|
So is Karal disproving his own position on the black blade with his fatigued corner case? Yes, yes I believe he is. So we all agree now that the black blade can be sundered?
and if we accept that---that lame oracles can be exhausted with the second failed fort save even though they were never fatigued.
if the scenario says on a second failed save the character is fatigued again--the oracle would not be affected
BUT if the scenario says "on a second failed save the character is exhausted" then the oracle is affected
Wait a minute,
Since when is a rule in an AP, for that AP, considered RAW? It is not. And on top of that, reading the quote, the guy says 'You may consider using a variant rule...'.
For heaven's sake, how is this even an argument anymore. A 'variant' option in an AP. blech...
|
|
scenarios I have played have the same info
IE fort saves for high altitude start at 20+ one made every hour on each successive one the save gets one harder
on the first fail you are fatigued
on the second fail you are exhausted (nowhere does it say--if you are fatigued-you become exhausted)
so a party of
wizard
cleric
rogue
fighter
lame oracle
lame oracle
wizard, cleric, rogue and one oracle fail their first save
wizard, cleric and rogue are fatigued---oracles is not because they are immune
second hour
wizard, cleric, rogue, and both oracles fail their save
wizard, cleric, rogue and oracle which failed first save are now exhausted.
second oracle since it is his first fail has no effect
now should the scenario say instead "on a second fail you are fatigued again"--that would be different
I'm curious, though: what do you think about the argument that I presented above about rage/unconsciousness/sleep? Do you think that a barbarian should not fall out of rage while he's asleep? I ask because the specific style of argument (x rule is contingent upon y condition, and z effect does not specifically spell out y condition, merely something related to it) seems very similar to the one you're making here.
I wouldn't allow a sleeping Barbarian to keep his rage active. I think that might be a key point here: "Broken" is a condition that's specifically defined; "sleeping" is not. So "sleeping" is open to GM interpretation, and to me, it implies a lack of mental activity - and I consider most 'active' abilities (extraordinary or otherwise) to require a higher level of mental activity than sleep allows.
At the cost of keeping a point in reserve - which is anything but game-breaking or earth-shattering.
Well, yeah - you really think that it's a valid 'cost' to keep a single Arcane point in reserve to have a completely undestroyable weapon? I don't.
The fact that he relies on his blade is, in my opinion, not a relevant argument. A gunslinger without his gun would arguably be more hindered than a magus. The magus still can cast spells. He can pull out other weapons. Yet a gunslinger is probably more prone to having his weapon lost than any other class, because it's built into the mechanics for it to blow up occasionally.
I'm curious, though: what do you think about the argument that I presented above about rage/unconsciousness/sleep? Do you think that a barbarian should not fall out of rage while he's asleep? I ask because the specific style of argument (x rule is contingent upon y condition, and z effect does not specifically spell out y condition, merely something related to it) seems very similar to the one you're making here.I wouldn't allow a sleeping Barbarian to keep his rage active. I think that might be a key point here: "Broken" is a condition that's specifically defined; "sleeping" is not. So "sleeping" is open to GM interpretation, and to me, it implies a lack of mental activity - and I consider most 'active' abilities (extraordinary or otherwise) to require a higher level of mental activity than sleep allows.
Actually, if I remember correctly, there is a feat for that, being able to maintain the rage while unconscious. You still use up your rounds, but you have to have the feat. Can't remember what it is called though. Or was it a rage power?
EDIT : Feat, Raging Vitality. So no, you shouldn't let a barbarian do it unless he has the feat.
|
|
I'm curious, though: what do you think about the argument that I presented above about rage/unconsciousness/sleep? Do you think that a barbarian should not fall out of rage while he's asleep? I ask because the specific style of argument (x rule is contingent upon y condition, and z effect does not specifically spell out y condition, merely something related to it) seems very similar to the one you're making here.I wouldn't allow a sleeping Barbarian to keep his rage active. I think that might be a key point here: "Broken" is a condition that's specifically defined; "sleeping" is not. So "sleeping" is open to GM interpretation, and to me, it implies a lack of mental activity - and I consider most 'active' abilities (extraordinary or otherwise) to require a higher level of mental activity than sleep allows.
wow--now you are really splitting hairs. IT is explicit that the barbarian has to be unconscious--which is a specific condition.
if you put someone to sleep--I can kick them and wake them up.
