Im curious about a potential combo I found but for it to work, I need a ruling on the title question.
When I critically hit with a corrosive rune, the targets armor (or raised shield) takes damage. My by reading, this is me "doing damage to an object with my weapon" so it should trigger the Razing property. That 4(+) extra damage will make a big difference in breaking and destroying items so im excited for it, but I want to see if its legal, RAW.
I think it should be because property runes merely "add special abilities to armor or a weapon", so it is still the weapon inflicting the damage (even if its not "weapon damage", which is irrelevant to this case.) Also just the plain English meaning of "doing damage (to an object) with the weapon." But what do you think, denizens of paizo forums?
Edit: Separate question but in the case of a blocking shield crit by a corrosive weapon, does hardness apply once (combined damage) or twice (Separate instances of damage)
I don't think that the razing trait and the corrosive rune interact in any way. Razing only applies if you are intentionally hitting the equipment or object. The corrosive rune damage is separate and independent from the weapon attack.
Scenario 1: you critically hit a creature wearing armor but no shield raised. You deal double damage to the creature (as normal) and 3d6 acid to the armor, applying hardness as normal.
Scenario 2: you critically hit a creature with their shield raised. You deal double damage to the creature and 3d6 acid to the shield, applying hardness as normal.
Scenario 3: you critically hit a creature who shield blocks the attack, you deal double damage to the shield, plus 3d6 acid, plus 4, and double to the creature, less the shield's hardness.
Razing applies "whenever" you deal damage to an object.
which does mean, that if someone shield blocks your strike, you will indeed do more damage to the shield than what you'll deal the person behind the shield (Scenario 3 in Kelseus post).
But as far as the OP question stands, things are indeed more murky. Imo, in my tables, I would say that the Corrosive rune is the one dealing the damage and not the weapon (since you would in fact deal 0 "weapon" damage to the item but only the acid damage of the rune).
IF the corrosive rune was instead somewhat different like "deal your weapon's damage to the object" then I could see the razing rune being applied, but not how it currently works.
More accuratly. Razing applies 'when you deal damage to an object WITH a razing weapon'
Razing wrote:
Whenever you deal damage to an object (including shields and animated objects), structure, or vehicle with a razing weapon
So it really does seem like shroudb has the correct reading in that Razing only applies when its the weapon dealing the damage. So I expect it to come down to wether or not a GM considers the runes on a weapon to be part of the weapon. and on a case by case basis I wouldn't consider the arc of electricity from a Shock rune to trigger the Razing Trait after all.
So it really does seem like shroudb has the correct reading in that Razing only applies when its the weapon dealing the damage. So I expect it to come down to wether or not a GM considers the runes on a weapon to be part of the weapon. and on a case by case basis I wouldn't consider the arc of electricity from a Shock rune to trigger the Razing Trait after all.
I know it's sacrilegious to some here but I would allow it, simply so as a GM I could say lines like, "As Gorgoth swings his mighty hammer across the Goliath's shield the heavy hammer bursts in power, the resulting corrorsive ichor seeping into the vulnerable metal, sizzling with zeal when combined with the massive weapons' blow. You shatter his shield in a moment of glory."
I would allow it to, After all the narrative I get is that the weapon needs to make contact with the armor/shield for the Corrosive effect to occur and that this is what happens when you score a "hit".
Not that it would do alot of difference, Corrosive Rune already has enough damage to reliably break leather armor. But is still going to need several crits to break iron or steel armor.
For shields its probably even worse, If the creature doesnt have an upgraded shield then it is basically guaranteed to break without razing, if they don't then you are looking at needing several crits even with razing unless shieldblock is involved.
So it really does seem like shroudb has the correct reading in that Razing only applies when its the weapon dealing the damage. So I expect it to come down to wether or not a GM considers the runes on a weapon to be part of the weapon. and on a case by case basis I wouldn't consider the arc of electricity from a Shock rune to trigger the Razing Trait after all.
I know it's sacrilegious to some here but I would allow it, simply so as a GM I could say lines like, "As Gorgoth swings his mighty hammer across the Goliath's shield the heavy hammer bursts in power, the resulting corrorsive ichor seeping into the vulnerable metal, sizzling with zeal when combined with the massive weapons' blow. You shatter his shield in a moment of glory."
Narratvely wise, I do tend to give the more fringe case Traits (like razing) bonuses when I can just so that the player feels nice.
But I do not base such rulings on strict RaW interpetations, instead i more or less freeform/handwave big power boosts when they could have applied.
As an example, I recently allowed a player with a Razing weapon to straight up break a wooden ceiling without checking numbers or such, just because his weapon is suppossed to be good vs structures.
