This is correct.
Gee, I guess that response didn't help much. Let me clarify.
Cannot be sundered as long as it maintains at least 1 arcane pool point.
I don't like you asking that question!
In that you are correct it can be sundered but not broken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sundering has no effect on a blackblade as long as it maintains 1 arcane pool point.
I'm sure RAI were not to make the weapon immune to one condition but not the furtherance of the same condition.
That would be like saying:
The blackblade cannot be burned, but it can be incinerated.
The blackblade cannot be shocked, but can be electrocuted.
Makes no sense.
Broken is simply a condition that triggers at X HP. Nothing anywhere in that ability keeps the HP reduction from happening, merely the generally associated condition. So it works perfectly until it breaks completely.
Think the Diehard feat chain:
Saying preventing the broken status prevents destruction is like saying preventing the unconscious condition keeps you from dying.
I can see that people have other opinions; however, it seems very clear to me. The item's ability descriptor is titled "Unbreakable". Can't get more obvious than that.
Sunder is just a synonym for breaking something.
I could see someone making a similar argument in my Hero System game.
PC1 - "It says he is immune to being punched."
PC2 - "OK, then I'll 'hit' him, or 'stick' him, or 'clobber' him, because RAW it doesn't say he is immune to that!"
The black blade can be sundered.
It can't gain the broken condition.
It can gain the destroyed condition.
As to the comment about burned vs incinerated.
Let me point you at HP. If you have 20 HP and a 14 Con, you go unconscious at 0HP, and die at -15 HP.
For our purposes, 0 HP = Broken.
An Orc can continue to function without going unconscious. That is, they are only staggered at 0 or fewer hit points. This does not make them immune to dead at -15.
By the same token, the black blade ignores the broken condition, but not the destroyed condition.
The question becomes, how to handle this in game? I see three options.
1) Blade can be resurrected or restored via Wish.
2) A new blade joins the Magus.
3) The Magus ceases to be a Black Blade Magus, and reverts to a normal Magus.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a flying creature is immune to tripping
so you didn't trip it--but you did knock it prone to the ground?
So you did not trip it by swiping it's feet out from under it--but your force of blow knocked it to the ground. It is only immune to tripping--not to being knocked to the ground.
makes as much sense.
it is like saying you go up to high altitude and you have immunity to becoming fatigued due to high altitude so the GM skips right to exhausted. You go from feeling fine to exhausted without the in between step.
Ximen and mdt,
Your arguments are clear and are making me second guess my own assumptions. I still feel that something is not quite right with this though...
If I were a Magus saving the arcane point to avoid these kind of GM shenanigans, I would be upset if it went from perfectly fine to several pieces, all while having the ability of "Unbreakable".
mdt, no need for your 3 options as UM states "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."
a flying creature is immune to tripping
so you didn't trip it--but you did knock it prone to the ground?
So you did not trip it by swiping it's feet out from under it--but your force of blow knocked it to the ground. It is only immune to tripping--not to being knocked to the ground.
makes as much sense.
it is like saying you go up to high altitude and you have immunity to becoming fatigued due to high altitude so the GM skips right to exhausted. You go from feeling fine to exhausted without the in between step.
Thank you. I was feeling alone =)
if my GM ever broke my blade when i would have 1 point in the blade i would trow a fit!
thats just absurd the abilety is clearly intended for the black blade not to get damaged.
i don't see how you can die if you are never hurt!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
if my GM ever broke my blade when i would have 1 point in the blade i would trow a fit!
thats just absurd the abilety is clearly intended for the black blade not to get damaged.
i don't see how you can die if you are never hurt!
You need to actually read the power.
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.
Now, let's break that down.
"As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition."
At no point in that sentence does it say 'The black blade cannot be damaged'. Damaged is not Broken. If an item has 30 hp, and it takes 5 hp, it has been Damaged. It is not BROKEN, and it does not have the Broken condition.
A black blade may have 30 hp. It may take 10 hp and be damaged. Then it takes another 10 hp. If it has one arcane point, it is still conscious and immune to the broken condition. That is not the same as 'undamaged'.
