taken from the rules in the GM core.
There is no reason to treat gaining a rune from a class ability or spell the same as etching a rune from a runestone into a weapon.Its not the same process and does not list the same limitations.
The only reason to see item limits of etching runes applying to runes gained from other methods is when those limits are clearly written that they apply.
Not the case with blessed armaments. So now the shaky position is the one that asserts those limits apply when the rules do not direct you to apply them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules state:
"The number of property runes a weapon or armor can have is equal to the value of its potency rune"We know this is different from only being sourced from 'etched runes' because of things like:
- runic impression (spell - texts limits count)
- runic mind smithing (spell - text limits count)
- singing to the steel (feat - text limits count)
- disrupting strike (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- iruxi spirit strikes (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- ghost blade (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- ghost hunter (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- sacred armarments (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- ghost strike (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- ghost wrangler (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- blade of the heart (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- Spiritual strike (feat - gain effect and no text limiting count)
- radiant prism (spell heart - gain rune no limiting language)So the argument that it is etching a rune that only leads to the rest of the rules regarding runes is incorrect. There are clearly specific ways to get runes that are different than etching and there are many examples where that path does and does not limit count.
Thank you for putting together that list. To be clear my argument was if your getting a rune from some other source, that source needs to apply limitations if it intends for limitations. I think you unintentionally strawmaned my argument.
Property rune limits are for etched property runes and for any ability that says to apply those same limits. Not for abilities that do not say to apply those limits.
here is clearly a difference between getting the rune and getting the effect of a rune but 'not the actual rune'. The former, without enabling language, doesn't allow you to discount the rules regarding rune count on your weapon (i.e., equivalent to the fundamental +1/+2/+3 rune).
Thing is were not discounting rules. In the rules for blessed armaments we were not told to apply those limitations. Where as if you want to apply them you have to actually add language that is present in abilities that ask you to apply them and is not present in abilities like blessed armaments that doesn't ask you to.
The rune granted by blessed armaments is not etched in the weapon is not a choice once you've selected the weapon and does not follow rules for etching property runes that the ability doesn't refer to.And I do focus on etching because that is what the rules say when talking about property runes in the most specific section discussing them on page 236
even on page 225 where they give the condition for what happens with multiple of the same rune they are still talking about multiple etchings. runes gained from other means are not discussed here and when ones gained by other means want you to use these limits they say to use them.
GM Core pg 225
If a suit of armor or a weapon has multiple etchings
of the same rune, only the highest-level one applies.
To be clear my argument was if your getting a rune from some other source, that source needs to apply limitations if it intends for limitations.
Isn't it usually the other way around though? Restrictions apply unless something specifically ignores them.
Though to be clear, I think your interpretation is the only sane way to run it, because otherwise a number of abilities don't work properly at all.
It doesn't make sense for Blessed Armament to do nothing if you don't have a magic weapon. It doesn't make sense for Kindle Inner Flame to get worse when you heighten it.
But there's definitely some problematic wording to the new language, and even I have to admit it feels a little odd for Paizo to have altered the wording in such a way as to create this ambiguity purely by accident. I'm not saying it didn't happen but it's weird.
it is a comparison of the current text to the previous text matched with presumption the reason for altered wording has to be altered meaning.
Eh, people have been making this same argument about abilities with similar wording to the new Blessed Armament for a long time, so it's not just the change.
The distinction between effect of X and actually having X has existed for a long time. It's just in this particular instance taking that distinction literally essentially breaks some abilities.
To be clear my argument was if your getting a rune from some other source, that source needs to apply limitations if it intends for limitations.Isn't it usually the other way around though? Restrictions apply unless something specifically ignores them.
Yes they would, I agree. What I hope I have shown is that what gets restricted is defined in the section that defines said restriction.
The wording change choice really just creates the notion that not all property runes are etched ones and not necessarily part of magic item balance rules except where specified by the ability.I would not even have imagined any ability given by a class like blessed armaments to be restricted by magic item rules without seeing people on this forum make that argument that they do.
It just never would have occurred to me to apply the rules meant to balance magic items to an ability a class gives. Just innately I would assume the rune however its worded was part of the class power budget and not restricted by magic item balance rules. That is unless the ability told me to refer to those item balance rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so I see both sides on this adjudication as mostly right, but the "pro" side is missing an unfortunate detail.
Red Gryffin + Tridus + etc are absolutely correct that when the feat says you add a rune, that means you are (specifically) invoking those rune rules and need to obey them.
------- So, can't exceed rune max?