If you knock someone unconscious--they require healing of lethal or at least non-lethal---ie NEGATIVE hit points
So you are picking and choosing when to apply RAW?
should the barbarian be slept using your analogy--and I kick him and wake him up--his rage is still going and he is not fatigued. THAT IS RAW
now if we want to start applying common sense--come back and redo all your above arguements
The rage is strong in this one...
least my arguements are consistent.
Not quoting RAW when it suits me and then ignoring it when it doesn't
At last we agree on something. You are consistent.
EDIT: Linkified
wow--now you are really splitting hairs. IT is explicit that the barbarian has to be unconscious--which is a specific condition.
Actually, no. What it says is that if the Barbarian does fall unconscious, the rage ends automatically. I'm not splitting any hairs; I'm just aware of the fact that stating that something ends under a certain condition doesn't imply that's the only condition under which it ends.
To point out the massive hole in your argument: You're saying that 'unconscious' is the only thing that's mentioned as involuntarily ending a rage.
So you allow dead Barbarians to continue to rage in your game, right?
After all, there is no 'dead' condition, and 'dead' isn't listed as a time when you're unconscious. You're saying that because 'sleep' isn't a condition it doesn't count as being unconscious; neither is death. So have fun with your raging dead Barbarians.
So you are picking and choosing when to apply RAW?
Nope. I'm sorry if you see it that way; I don't, and you've said nothing that proves otherwise.
should the barbarian be slept using your analogy--and I kick him and wake him up--his rage is still going and he is not fatigued. THAT IS RAW
now if we want to start applying common sense--come back and redo all your above arguements
Since they all applied both RAW and common sense in the first place, I don't see the point of redoing arguments that you're just going to ignore because you've already decided exactly how these mechanics function at your table.
|
|
wow--now you are really splitting hairs. IT is explicit that the barbarian has to be unconscious--which is a specific condition.Actually, no. What it says is that if the Barbarian does fall unconscious, the rage ends automatically. I'm not splitting any hairs; I'm just aware of the fact that stating that something ends under a certain condition doesn't imply that's the only condition under which it ends.
wow using that arguement---I can argue my fatigue rule anytime. Just because it says fatigue stacks to make exhaustion does not mean I can't automatically rule that the second check is exhaustion anyhow even if the scenario doesnt say so.
after all--I am not contesting that condition--just adding my own on top
because under your rules--since fatigue would never apply, your oracle could go 100 years without ever sleeping with no harm.
So is Karal disproving his own position on the black blade with his fatigued corner case? Yes, yes I believe he is. So we all agree now that the black blade can be sundered?and if we accept that---that lame oracles can be exhausted with the second failed fort save even though they were never fatigued.
if the scenario says on a second failed save the character is fatigued again--the oracle would not be affected
BUT if the scenario says "on a second failed save the character is exhausted" then the oracle is affected
WE don't have to accept anything. WE have already accepted that the black blade can be destroyed. So WE don't care about your phantom fatigued example. It seems though that YOU believe it. YOU are arguing in favor of it. So if YOU accept YOUR own logic then WE can all agree that black blades may be broken.
nothing phantom about mine---unless you consider a statement by Michael Brock to be phantom
Cool, so I'll ask again. We all agree now that black blades can be destroyed?
|
|
nothing phantom about mine---unless you consider a statement by Michael Brock to be phantomCool, so I'll ask again. We all agree now that black blades can be destroyed?
so long as we agree that "by using that arguement---lame oracles can be exhausted after failing second fort save also"
if that reasoning is what the community wants to use--fine
if it applies to one--it would to both
I already showed the RAW verbage where it would apply to the oracle
there is no RAW verbage about sleep affecting barbarians rage now though
so that would be houserule
As long as YOU accept that then WE can agree. It seems that YOU do accept it, so I now assume that WE all agree. Good Thread everyone!
So back to the original topic at hand, does anyone have any relevant and RAW-based arguments why the black blade is granted immunity to destruction through its immunity to the 'broken' condition? Or is this one done?
|
sleeping may be open to GM interpretation.
