|
The Shifting weapon rune has the following effect:
The weapon takes the shape of another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield. The weapon’s runes and any precious material it’s made of apply to the weapon’s new shape. Any property runes that can’t apply to the new form are suppressed until the item takes a shape to which they can apply.
What does “requires the same number of hands” mean? A scimitar has 1 for its Hands statistic. A lance has two for its Hands statistic, but has the jousting trait, which reads, in relevant part, “while mounted, you can wield the weapon in one hand[.]”
So if you’re mounted, can you use the Shifting rune to turn a one handed weapon into a lance, and then use it to turn the lance into a different two handed weapon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, A scimitar is "1 handed", even if you use it in both hands.
Similarly, a Lance is "2 handed", even if you use it in one.
I think RAW number of hands is what it says in the properties. Some weapons like the Bastard Sword and Lance have traits that allow alternate uses, but the weapon hands is fixed to what it normally would be.
One interesting bit is that Shifting could let you use weapons you otherwise don't have access to because of rarity, but are proficient with. That to me is really its best feature.
|
|
Or maybe, since the rune will be suppressed, it will be reverted back his original form, without maintaing the shield form you needed to protection yourself.
I don’t think it’s clear that the weapon reverts if the rune is suppressed or even transferred. There’s nothing in the description indicating that the weapon changes form in any circumstance other than activation of the rune.
Strictly reading the rune text, you’d just permanently have a shield.
Interesting idea with the Shield. RAW only prohibits etching runes onto shields, while Blade Ally doesn't etch anything, it simply gives the chosen weapon the effect of a small sampling of runes. If it were treated as etched, it would already be breaking the limitation on how many property runes the weapon can have at once if you, say, selected a hammer that already had Returning etched.
It seems that you should be able to shift to and from a shield because the etching-on-shield rule isn't being broken, but any other etched runes that a shield couldn't have would be suppressed while in that form. Personally I would allow a shield with boss or spikes to retain use of weapon runes that would otherwise work with them.
If it were a permanent one-way transform, just think that a Champion could retire by turning a stick into a pristine Tower Shield every day. New best downtime activity - I'll just make 8 tower shields from nothing and sell them for half, thanks.
|
|
Blade Ally doesn't etch anything, it simply gives the chosen weapon the effect of a small sampling of runes.
That's an interesting distinction, and may matter. But the Shifting Rune itself says that "[a]ny property runes that can’t apply to the new form are suppressed until the item takes a shape to which they can apply." Does that mean that the Shifting quality it suppressed, or not because it's not actually a rune, but the effect of the rune?
It seems that you should be able to shift to and from a shield because the etching-on-shield rule isn't being broken, but any other etched runes that a shield couldn't have would be suppressed while in that form.
It seems fairly clear you CAN shift to a shield, but I don't know why this rune, in particular, wouldn't be suppressed.
just think that a Champion could retire by turning a stick into a pristine Tower Shield every day. New best downtime activity - I'll just make 8 tower shields from nothing and sell them for half, thanks.
A Champion could do that once per day and earn 5 gp, but that's only the "best" downtime activity if you can't beat it on the chart, which you eventually could.
Or maybe, since the rune will be suppressed, it will be reverted back his original form, without maintaing the shield form you needed to protection yourself.I don’t think it’s clear that the weapon reverts if the rune is suppressed or even transferred. There’s nothing in the description indicating that the weapon changes form in any circumstance other than activation of the rune.
Strictly reading the rune text, you’d just permanently have a shield.
A spear is 1sp.
A tower shield is 10GPAldori Dueling Sword is 20GP
Yeah but the sword would revert back at the end of the day if you were playing by the "shields are a one way shift" rule.
I think that's getting into silliness though that the rune would suppress itself. The point of not putting runes on a shield in the first place is to prevent them from providing more AC that would then stack with magic armor. They do want shields to have runes as weapons, hence the specific allowance for the boss or spikes to have weapon runes.
I mean, if you put your blade ally into you shield boss it what, falls off when you shift it?
But again, the champion ability specifically only provides the effect of a rune, not the actual rune. There is no property rune on such a shield to suppress, and shifting says nothing about suppressing any other magical effects except property runes. I think this provides a sufficient RAW logic to allow for the RAI to function as expected, since the "it gets stuck as a shield because of a technicality" is just silly.
