Staves and Shifting Rune


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's the final consensus, can I use the Staff to cast the spells while it is Shifted as a different weapon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To my knowledge the only real final consensus has been to ask your GM.


I'd rule that, per RAW, it wouldn't work, because it ceases being a staff. It's no different than arguing that you would be able to keep, for example, a Keen or Vorpal rune after you transform it into a bludgeoning weapon. Different weapon means different rules.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's no different than arguing that you would be able to keep, for example, a Keen or Vorpal rune after you transform it into a bludgeoning weapon.

Well no, there's a pretty big difference: Namely that shifting specifically calls out the interaction of property runes with its effect.


Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's no different than arguing that you would be able to keep, for example, a Keen or Vorpal rune after you transform it into a bludgeoning weapon.
Well no, there's a pretty big difference: Namely that shifting specifically calls out the interaction of property runes with its effect.

It's called out as such because it creates a wonky rules interaction if it doesn't (such as being able to etch a Vorpal or Keen rune onto a bludgeoning weapon shifted into a slashing/piercing weapon).

It still does reinforce the paradigm that, while shifted to a different weapon, you essentially apply all of the changes between the two weapons.

Liberty's Edge

No - You're attempting to shift to a different weapon and then consequently shift back to a SPECIFIC magic item that just so happens to also function as a staff weapon.

So you shift the +1 Shifting Staff of Boulderdash (or whatever) into a Bastard Sword > Cool, now you have a +1 Shifting Bastard Sword > You attempt to shift it back into a Staff (You cannot CHOOSE to pick a specific named magic item in place of the weapon you're shifting into) > You get a +1 Shifting Staff.

You cannot shift a weapon into something that has benefits and abilities beyond the scope of just the regular weapons, otherwise, you could shift any 1 handed weapon into a Dagger of Venom or even ANY OTHER STAFF IN THE BOOK without paying ANYTHING and still gaining the benefits of those named magic items.

In short, unless you're allowed to turn a +1 Shifting Dagger into a +1 Staff of Transmutation, greater, then you're not allowed to shift out of the original Staff and then back to it again.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
In short, unless you're allowed to turn a +1 Shifting Dagger into a +1 Staff of Transmutation, greater, then you're not allowed to shift out of the original Staff and then back to it again.

Could not disagree with this interpretation more. The notion that shifting a magical staff into something else permanently removing the magical properties from the staff isn't remotely supported by anything in the rules.

Scarab Sages

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

So...I didn't realize that there would be disagreements on this. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

Quote:
Staves are also staff weapons, included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.

Kinda seems to say that you can put any rune on that you could put on a staff...(psst! shifting falls into that category)

Quote:
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.

So, it "takes the shape of", it doesn't completely change what the base item is. When your character takes the shape of a dragon that doesn't mean your character is only a dragon. They just gain the dragon trait. They still have all of their previous traits. A shifted Staff of Divination is still a Staff of Divination, it just has a different shape. Actually, speaking of traits, all staves have the staff trait, which shifting does not remove.

And for you RAW folks out there...

Quote:
This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.

Kinda seems that you should focus on the as written words instead of your assumptions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
In short, unless you're allowed to turn a +1 Shifting Dagger into a +1 Staff of Transmutation, greater, then you're not allowed to shift out of the original Staff and then back to it again.
Could not disagree with this interpretation more. The notion that shifting a magical staff into something else permanently removing the magical properties from the staff isn't remotely supported by anything in the rules.

Yeah, he's going a bit extreme there, absurd even.

But he does raise a good point about specific magic weapons acquiring Shifting (most likely through Blade Ally since specific magic weapons can't accept Property Runes).
Does my Dwarven Thrower retain all its abilities if not a warhammer?
Could I have a Dwarven Gnome Flickmace Thrower? Hmm.
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are better exploits out there, like turning ones with small dice into larger dice.

Not that the answer matters for my interpretation, since I fall in the "staffs need to be staffs in order to do what it seems only staffs can do" camp. As in, if other weapons were capable of holding spells that way, those options would exist. So I guess I have my answer re: other specific weapons being the type of weapon they are: their magic requires it.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Castilliano wrote:
Not that the answer matters for my interpretation, since I fall in the "staffs need to be staffs in order to do what it seems only staffs can do" camp. As in, if other weapons were capable of holding spells that way, those options would exist. So I guess I have my answer re: other specific weapons being the type of weapon they are: their magic requires it.

