Q1: If a Shifting Rune worked with a one-handed weapon with the two-handed trait to access two-handed weapons, then there'd be no purpose in separating the two classifications. Have a dagger, but want to turn it into a polearm? Turn it into a bastard sword first.
So no, the two-handed trait should not overcome the rune's limitations if that limitation's meant to do anything.
Q2: That's getting into semantics & lawyering a bit, isn't it?
It's obvious the feat's meant for throwing one-handed weapons with one-hand. Sure, because of the answer to Q1, you could argue that a Dwarven War Axe remains a one-handed weapon when being used in two hands, but reasonable people can tell that's trying to exploit a loophole in the phrasing and not the intention of the feat's limitation.
Another thing to consider is that the Dwarven War Axe is considered a two-handed weapon when being used with two hands, like for Strikes with certain feats. But that wouldn't include when triggering the Shifting Rune which is a neutral activity and would default to the axe's one-handed status.
Then there's also the standard balance of game mechanics between ranged & melee weapons. Trying to get a d12 ranged weapon that breaks the power curve doesn't cut it at many tables, especially when that 10' range increment can be expanded into much further w/ various other feats/class abilities.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.You have mastered the weight and balance of a variety of axes and can lob them with ease. Any one-handed axe weapon you wield has the thrown trait with a range of 10 feet. For axes that already have the thrown trait, the range increases by 10 feet. When you critically succeed at an attack roll with a thrown axe weapon, you apply the axe’s critical specialization effect.Q1: How does the shifting rune work in relation to weapons with the two-handed trait like the bastard sword? Could you transform a bastard sword into a greatsword or vice versa?
A bastard sword requires one hand: You can get a bigger damage die by using two hands, but that doesn't change the fact that the actual requirement for the weapon is only one hand.
Source
Core Rulebook pg. 279 2.0
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. Source
Core Rulebook pg. 283 2.0
So no, you can't shift from a Bastard Sword (Hands:1 with the Two-Hand trait) to a Greatsword (Hands:2) because they do not require the same number of hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the reply. Regarding your answer to Q1:
If a Shifting Rune worked with a one-handed weapon with the two-handed trait to access two-handed weapons, then there'd be no purpose in separating the two classifications.There's still a pretty pricy action cost involved. In your example of dagger to polearm, the routine would look like:
Action 1: shift to bastard sword
Action 2: interact to grip bastard sword
Action 3: shift to polearm
and the routine as a whole would basically kill your turn. That said, agreeable points over all regardless.
Shifting between weapon types to get different damage types because of Resistances/Weaknesses, one would usually want to use the same number of hands anyway.
If it's a dagger there's a specific reason, likely non-combat. Ex. to get past guards.If we're talking about in-combat use AND needing to choose between one & two handed weapons (a rare need I'd think), one would carry the bastard sword in both hands and switch to anything from there (if switching to either type were allowed). A switch-hitter between thrower/melee might want to do this, but I'd recommend one-handed w/ shield instead partly because of the time to switch over and partially because one would want Returning too, delaying the build.
Note that I don't think it makes much sense to turn daggers into bastard swords, yet a bastard sword can't become a greatsword, but the limitation seems more for mechanical than narrative reasons.
Castilliano is correct in regards to why the the abilities mentioned work the way they do. For further evidence that they actually do work that way let's go to the wording itself.
1. Shifting:
- The weapon takes the shape of another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield.
A weapon with the two-hand trait only requires 1 hand to wield, and so it would shift into other weapons that require 1 hand to wield, as Taja mentioned.
2. Axe Thrower:
- Any one-handed axe weapon you wield has the thrown trait with a range of 10ft.
This gives any axe, including ones with the two-hand trait, the thrown trait. All good so far. Now, let's look at the two-hand trait
- This weapon can be wielded with two hands. Doing so changes its weapon damage die to the indicated value.
Alright, so wielding the weapon in two hands changes its die size, but, uh... you're not wielding a weapon in two hands if you're not even touching it, so I'm a little confused how it can retain it's damage boost that applies if and only if it's being wielded in two hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is maybe room to say using a 1 handed axe with the two hand trait and the axe thrower feat could maybe retain the damage boost.
With the concept being that you throw it with two hands instead of one.
But it's unclear if wielded applies when being thrown.
I suspect that ultimately this would be ruled not to work since it would break the damage curve expected with thrown/ranged weapons.
