|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm working on a 13th level Bladebound Magus at the moment and I'm getting a little hung up on the blade's enhancement bonus. Am I able to pay to add further enhancements to it? Let's say I pay to add +2 and the agile property to a weapon. Now being 13th, my blade comes with +4 from the get go. Would I be walking around with a sword that has +7 worth of enchantments to work with.
I don't think I'm fully aware of how it works.
|
|
You cannot add enchantments to the Black Blade because it has an Ego score that is based on level. Adding enchantments would increase this number, making it highly capable of mind-controlling the PC to do whatever it wants.
The reason I ask is because it mentions that a blackblade must be at least a masterwork weapon which leaves me to believe that it could be more.
Forgive me, but where is it stated that you can't further enchant an item if it has an Ego score?
Can you stack magical weapon bonuses with bladebound bonuses(not arrcane pool)
If you could enhance it further it would probably blow out the Wealth by level limit. Seeing as adding enhancements earlier would make the auto upgrade ones more valuable! And besides aren't black blades named weapons? You can't add enhancements to sunblades or holy avengers.
You can add enhancements to sunblades in 3.5 (lesser Sunblades let you knopw formula cost), but Holy Avengers are harder to figure out pricing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So would you be stuck with a +5 weapon while everyone else could have a +5 followed by some properties such as keen or speed.
I always thought the blackblade worked a lot like the paladin's divine bond.
You're a magus, as long as you have arcane pool points you can have a variety of enchantments on your weapon nearly at will, with magus arcanas for more enchantments beyond the ones you get for core magus.
You're getting a +5 intelligent weapon with a plethora of powers for the cost of taking an archetype, don't complain. :P
|
|
So would you be stuck with a +5 weapon while everyone else could have a +5 followed by some properties such as keen or speed.
I always thought the blackblade worked a lot like the paladin's divine bond.
You're a magus, as long as you have arcane pool points you can have a variety of enchantments on your weapon nearly at will, with magus arcanas for more enchantments beyond the ones you get for core magus.
You're getting a +5 intelligent weapon with a plethora of powers for the cost of taking an archetype, don't complain. :P
But to be honest, it seems I would be better off going with a regular magus if you can't add enhancements to the weapon.
Mechanically, yes, possibly.
You don't take the Archetype for the mechanics, you take the Archetype because the concept is cool. If you are taking it for the mechanics, you are taking it for the wrong reasons.
|
|
Mechanically, yes, possibly.
You don't take the Archetype for the mechanics, you take the Archetype because the concept is cool. If you are taking it for the mechanics, you are taking it for the wrong reasons.
Actually I was taking it for the concept but I just want to apply the Agile property to the sword because I made a dex based build.
|
Here's the thing: Arcane Pool allows you to get a +(X depending on level, +9 total at 13th level). And it's flexible. Fighting something immune to crits, but vulnerable to fire? Get Flaming. You can also get some other properties with Arcana. However, Agile is not one of them unless your GM will allow it. Hate to sound cliche, but Dervish Dancer, man.
Mechanically, yes, possibly.
You don't take the Archetype for the mechanics, you take the Archetype because the concept is cool. If you are taking it for the mechanics, you are taking it for the wrong reasons.
And no one thinks its odd that an archetype defined by the weapon he wields ends up.with a worse and less customizable weapon than every other magus? And the magus defined by his weapon is simply unable to use enchants tht every single other character has easy access to? Sorry, that doesn't jive...
I honestly cannot understand why people think a BB cannot be enchanted further. Its a magic weapon and it follows the rules for adding enchantments to any other magic weapon (pay the difference). If the BB was any different from any other magic item, the rules would say so. Since they do not specify, we must assume it follows the standard rules, so it can be enchanted.