Why is the broken condition important then?
"If broken, the black blade is unconscious and powerless until repaired."
Ah, we see now why. A normal sword can continue to be used when it has the Broken Condition. The Black Blade, on the other hand, reverts to being a normal broken sword, it loses all it's special powers.
"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."
And here is the proof that your supposition is wrong. If this power negated the ability to be destroyed, it would not talk about the situation that occurs when it is destroyed. Or at the very least, it would have some text about the power not letting it be destroyed.
So what's the benefit of the power? It allows the black blade to use it's powers so long as it has even 1 hp, and stay conscious. In other words, it's Diehard for the Blade.
I did forget about the text of reforging however, so no need for my 3 solutions. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
mdt,
I would argue that this section tells you what you can do to repair or replace your blade HAD YOU NOT saved that 1 arcane pool point.
It does not necessarily equal "proof"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that "broken" "damaged" and "destroyed" are all game terms with distinct definitions, so they aren't synonyms.
Something that mentions one but not others only has an effect on what's mentioned.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if my GM ever broke my blade when i would have 1 point in the blade i would trow a fit!
thats just absurd the abilety is clearly intended for the black blade not to get damaged.
i don't see how you can die if you are never hurt!
You need to actually read the power.
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.Now, let's break that down.
"As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition."
At no point in that sentence does it say 'The black blade cannot be damaged'. Damaged is not Broken. If an item has 30 hp, and it takes 5 hp, it has been Damaged. It is not BROKEN, and it does not have the Broken condition.
A black blade may have 30 hp. It may take 10 hp and be damaged. Then it takes another 10 hp. If it has one arcane point, it is still conscious and immune to the broken condition. That is not the same as 'undamaged'.
Why is the broken condition important then?
"If broken, the black blade is unconscious and powerless until repaired."
Ah, we see now why. A normal sword can continue to be used when it has the Broken Condition. The Black Blade, on the other hand, reverts to being a normal broken sword, it loses all it's special powers.
"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."
And here is the proof that your supposition is wrong. If this power negated the ability to be destroyed, it would not talk about the situation that occurs when it is destroyed. Or at the very least, it would have some text about the...
lets apply your reasoning to the reliable feat of a pistol and a gunslinger. reliable lowers the misfire chance by 1 to a possible zero. SO the gunslinger firing a +1 reliable pistol with regular ammo never misfires. But the second time he rolls a 1---the GM has the gun blow up in his face.
He never suffered the misfire problem and had to clear the gun--thus avoiding that penalty. but the gun still blew up the second 1 he rolled.
the reason it talks about it being destroyed is simple. The magus may not have one point in the arcane pool to prevent it being broken. Monks and gunslingers have many feats that say "as long as the character has one ki or grit point they can do this" that doesn't ensure they will have that one point.
My magus deliberately keeps one arcane point for just this reason--sacrificing the enchantment on the blade sometimes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need to connect your analogy better. As it is you're just imagining a GM ignoring a rule for no particular reason and with no logical connection.
With misfire chance of zero, if you roll a 1 nothing happens. No score is kept.
With immunity to the broken condition, if the item takes damage, it doesn't gain the broken condition. But it still took the damage, we still track the HP loss. If it reaches 0, the fact that it never gained the broken condition does nothing to prevent its destruction.
There is no obvious parallel.
|
|
the parallel is exact.
you do not suffer the misfire disadvantage but the build up is still there----just like the damage on the sword.
so you are firing the weapon even though there is buildup in the barrel. the reliable lets it fire in spite of the buildup in the barrel
when you "would have" misfired again--it blows up
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need to connect your analogy better. As it is you're just imagining a GM ignoring a rule for no particular reason and with no logical connection.
With misfire chance of zero, if you roll a 1 nothing happens. No score is kept.
With immunity to the broken condition, if the item takes damage, it doesn't gain the broken condition. But it still took the damage, we still track the HP loss. If it reaches 0, the fact that it never gained the broken condition does nothing to prevent its destruction.
