|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Under the bladebond magus it says that the blackblade is unbreakable (can not suffer tg he broken condition) as long as it has a pool point remaining. I say it is unable to suffer hp damage and can't be sundered until I use up its points but my friends say it can be reduced to 0 hp and destroyed at any time. Who is right? (i know w are probably both wrong lol, just looking for clarification).
|
|
"Unbreakable (Ex): As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition. If broken, the black blade is unconscious and powerless until repaired. If destroyed, the black blade can be reforged 1 week later through a special ritual that costs 200 gp per magus level. The ritual takes 24 hours to complete."
The crunch is not really clear on this topic. But as the name suggests, I would say that a black blade is undestructible as long as it has 1 point in it's own arcane pool ; but it still loses HPs, so if you suffer a sunder from an adamantine weapon, your weapon is broken/shattered and loses any power as soon as there isn't any arcane point left in it.
Your right, they are wrong.
I mean really don't folks know how to speak English anymore..Un breakable, can not be broken, can not be damaged, can not be destroyed.
Outstanding question. Sunder allows you do deal damage to the weapon. If the weapon takes half it's HP or more, it gains the "broken" condition. If it's reduced to zero HP, you can choose to destroy it.
The blackblade says it cannot be broken with a pool point remaining. But does it say it cannot be destroyed?
I would assume that you are arguing from the standpoint that since it cannot be broken, it cannot suffer more than half it's HP in damage. I'm afraid that's flawed logic. It simply doesn't gain the condition (and therefore the effects) of being broken.
If reduced to 0 HP, your blackblade can indeed be destroyed, as listed above. But it will work as normal until it reaches that point.
|
|
Outstanding question. Sunder allows you do deal damage to the weapon. If the weapon takes half it's HP or more, it gains the "broken" condition. If it's reduced to zero HP, you can choose to destroy it.
The blackblade says it cannot be broken with a pool point remaining. But does it say it cannot be destroyed?
I would assume that you are arguing from the standpoint that since it cannot be broken, it cannot suffer more than half it's HP in damage. I'm afraid that's flawed logic. It simply doesn't gain the condition (and therefore the effects) of being broken.
If reduced to 0 HP, your blackblade can indeed be destroyed, as listed above. But it will work as normal until it reaches that point.
you are correct this is my friends standpoint on how it works. I compared it to a force cage which is also unbreakable. Under this logic I could destroy a force construct from hitting it alot. It would seem to me that something that can't be broken is immune to damage. I could see it being destroyed through other means but not hp loss. But, that's why am here it's only my opinion want to see what other people think.
I am offering the standpoint of the destroyed condition vs. the broken condition, which are unfortunately the RAW on the matter.
If you were able to hit a forcecage, it can indeed be broken, and the rules for thus are contained within the spell description.
If I were the GM, I would likely rule that your sword cannot be destroyed unless it is reduced to 0 HP in a single hit. I think that's fair.
But that's your GM's call.
I see your reasoning Primo and yes technically you are correct but please let's be reasonable the purpose of the ability is that as long as have one arcane point remaining the blade can't be destroyed period. If it was intended to work like you say then the ability is hardly worth mentioning because anyone serious enough to attempt a sunder it will most likely destroy it entirely.
Don't get hung up on a small detail that's in a book that hasn't yet received any sort of errata.
Don't get hung up on a small detail that's in a book that hasn't yet received any sort of errata.
Erm... correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one who's getting hung up on flavor text?
the purpose of the ability is that as long as have one arcane point remaining the blade can't be destroyed period.
Oh? How do you know that, exactly? All I see is the ability's description, which gives a very specific benefit (immune to one specific condition). How do you know what the purpose of the ability is? Wouldn't it have been easier (and lowered the book's word count) if they simply said, "The black blade is immune to damage and cannot be destroyed as long as you have one arcane point remaining"? But they didn't. So how do you know what the intent is?
Like another poster said, you're getting a bit too hung up on the word "Unbreakable". Let's try out this other, new ability I made up just now, and let me know what you think the intent is:
Awesome (Ex): As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition. If broken, the black blade is unconscious and powerless until repaired. If destroyed, the black blade can be reforged 1 week later through a special ritual that costs 200 gp per magus level. The ritual takes 24 hours to complete."
