| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shifting into a shield: No. A shield is not a weapon that requires 2 hands to wield (on both counts, not weapon, not 2 handed). Having Everstand Stance doesn't change that.
Doubling +1 Striking from a wielded shield boss to a weapon wielded in the other hand: totally legal.
The gauntlet question: needs more specifics. If you have a shield with a +1 Striking boss wielded in one hand, you can strike with a gauntlet on the other hand and apply the doubling rings. But if you are using a shield in your left hand and holding a creature with your right hand (or vice versa) what hand are you attacking with gauntlets with? By my count there isn't one left.
One-handed weapons with the Two-Hand trait still only shift into other weapons that require one hand.
I second Hammerjack's statements. Btw, the key wording with the gauntlet question is under the free-hand trait.
You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand.
So assuming you are grappling someone with the hand that's wielding the gauntlet you wouldn't be able to attack with the gauntlet without dropping the grapple on it, since that hand is in use. However, you could have simply attacked with the shield in your other hand.
Oh, and point of clarification: a shield that has a shield boss or shield spikes on it does count as a weapon. It still doesn't require two hands to wield, though, so the answer remains the same.
It's also unclear whether it could even shift from a one-handed weapon, since the actual weapon is the boss / spikes, which must be attached to a shield, not really the shield itself. I would rule that it can, but I wouldn't be surprised if a GM makes a different ruling.
A shield boss or spikes are a weapon. The shield itself is not. So Shifting a weapon into a shield with a boss is not an option.
I edited my post as you were typing that to point out the potential conflict. And yeah, you're right. It's definitely a grey area at the very least, and not something you should rely on a GM allowing unless you asked ahead of time.
And then since it's not wielded anymore, shifting back into a shield boss.
Where, exactly, is this part coming from?
|
In this particular case, it's coming from the rings themselves:And then since it's not wielded anymore, shifting back into a shield boss.Where, exactly, is this part coming from?
Source Core Rulebook pg. 609 2.0Evocation, Invested, Magical
Usage worn
This item consists of two magically linked rings: an intricate, gleaming golden ring with a square-cut ruby, and a thick, plain iron ring. When you wield a melee weapon in the hand wearing the golden ring, the weapon’s fundamental runes are replicated onto any melee weapon you wield in the hand wearing the iron ring. (The fundamental runes are weapon potency and striking, which add an item bonus to attack rolls and extra weapon damage dice, respectively.) Any fundamental runes on the weapon in the hand wearing the iron ring are suppressed.
The replication functions only if you wear both rings, and it ends as soon as you cease wielding a melee weapon in one of your hands. Consequently, the benefit doesn’t apply to thrown attacks or if you’re holding a weapon but not wielding it (such as holding in one hand a weapon that requires two hands to wield).
If you apply the rune via the rings, transform the weapon, and then drop it, it loses the rune, which probably means it returns to it's original form (though there is an argument that it stays in its new form).
If you are talking about a boss with the actual rune on it, then it would keep the rune benefits even if you drop it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thinking was, if you have Everstand Stance you can choose to use a Shield with Boss (or Spikes) as a two handed weapon (hence the increased damage, ala any other weapon with the two-hand trait).
The problem isn't the number of hands you're wielding it with, but rather the number of hands required to wield it. A weapon with the two-hand trait only requires one hand to wield.
This is an important distinction, and it keeps the intended limitations of shifting in place. Otherwise you could shift from a greatsword to a bastard sword, and then into any one-handed weapon, or vice versa. This is outside of the ability's intended use, and it's worded in such a way to prevent this.
When an ability or trait requires you to wield a weapon in two hands to gain it's benefits that does not make said weapon a two-handed weapon, nor does it mean that the weapon itself requires two hands to wield.
In this particular case, it's coming from the rings themselves:And then since it's not wielded anymore, shifting back into a shield boss.Where, exactly, is this part coming from?Source Core Rulebook pg. 609 2.0Evocation, Invested, Magical
Usage wornThis item consists of two magically linked rings: an intricate, gleaming golden ring with a square-cut ruby, and a thick, plain iron ring. When you wield a melee weapon in the hand wearing the golden ring, the weapon’s fundamental runes are replicated onto any melee weapon you wield in the hand wearing the iron ring. (The fundamental runes are weapon potency and striking, which add an item bonus to attack rolls and extra weapon damage dice, respectively.) Any fundamental runes on the weapon in the hand wearing the iron ring are suppressed.
The replication functions only if you wear both rings, and it ends as soon as you cease wielding a melee weapon in one of your hands. Consequently, the benefit doesn’t apply to thrown attacks or if you’re holding a weapon but not wielding it (such as holding in one hand a weapon that requires two hands to wield).
If you apply the rune via the rings, transform the weapon, and then drop it, it loses the rune, which probably means it returns to it's original form (though there is an argument that it stays in its new form).
If you are talking about a boss with the actual rune on it, then it would keep the rune benefits even if you drop it.No shifting rune was being doubled in the discussion. That's where the confusion came from.