So, for clarity, this...

Quote:
Staves are also staff weapons, included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.

...means nothing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I am in the camp that yes they keep all abilities when shifted cause I think a Gauntlet or sword or dagger that can cast spells is cool though I also say if the shifting rune is removed from a weapon it reverts to it's original shape.


Saashaa wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Not that the answer matters for my interpretation, since I fall in the "staffs need to be staffs in order to do what it seems only staffs can do" camp. As in, if other weapons were capable of holding spells that way, those options would exist. So I guess I have my answer re: other specific weapons being the type of weapon they are: their magic requires it.

So, for clarity, this...

Quote:
Staves are also staff weapons, included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.
...means nothing?

As you presented it, yes. Nobody's questioning the etching. Etch to your heart's content and the staff keeps its staff abilities.

Now if you meant to ask what's an etching worth if you can't use activate it, then that's a decent point.
Except I do see the staff abilities as limited to staffs, hence their special place among magic equipment. Otherwise why not directly imbue swords (etc) instead and put those on market? Not that I call that an airtight case as there are unknown magical metaphysics involved (albeit heavily implied IMO). So we're in the realm of conjecture and opinion.

And when I consider the "too good" imbalance of a Shifted staff (more as a secondary weapon, not primary, perhaps on a shield boss), then I have to rule against it. For now... Wouldn't upset me if Paizo deems otherwise.

Verdant Wheel

If a Witch turns you into a Newt...

...What happens then?

Sczarni

Saashaa wrote:

So...I didn't realize that there would be disagreements on this. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

Quote:
Staves are also staff weapons, included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.

Kinda seems to say that you can put any rune on that you could put on a staff...(psst! shifting falls into that category)

Quote:
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.

So, it "takes the shape of", it doesn't completely change what the base item is. When your character takes the shape of a dragon that doesn't mean your character is only a dragon. They just gain the dragon trait. They still have all of their previous traits. A shifted Staff of Divination is still a Staff of Divination, it just has a different shape. Actually, speaking of traits, all staves have the staff trait, which shifting does not remove.

And for you RAW folks out there...

Quote:
This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.
Kinda seems that you should focus on the as written words instead of your assumptions.

This is the only way I can interpret everything.

I'll be doing this for my polearm-specialist Fighter MCD'd Angelic Sorcerer so she can murder with the stabby bits and heal with the underlying staff.


rainzax wrote:

If a Witch turns you into a Newt...

...What happens then?

well I got better...


Nefreet wrote:
Saashaa wrote:

So...I didn't realize that there would be disagreements on this. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

Quote:
Staves are also staff weapons, included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.

Kinda seems to say that you can put any rune on that you could put on a staff...(psst! shifting falls into that category)

Quote:
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.

So, it "takes the shape of", it doesn't completely change what the base item is. When your character takes the shape of a dragon that doesn't mean your character is only a dragon. They just gain the dragon trait. They still have all of their previous traits. A shifted Staff of Divination is still a Staff of Divination, it just has a different shape. Actually, speaking of traits, all staves have the staff trait, which shifting does not remove.

And for you RAW folks out there...

Quote:
This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.
Kinda seems that you should focus on the as written words instead of your assumptions.

This is the only way I can interpret everything.

I'll be doing this for my polearm-specialist Fighter MCD'd Angelic Sorcerer so she can murder with the stabby bits and heal with the underlying staff.

Staves are one-handed weapons w/ a trait for two-handed use.

Unless you know of a one-handed polearm (or a lenient GM), changing a staff into a polearm doesn't work.

That said, she could make the staff into a gauntlet instead.
And why waste the Rune slot on your main weapon, right?
Or load so many "eggs" into one item for that matter.

If ruled as okay, I expect staff-gauntlets to be quite en vogue, as well as the MCDs to power them.

ETA: There are the issues of wielding it to activate spells, so there's still juggling with this route. Those with shields can bypass juggling by Shifting the staff into their shield boss.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see a problem with allowing a character to use their shifted Staff to cast spells: Whatever you shifted the staff into requires the same number of hands as the original form, so 1.

I suppose the real question is whether or not the item loses it's "Staff" trait when it shifts. Shifting doesn't mention traits. You can assume that the item loses and gains weapon traits during the shift as appropriate, but Staves have the Staff Trait.

