You wouldn't be able to shift the musket, as Shifting runes only affect melee weapons. In that regard, the stock isn't a weapon as much as an addition to an existing weapon.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, the moment you use the Shifting rune, you are left with a 2 handed Flintlock Musket in one hand and a 2 handed Falchion in the other hand (you lose the Attached trait in the transformation, so they are now two distinct items): In order to wield either one of these weapons, you need to drop or stow the other weapon.
RAW, you should still be able to use the Musket after this transformation: Attached weapons are optional add-ons and removing one does not typically impede the original item's normal useage.
After the battle, you'd need to shift the Falchion back into a Reinforced Stock form and then spend 10 minutes re-attaching it to your musket (per the Attached trait rules). This 're-attachment' restriction should probably also apply if you shifted the stock into a Bayonet but this is not technically required by the rules...
You wouldn't be able to shift the musket, as Shifting runes only affect melee weapons. In that regard, the stock isn't a weapon as much as an addition to an existing weapon.Stock is a separate melee weapon with "attached" trait.
As I understand I can add any runes on attached weapons as long, as they don't require something special (like crushing rune only for bludgeoning weapon).And so, I can add shifting rune on stock, bayonet, shield spikes, whatever and then shift them. Moreover, I can shift any melee weapon into reinforced stock and then attach it to musket!
Sorry, I should have been clearer. As an attached weapon, if you shift it, regardless of anything else, the musket will not change.
Also, once transformed, it will no longer be attached when you change it back, so you will have to spend the crafting time to reattach it to your musket.
It's also well within the bounds for your GM to rule that the-now-half-a-musket has the broken state until repaired, being no more usable than an axe without a haft, or a sling without its straps, and you then have to spend the time to fix it from 'broken' to a usable level.
The Shifting rune does weird things when used on attached weapons, and they really need to add some errata to either remove its function from them, or clarify what happens to the attached item.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Shifting rune does weird things when used on attached weapons, and they really need to add some errata to either remove its function from them, or clarify what happens to the attached item.
I don't know. I think that Taja did a pretty good job of navigating the rules as they currently are.
I could add that the Reinforced Stock itself doesn't have a number of hands that it takes to wield, so the Shifting rune wouldn't have a valid weapon to transform the Stock into.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Shifting rune does weird things when used on attached weapons, and they really need to add some errata to either remove its function from them, or clarify what happens to the attached item.I don't know. I think that Taja did a pretty good job of navigating the rules as they currently are.
I could add that the Reinforced Stock itself doesn't have a number of hands that it takes to wield, so the Shifting rune wouldn't have a valid weapon to transform the Stock into.
Hmm, I'm not 100% certain of that last part as 'An attached reinforced stock requires the same number of hands as the weapon it's attached to' so you should be able to shift the example stock into a 2 handed weapon
But...that does indicate that once you shift out of 'Stock' form, you could never shift it back since the stock doesn't really have a 'hands' requirement when it isn't attached to anything...
Please note:
- a) This item could be read as "'1 handed' and '2 handed' stocks are separate items but we don't want to get into this level of minutia so we are grouping them together..." in which case you'd specifically have to use a '2 handed reinforced stock' on your musket.
b) If you instead read this as "on-the-fly player's choice" on the hand requirement of a non-attached stock, then you've just created a loophole that allows the shifting rune to bypass the hand requirement (Dagger shifts to unattached stock, then unattached stock shifts to Falchion).
c) As noted, if you read this as 'an unattached stock has no hand requirement' then you could never shift a weapon into this form...
|
Honestly, I don't think an errata is necessary. RAW every 1 handed attach weapon can shift to and fro with other 1 handed and not really cause game-breaking effects. In fact, shifting wheel chair weapons between B, P, and S damage is also conceptually cool, as is the B and P of a shield attachment. The concern comes with the ranged weapon attachments which, as written, are essentially neither 1 nor 2 handed until attached and therefore if shifted from a stock (or bayonet) can never be shifted back into a stock (or bayonet). Thus, a self-correcting problem.
I would suggest against over developing rules as it often creates more loopholes than it solves. I say this as a loophole finding enthusiast. It is much better to leave rules specificity in the hands of GMs.
