First Question: If I shift a Dagger into a Battleaxe then take the shifting rune off of the item, does it stay a Battleaxe or revert into a Dagger? I'm having a lot of trouble finding opinions about this one way or another. I imagine that the RAW answer (if there is one) will be in some strange side-rule regarding the Transmutation Trait or something, but I can't find the answer.
Second Question: I started thinking about how Staves are the big problem for me as far as this goes. So if you can both truly turn this item into a different item and you can put a shifting rune on a staff, then what is stopping me from shifting a Staff of Fire into something more powerful like a Staff of Divination?
This rune feels like it's ripe for abuse, but I can't imagine I'm clever enough to have found a loophole this enormous. I just don't know something, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shifting runes allow your weapon to "take the shape of another melee weapon" but there's nothing in the text about conferring any magical powers or properties.
You could maybe make your Staff of Fire look like a Staff of Divination (if we assume there's a significant difference between them aesthetically) but there's nothing to suggest you could actually just give your weapon any magical properties you want.
|
Magical, Transmutation
Price 225 gp
Usage etched onto a melee weapon
With a moment of manipulation, you can shift this weapon into a different weapon with a similar form.
Activate Single 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.
Personally, I've always presumed the weapon returns to its 'original form' if it loses the rune effect somehow (particularly if you are using Doubling Rings (Greater) to use the rune on another weapon like my rogue does). If the transformation is truly permanent, it just seems ripe for abuse.
Likewise, the transformation are presumbably limited to the Base Weapon List: You can't transform a +1 Shifting Dagger into a Specific Magic Weapon like a Luck Blade (Wishing) (again, in my opinion at least).
For your second question, refer to the sidebar on the bottom of page 444 under "Ambiguous Rules."
Staves aren't weapons. Staves fall under the Staff magical item rules, and can be used as weapons, but it doesn't make them melee weapons.
You can of course shift it into a staff as per the rules in table 6-7, but that doesn't grant it any special rules other than two-hand d8. Plus they're already staffs so that doesn't really do much.
For your second question, refer to the sidebar on the bottom of page 444 under "Ambiguous Rules."
Staves aren't weapons. Staves fall under the Staff magical item rules, and can be used as weapons, but it doesn't make them melee weapons.
Interesting. So then it's either a) you can't RAW put a shifting rune on a staff or b) there are certain weapon-like items that are exceptions.
You can of course shift it into a staff as per the rules in table 6-7, but that doesn't grant it any special rules other than two-hand d8. Plus they're already staffs so that doesn't really do much.
Right, the specific weapon rules make sense. Forgot about those. Thanks for the reminder!
|
Oh Gods, not this again.
Listen, you're not going to get a consensus on this one for Staves.
I'll just stick my neck out and say it so I can get flamed to death for telling the truth like I did the last two times, specific Magic Staffs (Staff of Fire, Healing, etc) cannot have Property Runes placed on them. Strict RAW has Staves as "Specific Magic Weapons" since they fit the description of these in every way shape and form and are not made in a generic manner at all like other such Magic Weapons which you can improve with Potency and Fundamental Runes. You're absolutely right about why the Shifting Rune is a problem for Staff items because if you COULD use Shifting Runes on them you could by RAW turn your super inexpensive starter Staff into a MUCH higher value one instantly. Either all Magical Staffs are Generic Weapons or all Magical Staffs are Specific Weapons for the purpose of Property Runes, it cannot be both so the only sane option is to consider them specific like all other Weapons that follow this description:
Unlike armor and weapons enhanced with runes, specific armor and weapons (such as ghoul hide or a holy avenger) are created for a specific purpose and can work quite differently from other items of their type. Specific magic armor and weapons can’t gain property runes, but you can add or improve their fundamental runes.
The rules indicating that you can apply Runes to them point to the normal Rune and Crafting Rules which has a sidebar that would prohibit it just like how you cannot place Property Runes on a Holy Avenger.
Additionally, more proof can be seen in that there has yet to be a single Magical Staff that has been printed in any module or adventure that has Property Runes Etched onto it.
You cannot do this any more than one can use and locate rules by which you apply the Staff Benefits from any of these Magical Staffs to a REGULAR Staff in the form of some Runes or even via a Crafting Ritual, you make the Staff from the ground up just like you would a Fighters Fork or a Dagger of Venom.
/ducks for cover
I agree that named staves(is all spellcasting staves) would fall under the specific magic weapon category.
I salute you.Thanks patriot, you honor the nation of passive aggression.
I was thinking more Snarkistan, perhaps from the deepest valley of Sarcastiville, where there's little brightness other from the sparks of conflict.