See that? The first sentence states that it's immune to a specific condition under specific conditions. Then, it gives some other stuff that's related.
By the raw the blackblade is Immune to the broken condition and that is all. There is nothing stating any immunity to hit point damage, or to being destroyed as per the condition so I'd have to agree that means it CAN be destroyed, if reduced to 0 hit points, but would work perfectly up until that point.
I make no claim too know the intent of this rule, but would probably as a gm whip up a rule stating that any time it would be reduced to 0 or less hit points you could spend a point of your arcane pool too have it reduced to 1 hit point instead, until such time as any errata comes out to change the way it is currently worded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it truly couldn't be destroyed, why mention spending time and money making anew one?
Ravingdork, even if we did agree it was immune to being destroyed it would still lose this ability if it ran out of points in its pool.
I'll fix this, destroyed does not exist as a condition in the game rules. Ruined and Destroyed are descriptions of the broken condition, they in themselves are not defined as individual conditions in the rules and are just descriptive words for the Broken Condition. Sense the weapon is immune to the broken condition while it has a arcane point it is immune to the descriptive words of that condition as well.
So by RAW, the weapon is immune to the Broken condition, and sense it is immune to the Broken condition it cannot be destroyed or ruined sense those two conditions do not exist in the game.
As doing damage to an object makes it have the boken condition it is also immune to damage as it can't have the condition.
Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item.
• If the item is a weapon, any attacks made with the item suffer a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls. Such weapons only score a critical hit on a natural 20 and only deal ×2 damage on a confirmed critical hit.
• If the item is a suit of armor or a shield, the bonus it grants to AC is halved, rounding down. Broken armor doubles its armor check penalty on skills.
• If the item is a tool needed for a skill, any skill check made with the item takes a –2 penalty.
• If the item is a wand or staff, it uses up twice as many charges when used.
• If the item does not fit into any of these categories, the broken condition has no effect on its use. Items with the broken condition, regardless of type, are worth 75% of their normal value. If the item is magical, it can only be repaired with a mending or make whole spell cast by a character with a caster level equal to or higher than the item’s. Items lose the broken condition if the spell restores the object to half its original hit points or higher. Non-magical items can be repaired in a similar fashion, or through the Craft skill used to create it. Generally speaking, this requires a DC 20 Craft check and 1 hour of work per point of damage to be repaired. Most craftsmen charge one-tenth the item’s total cost to repair such damage (more if the item is badly damaged or ruined).
So by RAW there is no defined Destroyed Condition, it is part of the broken condition. By raw there is no ruined condition it is part of the Broken Condition.
Why do people make this game so difficult.
As to why rules exist for the repair of the object, well you can spend all of the Arcane Points and thus it can then be destroyed.
Now unless they have defined the destroyed (condition) in another book it remains descriptive words and has not real game mechanic. Only the Broken condition does, at least by RAW.
Nothing in there states that destroyed is a form of broken.
Destroyed is a condition in the same way Dead is a condition.. it doesn't exsist (noticed this part is wrong, but my point still stands), and apart from a passage in the magic item section that states a destroyed magic item loses its magical propertys, doesn't technically do anything. Go read the Sunder section in the combat chapter. Despite this most people can figure out what it does.
EDIT:- Further, it's immune to broken so it can't take hit point damage really?
Well a barb is immune to fatigue at level 17, obviously that means he's immune to "leaving rage", following that logic, jeez.
"Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition. If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition."
I read it as explaining what happens if the black blade has no arcane points left it can be broken/destroyed. Why put in the part about the blade being unconscious if broken it's there for when there are no points left. If no points left when broken it's unconscious, if no points left if destroyed can be rebuilt after one week. If the black blade has 1 arcane point it can't be damaged. Of course ymmv.
I read it as explaining what happens if the black blade has no arcane points left it can be broken/destroyed. Why put in the part about the blade being unconscious if broken it's there for when there are no points left. If no points left when broken it's unconscious, if no points left if destroyed can be rebuilt after one week. If the black blade has 1 arcane point it can't be damaged. Of course ymmv.
My 2 coppers pretty much agree with this.
hardly game breaking (imo).
Nothing in there states that destroyed is a form of broken.
