Champion's 3rd level Feature "Blade Ally / Blessed Armament" Errata?

[thenobledrake]

Squiggit wrote:

... 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.

The problem here is that you're doing the very thing that you're pointing at as being the problem with what I said.

In order for it to matter that someone has been waiting "six years" we have to in a non-subjective manner determine that the question you frame as being important is actually one of genuine importance... which I have to say doesn't seem like is likely in the case you're talking about because your framing suggests that it wouldn't be plausible that the vast majority of groups have already plugged in what they believe the thing "should" work if they even experienced an issue in the first place and have been playing the game just fine for the entire six year time period mentioned.

What you have done in your response is illustrated exactly what I was talking about; the issue, whatever it is, that you're talking about you are willing to frame as a thing the company is screwing up because they didn't answer the question you wanted answered with the kind of answer you wanted (lack of response, including lack of acknowledging the question has been asked, is it's own kind of answer) within what you felt was the reasonable time frame to give such an answer.

Companies that make games are basically damned if they do and damned if they don't on this kind of thing. If they stay out of the situation they get negative reactions for lack of communication. If they communicate they invariably get negative reactions to that communication. Fanbases suck at self-recognizing this kind of thing too, so people genuinely don't realize how/when they are being unreasonable with stuff like "they said X and it hasn't happened in Y time, so clearly they were lying" or even just "I asked a question and didn't get a response" and acknowledging that a reason besides the company sucking at what they do exists for that case. Y'know, like asking a question that puts the team in the position of having to carefully consider how to answer so as to provide understanding to a customer that doesn't have it yet isn't insulting to that customer's intelligence in the way that answering with a page reference for the location of the relevant rule that isn't even uncleanly written that the customer is misunderstanding (or even understanding, but not liking and asking about to try and get it changed) or saying the question doesn't need a response would be.

[thenobledrake]

Gorgo Primus wrote:

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.

That's not even remotely true.

The initial response to that kind of reply might seem favorable, but the attitude quickly turns when the time that passes before a response happens exceeds some random person's personal idea of what has been enough time, or when enough of those sort of responses have been made to go past some random person's personal idea of how many is a reasonable number.

You will literally see people complaining about someone taking the time to come say "nothing to report" instead of spending that time working on making something worth reporting if you go look for it. You'll also see any reasonable and transparent explanation of a delay being picked apart by people that were going to be pissed no matter what - but because of the communication now they have something to latch onto instead of just a vague, angry, "why won't they tell us what's going on?"

That's what has happened over and over throughout the entirety of this and many similar hobbies.

That's why so many companies try to keep communication down to specific forms at specific times or in specific ways and even the ones that do try to be open and constant with communication change that aspect over time. So it is better to hold communication until there is something with some meat to it to say or some dire circumstance that is necessitating what would otherwise be premature communication, because even though that too will have fans being unreasonable about it it at least minimizes the exposure and thus the fatigue that comes from dealing with agitated people.

[Tridus]

thenobledrake wrote:

And in that experience I've seen that if you can directly ask the team behind a game questions that the questions are going to be heavily laden with pointless ones where someone asks what is obvious to most readers or is asking the same question that has already been answered because they are hoping for a different answer. When doing what all it would take to actually prevent that misuse it basically just turns the system back into what we fundamentally already have; we can talk about what we think is wrong and the devs will eventually clarify or correct what they pick up on as important enough issues to be worth the effort.

This is soomething the community itself can help with, really. If we have a thread per question or some other mechanism of tracking them, the community can vote up questions that are actually relevant.

Like there's some things that really need an official answer because the rules can be interpreted multiple ways by reasonable people and we're just guessing. "instances of damage" and IWR is one of those.

Then there's the case where there's a pretty broad consensus on how something works and one person insisting that "well because they didn't repeat an existing rule in this one paragraph, that means it doesn't apply here", and if we can vote on questions we can pretty quickly dismiss that for the waste of time it is.

That would at least let us tell Paizo which questions are the ones that we think are important so they don't waste their time on stuff that isn't. This forum has limited options for that, but if we have one question per thread and folks use the favorite button on those, its something. Some other setup may work better, but thats basically what Maya told us to do to try and help them out when it comes to answering questions.

