If you wield Blackrazor for the Booming Blade melee attack as a 18th level caster and the actual primary damage of the weapon does NOT kill a creature, but the additional damage from the spell effect does, do you think that because Blackrazor itself was not the exact cause of the then it would not proc the Devour Soul benefit?
Devour Soul
Whenever you use it to reduce a creature to 0 hit points, the sword slays the creature and devours its soul, unless it is a construct or an undead. A creature whose soul has been devoured by Blackrazor can be restored to life only by a wish spell.
When it devours a soul, Blackrazor grants you temporary hit points equal to the slain creature’s hit point maximum. These hit points fade after 24 hours. As long as these temporary hit points last and you keep Blackrazor in hand, you have advantage on attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks.
If you hit an undead with this weapon, you take 1d10 necrotic damage and the target regains 1d10 hit points. If this necrotic damage reduces you to 0 hit points, Blackrazor devours your soul.
I would rule that you would get the benefit from it
"Whenever you use it to reduce a creature to 0 hit points"
since you use it as part of the spell, so maybe not as intended, but as written. I'd have to read it's description, but if what you said it true, i'd give it to you.
Quick note, RAW makes me think that the smite part of the attack would count still. Also as a reminder, Blackrazor is the copyright safe copy of Strombringer, the Sword of Elric of Melnibone. So the weapon intent is anyone killed in attack by Blackrazor would have their soul consumed. As the sword is basically a demon/devil.
Quick note, RAW makes me think that the smite part of the attack would count still. Also as a reminder, Blackrazor is the copyright safe copy of Strombringer, the Sword of Elric of Melnibone. So the weapon intent is anyone killed in attack by Blackrazor would have their soul consumed. As the sword is basically a demon/devil.
Quick note, RAW makes me think that the smite part of the attack would count still. Also as a reminder, Blackrazor is the copyright safe copy of Strombringer, the Sword of Elric of Melnibone. So the weapon intent is anyone killed in attack by Blackrazor would have their soul consumed. As the sword is basically a demon/devil.
In 5e it is a chaotic neutral sentient sword.
That was done for balancing reasons, if it was still a CE Intelligent weapon, it would cause too many issues with gameplay esp as they recommended it wo Hexblades.
If you wield Blackrazor for the Booming Blade melee attack as a 18th level caster and the actual primary damage of the weapon does NOT kill a creature, but the additional damage from the spell effect does, do you think that because Blackrazor itself was not the exact cause of the then it would not proc the Devour Soul benefit?
Blackrazor's effect activates when it's used to kill a creature. In the situation you describe, it's the part of the spell that explicitly is not the weapon that kills the creature, so no, the Devour Soul effect doesn't activate. If you could cast the spell from the weapon, sort of like a wand, then it'd be different, but as described, the weapon is unambiguously not the cause of death. You used the weapon to damage a creature, and then you used a different effect entirely separate from the weapon to kill it.
Quick note, RAW makes me think that the smite part of the attack would count still. Also as a reminder, Blackrazor is the copyright safe copy of Strombringer, the Sword of Elric of Melnibone. So the weapon intent is anyone killed in attack by Blackrazor would have their soul consumed. As the sword is basically a demon/devil.
In 5e it is a chaotic neutral sentient sword.
That was done for balancing reasons, if it was still a CE Intelligent weapon, it would cause too many issues with gameplay esp as they recommended it wo Hexblades.
Blackrazor's alignment has wobbled between CN and CE for decades. It's very unlikely that Hexblades had any impact on its alignment in 5E, especially given that it showed up in the DMG several years before the Hexblade was release in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Quick note, RAW makes me think that the smite part of the attack would count still. Also as a reminder, Blackrazor is the copyright safe copy of Strombringer, the Sword of Elric of Melnibone. So the weapon intent is anyone killed in attack by Blackrazor would have their soul consumed. As the sword is basically a demon/devil.
In 5e it is a chaotic neutral sentient sword.
That was done for balancing reasons, if it was still a CE Intelligent weapon, it would cause too many issues with gameplay esp as they recommended it wo Hexblades.