Razing applies "whenever" you deal damage to an object.
But as far as the OP question stands, things are indeed more murky. Imo, in my tables, I would say that the Corrosive rune is the one dealing the damage and not the weapon (since you would in fact deal 0 "weapon" damage to the item but only the acid damage of the rune).
IF the corrosive rune was instead somewhat different like "deal your weapon's damage to the object" then I could see the razing rune being applied, but not how it currently works.
But have you considered the rules that define weapon property runes? It says "Property runes add special abilities to armor or a weapon in addition to the item’s fundamental runes"
Therefore, the corrosive rune critical effect is a special ability of the weapon its attached to. Therefore, any damage dealt by that ability (which is the weapon's ability now) is dealt by the weapon.
Razing applies "whenever" you deal damage to an object.
But as far as the OP question stands, things are indeed more murky. Imo, in my tables, I would say that the Corrosive rune is the one dealing the damage and not the weapon (since you would in fact deal 0 "weapon" damage to the item but only the acid damage of the rune).
IF the corrosive rune was instead somewhat different like "deal your weapon's damage to the object" then I could see the razing rune being applied, but not how it currently works.
But have you considered the rules that define weapon property runes? It says "Property runes add special abilities to armor or a weapon in addition to the item’s fundamental runes"
Therefore, the corrosive rune critical effect is a special ability of the weapon its attached to. Therefore, any damage dealt by that ability (which is the weapon's ability now) is dealt by the weapon.
Yes, I have. I gave you my opinion on how the Corrosive rune is worded. You don't do any "weapon damage" in my opinion. So Razing wouldn't work. Adding a special ability to a thing, whatever that thing is, doesn't mean tht the damage isn't still coming from said ability.
A lightning zap 10ft away by lightning rune wouldn't cause more item damage because the weapon said lighning came out from was a sledghammer either. Both are abilities triggered by the runes.
That's as far sa RaW goes from my reading. And that's what I would tell my player.
BUT on real actual play, I would also throw the player some bonuses when he's hitting stuff that I think that razing would help, to even out the fact that razing is indeed a weak Trait and it makes players feel good to do some cool stuff at times with their weapons. But that's not a Rules argument.
Razing applies "whenever" you deal damage to an object.
But as far as the OP question stands, things are indeed more murky. Imo, in my tables, I would say that the Corrosive rune is the one dealing the damage and not the weapon (since you would in fact deal 0 "weapon" damage to the item but only the acid damage of the rune).
IF the corrosive rune was instead somewhat different like "deal your weapon's damage to the object" then I could see the razing rune being applied, but not how it currently works.
But have you considered the rules that define weapon property runes? It says "Property runes add special abilities to armor or a weapon in addition to the item’s fundamental runes"
Therefore, the corrosive rune critical effect is a special ability of the weapon its attached to. Therefore, any damage dealt by that ability (which is the weapon's ability now) is dealt by the weapon.
Yes, I have. I gave you my opinion on how the Corrosive rune is worded. You don't do any "weapon damage" in my opinion. So Razing wouldn't work. Adding a special ability to a thing, whatever that thing is, doesn't mean tht the damage isn't still coming from said ability.
A lightning zap 10ft away by lightning rune wouldn't cause more item damage because the weapon said lighning came out from was a sledghammer either. Both are abilities triggered by the runes.
That's as far sa RaW goes from my reading. And that's what I would tell my player.
BUT on real actual play, I would also throw the player some bonuses when he's hitting stuff that I think that razing would help, to even out the fact that razing is indeed a weak Trait and it makes players feel good to do some cool stuff at times with their weapons. But that's not a Rules argument.
Razing doesn't require "weapon damage." though, so why are you putting that in quotes? Its irrelevant. Razing requires you to deal damage with the weapon, which is not the same thing.
The special ability (of the weapon, regardless of how it got it) did the damage. So the weapon did the damage. The lightning zap from a shocking rune by RAW then WOULD do more damage to an animated statue. Although I grant that the imagery is a little silly.
Razing applies "whenever" you deal damage to an object.
But as far as the OP question stands, things are indeed more murky. Imo, in my tables, I would say that the Corrosive rune is the one dealing the damage and not the weapon (since you would in fact deal 0 "weapon" damage to the item but only the acid damage of the rune).
IF the corrosive rune was instead somewhat different like "deal your weapon's damage to the object" then I could see the razing rune being applied, but not how it currently works.
But have you considered the rules that define weapon property runes? It says "Property runes add special abilities to armor or a weapon in addition to the item’s fundamental runes"
Therefore, the corrosive rune critical effect is a special ability of the weapon its attached to. Therefore, any damage dealt by that ability (which is the weapon's ability now) is dealt by the weapon.