CRB PG. 637 "Staff Trait" wrote:

This magic item holds spells of a particular theme and allows a spellcaster

to cast additional spells by preparing the staff. 592–595

The Staff trait is not a weapon trait. It is more akin to a special material imo, which the shifting rune specifically does say apply.

So I would allow a caster to continue using their "staff" to cast spells regardless of what form that staff takes due to shifting. This could actually be a neat way of allowing a War Priest or Oracle to have a weapon and a shield while still benefiting from having a staff.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
Staves are one-handed weapons w/ a trait for two-handed use.

Which makes them the perfect base weapon for the Shifting Rune.


Nefreet wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Staves are one-handed weapons w/ a trait for two-handed use.
Which makes them the perfect base weapon for the Shifting Rune.

I disagree since I read that as a staff not being a two-handed weapon (in the intrinsic way when a magic effect checks against its stats), only a one-handed weapon that's usable two-handed.

Precedent being the PF1 Bastard Sword (and PF2's if I'm right) which counted as a one-handed weapon for purposes of magical effects even if possible to be wielded w/ two hands (and considered so at those times for effects based on wielding it). Paizo clarified it wasn't both, nor was it two-handed w/ the exotic WP feat making it one-handed: it was only an exotic one-handed weapon with a way for martially proficient folk to use it otherwise.

The phrasing on Shifting isn't so clean cut unfortunately, using "...that requires the same number of hands to wield." though I'd say that implies the minimum. One isn't required to use two hands with a staff.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would avoid referring to 1E as guidance for 2E.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Quote:

Staff

Price 0; Damage 1d4 B; Bulk 1
Hands 1
Category Simple


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Castilliano wrote:
And when I consider the "too good" imbalance of a Shifted staff

Regardless of rules or RAW, I can't really see this being an issue. Melee weapon using spellcasters are already kind of a low on the totem pole. Giving them a little extra damage by letting them swing a weapon with a slightly higher base damage ultimately seems fairly mild as far as balance implications go.


Squiggit wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
And when I consider the "too good" imbalance of a Shifted staff
Regardless of rules or RAW, I can't really see this being an issue. Melee weapon using spellcasters are already kind of a low on the totem pole. Giving them a little extra damage by letting them swing a weapon with a slightly higher base damage ultimately seems fairly mild as far as balance implications go.

Who was talking about melee weapon using spellcasters?*

You're right, they are impaired and they aren't the issue. And I'd suggest using a Shifting Rune isn't enough to fix that. Nor would that be the best Rune to attempt to do so anyway.

* Gravediggers, that's who. :)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
And when I consider the "too good" imbalance of a Shifted staff
Regardless of rules or RAW, I can't really see this being an issue. Melee weapon using spellcasters are already kind of a low on the totem pole. Giving them a little extra damage by letting them swing a weapon with a slightly higher base damage ultimately seems fairly mild as far as balance implications go.

But you forget how earth shatteringly game-breaking a Hand of the Apprentice'd Greatsword would be 1-2 times per encounter!

As a more serious note, it would certainly help give the Weapon Storm spell a place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I'm pretty uncertain on it myself, but supposing you could shift it and still have it function as a staff, what happens if you shift it into a gauntlet? Are you both holding it in one hand, as its usage requires, while also having that hand be free for other things (due to the free-hand property of gauntlets)?

Saving on bulk is nice, and it would free up a property slot on your real melee weapon (or allow the use of a ranged weapon, while holding the "staff").

Sczarni

Saashaa wrote:
Quote:

Staff

Price 0; Damage 1d4 B; Bulk 1
Hands 1
Category Simple

And if that mattered, I would agree with you, but...

Two-Hand wrote:
This weapon can be wielded with two hands.

And...

Hands wrote:

Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free.

Weapons requiring two hands typically deal more damage. Some one-handed weapons have the two-hand trait, causing them to deal a different size of weapon damage die when used in two hands. In addition, some abilities require you to wield a weapon in two hands. You meet this requirement while holding the weapon in two hands, even if it doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait.

Plus...

Shifting wrote:
The weapon takes the shape of another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield.

There is no such thing as "RAW", but there is such thing as consistent verbiage, which I (largely) commend PF2 on.

Shifting requires that the weapon be wielded a certain way, and the Two-Hand Trait meets that Prerequisite.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bast L. wrote:

So, I'm pretty uncertain on it myself, but supposing you could shift it and still have it function as a staff, what happens if you shift it into a gauntlet? Are you both holding it in one hand, as its usage requires, while also having that hand be free for other things (due to the free-hand property of gauntlets)?

