In Pathfinder 2e, runes can be applied to weapons to maximize their effectiveness in combat. These runes are magical enhancements that provide various bonuses and effects to the weapon. There are different types of runes that can be applied to weapons, each offering unique benefits. The **potency** rune increases the weapon's base damage, allowing it to deal more damage with each strike. This is especially useful for martial characters who rely on their weapon attacks to defeat their enemies. The **striking** rune grants the weapon additional weapon dice, allowing it to hit harder and more frequently.
Please don't spell it rouge. It's Rogue.
My kobold poison trap alchemist wants to use a blowgun, and I m trying to find any way possible I can to make it, at the least, semi-scale with everyone else. D D has subscribed to a reality where people are like ships and you have to keep smashing away at them repeatedly before they sink to the floor dying.
The **striking** rune grants the weapon additional weapon dice, allowing it to hit harder and more frequently. This rune is particularly useful for characters who have multiple attacks, as it increases the overall damage output. The **property** rune provides additional effects to the weapon.
Thread: Golem Antimagic versus "magical" weapons and runes
Instead of starting a discussion in the ruleset development thread or old generically named "resistance issues" thread, I prefer to start a new discussion on how Golem immunities and weapon runes are to be handled. Here is my take:
"Fundamental" weapon runes do not cause "magic" damage, they are "magical" runes that turn a weapon into a "magical" weapon, but still cause physical damage (or rather the original weapon type) without adding a special "magical" damage trait. These runes enhance/affect the weapon itself. So golems' resistance against physical attacks affect mundane and magical weapons the same.
There are some rare creatures that have "Resistance: physical X (except magical)". These creatures' resistances are negated by the fact that the weapon/damage source is magical, but the damage is still physical with no extra "magical" trait. And there are "incorporeal" creatures whose resistances are doubled against "non-magical damage", but there still is no "magical" damage trait. The latter is unfortunately somewhat badly worded by Paizo, but I understand why they did not want to add a special "magical" damage trait to the game just for these very few exceptions on how to handle physical damage.
Furthermore golems do not have "immunity: magic", they have "immunity: magic (see below)", with "see below" pointing to their "Golem Antimagic" abilities. This "Golem Antimagic" usually pertains to creatures using "spells and innate magical abilities other than its own" (its own = the golem's). Unfortunately Paizo botched to deliver concise wording again, so the "creatures'" part is less than clear and can be disputed.
Said possible dispute is about "Property runes", because these runes are worded as adding "special abilities" to weapons, which of course are "magical". Damn you Paizo editor. Since there still is no "magical" damage trait you have a situation where a "flaming" property rune adds extra "fire" damage to a weapon. You can still perfectly well argue that the rune affects/enhanced the weapon, not the target. And frankly, this would be the easiest and most sane way of handling things in FG. Of course you would also have to argue that property runes to not trigger the "Harmed by" vulnerability then. It's all or nothing.
On the other hand, if you count property runes as "magical abilities" that Golems are immune against, then the "Harmed by" part is also triggered (like a flaming rune against a flesh golem). This is considerably more complex to automate in FG, though, because again: there is no "magical" damage trait.
Wands, scrolls and staves are clearly a form of spell-casting, so I see no conflicts there. These work the same as otherwise casted spells do.
Last but not least, alchemical bombs are not magical and thus trigger neither the "Golem antimagic" immunities nor the "Harmed by" weaknesses. So no, your 1 point acid "splash" damage does not crumble the iron golem to dust. :P
Thematically speaking, I don't want to rely on bombs or swap to bows/crossbows as my method of personal poison delivery, so I want to try and exhaust everything I can with bowguns. As of now all I can think of is Rogue Dedication w/sneak attack for an extra +1d6, but that doesn't seem to scale with the dedication.
These effects can range from elemental damage to debilitating conditions or increased critical hit chances. Property runes allow players to customize their weapon to fit their playstyle or the needs of a particular encounter. To maximize weapon effectiveness, players can combine multiple types of runes on their weapon. For example, a character could apply a high-level potency rune, a striking rune, and a property rune to create a weapon that deals massive damage, hits frequently, and has additional benefits such as setting enemies on fire or causing them to bleed. It's crucial to note that while runes provide significant boosts to weapon effectiveness, they are not permanent enhancements. Runes can be invested in weapons, allowing them to be moved from one weapon to another, but only a limited number of runes can be invested at a time. In order to further enhance their weapon's effectiveness, players can also look for other sources of bonuses, such as feats, class features, or spells, that synergize with their chosen runes. By carefully selecting and combining these enhancements, players can create powerful and versatile weapons that can turn the tide of battle in their favor..
Reviews for "Unleashing the Weapon's Potential: Runes in Pathfinder 2e"
1. Amelia - 2 stars - I was really excited to try out the Rune for maximizing weapon effectiveness in Pathfinder 2e, but it ended up being a huge disappointment. It felt more like a gimmick than a useful tool. The Rune didn't really do much to improve my weapon's effectiveness, and I found that there were other ways to optimize my character that were much more effective. Overall, I feel like I wasted my time and money on this Rune.
2. Ethan - 1 star - I regret purchasing the Rune for maximizing weapon effectiveness in Pathfinder 2e. It promised to enhance my character's combat abilities, but it fell short in every aspect. The Rune didn't provide any noticeable improvement, and it felt like a wasted investment. I would advise other players to explore other options for enhancing their weapon effectiveness instead of relying on this Rune.
3. Samantha - 2 stars - I was really hyped about the Rune for maximizing weapon effectiveness in Pathfinder 2e, but after trying it out, I'm quite disappointed. It didn't live up to its promises and I found that my character's weapon was just as effective without it. The Rune felt like an unnecessary addition and I wish I had spent my resources on something more valuable. Overall, I wouldn't recommend this Rune to other players looking to maximize their weapon effectiveness.
4. Jake - 2 stars - I had high hopes for the Rune for maximizing weapon effectiveness in Pathfinder 2e, but it failed to deliver. It didn't seem to provide any significant boost to my character's weapon effectiveness, and it felt like a waste of resources. I expected more from this Rune and was let down by its lackluster performance. I would advise others to think twice before investing in it.