Forums of the Megaverse®

For example:

1) flesh-on-metal contact only (gloves protect)
2) length-of-weapon range (piloting a robot with 10ft arms lets you carry it, someone carrying it in a chest could be harmed)
3) unlimited range (anybody wrong-aligned who influences motion of weapon in any way, even if conducting a 2000ft long train with the rune weapon in the caboose)
4) fixed range (all rune weapons share some unbeknownst maximum range at which they can damage people of wrong alignment)

I'm instinctively shooting at somewhere between 1 and 2, though 3 would be amazing. "Wield" can have applications outside of actual combat with intent to inflict hits with it, such as trying to simply run away with a weapon to try and deprive someone of it, or to try and steal it to sell it or destroy it.

Axelmania wrote:For example:

1) flesh-on-metal contact only (gloves protect)
2) length-of-weapon range (piloting a robot with 10ft arms lets you carry it, someone carrying it in a chest could be harmed)
3) unlimited range (anybody wrong-aligned who influences motion of weapon in any way, even if conducting a 2000ft long train with the rune weapon in the caboose)
4) fixed range (all rune weapons share some unbeknownst maximum range at which they can damage people of wrong alignment)

I'm instinctively shooting at somewhere between 1 and 2, though 3 would be amazing. "Wield" can have applications outside of actual combat with intent to inflict hits with it, such as trying to simply run away with a weapon to try and deprive someone of it, or to try and steal it to sell it or destroy it.

If your wielding the weapon then you get zapped.
If your not wielding the weapon and instead using some sort of proxy... then your not zapped.
Its magic after all.
Gloves are not a proxy. A robot is (usually). Though if your TW Robot has a link that lets you use the ablities of the magic items it picks up... then its now also able to get you zapped.

We know that simple gloves are not enough since one of the features of Thors gauntlets is that it prevents this sort of zapping... a feature that would not be needed if all gloves did that already.

Gloves and Robots are both different degrees of technological proxy. If it's magic, why would a robot block it?

Good point on Thor's Gauntlets though. I agree with you that's evidence gloves are out... but what else should be in? If it takes rune gauntlets to stop this I'm not sure "technically my hand is not in the Glitter Boy's hand" would be enough.

Direct aura contact. Generally, requires you to be touching the object (auras are usually only a fingersbreadth from the body), so most armor and gloves won't protect you, but having your giant robot carry it will.

So you could say, tie a rope around the handle of a rune weapon and try and swing it around like a weapon that way? (too bad there's no rules on how hard that would be...)

Could https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl be used to throw rune spears of opposing alignments without them harming you?

If you can tie the rope around it... but I'd say you'd have trouble with the atlatl.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_dart it is then

For either the Rope Dart or the Atlatl, I'd say the Rune Weapons gets pissed enough to lash out and damage the wielder.

Why? Because either of those approaches is trying to bypass the wielding restriction with a thin technicality.

Mack wrote:For either the Rope Dart or the Atlatl, I'd say the Rune Weapons gets pissed enough to lash out and damage the wielder.

Why? Because either of those approaches is trying to bypass the wielding restriction with a thin technicality.

Both of those are "wielding" the weapon.
ZAP
Its magic. That means that, you can not use the rune weapon as a weapon with out getting smote.
Weasle words and technicallities are not going to cut it.
And since both of those are simply weapons, its still going to get you.

If magic is going to function on the basis of semantics then we should probably clarify which one we're going by. For example from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wield#Verb
>1. (obsolete) To command, rule over; to possess or own.
>2. (obsolete) To control, to guide or manage.
>3. To handle with skill and ease, especially a weapon or tool.
>4. To exercise (authority or influence) effectively.

Which of these conditions triggers the ability to damage?

It’s not worth playing semantics over.

To wield something is to use it in the manner which it is intended. Weapons thus are wielded if used to attack someone or if brandished. To transport something is not the same as wielding it.

I think there's a certain resonance behind tying a rune weapon's ability to affect a misaligned wielder, rather than by distance, instead by intent. If someone straps a rune weapon to a tungsten rod point-first to be dropped from orbit, whomever inputs the release command is subject to an alignment check upon doing so. This gets rid of all potential forms of abuse beyond simple transportation, whereupon one reverts to damage upon touch. In this case I'd say touch means anything below EBA, or not using tongs.

