In recent years, the internet has become the go-to source for information and entertainment. One popular genre of videos is that of table videos, where creators showcase different objects or items on a table while discussing or reviewing them. However, there is one particular table video that stands out from the rest - the witchcraft table video. The witchcraft table video is a unique and intriguing concept that combines the mystical world of witchcraft with the visual appeal of table videos. In these videos, creators set up a table adorned with various tools and objects associated with witchcraft, such as candles, crystals, herbs, tarot cards, and incense. They then proceed to explain the significance and uses of each item, providing insight into the world of witchcraft.

Magic Weapon

Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

Magic Weapon, Greater

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (powdered lime and carbon)

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one weapon or 50 projectiles (all of which must be together at the time of casting)
Duration 1 hour/level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless, object)

This spell functions like magic weapon, except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.

Alternatively, you can affect as many as 50 arrows, bolts, or bullets. The projectiles must be of the same kind, and they have to be together (in the same quiver or other container). Projectiles, but not thrown weapons, lose their transmutation after they are used. Treat shuriken as projectiles, rather than as thrown weapons, for the purpose of this spell.

By the way…

This spell also affects siege engines and siege engine ammunition.

Are +0 Magical Weapons Possible?

The rules are clear that you can transfer fundamental runes from a specific magical item (such as an oathbow), but what happens when you remove all such runes? Are you left with a fully functional and magical+0 oathbow? Or is it a non-magical bow with suppressed specific abilities? Does it need a minimum +1 like property runes do?

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't keep its other abilities.

I looked into the title question before reading the post though, and found that you can make a +0 magic weapon by inscribing a dart umbrella or umbrella injector with a soft-landing accessory rune.

I think with specific magic items their fundamental runes would already be at their minimum, in that one can buy them at that strength, but not any lower, or buy them at higher strength by adding the upgrade costs.
So in that instance I'd say its other abilities get suppressed if below that threshold. Ex. a Dwarven Thrower wouldn't work w/ a +1 fundamental rune. So I'd say yes, it's like property runes w/ the item's special abilities filling that role/slot (which explains why the item cannot take further property runes).
Of course, we're simply outside the rules and extrapolating so answers shall vary I'd think. therefore ask one's GM.

The Beginner's Box has examples of lesser weapons which are nonetheless magical, though I think that's only the PF1 version. It's not unheard of before that though to have +0 magical items with some minimal perk, it's just kinda pointless except vs. DR. In PF2 though I don't think there's much point to such minimal items since +1 weapons & armor come so early now, much like masterwork items in previous editions.

I think with specific magic items their fundamental runes would already be at their minimum, in that one can buy them at that strength, but not any lower, or buy them at higher strength by adding the upgrade costs.

So in that instance I'd say its other abilities get suppressed if below that threshold. Ex. a Dwarven Thrower wouldn't work w/ a +1 fundamental rune. So I'd say yes, it's like property runes w/ the item's special abilities filling that role/slot (which explains why the item cannot take further property runes).
Of course, we're simply outside the rules and extrapolating so answers shall vary I'd think. therefore ask one's GM.

I initially made a similar ruling as a GM, but then stumbled upon this rule, under Specific Magical Arms and Armor: A specific magic armor/weapon lists its fundamental runes, which you can upgrade, add, or transfer as normal.

It clearly states you can transfer the runes. And we understand this to mean "transfer away" specifically since it already lists "add."

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd agree that they're already at their minimum functional value. Transfer would refer to swapping out the minimum rune and swapping in a higher one (rather than upgrading in place).

I initially made a similar ruling as a GM, but then stumbled upon this rule, under Specific Magical Arms and Armor: A specific magic armor/weapon lists its fundamental runes, which you can upgrade, add, or transfer as normal.

It clearly states you can transfer the runes. And we understand this to mean "transfer away" specifically since it already lists "add."