But:
It is also true that by the wording of the feat, you add a property rune to the weapon, even if it's already full of other property runes.
------- So, can exceed rune max?
But:
This changes the Blessed Armament question into "what happens if you have an extra property rune over max?"
Unfortunately, the rune rules lay out explicitly what happens when you have too many property runes.
[...] If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.
While presented in the context of rune transfers, this lays out what happens when a weapon has a property rune that it lacks the potency budget to use. It does not matter how the weapon got into that state, the situation of a weapon carrying a property rune beyond potency limit is exactly the same. The rune effect goes dormant until the weapon has the potency to use it.
Meaning that, the "final ruling" as RaW (and imo RaI) is that yes, "anti" side is correct imo.
Blessed Armament grants you a property rune, but that only carries benefit if you are not at property rune cap.
Because that value has a gp equivalent, I totally understand and sympathize with people who think the feature is underpowered. I agree that it feels terrible to be handed something that in theory could be bought from a store.
But honestly, runes can be expensive. Plus, the power budget of that feature does not have much room left.
The main point and power of Blessed Armament is the crit specialization effect, that bonus rune is basically an extra "ribbon" with a "flavor high, power low" benefit to balance how boring it would be to just get the crit spec.
.
The comparison w/ the shield option is also right there, and shows that if the benefit was rune only, no crit-spec, then you'd get a much higher rune-power value from the feature slot. The Shield option even shows that if you don't get any rune-power from the feature, the fallback power granted is intended to be small, something in the ballpark of a +1 to hardness.
(Meanwhile Armament still grants crit spec if your weapon is rune-maxed)
OK, so I see both sides on this adjudication as mostly right, but the "pro" side is missing an unfortunate detail.
Bluemagetim + Tridus + etc are absolutely correct that when the feat says you add a rune, that means you are (specifically) invoking those rune rules and need to obey them.
------- So, can't exceed rune max?But:
It is also true that by the wording of the feat, you add a property rune to the weapon, even if it's already full of other property runes.
------- So, can exceed rune max?But:
This changes the Blessed Armament question into "what happens if you have an extra property rune over max?"
Unfortunately, the rune rules lay out explicitly what happens when you have too many property runes.
[...] If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.While presented in the context of rune transfers, this lays out what happens when a weapon has a property rune that it lacks the potency budget to use. The rune effect goes dormant until the weapon has the potency to use it.
Meaning that, the "final ruling" as RaW (and imo RaI) is that yes, "anti" side is correct imo.
Blessed Armament grants you a property rune, but that only carries benefit if you are not at property rune cap.
Because that value has a gp equivalent, I totally understand and sympathize with people who think the feature is underpowered. I agree that it feels terrible to be handed something that in theory could be bought from a store.
But honestly, runes can be expensive. Plus, the power budget of that feature does not have much room left.The main point and power of Blessed Armament is the crit specialization effect, that bonus rune is basically an extra "ribbon" with a "flavor high, power low" benefit to balance how boring it...
When you quoted rules about transferring runes that was from the sidebar in the runes section on 225. So were still talking about the kinds of runes you can craft and etch into a weapon. Those can be transferred blessed armaments cannot use the process detailed in that sidebar to move the spirit from one weapon to another.
So those transfer rules don't apply either.Its as simple as just doing what the ability tells you to do and nothing else.
I already quoted on that same page 225 GM core the entry specifically about having the same rune on a weapon and again there it specifically calls out multiple etchings of the same rune. These rules apply to items which clarifies the same rune reference in the transfer rune example section of the sidebar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you quoted rules about transferring runes that was from the sidebar in the runes section on 225. So were still talking about the kinds of runes you can craft and etch into a weapon. Those can be transferred blessed armaments cannot use the process detailed in that sidebar to move the spirit from one weapon to another.
So those transfer rules don't apply either.
Its as simple as just doing what the ability tells you to do and nothing else.
I already quoted on that same page 225 GM core the entry specifically about having the same rune on a weapon and again there it specifically calls out multiple etchings of the same rune. These rules apply to items which clarifies the same rune reference in the transfer rune example section of the sidebar.
FFS, I knew someone was going to deliberately ignore important bit, which is why I spelled it out and bolded it in the edit. Did not expect that to be the literal first reply, though.
Those rules do not do as you say. They are phrased in a way that makes the "how" of a weapon having a property rune over max irrelevant.
Read the rule again, the resulting consequence is agnostic to how that situation happened.
[...] If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.
It does not matter how the item has a property rune over max potency, only that it does.
The consequence of being over max is explicit and direct; the rune effect is suppressed.