It does have a non standard ego progtession, but all you have to do is plot a scatterplot and do a curve fit to the progression. I cannot recall of the top of my head, but I believe the polynomial curve has an r squared of 1 (perfect fit). An exponential curve fits pretty well too and gives a simpler equation to work with if you just want to estimate. Now you have an equation and can calculate the new ego VERY easily (takes about 2 minutes in excel). And if a player wants to risk being controlled by their blade thats their prerogative.
At lower levels, its going to be difficult to add much more than an extra +1 property due to cost vs. WBL. It only becomes a realistic option at higher levels, and the BB magus is effectively paying gold to frontload their blade's progression (not different from any other character investing in their weapon), but they do so at the cost of being unable to fully take advantage of their flexible arcane pool enhacement at later levels. At the highest levels, its effectively wasted gold unless they also buy a backup sword and fight with both simultaneously (via dancing maybe?). Regardless, thats a pretty heavy investment.
I wouldn't allow flat enhancement bonuses to be added, but technically even that should be legal (its just a really bad idea and a total waste of gold since the blade will eventually have a +5 enhancement and nothing can rake it higher than that anyway). Adding +x properties and especially flat gp cost enchantments should be perfectly fine though if the player wishes to allocate their resources in that direction.
Why don't you ask your DM to let your blackblade be +4 agile instead of +5? It's equivalent, only sacrifices a +1 bonus to attack and damage, and sidesteps your concern. Then, instead of needing to use your arcane pool to add agile all the time, you only need to use it to add that last +5 some of the time.
|
|
So would you be stuck with a +5 weapon while everyone else could have a +5 followed by some properties such as keen or speed.
I always thought the blackblade worked a lot like the paladin's divine bond.
No it doesn't at all. The Paladin essentially summons a divine spirit to posess what is otherwise an ordinary weapon.
The Blackblade is itself a sentient creature in the form of a weapon, which is the main reason I would not allow enchanting it. There is no applicable feat for enchanting a creature.
But a Paladin can add divine bond to an already enchanted blade.
But a Paladin can add divine bond to an already enchanted blade.So would you be stuck with a +5 weapon while everyone else could have a +5 followed by some properties such as keen or speed.
I always thought the blackblade worked a lot like the paladin's divine bond.
No it doesn't at all. The Paladin essentially summons a divine spirit to posess what is otherwise an ordinary weapon.
The Blackblade is itself a sentient creature in the form of a weapon, which is the main reason I would not allow enchanting it. There is no applicable feat for enchanting a creature.
Not to mention that the BB is NOT a creature. Its an intelligent magic item. ANY permanent magic item is capable of being sentient/intelligent. And they can be further enchanted just fine...just like a BB. Run it however ya want, but its pretty much a non issue as I see things.
Sentient maybe, but not alive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that a +5 is the max but you should be able to add on properties.
The Paladin can do it with Divine Bond and the rules seem very similar.
Except that the rules aren't similar. The similarity is in the base Magus' Arcane Pool ability.
If you have any acquaintance with classic Sword & Sorcery SF the core impetus for the Bladebound Archetype & the Black Blade is painfully obvious; Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone & Stormbringer.
The only difference being, since Stormbringer is an obscenely powerful weapon in the hands of a 3rd level character, you don't get all the bells & whistles until such time as it becomes significantly less awesome.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the whole 're-enchant weapons & items' idea in the first place, but that is an entirely different argument.
Not to mention that the BB is NOT a creature. Its an intelligent magic item. ANY permanent magic item is capable of being sentient/intelligent. And they can be further enchanted just fine...just like a BB. Run it however ya want, but its pretty much a non issue as I see things.But a Paladin can add divine bond to an already enchanted blade.So would you be stuck with a +5 weapon while everyone else could have a +5 followed by some properties such as keen or speed.
I always thought the blackblade worked a lot like the paladin's divine bond.
No it doesn't at all. The Paladin essentially summons a divine spirit to posess what is otherwise an ordinary weapon.
