Ok, got it about repairing the damaged Black Blade, leaving that to the other thread, but everything else I said is absolutely true. It doesn't matter what your "expectation" is, it matters what the RAW states. Your expectation might not be the same as mine. It's an opinion. Which has no bearing on the fact that a Black Blade can be sundered and can be destroyed, by RAW.
Destroyed, while not technically a "condition", is what happens when an item is reduced to 0 hp, per the RAW. There is nothing in the Unbreakable Archetype class feature that turns this off.
There is nothing that says an item has to have the "broken" condition first before it's able to be destroyed. It can go from full hp to destroyed in 1 hit, if it takes enough damage.
There is nothing that says an item immune to the "broken" condition is immune to all damage, or immune to the Sunder combat maneuver.
Therefore, by the direct RAW, even a Black Blade can be damaged. It can be Sundered. It can be destroyed. The only thing the Unbreakable class feature gives you is the ability to use your Black Blade, at full power, and with full strength, all the way to the point of being destroyed. It allows you to skip the limitations of the "broken" condition. That is literally all it does.
Show me, in RAW, where it says something immune to the "broken" condition is immune to being damaged, sundered or destroyed. Not RAI, not your opinion, not your expectation, not your neighbor's sister's dog's homebrew rule. Direct RAW. Or stop arguing.
I didn't read all of this thread, though I've read enough, but if we're going to argue the class feature of a Black Blade being immune to the effects of sunder, let's take a separate feature that specifically states immunities to maneuvers; Weapon Master from the Fighter class comes to mind.
It specifically states that when the character uses the weapon affected by the Weapon Mastery feature, it cannot be disarmed. This language outright cites the weapon is unable to be disarmed.
No such language is present in the Unbreakable feature. It might say it's immune to the effects of the Broken condition, but it does not say it's immune to the Sunder combat maneuver, or immune to simply being outright destroyed.
The simple fact of the matter is that unbreakable ≠ indestructible.
yeah I have to admit it can take damage and it can't recieve the broken condition. But it can become damaged and destroyed.
i have avoided the discusion as i have come to this conclusion and dont like it!
Now that my GM also in on the im even more woried :-) (Kris Vanhoyland is the GM of my Bladebound Magus)
im gonna get a scroll of mending somewhere sometime :p
|
I kinda find this topic absurd as a Blackblade user, because how can you sunder something which can't be broken?
Does it suddenly shatter without showing some kind of weakness?
Anyways if this is the case on my next society game i am going to reforge my Blackblade and make it an Adamantine sword and make my sword arcane bond with getting Eldritch Heritage(Arcane)....
I kinda find this topic absurd as a Blackblade user, because how can you sunder something which can't be broken?
Because sundering is a combat maneuver while broken is a condition based on HP.
Does it suddenly shatter without showing some kind of weakness?
You could flavor it that way. Or you could flavor it that it shows signs of damage but the magic makes it retain its function regardless, unless it simply takes too much and gives way.
|
|
I kinda find this topic absurd as a Blackblade user, because how can you sunder something which can't be broken?Because sundering is a combat maneuver while broken is a condition based on HP.
After doing some research on real life counter-part of this case, yeah it is logical for a sword like this to break suddenly :)
Actually, it is more likely since the guy who is going to break it will have incredible amount of strength and probably a sword as good as yours...
I have to visit some shops and waste a good amount of gold on my sword now... :(
Clearly this thread is making a mountain out of a molehill. There appears to be a lot of confusion over exactly what indestructible means.
Official Rules Response
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rb1
Magus, Black Blade: Can a black blade be sundered?
Yes.
The weapon's immunity the broken condition if it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool only prevents the specific effects of the broken condition. A black blade can still take damage--or even be destroyed--if it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, it just won't take the additional penalties from the broken condition.
The name of a class feature (in this case, "unbreakable") is flavor text, not rules text.
Well finally, now that's put to rest.
Oh Design Team, you so great.
I'm always happy every time I see a post from you.
Clearing up a lot of these old FAQs -
Or, you know, the craft skill.
@Seebs: That'd be great if Magus actually got either of those spells.
@RD: Takes way too long.