Yes, I have. I gave you my opinion on how the Corrosive rune is worded. You don't do any "weapon damage" in my opinion. So Razing wouldn't work. Adding a special ability to a thing, whatever that thing is, doesn't mean tht the damage isn't still coming from said ability.
A lightning zap 10ft away by lightning rune wouldn't cause more item damage because the weapon said lighning came out from was a sledghammer either. Both are abilities triggered by the runes.
That's as far sa RaW goes from my reading. And that's what I would tell my player.
BUT on real actual play, I would also throw the player some bonuses when he's hitting stuff that I think that razing would help, to even out the fact that razing is indeed a weak Trait and it makes players feel good to do some cool stuff at times with their weapons. But that's not a Rules argument.
Razing doesn't require "weapon damage." though, so why are you putting that in quotes? Its irrelevant. Razing requires you to deal damage with the weapon, which is not the same thing....
because razing isn't some sort of magical thing, it comes from the weapon being able to do more damage to structures/objects because of what the weapon is/how it's built.
an axe is better at cutting trees. A bolt coming out of an axe, wouldn't cause a tree to take extra damage just because the bolt originated from an axe.
as a straight up game example, there are in fact enemies printed with "weakness to axe" because they are tree enemies. If a barbarian with a shocking greataxe crits and a lightning bolt flies from his axe to one such enemy, i wouldn't apply the weakness either.
so, when damage isn't coming from the weapon damage itself, for me it wouldn't activate it.
But if a player tried to cut a tree using an axe and not a sword, i would give them a bonus despite there not being something "mechanical" to show that axes cut trees better than swords.
Razing is the mechanical equivalent of "this weapon is built to destroy objects better". But that's not a magical effect, nor something supernatural. That "property" isn't transferable to stuff attached to the weapon anymore than the "versatile" property of a sword being able to both slash and pierce being trasferable to those runes.
if acid comming out of the weapon isn't becoming "sharper" because it comes out of a sword, i don't see how it becomes "more destructive" when it comes out of a sledgehammer.
The mention of weapon damage is absolutely relevant, Razing requires damage done "With the weapon" so it absolutely needs to be damage dealt by the weapon. Doubly so since its a weapon trait and thus adresses special rules for weapons and unarmed attacks wielded and used as weapons. These traits change depending on how a weapon is used aswell.
For example when you throw a dagger it is no longer a finesse weapon regardless of how much you want to argue that it is, Because only melee weapons can be finesse weapons and it is now a ranged weapon when you throw it. Thus why Rogue has a specific exception that disqualifies most melee weapons with the thrown trait despite them being ranged weapons when thrown. If an object would be weak to a material a bec-de-corbin is made of and you placed the weapon ontop of said object then it would not trigger razing because it isn't being used as a weapon and the weapon is not dealing damage either per say.
While the runes make weapons deal additional damage and gives abilities that are Constant,Activated or otherwise triggered; it does not mean there is any inheritance of traits or properties between weapon and its abilities. Same as actions, strikes with a flaming weapon or Alchemist Fire does not cause the strike to inherit the Fire trait and thus be unusuable under water or makes the strike qualify for abilities that trigger of actions with the fire-trait. That was part of an FAQ around the remaster release. Same for abilities, abilities from a cold-iron weapon does not trigger the weaknesses to the weapons material unless said ability implements a weapon strike or otherwise says that it triggers said weakness, and a spell cast from an agile weapon activation does not turn the spell Agile.
Often enough these abilities and effects explicitly spell out the additional traits that apply, and if any comes from the weapon itself.
Especially in this system where you should assume that abilities do what they say they do and nothing more unless otherwise stated
Razing weapons are particularly good at damaging objects, structures, and vehicles. Whenever you deal damage to an object (including shields and animated objects), structure, or vehicle with a razing weapon, the object takes an amount of additional damage equal to double the number of weapon damage dice.
and
Corrosive Rune wrote:
Acid sizzles across the surface of the weapon etched with this rune. When you hit with the weapon, add 1d6 acid damage to the damage dealt. In addition, on a critical hit, the target's armor (if any) takes 3d6 acid damage (before applying Hardness); if the target has a shield raised, the shield takes this damage instead.
and
Property Runes wrote:
Property runes add special abilities to armor or a weapon in addition to the item’s fundamental runes. If a suit of armor or a weapon has multiple etchings of the same rune, only the highest-level one applies. You can upgrade a property rune to a higher-level type of that rune in the same way you would upgrade a fundamental rune.
and an example in rules of how runes interact with weapon damage
Runes wrote:
...Runes must be physically engraved on items through a special process to convey their effects. They take two forms: fundamental runes and property runes. Fundamental runes offer the most basic and essential benefits: a weapon potency rune adds a bonus to a weapon's attack rolls, and the striking rune adds extra weapon damage dice. An armor potency rune increases the armor's item bonus to AC, and the resilient rune grants a bonus to the wearer's saving throws. Property runes, by contrast, grant more varied effects—typically powers that are constant while the armor is worn or that take effect each time the weapon is used, such as a rune that grants energy resistance or one that adds fire damage to a weapon's attacks...