The Blackblade is itself a sentient creature in the form of a weapon, which is the main reason I would not allow enchanting it. There is no applicable feat for enchanting a creature.
Except that the BB isn't even that. it's a class feature. One which, if you bother to read the fine print, not that anyone ever seems to... actually gives the GM carte blanche to screw with the PC, hard.
Now that I think about it, as GM I would totally allow adding further enchantments to the BB...
With the caveat that you just initiated a never-ending battle of wills with your weapon.
|
Mechanically, yes, possibly.
You don't take the Archetype for the mechanics, you take the Archetype because the concept is cool. If you are taking it for the mechanics, you are taking it for the wrong reasons.
And no one thinks its odd that an archetype defined by the weapon he wields ends up.with a worse and less customizable weapon than every other magus? And the magus defined by his weapon is simply unable to use enchants tht every single other character has easy access to? Sorry, that doesn't jive...
I honestly cannot understand why people think a BB cannot be enchanted further. Its a magic weapon and it follows the rules for adding enchantments to any other magic weapon (pay the difference). If the BB was any different from any other magic item, the rules would say so. Since they do not specify, we must assume it follows the standard rules, so it can be enchanted.
It does have a non standard ego progtession, but all you have to do is plot a scatterplot and do a curve fit to the progression. I cannot recall of the top of my head, but I believe the polynomial curve has an r squared of 1 (perfect fit). An exponential curve fits pretty well too and gives a simpler equation to work with if you just want to estimate. Now you have an equation and can calculate the new ego VERY easily (takes about 2 minutes in excel). And if a player wants to risk being controlled by their blade thats their prerogative.
At lower levels, its going to be difficult to add much more than an extra +1 property due to cost vs. WBL. It only becomes a realistic option at higher levels, and the BB magus is effectively paying gold to frontload their blade's progression (not different from any other character investing in their weapon), but they do so at the cost of being unable to fully take advantage of their flexible arcane pool enhacement at later levels. At the highest levels, its effectively wasted gold unless they also buy a backup sword and fight with...
Not exactly.
You get the black blade for free, so you save a good sum at low levels.
At 7-8 level you can easily add an ability costing a +1 and with some work a ability costing a +2 to the black blade, they would cost 10.000 and 24.000 gp respectively, half that if you have the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat. But that +1 is worth 22.000 and the +2 48.000 gp when your black blade bonus become +5.
For 24.000 gp you double the value of the sword when his bonus became +5.
There are two ways to avoid this effect:
1) always paying the weapon enhancement as if it was a +5 weapon, even when its bonus is +1 or +2;
2) requiring to do further enchantments, paying the difference in price, every time the basic bonus of the sword increase;
i.e. you had a +2 black blade and added the bane ability for a cost of 10.000 gp, now that the black blade basic enhancement is +3 the bane ability go dormant until you spend another 4.000 gp and spend 4 days days working on it. This way having extra abilities with a black blade would always cost as if you had added them to a weapon with the current black blade basic enhancement.
It's the balance for getting what is ultimately a +5 weapon that you can boost to +10 FOR FREE. Whereas the ordinary magus has to pay for everything he gets.
Its certainly NOT free. It costs an Arcana, and delays access to arcanas (inluding via extra arcana) until level 6. Its still a good value trade IMO, but thats not an insignificant cost. Edit- also the loss of arcane pool points. So effectively the cost is two feats (extra arcane pool and extra arcana, plus the delaying of access to MA until level 6.
An enchanted blade is still just a blade. A Blackblade however is a living creature that takes the form of a blade. Major difference.
And an intelligent +X sword is virtually identical to a BB save the non standard Ego (which Ive already established is easy to plot). The BB is an ITEM, just like any other intelligent magic item, and still follows all the rules for magic items, including adding enchantments.
. Except that the BB isn't even that. it's a class feature. One which, if you bother to read the fine print, not that anyone ever seems to... actually gives the GM carte blanche to screw with the PC, hard.