Post removed. Thanks again for the rulings, PDT.
|
StreamOfTheSky is right. Magus doesn't have access to these spells, so they can't actually fix their blade themselves. This needs to be redressed. On a similar note, fighters can't cast healing spells in order to heal themselves when they get low on hit points, and the matter gets worse if they fall unconscious or die. Their spell list needs to be changed as well. Can we expect a change on that soon?
If you're talking about spell pages, that doesn't work for the magus.
On the other hand, oil of mending does, and it's a relatively cheap potion.
|
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"
This. mdt I really have to agree with Ginglebrix here. If there had been a comma in the sentence then your argument would have merit. However it is two sentences, indicating two separate ideas. As long as the blade has one point in it's arcane pool it is immune to the broken condition. That is very clear in it's meaning and if a GM tried to pull a stunt like the one you did I'd quit and find a new group because he's being a jerk and trying to find reasons to nerf my archetype.
The second sentence where it mentions "if it does gain the broken condition" refers to a scenario where that one last point of the sword's arcane pool has been spent, thus making it vulnerable. At that point all bets are off and the sword is a legitimate target; but not before. Unbreakable means unbreakable.
The design team already ruled on this, "Captain", and the ruling fits with RAW. If the black blade was intended to be immune to damage, the writers would have said it was immune to damage, not the broken condition. The fact that you would throw such a tantrum over it isn't relevant. Learn to take care of your blade, just as wizards have to take care of their spellbooks, druids their animal companions, and witches their familiars.
I don't see the big deal. A witch who gets her familiar killed is in extremely bad shape. If poor little Elric breaks his tool, he can fix it with a little difficulty. What makes it such an outrage that this behavior is warranted? If my player pulled this kind of stunt, I'd boot his bishonen bottom to the curb.
|
|
As for a Magus not having it on his spell list: Not a very strong argument, as a Magus can take Spell Blending and pick up Make Whole at any time.
Blackblade Magi are just as responsible for protecting (and possibly replacing) their weapons as any other martial character would be.
UMD to use a scroll/wand of Make Whole also works.
At the end of the day, most of the Magus class features still work without the blackblade itself. He can pick up a generic longsword and still have 90% of his class features still fully operational.
If you've built your character around a single weapon and take no extra precautions to protect it, then you get to suffer the consequences.
So I've lately started having enemies acknowledge this, and immediately gun for her weapon. Oh, you can kill the dragon in a few rounds? It promptly goes invisible, walks/flies up, and snaps her weapon in half with one bite. And her backup one on the next round. Suddenly she goes from the most devastating character in the party, to the most useless low-Con one of the bunch. She gave me a brutally vicious glare, but had nothing to say because she'd worked herself into that corner. She can be sure that future enemies will be smart enough to do the same as soon as they observe her terrifying attack power.
And I've tried discussing this with her more than once, pointing out how borderline-munchkin'd her character is and how unfun she makes encounters. The response is that she doesn't really care to learn how to change up or enhance her character. So she's going to suffer the consequences.
This. mdt I really have to agree with Ginglebrix here.
Well, not to be too indelicate about it, but, I find your argument lacking merit on the grounds that the developers already handed down an FAQ against your position.
|
|
The design team already ruled on this, "Captain", and the ruling fits with RAW. If the black blade was intended to be immune to damage, the writers would have said it was immune to damage, not the broken condition. The fact that you would throw such a tantrum over it isn't relevant. Learn to take care of your blade, just as wizards have to take care of their spellbooks, druids their animal companions, and witches their familiars.
I don't see the big deal. A witch who gets her familiar killed is in extremely bad shape. If poor little Elric breaks his tool, he can fix it with a little difficulty. What makes it such an outrage that this behavior is warranted? If my player pulled this kind of stunt, I'd boot his bishonen bottom to the curb.
Using my name in quotes....amusing.
I was unaware of the design team's ruling on the matter, though I do have some personal disagreement on the issue considering just what they were emulating with the black blade magus. But that's just me. If I was playing Pathfinder Society I'd be happy to abide by their rules on the matter, and if a GM was running made that ruling I might express my own thoughts on the matter, but it's his or her game and they have the right to rule as they need to for balance purposes.
