|
So, from my understanding, a unique weapon like the Fighter’s Fork cannot take property runes. However, a ballade bond from a Champion overrides this the normal restrictions and can be placed on staves, unique weapons, or even non-magical weapons.
This got me thinking, the Fighter’s fork can transform into three variations, a normal trident, a two-handed trident, and a short Javalin like trident. If I gave it the transformation property from champion’s blade bond, could I then transform it into anything? Theoretically I would make it a two-handed weapon, then transform it into any two-handed weapon, then I could transform it into trident form, shift it down to a one-handed weapon, then turn it into any 1handed weapon, right? I understand it is hell on the action economy but you could do that out of combat to get any weapon, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to be a +1 Trident only, even as it swaps abilities & form. If so, then it remains a 1-handed weapon, even when it transforms to require more hands (as illogical as that seems). This situation resembles how 1-handed weapons w/ the 2-handed trait are still 1-handed weapons...and there's disagreement on that!
Now if it said "Now it's a longspear" then yes, it'd work like in your example, opening up 2-handed weapons. But as a trident-transformed to resemble a longspear, then no; it's still a 1-handed trident at its core.
In my opinion that is.
Also, some might say the Blade Ally Champion ability does not override the restriction on unique weapons gaining Property Rune effects. (I haven't had to make this call yet, so haven't delved into it.)
ETA: Leo's point is hilarious! Whoops.
(Not sure what would happen to the unique ability while transformed either, and it'd likely open up shenanigans.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think, in summary, there is so much GM fiat as to how this stuff interacts that it doesn't really belong in the rules forum. There are no specific rules that even come close.
I disagree. Rules that fall under GM adjudication (hopefully not fiat!) are still rules, and where better to discuss them and the reasoning behind various interpretations? There's nothing that states the Rules Forum is limited to rigorous rules only. If anything, it's more important to discuss the looser rules, the ones whose answers are iffier than the ones whose answers are clearly delineated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think, in summary, there is so much GM fiat as to how this stuff interacts that it doesn't really belong in the rules forum. There are no specific rules that even come close.I disagree. Rules that fall under GM adjudication (hopefully not fiat!) are still rules, and where better to discuss them and the reasoning behind various interpretations? There's nothing that states the Rules Forum is limited to rigorous rules only. If anything, it's more important to discuss the looser rules, the ones whose answers are iffier than the ones whose answers are clearly delineated.
I agree with you, the term "GM fiat" is overused.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on how the GM decides...
Divine Bond interacts with the special weapon property.
If/when the Fighters Fork is considered a 1, 2, or both -handed weapon.
If the unique ability can be used with other weapon shapes.
How shifting works, if traits are changed, if traits are gained based on weapon shape, if traits are lost.
If shifting is a permanent transformation or if, when the shifting is removed, the weapon goes back to its original shape.
There are no rules stating any of these. 'Adjudication' or 'fiat', the word chosen has little importance. It is very up in the air with this subject.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it technically belongs in the rules forum. However, in this unique case, the only thing that can be said is preference, conjecture, and other thoroughly subjective things. Therefore, as it pertains to 'rules forum', the question is posed and directly after it, the answer is...
"It is up to the GM".
And, maybe this is just me, but I don't go to the rules forum for subjective thoughts on rulings. I come to the rules forum for rules discussions. For quotes from the books that I missed. Ya'know, rules.
Seems fine to me. Being able to (via spending actions) wield basically any melee weapon you want is not that unreasonable, it's useful but not unbalancing.
Yes, it technically belongs in the rules forum. However, in this unique case, the only thing that can be said is preference, conjecture, and other thoroughly subjective things. Therefore, as it pertains to 'rules forum', the question is posed and directly after it, the answer is...
"It is up to the GM".
And, maybe this is just me, but I don't go to the rules forum for subjective thoughts on rulings. I come to the rules forum for rules discussions. For quotes from the books that I missed. Ya'know, rules.
The list in your earlier post is exactly why questions about iffy rules belong in the Rules Forum. Here are the rules, here's what they don't say, so here are the decisions you'll have to make as a GM w/ these possible ramifications. That's all important, rules-centered, objective data. Some might call it valuable research into the topic, worth passing on.
And while you don't desire subjective input, others might so that they can make a decision re: this or that rule that works for their table & play style.That's IMO brings up a key distinction between GM fiat (arbitrary) and GM adjudication (reasoned). The first is ruling off the cuff and the second's trying one's best to measure all the factors (and possibly other reasonable opinions). The Rules Forum's a fine place for learning what factors there are, i.e. the rules most adjacent to the issue.
Seems fine to me. Being able to (via spending actions) wield basically any melee weapon you want is not that unreasonable, it's useful but not unbalancing.
Especially if your table is already using ABP and ignoring Bulk and encumbrance rules.
|
The description states that it is a trident. So, it is a 1-handed weapon and putting Shifting on it allows you to change it into any other 1-handed weapon.
That you can change it into a weapon you have to wield with 2 hands does not change this. Like a bastard sword if you want to use the higher damage.
Now, I would require it to be in 1-handed trident shape to allow using its magic ability to change it into the reach trident. And Shifting would change it into the 1-handed weapon you wish, per the rune's rules.
