What caveats am I missing with this artifact?

[NChance]

Yes, the idea is swiped from Minmax's new sword in Goblins, and the name is swiped from a China Mieville novel, but look past all that. Are there any loopholes I'm missing to cover with this artifact?

Spoiler:

The Possible Sword

Aura strong transmutation; CL 20th
Slot –; Price –; Weight 4 lbs.

Description

The Possible Sword has the stats of a nonmagical longsword, save that it cannot be sundered, damaged, nor given the broken condition. When the command word is spoken as a free action, the Possible Sword takes on the properties of whatever the blade is touching. For example, if the blade was touching a +2 flaming warhammer, it would gain the warhammer's +2 bonus to hit and damage and its flaming enchantment. If touched to a headband of mental superiority +2, it would grant its wielder a +2 enhancement bonus to all mental ability scores while drawn. If used with a substance that would normally deal damage on its own, such as alchemist's fire, it adds the extra damage to the base damage of the sword, though it does not have splash damage. If used with a potion, the effects of the potion are applied to the target on a successful hit. If used with a nonmagical substance, the Possible Sword deals damage as a nonmagical sword, though it may bypass certain types of damage reduction. A sword made of water or air still deals damage, while a sword made of fire deals no extra fire damage. The Possible Sword cannot duplicate spell completion nor spell trigger items.

Destruction

The Possible Sword shatters if ever brought into contact with another version of itself.

Thanks in advance.

[Lightbulb]

First thing I have posted some things below which I believe are potential loop holes. I think the weapon sounds really cool and is worth spending time on.

Most of what I say is partly a joke but it does show how unclear text can be twisted. :)

Shattered is not a D&D term. The sword cannot be damaged or given the broken condition thus RAW 'shattered' means nothing.

But what do you really want us to say?

Its your idea, presumably you will be DMing. YOU know how the rules are meant to be applied.

If I were to redraft the text above I would simplify it greatly. As written its quite confusing.

For example you say "it cannot be sundered". It CAN be sundered - sundering is TRYING to damage it. Anyone can TRY and damage the Possible Sword they just cannot deal it damage. In other words there is no magical mind control that prevents people from sundering it.

"The Possible Sword cannot take damage (or gain the broken condition) by any means magical or otherwise."

---

Free actions. These are often open to abuse.

If I want to take on the properties of an enemies weapon do I need to make a touch attack to do it? Since its a free action I will continue to do touch attacks until I succeed.

Make the action to both touch and take on the properties would seem better. Speaking the command word may be Free but the touching is not.

I image the intention is that my opponent blocks my blow and I take on the properties of the weapon. In which case you may need to make them wait to attack you because who's to say they block with their weapon?

---

I touch my +5 shield and gain +5AC (or is that +7 does it gain the normal +2 of the light shield?). Right my turn. I touch my +5 flaming, holy, sonic, icy arrow. +9 sword yay (I am not even sure that is legal to craft such an arrow but +5 certainly is)! I attack. I touch my shield as a free action.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me (RAW) but enchanting ammunition is probably too cheap and I am not sure if you intend to be able to take on shield properties.

Make it clearer what you can and cannot touch. Consider making it an immediate action to both touch something AND take on the properties.

---

Separate out your examples from your rules text. Put example in italics to clearly separate it.

---

What happens if I am touching 2 things at once? Do I choose one or do I get both? I touch 3 +3 swords. +9 sword! I think not... :)

---

That's probably enough for now.