Unconscious is not---there is an explicit condition detailed about how to get there. Going to sleep is not one of them
Oh look a dead horse, I must kick it!
I had an ex who was into martial arts, and happened to also be a very heavy sleeper. A car could have crashed through her bedroom window and not waked her up. And when she dreamed, she would sometimes lash out-kicking, punching, elbowing, you name it.
If I were to rule it, a barbarian could very well be able to be asleep and raging.
Also, I agree on the blackblade being destroyable, but not breakable.
I wouldn't allow a sleeping Barbarian to keep his rage active. I think that might be a key point here: "Broken" is a condition that's specifically defined; "sleeping" is not. So "sleeping" is open to GM interpretation, and to me, it implies a lack of mental activity - and I consider most 'active' abilities (extraordinary or otherwise) to require a higher level of mental activity than sleep allows.
"Destroyed" is not a condition that is specifically defined, either. Is it similarly open to GM interpretation?
|
|
I wouldn't allow a sleeping Barbarian to keep his rage active. I think that might be a key point here: "Broken" is a condition that's specifically defined; "sleeping" is not. So "sleeping" is open to GM interpretation, and to me, it implies a lack of mental activity - and I consider most 'active' abilities (extraordinary or otherwise) to require a higher level of mental activity than sleep allows."Destroyed" is not a condition that is specifically defined, either. Is it similarly open to GM interpretation?
Damaged Objects: 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.
From which you can evince that a destroyed object is non functional.
Beyond that, yes, you need some GM interpretation thanks tot eh myriad of effects that can destroy something.If a metallic weapon was destroyed by failing a saving throw against a fireball it can be a melted puddle of metal or it could warped and unusable.
If it was sundered it can be broken in two at the height of the hilt or shattered in several pieces.
The effect of being destroyed is unquestionable, the shape of the item after it has been destroyed is variable.
|
|
"Destroyed" is not a condition that is specifically defined, either. Is it similarly open to GM interpretation?
Actually, the condition doesn't need to be defined. I have seen a similar post where someone tried to make the same argument that since 'X' is not defined, then 'blah-blah'. SKR chimed in to say that obvious things do not need to be defined. For instance, 'dead' is not defined because 'dead' means 'dead'. There is nothing to explain.
Similarly, 'destroyed' does not need to be clarified. 'Destroyed' means 'destroyed'.
Why people on this thread cannot understand that an item does not need to gain the 'broken' condition in order to be 'destroyed' is beyond me. Take an item with 1 hit point and do 100 hit points of damage to it. It doesn't gain the 'broken' condition. It is just destroyed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"...obvious things do not need to be defined."
This is how I felt/feel when this thread first began. Having an ability called "Unbreakable" seems pretty obvious to me.
I understand that sundering "destroys" the item. Fine. I still have bad feelings about that.
However, sundering my blackblade with your mace does not turn it into a puddle of slag, it "breaks it", which it is supposed to be immune to as long as the item retains 1 arcane pool point.
sunder
[suhn-der]
verb (used with object)
1. to separate; part; divide; sever.
break
[breyk]
verb (used with object)
1. to smash, split, or divide into parts violently; reduce to pieces or fragments
The definitions are nearly identical as they are each defined with multiple synonyms of the same base word.
I believe some people in the "we can break your blade side" of this argument would find less resistance from the "my blade is unbreakable side" if they stopped portraying us as being less intelligent or abnormally stubborn.
My entire post is written under the assumption that the oracle on the mountain entries were never submitted, lol.
|
|
I believe some people in the "we can break your blade side" of this argument would find less resistance from the "my blade is unbreakable side" if they stopped portraying us as being less intelligent or abnormally stubborn.
I am not sure what is the RAI about the unbreakable ability, but the RAW is very clear. The BB is immune to a single, specific condition, being Broken.
I have hit the FAQ button as what the writer of the ability intended could have been something different, but I feel that it would have been easy to write explicitly "as long as the BB has at least 1 arcane point available it is immune to being damaged" if that was the intention.Or say it was immune to sunder if the name unbreakable was mean to be taken literally.