Destroyed is a condition in the same way Dead is a condition.. it doesn't exsist (noticed this part is wrong, but my point still stands), and apart from a passage in the magic item section that states a destroyed magic item loses its magical propertys, doesn't technically do anything. Go read the Sunder section in the combat chapter. Despite this most people can figure out what it does.
EDIT:- Further, it's immune to broken so it can't take hit point damage really?
Well a barb is immune to fatigue at level 17, obviously that means he's immune to "leaving rage", following that logic, jeez.
"Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition. If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition."
Umm.. No Dead is defined as a condition in the game. You are incorrect sir.
Dead: The character’s hit points are reduced to a negative
amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution
drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The
character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters
cannot
benefit from normal or magical healing,
but they can be
restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally
unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead
character to life also restores the body either to full health
or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the
spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need
not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other
conditions that affect dead bodies.
My argument stands. Destroyed is not a condition defined as a mechanic in the game it is a description of the broken condition.
Dead is a condition defined by RAW thus it exist. If dead did not have a mechanical definition then you sir would be correct.
As to the Barbarian reference the power is called Tireless Rage and is extraordinary in nature. It states very clearly that "a barbarian no longer becomes Fatigues at the end of her rage.
So you are correct, however it does state the limits of this power as only affecting the barbarians rage. Rage is a defined power, Fatigued is a defined condition of the game.
Thus I don't get your point sir.
So far your argument is that they did not define Dead, they did, that barbarians are immune to fatigue at level 17, they are not, they are immune to the Fatigue Condition caused by their Rage ability.
So your argument is to invent an new Rule in the game called Destroyed (Condition) that is your choice. However it is not a game mechanic by raw and does not exist in the game.
Damaged Objects: A damaged objects remains functional with the broken condition until the item's hit points are reduced to 0 at which point it is destroyed. Destroyed is a sub-condition (at best of Broken, which is defined) Destryed removes the Ability to have the object be repaired and removes the ability of the object to be used.
This the best your going to get by RAW, and even then Destroyed is a sub rule (or a add on rule) of Broken, an Object muse use the Broken Condition rules to be destroyed.
Broken Condition by RAW includes destroyed and ruined (ruined is destroyed or unusable and can not be repaired).
Quote Page 173, Hip points section, 1st Paragraph, last sentence.
"When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined."
Ruined and Destroyed are interchangeable in the rules. The Broken condition includes ruined as part of it's rule sub set.
First up, go read what immune does. It makes you immune to the effects and the secondary effects of something, it DOES NOT make you immune to what causes the condition, or even stop you gaining the condition. Just makes you immune too the effects.
Secondly you've quoted in a way as to throw off what is actually written.
"A damaged object remains functional with the broken condition until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed."
Once again NOTHING here suggests that destroyed is in any way a sub condition, this is your interpertation and you are of course welcome too it, but please do not try to state that it is the raw, the Broken condition is fully described in the conditions index, and if destroyed was a sub section of it it would be in there, not in a section that has nothing to do with broken except to explain the conditions that can cause it.
As I understand it, before something is destroyed, it has to be broken. So something that can't be broken, can not be destroyed.
Whatever the official ruling/reading, I would play it that way, to give the bladebound magus a real advantage.
First up, go read what immune does. It makes you immune to the effects and the secondary effects of something, it DOES NOT make you immune to what causes the condition, or even stop you gaining the condition. Just makes you immune too the effects.
Secondly you've quoted in a way as to throw off what is actually written.
"A damaged object remains functional with the broken condition until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed."
Once again NOTHING here suggests that destroyed is in any way a sub condition, this is your interpertation and you are of course welcome too it, but please do not try to state that it is the raw, the Broken condition is fully described in the conditions index, and if destroyed was a sub section of it it would be in there, not in a section that has nothing to do with broken except to explain the conditions that can cause it.
In the actual definition of Broken it includes the word ruined. Under hit points it defines an object that has 0 hit points as ruined. Under damageable an object it defines a object with 0 hit points as destroyed.
Thus destroyed and ruined are defined as an object with 0 hit points in the game system. This means it is a word that is used interchangeable in the books.
The broken condition includes Ruined as part of the broken condition.