Now that I think about it, as GM I would totally allow adding further enchantments to the BB...
With the caveat that you just initiated a never-ending battle of wills with your weapon.
Calling it a class feature is a semantic argument. Yes, it is a class feature....and it grants you a magic, intelligent blade. Its still an item, and is governed as such. It doesn't matter how you aquired it.
And you just highlighted the major downside of adding enhancements to a BB. The non standard ego progression means it ramps up pretty high beyond +5. A character could easily set themselves up to be dominated if they arent acting in accordnce with the blade's purpose. But thats their perrogative, and personally sounds like a great RP opportunity to me. Note that they always keep the same alignemt, so its not usually going to be a game breaking kind of struggle, and they will usually be on the same page.
@Diego: thats a perfectly logical and incredibly simple "fix". Personally I wouldn't even worry about it that much, but would also be more than willing to run it that way. It does prevent low level chacracters from hoarding wealth to make an uber weapon, which could be good if you had someone looking to take advantage.
I honestly cannot understand why people think a BB cannot be enchanted further. Its a magic weapon and it follows the rules for adding enchantments to any other magic weapon (pay the difference). If the BB was any different from any other magic item, the rules would say so. Since they do not specify, we must assume it follows the standard rules, so it can be enchanted.The black blade has a static progression chart that lists all the abilities it gains. It is Table:1-3 in UM. The black blade doesn't get anything less or more than what is listed on that table. Which means the only way to modify the black blade is with temporary spells(eg align weapon) or using acane pool.
If a GM wants to allow a magus to add agile weapon to their arcane pool options, or substituting the black blades inherent +s for an equivalent special ability. In a homegame setting it is entirely within their rights to do so. However the archetype or class doesn't support either of these two options, as written.
Show me where it says other enchantments cannot be added. Or where it says the BBworks differently from any other magic item in the game.
Anyway, I dont personally care how others want to run it. Its perfectly clear to me how it works. not saying I couldnt be wrong, but nothing in the rules leads me to believe it works any differently from other magic items. I wouldn't likely add much to a BB in my own games where I was playing one anyway, but i would certainly allow players the option to if they so choose.
Also, for the record, I certainly recognize that I am in the minority opinion on this issue, and would be totally cool with running it however the GM wanted to, I just don't understand why folks are so reluctant to allow this, since the issues are not particularly difficult to reconcile IMO.
So, here's something interesting form the Intelligent Items section of the PRD: Intelligent items are treated as constructs. Which means they aren't weapons and can't be modified as such. The rules in Ultimate Magic for modifying constructs however, might work.
Also, for the record, I certainly recognize that I am in the minority opinion on this issue, and would be totally cool with running it however the GM wanted to, I just don't understand why folks are so reluctant to allow this, since the issues are not particularly difficult to reconcile IMO.
There is still the mechanical argument better addressed by Diego Rossi, which you have yet to respond to. If your response is 'Yeah, I like that idea', that is one thing; but it seems telling that you are responding to the non-mechanics arguments against with mechanic arguments, but not seeming to respond to the actual mechanical arguments.
@Azten: Interesting...
|
|
Not to mention that the BB is NOT a creature. Its an intelligent magic item. ANY permanent magic item is capable of being sentient/intelligent. And they can be further enchanted just fine...just like a BB. Run it however ya want, but its pretty much a non issue as I see things.
"Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs."
- Intelligent Items section of CRB
Also, for the record, I certainly recognize that I am in the minority opinion on this issue, and would be totally cool with running it however the GM wanted to, I just don't understand why folks are so reluctant to allow this, since the issues are not particularly difficult to reconcile IMO.There is still the mechanical argument better addressed by Diego Rossi, which you have yet to respond to. If your response is 'Yeah, I like that idea', that is one thing; but it seems telling that you are responding to the non-mechanics arguments against with mechanic arguments, but not seeming to respond to the actual mechanical arguments.