Saving on bulk is nice, and it would free up a property slot on your real melee weapon (or allow the use of a ranged weapon, while holding the "staff").

Shifting into a gauntlet is such a nifty idea! So many benefits and really handy.

Also means you get to use Hand of the Apprentice as a rocket-hand punch.


A staff only "requires" one hand, which is the wording used.
Due to a trait it has the option for two hands, yet the extra hand is never required. (A better argument might be that a staff is far more like a polearm than it is a poi or throwing knife so that the spirit of the ruling remains intact. Though in that case, most one-handed weapons would be off-limits and there'd need to be perhaps too much adjudication.)

And yes, Bast, you could Shift the staff into a gauntlet or shield boss/spikes, freeing up a hand (and rather cheaply). As I wrote before, I'll expect staff-gauntlets to become quite chic, at least among wealthier PCs.

Sczarni

Castilliano wrote:
A staff only "requires" one hand, which is the wording used.

Exactly my point, thank you. The wording used in Shifting, Hands and Two-Hand is "wield", so everything checks out.

There should be no disagreement, right? Because where a weapon lands on the chart isn't the only thing that matters.

Sczarni

Charts can be great visual tools, but they can also get in the way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
A staff only "requires" one hand, which is the wording used.

Exactly my point, thank you. The wording used in Shifting, Hands and Two-Hand is "wield", so everything checks out.

There should be no disagreement, right? Because where a weapon lands on the chart isn't the only thing that matters.

Yeah, not much to really disagree about in this regard.

Hands CRB pg 279 wrote:

Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free.

Weapons requiring two hands typically deal more damage. Some one-handed weapons have the two-hand trait, causing them to deal a different size of weapon damage die when used in two hands. In addition, some abilities require you to wield a weapon in two hands. You meet this requirement while holding the weapon in two hands, even if it doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait.

A Staff is a One-Handed Weapon with the Two-Handed Trait; and the Shifting Rune isn’t an Ability that requires Two Hands to use. It seems to check out that you can’t use the Two Hand trait to fulfill the said requirement of same number of hands when it comes to Weapons you can choose.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

While I do think you have a solid point Nefreet, I don't know if I am convinced. A staff "can be wielded with two hands", I do not know if it could be said to "require" two "to wield".

Conceptually, I don't think that I have an issue with a staff shifting into a two-handed weapon. But, mechanically, its stats have it as a one-handed weapon with the two-hand trait.

In my mind, the issue of staves losing their spellcasting abilities in a different shape has no rule support (quite the opposite). Therefore it's not even grey area. The rules clearly state that it does not alter its spellcasting abilities. If activating a frost property rune doesn't cause a stave to lose its spellcasting abilities, I do not see why shifting (another property rune) would cause it to. If there were an exception, we'd be told in the text. You are more than welcome to dislike the rules and even change them in a home game. Your dislike however is not a solid counter to clearly stated rules in a rules discussion.

Whether a staff can be shifted into a 1 or 2 hand weapon is a little grayer. I find the mechanical stats declaration of a weapon to be too compelling not to consider. Though I think a reasonable argument could be made due to the two-hand trait.

As far as I can tell, having done some theorizing of builds, I do not think game balance is threatened in any of these situations. The wielding of a shifted staff requires a decent amount of resource expenditure as well as, in most cases, a decent amount of feat (class/ancestry/general) expenditure in some way. Those who wield such have obviously paid for it and are honestly little better than they were before.

They could already cast spells.
They could already have a shield in the other hand or cast shield (1 higher to AC :O )
They could already cast most spells with both hands full.

For those arguing "too powerful", I am truly curious what you are referring to.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do like the suggestion of shifting a staff into a gauntlet. I may indeed consider that instead of taking up the rune space on my primary weapon.


I haven't see a "too powerful" statement, only a "too good" statement.
And it's not that the Shifting staff would be one's main weapon, it's that the Shifting Rune would give somebody access to a staff w/o using any hands.