.
Your objection is very much in the "have your cake and eat it too" vein.
If something says you "add a rune," that means you use the rune rules unless explicitly overridden. In this case, you get to add a rune no matter what, because that's what is being specifically instructed. That is specific overriding general (having the cake).
But, there is literally 0 other instruction beyond adding that rune. Meaning, you must follow the rune rules that were directly invoked.
Claiming that because the rune was not "etched," you get to ignore those rules is an invention that has no basis in the rules, it's rather nonsense. (eating it too)
.
It's like claiming that a PC with some innate ancestry ability to "cast a spell" once p day gets to use that spell with things like catalysts and metamagic, but they also get to ignore things like imposed flat checks or counterspelling, because it's "not real spellcasting".
The lack of a normal spellcasting feature does not selectively allow for one to ignore the "cast a spell" rules when it benefits them. Claims of "under-powered" do not alter this.
The Ally feature is not granting the effect of a rune, it's adding a rune.
If a weapon has a property rune beyond the max, how does a GM rule that situation?
When you quoted rules about transferring runes that was from the sidebar in the runes section on 225. So were still talking about the kinds of runes you can craft and etch into a weapon. Those can be transferred blessed armaments cannot use the process detailed in that sidebar to move the spirit from one weapon to another.
So those transfer rules don't apply either.
Its as simple as just doing what the ability tells you to do and nothing else.
I already quoted on that same page 225 GM core the entry specifically about having the same rune on a weapon and again there it specifically calls out multiple etchings of the same rune. These rules apply to items which clarifies the same rune reference in the transfer rune example section of the sidebar.FFS, I knew someone was going to deliberately ignore important bit, which is why I spelled it out and bolded it in the edit. Did not expect that to be the literal first reply, though.
Those rules do not do as you say. They are phrased in a way that makes the "how" of a weapon having a property rune over max irrelevant.
Read the rule again, the resulting consequence is agnostic to how that situation happened.
[...] If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.It does not matter how the item has a property rune over max potency, only that it does.
The consequence of being over max is explicit and direct; the rune effect is suppressed.
.
Your objection is very much in the "have your cake and eat it too" vein.
If something says you "add a rune," that means you use the rune rules unless explicitly overridden. In this case, you get to add a rune no matter what, because that's what is being specifically instructed. That is specific overriding general (having the
...
To say I am ignoring the bolded part when you ignore the part that comes before it holds a bit of irony.
If you transfer a potency rune……
To say I am ignoring the bolded part when you ignore the part that comes before it holds a bit of irony.
If you transfer a potency rune……
Please explain how the transfer is at all relevant.
In that text, the transfer happened in the past. A potency rune was removed from an item. In the textual present, you have an item with more property runes than potency budget. That present is identical in situation to the Champion feature adding a property rune over the limit.
This text explains what happens when such a situation occurs; the property runes are suppressed if the item lacks the potency runes required.
You are being willfully obstinate here, I find it neigh-impossible that you genuinely believe that adding one over potency creates a different outcome than removing one potency when at limit.
.
Furthermore, your attack was a deflection from the question at hand.
What happens when a weapon has more property runes than potency runes allow? Are you going to answer that question, or just flail about for another personal attack against the speaker?
To say I am ignoring the bolded part when you ignore the part that comes before it holds a bit of irony.
If you transfer a potency rune……
Please explain how the transfer is at all relevant.
In that text, the transfer happened in the past. A potency rune was removed from an item. In the textual present, you have an item with more property runes than potency budget. That present is identical in situation to the Champion feature adding a property rune over the limit.
This text explains what happens when such a situation occurs; the property runes are suppressed if the item lacks the potency runes required.
You are being willfully obstinate here, there is no nice way to say it at this point.
.
Furthermore, that was a deflection from the question at hand.
What happens when a weapon has more property runes than potency runes allow? Are you going to answer that question, or just flail about for another personal attack against the speaker?
No problem.
If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.
"If you transfer a potency rune" is giving us a situation for the rule to apply.
"you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them" Sets up the problem that can occur when you do the thing that was given as the preface for this situation being a problem. "If you transfer a potency rune"
"These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them." These property runes are the ones that were transferred. If you want to include runes that end up in a similar situation but got there from different means then transferring, the language needs to be inclusive of those other means or reference that the means don't matter.
In fact lets look at etching rules for a second to really show what I mean.
GM core pg 225
The Etching Process
Etching a rune onto an item follows the same process as
using the Craft activity to make an item. You must be
able to Craft magic items, have the formula for the rune,
have the item you’re adding the rune to in your possession
throughout the etching process, and meet any special Craft
Requirements. The rune has no effect until you complete
the Craft activity. You can etch only one rune at a time.