Yeah but the sword would revert back at the end of the day if you were playing by the "shields are a one way shift" rule.
Where does it say it reverts?
Great point! I guess Champion at level 3 just gets around all access restrictions for the whole party since by that logic you can simply produce as many copies as you want of any and every melee weapon in existence permanently.
I mean, provided you find a GM that would actually allow that.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding shifting to a shield, that is clearly not an option:
The shifting rule quite clearly states that the weapon can be shifted to "another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield."
However, Shields are not weapons:
- They are listed in their own section in the equipment chapter, seperate from weapons.
- The shield table does not even list the number of hands needed, the shield bash action is listed in the weapon table as using "-" hands. (Yes, use on one hand/arm is easily assumed, but that doesn't make it a 1-handed weapon).
- "A shield can be used as a martial weapon for attacks,[...]" on p.277 is not the same as "...is a melee weapon". Just like the jousting and two-handed traits don't turn a weapon into a 1- or 2-handed weapon just because it "can be used" as such.
- The above sentence continues "[...]using the statistics listed for a shield bash[...]". The description of shield bash on p.286 quite clearly says "A shield bash is not actually a weapon, but a maneuver in which you thrust or swing your shield to hit your foe with an impromptu attack." That also quite clearly differentiates a shield from a weapon that would use the strike action to attack instead.
So no, shields are not weapons and thus no weapon can be turned into a shield using the shifting rune.
Now what is listed as a weapon are the shield boss/spikes themselves, which have to be attached to a shield to be used. Those are listed as 1-handed weapons and you could turn your dagger into a shield boss. But that still wouldn't come with a shield that it's attached to.
Regarding getting access to rare or uncommon weapons, yes that is an advantage of this rune, but it comes at a cost, both for the actual rune itself but also since that rune takes up a rune "slot" on that weapon. As a GM I might limit its use to weapons the PC has at least reasonably come across before, though. But overall it has a cost that balances its advantages, so I'm generally fine with it.
Regarding what happens when the rune is removed from the weapon in its shifted form, that is not specified and as such subject to GM decision. Personally, I would definitely rule that the change is dependent on the rune still being on the weapon and removing the rune reverts the weapon to its original form. Other GMs' opinions may vary, but the abuse potential has been pointed out above and I don't think any rules would be intended to allow such abuse.
Just use Aldori Dueling Sword.
You get twice the money, and it is definatly a weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
-they are on the list even as shield bash. So it is false that there are only boss and spikes.
Except that the description of shield bash specifically says it's not a weapon. There is no weapon entry for the shield alone, as it is no weapon.
-They have their weapons crit specialization
There are three entries in the "shield" weapon group where this might apply: the shield bash (which is explictly NOT a weapon), the shield boss and the shield spikes. The latter two are weapons, yes. They are however clearly a separate weapon from the actual shield, if you read entry for the "attached" trait that they both have.
-they can be used to attack without improvised weapon penalty
They can explicitly be used to make the special shield bash maneuver, which is a pseudo-attack specific to shields that does the damage listed under that entry in the weapons table, but which is unfortunately not very well explained. Why would the rules use this otherwise unusual construct, if the intention was to just let them be used as weapons, in which case they could just use the regular strike action? Answer: because the unmodified shields are not meant to be weapons!
The rules are definitely unclear regards the addons. It is like saying that a Pick is a modded club with a Pick head at the end. So the base item is a club. The Pick Head is a mod.
That would only be true if there were an item "Pick head" with the "attached to stick" trait. Which is exactly what the shield boss and the shield spikes are. Unlike the Pick head, they are meant to be relatively easily detachable and replacable.
It is simply stupid and forced wanting to consider shields not weapons in a fantasy scenario. Imagine consider only the spikes part of a shield the weapon.
A shield rules-wise is considered a shield. It's its own category, different from armor and different from weapon. It has some aspects that let it be somewhat similar to armor and some aspects that let it be somewhat similar to weapon. Yes, you can use it to protect yourself with. Yes, you can use it to bash someone with it, doing some damage. But that does not make it either weapon or armor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is simply stupid and forced wanting to consider shields not weapons in a fantasy scenario. Imagine consider only the spikes part of a shield the weapon.
In real life, I agree a shield can be used as a weapon, and probably should be considered a weapon.