Personally I don't even like the idea of transferring away the fundamental runes included automatically in specific magic items. I think it should mean that if you add/upgrade the runes that it comes with, then you can transfer those additional ones away later.

But that is something that I would houserule. It isn't what the rules actually say.

However, I do also think that the rules do support the idea that if you drop the magic item below what it has as its minimums, then all of the other magical properties also stop working - same as what happens if you transfer away all the fundamental runes of a standard item that has property runes also. Those magical properties stop working.

While I'm not sure of the ruling myself, I like the idea of a specific weapon's properties being suppressed while its fundamental runes are removed, mostly because you can turn a specific item like that into a mini-relic for the party to find without worrying about tracking its overall cost. Let the party upgrade the fundamental runes themselves, and their eventual reward is a specific magic item, possibly a level or two earlier than it would otherwise be available.
It wouldn't work with every party of course, but for a PC who has their eye on a specific armor or weapon from the getgo it can be a fun goal to give them to work toward.

Are +0 magical weapons possible?

Without a potency rune, a weapon isn't a magic weapon.

A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).

Are +0 magical weapons possible?

Without a potency rune, a weapon isn't a magic weapon.

A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).

Scrollstaff is listed as a magic weapon but has no potency runes on it.

Are +0 magical weapons possible?

Without a potency rune, a weapon isn't a magic weapon.

A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).

It's identified as a magic item, but I don't see where it is identified as a magic weapon.

Magaambyan Magic Item

The following magic item is uncommon, but characters who are Magaambyans of at least attendant rank have access to it (see the sidebar on page 65). PCs who start a game as members of the Magaambya typically begin at attendant rank.

It's identified as a magic item, but I don't see where it is identified as a magic weapon.

Yes, it looks like without any fundamental weapon runes it would just be a non-magical staff weapon that you could add a scroll to.

It's identified as a magic item, but I don't see where it is identified as a magic weapon.

Look at Nethys under specific magic weapons: it's the first one.

. the rules do support the idea that if you drop the magic item below what it has as its minimums, then all of the other magical properties also stop working.

The only thing specified in the rules that I can find is that potency runes are required in order to be able to slot property runes.

Specific magical abilities are not property runes.

By all accounts, it appears as though a +0 striking weapon is totally possible, and magical.

If you removed all runes from a magic weapon, I would say it would be residually magical but would have no actual effect from being magical. Like how you could hit someone with your Endless Grimoire, but it would just be a normal improvised weapon.

As for "what happens if I remove the potency rune but not the property rune" I would say that's not possible, since the "grammar" of magical runes requires property runes to be associated to a potency rune to give it context to be metaphysically meaningful (and thus cause fires, touch ghosts, etc.) Remove the potency rune and the property rune becomes meaningless. It would be like removing the letter "t" from the word "at"- the "t" by itself doesn't have the same kind of semantic content as the word.

It's identified as a magic item, but I don't see where it is identified as a magic weapon.

Look at Nethys under specific magic weapons: it's the first one.

I don't see anything in the book that supports that designation, so I'm going to assume that Archives of Nethys simply made a mistake in placing it there.

It's easy to see how they could have missed the rule that I cited and simply assumed that any magic item that is a weapon would automatically be a magic weapon.

But even if the scrollstaff is a specific exception to the rule, the general rule remains: a potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon.

So a +1 striking, ghost touch sword isn't a magic weapon if you remove it's potency rune. From what I recall from various comments by Paizo staff, the striking rune would still function, though.

You could, of course, use the magic weapon spell or doubling rings to temporarily give the sword a potency rune and make it a magic weapon again (and also "wake up" the property rune).

It's also possible that this is another case of Paizo having two different meanings for the same phrase. It's possible that the categories of 'magic weapons' and 'specific magic weapons' contain items which are not 'magic weapons.'

After all, in PF2 all actions are actions, but not every action is an action.

It's identified as a magic item, but I don't see where it is identified as a magic weapon.