A PC w/ archery, sword & board, or one-handed weapon style could put the staff into a shield boss or gauntlet (as appropriate), getting the use of the staff w/ zero hands and zero slots from their main weapon. Seems a bit too good, free hands being a valuable commodity in PF2 (as well as weapon slots).
Compare to Gloves of Storing, Uncommon (!), Level 7, 340 g.p., Invested, 1/min. max. usage and you need to bring the item into play

And then there's the extrapolation of why bother having these spells in staves at all if the form of the item doesn't matter? Put them right into bastard swords (et al) and call it good. Apparently the "Staff" trait can be on non-staves according to some arguments above. Because RAW? RAW doesn't specify. And should we need a rule saying an item must be a staff to be a staff?

And if one wants to stick to the rawest RAW (despite the CRB's RAW saying RAW is no longer king), then a Shifting Rune permanently changes an item to its new shape. There's no duration, there's no stipulation that it requires the Rune to maintain it or ends if the Rune is removed. The Rune does the transformation and that's it, meaning you could remove the Rune and repeat as needed (or use a Champion w/ Blade Ally to do it for you).
Oddly many people have written that they'd overrule that and have the weapon revert to its original form even though the rules don't suggest that as happening. Of course, I'd agree with them because I dislike rules idolatry and believe in a common sense reading, and we'd be going against RAW.

Yet it's that same common sense reading that tells me that non-staves no longer have the Staff trait hence no longer have access to the abilities only staves have. (And we're back full circle to whether non-staves can have those abilities in which case the magic weapon marketplace should look much different.)

Please note that despite the length of this response, I'm quite open to Paizo ruling otherwise. That'd enable some cool "Shield Boss of Fire" and "Gauntlet of Necromancy" combos, as in that really would be open up some flavorful, even cinematic, options. It's just I've found the counterarguments unconvincing and know of at least one way I'd abuse this that I'd rather not share so as to not encourage it (even though it's pretty obvious).


I just want developer guidance so I can know the spirit of morphing rune on staffs before bringing it up with dms. Ill personally allow it when I dm bc I feel the rules support it and there's nothing wrong with giving buff wizards or gishes more slots, casting being as reined in as it is

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

A hands free staff is essentially a ring of wizardry. It's good buuut...not really overly so.

You can totally have a +1 bastard sword of fire! It'll cost...1 sec..
It'll cost 320 gp (+65gp for striking) and essentially has an item level of 6. There ya go. Why have a section for it? Pick the stave effects you want, use the price of that stave and add 260 gp (+65 more if you want striking). The level of the item is either 6 or the item level of the stave, whichever is higher.

As for traits..

If you look at all of the transmutation spells that change a thing's shape, you'll notice that either it doesn't affect traits or it adds one or more. They never remove traits. So the claim that the staff trait is removed upon the stave shifting has absolutely no basis within the same magics of PF2.

Why Castilliano and others are personally offended at the concept of this working I do not know.

Throughout this entire discussion the arguments in opposition to shifted staves being able to cast spells have been lacking in substance other than strong feelings. It seems quite obvious that their spellcasting abilities are not altered. Go ham gishes!


Saashaa,
Citation needed re: me being "personally offended". Or did you read the part where I said it'd be kind of cool if Paizo ruled the other way?
Have to say I'm sensing projection on your part.

Further citation needed re: me appealing to "strong feelings" in my arguments. Or did you just need to dismiss the arguments without engaging with them because you couldn't drum up substantive rebuttals?
Perhaps because of your own "strong feelings" as evidenced by the unnecessary, hyperbolic snark.
What drives you to attempt to win rather than discuss?

It's a shame because you sounded like you were building a decent counterargument before resorting to your strawman tactics.

As for the Ring of Wizardry, it's an Uncommon Item which takes Investment and doesn't ramp up the amount of use one gets as they level up. Thanks for the example supporting how strong a freehand staff would be in comparison to other magic items.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that the CRB states that staves can be etched with runes and do not lose their spellcasting abilities is the sole counterargument needed. Anything in opposition would need support from some other source. I haven't seen any so far.

The repeated arguing against the RAW without other backing indicates "strong feelings" as I read it, too. It isn't "strawman tactics". I don't think that means what you think it means.

By the way, about the champion ability of Blade Ally, during each day's preparations, the effect of the rune (which is not etched, but granted by one's deity) deactivates and must be chosen again. So, the weapon returns to its original form before being shifted into whatever shape, well as long as the shifting effect is chosen instead of one of the other 3 effects.

However, anyone with enough gold can buy a stave, etch it with runes and do the same. If they can't cast spells, then they just bought a really expensive weapon. 325gp for the +1 striking, shifting runes and then 230 for one of the 11 different level 6 staves. It does sound good for my wizard using Hand of the Apprentice, though, if she had enough gold, which she probably will never have after learning all the spells she wants.