In Pathfinder there are hundred of things that can damage a weapon, as an example, striking a black pudding will damage it.
In your interpretation being unbreakable would make it immune to acid or heat?
BTW, it isn't "we can break your blade side", it is "my BB can be destroyed". I am currently playing a magus an I am the one saying to my GM that I think that unbreakable mean only that it is immune to the broken condition, nothing more.
Note to self: as soon as possible, by a mending wand.
@Ginglebrix: I apologize if I came off demeaning to you in my posts. I've been sick all week and it's made me grumpier than usual on the forums. While some of the snark in my posts was intentional, it wasn't intended in response to you.
I'm not certain, but I might suggest that part of the issue here is that you're giving the name of the ability more weight than it deserves. At least in my view, the actual text of the ability should always take precedence regardless of what the ability is called.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but why is this even a question? The RAW is clear. A Black Blade is immune to the broken condition with the retention of 1 Arcane Pool point via Unbreakable. It is not immune to being sundered or destroyed, because the ability does not state as such anywhere.
The first quote does NOT bypass any of the last three. Ever.
As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition.
When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined.
…until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.
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.
All of those quotes are direct RAW. No interpretation necessary. No FAQ necessary. No comparative examples or precedents necessary. In fact, the only inconsistency whatsoever is that the "Hit Points" paragraph should really use the word "destroyed" instead of "ruined" (which is not a game term like destroyed is). But that's pedantic.
If this ability said "As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is never reduced to less than 1 hit point" then it would work as you all seem to want it to, and by effect become immune to being destroyed (but still not immune to being sundered down to that 1hp, even though it would retain it's full functionality).
But that's not what it says, so that's not how it works. If you want it to function to that respect, homebrew the wording that way, and it will. But RAW, it is immune to broken, but not sundered or destroyed.
"...obvious things do not need to be defined."
This is how I felt/feel when this thread first began. Having an ability called "Unbreakable" seems pretty obvious to me.
I understand that sundering "destroys" the item. Fine. I still have bad feelings about that.
However, sundering my blackblade with your mace does not turn it into a puddle of slag, it "breaks it", which it is supposed to be immune to as long as the item retains 1 arcane pool point.
sunder
[suhn-der]
verb (used with object)
1. to separate; part; divide; sever.break
[breyk]
verb (used with object)
1. to smash, split, or divide into parts violently; reduce to pieces or fragmentsThe definitions are nearly identical as they are each defined with multiple synonyms of the same base word.
I believe some people in the "we can break your blade side" of this argument would find less resistance from the "my blade is unbreakable side" if they stopped portraying us as being less intelligent or abnormally stubborn.
My entire post is written under the assumption that the oracle on the mountain entries were never submitted, lol.
It's "unbreakable" not "undestroyable." They aren't synonyms here.
I believe some people in the "we can break your blade side" of this argument would find less resistance from the "my blade is unbreakable side" if they stopped portraying us as being less intelligent or abnormally stubborn.
It wasn't directed at you. There was another post who would make up things, ignore anyone else's posts he didn't agree with, and basically act like a troll. That tends to bring out the irritation in people.
Also, as others have pointed out, it's not 'we can break your stuff' it's 'This is the rules'.
My entire post is written under the assumption that the oracle on the mountain entries were never submitted, lol.
That would be the portion of the thread that got a lot of people annoyed due to people making up rules to use as strawmen.
|
|
I believe some people in the "we can break your blade side" of this argument would find less resistance from the "my blade is unbreakable side" if they stopped portraying us as being less intelligent or abnormally stubborn.
It wasn't directed at you. There was another post who would make up things, ignore anyone else's posts he didn't agree with, and basically act like a troll. That tends to bring out the irritation in people.
Also, as others have pointed out, it's not 'we can break your stuff' it's 'This is the rules'.
That would be the portion of the thread that got a lot of people annoyed due to people making up rules to use as strawmen.