-----
More seriously, there are many different interpretations of how Shifting Runes work. Some rely on parsing semantics, some on straightforward readings (which disagree), some on the unknown metaphysics of Golarion's essences of items, and so forth.
Is the Shifting Rune holding the weapon in a different shape or does it transform instantly and finish? (Important re: Antimagic or Dispel Magic as well as for Rune removal)
Can the Staff trait apply to non-staff weapons? If not, is that trait what's required for an item to have the spell abilities of magic staves?
If so, why couldn't we place spells into swords (etc.) the same way?
Does the two-hand trait on a one-handed weapon allow a Shifting Rune to transform a weapon into a two-handed weapon?
And there's the new one (to me) above that spell staves can't take Property Runes because they're specific magic weapons (which can only take boosted Fundamental Runes). How does that interact with a Champion's ability to bestow the Shifting effect via Blade Ally (w/o actually giving it a rune itself)?
I have answers to these questions yet I know savvy folk that agree or disagree on various aspects so it's unfair for me to say which interpretation's correct or intended without going into a long discussion I'd rather not rehash. Sorry. And Cheers. :)
|
|
I agree that named staves(is all spellcasting staves) would fall under the specific magic weapon category.This is not true.
There are a few specific magic staves, but not all named staffs are such.
Do you mind pointing them out to me perhaps then?
The only one I'm seeing that fits this description is the Scrollstaff and that's literally just a Staff Weapon with unique Scroll functionality rules and none of the normal Spellcasting stuff that the rest of Magical Staffs have.
Old Man Robot is probably referring to the Twining staff (as it in the Weapon category, not the Staff category).
|
1) The shifting rune does not permanently change the weapon into something else. If you take the rune off, it would change back to the original weapon as it has not stopped being that original weapon. While I do not have rule support for this, I would make two sensible points.
a) There exists only 1 transmutation spell that permanently changes, baleful polymorph. This is a level 6 spell. As the shifting rune is only a level 6 item (thus traditionally qualifying for level 3 spell effects), I do not believe that it's cost and availability would reflect a level 12 effect.
b) As many have put simply, if it did permanently change the original item, that would be ripe for grievous abuse. Why would game designers design it thusly?
2) The thing that is preventing you from changing a Staff of Fire into a Staff of Divination is that the form is changed by the shifting rune, not the magic within. The form of a staff does not make it a stave. Ironically it is the staff trait. (Also, simply refer back to point b for more support to this point.)
I disagree with the idea that all Staves are specific magical weapons. Even the Scrollstaff, which is very specifically a specific magical weapon, has a clause that states that it may be improved by runes as normal for a staff. A clause that doesn't exist in any other specific magical weapon that I am aware of and sets the Scrollstaff apart from other specific magical weapons.
Basically I have no issue with a player upgrading their Stave with property runes, including Shifting. Whatever form the Stave takes, they must be wielding it to cast from it. So if they decide to turn the Stave into a gauntlet, the gauntleted hand must be empty. There: No balance issue.
As to the first part of your question I see Shifting as being a sort of "constant" effect. So if for whatever reason the Shifting rune stops working, whether it is shut down temporarily by a dispel or removed from the weapon or what have you, the weapon returns to it's "base" form.
After all, if you had a +1 weapon and remove the +1 rune from it, it would cease to be a magical +1 weapon, right? Why wouldn't the same logic apply to shifting?
First question: The most common interpretation is that, yes, it would revert to it’s original form.
Second question: While there can be ambiguity for if it can shift into Specific weapons it’s understood to be just the shape of other weapons; otherwise this would naturally come into conflict with Specific weapons not allowing Property Runes and an easy way to circumvent Rarity.
For example; a Staff of Fire with a Shifting Rune could take the shape of a Sword, even an Aldori Dueling Sword. Since the Staff is linked with the caster via daily preparations it doesn’t matter what form the Staff takes when it casts spells; it just matters that it’s the correct person holding said item. If the Rune comes off before it can change back, then it forcibly reverts back. That’s also in line with how most spells that deal with Forms work.
_____________________________
Extra Credit: You can still gain the Shifting property on Specific Magic Weapons via the Divine Ally (Blade) class feature; which anyone can get by level 6 of Champion MCD. So the debate would still ensue even if Staffs were considered Specific Magic Weapons; though there it currently nothing in the book that seems to imply as much, given that they have their own category in the book.
|
I agree that named staves(is all spellcasting staves) would fall under the specific magic weapon category.This is not true.
There are a few specific magic staves, but not all named staffs are such.
