| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you cast spells from it when it is shifted?
Can you use the ability on it when shifted?
I don't see why not: nothing about the staff necessitates a staff shape.
Can you convert it into a shield boss/spikes/augmentation and then cast from it while holding the shield with said weapon?
Yes, but it requires 10 mins to attach it and a craft check before it works.
Can you make it a gauntlet and cast? Only when the hand is empty or when it is holding something?
Gauntlet works fine, but staves must be 'held in hand' so holding something else in that hand means you can't use the staff.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you cast spells from it when it is shifted?
Can you use the ability on it when shifted?I don't see why not: nothing about the staff necessitates a staff shape.
Can you convert it into a shield boss/spikes/augmentation and then cast from it while holding the shield with said weapon?Yes, but it requires 10 mins to attach it and a craft check before it works.
Can you make it a gauntlet and cast? Only when the hand is empty or when it is holding something?Gauntlet works fine, but staves must be 'held in hand' so holding something else in that hand means you can't use the staff.
That all seems reasonable to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blade ally does not have nomenclature forbidding staves at all; syaves not having property runes is a specific feature of staves falling under specific magic weapons
Since the spellstrike staff doesn't have that rule, it's fair game, unambiguously, RAW
Blade ally is rather weird, as it is very unclear if by RAW specific magic weapons can benefit from it.
Personally I allow it since specific magic weapons are kind of bad, so a little bit extra helps. But RAW? I don't know.
As for power, this really only becomes decent at high levels with a caster investment given how charges work on staves.
You also give up having crit spec, disrupting, shifting etc on your main weapon. Not to mentioned the very good later feats to boost your main weapon.
The shifting staff won't make a good primary weapon since you can't put other runes on it.
Specific trumps general in RAW. Blade ally asks for a general "weapon or handwraps"; staves and specific magic weapons are a more specific type of weapons that cannot have property runes, so RAW, blade ally cannot grant the rune unambiguously. You could argue it SHOULD (and not an unreasonable houserule), but RAW is pretty clear
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Specific trumps general in RAW. Blade ally asks for a general "weapon or handwraps"; staves and specific magic weapons are a more specific type of weapons that cannot have property runes, so RAW, blade ally cannot grant the rune unambiguously. You could argue it SHOULD (and not an unreasonable houserule), but RAW is pretty clearBlade ally is rather weird, as it is very unclear if by RAW specific magic weapons can benefit from it.
Personally I allow it since specific magic weapons are kind of bad, so a little bit extra helps. But RAW? I don't know.
As for power, this really only becomes decent at high levels with a caster investment given how charges work on staves.
You also give up having crit spec, disrupting, shifting etc on your main weapon. Not to mentioned the very good later feats to boost your main weapon.
The shifting staff won't make a good primary weapon since you can't put other runes on it.
If you want to go RAW, the limitation is only on Etched runes, which Blade ally doesn't do: the staff only "gains the effect of a property rune" so no etching involved. As such, no issue with RAW for specific weapons with non-etched runes.
|
Specific trumps general in RAW. Blade ally asks for a general "weapon or handwraps"; staves and specific magic weapons are a more specific type of weapons that cannot have property runes, so RAW, blade ally cannot grant the rune unambiguously. You could argue it SHOULD (and not an unreasonable houserule), but RAW is pretty clearBlade ally is rather weird, as it is very unclear if by RAW specific magic weapons can benefit from it.
Personally I allow it since specific magic weapons are kind of bad, so a little bit extra helps. But RAW? I don't know.
As for power, this really only becomes decent at high levels with a caster investment given how charges work on staves.
You also give up having crit spec, disrupting, shifting etc on your main weapon. Not to mentioned the very good later feats to boost your main weapon.
The shifting staff won't make a good primary weapon since you can't put other runes on it.
I would make the same specific vs general argument to allow. The rule of specific magic weapons not allowing (the etching of) property runes would be the relative general in this case to the specific divine ally ability.
That being said, I think the greater argument is what Greystone just posted, the divine ally ability does not etch the rune.