@Azten: Interesting...
I did respond to Diego's post. I said it was aperfectly reasonable way to handle things. I also said I wouldnt worry about it in my home games, because no one I play with would abuse it, but fixing the cost (at what it would cost to add to a +5 weapon) is a simple solution to prevent the possibility.
As for intelligent items being creatires, yes I am aware they can be "treated" as creatures or constructs but they are still items as well. I understand ya'lls counter argument (and have already stated I wouldnt have a problem playing things that way), but I cant overlook that it is in fact, still a magic sword.
As for this:
Most equipment doesn't have progression charts listing what it does at a given level, but the black blade does.
The black blade description says it gains certain abilities based on the level of the magus. The progression of abilities gained is listed on Table 1-3. None of the abilities that the black blade gains says they can be altered.
It is the lack of inclusion, of these abilities being flexible, that means that they must be used only as listed. Like I said before they get what is on the chart and nothing else.
Using your interpretation of what that progression chart grants access to would also allow a rogue to channel energy or a fighter to use sneak attack. Because their class progression charts in the CRB doesn't specifically allow or disallow them from doing so.
Thats not remotely the same thing. My argument is simply that an exception is not necessary since rules already exist for enchanting preexisting magic items. A rogue using channel energy would require some pretty specific rules exceptions to be in any way possible.
---
If one were to treat it as a construct, and NOT also a magic item and then rule that constructs cannot be enchanted, fine. I can live with that, but thats a debatable issue as well. Please realize i am not trying to convince anyone here. Just giving the other side to the OP so they can make up their own mind.
Since the OP asked a question and only one side of the argument had been voiced, i thought it best to give the other angle so that the OP and their GM can decide how they want to run it. Based on how frequently the issue pops up, its far from universally accepted one way or another, and thats ok.
|
and to add an additional twist:
what happens when you take an 8th level character that has 5 lvls of paladin and 3 lvls of magus-blackblade? = A whole lot of awesome-sauce!
take boon companion and throw in Eldritch Heritage just for added flavor, and now you have an arcane bonded, divine bonded, intelligent weapon of DOOM!
|
|
and to add an additional twist:
what happens when you take an 8th level character that has 5 lvls of paladin and 3 lvls of magus-blackblade? = A whole lot of awesome-sauce!
throw in Eldritch Heritage just for added flavor, and now you have an arcane bonded, divine bonded, intelligent weapon of DOOM!
I've actually done that and it works out great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats not remotely the same thing. My argument is simply that an exception is not necessary since rules already exist for enchanting preexisting magic items. A rogue using channel energy would require some pretty specific rules exceptions to be in any way possible.There are rules for classes getting powers not listed on their CRB progression charts. They are called archetypes, so the examples I listed using your "reading of the rules" are parallel.
I don't own all the books published by Paizo. In the books I do own, every table that charts out gains, and does not specifically spell out alternate options, anything outside of that chart is not available for selection. This has been true 100% of the time. If you have an example of a chart allowing something not mentioned on the chart as an option please share it.
If the class feature simply said they gained a generic magic weapon, or the black blade was usable by everyone(not just the bladebound magus) your interpretation would have a stronger foundation.
The item has a set progression listed on table 1-3, that progression does not include language allowing any flexibility in that progression. This means there is no flexibility in the progression.
Many of us have told the OP that their GM could adjust several things in a home game to allow the player to get what he wants, but we were also telling the OP that what they're asking for is not allowed by the language used in the archetype.
I've already adressed this. Spelling out exaclty how everything works with every newly published option is generally unnecceasry. The rules would go on for 30000 pages if they did that. Only exceptions to the general rules need to be spelled out. Exceptions were not provided in this case, so we (my grpup) use the existing magic item rules.