There is no obvious parallel.
Let's use the formula from your own analogy.
A monster is immune to non-lethal damage. So we track the non-lethal damage anyway, and when they reach 0 hp due to this non-lethal damage that has no effect, the creature is staggered anyways, per RAW, then goes unconscious anyways when the non-lethal damage that has no effect is tracked to negative hp.
This is ridiculous.
The power is perfectly strait forward. You gain immunity to one condition. Not to a second condition.
Let's take a look at Sickened vs Nauseated. Your argument would be that if a power grants you immunity to Sickened, you are immune to Nauseated. So a power that inflicted Nauseated on your character would not effect you.
That is obviously not the case. Sickened can lead to Nauseated (as Broken can lead to Destroyed), but they are not the same, and immunity to Sickened no more makes you immune to Nauseated than being immune to Nauseated makes you immune to being Sickened.
You can use the same logic for Shaken and Frightened. Immunity to one does not confer immunity to the other.
|
|
mdt where you err is when you go past one condition to get to the other.
you have to go past broken to get to destroyed.
If you got fatigued and the second time you get fatigued it advanced to exhausted.
now you are immune to fatigue and so cant be fatigued
but when the second time comes around the GM makes you exhausted anyway
after all--you are only immune to fatigue--not exhaustion. so you go from feeling no effects---to exhausted
mdt where you err is when you go past one condition to get to the other.
you have to go past broken to get to destroyed.
If you got fatigued and the second time you get fatigued it advanced to exhausted.
now you are immune to fatigue and so cant be fatigued
but when the second time comes around the GM makes you exhausted anyway
No you do not have to get past broken. Broken is a consequence of having 1/2 hitpoints. That is it. That is the only thing it is, a status that you gain from having half hit points.
Destroyed is a consequence of having 0 hit points.
Neither of those are mutually exclusive.
Your logic would have the following results :
Orc has 50 hp. Orc takes 60 HP. Orc has Diehard. Diehard says they cannot go unconscious if at 0 or fewer HP.
If they cannot go unconscious, they cannot be killed, because you have to be unconscious to die.
Do you really honestly argue that?
I suggest if you don't like it, you hit FAQ. To me it's perfectly straight forward application of the rules based on existing rules (such as Diehard). That's all this is, it's Diehard for the black blade.
do you really argue that you cannot be exhausted even if you cant be fatigued?
No, I argue that you can be exhausted if you can't be fatigued.
It simply won't be from something that requires you to go through fatigued to get there.
Waves of Exhaustion for example, would send you straight to Exhausted without any stop at Fatigued. So yes, if you were immune to fatigue, but got hit by WoE, you could indeed become exhausted.
To be immune to Exhausted, you need to be immune to Exhausted, not Fatigued.
because if I am saving one arcane point and a gm ever made that ruling against me without further clarification from Paizo---I would make any and all of the above ruling against their characters then next time I gmed.
Tie goes to the player without further clarification
it's your game, you can make any ruling you want.
RAW is pretty plain.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the parallel is exact.
you do not suffer the misfire disadvantage but the build up is still there----just like the damage on the sword.
so you are firing the weapon even though there is buildup in the barrel. the reliable lets it fire in spite of the buildup in the barrel
when you "would have" misfired again--it blows up
Your comparison isn't at all accurate
Here's the actual (relevant) text:
Early Firearms: If an early firearm with the broken condition misfires again, it explodes. When a nonmagical firearm explodes, the weapon is destroyed. Magical firearms are wrecked, which means they can’t fire until they are fully restored (which requires either the make whole spell or the Gunsmithing feat). When a gun explodes, pick one corner of your square—the explosion creates a burst from that point of origin. Each firearm has a burst size noted in parentheses after its misfire value. Any creature within this burst (including the firearm’s wielder) takes damage as if it had been hit by the weapon—a DC 12 Reflex save halves this damage.
In order to blow up, the a broken gun must misfire. A gun that normally has a misfire chance of 1, but has had Reliable cast on it, has a misfire range of 0. In order to 'misfire' you'd have to roll a 0 on a d20 - not possible.