This is not rocket science, I really do not know why folks fill the need to distort what the rules say for what they wish the rules say.
Ruined = Destroyed | Destroyed = Ruined
Broken condition includes Ruined. The end.
The only Legal condition in the game reflecting damage to an object is Broken!
Immune is not defined in the game so we will have to use an English dictionary to determine what the word means in a sentence. Protect or exempt, esp. from an obligation or the effects of something: immune from legal action.
Pretty clear.
If you are really determined to make individuals keep track of the damage to there black blade so that when they spend the last arcane point it falls apart instantly. Then have fun with that, but it's against the rules.
Even if the Blackblade is immune to being destroyed (which I'm inclined to believe it is), it is not immune to being sundered or to hit point damage. If it has Arcane Pool points left, it just sits there at 0Hp suffering no ill effects.
If the Magus wants to use that last point, though, he better have a mend spell handy, otherwise, if he uses the blade's last point while it's at 0Hp, the blade will be destoyed.
Come to think of it, it's odd that the Magus doesn't have Mend on his spell list. Seeing as that's the easiest way to repair a sundered weapon. Even a vanilla Magus should probably have his weapon sundered as much as the Fighter.
If you are really determined to make individuals keep track of the damage to there black blade so that when they spend the last arcane point it falls apart instantly. Then have fun with that, but it's against the rules.
I missed in your post where you equate immune to the broken condition to immune to damage.
I missed in your post where you equate immune to the broken condition to immune to damage.
The Broken Condition is caused by damage. Any object that has 75% of it's hitpoints is automatically broken. It's part of the condition.
I can accept that the area is grey about the damage, I just really think that having to keep up with the damage over and over through out the course of multiple games is kinda silly. Not to mention just an added difficulty to the game.
What I really don't understand is why there is a need to over complicate the rules system that is already complicated as it stands.
It's immune to the broken condition, with an ability called unbreakable. What more must a game designer say in order to gets things across to the consumer. Sunder means to break. To do HP damage means to be breaking/harming something.
Is this logic really to difficult to grasp, do the devs make the game so hard to understand that one needs a law degree and a masters in English in order to play?
I missed in your post where you equate immune to the broken condition to immune to damage.
The Broken Condition is caused by damage. Any object that has 75% of it's hitpoints is automatically broken. It's part of the condition.
I can accept that the area is grey about the damage, I just really think that having to keep up with the damage over and over through out the course of multiple games is kinda silly. Not to mention just an added difficulty to the game.
What I really don't understand is why there is a need to over complicate the rules system that is already complicated as it stands.
It's immune to the broken condition, with an ability called unbreakable. What more must a game designer say in order to gets things across to the consumer. Sunder means to break. To do HP damage means to be breaking/harming something.
Is this logic really to difficult to grasp, do the devs make the game so hard to understand that one needs a law degree and a masters in English in order to play?
A creature with regeneration is basically immune to death, that is, a creature with regeneration cannot die/be killed while their regeneration is functioning.
It is EXTREMELY important to keep track of the damage such a creature takes, even though to do HP damage means to be killing/harming something. This is, of course, because if a creature's regeneration is shut off by taking damage of the appropriate type, they are immediately killed if their Hp total is below negative CON.
Besides, you still have to keep track of Hp for every other weapon and piece of equipment the PCs own, and any damage the BlackBlade takes while it's pool is empty.
"Broken
Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item.
If the item is a weapon, any attacks made with the item suffer a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls. Such weapons only score a critical hit on a natural 20 and only deal ×2 damage on a confirmed critical hit.
If the item is a suit of armor or a shield, the bonus it grants to AC is halved, rounding down. Broken armor doubles its armor check penalty on skills.
If the item is a tool needed for a skill, any skill check made with the item takes a –2 penalty.
If the item is a wand or staff, it uses up twice as many charges when used.
If the item does not fit into any of these categories, the broken condition has no effect on its use. Items with the broken condition, regardless of type, are worth 75% of their normal value. If the item is magical, it can only be repaired with a mending or make whole spell cast by a character with a caster level equal to or higher than the item's. Items lose the broken condition if the spell restores the object to half its original hit points or higher. Non-magical items can be repaired in a similar fashion, or through the Craft skill used to create it. Generally speaking, this requires a DC 20 Craft check and 1 hour of work per point of damage to be repaired. Most craftsmen charge one-tenth the item's total cost to repair such damage (more if the item is badly damaged or ruined)."
