So why can I put fundamental runes on Staves but not Property runes for anyways? What is with that odd restriction for anyways they are already simple staff weapons. Is there a reason why you cannot do this or am I just over thinking such a thing anyways?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea. Seems like an arbitrary limitation that I can't find a reason for.
It would make sense if Magic Staves had a bonus effect when used as a melee weapon. Most of the time anyways you would not be attacking with a Stave unless you are a select few Spell-Caster classes which may or may not include Magus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this case, wouldn't the correct solution be to just rule that using a staff requires you to hold it in one hand? If players want to make it a gauntlet, then all power to them! They just can't actually use it as a staff unless it's actually a staff.
|
You used to. The problem is people put shifting runes on them and turned them into gauntlets while keeping your hand free, so they errataed it.
In this case, wouldn't the correct solution be to just rule that using a staff requires you to hold it in one hand? If players want to make it a gauntlet, then all power to them! They just can't actually use it as a staff unless it's actually a staff.
Or just errata it that you can't put shifting rune on a staff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You used to. The problem is people put shifting runes on them and turned them into gauntlets while keeping your hand free, so they errataed it.
While not a normal class for casting, couldn't a Champion still do this trick via a blessing of the devoted weapon option? You won't be able to put on regular property runes but you would be able to do so with the stave IF you're willing to make it your blessed weapon? (Not worth it IMO)
Step one, have a stave.
Step two, make it your weapon during morning prep.
Step three, give it the free shifting rune option.
Step four, shift it into a gauntlet until you need it.
I think any reasonable GM wouldn't let the stave be used to cast until it's back to the staff format though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this case, wouldn't the correct solution be to just rule that using a staff requires you to hold it in one hand? If players want to make it a gauntlet, then all power to them! They just can't actually use it as a staff unless it's actually a staff.
Gauntlet has Hands listed as 1, so technically it uses as many hands as a dagger does. This would NEED to be the case to use Shifting to turn anything into a Gauntlet because the Effect is "The weapon takes the shape of another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield" and "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively."
You can't rule you aren't holding a freehand weapon because otherwise you could never wield them.
Can a magus use Runic Impression on a staff to give the staff a property rune?
Staves: "They can be etched with fundamental runes but not property runes."
Runic Impression: "Your unarmed attacks or weapon gain the benefits of a weapon rune you choose when you cast this spell"
The spell only grants "the benefits of a weapon rune" and doesn't etch on a rune, so it looks like it works IMO. It DOES later go on about property runes maximums so maybe they intended it to put a rune on but it never actually does that.
|
You used to. The problem is people put shifting runes on them and turned them into gauntlets while keeping your hand free, so they errataed it.
There are now a few ways to get the functionality back, but I recall this feeling like a werid enshitification move.
"No, you can no longer generally do that!... But if you want to spend class options on it here, here or here, then that can be arranged..."
That said, before the Sure Strike nerf, I did have a sorcerer who wore a gaunlet-form Spellstriker Staff just to use Sure Strike.
|
|
Can a magus use Runic Impression on a staff to give the staff a property rune?
They made a speific staff for the Magus use case. The Spellstriker Staff
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is amazing but also why does the Spellstriker's Staff get Shifting on it!? I am so confused by their choices even more now. It is a very incredibly powerful staff. It just confuses me more about the design choice personally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the problem was just shifting runes, then it would likely have been better to allow property runes, and simply prevent spells from being cast from the staff while it's shifted into another form. Not being able to add property runes to a staff messes with Clerics and Champions of deities like Nethys, who have to either wield mundane staves or end up with a weak weapon for Striking.
|
|
That is amazing but also why does the Spellstriker's Staff get Shifting on it!? I am so confused by their choices even more now. It is a very incredibly powerful staff. It just confuses me more about the design choice personally.
Charitably, the choice may simply have come down to "Conservation of Cool". In a world where all staves could be gaunlets with some additional gold, it would become pretty common place for it to be a thing that people do.
