Fire, Frost, and Lightning Runes

As written, I think it’s pretty clear your player is correct (I had missed that as well but I don’t really have any elemental casters). If that was the intent or not, I can’t say.

While I can think of some corner cases (runestaff, permanent runes, Arcimious Primus fighting style) you generally do not cast spells through weapons. I think its pretty clear despite the wording that the rune on your wand (only) works on spells and the rune on your weapon (only) works on your physical attacks.

I think your player needs to buys another rune…

I agree that that is very likely the intent. However, I’m curious why you think it’s “pretty clear” that how it works is contrary to the very clear English of the effect description?

I’m surprised this hasn’t come up in any errata discussions before.

Interesting. I’ve never had cause to look at the wording before, as haven’t had a PC with both an elemental rune and ability to cast elemental spells.

Same here. I’m sure I read it before but I tend to do more of the buffing type caster rather than elemental (though I’ll likely try building another Elorii Elder caster with the revised Sorcerous Pacts). I did do an elder battle Mage in a home game but he had a rune staff so it didn’t matter for that character (not that I played him long enough to get runes).

The language is plain and clear, so I don’t see any errata need; its just a surprise to everyone that it wasn’t noticed before.

Probably yes there should be errata.

When I read that my impression is that this is bad writing and the author mashed the effects of wands and weapons together…perhaps since wands and weapons are listed together as one category in that section of FiM. Despite the fact the language is clear, interpreting it RAW (A) makes a wand rune superfluous (since I’m getting a damage boost to spells AND a weapon boost…why would I have a wand for these runes??? – no caster here, no wands on me!) … and (2) it’s out of line with the power levels of other runes…combining two benefits like this is usually the domain of a permanent rune. And (3) It doesn’t make sense to me in game why the rune on you axe/sword helps you cast spells (and even less sense why your wand helps you whack people with your axe/sword).

I get rules disputes like this wrong half the time so I am hardly a definitive voice on the matter, but I suspect strongly that RAW in this cases is wrong.

Let me start by saying I’m no one official.

As far as the rune goes, I think the intent is very clear. In the same sentence it states “The damage bonus applies to any spell that causes fire damage as well as all weapon attacks.”

In terms of some of the concerns raised about power levels and the usefulness of wands, let me share my perspective.

1. Why have a wand when you can have a weapon? – A wand counts as a free hand for spell casting, a weapon does not. With a wand you can also wield a shield or a weapon in your other hand. With a weapon it must be free unless it’s psionics. With the exception of a few heritage spells, there are not elemental effects that this would benefit. There is definitely an opportunity cost. There are also other runes that have far different effects if placed on a wand than a rune, so being able to combine all of them on a single item can be an advantage. It also allows the caster to effectively double to number of wand/weapon runes available by having the wand as well as having two different elemental effects active – 1 per wand/weapon.

2. Isn’t it overpowered? – This ties in closely with the previous question. Bonuses between the two items don’t stack and there are opportunity costs both in rune slots and free hands if solely viewed from a weapon perspective. To gain the benefit of the rune, the rune must be active and you can only have one energy type active at a time per RAW. “Several Runes sheath Wands and weapons in elemental energy. An item may be sheathed in only one form of elemental energy at a time.” – FiM
There was a question about it being more like a permanent rune with multiple benefits. Permanent runes provide two separate benefits simultaneously or certainly the opportunity to do so. To me at least this doesn’t feel like the same level of benefit.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul

I really wish they’d make runestaffs available in the campaign. Per the book, any caster can make one for 2Gc (except they can’t in the campaign). I’d be more likely to play an arcane caster if these were available.