It doesn't really matter if there's no interest on their end in doing so, of course, which is how we got into this conversation in the first place. But that's the best guidance we have from them in terms of how we can help them to accomplish this.

[Tridus]

thenobledrake wrote:

Gorgo Primus wrote:

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.

That's not even remotely true.

The initial response to that kind of reply might seem favorable, but the attitude quickly turns when the time that passes before a response happens exceeds some random person's personal idea of what has been enough time, or when enough of those sort of responses have been made to go past some random person's personal idea of how many is a reasonable number.

You will literally see people complaining about someone taking the time to come say "nothing to report" instead of spending that time working on making something worth reporting if you go look for it. You'll also see any reasonable and transparent explanation of a delay being picked apart by people that were going to be pissed no matter what - but because of the communication now they have something to latch onto instead of just a vague, angry, "why won't they tell us what's going on?"

That's what has happened over and over throughout the entirety of this and many similar hobbies.

That's why so many companies try to keep communication down to specific forms at specific times or in specific ways and even the ones that do try to be open and constant with communication change that aspect over time. So it is better to hold communication until there is something with some meat to it to say or some dire circumstance that is necessitating what would otherwise be premature communication, because even though that too will have fans being unreasonable about it it at least minimizes the exposure and thus the fatigue that comes from dealing with agitated people.

It is true, but only in communities where there's trust that they really well get back to us. In communities that don't have that trust: then I agree, it's not helpful.

But you see wildly different tones in different communities because of how well open communication is done. The ones that do it well tend to be much nicer places to be. If it's done badly, it can be worse than not attempting it at all.

[Red Griffyn]

Its a false equivalency to compare engagement vs. no engagement.

They made a product. People can't use the product effectively/consistently without clarification and help. Would you feel the same way about a video game that brought out an expansion that is buggy and crashes all the time? Would you feel the same way about an ikea desk with 400 parts that is missing 2 pages of assembly instructions (or worse those instructions are wrong)? Would you feel the same way about a board game that has a whole deck of cards with no clear instructions of how to ever draw them in game? Would you feel the same way about a traffic light that added a new 4th colour to it that no one on the road understands the meaning of?

User guides/customer service/FAQs are intended to fill the gap for what is inherently going to be a imperfect product produced by imperfect humans.

A 'bury your head in the sand approach' isn't really defensible customer service approach. It is devoid of any kind of 'managing expectations' that lets people and the community spin out over things.

It feels like a pretty easy take to provide RAI without RAW and leave RAW to periodic errata cycles:
- Identify who authored/reviewed a section in question.
- Invite them with an appropriate number of design leads to meet quorum into a 30-60 min meeting.
- Decide by committee RAI going forward to communicate.
- Spend 10 minutes writing up that email for Maya.
- Tell Maya to come copy paste it into the relevant forum thread OR do it yourself.

They're already DOING these things, except they just aren't communicating them. They have a list of errata items that they have already 'decided the RAI' and will later decide the RAW that provides that for an errata. All we're asking if for a subset of those things to be communicated earlier (especially ones upvoted by the community, that really are unusable, or in the case of this thread change the intent without the errata/remaster providing any justification for the change or forewarning in the many previews of remaster classes where they had the opportunity to say something).

Hyper niche design element RAI clarification with no extent of condition impact are easy to communicate about.
- YES/NO rogue save progression is intended.
- YES/NO blade ally/blessed armaments can give you one additional rune.

Lets not pretend we're asking for something dramatic here by implying that any community engagement is a slippery slope to the community sharpening pitch forks, lighting torches, and dragging designers out into the streets.

[ElementalofCuteness]

Sad truth of the matter is that it WAS confirmed Rogue's Resilience is suppose to work like this. Let's assume that everything written clearly is suppose to work like that. You have an answer which is not fun but the answer would be.

Rogue's Resilience is worded correct (According to an Email response...) so why would Blessed Armament not be worded correct?

I know this is not fun but we aren't get any communication around these parts from the people who should be answering us. The more you sit here and think the more depressing the situation is. I am not wsayinfg they need to be active 24 hours a day but like some replies in these threads would go a long, long way for Public Relations. This is just how I feel about it.