Where as, a Magus (and to a lesser extent the Runelord), get to have that suprise factor to them.
That said, you don't actually to be a magus to use a Spellstriker Staff. You just don't get all the benefits and the spell selection is rather limited to things Magus' like.
I would address it to the shifting property description itself. Add something like: "If the weapon has other magical properties or abilities unrelated to its being a weapon, those properties are suppressed while it is not in its natural form (for example, a staff of...)".
This is the right way of going about it, in my opinion. For starters, I would probably add rules text so that you can't turn a weapon into a free-hand weapon unless the original weapon also has the free-hand trait, as there clearly is an intent to conserve hand economy in the rune already. Adding that the rune also suppresses any properties unique to the original item while it's shifted would seal the deal, though it may not even be necessary at that point: if someone wants to shift their staff into a sword, that I think is perfectly fine, and even though the Spellstriker Staff can do this already, it's by no means game-breaking or even particularly disruptive in my opinion.
So really, the keyhole solution here could be to just disallow shifting into a free-hand weapon with a shifting rune unless the original weapon also has the free-hand trait. You'd be able to wield staves with property runes just fine, continue to shift a Spellstriker Staff around just fine, and wouldn't be able to shift away a staff's hand economy burden. Everyone wins.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just for the purposes of clarity, the errata was to make all staves Specific Magic Weapons, which is a captial letters games term with the following rules:
These weapons have abilities far different from what can be gained by simply etching runes. A specific magic weapon lists its fundamental runes, which you can upgrade, add, or transfer as normal. You can’t etch or transfer any property runes onto a specific weapon that it doesn’t already have, and you can’t remove its property runes.
So while it was largely done because of Shifting rune, it was an all round property rune disablement.
This also applies to Personal Staves.
I am curious though. Why would anyone still allow a staff to operate as a staff if a shifting rune was activated and now its an axe or a spiked gauntlet or any other weapons.
Its no longer a staff at that point right?
Follow up to that.
If a staff a spellcaster prepared was turned into another weapon like a spiked gauntlet did they just lose all the benefits of preparing it that day and giving it charges? A spiked gauntlet is not able to hold staff charges. So when it reverts back to a staff they may have lost the preparation because it was turned into something other than a staff for a while.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious though. Why would anyone still allow a staff to operate as a staff if a shifting rune was activated and now its an axe or a spiked gauntlet or any other weapons.
Its no longer a staff at that point right?
Entertainer's Lute is a lute that is a staff. Pipes of Compulsion are pipes that are a staff. Trickster's Mandolin is a mandolin that is a staff. Seer's Flute is a flurt that's a staff. Drums of War are drums that are a staff. Bagpipes of Turmoil are bagpipes that are staves. Musket Staff of the Void and Musket Staff of Force are a musket that's a staff. Spy Staff can change into a handheld accessory but keeps the same stats. Spellstriker Staff has the Shifting rune.
Having a staff shape sure doesn't seem like a requirement to me.
Right those specifically have the staff trait which makes them staves.
How does a shifting rune handle weapons traits, do they stay the same?
The spy staff is explicit too with its activated ability that the staffs statistics do not change. I would assume that if this statement wasn't there they would change to whatever form you change it to along with all the traits.
In this case, wouldn't the correct solution be to just rule that using a staff requires you to hold it in one hand? If players want to make it a gauntlet, then all power to them! They just can't actually use it as a staff unless it's actually a staff.Gauntlet has Hands listed as 1, so technically it uses as many hands as a dagger does. This would NEED to be the case to use Shifting to turn anything into a Gauntlet because the Effect is "The weapon takes the shape of another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield" and "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively."
You can't rule you aren't holding a freehand weapon because otherwise you could never wield them.
[Free-Hand] is indeed a specific exception to holding rules here, going by the wording.