If carrying an entire arsenal of weapons in one item isn't going to be a problem for your game (not tracking Bulk, not overly concerned about the cost of runes for weapons, things like that), just allow it.
If you do need to shut down this idea, the easiest way would be to not allow the shifting rune to shift to specific magic weapons. Which is not a hard sell to forbid anyway. If you do allow shifting to specific weapons, what stops a Champion with Blade Ally from getting a stick, crafting it into a club, shifting it into Storm Flash (greater), then selling it? Even at 50% for the sale price, 7,000 GP is not a bad amount of income for 4 days of work for a level 3 character.
So if the shifting rune (or the shifting rune effect from Champion's Blade Ally) can only shift things to a generic weapon, then as Leo said, the transformation shenanigans from Fighter's Fork are one-way. You could shift the Fighter's Fork to any 1-hand weapon. Or extend the Fighter's Fork to a 2-hand weapon, then shift it to any 2-hand weapon. But then you couldn't shift it back to a Fighter's Fork again - because Fighter's Fork is a specific magic item and is not a valid target to shift a weapon to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even extended, the Fighter's fork is NOT a 2-handed weapon. So you cannot shift it to another 2-handed weapon.
This isn't true: "When extended, the trident requires two hands to wield". The literal definition of a two handed weapon is a weapon that requires 2 hands to wield. What else would you call a weapon that requires 2 hands to wield? It's not the 2 handed trait as it's optional while an extended fork has a requirement.
|
|
...what stops a Champion with Blade Ally from getting a stick, crafting it into a club, shifting it into Storm Flash (greater), then selling it? Even at 50% for the sale price, 7,000 GP is not a bad amount of income for 4 days of work for a level 3 character.... because Fighter's Fork is a specific magic item and is not a valid target to shift a weapon to.
....*deep breath*...*deep breath*...
Okay so, this seems to be a common misunderstanding of how the shifting rune works. I am unsure why it is as prevalent as it is, but here we are.
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.
The shifting rune does not transform it into another weapon, it just TAKES THE SHAPE.
So, you cannot transform a club into a Storm Flash because THAT'S NOT WHAT SHIFTING DOES!
Also, as shifting only changes the shape, the weapon does not lose any magic or magical effects that were previously on it. (That said if the magic depended on the previous shape to enact its effects such effects are "suppressed")
Can we please finally get away from the ridiculous idea that shifting even implies that you can shift a weapon into a specific magic weapon? ..please..?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the Shifting rune straight up does not have anything to do with specific magical weapons. It's for if you want your greataxe to turn into a bardiche for extra reach, or you want to change your longsword into a warhammer if you're in a situation where you need bashing damage.
Okay so, this seems to be a common misunderstanding of how the shifting rune works. I am unsure why it is as prevalent as it is, but here we are.
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.The shifting rune does not transform it into another weapon, it just TAKES THE SHAPE.
Ah. That is because, while you are correct, that is also a very subtle language decision by the rule writer and easy to miss.
And still, if it isn't going to cause problems with your game, let it work. If it is going to cause problems because everyone else in the party has to pay extra in either gold or encumbrance or both in order to carry that many different types of damage and weapon traits, there are plenty of reasons to forbid it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Subtle is not the word I would use, but sure.
Per RAW, there does not exist a 2 hand required weapon that is also 1 hand required. Therefore if, when it is in the form in which it requires 2 hands, it is shifted into, let's say, a greataxe, you could not shift it back into a trident (the base shape of the Fighters Fork).
A generous GM could rule that the 2 hand required form is a viable choice for shifting.
EDIT: If I may also point out, the shape of a weapon is what causes it to behave the way it does when wielded...the shape...
|
|
Being such a generous GM, and given the argument provided above by graystone, I would even allow the use of the shortening/lengthening ability when the weapon is shifted. And it would put the weapon back to a 1h or 2h-trident.
So you could go 1h-trident, 1h-warhammer, 2h-trident, 2h-greatsword, 1h-trident. And spending an action on each shifting.
Subtle is not the word I would use, but sure.
'transforms into' and 'takes the shape of' are reasonably synonymous.
Since the shape of the item is what determines what traits it has, and all of the valid runes apply to the new shape, and material properties apply after shifting also - then when dealing with standard weapons the two concepts are completely synonymous.
It is only when you get into inherent magical effects from specific magic item weapons that the difference shows up. That is when you have to notice that you aren't actually transforming the item into a different item. You are only changing its shape.
|
|
Subtle is not the word I would use, but sure.'transforms into' and 'takes the shape of' are reasonably synonymous.
Even if that were the case, do you really think that they deliberately put a "STOP" on putting property runes on specific magic weapons, and meant for "that specific weapon" to be exploited with a rune given by a specific class with a specific perk?
It's not about whether it could be balanced or not, but rather that a very specific item with a specific class perk may become the only one existing exception in the whole game.
Yeah, a paladin champion wielding a holy avenger in the shape of their deity's favored weapon makes no sense at all.
Yeah, a paladin champion wielding a holy avenger in the shape of their deity's favored weapon makes no sense at all.
Complete sidenote here: But I would actually do that as a reflavoring/homebrew of the item rather than requiring the Champion to give up their Divine Ally rune effect every day in order to be able to use the weapon to its full extent. Especially if I gave the item to the Champion as loot specifically for them.