Mr green, am i correct in saying that you argue destroyed is a sub-set of broken because of the line saying that a "ruined item costs more to repair"? And one poissble other line where destroyed and ruined is interchangeable? If so i'm just going to move on and leave this because it doesn't really seem worth discussing.
Also
"Immunity (Ex or Su)
A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect
Format: Immune acid, fire, paralysis; Location: Defensive Abilities."
Nothing in there says that you become immune to what CAUSES a condition OR that you even can't gain a condition, just that you are immune to it's EFFECTS.
Frankly Mr.Green, it's fairly obvious you've come into this with a strong view of how things SHOULD work and a reasonable intepretation of the rules, you are however completely dis-regarding how things actually work and either mis-understanding or making up how things are actually written.
If this interpretation is how things are run at your table then by all means, I can see where you are coming from it does require a lot less micro-managing but please do not spread blatant mis-information on the forums, as it can lead to confusion if people learn how a rule works incorrectly then start attempting to make arguements from that standing espically in PFS games.
|
|
Is this logic really to difficult to grasp, do the devs make the game so hard to understand that one needs a law degree and a masters in English in order to play?
I would acually prefer if the rules where written by a lawyer with, at the very least, a masters in english. The rules would be very concise and have perfect syntax and grammer. I have never read a legal document that didnt say just what I means with little to no room for interperatation.
Now if your saying that the Devs have created a circumstance where an object with 0 hitpoints can be difined by two different states and that both states are mutually exclusive. Well that sounds like a coin toss..
So here is that mentioned rules call in motion:
Your object has reached 0 HP, lets flip a coin to determine if it is ruined or if it is destroyed. Call heads or tails.
My argument is that the word Destroyed and the word Ruined represent the same state in regards to an object when it reaches 0 HP. That means you can not repair it, and can not use the object.
Now with my argument I state that sense in the game mechanically definition of the Broken condition it includes Ruined, and sense it includes Ruined which we know is when an object has 0 Hit-points, then by default it must include Destroyed which is when an object has 0 hit points.
The argument that is being expressed by others is that Broken is separate from ruined which is separate from destroyed. Now I find that rules call to be ignoring the fact that Broken includes the Ruined descriptor in its definition.
Another argument could be made that yes Broken condition does include the ruined descriptor because it is spelled out in its definition but it does not include Destroyed.
So when your object get broken and hits 0 hit-points what condition is it, Ruined or Destroyed? Both descriptors are an effect that happens when an object reaches 0 hit points. Both are synonymous of each other. In the English language.
So I have stated the three possible arguments. Of which my personal argument does assume that there were English speaking individuals creating the books, and they knew how to use the English language to describe a effect.
But to support my argument:
Ruined:
Definition:"the downfall, decay, or destruction of anything."
Destroyed
Definition: to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
Now the English language says that Ruin and Destroy for the purposes of objects are the same freaking effect.
Argue all you like but blame the language the books were written in. Ruined = Destroyed,
Broken condition includes Ruined and thus sense ruined means the exact same thing in game mechanics as destroyed and they mean the same in the English language, the broken condition includes the rules of Items of 0 HP.
Don't believe me ask an English major or a lawyer.
I would acually prefer if the rules where written by a lawyer with, at the very least, a masters in english. The rules would be very concise and have perfect syntax and grammer. I have never read a legal document that didnt say just what I means with little to no room for interpenetration.
It would be nice but I doubt the pay is good enough to entice a lawyer, but maybe a good editor...
If this interpretation is how things are run at your table then by all means, I can see where you are coming from it does require a lot less micro-managing but please do not spread blatant mis-information on the forums, as it can lead to confusion if people learn how a rule works incorrectly then start attempting to make arguements from that standing espically in PFS games.
It's not a interpretation is is the absolute logical conclusion of the rules. If a rule creates a Loop in logic it can not be followed and thus can not be played. So one must look for clues as too use the rule in a playable manor.