My entire post is written under the assumption that the oracle on the mountain entries were never submitted, lol.
there was another poster who brought up RAW where it said on a second failed fort save--the result was exhaustion--rather than a second fatigue. WHich means that being immune to fatigue does not save you. Some people which like to go by RAW sometimes---choose to ignore this raw.
if the rule or scenario said--on a second fail you are fatigued again, than immunity to fatigue saves you. IF it says on a second fail, you are exhausted?---you are exhausted. I don't see how that is difficult to understand.
some people can stay awake for 2 days cramming for an exam and not suffer fatigue. it does not protect them from suffering from exhaustion on the third day and collapsing into slumber.
so the funny part is when we talk of making up rules--it is MDT that does it. I have RAW proof. Just like MDT would house rule that sleeping equals the unconscious condition even though unconscious condition is defined in the core rule book.
I believe some people in the "we can break your blade side" of this argument would find less resistance from the "my blade is unbreakable side" if they stopped portraying us as being less intelligent or abnormally stubborn.
It wasn't directed at you. There was another post who would make up things, ignore anyone else's posts he didn't agree with, and basically act like a troll. That tends to bring out the irritation in people.
Also, as others have pointed out, it's not 'we can break your stuff' it's 'This is the rules'.
That would be the portion of the thread that got a lot of people annoyed due to people making up rules to use as strawmen.
My entire post is written under the assumption that the oracle on the mountain entries were never submitted, lol.
there was another poster who brought up RAW where it said on a second failed fort save--the result was exhaustion--rather than a second fatigue. WHich means that being immune to fatigue does not save you. Some people which like to go by RAW sometimes---choose to ignore this raw.
if the rule or scenario said--on a second fail you are fatigued again, than immunity to fatigue saves you. IF it says on a second fail, you are exhausted?---you are exhausted. I don't see how that is difficult to understand.
some people can stay awake for 2 days cramming for an exam and not suffer fatigue. it does not protect them from suffering from exhaustion on the third day and collapsing into slumber.
so the funny part is when we talk of making up rules--it is MDT that does it. I have RAW proof. Just like MDT would house rule that sleeping equals the unconscious condition even though unconscious condition is defined in the core rule book.
We all agree with you about the black blade. It can totally be destroyed. We agree. If you would like to continue to discuss whatever it is that you are taking about, maybe try another thread? OP's question about the black blade has been answered, and most people agree with you that it can be destroyed. It's totally cool, we agree with you, about how the black blade is able to be destroyed.
I will concede that my stance/assumptions are probably incorrect by RAW.
In my role of GM in my homegame, I will probably keep the blade unbreakable/unsunderable. Playing in your games, I would not expect that, nor make a stink about it.
From some of the posted examples above, it being melted by lava or acid or black pudding or dragon's fire, etc, does not "break it". I would never say that a flow of lava "broke" the sword. Although it certainly destroyed it.
Maybe my hang up is wanting to keep the sword immune to chipping and/or snapping in half due to blunt force trauma from other weapons, a frost giant trying to break it across his knee, etc. This is more "unbreakable" in my mind and not necessarily "unmeltable" or "invulnerable" or "indestructible".
How do I "hit the FAQ button" though. I am relatively new to the messageboards. I would like to help expedite a possible "official" response for my own piece of mind. I know some of you feel that it is unnecessary, but a few of us may.
I will concede that my stance/assumptions are probably incorrect by RAW.
In my role of GM in my homegame, I will probably keep the blade unbreakable/unsunderable. Playing in your games, I would not expect that, nor make a stink about it.
From some of the posted examples above, it being melted by lava or acid or black pudding or dragon's fire, etc, does not "break it". I would never say that a flow of lava "broke" the sword. Although it certainly destroyed it.
Maybe my hang up is wanting to keep the sword immune to chipping and/or snapping in half due to blunt force trauma from other weapons, a frost giant trying to break it across his knee, etc. This is more "unbreakable" in my mind and not necessarily "unmeltable" or "invulnerable" or "indestructible".
The way to have handled that would have been to make the property something like this :
Unbreakable : So long as the black blade has at least 1 arcana point stored within it, it ignores any HP damage from effects that are not area of effect. Additionally, even an area effect damage must do sufficient damage in one application of damage to completely destroy (remove all hit points from) the blade, at which point the blade is considered destroyed, although it can be reforged <blah blah rules about reforging>.
Of course, this still leaves us with one burning (or smouldering) question.