Look at Nethys under specific magic weapons: it's the first one.

I don't see anything in the book that supports that designation, so I'm going to assume that Archives of Nethys simply made a mistake in placing it there.

It's easy to see how they could have missed the rule that I cited and simply assumed that any magic item that is a weapon would automatically be a magic weapon.

But even if the scrollstaff is a specific exception to the rule, the general rule remains: a potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon.

So a +1 striking, ghost touch sword isn't a magic weapon if you remove it's potency rune. From what I recall from various comments by Paizo staff, the striking rune would still function, though.

You could, of course, use the magic weapon spell or doubling rings to temporarily give the sword a potency rune and make it a magic weapon again (and also "wake up" the property rune).

It's also possible that this is another case of Paizo having two different meanings for the same phrase. It's possible that the categories of 'magic weapons' and 'specific magic weapons' contain items which are not 'magic weapons.'

After all, in PF2 all actions are actions, but not every action is an action.

For me, I think it's that it's a weapon and it has the magical trait: I have a hard time saying that [magical]+[weapon] doesn't equal a [magical weapon].

Secondly, you have this quote in Basic Magic Weapon Core Rulebook pg. 599: "Many magic weapons are created by etching runes onto them, as described on page 580." If runes are a requirement, then it's an odd sentence as it would be 'all' instead of "many." This leads me to wonder if the page 580 quote might be the one that's wrong as either it or page 599 is wrong.

.

As for "what happens if I remove the potency rune but not the property rune" I would say that's not possible, since the "grammar" of magical runes requires property runes to be associated to a potency rune to give it context to be metaphysically meaningful (and thus cause fires, touch ghosts, etc.) Remove the potency rune and the property rune becomes meaningless. It would be like removing the letter "t" from the word "at"- the "t" by itself doesn't have the same kind of semantic content as the word.

It is possible to remove the potency runes, but not the property runes that depend on them. The 'bare' property runes just go dormant.

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.

For me, I think it's that it's a weapon and it has the magical trait: I have a hard time saying that [magical]+[weapon] doesn't equal a [magical weapon].

Secondly, you have this quote in Basic Magic Weapon Core Rulebook pg. 599: "Many magic weapons are created by etching runes onto them, as described on page 580." If runes are a requirement, then it's an odd sentence as it would be 'all' instead of "many." This leads me to wonder if the page 580 quote might be the one that's wrong as either it or page 599 is wrong.

Let's make things even more confusing with this text I just noticed below your quote from p. 599.

MAGIC WEAPON

A magic weapon is a weapon etched with only fundamental runes.

So apparently a +1 striking, ghost touch sword isn't a magic weapon because it has a property rune and hence isn't etched only with fundamental runes.

(I'd guess that this was meant to define basic magic weapons rather than all magic weapons, but that isn't what it actually says.)

For me, I think it's that it's a weapon and it has the magical trait: I have a hard time saying that [magical]+[weapon] doesn't equal a [magical weapon].

I tend to go with a more practical meaning. A weapon is a magical weapon if the damage that it does has the magical trait.

So striking someone with an unmodified Scrollstaff wouldn't. The staff part doesn't deal magical damage.

A scrollstaff serves as a weapon just like an ordinary staff and can be improved via runes.

And since the scrollstaff costs 12 GP and a +1 Weapon Potency rune costs 35 GP, ruling that the scrollstaff does deal magical damage would make it the best weapon for fighting Ghosts at level 1. TGTBT.

So apparently a +1 striking, ghost touch sword isn't a magic weapon because it has a property rune and hence isn't etched only with fundamental runes.

I tend to go with a more practical meaning. A weapon is a magical weapon if the damage that it does has the magical trait.

"Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures have a high resistance to physical attacks that aren't magical (attacks that lack the magical trait). Furthermore, most incorporeal creatures have additional, though lower, resistance to magical physical damage (such as damage dealt from a mace with the magic trait) and most other damage types.": Step 2: Determine the Damage Type, Core Rulebook pg. 451. A scrollstaff without runes still has the magical trait and would be a magic attack. All that matters is the trait: I don't know of anyplace other than the trait magical that makes the damage magic. I don't see it under runes.

Note the traits the staff has without any runes.

Scrollstaff
Item 1
traits [Uncommon, Magical, Transmutation]
Source Character Guide pg. 100

A scrollstaff serves as a weapon just like an ordinary staff

Sure it has the same stats as any staff with the magical trait. It's ordinary as to bonuses to hit and damage dice, hence the comment about runes.

And since the scrollstaff costs 12 GP and a +1 Weapon Potency rune costs 35 GP, ruling that the scrollstaff does deal magical damage would make it the best weapon for fighting Ghosts at level 1. TGTBT.

And? It doesn't have any bonus to hit or damage and you aren't likely to mean many incorporeal creature before you get runes. It's not like staves have awesome stats [there is a reason they are free items theat even wizards can use].

Let's make things even more confusing with this text I just noticed below your quote from p. 599.

MAGIC WEAPON

A magic weapon is a weapon etched with only fundamental runes.

So apparently a +1 striking, ghost touch sword isn't a magic weapon because it has a property rune and hence isn't etched only with fundamental runes.

(I'd guess that this was meant to define basic magic weapons rather than all magic weapons, but that isn't what it actually says.)

That's not indicating that weapons with other runes (or no runes at all) aren't magical; instead, it is referencing the basic magical weapon shown on Table 11-1. (That is, +1 weapon, +1 striking weapon, +2 weapon, +2 greater striking weapon, etc.)

A holy avenger is magical, but it is not a "magical weapon" like those mentioned in Table 11-1.

It's using a name, versus using plain English. I hope that makes sense.

Are +0 magical weapons possible?

Without a potency rune, a weapon isn't a magic weapon.

A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).

Reading the book, Second Printing, there is no rule I can see that requires you to have Potency, to have Striking. Both properties are individual Fundamental Runes.

It's interesting that all the examples show Potency Runes leading the Striking Runes, but nothing in the rules prohibit Striking without Potency. Either added would make the Weapon a Magic Weapon.

Are +0 magical weapons possible?

Without a potency rune, a weapon isn't a magic weapon.

A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).

Reading the book, Second Printing, there is no rule I can see that requires you to have Potency, to have Striking. Both properties are individual Fundamental Runes.

It's interesting that all the examples show Potency Runes leading the Striking Runes, but nothing in the rules prohibit Striking without Potency. Either added would make the Weapon a Magic Weapon.

You can have striking runes without potency runes. The question is whether such a weapon would be a magic weapon.

The rule that I cited specifically states that potency runes are what make a weapon a magic weapon. Where does the book state that any fundamental runes make a weapon a magic weapon?

You can have striking runes without potency runes. The question is whether such a weapon would be a magic weapon.

The rule that I cited specifically states that potency runes are what make a weapon a magic weapon. Where does the book state that any fundamental runes make a weapon a magic weapon?

You are getting your logic backwards. Yes the rules say that.

But we don't need that rule. It is the trait Magical on the runes both for striking and potency runes that does the job. In fact almost every rune has a trait on it that will make the weapon magical.

I treat potency runes like some kind of "magical power generator". It allows to "energize" a number of property runes. While strike runes are self-powered.

About weapon being magical I agree with Gortle, if some rune add Magical trait it's turns that weapon as a magic weapon except for dormant property runes. While this runes are disable due lack of potency runes they also don't add their traits to it.

So, the answer to the original post is yes, you can have a +0 magical weapon.

So, the answer to the original post is yes, you can have a +0 magical weapon.

I don't think there is a consensus on this.

I agree with Gisher, that a +1 potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon.

A magic shield can be used to shield bash, but is not a magic weapon.