So the game considers that your weapon attack is modified with the damage per the rule text under runes. When you critically hit with a corrosive weapon it adds 3d6 damage to their armor (or shield if raised) which are objects. If this happens on a razing weapon you have now dealt damage with a razing weapon to an object and it adds 2x weapon damage dice in damage bonus to those specific objects (not the target themselves unless they're some kind of animated object). I would rule that this works but with the following caveats:
1.) As the 3D6 is 'on a crit' it is itself not doubled.
2.) With respect to weapon damage dice, for the razing trait, you would, per the rules text only count your weapon damage dice (not including the 3d6 or other rune effects like fatal, deadly, etc.).
3.) Per 1, I wouldn't double the razing damage caused by the weapon if it was triggered by the acid rune crit effect (i.e., incidentally to armor or a raised shield). I would double it if it was a normal rider effect to attacking another razing identified target (e.g., animated object) because you triggered it off the attack action. This is the really only grey area ruling here without explicit rules, but feels like a reasonable adjudication.
4.) If you crit on something like an animated object you would only get that same effect once (i.e., doubled per crit, but not doubled + one more instance triggered by the acid rune as the same effect wouldn't stack). You might get it more than once if your crit is impacting the creature and the corrosive rune's crit effect applies to something else like the armor, but this is super corner case at this point.
At the end of the day I'm really not sure this is anything powerful to worry about because:
- It requires you to crit (if you are not a fighter or gunslinger this isn't going to come up that often)
- On a crit you're much more likely to kill w/e you're hitting so I'd hand waive you destroying their armor/shield to keep combat moving.
- If successful it causes you to destroy your loot.
- It opens the floodgate to the GM destroying your stuff with similar tactics (generally its unspoken TTRPG etiquette that your GM will not try to destroy your PCs magic items more than 1-2 times a campaign and mostly puts rust monster type encounters in to push PCs to play more tactically vs. trying to permanently wreck their stuff).
For those reasons this interaction is pretty unlikely to occur or is more often to be a net negative when it does work.
The only reason I wouldn't allow this to work is simply for ease of GMing. If this is your PCs main gimmick, you are asking your GM to determine every monster's armour's/shield hardness, track a second/third hp pool for their armor/shield, and track a second/third AC metric for each creature in case you break the armor/shield. Most people don't really want that additional overhead prep work to prevent this feature from slowing down the game mid session. I'm not saying this is "right", but I wouldn't be surprised if you found yourself suddenly attacked by naked monsters.
Acid sizzles across the surface of the weapon etched with this rune. When you hit with the weapon, add 1d6 acid damage to the damage dealt. In addition, on a critical hit, the target's armor (if any) takes 3d6 acid damage (before applying Hardness); if the target has a shield raised, the shield takes this damage instead.
Runes wrote:
...Runes must be physically engraved on items through a special process to convey their effects. They take two forms: fundamental runes and property runes. Fundamental runes offer the most basic and essential benefits: a weapon potency rune adds a bonus to a weapon's attack rolls, and the striking rune adds extra weapon damage dice. An armor potency rune increases the armor's item bonus to AC, and the resilient rune grants a bonus to the wearer's saving throws. Property runes, by contrast, grant more varied effects—typically powers that are constant while the armor is worn or that take effect each time the weapon is used, such as a rune that grants energy resistance or one that adds fire damage to a weapon's attacks...
So the game considers that your weapon attack is modified with the damage per the rule text under runes. When you critically hit with a corrosive weapon it adds 3d6 damage to their armor (or shield if raised) which are objects.
I don't think this conclusion is quite correct for the same reason as the Shock rune. Yes corrosive does add acid damage to the weapons attacks, Yes on a crit the extra effect will activate.
But not every rune effect adds to the weapon's damage or cause the weapon to deal damage, if the effect activates on a crit and affects another target than the original then it's hard to argue that its the weapon that deals this damage when thats not explicitly stated. How would this interact with its more potent cousin of Decaying or is persistent damage entirely untouched by Razing.
Don't get me wrong, it makes sense narratively that Razing works with Corrosive but the same is not true for all runes or from what I consider a rules perspective.
