Pathfinder 2E ideas for caster runes (homebrew)

CapnZapp

Legend
Updated! So, I reckon there is room for improving casters in PF2 (at least at single-digit levels).

Here's an idea: wand runes and staff runes, partly to give casters a bit of a boost, but mostly to give casters too something really significant to look forward to buying or looting.

Note: In both cases, the rune effects apply both when the caster is casting a spell from the wand or staff itself, and when the caster is merely wielding the wand or staff while casting that spell normally (using a spell slot). Wielding a wand or staff adds a somatic component to the casting, if not present already.

Wand runes are duplicates of weapon runes, except they are etched onto magic wands, and give their effects to spells with a spell attack roll only. The GM is free to say a particular weapon rune don't exist as a wand rune.

Example: you could now find or buy a +1 striking corrosive wand of acid arrow. The potency rune would give you +1 on your spell attack rolls (whether you cast acid arrow or another spell with a spell attack roll). The striking rune would add one damage die (so one +1d8 acid for acid arrow or +1d4 negative for chill touch etc). Finally the corrosive rune would add +1d6 acid damage (and more on a critical) exactly as the corresponding weapon rune.

Staff runes are special (new) runes that are etched onto magic staves. They give their bonus only to castings of the specific spells of the staff (whether you use a staff charge or your own spell slot doesn't matter). Here are three such runes:

Staff Focus rune: gives its bonus to your spell DC.
I'm gonna use the armor resiliency rune as my template, seeing this is kind of its opposite.
Staff Focus (+1) Item 8 340 gp
Staff Focus (+2) Item 14 3440 gp
Staff Focus (+3) Item 20 49,440 gp

Staff Area Striking rune: Adds dice to spell damage if the staff's spell has a burst, cone, emanation, or line.
Positioning this half-way between single-target (wand) striking and the above focus rune (since damage is less unbalancing than higher DC).
Staff Area Striking (+1 dice) Item 6 275 gp
Staff Area Striking (+2 dice) Item 13 3,475 gp
Staff Area Striking (+3 dice) Item 19 44,475 gp

Staff Recapacitation rune:
Updated! Yep, this is what you've been fearing ;) - a rune to void the Incapacitation trait from a single casting of a single spell with a spell DC. A recapacitation rune has one charge, recharged daily. The rune tells you the maximum DC the rune can "recapacitate" for you (meaning that if you're wielding a staff with the DC 28 recapacitation rune, even if your spell save DC is 30, the target only needs to save against DC 28).
Staff Recapacitation (DC 17) Item 3 65 gp
Staff Recapacitation (DC 24) Item 7 380 gp
Staff Recapacitation (DC 28) Item 11 1,550 gp
Staff Recapacitation (DC 34) Item 15 8,000 gp
Staff Recapacitation (DC 42) Item 19 45,000 gp

PS. Cross-posted here.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

CapnZapp

Legend
TBH, I secretly wished the game's structure would allow me to create +3 runes at low level, and the +1 runes at high-level. (Because it's at low level you need the big boost as a wizard! Assuming a wizard still gets more powerful as he levels up (relative to the other party members) they really don't need or deserve the big bonuses once they've gotten there! But anyway...)
 

CapnZapp

Legend
OP has been updated! One idea would be to rename general wand runes simply "wand runes", and rename "specialist wand runes" into "staff runes", and have them 1) apply to staves, not wands (d'oh!) and 2) to all the spells of that staff.
 
Last edited:

CapnZapp

Legend
I've updated the OP to incorporate the above idea, and to generally polish up the presentation.

I've updated the Recapacitation DCs.
 
Last edited:


Philip Benz

A Dragontooth Grognard
I'm quite interested in making a small number of wands or staves available with +1/+2/+3 focus bonus "runes" on them. The game wouldn't suffer from it, and spellcasters could really use the small boost. My players are currently 12th level with +21 for spell attacks, so these runes are going to be significant without really being game changing.

I'm more skeptical about the other ideas.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Casters are woefully underpowered during the first third of levels.

They start holding their own during the middle third, and they're arguably more impactful than martials from level 15 onward.

My only good solution is: don't play a Wizard during the low levels at all.

Generate a Ranger or Barbarian or something. Then switch for a Wizard no earlier than level 7.
 

BigZebra

Adventurer
Casters are woefully underpowered during the first third of levels.

They start holding their own during the middle third, and they're arguably more impactful than martials from level 15 onward.

My only good solution is: don't play a Wizard during the low levels at all.

Generate a Ranger or Barbarian or something. Then switch for a Wizard no earlier than level 7.
Ha ha that reminds me of 3.5 were at level 10 one's fighter accidentally walked of a cliff, and a Wizard magically appeared 🧙‍♂️
Too bad.
I have read about several hacks for Wizard in PF2:
  • Runes on Wands and Staffs
  • Make spells a one action thing with Flourish
  • Improve all Cantrip dmg dice one size, i.e. d4 -> d6 etc.
Well, I'll cross that bridge if one of my players roll up a Wizard.
 

Philip Benz

A Dragontooth Grognard
Just to be clear, the notion that spellcasters are "woefully underpowered during the first third of levels" in PF2 is not universally shared.

If your only yardstick is DPR, sure. But damage output per round isn't the be-all and the end-all of the FRPG experience. And even there, low-level spellcasters aren't horribly outclassed, since they can do lots of things with their unlimited cantrips.

This question is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Cap'n is far from the only one who is frustrated with the extent to which casters were nerfed in PF2, sure. There are plenty of people on the forums and on discord who complain about the lack of spellslots and what they see as the crummy math around spells, both targetted and save spells. But there are also plenty of people who understand why those things are the way they are, and enjoy it anyway.

Low-level wizards are fine, and a lot of fun to play. But you have to adapt your expectations.
 

BigZebra

Adventurer
Yup I know, that the overall versatility of spell casters are about more than just DPR. But man on Reddit and Paizo-forums there are so so so many posts about not being happy with mainly wizards, alchemist and witches. And yes I know that players don't write a post about how their wizard is great and all is fine. But still, it seems statistically significant.
I just wanna be prepared if some of my players enters this territory.

I am set to start a PF2 campaign soon (when our current 4e wraps up), and I'd prefer if their first impression was great, because there's many thing in PF2 that speaks to me.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top