However, this is a made up shifting magic rune with made up restrictions. You can turn a bastard sword into a whip, but not a rope. You can turn it into a club or hammer, but not a shovel. It can become a dagger but not a shuriken. It can become a complicated flickmace thing, or an articulated gauntlet, but not a suit of armor. You can make it become a larger and more massive 1-handed weapon than some 2-handed weapons (dwarven waraxe is a bulk 2 one-handed weapon while a spiked chain is a bulk 1 2-handed weapon).
There are many "forced" restrictions on magic in general that would otherwise let logically inclined characters break the setting.
You are of course free to change how it works in your own campaign. But the current rules are pretty explicit on shields not being weapons and not being able to be inscribed with runes. Shield spikes and bosses are weapons, can be inscribed with runes, and you can turn your shifting bastard sword into a shield spike and then attach it to a shield with a check and 10 minutes of work if you want.
Its partly to future proof against items and weapons they might want to introduce, and partly to separate the material types of the shield and the attached spikes/boss. Note the hit points of the shield spike/boss is separate from the shield hit points, given they can be made of different material, and that you can salvage the spike/boss even if the shield itself is destroyed. By simply preventing it, they don't have to deal with a bunch of weird rules interactions. If the shield portion is destroyed, but not the spike, is the shifting bastard sword destroyed? What happens when you try to shift into a tower shield with spike attached from an adamantine bastard sword? There are no adamantine tower shields in the rules.
If they add armor spikes in some book down the line, with the attached to armor trait, would you let your bastard sword turn into full plate? Same type of rules.
The attached trait is clearly designed to be able to be used with other attachments, and I'm sure someone at Paizo was thinking about that kind of thing when they introduced it the way they did. Bayonets perhaps, armor spikes, and so on.
|
|
However, Shields are not weapons:
You’ve convinced me on that one.
Regarding getting access to rare or uncommon weapons . . . I'm generally fine with it.
Yeah, it’s useful, but you’re paying for it, so it seems reasonable to me.
Regarding what happens when the rune is removed from the weapon in its shifted form, that is not specified and as such subject to GM decision.
It probably should be specified.
the abuse potential has been pointed out above and I don't think any rules would be intended to allow such abuse.
I’m not sure I have seen a potential for abuse because transferring the Rune is expensive in and of itself, and the Champion version only goes on one weapon per day, which is a limit in and of itself.
I’m not sure I have seen a potential for abuse because transferring the Rune is expensive in and of itself
Transferring the rune once costs 22.5gp.
Turning an Orichalcum Dagger into an Orichalcum Dwarven Waraxe gains you a net 1,9 bulk of Orichalcum (just looking at the raw material here) worth 19,000gp. It's a dwarven legendary weaponsmith's wet dream! Of course that is an extreme example, still, even if you only used simple silver here, the 22.5gp is negligible. And every somewhat better smith in the country would have these runes lying around to provide himself an endless supply of superior materials.
And good thing we agree on the fact that shields are not weapons, otherwise you could even try to turn the dagger into a 4 bulk tower shield :).
I believe any computer game would call that a duplication bug...
|
|
If the magic disappears ( dispell, antimagic field, etc ), the item will revert to his original form.
That’s only true if it is a continuous magical effect. If it’s an instantaneous magical effect there would be no reason for it to revert. Indeed, if it’s an instantaneous magical effect, then the magic that “disappears” is the ABILITY to revert to the original form.
Flesh to Stone reads “When a creature is unable to act due to the slowed condition from flesh to stone, the creature is petrified permanently.” That’s a permanent duration, so if you take away the magic, the effect ends.
Mending reads “You repair the target item. You restore 5 Hit Points per spell level to the target, potentially removing the broken condition if this repairs it past the item's Broken Threshold.” There is no duration listed because it’s an instantaneous effect. If I cast Mending on my shield, and carry it into an antimagic field it, the shield doesn’t break again.
It has to be also noted that the weapon only mantains his rune property in the Champion's hands.
Well that’s a problem for Returning, which you point out yourself.
.To think that without magic the weapon will maintain the last form would be the dream of every alchemist.
To think that without magic the shield doesn’t regain the broken condition would be the dream of every Alchemist.
To think that without magic the recipient of a Heal Spell will maintain the the hit points that were restored would be the dream of every Cleric.