Re: do property runes like Shock's arc zap count for the [razing] trait?
chore-interrupted ramble:
Keeping my post on the narrow question of if the [razing] text's "deal damage ... with a razing weapon" applies to just the weapon, or if it includes bonus effects.
One of the concepts this discussion is orbiting around is something I've internally codified as "default specificity."
In systems like this, feats and effect text cannot anticipate how they will be modified by other bits of text. As such, trying to figure out how specific or open that base text is, is kinda important.
The most well known way this comes up is around spellcasting; when you take a spellcasting archetype, those spell slots are limited to being "___ spell slots" of that specific archetype.
Even when certain feats or effects from that archetype speak about spells or spell slots more generally, those feats were written for the full class caster. This means that an arch caster needs to essentially read with a word-swap of "your spell slots" --> "your ___ spell slots," and this can significantly restrict them mechanically.
This means that feats/abilities/etc need have some amount of "specificity" applied to them by default, even when it changes the mechanics.
Witch text talking about slots and spells is under the hood being more specific, and only talking about "Witch spell slots," etc.
__________________
As far as how that applies to this question, we do have to give this text some amount of RaI to be read in the same way, where the odd emergent context was not really considered in the construction of the base text.
The first thing to decide is which is the ignorant base and which is the knowing modifier. In this case, neither text was written like that. There's no relationship where arch casting rules know they are dealing with the base text's default specificity.
I have to consider both [razing] & the property rune text to be *specifically* talking about a "blank" or default weapon without extra sources of special damage.
This means that there needs to be some rather explicit instruction to trigger an interaction btwn [razing] and runes.
And it's clear imo that there's no instruction for things like Shock's arc to trigger a weapon's bonus effects.
___________
Let's not forget that if the text does not instruct for something to happen, then nothing happens.
In this case, [razing] has no text to indicate it's triggered via bonus dmg effects. The property damage runes were not written with any instructions to trigger other effects like [razing].
While this is fully between the lines and off-text, imo this ruling still has a clear answer, which is that no, [razing] and element dmg runes do not interact. If the GM wants to houserule such an interaction to make it more cool, that's up to them, and sounds pretty neat.
Acid sizzles across the surface of the weapon etched with this rune. When you hit with the weapon, add 1d6 acid damage to the damage dealt. In addition, on a critical hit, the target's armor (if any) takes 3d6 acid damage (before applying Hardness); if the target has a shield raised, the shield takes this damage instead.
Runes wrote:
...Runes must be physically engraved on items through a special process to convey their effects. They take two forms: fundamental runes and property runes. Fundamental runes offer the most basic and essential benefits: a weapon potency rune adds a bonus to a weapon's attack rolls, and the striking rune adds extra weapon damage dice. An armor potency rune increases the armor's item bonus to AC, and the resilient rune grants a bonus to the wearer's saving throws. Property runes, by contrast, grant more varied effects—typically powers that are constant while the armor is worn or that take effect each time the weapon is used, such as a rune that grants energy resistance or one that adds fire damage to a weapon's attacks...
So the game considers that your weapon attack is modified with the damage per the rule text under runes. When you critically hit with a corrosive weapon it adds 3d6 damage to their armor (or shield if raised) which are objects.
I don't think this conclusion is quite correct for the same reason as the Shock rune. Yes corrosive does add acid damage to the weapons attacks, Yes on a crit the extra effect will activate.
But not every rune effect adds to the weapon's damage or cause the weapon to deal damage, if the effect activates on a crit and affects another target than the original then it's hard to argue that its the weapon that deals this damage when thats not explicitly stated. How would this interact with its more potent cousin of Decaying or is persistent damage entirely untouched by Razing.
Don't get me wrong, it makes sense narratively that Razing works with...
I fail to see how it being a crit effect or being a non primary target matters to the outcome or rules interpretation. Deadly/Fatal traits are critical effects and we can still rule they deal damage to targets. Axe weapon critical specializations say nothing about the axe touching another target but you are able to deal damage to a secondary target on a crit. Splash damage, crit or not, can be adjudicated to deal damage to people or potentially objects in the area.
There is no interface between the rune and the weapon once the rune is attached its passive/constant effects "are the weapon's effects" per the rules language example under the Runes rules. A crit effect is a passive effect and the rules use that language so as to separate runes that have activation effects. Any additional separation between the passive/constant effects of a rune and the weapon/weapon damage are imagined with no basis in the actual rules.
It is a common error in logic that I see made in other TTRPG rules forums all the time:
"If I do A then B effect happens, if B effect happens then C effect happens, however because C happened from B then it isn't A doing it so effect D cannot trigger."