Do you mind pointing them out to me perhaps then?
The only one I'm seeing that fits this description is the Scrollstaff and that's literally just a Staff Weapon with unique Scroll functionality rules and none of the normal Spellcasting stuff that the rest of Magical Staffs have.
You didn’t answer me in the other thread.
Come on, let’s get actual real money down on this issue.
|
|
You didn’t answer me in the other thread.
Come on, let’s get actual real money down on this issue.
I didn't answer you there, my apologies if that seemed as a sign of disrespect. To be real with you though I am not actually the wagering type at all, with a history of gambling and other addictive personalities in my family I've learned to stay away from actually taking bets on things so I must politley decline to wager money.
I still assert that the whole bit regarding "Applying Runes as normal" still doesn't override the more specific Rule which states that Property Runes cannot be applied to Specific Weapons or Armor and I believe that Staffs absolutely qualify as this type of Magic Item for the many reasons and proofs that I included in my posts.
That being said, we'll probably have official and public clarification on this sooner or later.
How about this though, if and when we find out which interpretation is correct the winner gets to choose an Avatar picture for the loser to use for a whole month?
|
|
While there are many arguments about this subject, I can say with certainty that the majority of players/gms that I have interacted with via in-person and online (and I do get around) are in these camps:
*The removal of a shifting rune changes the item back to its original form.
*The shifting rune only changes the shape of the item. Any magical effects on said item are not changed. (As exemplified in all shape changing spells) Runes can be etched, do work on staves, and do not inhibit their spellcasting abilities.
Whether majority means correct is up to you. But do remember that views to the contrary are in the minority.
|
|
On the first issue;
I agree that the removal of a shifting rune should change an item back its original shape, but at present the rune lacks the verbiage to actually make that happen.
It makes intuitive sense that if you remove the source of the effect, you remove the effect that comes with it. But at the same time I can see an argument that since the effect doesn't have a duration, all changes are permanent until changed again.
I think this will need an errata. We need it to either have a duration before changing back, or only maintain the form as long as the rune remains. Lacking either of those, it would seem to be a permanent change thats independent of the runes further presence.
On the whole "all staves are specific magic items and thus can't be enhanced" thing, let's break this down once and for all.
Specific Armor and Weapons
Unlike armor and weapons enhanced with runes, specific armor and weapons (such as ghoul hide or a holy avenger) are created for a specific purpose and can work quite differently from other items of their type. Specific magic armor and weapons can’t gain property runes, but you can add or improve their fundamental runes.
These weapons have abilities far different from what can be gained by simply etching runes. A specific magic weapon lists its fundamental runes, which you can upgrade, add, or transfer as normal. You can’t etch any property runes onto a specific weapon that it doesn’t already have.
There presently exists, to the best of my knowledge, only 3 Specific Magic Weapons with the Staff trait or that call themselves staves, they are:
- The Acrobat's Staff
- The Scrollstaff
- The Twining Staff
No other staves found in any book are presented or listed as Specific Magic Weapons.
Of these, the only one that isn't a Bo Staff is the Scrollstaff.
The Scrollstaff contains the following text:
A scrollstaff serves as a weapon just like an ordinary staff and can be improved via runes like any other staff.
The exception to the rule in scrollstaff outlines the normal process for staff-rune interaction.
Further,
A magical staff is an indispensable accessory for an elite spellcaster. A staff is tied to one person during a preparation process, after which the preparer, and only the preparer, can harness the staff to cast a variety of spells throughout the day. The spells that can be cast from a staff are listed in bullet points organized by level under each version of the staff. Many staves can be found in multiple versions, with more powerful versions that contain more spells and can hold more charges—such a staff always contains the spells of all lower-level versions, in addition to the spells listed in its own entry. All magical staves have the staff trait.
The base rules for staves tells us that they aren't unique or referring to specific items.
There is just no support for the idea that all staves are Specific Magic Weapons.
Also, when Themetricsystem asked James Jacobs, he just quoted him
Staves are also staff weapons (page 280), included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn't alter any of their spellcasting abilities.
EDIT:
I almost forgot. The most important reason why staffs can be shifted:
When firearms are eventually released, we’ll be able to shift them into guns and be proper Spellslingers without any special archetypes or feats.
I don't think its as cut & dry as you're thinking.
A) James usually always says he can't answer rules questions.
b) As per normal, wouldn't override the specific weapon clause that some of us think applies. Its is normal to not be able to apply property runes to specific weapons.
|
|
James Jacobs responding by quoting the CRB and then "So...yes." indicates to me that the quoted text obviously answers that question. Period. I no longer have to humor opposing theories as potentially legitimate. Now, I can say with zero doubt that staves can be etched and still work while shifted. James Jacobs didn't have to come up with a ruling because the rules are quite clear, thus he quoted them.