Notice two things here-
"have the item you’re adding the rune to in your possession
throughout the etching process, and meet any special Craft
Requirements." talking about items in your possession. This really shows you can't actually get a property rune on a weapon if it doesnt meet the requirements. meaning the problem above "you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them" only happens when transferring runes. Its the reason for the limitations being mentioned.
So really these rules have context and applying them to class abilities that do not specifically call them out takes them out of context.
Also I did not attack anything.
I thought that was answered just by consequence of the item rules not applying.
But to be explicit. The rune given by an ability would do exactly what the ability says to do. It will do it on top of what the magic item does with any runes it has from etching.
OK, so I see both sides on this adjudication as mostly right, but the "pro" side is missing an unfortunate detail.
Red Gryffin + Tridus + etc are absolutely correct that when the feat says you add a rune, that means you are (specifically) invoking those rune rules and need to obey them.
------- So, can't exceed rune max?But:
It is also true that by the wording of the feat, you add a property rune to the weapon, even if it's already full of other property runes.
------- So, can exceed rune max?But:
This changes the Blessed Armament question into "what happens if you have an extra property rune over max?"
Unfortunately, the rune rules lay out explicitly what happens when you have too many property runes.
[...] If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.While presented in the context of rune transfers, this lays out what happens when a weapon has a property rune that it lacks the potency budget to use. It does not matter how the weapon got into that state, the situation of a weapon carrying a property rune beyond potency limit is exactly the same. The rune effect goes dormant until the weapon has the potency to use it.
Meaning that, the "final ruling" as RaW (and imo RaI) is that yes, "anti" side is correct imo.
Blessed Armament grants you a property rune, but that only carries benefit if you are not at property rune cap.
Because that value has a gp equivalent, I totally understand and sympathize with people who think the feature is underpowered. I agree that it feels terrible to be handed something that in theory could be bought from a store.
But honestly, runes can be expensive. Plus, the power budget of that feature does not have much room left.The main point and power of Blessed...
The critical specialization to me is the extra effect. This is the type of bonus you won't mind getting with something else, but it's never something you will want to pick for its own sake.
The Rune variety, on the other hand? It already has done wonders for my Champion on many occasions. Specially Ghost Touch and Shifting.
Having these runes suppressing the effects of "maxed out" runes is pretty much the whole point why it needs to gain the Effects of a Rune and not the Rune itself. Because it sidesteps the whole Rune System, beyond reusing its already established effects to avoid remaking similar abilities with different names.
I want my Champion's dead husband's Axe to have both a Flaming Rune and my Blessed Armament runes at my current level (8th level) available. Not one or the other.
Otherwise, it feels like my character choice becomes a straight up downgrade.
[snip]
I'm not falling for that, and given the prior nonsense dodges, I should have realized it would be counterproductive to prompt you in that way. That's on me.
You are still dodging the core question. That text I quote is supporting evidence for an obvious conclusion.
The question at hand:
How does the GM adjudicate a weapon that carries a property rune over its potency limit?
The rune rules say many, many times that each property rune requires a potency rune. The etching rules are set up to minimize the possibility of creating a non-functional rune arrangement in the first place.
But because it's still possible to go over the limit simply via removal, the rules directly explain the consequence of that situation; the suppression of the property rune until the weapon is legal again.
If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.
Your presented explanation / contortion is not accurate. You are conflating things that are not tied together like that at all. Nor do I think you actually believe what you are saying there.
.
That rune transfer text I cite is not instructive, it is not an if--then procedure of hyper-specific scope as you claim.
It is explanatory; it presupposes a hypothetical situation one could be in, and then explains the outcome. The text even takes a moment to reinforce that there is no loophole to get around the potency requirement via "can't benefit from them."
It is disingenuous to pretend that there is any part of the rune rules that support an over-the-limit item continuing to function. (Which is why you don't really claim that, and instead waste time constructing an absurd tower of logic to attempt to quarantine the text that you don't like, and pretend that effort somehow supports your desired outcome.)
.
The fact that a weapon cannot benefit from property runes that it lacks the potency for is blindingly obvious, hence why I think you are not disagreeing honestly here, and are instead personally invested / dug in / willfully being obstinate. IDK if this is simply due to the displeasure of such a nerf, nor do I care why you are muddying the waters and refusing the obvious conclusion.
I am someone that encourages homebrewing and houseruling.