The better analogy here is that a gun normally will blow up if misfired while broken; a gun that is immune to misfires will never be susceptible to exploding due to misfires, but if a spell or ability forces the gun to explode through some other means, the gun will still blow up.
Something that grants immunity to a particular condition that exists on a scale of conditions - for example, Broken -> Destroyed, or Sickened -> Nauseated, or Fatigued -> Exhausted - grants you only immunity from that particular condition - it doesn't grant you immunity from effects that bypass the earlier condition and inflict the latter.
A character who is immune to Fatigue could not therefore be Fatigued and then be forced to Exhausted by being targeted by a second Fatigue - but an effect that makes him Exhausted still works fine.
+1 Xaratherus
|
|
the parallel is exact.
you do not suffer the misfire disadvantage but the build up is still there----just like the damage on the sword.
so you are firing the weapon even though there is buildup in the barrel. the reliable lets it fire in spite of the buildup in the barrel
when you "would have" misfired again--it blows up
Your comparison isn't at all accurate
Here's the actual (relevant) text:
Early Firearms: If an early firearm with the broken condition misfires again, it explodes. When a nonmagical firearm explodes, the weapon is destroyed. Magical firearms are wrecked, which means they can’t fire until they are fully restored (which requires either the make whole spell or the Gunsmithing feat). When a gun explodes, pick one corner of your square—the explosion creates a burst from that point of origin. Each firearm has a burst size noted in parentheses after its misfire value. Any creature within this burst (including the firearm’s wielder) takes damage as if it had been hit by the weapon—a DC 12 Reflex save halves this damage.In order to blow up, the a broken gun must misfire. A gun that normally has a misfire chance of 1, but has had Reliable cast on it, has a misfire range of 0. In order to 'misfire' you'd have to roll a 0 on a d20 - not possible.
The better analogy here is that a gun normally will blow up if misfired while broken; a gun that is immune to misfires will never be susceptible to exploding due to misfires, but if a spell or ability forces the gun to explode through some other means, the gun will still blow up.
Something that grants immunity to a particular condition that exists on a scale of conditions - for example, Broken -> Destroyed, or Sickened -> Nauseated, or Fatigued -> Exhausted - grants you only immunity from that particular condition - it doesn't grant you immunity from effects that bypass the earlier condition and inflict the latter.
A character who is immune to...
well until an official rule comes down--you have your interpretation and I have mine.
misfire means the gun did not fire---there is still buildup in the barrel with a 1. a second 1 will explode it
same as broken vs destroyed.
ie you wont suffer the middle ground effects---but you still went past them. reliable only let the pistol fire past the blockage--it did not remove it.
well until an official rule comes down--you have your interpretation and I have mine.
misfire means the gun did not fire---there is still buildup in the barrel with a 1. a second 1 will explode it
You are correct that you're free to interpret however you wish. But since 'misfire' is actually defined in that same section
If the natural result of your attack roll falls within a firearm’s misfire value, that shot misses, even if you would have otherwise hit the target."
what you're talking about isn't an interpretation, but a house rule.
Right, but "broken" isn't normally something you bypass. With every other weapon, you have to go through broken on the way to destroyed.
Normally, yes. But functionally is that true? If you do enough damage to a weapon with a single hit to destroy it, is it ever really 'broken'? All that damage is dealt at once; it doesn't deal part of it up to 'broken', stop for a second, then go on to 'destroyed'.
You need to connect your analogy better. As it is you're just imagining a GM ignoring a rule for no particular reason and with no logical connection.
With misfire chance of zero, if you roll a 1 nothing happens. No score is kept.
With immunity to the broken condition, if the item takes damage, it doesn't gain the broken condition. But it still took the damage, we still track the HP loss. If it reaches 0, the fact that it never gained the broken condition does nothing to prevent its destruction.
There is no obvious parallel.
Let's use the formula from your own analogy.