[thenobledrake]

For those of you insisting I'm wrong about how communication can still get turned into a bad thing; look at ElementalofCuteness's post and the way the phrasing suggests that being told an error hadn't happened has screwed up the situation.

I'm not talking slippery slope that might happen, I'm talking observation of historical fact on the matter and a "slope" we're already seeing people at the bottom end of.

Even the "It is true, but only in communities where there's trust that they really well get back to us." statement is doing the very things I was talking about in that it presumes the only explanation for things not going well is the designer-side of the scenario by putting the weight on the designer-side to make sure none of the fan-side feel like they have a reason to distrust them rather than putting any responsibility on the fan-side of the situation to not be unreasonable and distrust designers that are genuinely trying just because that effort doesn't match expectations the fan-side set in their own minds without any particular reason.

And that's why the only responses being made to my comments are vague (the good ones) and framing a near strawman out of the extreme end of the idea by implying the game is currently unplayable because of a lack of response (so bad it's basically admission of not having an actual counter point) instead of talking about any specifics on things I've argued; like how I say the fans will arbitrarily decide it's been too long without an update that isn't "working on it, more info later" and no one has even tried to offer up an idea of how long is objectively too long that isn't a hyperbolic "it's been 6 years."

This kind of thing goes the bad way so often and so consistently that even communities that win praise for how they behave become memes among people that aren't pleased with how what they wanted to happen didn't happen. So even as you have a case of the devs communicating with and listening to the fans you also have fans insistent that the devs don't know the first thing about what the fans want from the game and have no interest in finding out because they are detached from how the players actually play the game - and more communication isn't a thing that can actually change that. It can, however, make the devs even more stressed out by the fact that no matter what they do someone is going to insist it is proof that they are screwing up the game.

[Errenor]

thenobledrake wrote:

For those of you insisting I'm wrong

You have some points, but it just doesn't matter in the least. Yes, communication is hard. Yes, it also must be done. That's the end of it.

[Tridus]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Rogue's Resilience is worded correct (According to an Email response...) so why would Blessed Armament not be worded correct?

After the recent errata, I'd argue Rogue's Resilience was cut and dry even before the confirmation. When a book has gotten multiple rounds of errata and something that significant doesn't get touched, its hard to argue its not deliberate.

Blessed Armament being in PC2 means it hasn't gotten that kind of errata yet. But it has some other question marks around it:
1. It's "too bad to be true" as-is. This doesn't mean anything by itself, but we have seen stuff like this changed before.
2. Battle Harbinger came out a couple months later and functions the old way. Maybe that's deliberate and they want what is effectively the same feature to work differently for some reason, but it's not consistent with PF2 generally trying to have consistent rules and could easily be explained by two people not talking to each other during development.

Now, if we get the spring errata and it's ignored? Then yeah, the conclusion has to be that it's deliberate until proven otherwise.

[Tridus]

thenobledrake wrote:

For those of you insisting I'm wrong about how communication can still get turned into a bad thing; look at ElementalofCuteness's post and the way the phrasing suggests that being told an error hadn't happened has screwed up the situation.

I'm not talking slippery slope that might happen, I'm talking observation of historical fact on the matter and a "slope" we're already seeing people at the bottom end of.

Sure... but it's not like ElementalofCuteness was rude about it. Customers are allowed to express their opinion of the state of things, and TTRPGs these days are not just a "ship a book and move on" business. Product support matters more than ever as the hobby shifts more toward digital play where updates/corrections are both far easier than in the past and frankly: becoming more expected.

Paizo has struggled with this for most of PF2. Arcane Cascade (and a bunch of other stuff in SoM) are the poster child for it, but its been an ongoing problem for a while. And while some of those just aren't going to come up that often, there's other stuff that are frequent points of confusion that come up a lot and wouldn't be that hard for them to correct.

We know it's possible since even looking just at Paizo, they did it far more in PF1, and that is a game with FAR more issues than PF2 has.

The unwillingness to clarify how Bones Oracle actually works, if Eidolons can use tools, or how multiple resistances from a single attack interact individually don't amount to a big problem. But it adds up and the continual refusal to address it has a negative effect on the perceived quality of the system.