But that is not the same thing as reading the RaW. In this particular case, what is now unavoidable RaW was likely always the dev RaI, but they messed up and let everyone get an "extra" property rune.
.
The question at hand:
What do you claim happens when a weapon has a property rune exceeding the potency limit?
[snip]I'm not falling for that, and given the prior nonsense dodges, I should have realized it would be counterproductive to prompt you in that way. That's on me.
You are still dodging the core question. That text I quote is supporting evidence for an obvious conclusion.
The question at hand:
How does the GM adjudicate a weapon that carries a property rune over its potency limit?The rune rules say many, many times that each property rune requires a potency rune. The etching rules are set up to minimize the possibility of creating a non-functional rune arrangement in the first place.
But because it's still possible to go over the limit simply via removal, the rules directly explain the consequence of that situation; the suppression of the property rune until the weapon is legal again.
If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.Your presented explanation / contortion is not accurate. You are conflating things that are not tied together like that at all. Nor do I think you actually believe what you are saying there.
.
That rune transfer text I cite is not instructive, it is not an if--then procedure of hyper-specific scope as you claim.
It is explanatory; it presupposes a hypothetical situation one could be in, and then explains the outcome. The text even takes a moment to reinforce that there is no loophole to get around the potency requirement via "can't benefit from them."
It is disingenuous to pretend that there is any part of the rune rules that support an over-the-limit item continuing to function. (Which is why you don't really claim that, and instead waste time constructing an absurd tower of logic to attempt to quarantine the text that you don't like, and pretend that effort somehow supports...
I am sorry I have done all I can.
What I said is clear. It even clearly answered your final question. I quoted the rules. they were clear. There is nothing more i can explain.Maybe reread my post after a bit and give me the benefit of not trying to find your gotcha. instead read it to really get what I am saying and you will see what i am pointing out and the question you asked is answered there too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[snip]
Hey, you have my sympathies there, no likes getting hit with a nerf.
That said, getting a crit weapon spec is actually super hard to do for PCs that lack it, and IMO that whitelist of property runes is by far the less "powerful" half of that feature.
And again, the shield option is right there to compare against. Exact same idea where you can potentially no longer benefit from the free rune, but are still awarded w/ a functional bonus in that circumstance.
Even the 3rd option for move speed is built the same way. It's a status bonus to speed that will not stack, but the contextual +2 will still be there.
.
.
At an actual table, here's a loophole technique conversational approach that resolves a lot of these problems.
When you created that PC, you built it with the understanding of their kit as is. You chose the class as it was at that time you made the choice.
As such, I can find no reason to prevent a player from choosing to "lock in" their PC options when a nerf happens.
Same thing from another angle: There is 0 obligation to update an existing PC to new rules, be they buffs or nerfs. Even for features and feats higher Lvl than the PC should have this "locked" option, as the class choice was still dependent upon those future promises.
(This is how I completed a campaign w/ the old Alchemist rules after PC2 did Chirurgeon so dirty.)
This "common sense" ruling is pretty easy to get GMs on board with. Just don't try to cheat it by taking buffs from future updates while dodging nerfs.
I am sorry I have done all I can.
What I said is clear. It even clearly answered your final question. I quoted the rules. they were clear. There is nothing more i can explain.
Maybe reread my post after a bit and give me the benefit of not trying to find your gotcha. instead read it to really get what I am saying and you will see what i am pointing out and the question you asked is answered there too.
The rune given by an ability would do exactly what the ability says to do.
It will do it on top of what the magic item does with any runes it has from etching.
I honestly cannot be sure I'm comprehending this correctly, but it I have to take this to be a straight answer of saying that you get to stack this property rune even when at cap.
That half of the ability only adds a property rune. Nothing more. Everything else is dependent upon the rune rules.
You gain that armament's critical specialization effect, and you grant the armament a property rune of your choice from the following list: fearsome, ghost touch, returning, shifting, or vitalizing.
It seems that you are adding text that does not exist to the ability to let it bypass the normal potency limit. Without the ability stating that you get to change the rune rules, it does not change the rune rules.
I am sorry to inform you that while we have a great example as to how the ability could be phrased to achieve such a rune-stackable effect, the devs choose to re-write the feature so that it is no longer possible to dodge the rune rules, and that potency limiter.
We have to assume the mechanical difference by a rule change is intended to function as it is written. If we do not, that gives up on the concept of the written rules mattering at all, and any "I don't like that rule" vibe objection has equal merit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree with you on the RAW, "this feature stops functioning if you use your gear normally' is pretty bad and obviously a design issue. Even moreso when you look beyond Blessed Armament at other similar abilities, like Kindle Inner Flame. Strict RAW, heightening that ability is actively detrimental.