But none of that happens without A. Its all a nested/dependent sequence of events that can't be separated from each other. When you do separate them from each other artificially you end up in a never ending race to the bottom to deny basic system interactions. It wasn't really your weapon that dealt the damage but the muscle in your arm so no runes should apply... or was it the electric impulse from your brain to your nerves so your strength bonus should apply, or was... (see what I mean). The system tells us what makes sense instead of us relying on GM gut feel of where to draw arbitrary interfaces/bounds.
So in this case:
1.) I strike with a corrosive razing weapon.
2.) I crit so crit effects of my weapon trigger.
3.) A passive/constant effect of the corrosive rune is indistinguishable from and effect of my weapon per the runes rules.
4.) As a weapon crit effect, my weapon deals acid damage to a secondary target (i.e., the armour or shield of the person I crit weapon).
5.) Since I dealt damage to an object with my razing weapon, I deal razing damage to that object.
As for what to do with a decaying weapon, I think its the same as the corrosive rune. I would say you deal that razing damage every time the persistent damage triggers as a causal chain driven by your passive/constant weapon damage.
It really doesn't break verisimilitude to do any of that. The razing weapon is even better and damaging objects and so when your corrosive acid gets in or your persistent decaying void energy eats away it does so at a faster rate (same as if you just put something in acid OR smashed it to bits and increased the surface area of something before putting it into the acid to increase the reaction rate).
The issue is that we need to read text like [razing] with the notion of a "default specificity."
Where the text talking about dealing dmg w/ the weapon is specific or "closed," and that it's not talking about all manner of unpredictable and unmentioned effects to be a part of "weapon damage". In that context of [razing] it's only talking about a base weapon, and we need to allow the terms used in that context to be sort of ~locked down in a way that matches that context.
_____________
When you start talking about possible triggers of [razing] beyond property elemental runes, this "no, they don't interact" becomes a lot more clear.
Basically, there's just no way to allow all manner of disconnected special damage to reasonably proc [razing].
There's all kinds of ways for a weapon to "deal damage" via spells or other effects.
Even the Spell Reservoir property rune makes the need for a "specific default" limit to Razing.
An AoE or over time spell in there would proc with every separate tick of damage.
Even the notion of a weapon getting persistent damage via effect shows that it's not reasonable to have [razing] trigger every little tick, imo.
I fail to see how it being a crit effect or being a non primary target matters to the outcome or rules interpretation. Deadly/Fatal traits are critical effects and we can still rule they deal damage to targets. Axe weapon critical specializations say nothing about the axe touching another target but you are able to deal damage to a secondary target on a crit. Splash damage, crit or not, can be adjudicated to deal damage to people or potentially objects in the area.
Because i'm not talking about it being a crit effect, I'm talking about it being a separate effect from the weapon and thus not being "Damage with the weapon". Because thats what I see from those same quoted rules, Runes can add additional damage or abilities to a weapon, but nothing in it states that the rune effects in general inherit weapon properties, is part of the weapon or otherwise count as the weapon.
Fatal and Critical Specialization effects are part of the weapon's properties to begin with and should work but are actually horrible examples in this scenario as they don't show that weapon-traits should be considered for effects that is not explicitly part of the weapon or is the weapon dealing damage.
Fatal adds damage directly to the weapon's attack, so obviously the damage from fatal is explicitly part of the weapon.
Axe Critical Specialization we already know needs to 'hit' as it uses your the damage-roll and attack-roll against AC, complete with all the original weapon traits and bonuses. But we don't need to have that kind of discussion in regards to what works with it and what doesnt, It's explicit that you only use the result from the weapon damage dice and ignore all other damage.
Normally damage does not interact with the armor/shield in anyway. This is the rule for just about every type of damage that is in the game. (Note: I am saying damage, once you get past the AC of the armor/shield, it is generally ignored for the effects of damage).
When you Strike a creature, the damage is only applied to the creature's hit points. A common exception to this prove the rule, specifically Shield Block. Shield Block allows a PC to reduce the damage taken by the shield's hardness. But this is only because of a reaction used by the target of the Strike. The attacker has no control over dealing damage to the shield. Only with the use of the Shield Block reaction allows the damage to also be applied to the shield. However, even then, the damage still goes directly to the creature (less the shield hardness).
In Pathfinder 1, you could use the Sunder action to attack armor or shield's directly. No similar ability exists in Pathfinder 2. There is no way RAW to directly attack armor or shields.
This is all important to consider the corrosive rune crit damage. You Strike with a weapon and hit the creature. Your weapon does damage to the creature. Period. Your Strike damage does not interact with the creature's armor at all. The corrosive rune is the exception to the rule, it allows an additional instance of damage that is independent and separate from the Strike damage that also damages the creature's armor.