If you dislike what the rules state you are more than welcome to play differently in home games. I encourage you to. When I GM home games I generally have a list of rules changes or clarifications.
I will sleep peacefully tonight.
|
For your second question, refer to the sidebar on the bottom of page 444 under "Ambiguous Rules."
Staves aren't weapons. Staves fall under the Staff magical item rules, and can be used as weapons, but it doesn't make them melee weapons.
You can of course shift it into a staff as per the rules in table 6-7, but that doesn't grant it any special rules other than two-hand d8. Plus they're already staffs so that doesn't really do much.
So, you can't put a shifting rune on a magical staff to be able to shift it into say a spiked chain? Meaning you can't have both a staff and a two-handed weapon?
James Jacobs responding by quoting the CRB and then "So...yes." indicates to me that the quoted text obviously answers that question. Period. I no longer have to humor opposing theories as potentially legitimate. Now, I can say with zero doubt that staves can be etched and still work while shifted. James Jacobs didn't have to come up with a ruling because the rules are quite clear, thus he quoted them.
This almost backwards from what you should be feeling given how bad he is at rules interpretations.
I believe that if you removed the rune, it would revert to its normal form.
I'm of the opinion that you can put a shifting rune on a magical staff (the kind with spells), then transform it into another one-handed weapon, and still be able to cast spells from it.
So, you can't put a shifting rune on a magical staff to be able to shift it into say a spiked chain? Meaning you can't have both a staff and a two-handed weapon?For your second question, refer to the sidebar on the bottom of page 444 under "Ambiguous Rules."
Staves aren't weapons. Staves fall under the Staff magical item rules, and can be used as weapons, but it doesn't make them melee weapons.
You can of course shift it into a staff as per the rules in table 6-7, but that doesn't grant it any special rules other than two-hand d8. Plus they're already staffs so that doesn't really do much.
No, you definitely cannot. They only shift into 1-handed weapons.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People can claim 'gray area' all they want. This...
Staves are also staff weapons (page 280), included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn't alter any of their spellcasting abilities.
...is not gray. It is clean and clear. There is nothing to interpret.
As for whether staves are specific magic weapons, that doesn't actually matter either way. Even if they were, this...
... You can’t etch any property runes onto a specific weapon that it doesn’t already have....is a general rule about the category 'specific magic weapons'. Therefore this...
Staves are also staff weapons (page 280), included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn't alter any of their spellcasting abilities.
...would be the rules naming a specific exception.
Also therefore, James Jacob's response does answer both the original question and the edited question. The frequently quoted text says that you can, so you can. There requires no interaction explanation if it just works. So, it was answered, albeit not in the manner desired by the asker.
As for the argument in the previous thread utilizing the frequently quoted text to disprove my point, it was a silly argument. The claim was that the text merely said that one could etch runes. It does not say what happens when they are activated. This argument is silly because, in the event that activating the runes alters the spellcasting abilities, it would completely void the entire point of the last sentence of the text.
"Congrats you just etched a striking rune on your Staff of Fire! Bad news, because you can't turn off the striking rune (as there are no rules about that), you can no longer use the stave properties of the Staff of Fire! You now have a very expensive staff! Enjoy!"
While that may have been excessive, the point still remains. If activated etched runes alter the spellcasting abilities of staves then they'd turn into expensive staff weapons.
OR...
...and hear me out...
The text actually means what it says, that you can apply, and by extension, use runes on staves, like it says here...
Staves are also staff weapons (page 280), included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn't alter any of their spellcasting abilities.
(quoted again just for good measure)
So, for those that consider Staves as Specific Magic Weapons, i have some genuine questions and issues with considering them the same; or even as similar.
Staves are also staff weapons (page 280), included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.
From the book, when it says Attacking with a Staff, it references the Staff from page 280; which leads to the Weapons chart of a Simple Melee Weapon. Right after that it says it can be etched with runes as normal for a Staff.
Last line aside, there are only two interpretations i can view from this:
1) The book is referring to the Staff from the Simple Melee Weapons chart on page 280 in that second sentence,
or
2) The book is referring to Magical Staves right after it just referenced the Simple Melee Weapon Staff on page 280; thus referring to itself while defining its own capabilities with Runes and creating circular logic.