A monster is immune to non-lethal damage. So we track the non-lethal damage anyway, and when they reach 0 hp due to this non-lethal damage that has no effect, the creature is staggered anyways, per RAW, then goes unconscious anyways when the non-lethal damage that has no effect is tracked to negative hp.
This is ridiculous.
That is ridiculous. Fortunately, it's nothing like what I wrote.
If a monster is immune to non-lethal damage, you wouldn't track non-lethal damage anyway because he never took it. The sword is not immune to damage so you would track the damage it takes.
In Karal's example, if the misfire chance is lowered to zero, you don't track 1's, because the misfire never happened. The sword does not have it's chance of taking damage lowered to 0, so you still track the the damage it takes, because the damage still happens.
well until an official rule comes down--you have your interpretation and I have mine.
misfire means the gun did not fire---there is still buildup in the barrel with a 1. a second 1 will explode it
same as broken vs destroyed.
ie you wont suffer the middle ground effects---but you still went past them. reliable only let the pistol fire past the blockage--it did not remove it.
Um...where does it say a misfire doesn't fire and that there is some sort of blockage?
If the natural result of your attack roll falls within a firearm's misfire value, that shot misses, even if you would have otherwise hit the target. When a firearm misfires, it gains the broken condition. While it has the broken condition, it suffers the normal disadvantages that broken weapons do, and its misfire value increases by 4 unless the wielder has gun training in the particular type of firearm. In that case, the misfire value increases by 2 instead of 4.
So my gun has a misfire value of 0, because it was 1 before and Reliable reduces it by 1. I roll a 1 and miss, no misfire occurs because I didn't roll in the range of the misfire and is not broken, so how does rolling another 1 make it blow up, when it didn't gain the broken condition from when I rolled my first 1?
EDIT: It seems like you're trying to get more out of an ability than it grants. It's like complaining your character died from Asphyxiation in a burning building even though you were immune to fire.
|
|
well until an official rule comes down--you have your interpretation and I have mine.
misfire means the gun did not fire---there is still buildup in the barrel with a 1. a second 1 will explode it
You are correct that you're free to interpret however you wish. But since 'misfire' is actually defined in that same section
If the natural result of your attack roll falls within a firearm’s misfire value, that shot misses, even if you would have otherwise hit the target."what you're talking about isn't an interpretation, but a house rule.
Right, but "broken" isn't normally something you bypass. With every other weapon, you have to go through broken on the way to destroyed.Normally, yes. But functionally is that true? If you do enough damage to a weapon with a single hit to destroy it, is it ever really 'broken'? All that damage is dealt at once; it doesn't deal part of it up to 'broken', stop for a second, then go on to 'destroyed'.
I would agree with that arguement maybe----If you do enough damage in ONE single hit to take it from full to destroyed it could be destroyed. But it could not be broken and then destroyed in two hits.
that is like saying a lame oracle is immune to fatigue. so she goes on top of a cold mountain . party all fails con checks and are fatigued except the oracle (who is immune) 2nd roll comes up and all are exhausted now when they fail-(including the oracle because she is not immune to exhaustion).
she would have went from fine to exhausted due to two fatigues-when she is immune to fatigue. You could say the cold and thin air is still acting on her even though she did not develop the fatigued "condition" so that the second one made her exhausted (same as the hps on a sword you argued)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like the blackblade is perfectly fine until the final blow shatters it.
well until an official rule comes down--you have your interpretation and I have mine.
misfire means the gun did not fire---there is still buildup in the barrel with a 1. a second 1 will explode it
You are correct that you're free to interpret however you wish. But since 'misfire' is actually defined in that same section
If the natural result of your attack roll falls within a firearm’s misfire value, that shot misses, even if you would have otherwise hit the target."what you're talking about isn't an interpretation, but a house rule.