The razing property does not interact with the corrosive crit damage. They are completely separate.
I'm not sure about the RAW, as a GM I would probably allow a critical with a razing weapon with a corrosive rune to increase the damage dealt with the razing property. We're talking about potentially 8 additional damage being dealt to creature's armor that are unlikely to be on screen for more than 4 rounds.
I would also probably tell the players that I would allow for the enemy's equipment to become broken (-1 to -3 penalty to AC depending on armor category) but not destroyed by allowing for razing to do this. It's especially challenging area because enemy's aren't designed the same as PCs thus, they don't really wear armor nor do we know how their stats factor in because they're simply not designed that way.
What's my justification? Because it's fun. How often are you going to have a razing weapon with corrosive crit in a campaign? Even if it's not exactly rules legal, it's fun. And if you explain in advance that the effect it's going to have is at best a -3 penalty to AC it manages player expectations.
What's my justification? Because it's fun. How often are you going to have a razing weapon with corrosive crit in a campaign? Even if it's not exactly rules legal, it's fun. And if you explain in advance that the effect it's going to have is at best a -3 penalty to AC it manages player expectations.
This is the way, IMO. Btw you sound like the kind of GM I like playing with. (Or try to GM as)
What's my justification? Because it's fun. How often are you going to have a razing weapon with corrosive crit in a campaign? Even if it's not exactly rules legal, it's fun. And if you explain in advance that the effect it's going to have is at best a -3 penalty to AC it manages player expectations.
This is the way, IMO. Btw you sound like the kind of GM I like playing with. (Or try to GM as)
The "funny" thing is that it's easier to look at these situations outside of an actual game session and think about things and the overall impact.
It's true that it could kind of be disruptive to allow razing and corrosive crits to happen, but if you have a moment to step back and analyze the situation, you can say "yes, but...". Yes you can have razing happen on corrosive crits, and that may cause the enemy's armor to become broken, which will cause up to a -3 penalty (depending on armor category) but won't cause armor to be destroyed. As long you manage player expectations you can come up with reasonable consequences that work with the game without being too disruptive.
The issue is that we need to read text like [razing] with the notion of a "default specificity."
Where the text talking about dealing dmg w/ the weapon is specific or "closed," and that it's not talking about all manner of unpredictable and unmentioned effects to be a part of "weapon damage". In that context of [razing] it's only talking about a base weapon, and we need to allow the terms used in that context to be sort of ~locked down in a way that matches that context.
_____________
When you start talking about possible triggers of [razing] beyond property elemental runes, this "no, they don't interact" becomes a lot more clear.
Basically, there's just no way to allow all manner of disconnected special damage to reasonably proc [razing].
There's all kinds of ways for a weapon to "deal damage" via spells or other effects.
Even the Spell Reservoir property rune makes the need for a "specific default" limit to Razing.
An AoE or over time spell in there would proc with every separate tick of damage.
Even the notion of a weapon getting persistent damage via effect shows that it's not reasonable to have [razing] trigger every little tick, imo.
The problem with invoking "default specificity" is that it requires agreement on a hierarchy of specificity. As well we still assume inherited traits unless there is a specific overriding/negating element of a more specific rule. For example birds can fly vs. penguins don't fly means penguins (which are still birds) do not fly. It feels like you are trying to manifest the 'negation' out of thin air, when realistically all we have in the system are enabling language and nothing to negate/overriding the language from more general cases.
Level 1: The most general case is a weapon deals damage.
Level 2: Razing Weapons deal +2 dmg/weapon damage dice when damaging an object.
Level 3: A razing weapon with a corrosive rune adds any passive/constant effects to the weapon damage dice per the rules example that uses a flaming rune which also has a success/crit passive damage effect.
Level 4: A razing weapon with a corrosive rune, when critting, deals damage to an object of 3D6 acid damage.
So with no negations between levels of specificity we are left with only one conclusion which is the razing property (a property of the more general case) will be triggered by the more specific case of a razing weapon with a rune that can deal +3D6 on a crit.
Your discussion of spells is a red herring because you've added another level of specificity:
Level 5: A spell uses [insert level 3 or level 4 description of weapon]
Spells have their own rules that specify they only do what the spell effect says it does and so you NOW have the introduction of text (whether implicit or explicit) that has the potential to negate or override. That is a huge difference than the rules text that says all constant and passive effects of runes (e.g., like flaming damage runes) apply to weapon damage (that is additive/enabling rules language).