I think there is maybe room to say using a 1 handed axe with the two hand trait and the axe thrower feat could maybe retain the damage boost.
With the concept being that you throw it with two hands instead of one.
But it's unclear if wielded applies when being thrown.
I suspect that ultimately this would be ruled not to work since it would break the damage curve expected with thrown/ranged weapons.
Oh, right, I forgot to link those rules because I thought it was clear enough in plain English.
If we're talking about wielding items the description for that is right here.
"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."
If you throw something you're not holding it. Simple as that.
I'd allow it, its funny ! There's something about throwing a two handed axe and having it go ''THUNK'' that tickles the Gm in me.
I'd make it that you have to regrasp it with two hands on it every time you throw it if you have a returning rune though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is maybe room to say using a 1 handed axe with the two hand trait and the axe thrower feat could maybe retain the damage boost.
With the concept being that you throw it with two hands instead of one.
But it's unclear if wielded applies when being thrown.
I suspect that ultimately this would be ruled not to work since it would break the damage curve expected with thrown/ranged weapons.
Oh, right, I forgot to link those rules because I thought it was clear enough in plain English.
If we're talking about wielding items the description for that is right here.
"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."
If you throw something you're not holding it. Simple as that.
I don't consider that to be clear actually, because it doesn't clarify if a thrown weapon is considered to be wielded or not.
You need 0 hands to effectively use the thrown weapon after it is thrown.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is going to work but the rules just aren't written in a very precise manner (IMO) and don't explicitly cover this circumstance.
I guess what I'm saying is they should have said "When using a thrown weapon you're only considered wielding while the weapon is in hand, not thrown" to make it very explicit.
Also, don't be rude about what you think is "plain English". It only makes you look like jerk. And much or rules debate revolves around attempting to interpret what is written.
I think there is maybe room to say using a 1 handed axe with the two hand trait and the axe thrower feat could maybe retain the damage boost.
With the concept being that you throw it with two hands instead of one.
But it's unclear if wielded applies when being thrown.
I suspect that ultimately this would be ruled not to work since it would break the damage curve expected with thrown/ranged weapons.
Oh, right, I forgot to link those rules because I thought it was clear enough in plain English.
If we're talking about wielding items the description for that is right here.
"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."
If you throw something you're not holding it. Simple as that.
I don't consider that to be clear actually, because it doesn't clarify if a thrown weapon is considered to be wielded or not.
You need 0 hands to effectively use the thrown weapon after it is thrown.
I understand what you're getting at, but I think my point still stands in conjunction with the previous ones, which involve quoting the two-hand trait, which reads "This weapon can be wielded with two hands. Doing so changes its weapon damage die to the indicated value." So, its die size changes when wielded in two hands. I guess after being thrown, yes, you can say that it's being "wielded" in 0 hands. I don't think that was their intention, but it is a valid reading, if a little forced imo. But, then it's no longer being wielded in two-hands, and doesn't qualify for the damage bump.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is going to work but the rules just aren't written in a very precise manner (IMO) and don't explicitly cover this circumstance.
I guess what I'm saying is they should have said "When using a thrown weapon you're only considered wielding while the weapon is in hand, not thrown" to make it very explicit.
Yes, that would be clearer, but quite frankly I'm glad they don't feel the need to go into that level of detail throughout the whole book, because it'd probably be about twice as long. I know it might seem like a small thing, but those small things add up.
Also, don't be rude about what you think is "plain English". It only makes you look like jerk. And much or rules debate revolves around attempting to interpret what is written.
I didn't mean to be rude. I'm sorry you took it that way, but that's not on me. Pretty much anything in text format can be read with positive, negative, or neutral intent. Sure, I could've stopped at "I thought it was clear enough", but I happened to decide that it would help the sentence to add a descriptor to that, and quite frankly I didn't even think about whether it could be interpreted negatively by someone, because why would I? I'm not going to walk on eggshells out here and make sure nothing I say can be read in a different way from how I intended it.