Please note:a) This item could be read as "'1 handed' and '2 handed' stocks are separate items but we don't want to get into this level of minutia so we are grouping them together..." in which case you'd specifically have to use a '2 handed reinforced stock' on your musket.
b) If you instead read this as "on-the-fly player's choice" on the hand requirement of a non-attached stock, then you've just created a loophole that allows the shifting rune to bypass the hand requirement (Dagger shifts to unattached stock, then unattached stock shifts to Falchion).
c) As noted, if you read this as 'an unattached stock has no hand requirement' then you could never shift a weapon into this form...
B) is a reading that has clear and obvious implications that should be avoided.
A) is actually an interesting idea. If I was a GM that wanted to allow this interaction, that is how I would go about it. But that really isn't how the current item is written.
C) It is actually worse than that. The way that I read the item, when the Stock is not attached to a weapon then the number of hands that it takes to wield is NaN. It can't be wielded alone. No other weapon can be shifted into a stock, and a stock can't be shifted to any other weapon either (not even other items that take NaN hands to wield, because one NaN value does not equal another NaN value).
|
|
Option 'C' leaves you with two possible uses:Please note:a) This item could be read as "'1 handed' and '2 handed' stocks are separate items but we don't want to get into this level of minutia so we are grouping them together..." in which case you'd specifically have to use a '2 handed reinforced stock' on your musket.
b) If you instead read this as "on-the-fly player's choice" on the hand requirement of a non-attached stock, then you've just created a loophole that allows the shifting rune to bypass the hand requirement (Dagger shifts to unattached stock, then unattached stock shifts to Falchion).
c) As noted, if you read this as 'an unattached stock has no hand requirement' then you could never shift a weapon into this form...B) is a reading that has clear and obvious implications that should be avoided.
A) is actually an interesting idea. If I was a GM that wanted to allow this interaction, that is how I would go about it. But that really isn't how the current item is written.
C) It is actually worse than that. The way that I read the item, when the Stock is not attached to a weapon then the number of hands that it takes to wield is NaN. It can't be wielded alone. No other weapon can be shifted into a stock, and a stock can't be shifted to any other weapon either (not even other items that take NaN hands to wield, because one NaN value does not equal another NaN value).
- 1) you can shift the stock out of stock form while it is attached to the weapon, but you could never shift it back into stock form once it loses the 'attached' trait.
2) RAW, you could probably shift the stock into a Bayonet and back since both weapons are attached and have the same hand requirement text (nevermind the fact that these weapons should be attached to different ends of the musket).
Actually, now that I look at it, the Bayonet is a much more interesting case: Source
Guns & Gears pg. 152
Hands 1 or 2
Category Martial
Group Knife;
Traits Agile, Attached to crossbow or firearm, Finesse
This blade or spike can be attached to a crossbow or firearm but, unlike other attached weapons, can be wielded in one hand as its own weapon. When used as a separate weapon, it can't benefit from any runes or abilities that function only for attached weapons. An attached bayonet requires the same number of hands as the weapon it's attached to. A detached bayonet requires one hand.RAW:
- i) A Bayonet attached to a Musket requires Two Hands.
ii) A detached Bayonet requires one hand
iii) As such, by RAW, it allows you to shift a 2 handed weapon into a 1 handed weapon (and vice versa) as long as you are willing to attach it to / detach it from a two handed ranged weapon between shifts.
|
|
iii) Incorrect because of how it would happen sequentially.
If a bayonet was detached, or attached to a 1 handed weapon, it could shift normally back and forth.
If the bayonet was attached to a 2 handed weapon, it could shift into another 2 handed weapon. Once it does so (unless shifted into a stock I suppose) it would be detached from the weapon it was attached to. It is then just a 2 handed weapon that can shift into another 2 handed weapon. It could never shift back into a bayonet because an unattached bayonet is a 1 handed weapon.
|
|
iii) Incorrect because of how it would happen sequentially.
If a bayonet was detached, or attached to a 1 handed weapon, it could shift normally back and forth.
If the bayonet was attached to a 2 handed weapon, it could shift into another 2 handed weapon. Once it does so (unless shifted into a stock I suppose) it would be detached from the weapon it was attached to. It is then just a 2 handed weapon that can shift into another 2 handed weapon. It could never shift back into a bayonet because an unattached bayonet is a 1 handed weapon.