This is clearly broken and not well thought out.
And again, the shield option is right there to compare against. Exact same idea where you can potentially no longer benefit from the free rune, but are still awarded w/ a functional bonus in that circumstance.
Well, not exactly the same in one critical way. The shield ability has an explicit contingency for what to do if there's a stacking issue. Blessed Armaments in the same situation just breaks part of its benefits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry I have done all I can.
What I said is clear. It even clearly answered your final question. I quoted the rules. they were clear. There is nothing more i can explain.
Maybe reread my post after a bit and give me the benefit of not trying to find your gotcha. instead read it to really get what I am saying and you will see what i am pointing out and the question you asked is answered there too.The rune given by an ability would do exactly what the ability says to do.
It will do it on top of what the magic item does with any runes it has from etching.I honestly cannot be sure I'm comprehending this correctly, but it I have to take this to be a straight answer of saying that you get to stack this property rune even when at cap.
That half of the ability only adds a property rune. Nothing more. Everything else is dependent upon the rune rules.
You gain that armament's critical specialization effect, and you grant the armament a property rune of your choice from the following list: fearsome, ghost touch, returning, shifting, or vitalizing.It seems that you are adding text that does not exist to the ability to let it bypass the normal potency limit. Without the ability stating that you get to change the rune rules, it does not change the rune rules.
I am sorry to inform you that while we have a great example as to how the ability could be phrased to achieve such a rune-stackable effect, the devs choose to re-write the feature so that it is no longer possible to dodge the rune rules, and that potency limiter.
We have to assume the mechanical difference by a rule change is intended to function as it is written. If we do not, that gives up on the concept of the written rules mattering at all, and any "I don't like that rule" vibe objection has equal merit.
I apologize Trip.H
I took my own advice and came back to this later.I can be more clear on the outcomes.
Blessed armaments bypasses etching rules and potency limitations, transferring does not apply at all. in fact all the elements of crafting magic items do not apply.
There is one thing that does. If a champ chooses the same rune as a rune a weapon already has, the property rune limitation does apply since they are both the same property rune. Only the highest level one applies. How the rune gets there and whether it can stay there is determined by the class ability.
As long as its not the same rune it will work.
So if champ chooses fearsome on a vitalizing weapon no problem you get both runes for as long as blessed armaments says to which is until the champ moves it to a different weapon.
But If the champ chose vitalizing on the same vitalizing weapon none go dormant(going dormant is a transferring rule for ineligible weapons) but only highest applies which is a rule specific to property runes. This is redundant and a waste of a choice.
This is the true change the new wording enforces. Now that its the rune and not the effect you cannot end up stacking the effect of a rune with a rune already on the weapon providing the same effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess one of us might have to look into sending an email. I'm gonna wait a bit longer for some kind of response here before I do so cause I don't want to overstep and Maya could be busy or unable to answer still, but it'd be nice to get some sort of "we see this and will get back to you all soon" from someone given they asked for us to make the thread and all.
Well, still no response to my pm so I guess we’re just going to have to wait for next errata to see if this thread did anything.
This feels so weird that they answered the Rogue question but nothing else...I wonder why they are doing this and what the long term game plan is for these types of "big" ossies/questions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other possibility is that Maya already asked and didn't get an answer that can be shared, which IMO suggests that the answer xe got back was either "we don't know and need to get together to figure it out when we have time" or "we don't answer player questions like that anymore."
Considering how enthusiastic Maya was to communicate with us, its hard to understand what happened unless it came from above.
And yeah, the Rogue question was answered in an email.
Personally, I rather have this answer be given here than having to send an email.
It creates an unnecessary burden on Paizo's community manager and it creates an unnecessary barrier between question and answer in this forum.
I rather have just a vague answer like "we're looking in on it" here, than having to send an email. Specially how a situation like that can become problematic with a bunch of dedicated nerds sending their questions.
You don't want this to be a "We're looking in on it" as an answer as that would promote a chance that any future problem would just end up with the same answer and not be solved but only to be left up to DM houseruling it or running it as RAW, which I hope, I HOPE that Blade Ally was just a misprint because personally that makes Champions the weakest damage class in the game simply because they don't get a free 1d6 bonus where Fighters cheese this by having a +2 Attack, Barbarian by boosting flat damage, Rangers by hitting a lot or one decent hit, so forth.