You have to give me a specific example with a specific spell that we can walk through because the spell reservoir rune doesn't appear to challenge anything in the above interpretation. Notably because the only passive effects of the rune are letting you cast a spell into it and immediately identify spells cast into it. When you activate one of the two effects you are no longer in the causal rules chain of 'passive and constant effects' as you are 'activating it'. As stated previously they did that because many runes of activation effects and those do not have any enabling language to 'add to the weapon damage' as the passive and constant effects do.
This is also true for spells like weapon storm where the spell effect specifies that you are dealing 4 damage dice the same size as the weapon, but not that you are dealing damage WITH the weapon. The only spell I can recall that even remotely does that is Hand of the Apprentice and I would obviously let razing trigger as you are dealing damage as if you hit with your melee weapon (which would trigger both the corrosive rune/razing on a crit).
NorrKnekten wrote:
Because i'm not talking about it being a crit effect, I'm talking about it being a separate effect from the weapon and thus not being "Damage with the weapon". Because thats what I see from those same quoted rules,...
The rule example language is verbatim
Runes wrote:
Property runes, by contrast, grant more varied effects—typically powers that are constant while the armor is worn or that take effect each time the weapon is used, such as a rune that grants energy resistance or one that adds fire damage to a weapon's attacks
There is no daylight there. Passive effects of property runes on weapons adds to the weapons attacks. You separating it into a 'different effect' is contrary to the rules which are telling you it effectively should be treated as one singular event/activity/combination of traits/etc. The enabling language has made the passive corrosive rune effect essentially a new critical specialization or deadly/fatal effect that is hyper niche to blocking shields and party armour loot.
It's less about claiming any default "overrides" specific text, and more about explaining that inheritance cannot go up a level to the parent, and then down to reach & apply to siblings by default.
That's not how inheritance works. If a specific effect/feat modifies its parent's default, that's also not inheritance exactly, but that change of parent does change a lot of interactions & can create many knock-on effects.
Quote:
There is no daylight there. Passive effects of property runes on weapons adds to the weapons attacks.
This is absolutely a valid ruling RaW. It is genuinely ambiguous, and afaik without significant supplemental text to indicate either direction. Both the elemental rune & razing are written with language that if one reads as intended to be "blank-check literal," would be editing their weapon in a manner that applies extremely broadly.
The "catch" is that of consistency, if you rule that a specific effect like that edits the default, then that's exactly what you are doing. You don't get to special plead allow only the Razing + elemental interaction, it's a green light for an unknown number of interactions.
All forms of Strike bonus damage now triggers Razing, and all effects similar to Razing.
Some weird effect causes a weapon maneuver to now deal dmg? Razing doesn't say "Strike," the weapon's dealing dmg, so it triggers.
Exemplar ability to extendo-pole and deal dmg in a line AoE? That's "weapon dealing damage," triggers Razing.
You cannot do as you claim, by disallowing spell dmg buffs but allowing runes to proc Razing. If you allow things like Razing's broad text to be "blank-check literal," then you have to be consistent.
Things like Flame Wisp that are clearly outside the Strike will not trigger it, but all bonus damage into that weapon, will.
The closest to the line might be Energy Mutagen,
Quote:
Whenever you score a hit with a melee weapon, add the listed amount of damage
This does not exactly say the damage is added to the weapon, but is instead more ambiguously added upon the trigger event of a successful hit. Up to the GM to determine if that's weapon damage or not. (rule-lawyer RaW I'd say not added to weapon)
In general, pf2 devs absolutely do not write effects with the idea of "modifying the weapon, or not" in mind, and reading effect text with that being some important "A or B" line will create issues, imo.
It opens the door to all manner of semantic arguments, such as if Spell Reservoir is damage being done with the weapon (kinda hard to argue no, it's dmg coming from the weapon's rune).
________________________
And I want to emphasize this ruling about "specific default" versus "blank-check literal" is not about this one example of "[razing] + elemental rune?"
but is about a general rule principle for reading pf2 text that changes how one interprets the whole system.
If you take the RaI stance of "generic terms are default limited to their own default scope/capabilities" then things like "weapon damage" translate to "damage done by the unmodified weapon."
Instead of a unbounded generic reference, it's swapped for a specific reference to the default state.
That matches how the rules explain how to handle Archetype Spellcasting, where you cannot read the foreign class feat text raw anymore, and you have to edit all general mentions of "slots," etc, into specific mentions of "__ class slots."
And real quick, I need to add that this idea of "default specificity" is a part of language as a whole, and it is also RaW to read pf2 text that way.
If person A asks B, "could you grab me a water?" and B grabs them a bottle of fizzy club soda, we all know that's not what A was asking for. Much of the time, big umbrella words are being used as "specific defaults."
When words or terms can be either generic or specific, that can create ambiguity.