The trait magical says this (CR 633).
Something with the magical trait is imbued with magical energies not tied to a specific tradition of magic. A magical item radiates a magic aura infused with its dominant school of magic.

There is nothing in this trait that makes a magic weapon.
I also don't consider a scroll staff a magic weapon by defaalt:
A scrollstaff serves as a weapon just like an ordinary staff and can be improved via runes like any other staff.

A magic shield can be used to shield bash, but is not a magic weapon.

"Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures have a high resistance to physical attacks that aren't magical (attacks that lack the magical trait). Furthermore, most incorporeal creatures have additional, though lower, resistance to magical physical damage (such as damage dealt from a mace with the magic trait) and most other damage types.": Step 2: Determine the Damage Type, Core Rulebook pg. 451.

This means that a shield bash from a magic shield IS in fact a magic physical attack, IE a magic weapon. Magical physical damage is damage with weapon that has the magic trait.

So, the answer to the original post is yes, you can have a +0 magical weapon.

I don't think there is a consensus on this.

I agree with Gisher, that a +1 potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon.

A magic shield can be used to shield bash, but is not a magic weapon.

The trait magical says this (CR 633).
Something with the magical trait is imbued with magical energies not tied to a specific tradition of magic. A magical item radiates a magic aura infused with its dominant school of magic.

There is nothing in this trait that makes a magic weapon.
I also don't consider a scroll staff a magic weapon by defaalt:
A scrollstaff serves as a weapon just like an ordinary staff and can be improved via runes like any other staff.

Magical weapon is not a specially defined PF2 game concept. It follows the normal rules for effects. A weapon can be magical, an effect can be magical. It is the presence of a magical trait on an item, feat, action, effect that makes it magical. If a weapon has a magical trait on it then when it is used to deal damage that damage has the magical property.

You need a potency rune to put a property rune on weapon, you don't need a potency rune to put a striking rune on a weapon. Basically any rune on an item makes it magical, as I think every rune has a magical trait. A +0 striking sword is perfectly valid by the rules. It is magical. It deals magical damage.

Shields are not weapons. Typically you put runes on the shield boss or the shield spike to do that job. Those can be magical weapons. However a GM might choose to treat a shield as an improvised weapon. If it had runes on it he might also treat it as a magical improvised weapon.

These rules are clear. If people are unclear it then it is likely because they are talking slightly cross purposes.

Weapon

A weapon, sometimes called an arm or armament, is an instrument used to inflict harm. While some weapons are improvised and others are repurposed from common tools or devices, most are designed to inflict damage to beings and structures. 1

They then proceed to explain the significance and uses of each item, providing insight into the world of witchcraft. What makes the witchcraft table videos so captivating is the way they blend education and entertainment. Viewers are not only introduced to the different tools and practices of witchcraft but also gain a deeper understanding of the symbolism and history behind them.

Classes of weapons

Weapons can be classified in a number of ways: 2

By group

There are a number of weapon groups that help define weapons with common traits. Many weapons can be classified under multiple groups. 3 4

By range

Weapons can be designed for up-close melee combat, such as swords and maces; to reach targets within a short range, such as polearms; or to attack targets at a greater distance, such as bows and thrown weapons. 7

By required skill

Many weapons can be simple to use, if not master. Some, however, require martial training or extensive perfection of exotic or esoteric techniques. 7

By weight and grip

Light weapons can be easily wielded, while other one-handed weapons require more concentration, and two-handed weapons work best in the grip of a strong wielder. These scales can be relative to the wielder; a weapon usable in one hand by a human might require two when wielded by a halfling, for example. 7

By damage

There are many ways a weapon can harm a target. Bladed weapons cut and slash, pointed weapons pierce, and blunt weapons bludgeon. Many weapons can do some or all of these types of damage depending on how they're wielded, but most are designed to focus on a specific type of harm. 7