I was arguing from what I knew and had interpreted at the time and nothing else. I didn't see as anything else. I can see another person's point of view, though I may disagree; but if the GM is completely unwilling to even listen to what I'm saying then I tend to start thinking a certain way. Namely that their looking for excuses to nerf things; because in my experience that's what they are doing. (Granted I've only been a member of two gaming groups and one of them was terrible, but that is my experience. One GM refused to listen to anyone, and routinely tried to kill off any character he didn't like for whatever reason, and the other is actually a healthy group)
So. If I sounded angrier than I was I apologize as that wasn't my intent, I was just trying to get my point across that I saw things a certain way and was trying to be assertive about it.
I'll restate something I had posted earlier (in a more diplomatic way), but removed:
A magus whose black blade gets destroyed is no different than a a fighter whose primary weapon gets destroyed. It's an annoyance to be sure, but it's no more hindering than it is to the fighter.
The magus does not need to be able to repair his own blade simply because it's a class feature; he can resort to the same measures the fighter does. And in the meantime, he's out some arcane points and a few bonuses the blade grants him, but he can do the exact same thing the fighter would - use an alternate weapon* - and he'll still have access to his other core class features, like Spell Combat and Spellstrike.
*To me, the only change this really requires for most black blade magi is something that I would have done with a bladebound magus in the first place - shell out some gold and carry a back-up weapon with its own enhancements on it.
It's about like a cleric losing their holy symbol. It limits what they can do, but it isn't the sky falling.
|
|
I think maybe I need to explain just why I had, and still have, an issue with this on some level.
I like to write. I started out writing fan fiction and tried writing original stories, but I honestly wasn't that good at it when I was younger. So I tried to learn about words and language and how they interacted.
As a result it bothers me when I perceive people using a word in a way that doesn't make sense. Immune has a specific meaning. A basic reading of the Black Blade ability, based on what I knew before the FAQ ruling, made it seem like the sword could not be broken because that's what immunity to broken means.
A lot of confusion on these things would be solved if there were a better way of describing what they intended. If they meant that it took no penalties for having the broken condition (which seems to be the case since it can still be damaged and destroyed) then couldn't they have used a different word than immune?
Yes it might seem like nitpicking to a lot of you but this really bothers me. I have this argument with a friend of mine every so often because he seems to think that all words and sentences are subjective...and they are not.....
|
|
seebs, I really don't want to belabor this point but I feel I need to emphasize my point about language and words. Immune to the broken condition means (to me, based on my understanding of how words work together) that a thing cannot be brought to the broken condition because it cannot be broken. Hence it is IMMUNE. The Black Blade takes no penalties from the broken condition, and it may not acquire the broken condition as a result of a sunder attempt (though it does still take the damage) but it is NOT immune.
This is why I try to be very specific when I write something or put a thought to paper. I don't want to be misunderstood, or to accidentally offend someone.
|
|
"it cannot acquire the broken condition" and "it takes no effects from the broken condition"
These two phrases mean two totally different things and it's because of what words are chosen, and yes this is something I actually get ticked about with other books too.
Look at it this way. Say a class got the ability "cannot acquire diseases" and then it was later clarified to "takes no effects from diseases". These mean two very, very different things. Not taking the effects of a disease means that you're still a carrier and can infect other people.
Immunity means you cannot get the disease. If you cannot acquire the broken condition then it stands to reason that the blade, while it has that one arcane pool point, cannot be sundered. It has to be able to acquire the condition and based on the wording it is immune, and immune has a specific meaning. If they meant something else they should have used a different word to avoid this whole discussion.
|
After some thought, I don't think that "make whole" will do anything for a destroyed black blade.
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.
Reforging the black blade require a specific ritual, not the casting of a spell.
|
|
seebs, I really don't want to belabor this point but I feel I need to emphasize my point about language and words. Immune to the broken condition means (to me, based on my understanding of how words work together) that a thing cannot be brought to the broken condition because it cannot be broken. Hence it is IMMUNE. The Black Blade takes no penalties from the broken condition, and it may not acquire the broken condition as a result of a sunder attempt (though it does still take the damage) but it is NOT immune.
This is why I try to be very specific when I write something or put a thought to paper. I don't want to be misunderstood, or to accidentally offend someone.
Then stay clear of old style boardgames, they are full of that kind of text. They would be a painful experience for you.
"Curiously" if you were willing to accept and remember the game definitions they were very clear on how the rules worked.