And that, in turn, impacts the bottom line.

Quote:

Even the "It is true, but only in communities where there's trust that they really well get back to us." statement is doing the very things I was talking about in that it presumes the only explanation for things not going well is the designer-side of the scenario by putting the weight on the designer-side to make sure none of the fan-side feel like they have a reason to distrust them rather than putting any responsibility on the fan-side of the situation to not be unreasonable and distrust designers that are genuinely trying just because that effort doesn't match expectations the fan-side set in their own minds without any particular reason.

And what would you expect the fans (aka: the customers) to be doing differently here?

We were asked to raise the issues and make threads for them to help Maya get the questions to folks. We did that. Some of these things literally have been questions for several years now. At some point the only plausible explanation for the lack of response is "they're not going to respond", and people are going to take from that what they will.

And for some things it might take a while because its not that important. But it took what, 5 months to answer the question "how many spells do Oracles get?" after PC2 came out? That's not an obscure, esoteric question that people were being deliberately obtuse about (as opposed to that "Wandering Chef/Forager" question). It's a core necessity of the class and the book contradicted itself on a single page.

To be blunt: That should not have taken 5 months to get an official response on. Hell, there was a couple of weeks where tables literally didn't agree on how spellcasting on a spellcaster worked and even the tool makers didn't agree, with Pathbuilder coming up with one answer and others coming up with another until we all just went "well the PFS ruling is the closest thing we've got so we'll standardize on that."

I get that folks are busy and that Paizo is set up as a book company and clearly struggles with the workflow of doing updates vs making new books, but that was not an acceptable level of support for a newly released core book.

And since I paid a fair chunk of money for that book (prices in Canada, ouch) primarily because I wanted that class update (I'm playing one right now), I'm not shy about saying it. That's just not good enough.

But yeah, Maya asked us to do things a certain way and some of us are trying to do that. That's fair. Now we're waiting to see if anything comes of it.

So, what would you have folks do differently, exactly?

[ElementalofCuteness]

I wasn't being rude maybe a bit forwards but I been around for a while on these forums. I missed the point where some staff members would respond to threads. I was simply saying that it took a while to get Maya here (Which she is doing amazing!) and as Tridus is saying we are doing as instructed and that will take time.

We live in a more dynamic era of the internet and we live in an era where questions can be given to the people who make the products who can answer the questions more effectively. We could always assume that PFS ruling is the closest to official we will get.

It feels off that the only class that doesn't get a way to swing multiple times in a single action or gets bonus damage as a feature takes up a rune slot. That's just the point, it feels as off as Bone Oracle's curse effect or Interrogation Investigator's weird interaction. All we really want is answers that is all...Rather it takes the Spring Errata but with that showing up eventually we can only make Threads upon threads hoping that the devs of PF-2E read them. Tha is all we can do is hope

[Red Griffyn]

thenobledrake wrote:

...

All of these things can literally be solved by better communication. The void of communication is what allows these kinds of discussions to even start. Paizo needs to establish a process, communicate the process, execute the process, communicate deviations from the process in a timely manner, and ignore the noise of anyone who doesn't like it.

Right now its a black box grab bag of what gets put into errata, leaving key issues out in the cold while other minor issues get resolved. There is no rhyme or reason to it from an outside perspective. All we have is a generic commitment to 2 erratas a year and that clearly isn't really resolving the communities issues. What could a process look like?

Since you are fixated on someone being specific in the approach, let me give you an outline that Paizo is free to use/adjust based on their resource availability:

Quote:

Establish criteria for what kinds of questions could be answered, timelines for responses, and process for prioritization. Establish what kinds of questions will not be answered. Announce this and post/pin this thread to the top of the rules forum and deactivate comments so this is a short/sweet post with no community verbal sparing. This manages expectations immediately by being transparent about the process and cuts off a good chunk "I wants" that were never going to be answered anyways. This also allows the community to self police itself to a reasonable extent. Here is an example of what I would establish:

- 2 Annual Scheduled Erratas that provide RAW changes (Spring/Fall)
- 3 Month RAI clarifications window after a new product. Only to clarify high priority items as established by the RAI/RAW criteria. RAW to follow in one of the next two annual scheduled erratas.
- Establish high, medium, and low priority for answering RAI/RAW criteria based solely on the specific design issue, extent of condition, and extent of rewrite needed.
- Establish a community engagement method of identifying a rolling top 100+ items (Paizo can pick a number) that the community wants clarified that are medium or low priority items. Open those up to community voting a week after the issuance of an errata to re-prioritize based on continual community feedback. Include a subset of those items for RAW fixing in the next errata. Provide this rolling list in some live read only format for constant reference and turn off comments (e.g., a restricted author google sheet). This way people know what are next to be fixed and whether it is their pet issue or not.
- Provide 2 annual scheduled RAI batch updates (opposite the erratas so you're getting a quarterly update) that communicate the RAI of the upcoming next errata (no RAW provided). Changes that are purely RAW don't have to be included.
- Workdown the list year after year.

Prioritization Example:

- High -> Fundamental Rule issue with a wide extent of condition (e.g., death and dying rules) or which prevent reasonable play (e.g., oracle spell casting slot count)

- Medium -> Ambiguity in rules that can significantly change play, clarification of a rule/design element that doesn't follow baseline design

- Low -> Typos or things that can be deduced via induction methods despite not having explicit statements supporting them.

You can flesh that out more, create flow charts for the process, and develop the tools/locations/etc. necessary to execute it.

Again, no matter the process you have to:
1.) Create a process
2.) Communicate the process
3.) Execute the process
4.) Communicate deviations from the process in a timely manner
5.) Ignore the community noise

If you want a concrete example of someone that does great communication I typically point to the author Brandon Sanderson. On his website are constantly updated progress bars on the next 4-5 books he is working on (an at the glance dashboard for his many series). He does weekly updates (like a youtube video or similar) to provide writing progress updates, project updates, and otherwise highlight other things. He does other kickoff/periodic updates as necessary. Sure it isn't the exact same as a game developer, but I'm never 'unsure' of what the guy is doing. He over communicates the crap out of everything. It doesn't mean he gets no critique on his writing, or negative community feedback, but it doesn't mean he doesn't continue to communicate.

[Errenor]

Tridus wrote:

Blessed Armament ... Then yeah, the conclusion has to be that it's deliberate until proven otherwise.

Except in this case we also have the question WHAT would be deliberate. I stand by the simplest possible reading that what's written works. It's easy, it's the base of the game rules. Is it written you get that rune for this character? Then you get it. Not even talking about that this counting potency runes also completely breaks when there are no potency runes. And if THAT is which is deliberate, no errata is needed and it's literally the situation of 'yes, the text in the book is correct'.

[Lightning Raven]

Errenor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Blessed Armament ... Then yeah, the conclusion has to be that it's deliberate until proven otherwise.

Except in this case we also have the question WHAT would be deliberate. I stand by the simplest possible reading that what's written works. It's easy, it's the base of the game rules. Is it written you get that rune for this character? Then you get it. Not even talking about that this counting potency runes also completely breaks when there are no potency runes. And if THAT is which is deliberate, no errata is needed and it's literally the situation of 'yes, the text in the book is correct'.

The deliberate part is the change from getting the effects of a rune on the weapon (that doesn't count against the maximum limit) to getting the rune itself (which counts towards the max).

The change in text implies the latter. Specially when you consider the Battle Harbinger feat that has other language that is much more clear:

Quote:

Your deity grants you extra power that you have learned to channel into your weapons. Select one weapon or handwraps of mighty blows when you make your daily preparations. While in your hands it gains the effect of one property rune. Choose either fearsome, ghost touch, returning, shifting, or vitalizing. This rune does not count toward your maximum rune count, and this choice lasts 24 hours or until you make your next daily preparations, whichever comes first.

If you can see, it's basically the Champion's class feature rewritten as a feat.

[Errenor]

Lightning Raven wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Blessed Armament ... Then yeah, the conclusion has to be that it's deliberate until proven otherwise.

Except in this case we also have the question WHAT would be deliberate. I stand by the simplest possible reading that what's written works. It's easy, it's the base of the game rules. Is it written you get that rune for this character? Then you get it. Not even talking about that this counting potency runes also completely breaks when there are no potency runes. And if THAT is which is deliberate, no errata is needed and it's literally the situation of 'yes, the text in the book is correct'.