How do you reforge a black blade that fell into a pit of lava? Or fell into the ocean and landed on the bottom of the sea? Or got left behind on another plane?
|
|
Reforging a black blade that has been completely destroyed shouldn't be a problem, you would be recreating it from your side of the link. If it has been lost but it still physically exist there is a problem, as it is not possible to recreate something that exist.
The black blade is a class feature, but it is a specific item too, a item that can't be replaced as long as it exist.
From some of the posted examples above, it being melted by lava or acid or black pudding or dragon's fire, etc, does not "break it". I would never say that a flow of lava "broke" the sword. Although it certainly destroyed it.
Maybe my hang up is wanting to keep the sword immune to chipping and/or snapping in half due to blunt force trauma from other weapons, a frost giant trying to break it across his knee, etc. This is more "unbreakable" in my mind and not necessarily "unmeltable" or "invulnerable" or "indestructible".
I am very confused. If we use this interpretation, then say the sword takes more than half its hit points in fire or acid damage. It's not immune to that by your analysis, because that's not "breaking". So it's not immune, and thus as an item which has taken more than half its hit points in damage, it has gained the "broken" condition. Even though it hasn't actually been snapped or whatever.
I think the thing you're missing is the phrase: "Term of art". A term of art is a specialized term which has a meaning which need not be remotely the same as the meaning you would normally get for that word from the dictionary.
To steal an example from 4E: In 4E, in general, creatures at half health or less are "bloodied". Lots of creatures have special powers which activate only when they are bloodied. Your argument here is roughly equivalent to arguing that a thri-kreen barbarian can't use a rage power which requires them to be "bloodied" because insects have ichor, rather than blood.
A weapon which "has the broken condition" is not necessarily "broken" in the sense of chipped, snapped, or whatever. It might be melted. It might just be sulking and refusing to fight effectively for no particular reason. "Broken" in this context is just a word to denote a set of rules, with no real relation to the physical state of any object.
Remember we're talking about an item which is specifically and specially immune to the broken condition.
Why is this still being debated? Scroll up and read my post. It provides direct RAW references that answer this question without the need for interpretation, table variance, debate, or FAQ. The only debate is not liking what the RAW says and then houseruling it from there.
I'll break it down simpler below:
Can a Black Blade be broken: Yes, but only if the Magus fails to retain 1 Arcane Pool point.
Can a Black Blade be damaged: Yes, but if the Magus retains 1 Arcane Pool point, it cannot gain the broken condition.
Can a Black Blade be sundered: Yes, since there is no rule preventing it.
Can a Black Blade be destroyed: Yes, since there is no rule preventing it.
Are there rules for repairing a broken blade: Yes, see the class feature.
Are there rules for repairing a sundered blade: Well, the class feature says it can be repaired, but it fails to state HOW to repair. The archetype mentions in "Black Blade basics" that it's bonded item like a familiar. And Magus doesn't get Mend on his spell list. So two options: Treat the black blade the same as a wizard's bonded item that is repaired next time he prepares spells (Probably the RAI way to repair it, but it's not RAW), or get a Wand of Mend.
Are there rules for re-creating a destroyed blade: Yes, see the class feature.
|
|
Not to necro, but what exactly does clicking the FAQ button do? How will we know when this question has been answered? Where would we look for that?
Doug M.
Seeing how the first post was made "Wed, Aug 14, 2013, 10:32 PM" and the last one before yours Sunday 18 at 04:06 PM it hard to call your psot a necro :P
- * -
If you click the FAQ button you alert the Pathfinder Design Team about the question presented in the FAQed post (and only that post, it is not granted that they will read all the thread).
In the last 8 months or so the PDT had done a meeting every 2 weeks or so and analysed the questions with the highest number of FAQs.
After they are get a consensus on what the rule should be they put a post in the relevant thread and add a post to the FAQs of the relevant boo (you can consult them hitting the button in the right high corner of the page).
You can consult the PDT posts going to their page too: here. Very useful when you want to see if there are news about different rulings.