Liberty's Edge

If you use the Shifting Rune the Weapon is no longer a Staff anymore, it loses the Staff Trait and all accompanying rules that protect the Spellcasting Abilities. This is like expecting to keep your Reach Trait when you shift a 2-handed Polearm into a Greatsword.

The Shifting Rune doesn't just alter the appearance of an item, it completely reforms it into a new form, it has no "memory" and is a permanent change. The "retains its spellcasting abilities" tules completely evaporate and become meaningless once you remove the Staff Trait.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

If you use the Shifting Rune the Weapon is no longer a Staff anymore, it loses the Staff Trait and all accompanying rules that protect the Spellcasting Abilities. This is like expecting to keep your Reach Trait when you shift a 2-handed Polearm into a Greatsword.

The Shifting Rune doesn't just alter the appearance of an item, it completely reforms it into a new form, it has no "memory" and is a permanent change. The "retains its spellcasting abilities" tules completely evaporate and become meaningless once you remove the Staff Trait.

I'd accept this argument if you had any rules or even consistency backing for it. There is neither for this argument.

The general rule:
...This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.

can only be overcome by either a conflicting general rule or a specific rule. Please quote one if you find it.


So here is something to throw this debate on it's head. The Staff trait isnt a weapon trait, its an equipment trait. There is no Sword trait, or mace trait. Staff in this situation is just a property. Id argue a Spell Casting Staff and the weapon named Staff are entirely different things and therefore you cant even put runes on a magic staff. They are unique magical items.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Yigg wrote:
So here is something to throw this debate on it's head. The Staff trait isnt a weapon trait, its an equipment trait. There is no Sword trait, or mace trait. Staff in this situation is just a property. Id argue a Spell Casting Staff and the weapon named Staff are entirely different things and therefore you cant even put runes on a magic staff. They are unique magical items.

Since the CRB explicitly states that you can put runes on a magic staff, you would argue wrongly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Saashaa wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

If you use the Shifting Rune the Weapon is no longer a Staff anymore, it loses the Staff Trait and all accompanying rules that protect the Spellcasting Abilities. This is like expecting to keep your Reach Trait when you shift a 2-handed Polearm into a Greatsword.

The Shifting Rune doesn't just alter the appearance of an item, it completely reforms it into a new form, it has no "memory" and is a permanent change. The "retains its spellcasting abilities" tules completely evaporate and become meaningless once you remove the Staff Trait.

I'd accept this argument if you had any rules or even consistency backing for it. There is neither for this argument.

More than just a lack of existing rules, it actively breaks other rules elements, like specific magic items with shifting and relics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vis a vis the "No Hands" staff argument, I don't believe you could get away with casting spells from a staff shifted into a Gauntlet while holding anything else in that gauntlet anyway.

In order to cast a spell from a Staff, you have to activate it by casting the desired spell. Well, when we look at activating items...

CRB PG. 532 "Activate an Item" wrote:

You can Activate an Item with the invested

trait only if it’s invested by you. If the item requires you to
Interact with it, you must be wielding it (if it’s a held item)
or touching it with a free hand (if it’s another type of item).

And when we look at Wielding items...

CRB PG. 272 "Wielding Items" wrote:

Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a

weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding
it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively.
When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it
around—you’re ready to use it.
Other abilities might
require you to merely carry or have an item. These apply
as long as you have the item on your person; you don’t
have to wield it.

Since Gauntlets are a "Free Hand" weapon, they allow you to Wield items in that hand, or maintain a free hand while also "wielding" the gauntlet. This is a bit up to interpretation admittedly, but as far as I am concerned, if you are holding anything in a gauntleted hand you are not "ready to use" the gauntlet.

Put all that together, and I believe in order to qualify to cast a spell from, or otherwise activate a "Gauntlet" type item at all, the hand would have to be free of other items.

So even in the corner case where a caster decides to shift a staff into a gauntlet, they Still don't ignore the hand requirement of the staff. They just have the benefit, and a great one, of being able to have a staff ready to go with a simple drop action, rather than having to draw it, or having it completely take up the hand full time.

For shield bosses or spikes, you would have to spend the "standard" 10 minutes affixing the boss or spikes to a shield to properly use them. Justification: You are holding the staff, you shift it, you are now holding a shield boss. The boss hasn't attached itself onto a shield.