IMO its either a magic weapon or it isn't. I dont think it being sentient or being treated as a construct is mutally exclusive with it ALSO being a magic weapon. To me, its pretty clearly a magic weapon, regardless of whatever else it is or isn't, so we treat it as such. That's all. IMO the exceptions were not required, because rules for magic weapons already exist.
Now then, considering how often this issue is confused, perhaps it would have been best had they clarified the issue upon publication, but oh well. Until we get official errata its open to interpertation.
That said, let me say that I understand your point, I just don't agree. I'm not saying you are wrong, but Ive researched this topic extensively, and while there are inconsistencies no matter the interpertation, I've already decided how I think things work, and am simply voicing the minority opinion on the matter. I haven't seen anything new (to me) in this thread that would change my mind, although Im certainly open to doing so if we get some kind of official word on the matter. Regadless, I'm not interested in changing anyone's opinion, only in laying out all the facts for the undecided to make their own call.
Anyway, we have presented both sides of the argument. I feel I have been clear about how I interpert things and why, as have those in opposition. Its pretty obvious we're fairlydug in, so I'll take my leave before we start repeating ourselves too much. Hopefully the OP and their group can agree on how to handle things for themselves.
Enjoyed the chat! Happy Hunting!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had to log in just to say this:
@MTCityHunter-
Your argument has been probably the most adult and respectful side of a discussion I have ever witnessed on these boards. You acknowledge the counter-points despite not agreeing, and you do it without this thread descending into crap. I've grown disgusted with the Paizo boards in the last few months, but seeing your post was great. Very respectful and well represented.
Rock on man.
I had to log in just to say this:
@MTCityHunter-
Your argument has been probably the most adult and respectful side of a discussion I have ever witnessed on these boards. You acknowledge the counter-points despite not agreeing, and you do it without this thread descending into crap. I've grown disgusted with the Paizo boards in the last few months, but seeing your post was great. Very respectful and well represented.Rock on man.
Thanks for the kind words.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even more so when the issue at hand isn't black and white. Debate is healthy IMO, but we all need to try to keep an open mind and attempt to understand opposing viewpoints.
It can get frustrating on these (or any) forums at times, but theres a lot of good debate too. Keep the faith, lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a bit of a missing thing here, people are over looking. the black Blade doesn't belong to the character. It's a symbiotic bond, the blade may have been passed from magi to magi over many centuries. it has simply come into this magi's possession via mcguffin.
now understanding that the black blade is ALREADY defined. And that the blade awakens as the magi's power increases.
The weapons IS ALREADY a +5 life drinking, Intelligent weapon with spell resistance, energy attunement and teleportation abilities.
It was this sword before the magus and will be this sword again for another magus.
now how would you calculate adding a +1 to this weapon, and CAN you, given it's abilities? you cant have more than a +10 weapon and if you were to add to it with standard magic, the weapon could reach that +10 threshold, totally invalidating your arcane pool abilities to modify it, congrats you have no just paid money to cancel a class feature!
The weapon is also free willed, with it's own agenda, so permission to alter it's basic abilities would be needed (which defaults to GMs Permission)
So what I suggest is permission from the DM to swap out or change abilities on a +1 = +1 basis.
However for PFS/organized play, no.... you can't alter the black blade.
But bear in mind, if you could, you have to pay to add +1 to a +5 life drinker intelligent energy transformative weapon, Not a masterwork sword.
Taking the Bladebound Archetype means you cannot choose a familiar, but I do not think your Black Blade expressly counts as a familiar, even though it gives you Alertness like familiars do.
You know, I like Pendagast's idea the best.
The sword already is +5 etc so it can't be further enchanted, but as an intelligent semi-artifact it only allows you to access some of its abilities as its wielder proves worthy.
Yeah, that flies with me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of good stuff
PFS aside (where you're certainly right it would not be allowed, but so is anything in a remotely grey area banned, as is crafting of any kind), I see where you're coming from, but in general terms, can't agree because the basic assumption is that the blade is a static magic item. Magic items, even intelligent ones, don't have to be static. All of that changed when they introduced the rules for adding magical properties to existing magic items in 3.0 (that right? I certainly had a more static view of magic items in previous editions).