- * -
Are there rules for repairing a broken blade: Yes, see the class feature.Are there rules for repairing a sundered blade: Well, the class feature says it can be repaired, but it fails to state HOW to repair. The archetype mentions in "Black Blade basics" that it's bonded item like a familiar. And Magus doesn't get Mend on his spell list. So two options: Treat the black blade the same as a wizard's bonded item that is repaired next time he prepares spells (Probably the RAI way to repair it, but it's not RAW), or get a Wand of Mend.
Are there rules for re-creating a destroyed blade: Yes, see the class feature.
The rules about repairing a damaged but not destroyed black blade aren't clear.
Mending require a CL on par of the item level to repair it (again, thanks to Umbranus for pointing that out), make whole should have the same limitation for repairing a damaged item as it refer mending (x2 CL is required for a destroyed item).The problem is that a Black Blade a no associated CL.
I would use the level of the bladebound magus as the BB CL, but that isn't RAW.
I have put a possible FAQ post about that here. If you think that the question is clear hit the FAQ button.
- * -
Most of these doubts about black blades can be resolved with a bit of good sense when playing a home game, but we need a official ruling for PFS games.
|
|
Which he normally can't use since Mend is not on his spell list.Treat the black blade the same as a wizard's bonded item that is repaired next time he prepares spells (Probably the RAI way to repair it, but it's not RAW), or get a Wand of Mend.
But use magic device is a class skill. Charisma 10, 1 skill point = 25% chance of activating a wand at each try against a 5% chance of it not working for a day.
The problem is the CL as the BB CL is unclear and the wand usually work at CL 1.
Destroyed is a separate condition that occurs when an item hits ZERO hit points.
No it's not - it's not a condition at all.
|
|
The name of the ability-Unbreakable-generates an expectation.
If you had a pocket watch and it was described as 'broken', then we would imagine that it looks (relatively) unchanged (maybe the glass is broken), but that it wouldn't function (tell the time) anymore. If it was described as 'destroyed', then it would be smashed to smithereens. This visualisation matches the RAW for broken/destroyed pretty well.
But when we describe a sword as 'broken', we visualise that the blade has been snapped in two, rendering it unusable as a weapon (though it may be used as an improvised dagger, maybe). Therefore, if the sword is described as 'unbreakable' we imagine that it cannot be snapped in two!
But the actual rules for broken/destroyed (for a sword) go against that expectation!. 'Broken' might represent a sword that's lost it's edge, while if it were snapped in two the rules would not say 'broken' they would say 'destroyed'.
I honestly don't know if the writer of the archetype intended it to be 'unbreakable' or 'undestroyable'.
Kingmaker AP. Rivers Run Red. Page 33.
The Lonely Warrior is wielding a broken +2 fey bane bastard sword per creature description.
The accompanying illustration shows the creature wielding a blade that has been broken in half.
Destroyed is a separate condition that occurs when an item hits ZERO hit points.No it's not - it's not a condition at all.
+1
|
|
Destroyed is a separate condition that occurs when an item hits ZERO hit points.No it's not - it's not a condition at all.
Actually, it is a condition, but it applies to vehicles:
Destroyed: A vehicle is destroyed when it is reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to its number of squares. A destroyed vehicle cannot be repaired, and is nothing more than junk.
If a vehicle's means of propulsion is an object, it is destroyed when it reaches 0 hit points.
If either the means of propulsion or the vehicle is destroyed, it comes to a sudden stop if it is not stopped already. Water vehicles sink and drop to the bottom of the body of water. Air vehicles fall.
Seeing the discussions about broken and destroyed items (the black blade in particular), probably it would be a good idea to define the destroyed condition for objects. It seem redundant, but apparently it is needed.
Maybe we should get a definition of dead too. :P
The name of the ability-Unbreakable-generates an expectation.
I see the name 'Waterproof' on plenty of items, watches, cameras, computers.
I do not expect these items to survive if I put them 100 feet under water. Nor even 50 feet under water. I expect them to survive being dropped in the toilet.
Much like any Marketing hack, the developer of the BB has sold you a bill of goods with 'unbreakable'. What he really means is 'breakage resistant'.
These waterproof electronic devices of yours are not magical nor do they require the withholding of an arcane point.
I understand your analogy though.
Any feedback regarding the broken sword in Kingmaker that I previously posted today?