For PFS games it's irrelevant. Those games work outside of the RAW rules for the game. I'm speaking from the rules that are written.
From those rules either Destroyed and Ruined are a coin toss or part of a defined condition.
The objective of the game is not twisting the rules to one person advantage or another it is about playing with a set of rules everyone understands. The moment you define Dead at Negative a PC's constitution score you have stated a rule. However if you then define Comatose being at Negative a PC's constitution score you have crated two different effects. One kills of the character from play, the other keeps the character alive and waiting to be healed, you can't have both.
The same applies to the Ruined and Destroyed except we know that those two words are Synonyms of each other.
Synonym means: Equivalent,
Equivalent means: Same
Same means: Identical
Identical means: alike in every way.
If you truly want to believe the Editors and writers wanted to convey false information about the English language in order to make their product seem ignorant or written by uneducated individuals that your opinion.
I have already stated I was planning to just ignore any of your arguements where you are trying to say that this sentence
"Most craftsmen charge one-tenth the item's total cost to repair such damage (more if the item is badly damaged or ruined)."
Means that Ruined/destroyed (which I haven't actually made a solid stand on, but yeah I can agree those are probably the same thing) is a sub condition of broken. Not only have you made up the idea of a "sub condition" which doesn't actually exsist anywhere, the closest being more extreme versions of a condition such as fatigued upgrading to exhausted (which i will point out, being immune to fatigued does not make you immune to exhausted, go read the lame oracle curse and see how it has to upgrade over later levels).
Mr Green, you are the only one attempting to hold this stance everyone else has already agreed and moved on and I in my stubborness am the only one still attempting to convince you of this point so I shall make my final points and leave you to believe what you will.
1. You seem to have at least dropped the idea that "Immune to broken" means "immune to taking damage", that's a start.
2. On the other hand you have decided that the last line of the broken condition, which merely states that a more damaged version of a item may at gm discretion, cause a item to cost more to repair, some-how makes destroyed a "sub condition" of broken. Sub conditions don't exsist for one but if you are really going to argue on this point I don't see what I can say other than, does it say anywhere that destroyed is a part of broken? No? Does it say ruined is? No? And no, using the word once in the last line of the description does not count.
3.Even if some-how it DID make it a "sub-condition" then I'd have no choice but to follow the examples of other related conditions, which as i have already shown being immune to a less extreme version does NOT make you immune to the more extreme. No matter how you look at it, this doesn't work how you think.
And at that I shall back out from this discussion a hell of a lot later than I should have.
|
Just an observation, NeverNever, I have never seen you change your opinion on anything, ever. This is not meant to be an insult, please do not take it as such. To make a better argument though, you might want to look at the evidence for and against your opinion. I am actually on the fence on this argument. This is because I have been surprised by developer errata before. Let's hope we get an answer.
I agree, i'm pretty stubborn, but I've been proven wrong before and will be again, and I would prefer if any errata that came out they did make the blade immune to being destroyed as I believe it fits better and was more likely to be the intended rules, sadly in any situation involving PFS it's the rule as they are now that count until we get some errata.
@Nevernever: Your not the only one that is stubborn, I'm pretty stubborn myself.
As for this entire discussion; for my group we actually typically avoid allowing any feat, class, spell or rules which are vague.
That means several archetypes of the Magus and summoner are flat out banned because the rules are too subjective.
My understand the rule follows a strict sequence. If I can't write in functional pseudo code then I must be missing something. The bladebound archetype is considered vague enough do to the personality of the blade to not be used by my group, heck spellstrike has made the magus all but unplayable in our group.
I have recently come to the conclusion that if a condition is not defined in the book as a clear rule then it is not a rule.
An Example, held, wield, destroyed, and ruin. Instead I tend to think of Held or wield as "armed" (which is defined). Thus when an ability says held or wielded in its description I refer to the rule "armed". Sense I cannot find a clear definition of held or wield in the system and the ambiguity causes to much conflict.
In the case of the blackblade the only truly defined condition in the game that fits is the one it calls out "broken". It's not to say that Destroyed is not used (and used heavily) as a descriptive word. It is to say that the designers felt that Destroyed or Ruined did not need a definition in the game. I believe that they felt Broken filled that position.
As for Fatigue, Exhausted is defined as a condition of it's own.