You don't want this to be a "We're looking in on it" as an answer as that would promote a chance that any future problem would just end up with the same answer and not be solved but only to be left up to DM houseruling it or running it as RAW, which I hope, I HOPE that Blade Ally was just a misprint because personally that makes Champions the weakest damage class in the game simply because they don't get a free 1d6 bonus where Fighters cheese this by having a +2 Attack, Barbarian by boosting flat damage, Rangers by hitting a lot or one decent hit, so forth.
I was playing a Shield+Trident Champion recently and I was actually doing fairly decent damage, despite the Spellcasters in my Party not offering any buffs. The new Smite is very easy on the action economy. Since I had Retributive Strike, I also landed some extra attacks. It wasn't a power house, but my basic hits were 2d8+9 (or +10 if the enemy was Unholy), even above a Fighter (2dX+7 at 8th level). I know the DPR math will show the Fighter winning out because of the Accuracy, but in practice, I was doing more damage than I expected for such a defensive class.
Regardless, I still think it needs a clarification, because granting a Rune that takes slot is just a "feels bad" mechanic. You don't even have the versatility of the Magus' focus spell.
Justice is how you make up for lack of bonus damage, I played a 1-13 level Campaign as a Paladin back in the day before the Remastered and let me tell you, Retributive Strike + Blade of Justice made my DM worry about who to target.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I did get a response from Maya via email. It reads:
Thanks for reaching out again, and thank you for putting those threads up! This is something the Devs will look at in their own schedule, but I can confirm you’ve done everything exactly how they requested it! Once they look into it, they’ll either respond in the thread on their own accounts where needed or include it in any upcoming Errata. Thanks for making it easy for us to find things!Guess it is dependent on designers reaching out in the forums.
I'm a little disappointed. I had hoped there would be some internal pressure to get answers out to the community and that it would be easy to search it since it would be published under Maya's account. Feels like its status quo, but maybe designers will be a bit more open to coming back to the forums?
I just hope the rules team reads this thread and the 2025 errata suggestions thread at all.
I have hopes that they do but i am unsure if they read, as a different thread suggests that Paizo needs better communication on their own forums. I have to agree and no having someoen to answer basic questions is rather intriguing to me. I would expect Paizo to want to answer rule questions. Other then that I love Paizo.
I have hopes that they do but i am unsure if they read, as a different thread suggests that Paizo needs better communication on their own forums. I have to agree and no having someoen to answer basic questions is rather intriguing to me. I would expect Paizo to want to answer rule questions. Other then that I love Paizo.
There used to be more of that years ago, but people had a habit of taking "someone from Paizo posted an opinion on how they think this edge case should be handled" and treating it as "Paizo posted an official ruling."
I think that dampened enthusiasm for engaging in rules discussions outside of the errata system ass we really don't see much of it in PF2 aside from occasionally one of the rules folks showing up on the How It's Played videos to answer questions.
I get why that happened, but its definitely frustrating when some of these longstanding sources of confusion could be very quickly cleared up. That's especially true for something that isn't a good fit for errata but would be a good fit for an FAQ or example, such as how resistances/weaknesses/instances of damage interact.
For something like the issue this thread is about specifically, a response that says "we're going to look at it when we discuss the spring errata" would go a long way because it's an acknowledgement that they know the community is confused by it without putting someone on the spot to provide an answer immediately.
That also works for something like Rogue's Resilience, where we finally got an answer that was "that's intentional", which at least put to bed the discussions over if it was an error or not.
I just wish getting that kind of thing was easier than it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem of official answers is because once the FAQ and erratas are slow to respond the people yearn for answers. But one designer answering doesn't means that this thing was discussed between the rules designing team and that probably becomes the problem that made them stop to answer outside the FAQ.
Yet I still thing that they need to have an official way to people post their doubts, suggestions and worries about rules. Things like for example how eidolons deals with items specially non-magical items that are requirements for some skills actions was never answered and we don't know if it was because these question never reach the rules team or if they saw but think that this already answered in the book (like for example confirming that what is in the eidolon trait is fully RAW and that part the are in the class description is just a reinforcement or something like that) because we don't have any kind of official place to post these doubts nor the get a quick answer confirming if something was just read wrong and that will be discussed and added to the FAQ or a new print later.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For D&D5 there were long years of Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford twittering rules clarifications, sometimes contradicting eachother or themselves, and even when the Sage Advice Compendium cleared up a lot of things, a lot remained unresolved.
It would be nice to have a more structured way of asking questions, like a scoring board where the community could upvote issues.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For D&D5 there were long years of Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford twittering rules clarifications, sometimes contradicting eachother or themselves, and even when the Sage Advice Compendium cleared up a lot of things, a lot remained unresolved.