If we could separate slightly, my inquiry was if (let's say) the divine ally ability does work, is there any RAW preventing a shifted stave from activating its spell casting ability in non-staff form?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't have it in Staff form it doesn't have the Staff Trait meaning it doesn't have the corresponding rules that state "This magic item holds spells of a particular theme and allows a spellcaster to cast additional spells by preparing the staff" so no, no matter what, if you shift a Staff, no matter the Source it stops being a Staff and it... isn't a Staff.
Simple as.
|
|
If you don't have it in Staff form it doesn't have the Staff Trait meaning it doesn't have the corresponding rules that state "This magic item holds spells of a particular theme and allows a spellcaster to cast additional spells by preparing the staff" so no, no matter what, if you shift a Staff, no matter the Source it stops being a Staff and it... isn't a Staff.
Simple as.
No indication it doesn't keep the trait when it shifts, it doesn't appear to be linked to the form.
For instance the Staff, as in the weapon, doesn't have the staff trait.
Incorrect. AoN Link
Staves
Source Core Rulebook pg. 592 4.0
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—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.
So in addition to being wrong about it not having the Staff Trait, you are also saying that Shifting a Weapon into a diffent form doesn't alter Traits at all? Hmmm....
So a Light Mace that's Shifted into a Falchion still has the Agile, Finesse, & Shove Traits and similarly doesn't gain the Forceful and Sweep Traits? That doesn't seem correct, and in fact, flies in the face of how literally everyone uses the Shifting Rune.
Folks, just because you WANT something to work a specific it way doesn't mean you get to ignore the rules that are present in plain english.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a Light Mace that's Shifted into a Falchion still has the Agile, Finesse, & Shove Traits and similarly doesn't gain the Forceful and Sweep Traits? That doesn't seem correct, and in fact, flies in the face of how literally everyone uses the Shifting Rune.
Staff ISN'T a weapon trait: it's a magic item trait... So comparing it to something that IS based on the weapon, like weapon traits, is quite disingenuous. A Wand, a magic item trait, doesn't care if it's form is a stick, a dagger or a club. Staff the magic item trait isn't the same as staff the weapon
|
|
It's an Equipment Trait. Weapons are Equipment and the nature of the Equipment changing to another form alters the Traits. If it's not a Staff, it's not a Staff. Occams Razor, there is nothing disingenuous about the argument at all despite how freely and recklessly that accusation is thrown around here (almost like you have no idea what the word means...), I'm not trying to be deceptive in any way, in fact, I think it would be far fairer to say that everyone here trying to argue that something that is changed from a Staff into NOT a Staff is still a Staff is FAR more intentionally deceptive and in bad faith so as to try to push an interpretation they personally desire.
I made a call about how Shifting Staves work before very early one because it's always been fairly obvious to me that they are not supposed to function in this manner or to play nice with the Shifting Rune in terms of magical abilities and had the same insulting insinuations lobbed at me then and time bore out that I was correct and they issued Errata specifically to address the confusion many had.
I'm confident in this, at the end of the day the vocal minority opinion/hope that it should work is fundamentally grounded in hopes that you can turn a Staff into a Gauntlet or something similar and have the benefits of the Staff casting with the Free Hand Trait and still use the hand so as to have a Staff with none of the downsides. The impact here is somewhat limited as it's just a single Staff with a specific set of Spells but the fundamental exploit that would be opened up by this is the same.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what this thread would make of the wording in Fused Staff. An 8th level magus feat.
There it specifically says that "When the item is in staff form, you can Cast the Spells from the staff and benefit from any other abilities the staff grants."
Including a specific wording to allow you to spellstrike in another weapon form. Even then it doesnt have the true versatility of a shifting rune.
I know this isnt a 1-1 comparison between the two but it feels weird to me that paizo would print a competitive upgrade to an 8th level feat for 360gp available to all available a level earlier. So I am personally on the side of "You can't cast a spell from the staff while the staff is in another form"
|
|
So in addition to being wrong about it not having the Staff Trait, you are also saying that Shifting a Weapon into a diffent form doesn't alter Traits at all? Hmmm....