Right, but "broken" isn't normally something you bypass. With every other weapon, you have to go through broken on the way to destroyed.Normally, yes. But functionally is that true? If you do enough damage to a weapon with a single hit to destroy it, is it ever really 'broken'? All that damage is dealt at once; it doesn't deal part of it up to 'broken', stop for a second, then go on to 'destroyed'.I would agree with that arguement maybe----If you do enough damage in ONE single hit to take it from full to destroyed it could be destroyed. But it could not be broken and then destroyed in two hits.
that is like saying a lame oracle is immune to fatigue. so she goes on top of a cold mountain . party all fails con checks and are fatigued except the oracle (who is immune) 2nd roll comes up and all are exhausted now when they fail-(including the oracle because she is not immune to exhaustion).
she would have went from fine to exhausted due to two fatigues-when she is immune to fatigue. You could say the cold and thin air is still acting on her even though she did not develop the fatigued "condition" so that the second one made her exhausted (same as the hps on a sword you argued)
These analogies are not serving you well.
Nothing in the ability stops the sword from taking damage.
So the sword takes damage.
There are two points at which the amount of damage taken by a sword becomes relevant: when it takes damage in excess of half its hitpoints, and when it is reduced to zero hitpoints.
When it takes damage in excess of half its total hitpoints, it would normally gain the broken condition. The ability prevents this.
When it takes damage equal to or greater than its total hitpoints, it is destroyed. Nothing in the ability prevents this.
This is unlike the fatigued stacking to form exhausted, because destroyed is not achieved by stacking broken conditions.
Destroyed is not stacked brokens (functionally in the case of a misfiring gunslinger, but not even technically then).
Destroyed is completely independent of broken when considering damage taken.
Items can be destroyed as a result of damage equal to or greater than hitpoints, without dependency on an existing broken condition. Ever.
|
|
um ximen
lame oracle does not get the fatique "condition"
that does not take the oracle from being affected by the high altitude and cold. She could be exhausted on second failure same as rest----she just manages to not suffer fatique penalties til it overcomes her all at once as exhaustion.
her ability prevents her from suffering the effects of fatique--they don't let her breath with little oxygen
NOTHING prevents her from being effected by exhaustion at second failed save.
scenarios usually say--at second failed save the character becomes exhausted.
|
|
just like the black blade
the oracles immune to fatigue does not prevent exhaustion after second failed save.
both the black blade and oracle have the perseverance to suffer through the halfway point without showing the wear--but once the full point is reached--both suffer full effect.
It is the EXACT same thing.
|
Sundering has no effect on a blackblade as long as it maintains 1 arcane pool point.
I'm sure RAI were not to make the weapon immune to one condition but not the furtherance of the same condition.
That would be like saying:
The blackblade cannot be burned, but it can be incinerated.
The blackblade cannot be shocked, but can be electrocuted.
Makes no sense.
More like "it can't be burned but it can be melted".
Steel can't be burned but it can be melted.It is interesting that apparently the people that are "sure" that the Black Blade can't be destroyed are refraining from hitting the FAQ button. Only 2 hits beside mine.
The ability say "can't be broken", a specific condition.
If the RAI was "can't take damage as long as it has A arcana point" it was simpler to writhe that that writing "can't be broken2.
|
|
.
There are two points at which the amount of damage taken by a sword becomes relevant: when it takes damage in excess of half its hitpoints, and when it is reduced to zero hitpoints.
When it takes damage in excess of half its total hitpoints, it would normally gain the broken condition. The ability prevents this.
When it takes damage equal to or greater than its total hitpoints, it is destroyed. Nothing in the ability prevents this.
This is unlike the fatigued stacking to form exhausted, because destroyed is not achieved by stacking broken conditions
destroyed is achieved by taking something broken and doing more damage to it---UNLESS you can destroy it in one hit. If the sword can not achieve the broken condition---it can never be taken down to half hit points.
Is that what you want to argue----that no matter what--you can never take it down to half it's hit points?
Or are you saying it doesn't suffer the "Effects" of broken?
in which case the oracle is the exact same
doesn't suffer the "effects" of fatique but lack of air (failing saving throw) and then exerting herself and failing second saving throw results in exhaustion--which she would suffer the effects from
both destroyed and exhaustion (if can be done in one round by one action) yep both surpass the middle part entirely.
so now---are the sword and oracle immune to the halfway point? or the "effects" of the halfway point?