This weapon doesn’t take up your hand
Remember, holding an item takes up your hand(s), and as you pointed out, wielding an item means holding it. [Free-Hand] specifies that you can use the [Free-Hand] weapon's hand to wield other objects, which implies that free-hand weapons don't actually take up a hand (on the grounds that mechanically, you can only hold one item per hand, so [Free-Hand] weapons must logically be treated as "not held" when worn but not wielded). And most significantly...
When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free-hand weapon on it.
(Most relevant parts italicised.)
The trait kinda explicitly states that free-hand weapons are worn and not actually wielded, but are treated as if they were wielded when your hand is otherwise unoccupied.
So, yeah, the trait kiiinda explicitly states that you don't hold [Free-Hand] weapons. It's not even a house rule or anything, it's flat-out stated in the trait description. ;P
Follow up to that.
If a staff a spellcaster prepared was turned into another weapon like a spiked gauntlet did they just lose all the benefits of preparing it that day and giving it charges? A spiked gauntlet is not able to hold staff charges. So when it reverts back to a staff they may have lost the preparation because it was turned into something other than a staff for a while.
If shifting a staff broke your attunement and drained its charges, then the Spellstriker Staff would be a non-functional trap option. (On the grounds that using its shifting rune would break your connection.) The staff's design intent is to allow a Magus to specialise in a non-staff weapon type while still gaining the benefits of wielding a staff (by letting them turn the staff into their preferred weapon), so it would be a pretty big flaw if it stopped working as a staff the first time they shifted it!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right those specifically have the staff trait which makes them staves.
right, and so too would a staff shifted into another form. Nothing removes the staff trait from a staff in another form. The Staff trait has nothing to do with it's weapon stats.
How does a shifting rune handle weapons traits, do they stay the same?
How do you mean? there is no 'weapon' staff trait. The magic item trait is "Staff: This magic item holds spells of a particular theme and allows a spellcaster to cast additional spells by preparing the staff." Why would anything change there?
As to it as a weapon, that changes with the form. If your staff is currently in dagger form, it uses dagger weapon stats. The answer is exactly the same as the answer to any other weapon with a Shifting rune on it.
Right those specifically have the staff trait which makes them staves.right, and so too would a staff shifted into another form. Nothing removes the staff trait from a staff in another form. The Staff trait has nothing to do with it's weapon stats.
How does a shifting rune handle weapons traits, do they stay the same?How do you mean? there is no 'weapon' staff trait. The magic item trait is "Staff: This magic item holds spells of a particular theme and allows a spellcaster to cast additional spells by preparing the staff." Why would anything change there?
As to it as a weapon, that changes with the form. If your staff is currently in dagger form, it uses dagger weapon stats. The answer is exactly the same as the answer to any other weapon with a Shifting rune on it.
Ok what I mean is the staff trait is a statistic of the item.
The shifting rune transforms the item to a different one. I am assuming all the statistics of the new item are adopted and all the statistics of the original are lost until it shifts back. That would include any traits it had, I dont see a reason why the staff trait should remain.There is no mention about resitricting the statsitics of the item that are changeable to damage dice
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Free-Hand] is indeed a specific exception to holding rules here, going by the wording.
This weapon doesn’t take up your hand
Yes, but it does NOT say it's not held in the hand, just that it doesn't take it up. Those are 2 different things. You, by definition, can not wield a weapon that isn't held and you also can't change a weapon using the Shifting rune to a weapon with a different Hands, which is defined as the number of hands it's held in. So, yeah, you're holding a gauntlet in your hand.
Remember, holding an item takes up your hand(s), and as you pointed out, wielding an item means holding it. [Free-Hand] specifies that you can use the [Free-Hand] weapon's hand to wield other objects, which implies that free-hand weapons don't actually take up a hand (on the grounds that mechanically, you can only hold one item per hand, so [Free-Hand] weapons must logically be treated as "not held" when worn but not wielded). And most significantly...