So a Light Mace that's Shifted into a Falchion still has the Agile, Finesse, & Shove Traits and similarly doesn't gain the Forceful and Sweep Traits? That doesn't seem correct, and in fact, flies in the face of how literally everyone uses the Shifting Rune.
Folks, just because you WANT something to work a specific it way doesn't mean you get to ignore the rules that are present in plain english.
Firstly a simple, non-magical staff does not have the staff trait. In fact the staff trait specifies nothing about the shape, except in name.
Secondly, RAW has it that a weapons Traits (Agile, Finesse, etc..) do not change when it shifts. Now, I imagine we all find that nonsensical. Therefore, as you pointed out, everyone does alter its weapon traits to fit the new shape. The disconnect is that you consider the staff trait to be shape dependent and many others do not. Especially now, given that non-staff shaped items have the staff trait.
And lastly, thank you StarlingSweeter for the reasonable point and rules quote.
Bad feat or not, it feels out of character of paizo to see such a comparatively powerful option when offered to a class geared to both of these options. Especially one that takes such little investment without even a rarity tag.
Especially as an item. The power difference between items and feats should be pretty large and along with the decent activation of the staff it brings the two options too close in power to my liking.
The only way I can see this disparity being reasonable would be to say to a player "You can spellstrike with the 8th level feat in any form but the Item can only be used for spells in its staff form. Both have the ability to turn into a more damaging weapon for 1 action but the feat is more flexible."
Long way of saying "If it feels too good to be true..." but I felt like explaining my thought process. Though I am definitely in the part of conversation on whether you SHOULD allow your player to use the staff in this way and not if they COULD.
I overall feel like the wording of the item and rules is ambiguous enough to lead to either conclusion of if staves can be used while transformed so I think its more productive to decide if its disruptive to your tables gameplay which I think it would be for mine (I have a magus player who I have been talking extensively with since we've gotten our hands on the PDF).
tentacle potion will cause endless argument maybe far more intense than bandolier argument so far
Just read it and I'm not seeing anything that strikes me as particularly unbalanced or controversial. What am I missing?
|
|
StarlingSweeter, the power of that feat lies in the ability to essentially use a stave in a more powerful weapon form with property runes. As a power gamer myself, that is what I see as the greatest benefit. That is why I utilize my shifted stave, not as my main weapon, but as a gauntlet or stiletto pen. Worst case scenario (I can't cast while it is in a different form) I lash the stave to my back to save on action economy, grabbing it when I need to cast from it, which is rare.
That you can't cast non-spellstrikeable spells from the fused staff makes me shrug. I probably wouldn't do so anyway. And, any that I would want to, can be spellstrikeable with expansive spellstrike.
I'm honestly failing to see the sheer power benefit of it all. Aside from a Magus, anyone else using a shifted stave does so with an issue of either being poor at casting or weapon attacks. If you are not poor at weapon attacks, you are a martial class that has dedicated into casting so you are ehh at best at casting. If you are not poor at casting, you are a full spellcaster that has poor at best weapon proficiency. And, to top it all off, regardless of either you can't put property runes on it, thus your damage will be lower by at least 1d6, likely more the higher level you get.
A shifted stave, utilized at its peak power potential, saves on action economy sometimes.
Edit:All-in-all the Magus feat, in a game where someone else can cast spells from a shifted stave, is still more powerful.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bad feat or not, it feels out of character of paizo to see such a comparatively powerful option when offered to a class geared to both of these options. Especially one that takes such little investment without even a rarity tag.
Especially as an item. The power difference between items and feats should be pretty large and along with the decent activation of the staff it brings the two options too close in power to my liking.
The only way I can see this disparity being reasonable would be to say to a player "You can spellstrike with the 8th level feat in any form but the Item can only be used for spells in its staff form. Both have the ability to turn into a more damaging weapon for 1 action but the feat is more flexible."
Long way of saying "If it feels too good to be true..." but I felt like explaining my thought process. Though I am definitely in the part of conversation on whether you SHOULD allow your player to use the staff in this way and not if they COULD.