It would be nice to have a more structured way of asking questions, like a scoring board where the community could upvote issues.
Glad to see someone else advocating for this.
The "next step" beyond user-posing forums like this one is for community managers/staff to do round ups where they vet and collect user-posted issues into a public-facing master list.
That way you don't have X posts all asking for the same rules-hole. It does "damage face" of the company to have an official list of rules problems/errors that are unresolved, but it is well worth it, imo.
The list also helps the devs/writers by acting as a source well just outside the official ticket pool / bug list / etc, so when they get set to the task of writing eratta & fixes, they don't need to dig through the community stuff.
Some of these known issue lists will include the dev stage of progress. For a ttrpg like this one, instead of "deploying next patch" you could get the final version of errata posted online before the next printing pass.
.
Even things like Helldivers 2 posting a known issues list directly inside each set of patch notes follows this "good practice" ethos, and does make a real difference in the community. Filling out bug tickets for big games is real time & annoyance sink, and I've said "screw this" to myself a few times and stopped, even when I know in the past I've actually helped get unknown bugs in front of devs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just hearing Maya say she brought X and Y issue and put it into the designers "in" box to be seen at some point is very helpful I think.
Until errata shows up and those issues aren't mentioned, then we might have issues again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a very clear and easy middle ground to me between “random designer tweets out what they personally think is the answer to RAI without checking with others and then people run with” and “radio silence until an errata comes up and then if it doesn’t get answered then you have to roll the dice again”.
It’s “have someone come and tell us all in a public space that they’ve seen this and will talk about it, and then come and tell us the RAI and if things might change once they’ve had a group discussion and come to a real decision”. Preferably they can then go as far as to post a “questions we’re looking into” master list everyone can see so we know that even if it takes a few months they’ve seen and will get to it one way or another.
I’m disappointed that they’ve basically gone with radio silence unless you win the private email lottery, and then you can either get an answer or a “wait until errata maybe deals with it”. To be clear, I’m not blaming Maya because they didn’t give the impression this was their preferred route either and at the end of the day they’re not the one who can generate the answers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never specified a turn around time because it doesn’t super matter so long as there is communication. If it takes them 5 months to get back to us with an answer after publicly acknowledging receipt (which does seem somewhat wild to me for a mere RAI question, but whatever), so be it. I never said it’d take 5min and I doubt anyone here thinks it’s that easy unless the question was something like “is it intended to use standard D6s when it says to roll 1d6”. Nowhere in my radio silence comment do I mention anything remotely indicative of thinking they can all drop everything and instantly answer anything. You should also note I started this thread in December and didn’t even send a PM until late January because I didn’t even think it was reasonable to expect a “we’ve seen this” response within a month.
The idea that its better to never say anything than to communicate at all, or have a to do list that may take an unspecified time, because trying anything can never please everyone is a self defeating attitude that’s responsible for numerous controversies and disasters from Kickstarter to AAA publishers. From what I know it really doesn’t take that much effort for someone working for Paizo (note this doesn’t have to be a designer or even someone directly connected to them) to come into a popular thread laser focused on a single issue after a month or three and say “we’ve seen this and we’ll work on getting an answer for you all when we can prior to next errata” - and not much more than that to then shove it to a master list of questions somewhere so people know they can stop asking.
As has been demonstrated a billion times over across the internet, people are always way more welcoming and thankful for a “nothing to report, but we’re working on it/have seen it” report than silence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with your "easy middle ground" is that turn around time is not something people will ever agree about how much is actually on the table and or reasonable.
Just like we're already seeing from you being comfortable with the phrasing of "radio silence until an errata comes up", fans are prone to think a dev could just pop in for 5 minutes and answer a question and everything would be awesome - no matter how much said fan knows they don't know about what that dev's daily schedule is like.
I mean this sounds very nice in the abstract, but it falls apart a little at some point when you look at specifics and the timescale stretches on.
Like "Oh you have no idea what their schedule looks like and it's unreasonable to expect professional devs to just hover around the forums answering questions" sounds so completely reasonable and you're absolutely so right it's so unrealistic the expectations people are putting on devs.
but
"Some people have been waiting nearly six years for literally anyone at the company to answer a yes/no question about how a very basic and fundamental feature of the game works" suddenly sounds a lot less so.
... Which is why nonspecific defenses and "no one can really agree" arguemnts feel kind of toxic. They rely on abstracting reality away to present a position that can't be argued against because it's grounded in nothing.