I don't see why it's a big deal, but I'll describe my intentions nonetheless, because I'm not a fan of being called a jerk or rude unjustly. So, yeah, I used the term "in plain English", because that's what we were discussing: the common place / casual English definitions of words like wielding vs the more technical definitions used within the rules. I thought that the plain, unaltered English was air-tight enough to not need an explanation for the definition of the word "wielding" in context, and so I didn't bother putting a link in. A comment was then made that read wielding differently than what I thought was the only way to read it, proving that it wasn't as straight forward "in plain English" as I thought it was. So, I said "Oh, right, I forgot to link those rules because I thought it was clear enough in plain English." That's all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if you're no longer wielding the weapon, can you even complete the attack? The damage you'd do wielding the weapon in one hand clearly can't apply either, since you aren't wielding it in one hand.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the wielding line of argument is really going to get you where you need to be. If you're wielding a thrown weapon in 0 hands after throwing it, all those other "you must be wielding a weapon" feats that are legitimately intended to work, also wouldn't work.
I think the other explanation is: Axe Thrower is a feat from the backmatter of an AP and the rest of the archetype is also notoriously odd. I think they just made a mistake, and made the two-handed throw legal.
I don't think the wielding line of argument is really going to get you where you need to be. If you're wielding a thrown weapon in 0 hands after throwing it, all those other "you must be wielding a weapon" feats that are legitimately intended to work, also wouldn't work.
Care to reference one with similar wording?
The reason it's relevant for the two-hand trait is because the normal weapon's damage isn't the two-hand damage, and it only becomes the two-hand damage when you're actively wielding it in two hands, not just if you're wielding it, using it, etc. Moreover, damage triggers on a hit, not on the attack, so it has to be after you release the weapon that this becomes relevant. And on top off all that axe thrower requires it to be a one-handed weapon. Is it really a "one-handed axe weapon you wield" if you're benefitting from the two-hand trait which requires it to be wielded in two hands? Granted, it would be clearer if it said any "axe weapon you're wielding in one hand" instead, but I don't think the current wording is that bad.
I think the other explanation is: Axe Thrower is a feat from the backmatter of an AP and the rest of the archetype is also notoriously odd. I think they just made a mistake, and made the two-handed throw legal.
Very possibly, but I would still argue that it doesn't even do that, it's just oddly worded: not wrongly worded, it seems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*shrug* Since there are 2 handed thrown weapons, I don't see anything preventing throwing one with the two-handed trait: if I qualify to wield and throw a Combat Grapnel or Bladed Diabolo in 2 hands and qualify for things that require such things, I don't see what could prevent me from doing the same thing with a weapon with the Two-Hand trait: both require me to wield the weapon I throw in 2 hands...
For instance, nothing prevents Dual-Handed Assault from being used with any 1 handed weapon while being thrown or used in melee.
You wouldn't have Advantageous Assault deal normal damage with a thrown Combat Grapnel instead of the 2 handed damage would you? and if you could wield that in 2 hands, why would the answer change for a weapon with the trait? If you say it's not wielding when thrown, then you lose proficiencies, and that's a lot more of an issue than you're trying to prevent.
*shrug* Since there are 2 handed thrown weapons, I don't see anything preventing throwing one with the two-handed trait: if I qualify to wield and throw a Combat Grapnel or Bladed Diabolo in 2 hands and qualify for things that require such things, I don't see what could prevent me from doing the same thing with a weapon with the Two-Hand trait: both require me to wield the weapon I throw in 2 hands...
The difference that I saw was that the two-hand trait changes the damage die temporarily only while wielding the weapon in two-hands. However, I failed to consider that perhaps the entirety of the strike happens at once. In the world of the game, yes, you release the weapon and then it hits someone, but in the rules you just "make a ranged strike" with it, and at that time you're wielding it in two hands.
For instance, nothing prevents Dual-Handed Assault from being used with any 1 handed weapon while being thrown or used in melee.
Thanks for giving me an actual example who's wording would break with my interpretation. Initially when I pulled it up and saw the requirements I was like "Yeah, but that's different: it's just a requirement to do the activity", but then I realized as I read that it was the description of the feat itself that wouldn't make sense with my interpretation. So, yeah, I seem to have gotten that wrong.
You wouldn't have Advantageous Assault deal normal damage with a thrown Combat Grapnel instead of the 2 handed damage would you? and if you could wield that in 2 hands, why would the answer change for a weapon with the trait? If you say it's not wielding when thrown, then you lose proficiencies, and that's a lot more of an issue than you're trying to prevent.
This is a misunderstanding of the reasoning behind my former position, but I have no reason to argue it anymore, since I realized I was wrong anyway.
Hey, look at that:
Someone's mind was actually changed on one of these things. Wow!