I remember holding NORMALLY takes up a hand, but free-hand gives an exception to taking up the hand, but it doesn't give an acception to holding. All being able to wield another weapon proves is that you can hold more than 1 weapon in a hand, which isn't even limited to free-hand weapons. For instance, you can wield a hand crossbow in the same hand as you wield a Bayonet.
(Most relevant parts italicised.)
The trait kinda explicitly states that free-hand weapons are worn and not actually wielded, but are treated as if they were wielded when your hand is otherwise unoccupied.
So, yeah, the trait kiiinda explicitly states that you don't hold [Free-Hand] weapons. It's not even a house rule or anything, it's flat-out stated in the trait description. ;P
All that implies is that it's talking about wielding something other than the free-hand weapon. Taking up the hand isn't the same as held by the hand or preventing the hand from holding something else. For instance read Nimble Shield:
"You are so used to wielding a shield that you can do so even while using the hand that’s holding it for other tasks that require the dexterity of a hand. The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. You can also hold another object in this hand (but you still can’t use it to wield a weapon)."
As you can see, you can hold multiple objects at once in a single hand.
EDIT: actually, you could hold 3 things with nimble shield, your shield, a shield weapon [like a shield spike] and a held item, like a torch.
In this case, wouldn't the correct solution be to just rule that using a staff requires you to hold it in one hand? If players want to make it a gauntlet, then all power to them! They just can't actually use it as a staff unless it's actually a staff.Gauntlet has Hands listed as 1, so technically it uses as many hands as a dagger does. This would NEED to be the case to use Shifting to turn anything into a Gauntlet because the Effect is "The weapon takes the shape of another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield" and "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively."
You can't rule you aren't holding a freehand weapon because otherwise you could never wield them.
[Free-Hand] is indeed a specific exception to holding rules here, going by the wording.
This weapon doesn’t take up your handRemember, holding an item takes up your hand(s), and as you pointed out, wielding an item means holding it. [Free-Hand] specifies that you can use the [Free-Hand] weapon's hand to wield other objects, which implies that free-hand weapons don't actually take up a hand (on the grounds that mechanically, you can only hold one item per hand, so [Free-Hand] weapons must logically be treated as "not held" when worn but not wielded). And most significantly...
When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free-hand weapon on it.(Most relevant parts italicised.)
The trait kinda explicitly states that free-hand weapons are worn and not actually wielded, but are treated as if they were wielded when your hand is otherwise unoccupied.
So, yeah, the trait kiiinda explicitly states...
Good point on the spellstriker staff. The prep state shouldnt be lost i guess.
Also there is nothing telling us the reverted item doesn't keep its state so that line of thought hit an end.but the staff trait would be if it loses all its statistics and gains all the statistics of the new item. So until it reverts I wouldn't see spellcasting from it as an option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right those specifically have the staff trait which makes them staves.right, and so too would a staff shifted into another form. Nothing removes the staff trait from a staff in another form. The Staff trait has nothing to do with it's weapon stats.
How does a shifting rune handle weapons traits, do they stay the same?How do you mean? there is no 'weapon' staff trait. The magic item trait is "Staff: This magic item holds spells of a particular theme and allows a spellcaster to cast additional spells by preparing the staff." Why would anything change there?
As to it as a weapon, that changes with the form. If your staff is currently in dagger form, it uses dagger weapon stats. The answer is exactly the same as the answer to any other weapon with a Shifting rune on it.
Ok what I mean is the staff trait is a statistic of the item.
The shifting rune transforms the item to a different one. I am assuming all the statistics of the new item are adopted and all the statistics of the original are lost until it shifts back. That would include any traits it had, I dont see a reason why the staff trait should remain.
There is no mention about resitricting the statsitics of the item that are changeable to damage dice
If the shifting rune turns the weapon into an entirely new item with base stats for that weapon than your weapon runes doesn’t come along, which while obvious nonsense by itself also includes the *shifting* rune not coming along.