I overall feel like the wording of the item and rules is ambiguous enough to lead to either conclusion of if staves can be used while transformed so I think its more productive to decide if its disruptive to your tables gameplay which I think it would be for mine (I have a magus player who I have been talking extensively with since we've gotten our hands on the PDF).
Generally I'm not a huge fan of "rules from the gap" style interpretations.
The idea what we should intuit general rules that aren't otherwise stated, due to feat interactions which do other things and are focusing on specific cases, doesn't seem like a good way for Paizo to articulate their intentions.
I can't see anything in the use of a staff, other than being held in 1 hand, that impacts its ability to cast spells. Previously, before the Specific Magic Item errata, I don't recall this even being raised as a concern either. However, back then, I don't think we had a Magus to concerns ourselves with either.
In the particular case of Fused Staff, the feat itself does 3 primary things:
- Allows you to use a single action to swap between a staff and non-staff weapon
- Allows you to share fundamental runes between two items at no cost
- Allows you to spellstrike using spells from a staff while its benefitting from being a weapon.
I read the "Otherwise, you can't cast the staff's spells while it's in weapon form" as a specific limitation of this feat, and not something which should be taken as the standard.
If it was a concern for a general rule, a single line of text would have been all Paizo needed to include with the Spellstrike Staff. Or, even have their "as usual" verbiage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We didn't get an answer/clarification years ago. I'm sorry to say, but I doubt were going to get it now.
There is nothing specifically in any rules to say that it cannot cast the spells while not in staff form. It is also not addressed in the spellstrike staff entry.
As such, I think the 'allowed to' argument is stronger, but it is not a definite thing.
Though that would be explicitly against the rules as you need to wield an item to activate it which you don't do with free-hand weapons if the hand is occupied.
The stave rules require you to be holding it (I think being literally on your hand would count) and not wielding it.
Those are functionally the same: "You're wielding an item any time you're holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively." If you can use it to cast spells [use effectively], you're wielding it. You can hold an item, like a 2 handed weapon, in one hand but you can't then use it effectively.
The stave rules require you to be holding it (I think being literally on your hand would count) and not wielding it.Those are functionally the same: "You're wielding an item any time you're holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively." If you can use it to cast spells [use effectively], you're wielding it. You can hold an item, like a 2 handed weapon, in one hand but you can't then use it effectively."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. When wielding an item, you're not just carrying it around—you're ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to be wearing the item, to be holding it, or simply to have it."
It specifically says that some abilities may just require you to be holding an item as opposed to wielding it. Staves say holding.
It is a fine point I grant you, but it is a distinction they spelled out.
It says that, but it ends up being meaningless:
Gear Statistics, Hands; Core Rulebook pg. 287 "This lists how many hands it takes to use the item effectively." It uses identical wording to wieldings "You're wielding an item any time you're holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively." If you say you're holding it in a way you can use it, you're also saying you're wielding it.There is also Chapter 11: Crafting & Treasure, Usage, Held or Worn; Core Rulebook pg. 535
"If a character must wield the item to use it, this entry in the item’s stat block lists the word “held” along with the number of hands the character must use when wielding the item, such as “held in 1 hand.”" This shows that held is used interchangeably with wield. They just NEVER expand on when or if that 'held but not wield' situation happens or how they'd go about letting us know when it happens.
IMO, the only time you run into held and not wield is items with a constant effect, like an everburning torch, or keeping a single hand on a 2 handed one. Now, most games gloss over this but RAW is pretty much held=wield when it comes to a hands requirement. It's the reason all the extra limb traits like he tail and tresses ones as a bit wordy because they have to exclude holding or limit what it means [IE, disallow attacking/acivating]. Myself, I'm all for a looser ruling as it's a bit of a mess.
|
|
Yeah the gauntlet thing is very hazy. I mean, I default to using it, but I concede not weilding anything in the hand as a cost for the convenience. It also helps, as pointed out above, that weilding can easily make the held argument. This is why I use a 1h weapon with the 2h trait. This is so I can main 2h, and then drop a hand from it to use the stave-gauntlet and still be able to do things with the weapon 1handed.