As for sub condition I only used that phrase as I mentioned much earlier as a way to clarify the fact that technically Destroyed was not a true defined condition in the game.
I would love for a better set of rules with better definitions, but I think that the designers hope we will be reasonable with our views of the game and remember that it is both a Game and Recreation. We are here to have fun not debates.
Certainly valid logic and I can see why you'd rule it that way. I believe destroyed should definatly been cleared up as apart from a few scattered statements around the core book (the only truely defining one being in the magic items section that states any magic item loses it's abilites once it becomes "destroyed"), they seem to leave it up to each group to decide exactly what it does.
Certainly valid logic and I can see why you'd rule it that way. I believe destroyed should definatly been cleared up as apart from a few scattered statements around the core book (the only truely defining one being in the magic items section that states any magic item loses it's abilites once it becomes "destroyed"), they seem to leave it up to each group to decide exactly what it does.
I think what is possible the most annoying thing about any game system is players and GMs' fill the need to believe that the designers of the game are all knowing. When one can take a simple statement as Unbreakable then apply that it can be destroyed and have a valid argument with that, then the game system has failed in the one area that that it must do. All games system based on rules must be understandable in the language that it is written in. It also has to understandable to the lowest academic level of the intended consumer.
I am the other party on the discussion and I would like to bring to the attention that broken and destroyed are two different effects. This is the Unbreakable rule, "Unbreakable (Ex): As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition. If broken, the black blade is unconscious and powerless until repaired. If destroyed, the black blade can be reforged 1 week later through a special ritual that costs 200 gp per magus level. The ritual takes 24 hours to complete." Nowhere in this description say that cannot take hit point damage only that it is immune to the broken condition.
The second section under sunder states, "If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition."
This seems pretty straight forward to me, but I think you are all getting strung up on the word “Unbreakable” which is just a title of the ability.
This.
Nowhere in the description of the blackblade does it say "As long as it has 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to being destroyed."
It simply says it is immune to the broken condition, something entirely different than destroyed.
A weapon does not have to be broken first before it is destroyed. It can go straight from "healthy" to "destroyed" with no condition inbetween.
Let's say the black blade has 5 hit points. I Sunder it for 30 damage. That Sunder bypasses the broken condition entirely and allows me to destroy the black blade, if I so choose. The magus must now reforge the black blade.
Now let's say I choose not to destroy the weapon. That black blade now has 1 hit point, but because it is immune, it does not get the negative penalties inherent to the broken condition. It is treated as normal until destroyed or repaired.
It is, but it became nitpicking because people made the incorrect assumption that an item has to go through an imaginary progression from "healthy" to "broken" to "destroyed". If they'd just latch onto this concept, this whole post would be a non-issue.
Wasn't that a logical fallacy of some kind, LazarX? Just because a GM can rule the problem away, doesn't mean there isn't a problem in the rules that needs to be fixed.
It is, but it became nitpicking because people made the incorrect assumption that an item has to go through an imaginary progression from "healthy" to "broken" to "destroyed". If they'd just latch onto this concept, this whole post would be a non-issue.
Just because I fill like nitpicking, your statement as I read it is that if you destroy something it is not broken! So a shattered vase is not broken it is destroyed. Is that a summery of the thought process?
My argument is that anything that is destroyed is also broken buy definition. You can not destroy or ruin something with out it being broken.
So how does that work?
@Mr. Green
Ok i can understand not liking the vagueness of the black blade (i personally do like it but i can see why some won't) but what's the problem with spellstrike?
|
Is the only way to receive the broken condition to take damage? If so, then the definition of immunity would make "Unbreakable" immune to damage vs object.
"Immunity (Ex or Su)
A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect
Format: Immune acid, fire, paralysis; Location: Defensive Abilities."
I really don't see the issue. You can argue if its RAW but its pretty easy to assume the intended affect is to make the Blackblade immune to being destroyed. After all it would be pretty crappy if the item your entire archtype is based around is destroyed.
@Mr. Green
Ok i can understand not liking the vagueness of the black blade (i personally do like it but i can see why some won't) but what's the problem with spellstrike?
There seems to be 3 or so different ways it can work. Thus a thread was created so it could be clarified.