For me this leads to one of a couple outcomes:
1) The Simple Melee Weapon, Staff, can not have Property Runes, as per this line. Since it is referencing the Simple Melee Weapon Staff on page 280, and this part about Attacking with a Staff is being used as evidence for why Property Runes do not work.
2) The book chooses to use circular logic to define its own limitations at possibly the most awkward time imaginable.
3) The Magical Staff, like the Simple Melee Weapon Staff on page 280 of the CRB, can be Etched with Property Runes as per normal; and this doesn't alter its spellcasting abilities in any way(as per the final line).
There's also the problem that, assuming Staves are intended as Specific Magical Weapons; why isn't it mentioned anywhere? There are a couple times where it lumps Specific Weapons and Armors together because of similar mechanics, and Shields even have a clear and concise line about Runes; but Staves as Specific Magic Weapons i have only ever heard as of recently. The book doesn't even seem to so much as hint at the idea except from a subjective interpretation that seems to widely be disagreed upon.
On top of all of that, there is also the issue that; for being Specific Magic Weapons; they share next to zero similarities with Magic Weapons. Not just slight differences, but both mechanics are almost polar opposites with how they operate, and are expected to be used, with the only carry over wanting to be no Property Runes.
Because every spellcaster staff listed is a named item -- e.g. a 'Staff of Fire'. There's not a nameless staff that casts spells.
|
|
Because every spellcaster staff listed is a named item -- e.g. a 'Staff of Fire'. There's not a nameless staff that casts spells.
*looks around confused*
Is this not the rules discussion area?Maybe I missed the 'rules' part of that argument. Is there a rule you are referencing? Or maybe a quote in the CRB about staves being declared as specific magic items?
|
|
Because every spellcaster staff listed is a named item -- e.g. a 'Staff of Fire'. There's not a nameless staff that casts spells.
“Named items” is not a game term.
Having a name which also describes it doesn’t make a staff anymore a specific item than it does an Elixir of Life, an Aldori dueling sword, or a Scroll of Mage Hand.
Because every spellcaster staff listed is a named item -- e.g. a 'Staff of Fire'. There's not a nameless staff that casts spells.
If that is the only criteria, then it would also seem fair to say that as soon as a Longsword becomes +1 that is becomes a Specific Magic Weapon; it fits the criteria of 1) being magical and 2) having a name (Longsword).
Is this interpretation an accurate representation of your interpretation or can you further define your reasoning?
I'm saying that if an item needs a entry in the magic items section of the book, its a Specific Magic item. 'Generic' magic weapons are mundane (or special materials) iitems from the equipment chapter that have had runes added to them. Items in the staff appear like a subset of items in the specific magic items section -- they all have rules above and beyond runes added to a mundane item.
I see Staves as items that have both a weapon side and a magical one.
As a weapon, they are generic: you can etch runes on them, and change them into a weapon of a different kind.
The magical part is specific, and never changes. You can't change a Staff of Fire into a Staff of Divination, nor can you put a Shifting Rune on a +1 Battleaxe and turn it into a +1 Staff of Fire. You can make it a +1 Staff, period.
I'm saying that if an item needs a entry in the magic items section of the book, its a Specific Magic item. 'Generic' magic weapons are mundane (or special materials) iitems from the equipment chapter that have had runes added to them. Items in the staff appear like a subset of items in the specific magic items section -- they all have rules above and beyond runes added to a mundane item.If that is the case, then what is the following text referring to?
Staves are also staff weapons (page 280), included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.Bold added for emphasis.
I'd bold the same part. 'As normal' for a staff, that is a specific weapon, means they can have fundamental but not property runes.
You've asked for my interpretation. I've given it. I understand its not your interpretation. But I feel it is just as defensible. Barring official errata, I doubt we'll ever convince each other.
I would need to see something like
"They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff, and are not considered Specific Magic Weapons."
Note on 600:
The definition of a specific magic weapon:
"These weapons have abilities far different from what can be gained by simply etching runes."
Staffs are weapons, with abilities far different than what can be gained by simply etching runes.
I'm saying that if an item needs a entry in the magic items section of the book, its a Specific Magic item. 'Generic' magic weapons are mundane (or special materials) iitems from the equipment chapter that have had runes added to them. Items in the staff appear like a subset of items in the specific magic items section -- they all have rules above and beyond runes added to a mundane item.
Okay; I’ll say that’s a fair, if subjective, interpretation. Then that would mean that Handwraps are Specific Magic Items as well; since they do not appear in the general Weapons List, and appear in the subset of Worn Items. I would assume that Handwraps are to be held to the same restrictions and thus can not have Property Runes applied to them either.
Would this be a correct assumption given the limitations you have set?