Yep, you are correct that it only works from one-hand to two-hand and never in reverse: Didn't quite think that part thru...
|
|
Which is why I would say that it doesn't need an errata because it is a self correcting problem. At the most generous, a GM could rule that removing the shifting rune would turn it back into the original item. Thus requiring timing and cost of removing and then reattaching the rune. If a player is willing to do all of that, *shrug* sure, go for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or we could simply sidestep all of these shenanigans and rule
a) You can only shift a weapon with the attached trait to a weapon without the attached trait if it is currently not attached. You have to unattach the weapon first, then shift it.
b) You can shift an attached weapon to a different weapon with the attached trait if that weapon would also be a valid attachment to what the weapon is currently attached to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But why add more rules when it is unnecessary?
Because in this case the additional rules makes things more consistent and is more empowering to players while keeping strange edge cases under control so that the GM doesn't have to try and watch out for strange edge cases.
|
|
The rules are consistent.
*If you shift a weapon from an attached trait to a type that does not have the attach trait, or an incompatible attachment situation, it causes the two items to no longer be attached.
*If a stock is shifted into anything that isn't either another stock or bayonet, it cannot be shifted back into a stock.
*If a bayonet is shifted into a two-handed weapon, it cannot be shifted back into a bayonet.
These seem pretty obvious based on the current RAW and sensibility. In summary, yes you can put shifting on an attach-based item but beware, it likely won't work out. No need for more rules, they already exist.
Also, side note: why is it that shifting gives peeps so many problems? It seems to work just fine using a combination of rules, logic, and reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to work just fine using a combination of rules, logic, and reason.
Because relying on common sense will often get you different results depending on who you ask. You can look at countless threads where people take "current RAW and sensibility" and come to a different conclusion than others that do the same. For instance, I thought that it was abundantly clear Independent and Valet didn't work together but it took a DEV to weigh in to get the debate to end.
|
|
It seems to work just fine using a combination of rules, logic, and reason.Because relying on common sense will often get you different results depending on who you ask. You can look at countless threads where people take "current RAW and sensibility" and come to a different conclusion than others that do the same. For instance, I thought that it was abundantly clear Independent and Valet didn't work together but it took a DEV to weigh in to get the debate to end.
Sure, on the forums. But, the forums are full of minutiae. While not without value, I would also not claim invaluable. I would not say that the forums are even close to an exemplification of the standard playing populous.
In the many games I have played, I have never experienced a debate about shifting during a game. (I regularly play with several passionate rules enthusiasts, myself included). It is just not that confusing.
Thus, I still stand behind "The rules on shifting are fine as is and don't really need anything more."
|
|
Actually, this does bring up another minor issue with the Shifting rune: Is this transformation instantaneous or ongoing?Yep, you are correct that it only works from one-hand to two-hand and never in reverse: Didn't quite think that part thru...iii) Incorrect because of how it would happen sequentially.
If a bayonet was detached, or attached to a 1 handed weapon, it could shift normally back and forth.
If the bayonet was attached to a 2 handed weapon, it could shift into another 2 handed weapon. Once it does so (unless shifted into a stock I suppose) it would be detached from the weapon it was attached to. It is then just a 2 handed weapon that can shift into another 2 handed weapon. It could never shift back into a bayonet because an unattached bayonet is a 1 handed weapon.
- If this is an ongoing effect, you could dispel it and return the weapon to its original form.
If it is an instantaneous effect, you could use a set of Doubling Rings (Greater) to transform a bunch of free Clubs into 90g Exquisite Sword Canes and sell them for a decent profit...
Sure, on the forums. But, the forums are full of minutiae. While not without value, I would also not claim invaluable. I would not say that the forums are even close to an exemplification of the standard playing populous.
If these kind of things ONLY happened on the forums, then I could agree with you here but it doesn't magically stop there: I've seen questions about a shifting shield spike just like ones about Independent and Valet. People use "current RAW and sensibility" in their own games after all.
|
|
Sure, on the forums. But, the forums are full of minutiae. While not without value, I would also not claim invaluable. I would not say that the forums are even close to an exemplification of the standard playing populous.If these kind of things ONLY happened on the forums, then I could agree with you here but it doesn't magically stop there: I've seen questions about a shifting shield spike just like ones about Independent and Valet. People use "current RAW and sensibility" in their own games after all.
I acknowledge that the questions happen outside of the forums. But, I am claiming that it is not to a frequency that merits additional rules.
Thing is, regardless of how many rules you make or add, there will be questions. As that is inevitable, and that more rules often leads to more questions, there is a point of diminishing returns to adding rules.