Mack I agree, which is why we should ignore semantics and have mechanics for magic.

The idea that pushing a button to release a rune sword a mile away lets it attack you... a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

What then, if someone is told that a rune sword is actually a healing wand, so they don't wield it for its intended purpose as a weapon and poke people with it trying to heal them?

Axelmania wrote:Mack I agree, which is why we should ignore semantics and have mechanics for magic.

The idea that pushing a button to release a rune sword a mile away lets it attack you... a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

What then, if someone is told that a rune sword is actually a healing wand, so they don't wield it for its intended purpose as a weapon and poke people with it trying to heal them?

Then the GM zaps the person.
Sucks to be you, guess you should know what your actually doing before you do it.
Seriously, you do not get to try and pretend that just because you are trying to play word games or that your person was unaware of the consequences of their actions that they get a free pass.

As for magic... guess what? It's magic. That means that it follows its own rules and that the pesky laws of physics and logic get to sit outside and cry on each others shoulders.

Thus if magic says "Affects the user" then it affects the user. Even if that user wants to try and play semantics games and try and claim that they are not really the user because of some creative use of language...

That might hold up in a TV Law Drama... but not in the real world, and especially not with magic.

Axelmania wrote:Mack I agree, which is why we should ignore semantics and have mechanics for magic.

The idea that pushing a button to release a rune sword a mile away lets it attack you... a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

What then, if someone is told that a rune sword is actually a healing wand, so they don't wield it for its intended purpose as a weapon and poke people with it trying to heal them?

Why does it streach the imagination? It's rune magic. It's a level of magic even the gods respect and fear.

Another example of Rune Magic we have is thoths Rune Strike, a spell that has a range of anyone anywhere in all of the megaverse

So right there, you have your logical answer. The range of rune magic is absolute infinity, striking from anywhere in existance to any other point of existance instantly. If you in any conceiveable capacity attempt to move a rune weapon by any conceiveable proxy, you get zapped, even if your on the other end of existance in another dimension.

We have mechanics for magic, you just don't like them very much

Eliakon, do you think there is a difference between "wielder" and "user"?

Who for example, would be the target if you were mind-controlling or body-controlling someone into wielding a rune weapon for you?

Axelmania wrote:Eliakon, do you think there is a difference between "wielder" and "user"?

Who for example, would be the target if you were mind-controlling or body-controlling someone into wielding a rune weapon for you?

The one pulling the strings, because magic, would be my vote at this point.

To what degree though? Does an evil mind melter who uses Hypnotic Suggestion on a runesword-wielding Paladin "hey that isn't your mom that's a demon disguised as your mom" risk the Paladin's sword getting to damage him for free at any distance until he counteracts his suggestion?

Axelmania wrote:Eliakon, do you think there is a difference between "wielder" and "user"?

Who for example, would be the target if you were mind-controlling or body-controlling someone into wielding a rune weapon for you?

Mind Control? The person wielding it, since they are the soul in charge.
Body Control? Duh, the person controlling the body. its no different than a glove or a robot hand at that point.

Again, the simple solution is the best "The being that is causing the event to happen is the one responsible for the event happening"

And for the obvious follow-up "well what if I set up a trap so that a person will accidentally use the weapon". Then if the person is *forced* to use it with no choice? you get zapped.

Simple rule here and that is "The being who chooses to use the weapon reaps the result of that choice". No one can make a choice and then have someone else pay the price of that choice. Not for this particular event at least.

Great responses... My answer is by touch regardless of what the character wears. now do make the exception with robot armor where the hand is not in the gauntlet of the power armor. My two sense. As long as the ruling is fair and fun, have at it. Let the damage be what it is and you can tone it down any time you want too.

Tick wrote:Great responses... My answer is by touch regardless of what the character wears. now do make the exception with robot armor where the hand is not in the gauntlet of the power armor. My two sense. As long as the ruling is fair and fun, have at it. Let the damage be what it is and you can tone it down any time you want too.

^this guy gets it^

At what ever range they can "weild" them, 'cuz... FIREBALL (aka it's magic).

eliakon wrote:Mind Control? The person wielding it, since they are the soul in charge.
Body Control? Duh, the person controlling the body. its no different than a glove or a robot hand at that point.

What about beings without souls?