The deliberate part is the change from getting the effects of a rune on the weapon (that doesn't count against the maximum limit) to getting the rune itself (which counts towards the max).

First, again, getting runes from effects and not etching does NOT automatically make them counted towards the maximum. At a maximum it's debatable. And then, no, even changing wording doesn't mean much. It could've been a slip or an accident, or because they agree that you don't need to count runes from effects they don't think giving 'runes' makes a difference, but it's a simpler and more straightforward wording - any of those could be true. Or something else. In itself it doesn't prove anything.

Different wordings of different abilities either. We know they don't control rule wordings for perfect identity. And tend to repeat general rules. Sometimes, but not always.

[Powers128]

Well hopefully either harbinger or champion gets some text in the next errata. That's bugging me too

[Lightning Raven]

Errenor wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Blessed Armament ... Then yeah, the conclusion has to be that it's deliberate until proven otherwise.

Except in this case we also have the question WHAT would be deliberate. I stand by the simplest possible reading that what's written works. It's easy, it's the base of the game rules. Is it written you get that rune for this character? Then you get it. Not even talking about that this counting potency runes also completely breaks when there are no potency runes. And if THAT is which is deliberate, no errata is needed and it's literally the situation of 'yes, the text in the book is correct'.

The deliberate part is the change from getting the effects of a rune on the weapon (that doesn't count against the maximum limit) to getting the rune itself (which counts towards the max).

First, again, getting runes from effects and not etching does NOT automatically make them counted towards the maximum. At a maximum it's debatable. And then, no, even changing wording doesn't mean much. It could've been a slip or an accident, or because they agree that you don't need to count runes from effects they don't think giving 'runes' makes a difference, but it's a simpler and more straightforward wording - any of those could be true. Or something else. In itself it doesn't prove anything.

Different wordings of different abilities either. We know they don't control rule wordings for perfect identity. And tend to repeat general rules. Sometimes, but not always.

As far as I know, feats and features in PF2e just say what they do. Not what they don't. This means if you're getting a rune (instead of its effects) you're engaging with the Rune system. If you find it weird the game isn't specifically pointing out weapons with potency, I do too, however, this is something the game just assumes you will have.

Regardless, the Battle Harbinger feat is, IMO, pretty damning evidence that Blessed Armaments count towards the maximum cap of runes.

[Bluemagetim]

Lightning Raven wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Blessed Armament ... Then yeah, the conclusion has to be that it's deliberate until proven otherwise.

Except in this case we also have the question WHAT would be deliberate. I stand by the simplest possible reading that what's written works. It's easy, it's the base of the game rules. Is it written you get that rune for this character? Then you get it. Not even talking about that this counting potency runes also completely breaks when there are no potency runes. And if THAT is which is deliberate, no errata is needed and it's literally the situation of 'yes, the text in the book is correct'.

The deliberate part is the change from getting the effects of a rune on the weapon (that doesn't count against the maximum limit) to getting the rune itself (which counts towards the max).

First, again, getting runes from effects and not etching does NOT automatically make them counted towards the maximum. At a maximum it's debatable. And then, no, even changing wording doesn't mean much. It could've been a slip or an accident, or because they agree that you don't need to count runes from effects they don't think giving 'runes' makes a difference, but it's a simpler and more straightforward wording - any of those could be true. Or something else. In itself it doesn't prove anything.

Different wordings of different abilities either. We know they don't control rule wordings for perfect identity. And tend to repeat general rules. Sometimes, but not always.

As far as I know, feats and features in PF2e just say what they do. Not what they don't. This means if you're getting a rune (instead of its effects) you're engaging with the Rune system. If you find it weird the game isn't specifically pointing out weapons with potency, I do too, however, this is something the game just assumes you will have.

Regardless, the Battle Harbinger feat is, IMO, pretty damning evidence that Blessed Armaments count towards the...

Ok so you get the rune. but you didnt etch it, crafting wasnt involved whatsoever, so why apply crafting rules which is where you find those limitations?