If the shifting rune turns the weapon into an entirely new item with base stats for that weapon than your weapon runes doesn’t come along, which while obvious nonsense by itself also includes the *shifting* rune not coming along.Right those specifically have the staff trait which makes them staves.right, and so too would a staff shifted into another form. Nothing removes the staff trait from a staff in another form. The Staff trait has nothing to do with it's weapon stats.
How does a shifting rune handle weapons traits, do they stay the same?How do you mean? there is no 'weapon' staff trait. The magic item trait is "Staff: This magic item holds spells of a particular theme and allows a spellcaster to cast additional spells by preparing the staff." Why would anything change there?
As to it as a weapon, that changes with the form. If your staff is currently in dagger form, it uses dagger weapon stats. The answer is exactly the same as the answer to any other weapon with a Shifting rune on it.
Ok what I mean is the staff trait is a statistic of the item.
The shifting rune transforms the item to a different one. I am assuming all the statistics of the new item are adopted and all the statistics of the original are lost until it shifts back. That would include any traits it had, I dont see a reason why the staff trait should remain.
There is no mention about resitricting the statsitics of the item that are changeable to damage dice
It would be if the shifting itself didnt explicitly say to carry over the weapon's runes and any precious materials its made of.
ShiftingItem 6
Magical
Source GM Core pg. 238 2.0
Price 225 gp
Usage etched onto a melee weapon; Bulk —With a moment of manipulation, you can shift this weapon into a different weapon with a similar form.
Activate—Shift Weapon [one-action] (manipulate); Effect 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 weapons a shifting weapon can turn into are based on the base attributes of the weapon, so reference the weapon's Hands entry in the weapons table to see what it can turn into. For example, a bastard sword requires one hand, even though it gets a benefit in two hands from the two-hand trait. Therefore, a shifting bastard sword could turn into a longsword, but not a greatsword. Activating this rune doesn't change how many hands you're currently using to hold the weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok what I mean is the staff trait is a statistic of the item.
The shifting rune transforms the item to a different one. I am assuming all the statistics of the new item are adopted and all the statistics of the original are lost until it shifts back. That would include any traits it had, I dont see a reason why the staff trait should remain.
There is no mention about resitricting the statsitics of the item that are changeable to damage dice
Shifting is changing it's physical shape, not it's magic. The Staff Trait is tied to its magical properties, not its shape. Where did you get the idea that shape influences an items magic unless stated otherwise? I sure don't recall seeing that in any of the rule books.
For instance, if your Wand got turned into a dagger, can you point to a book and page where it says that it loses its magical powers and traits because of that? IMO, the effect changing something would have to explicitly state that it loses things or no lose happens.
Ok what I mean is the staff trait is a statistic of the item.
The shifting rune transforms the item to a different one. I am assuming all the statistics of the new item are adopted and all the statistics of the original are lost until it shifts back. That would include any traits it had, I dont see a reason why the staff trait should remain.
There is no mention about resitricting the statsitics of the item that are changeable to damage diceShifting is changing it's physical shape, not it's magic. The Staff Trait is tied to its magical properties, not its shape. Where did you get the idea that shape influences an items magic unless stated otherwise? I sure don't recall seeing that in any of the rule books.
For instance, if your Wand got turned into a dagger, can you point to a book and page where it says that it loses its magical powers and traits because of that? IMO, the effect changing something would have to explicitly state that it loses things or no lose happens.
I can point to Shifting Rune which tells us which features both physical and magical the weapon keeps explicitly.
I can even point to the example you gave earlier of the spy staff which changes to another item and tells us it keeps its statistics so we know it still functions as a magical staff no matter what you transform it into with the activation.Thing is the shifting rune description doesn't say you keep magical features of the items original form and there isn't a rule that tells us it should.
Yeah I allow property runes on Staves except Shifting, mostly for the *aesthetic*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is the shifting rune description doesn't say you keep magical features of the items original form and there isn't a rule that tells us it should.