Axelmania wrote:

eliakon wrote:Mind Control? The person wielding it, since they are the soul in charge.
Body Control? Duh, the person controlling the body. its no different than a glove or a robot hand at that point.

What about beings without souls?

Zombies would probablly make a good way to move rune weapons around. weather or not the rune weapons damage them, you can just keep reanimating them with a new pool of HP until it gets where your going.

Axelmania wrote:For example:

1) flesh-on-metal contact only (gloves protect)
2) length-of-weapon range (piloting a robot with 10ft arms lets you carry it, someone carrying it in a chest could be harmed)
3) unlimited range (anybody wrong-aligned who influences motion of weapon in any way, even if conducting a 2000ft long train with the rune weapon in the caboose)
4) fixed range (all rune weapons share some unbeknownst maximum range at which they can damage people of wrong alignment)

I'm instinctively shooting at somewhere between 1 and 2, though 3 would be amazing. "Wield" can have applications outside of actual combat with intent to inflict hits with it, such as trying to simply run away with a weapon to try and deprive someone of it, or to try and steal it to sell it or destroy it.

Per the description in BoM (pg286) for Lesser Rune Weapons (which higher order Rune weapons have these features plus others, so) states "Persons not of a compatible alignment take [..] points of damage each time they touch the weapon or [damage for M.D.C creatures)." That is the text in WB2 and PF2E (here it isn't MDC creatures, but creatures of magic).

So to answer your question "at what range can Rune Weapons damage wrong-aligned wielders", the answer is "touch". Though what counts as "touch" could be debated, that would mean #1/#4 would be the closer of the 4 answers. Though it gets into what counts as "touch", #4 would be a fixed range shared by all (that is why I put it here), #1 is one possible way to handle touch (since someone mentions Gloves needing special properties indicates that "touch" includes anything you are wearing).

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Zombies would probablly make a good way to move rune weapons around. weather or not the rune weapons damage them, you can just keep reanimating them with a new pool of HP until it gets where your going.

Zombies (mummies or even Golems) do take damage as they don't technically have an alignment, however they only take damage each time they would touch it. Nothing indicates the damage would cause the incompatible alignment person to drop the Rune weapon, so they could touch it indefinitely and only really take damage 1x until they "let go" for what ever reason and have to touch it again.

Axelmania wrote:

eliakon wrote:Mind Control? The person wielding it, since they are the soul in charge.
Body Control? Duh, the person controlling the body. its no different than a glove or a robot hand at that point.

What about beings without souls?

Zombies are undead, not animated dead.
As such there is *some sort* of animating force. That means the zombie takes damage
If it is something totally souless like a Machine Person... then I would say "who ever caused the souless thing to do the act is the motivating soul" and would take the damage.
It is no different than if you take a stick and poke it.

ShadowLogan wrote:Per the description in BoM (pg286) for Lesser Rune Weapons (which higher order Rune weapons have these features plus others, so) states "Persons not of a compatible alignment take [..] points of damage each time they touch the weapon or [damage for M.D.C creatures)." That is the text in WB2 and PF2E (here it isn't MDC creatures, but creatures of magic).

"Persons" seems like it might not include animated dead or non-sentient robots.

I get the impression of "they touch" wasn't meant to include "I kicked my soccer ball at a rune weapon and the rune weapon moved" situations, or stuff like "I directed the robot horse which pulled the cart which carried the chest which contained the rune weapon".

If "touch" is going to have this flexible a meaning for getting hurt by rune weapons... what inverse benefits does this create for "touch" range magic spells?

Axelmania wrote:If "touch" is going to have this flexible a meaning for getting hurt by rune weapons... what inverse benefits does this create for "touch" range magic spells?

Apples and oranges.

Mack wrote:

Axelmania wrote:If "touch" is going to have this flexible a meaning for getting hurt by rune weapons... what inverse benefits does this create for "touch" range magic spells?

Apples and oranges.

Sure it isn't Apples and Carrots or worse Apples and Internal Combustion Engines?

eliakon wrote:

Tick wrote:Great responses... My answer is by touch regardless of what the character wears. now do make the exception with robot armor where the hand is not in the gauntlet of the power armor. My two sense. As long as the ruling is fair and fun, have at it. Let the damage be what it is and you can tone it down any time you want too.

^this guy gets it^

Figure fair rule is without correct alignment the weapon acts as a mundane weapon except it is indestructable.