But then again this was my argument further back in the thread.
The only rules I would apply are the rune rules that are not part of crafting rules which say multiples of the same runes don't stack.

All the rules about runes shutting off or rune limits on a weapons are rules applied to crafting with runes which is not happening with feats.
So that is why I need the feat to be specific that a limit applies before I would apply one.

[Squiggit]

I'm not sure why you keep calling it a crafting rule or why you keep bringing up etching. The rule in question doesn't even use the words etch o craft. It just says "can have" not "can have from crafting"

[Trip.H]

Squiggit wrote:

I'm with you on this one.

It's pretty easy to read text and determine if it is a rule/ information that applies to the concept generally, or if the rule is only applicable in some specific context.

"If you summon a widget from the Plane of Earth, it sinks in water"
versus
"Widgets sink in water."

.

Just because the mention of how property runes need potency to function is inside a section on crafting, that does not limit it to only apply in the context of crafting. You gotta, ya know, read the text.

It's also kind of hilarious that Blade Ally, if taken literally, outright poofs a runestone onto your weapon for you. There is 0 "like a ___" or other wordage, just "you grant the armament a property rune."

[Bluemagetim]

I made the argument with references earlier in the thread. Its pretty clear you don't apply rules meant to regulate the power and cost of items and provide rules described in sections for using crafting to add runes (etching) and transfer runes to abilities that grant runes outside that process given as part of the a class power budget. I have no reason to even consider item power budgets and class chassis and feat budgets as limiting each other until one of them references the other specifically in the affirmative that something applies, and that is just not done here.

[Deriven Firelion]

I didn't look too closely at this. If it doesn't specifically say it doesn't stack with other runes, I'm running it as stacking like pre-remaster otherwise it is an almost worthless ability.

[Powers128]

Yeah it doesn't have much use aside from saving you some gold. The level 10 upgrade saves about 2000 and gives you brilliant 2 levels early so that seems ok but really the power is in being able to prepare the rune at the start of the day and from your choices at level 3, it only matters if you know you'll run into a ghost or undead that day.

A contingency like this works better if it doesn't cost a rune slot. If not, it also pigeonholes you into the choices it gives which doesn't feel great.

[Tridus]

Lightning Raven wrote:

As far as I know, feats and features in PF2e just say what they do. Not what they don't. This means if you're getting a rune (instead of its effects) you're engaging with the Rune system. If you find it weird the game isn't specifically pointing out weapons with potency, I do too, however, this is something the game just assumes you will have.

Regardless, the Battle Harbinger feat is, IMO, pretty damning evidence that Blessed Armaments count towards the maximum cap of runes.

Yeah. Battle Harbinger is the big problem here. The fact that it still uses the old wording while Champion was changed suggests that Champion was changed deliberately to not work the old way.

If they wanted it to work the same way, there was no real need to rewrite it... as evidenced by the fact that they didn't rewrite it in Battle Harbinger, which came later.

The only other possible explanation I can believe is that it's just an error where someone started to reword it, ran out of time, and the problems with the new text weren't caught. Given that frankly PC2 has a high number of glaring problems for a core book, I find this at least plausible.

But I don't find "the rewrote it to actually give the rune instead of just the rune effect in order to have it work the same way it did before" very credible. Why change the text if the goal is to not change how it works, especially when this wasn't really confusing people before? And then why use the old text again a couple months later if its intended to work the same way?

That anyone would deliberately word two features intended to do the same thing so differently just doesn't compute, so the only plausible explanations are "they're not intended to work the same way" or "one of them is an error."

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I didn't look too closely at this. If it doesn't specifically say it doesn't stack with other runes, I'm running it as stacking like pre-remaster otherwise it is an almost worthless ability.

It doesn't say it doesn't stack, but it also doesn't say it ignores the rune limit. Unlike Battle Harbinger, which does.

But yeah, if you assume it takes a rune slot it is a really underwhelming class feature. The old version (and the Battle Harbinger version) are clearly better.

[Bluemagetim]

It just means Paizo is not a monolith.

[Lightning Raven]

Bluemagetim wrote:

It just means Paizo is not a monolith.

G%&~*#n it, this phrase reminded me of Key and Peele's Black Republicans' sketch.