You that that backwards. It would need to tell you something is lost for it to happen: why do you think it vanishes without an explicit call out? it's like saying 'you lose your spell slots because you because someone cast Shrink on you'. There is as much rules to back that up as there is to say 'your staff loses magic because it changes to another weapon'. For there to be an effect in the game, there has to be a rule to back it up.
Shifting is explicitly describing its functions and makes no mention of other abilities: the fact that it doesn't go into things outside it's function doesn't point to anything but a narrow description of its effect: it HAS to mention runes and any precious material because those can change with its shape [a normally metal weapon can change into a normally wood weapon and runes can require a specific type of weapon to work on]. Nothing in shifting effects it's other magic, so its not mentioned.
EDIT: I also noticed that the Spellstriker Staff, the staff with Shifting in it, makes no mention of losing anything when shifted. You'd think that'd be an important call out if losing them was a stealth rule in the game.
Shifting only talks about the Runes the target weapon might have. Not of any non-Rune magical properties it might have.
Should a Shifted weapon lose the Resonant trait BTW?
Come to think of it, Shifting does not even mention weapon traits at all.
I noticed it too. there is no mention of what actually is gained or lost only that the weapon changes shape. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
I saw two ways of looking at it.
Nothing actually changes but a non coded thing with no in game meaning "Shape"
Or
Everything about the item changes unless specifically called out as carrying over.
I think people gave it a special case and started parsing out things to remain about the original "shape" that were not actually stated while the shifting rune does actually say what remains explicitly.
So i would say nothing remains unless the ability says it does is the cleanest way to do it. There can be no abuse of the shifting rune that way even without the errata.
Thing is the shifting rune description doesn't say you keep magical features of the items original form and there isn't a rule that tells us it should.You that that backwards. It would need to tell you something is lost for it to happen: why do you think it vanishes without an explicit call out? it's like saying 'you lose your spell slots because you because someone cast Shrink on you'. There is as much rules to back that up as there is to say 'your staff loses magic because it changes to another weapon'. For there to be an effect in the game, there has to be a rule to back it up.
Shifting is explicitly describing its functions and makes no mention of other abilities: the fact that it doesn't go into things outside it's function doesn't point to anything but a narrow description of its effect: it HAS to mention runes and any precious material because those can change with its shape [a normally metal weapon can change into a normally wood weapon and runes can require a specific type of weapon to work on]. Nothing in shifting effects it's other magic, so its not mentioned.
EDIT: I also noticed that the Spellstriker Staff, the staff with Shifting in it, makes no mention of losing anything when shifted. You'd think that'd be an important call out if losing them was a stealth rule in the game.
Spellstriker staff actually has a shifting rune and so you would look at the shifting rune entry to see what a shifting rune does which tells you what remains when you activate it.
And as I argued before and have not been corrected by any rule the qualities of a staff are also being changed when the weapon changes its shape. They are statistics of the item and now its a different item for a time. Just like the spystaff has to explicitly tell us it keeps its staff statistics even when it changes using its activation ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellstriker staff actually has a shifting rune and so you would look at the shifting rune entry to see what a shifting rune does which tells you what remains when you activate it.
But, once again, it make NO mention of losing anything magical either for the item or the rune. As it's a specific weapon that can change its shape, it'd be logical to make a callout if using it would remove it's abilities, especially as the rune doesn't do so explicitly.
And as I argued before and have not been corrected by any rule the qualities of a staff are also being changed when the weapon changes its shape.
The WEAPON traits change, the Staff trait was not. The onus is on you to show something changes, as the base assumption is things don't change unless an explicit rule does so. So you haven't proved your theory and are using a Burden of Proof Fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam), where someone claims something exists and puts the onus on others to disprove it. It's shifting the burden of proving a rule [that the magic of staves mysteriously vanished when its shape changes] to others instead of actually proving that they do. Nothing about altering it's weapon properties infers that it's non-weapon properties changes: nothing says its Staff trait is removed or altered.
They are statistics of the item and now its a different item for a time.