Axelmania wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:Per the description in BoM (pg286) for Lesser Rune Weapons (which higher order Rune weapons have these features plus others, so) states "Persons not of a compatible alignment take [..] points of damage each time they touch the weapon or [damage for M.D.C creatures)." That is the text in WB2 and PF2E (here it isn't MDC creatures, but creatures of magic).

"Persons" seems like it might not include animated dead or non-sentient robots.

I get the impression of "they touch" wasn't meant to include "I kicked my soccer ball at a rune weapon and the rune weapon moved" situations, or stuff like "I directed the robot horse which pulled the cart which carried the chest which contained the rune weapon".

If "touch" is going to have this flexible a meaning for getting hurt by rune weapons... what inverse benefits does this create for "touch" range magic spells?

It has none.
You have to touch the target still. Unless your using Rune Magic
Rune Magic, and rune magic alone, has canonically been demonstrated to have unlimited range.
Anything else changes the rules by removing the word "touch"

And as for your impression... Now see, I get the exact opposite one. I get the impression that the power is there to prevent rules lawyers from gaming the system to allow them to use Rune Weapons by simply arguing what 'is is' or the meaning of 'touch'


As for spells... I would say that they work through gloves, or gauntlets as well. We know that magic can work through armor and power and affect the outside/pilot. But not through vehicles. Which means that you can't touch a spell through a vehicle.

Mack wrote:

Axelmania wrote:If "touch" is going to have this flexible a meaning for getting hurt by rune weapons... what inverse benefits does this create for "touch" range magic spells?

Apples and oranges.

ShadowLogan pointed out that BOM286 uses the verb "touch".

What is your basis for thinking that the term "touch" should be interpreted differently when it is a magic spell vs when it is a rune weapon?

eliakon wrote:You have to touch the target still. Unless your using Rune Magic
Rune Magic, and rune magic alone, has canonically been demonstrated to have unlimited range.
Anything else changes the rules by removing the word "touch"

Why does BOM say "touch" if "touch" is not a requirement, or some kind of metaphor with a wildly different meaning from from the literal touch intended for spell range?

eliakon wrote:As for spells... I would say that they work through gloves, or gauntlets as well. We know that magic can work through armor and power and affect the outside/pilot. But not through vehicles. Which means that you can't touch a spell through a vehicle.

So if you are using a robot vehicle to swing your rune weapon, it can't hurt you because touch doesn't work through vehicles?

I believe my belief in this is supported by page 107 of Conversion Book 2 (Pantheons). The TW mod "Link to Rune Weapon" says:

allows the robot to wield a giant rune sword as if it were a living thing

This says to me that without that mod, robots (or at the very least, giant robots 50+ feet tall) do not count as living things wielding a rune weapon, even when piloted by a living being such as Archimedes.

the "Giant Rune Sword" says "The blade has several powers, which can be used by Archimedes while inside the armor only through a special techno-wizard link-up".

GRS doesn't give an alignment, but if it had the power to damage undesired users, it would seem that Archimedes would only be vulnerable to it as a ersult of the special LtRW mod.

The question we should ask is: do ALL robots need this mod? How small should a robot be where it becomes unnecessary?

Should some giant PA need this mod? How small a distance should there be between the flesh of the wielder's hand and the handle of a sword before such mods wouldn't be necessary to connect them?

Axelmania wrote:For example:

1) flesh-on-metal contact only (gloves protect)
2) length-of-weapon range (piloting a robot with 10ft arms lets you carry it, someone carrying it in a chest could be harmed)
3) unlimited range (anybody wrong-aligned who influences motion of weapon in any way, even if conducting a 2000ft long train with the rune weapon in the caboose)
4) fixed range (all rune weapons share some unbeknownst maximum range at which they can damage people of wrong alignment)

I'm instinctively shooting at somewhere between 1 and 2, though 3 would be amazing. "Wield" can have applications outside of actual combat with intent to inflict hits with it, such as trying to simply run away with a weapon to try and deprive someone of it, or to try and steal it to sell it or destroy it.

Direct connect, some Rune Weapons will warn you, evil will just "zap" you.

There are some special situation, like robots or Thors Gauntlet where you can touch "unaligned" Rune Weapons.

The question is how near-giant-robot must your gauntletesque armor extension be before special enchantments like Thor's are not necessary.