With all that in mind, I definitely don't see a reason why you shouldn't be able to use a shifted staff's spellcasting. It really doesn't change much imo. And the benefits you do get are well in line with the gold or multiclass feat costs incurred in my opinion.

Liberty's Edge

HammerJack wrote:
Since the CRB explicitly states that you can put runes on a magic staff, you would argue wrongly.

While it does state you can put Runes on them, it says you can do so in the normal way you would for Weapons, which in this case would then fall to the normal Rune Rules which more specifically indicate that Specific Magic Weapons cannot have Property Runes on them.

Interesting....


Nobody has argued that etching a Rune alters the spellcasting abilities so citing that rule about the etching itself serves no purpose. Etch away. Yet that's a bit of a distraction since...

The crux of the debate regards the Staff trait:
-Do staves keep the Staff trait when Shifted into a non-staff?
-If no, is the Staff trait necessary for a standard item to have staff-like spellcasting abilities?
-If yes, what does the Staff trait mean? And wouldn't a "yes" suggest other non-staves can have the Staff trait? Or is there an innate "staff-ness" even when not a staff? (Which then dips into the undefined metaphysics of the Transmutation school and traits.)
-And to test the foundation: Would your answers differ if a 3rd party (with malice) transmuted your staff permanently rather than a Shifting Rune? Why or why not?

To each side, the first answers seem obvious, yet there's disagreement because of how we approach adjudication differently. Whether it's rules first, game balance first, common English usage first, essences vs. form, or us looking at the overall patterns in the game's structure & magic marketplace; we're going to see different paths. Yet we don't actually need to agree here (unless some of you who conflict are in the same gaming group!).

Oh, and what about a Bo Staff? (*ducks and runs*)

Astrael,
A strawman is when one side gives a false representation of an opponent's argument or POV so as to make them easier to rebut. In my opinion, this occurred.

Dark Archive

Themetricsystem wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
Since the CRB explicitly states that you can put runes on a magic staff, you would argue wrongly.

While it does state you can put Runes on them, it says you can do so in the normal way you would for Weapons, which in this case would then fall to the normal Rune Rules which more specifically indicate that Specific Magic Weapons cannot have Property Runes on them.

Interesting....

What specific magic weapon are you referring to? Not all staffs are specific weapons, just as not all swords


HammerJack wrote:
Yigg wrote:
So here is something to throw this debate on it's head. The Staff trait isnt a weapon trait, its an equipment trait. There is no Sword trait, or mace trait. Staff in this situation is just a property. Id argue a Spell Casting Staff and the weapon named Staff are entirely different things and therefore you cant even put runes on a magic staff. They are unique magical items.
Since the CRB explicitly states that you can put runes on a magic staff, you would argue wrongly.

Would you mind directing me to the page number this is on? Using the Archives of Nethys I can't seem to find that text.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
Since the CRB explicitly states that you can put runes on a magic staff, you would argue wrongly.

While it does state you can put Runes on them, it says you can do so in the normal way you would for Weapons, which in this case would then fall to the normal Rune Rules which more specifically indicate that Specific Magic Weapons cannot have Property Runes on them.

Interesting....

CRB PG. 592 "Attacking with a Staff" wrote:
They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff.

I would agree with your gist if staves were ever called out as being "specific magic weapons". But they are not. Staff to me is much more akin to a special property, like a material property, not an indication that the staff is a specific magical weapon.

Since we can etch runes on them as, "normal for a staff," the only real conclusion we can draw is that we treat a Magic Staff as a Staff when shopping for runes. So both fundamental and property runes are on the table, with their usual limitations.

Then you have the existence of the Scrollstaff, which is a specific magical weapon, but includes a bit of rules indicating that it does NOT follow the standard rules for specific magic weapons.

LOCG PG. 100 "Scrollstaff" wrote:
A scrollstaff serves as a weapon just like an ordinary staff and can be improved via runes like any other staff.

I'm not aware of any other specific magical weapon that includes that line, so that line could only serve to inform the reader that it breaks the norm of other specific magical weapons.

Thoughts?

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

1) The rule I cited serves absolutely no purpose if the etched runes deny spellcasting abilities on use.

2) Does the activation of a frost rune remove a stave's spellcasting abilities?
*If yes, why?
*If no, how is it that one property rune interact differently than another? Is there any rule support for this?

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Staves and Shifting Rune All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.