Who's to say the BB has always been what it is and that the various Magi who have used it over time haven't given it more power? That would certainly be the case for any other magic item that was owned by a series of adventurers. They would take and use the item, but also likely do what they could to add further enchantments to suit their specific needs.
If those needs coincided with the BB's goals, there would likely be no problem with "permission". The Magus and BB generally share a common interest, else why would the blade have chosen to lend itself to this particular magus in the first place? Certainly, if that changes, the BB might try to reject/save against the enchant, and may try to dominate the magus, heck it might even accept the enchant so domination will be easier to achieve. Besides, if it makes the blade more powerful, I doubt it would balk at such an offer under most circumstances. After all, its got an agenda, and becoming more powerful can only help it achieve what it wants to.
As for pricing, IMHO it doesn't really matter what extra properties beyond flat enhancement it has, as those do not impose limits on further enchantment (i.e. max +5 enhancement and max +5 properties). I'd say most of those powers come from the blade's intelligence and/or from "+flat GP cost" properties rather than being additional extra "+X properties", but of course others will disagree as is their right. If you wanted to call them +X properties, you'd simply need to decide what the value(s) of X are and figure out if anything underneath +10 remains. If so, it could still be enchanted. Note that regardless, those extra abilities may determine whether the weapon is epic or not. At any rate if you wanted to calculate a specific value for some reason, you'd have to estimate based on similar abilities in other items and from the intelligent weapon powers list.
I mean, the Magus can't sell the BB regardless because it won't act like a magic item in anyone else's hands. So who would buy it? This particular point is potentially sticky because if you ruled that its not actually magical in another's hands, obviously it can't hold permanent powers of any kind. I'd counter that by saying that of course its still magical and is simply refusing the new unworthy person access to its powers. Still, it would probably just disappear anyway. "Sell me? Sell ME?! Pfft. I'll show you! Bamf!"
---
At any rate, I'll always keep coming back to the same points that ultimately made me decide to allow additional enchants:
1) Is it a magic weapon? I have a hard time saying no to that question. So, I suppose I'll have to treat it as an item.
2) Does it unbalance things if this is allowed? Not really IMO. Certainly not in my home games, although setting the price for adding to the blade as if its a +5/whatever regardless of its current enhancement is probably a good idea if one wanted to close off any possible abuse.
3) Does it unbalance things if its not allowed? Yeah kind of IMO. If we don't allow this, by higher levels, the bladebound's weapon isn't likely anywhere near as good as every other magus' weapon. This is just an opinion, but that's kind of absurd to me. He paid an effective cost of 2 feats and a 3 level delay in a class feature for this blackblade. In return he gets a scaling enhancement bonus (worth a substantial chunk of gold) and some neat situational abilities. Cool, but it better not also gimp his mid to endgame potential IMO.
Also, if its not allowed, the bladebound can't make use of things like the agile enchant. So black blades don't like Dex Magi. Unless they're scimitars and the Magus is down with the dervish regional fighting style. Huh? All this does is perpetuate the DD cookie cutter builds, and that's a very bad thing IMO. The bladebound also can't make use of probably the most iconic magus enchant in spell storing. Fine, that's not really a deal breaker either. IMO spell storing is usually more optimal on a backup weapon, but what if you want it on you main weapon? What if you would just rather not use any other weapons? I wouldn't as a bladebound. That's part of the draw. Just doesn't sit well with me how limited the archetype would be when its defining feature is this awesome weapon it gets to wield.
So I think it best to remove those limits and put it on an even playing field with all other Magi. Perhaps that falls into the realm of house rules. Maybe, maybe not, but we all make house rules all the time anytime a rule isn't 100% clear.
---
Anyone still alive after that wall of text crit?