To think that without magic the bag guy will maintain the damage he took from the Fireball is the dream of every Wizard.
No duration is given for any of these spells and we understand them all to be instantaneous — the magic happens, that causes an effect, the magic ends, and the effect remains.
Gold daggers into bastard swords for everybody. Which is nuts.
Special materials and the amounts of value they generate is a decent argument against this.
|
|
- Damaging stuff and creations are different kind of magic dude.
Why? Where is the stated difference in duration, dude?
Like when a transmutation ends, because of time, dispell magic or suppressed by other means, it reverts to its original form.
Check all the transmutation spells.
Mending is Transmutation. Is it your position, then, that if you cast Mending on a shield and then carry it into a zone of antimagic the shield breaks again?
A champion will be able to use the returning afflix even if he won’t be holding the weapon for a while.
Why? If the effect ends when the weapon leaves the Champion’s hand, then why do you believe she can benefit from Returning?
A simple errata "Shifts for 1 minute" is very possible.
Though that kind of makes me want a lesser lesser rune of shifting "Shifts until the start of your next turn".
|
|
Also, regarding it not being a big deal, even ignoring Dueling Sword, which we *know* is an error, being able to earn 5gp daily (Halfling Sling Staff), even on days that aren't downtime days is probably pretty game-breaking at level 1.
Champions don’t get the ability until level 3. Sawtooth Saber costs 5 go, so
It sells for 2.5 gp. So half the money you’re considering at a slightly later level.Looking at PFS assumptions for downtime, that's effectively 120gp over the 24 days of downtime you get, which is 3x the amount of gold you're expected to get for the level. A normal day job gives you appriximately 0.05x. That seems a pretty stark difference.
First, I’m almost certain this wouldn’t work in PFS. Second, PFS artificially limits the task level for earn income, so it doesn’t seem like a great yard stick.
|
|
Rules are clear, and there no chance for a musinderstanding either.
The rule is not clear. If anything, the fact that most transmutation spells have listed durations, but Mending doesn’t, and Mending clearly is not intended to be undone after the fact by antimagic points toward this effect, which has no listed duration, being an instantaneous effect rather than a continuing one.
The only thing you have really to decide is if you consider modded shields a weapon as whole or not.
I’m pretty sure shields would be ineligible as discussed above.
Apart from that, it is common sense.
I disagree that it’s common sense. It becomes an issue because of special material pricing opening the door to windfalls, but other than that I’ve not seen any particularly compelling argument against this. And that strikes me more as a lb argument to house rule it unless an erratum lands than an argument that this isn’t how it’s intended to work.
Then Repeat for the whole procedure for all the stuff you are arguing with.
For Shifting, I think they didn’t give the effect a limited duration means they didn’t intend for it to have a limited duration, but they didn’t consider the potential for a windfall from special materials, so now it’s a problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A simple errata "Shifts for 1 minute" is very possible.
If I were going to put a duration on it, I’d probably say “until you activate the Rune again or until your next daily preparations.” That bypasses a lot of bookkeeping, but
Though that kind of makes me want a lesser lesser rune of shifting "Shifts until the start of your next turn".
That’s a great idea.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT EDIT: Also, can you imagining a swindling paladin trying to sell his shifted weapon to a merchant quickly before it reverts :-P.
I can imagine a Liberator trying to trade his shifted high value weapon to some slaver before it shifts back to purchase some slaves whom he will free.
Regarding the Champion ability if you took the RAW, you could add an additional rune every day, because it doesn't limit the duration or the total amounts of rune effects anywhere. That is obviously not intended.
The "in your hands" part can just as easily be read to simply refer to the moment of enchantment during your daily preparations. You hold it in your hands during your morning preparations and will the weapon to get a certain rune effect. Nowhere does it say the effect only *lasts* while it's in your hands.
I think (and I'm pretty sure we all agree) those rules as written are just not as precise, flawless, or complete as we'd like them to be, so some GM adjudication is always required.
|
|
Yep, my math was completely off, sorry about that!
No worries. The system is still new to all of us.
I don't think that PFS "artifically limits" task levels, they just provide a consistent standard for tasks available. The general advice can be a lot harsher at higher levels:
I hadn’t noticed that text yet at all. I wasn’t sure how we were expected to set the task levels. So at some point, especially if you have the Experienced Smuggler background, PFS will probably overtake the general rules for Earn Income.