It has different weapon stats: full stop. It in no way mentions anything else changing.
Just like the spystaff has to explicitly tell us it keeps its staff statistics even when it changes using its activation ability.
I don't think that's saying what you think it's saying. Note that it says the "The staff’s statistics don’t change" and not 'The Staff Trait don’t change.' This means you can change it into a Musical Instrument and it still counts as a staff weapon. What it does NOT say is that it keeps the Staff trait or that it retains it's magical abilities. You keep conflating staff and Staff: you can have a staff that isn't a Staff and you can have a Staff that isn't a staff.
Spellstriker staff actually has a shifting rune and so you would look at the shifting rune entry to see what a shifting rune does which tells you what remains when you activate it.But, once again, it make NO mention of losing anything magical either for the item or the rune. As it's a specific weapon that can change its shape, it'd be logical to make a callout if using it would remove it's abilities, especially as the rune doesn't do so explicitly.
And as I argued before and have not been corrected by any rule the qualities of a staff are also being changed when the weapon changes its shape.The WEAPON traits change, the Staff trait was not. The onus is on you to show something changes, as the base assumption is things don't change unless an explicit rule does so. So you haven't proved your theory and are using a Burden of Proof Fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam), where someone claims something exists and puts the onus on others to disprove it. It's shifting the burden of proving a rule [that the magic of staves mysteriously vanished when its shape changes] to others instead of actually proving that they do. Nothing about altering it's weapon properties infers that it's non-weapon properties changes: nothing says its Staff trait is removed or altered.
They are statistics of the item and now its a different item for a time.It has different weapon stats: full stop. It in no way mentions anything else changing.
Just like the spystaff has to explicitly tell us it keeps its staff statistics even when it changes using its activation ability.I don't think that's saying what you think it's saying. Note that it says the "The staff’s statistics don’t change" and not 'The Staff Trait don’t change.' This means you can change it into a Musical Instrument and it still counts as a staff weapon. What it does NOT say is that it keeps the Staff trait or that it retains it's magical abilities. You...
just because you cap some words and use the term full stop doesn't mean you backed up your argument with anything. And really I am not arguing in bad faith here. I have a valid point that goes against the common understanding based on the actual written rules.
the staff trait is a statistic of that paricular staff. if you look at the stat block for the spystaff the staff trait is on there. I have no reason to assume there its only talking about things like damage dice and bludgeoning ect. Why do you assume thats all it is talking about?
And about the point you made first about "NO mention of losing anything magical either" the shifting rune does tell you what about the previous shape you get to keep (runes being magical too). Why explicitly say that if the assumption is you keep anything it doesnt say you lose?
Really if thats the standard then maybe you dont gain or lose anything at all since it doesnt say you do explicitly. Thats where that logic leads.
I see now that I am rehashing this previous thread. So I wont keep arguing past this. The Coda trait on magical musical instruments you mentioned earlier actually make a good argument for the staff trait being lost when changing to a different weapon shape. Even those music instruments need a specific rule to overide the lack of being a staff so they can have the staff trait.
I agree with Themetricsystem
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, that thread goes over it with pretty much just Themetricsystem disagreeing. I stand that threads posts.
PS: by the way, you really mangled the link. As is, it's non-functional as you left the default link and just slapped on the new oneto the end of the default one.
Yep, that thread goes over it with pretty much just Themetricsystem disagreeing. I stand that threads posts.
PS: by the way, you really mangled the link. As is, it's non-functional as you left the default link and just slapped on the new oneto the end of the default one.
I keep messing those links up.
I messed it up in other posts too.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, that thread goes over it with pretty much just Themetricsystem disagreeing. I stand that threads posts.
PS: by the way, you really mangled the link. As is, it's non-functional as you left the default link and just slapped on the new oneto the end of the default one.
I keep messing those links up.
I messed it up in other posts too.
It happens, the formating can get me too. I sometime wrongly attribute a quote when i copy/paste from multiple people. ;)