By scale

Weapons are not limited to what humanoids can hold in their hands. Larger weapons, such as siege engines and cannons, might require crews to operate but can also operate with a greater magnitude of destructive force. 8

By technological level

In their most basic forms, many weapons are little more than highly refined arrangements of metal, wood, stone, and other simple materials. Others employ more complex mechanical, chemical, electrical, or other technological processes. 9 10

The most prominent example of a technological weapon on Golarion is the firearm, a weapon rarely found outside of Alkenstar that combines mechanics with explosive chemistry to fire projectiles at devastating rates of speed. 11 Also, alien technology scattered across Numeria is capable of all manner of strange effects and destructive potential. 9

By magical enhancement

The vast majority of weapons on Golarion are considered mundane in nature, but a few are persistently enhanced with magic. Whether infused by a spellcaster, a soul, its environment, a deity, or other often strange and unnatural means, even a relatively innocuous type of weapon can become exponentially more effective as a magic weapon. 12

By material

Weapons can be constructed using many materials. Most are made of common, mundane materials, such as wood and steel. Less common are those made of materials with unique or magical properties—such as skymetals, cold iron, and darkwood—or through special techniques, such as fire- and frost-forged metals. 13

It is a perfect platform for both beginners who are curious about witchcraft and experienced practitioners looking for inspiration and new ideas. Furthermore, the witchcraft table videos allow creators to showcase their creativity and personal style. Each video is unique, as creators arrange the objects on the table in their own aesthetic and narrate their experiences and knowledge. This diversity adds to the overall appeal of the genre, drawing in a wide range of viewers who are fascinated by the beauty and mystery of witchcraft. It is worth noting that the witchcraft table videos serve as more than just a form of entertainment. They also contribute to the normalization and understanding of witchcraft, dispelling harmful stereotypes and misconceptions. By presenting witchcraft as a legitimate spiritual practice rather than something to be feared, these videos help to foster acceptance and respect for diverse belief systems. In conclusion, the witchcraft table video is a captivating and educational genre that combines the visual appeal of table videos with the mystical world of witchcraft. It provides viewers with insights into the symbolism and history of various tools and practices associated with witchcraft, while also showcasing the creativity and personal style of creators. Beyond entertainment, these videos contribute to the normalization and understanding of witchcraft, fostering acceptance and respect for different belief systems..

Reviews for "Herbs and Crystals: Enhancing Your Magick Videos"

1. John - 2 stars - I have to say, I was quite disappointed with the "Witchcraft table video". The whole concept seemed interesting, but the execution fell flat. The video lacked any real substance or depth, and it felt like a lot of random scenes thrown together without a clear narrative. The editing was also quite choppy, making it hard to follow the story. Overall, I wasn't impressed.

2. Sarah - 1 star - I don't understand what the big deal is about the "Witchcraft table video". It seemed like a pretentious and overly artistic attempt at creating something profound. But, to be honest, it just left me scratching my head. The video was filled with strange and confusing imagery, and I couldn't make any sense of it. It felt like the artist was trying too hard to be "edgy" and "unique" without actually delivering any meaningful content. Not my cup of tea, that's for sure.

3. Emily - 2 stars - I must admit, I was really looking forward to watching the "Witchcraft table video" based on the buzz it was generating. However, after watching it, I felt like I wasted my time. The video was overly long, with scenes that seemed to drag on forever. It lacked any real narrative structure, leaving me confused and disengaged. The concept was interesting, but the execution was lacking, making it difficult to connect with the content. Overall, it left me feeling underwhelmed and disappointed.

4. Mark - 1 star - The "Witchcraft table video" was a complete mess. It seemed like the artist tried to be too avant-garde and ended up with a disjointed and confusing piece. The whole production felt self-indulgent and lacked any real substance. The random shots and strange editing choices made it difficult to understand the intended message. I was left feeling frustrated and wondering if I had missed something. Definitely not a video I would recommend to anyone.

Exploring Different Witchcraft Traditions at the Table