For the record, I'd agree with most of what you said, that this is mostly unclear by RAW. As a GM, even in society, there's no way I'm letting my players do it even during the course of the adventure (selling a shifted weapon). I...
Again, I don’t think it would work in Society anyway because In that context the sale price is generally tied to what you paid for an item, not what it’s worth when you try to sell it. In a home game, I found the idea amusing until the special materials windfall ruined the fun.
|
|
I just don't find the arguments in either direction very convincing. It wouldn't be too far a stretch given the "it remains" argument to say that that after removing "energy-resistant" armor you still have resistance 5, as it doesn't specify you gain the resistance *while wearing* the armor
Armor is an invested item. “Certain magic items convey their magical benefits only when worn and invested using the Invest an Item activity, tying them to your inner potential.”
Weapons aren’t invested, and the Shifting rune doesn’t shift you, it shifts the weapon anyway.
A simple errata "Shifts for 1 minute" is very possible.
Though that kind of makes me want a lesser lesser rune of shifting "Shifts until the start of your next turn".
Honestly I think that nerfs the item quite a bit. If you want it in a different form for a particular adventure, you have to keep activating it, and what if it runs out during combat.
It's not too many additional words to say 'If the rune is ever removed from the weapon, it reverts to its original form.' That seems more straight-forward.
EDIT: Or, if people are going to be pedantic about paladins: 'If the weapon ever loses the shifting property, it reverts to its original form.'
EDIT EDIT: Also, can you imagining a swindling paladin trying to sell his shifted weapon to a merchant quickly before it reverts :-P.
If you want to use an axe all the time, then don't get a sword of shifting.
But "until you stop wielding it" is probably better.
A simple errata "Shifts for 1 minute" is very possible.
Though that kind of makes me want a lesser lesser rune of shifting "Shifts until the start of your next turn".
Honestly I think that nerfs the item quite a bit. If you want it in a different form for a particular adventure, you have to keep activating it, and what if it runs out during combat.
It's not too many additional words to say 'If the rune is ever removed from the weapon, it reverts to its original form.' That seems more straight-forward.
EDIT: Or, if people are going to be pedantic about paladins: 'If the weapon ever loses the shifting property, it reverts to its original form.'
EDIT EDIT: Also, can you imagining a swindling paladin trying to sell his shifted weapon to a merchant quickly before it reverts :-P.
If you want to use an axe all the time, then don't get a sword of shifting.
But "until you stop wielding it" is probably better.
A couple points on the response:
1. I may want to wield a Slashing weapon all the time, but I'm going underwater for the day, so I want to shift to a piercing weapon that day. Or I'm going to a skeleton infested area, so I want to have a bludgeoning weapon instead... I'd like for that case to be simply allowed.
2. "Until you stop wielding it" is problematic particularly for two-handed weapons, as wielding means having the required number of hands on it to make an attack. It'll make opening doors/drinking potions awful hard :). It also makes disarm a lot better... though disarm has its own issues as things currently stand...
1: I assume "I keep the weapon shifted" is all you need to say. No need to repeatedly say "i spend an action to shift the weapon" every minute of exploration.
2: Ehh... fair, I guess.
SHIFTING
RUNE 6
MAGICAL
TRANSMUTATION
Price 225 gpUsage etched onto a melee weapon
With a moment of manipulation, you can shift this weapon into a different weapon with a similar form.
Activate [one-action] Interact; Effect The weapon takes the shape of another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield. The weapon’s runes and any precious material it’s made of apply to the weapon’s new shape. Any property runes that can’t apply to the new form are suppressed until the item takes a shape to which they can apply.
*relevant parts in bold
So if you’re mounted, can you use the Shifting rune to turn a one handed weapon into a lance, and then use it to turn the lance into a different two handed weapon?
You're limited to shifting the melee weapon to one with "a similar form" according to the rulebook. So dagger to greatsword may work but no dagger to axe or Lance.
"Similar form" I think refers to the requirement for number of hands. But I could be wrong. It would be way weaker if a sword could only transform into sword-like weapons, the whole point is to change damage type...
Dagger to greatsword doesn't work, they don't need the same number of hands to wield. In fact a lot of people are making arguments in this thread ignoring that requirement.