Blackrazor's alignment has wobbled between CN and CE for decades. It's very unlikely that Hexblades had any impact on its alignment in 5E, especially given that it showed up in the DMG several years before the Hexblade was release in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
wobbled yes, but no one denies the history or origin of why the blade was designed, what game it first showed up in, and what blade it was based on. And the blade it's based on was a demon/devil infused into a blade. The 1st mention ( the 1979 adventure module White Plume Mountain) and then forgotten until Baldur's Gate 2.
It was only in the last decade that it has gone back and forth between Evil and Neutral, and 5th ed made it the recommended starter weapon for Hexblades. Which as a DM I say no to that.
edit:
Why did they ever think it was a good thing to write it like this:
You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell — a force that manifests in sentient magic weapons carved from the stuff of shadow. The mighty sword Blackrazor is the most notable of these weapons, which have been spread across the multiverse over the ages. The shadowy force behind these weapons can offer power to warlocks who form pacts with it. Many hexblade warlocks create weapons that emulate those formed in the Shadowfell. Others forgo such arms, content to weave the dark magic of that plane into their spellcasting.
Because the Raven Queen is known to have forged the first of these weapons, many sages speculate that she and the force are one and that the weapons, along with hexblade warlocks, are tools she uses to manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends.
5th ed made it the recommended starter weapon for Hexblades.
No it definitely did not. It suggested that the Blackrazor could work as a patron for Hexblades.
I posted the exact words, they shouldn't even mention it, not in the paragraph describing the class. Because a new player instantly thinks they should get it. It was a bad move whoever wrote that.
5th ed made it the recommended starter weapon for Hexblades.
No it definitely did not. It suggested that the Blackrazor could work as a patron for Hexblades.
I posted the exact words, they shouldn't even mention it, not in the paragraph describing the class. Because a new player instantly thinks they should get it. It was a bad move whoever wrote that.
You did not post the exact words, not even close. In what world is it a bad move to offer a suggestion as to what a warlock's patron could be?
5th ed made it the recommended starter weapon for Hexblades.
No it definitely did not. It suggested that the Blackrazor could work as a patron for Hexblades.
I posted the exact words, they shouldn't even mention it, not in the paragraph describing the class. Because a new player instantly thinks they should get it. It was a bad move whoever wrote that.
You did not post the exact words, not even close. In what world is it a bad move to offer a suggestion as to what a warlock's patron could be?
exact words: 2nd post:
You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell — a force that manifests in sentient magic weapons carved from the stuff of shadow. The mighty sword Blackrazor is the most notable of these weapons, which have been spread across the multiverse over the ages. The shadowy force behind these weapons can offer power to warlocks who form pacts with it. Many hexblade warlocks create weapons that emulate those formed in the Shadowfell. Others forgo such arms, content to weave the dark magic of that plane into their spellcasting.
Because the Raven Queen is known to have forged the first of these weapons, many sages speculate that she and the force are one and that the weapons, along with hexblade warlocks, are tools she uses to manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends.
and the answer to the second part, when the suggested patron is one of the most powerful weapons in the game. Thus implying the player should have access to said weapon.
I agree with SagaTympana if the creature is killed by Booming Blade's effect, then Devore Soul shouldn'tt trigger since Blackrazor was not used to reduce a creature to 0 hit points but the spell.
I would tend to think if it was killed by the spell's effect during the strike it should count...but if it was killed due to the secondary damage from moving maybe not.
I would tend to think if it was killed by the spell's effect during the strike it should count...but if it was killed due to the secondary damage from moving maybe not.
The spell’s effect during the strike is to increase the weapon attack’s damage, not to deal a separate instance of damage, so yes, you are exactly correct. The damage from moving is in no way dealt by the weapon, so there’s no way for the sword’s effect to come into play.
Looking back through the thread, I may have misunderstood OP’s scenario and/or question. If they're asking about that initial damage, then yeah, that's the weapon dealing that damage. I understood "the additional damage from the spell effect" to mean the damage that happens later if the creature moves.
Me too i assumed it since the OP mentioned "actual primary damage of the weapon does NOT kill a creature, but the additional damage from the spell effect does"
Properly speaking, Booming Blade's effect is not additional or extra damage as it doesn't add to a damage roll but instead is a distinct damage roll, seperate from any previous attack.
Actually, above level 5, the weapon attack does do additional damage - in addition to the extra damage if the target moves away.
In a recent adventure we were given holy oil that would grant radiant damage to our weapons. I have a glaive that steals souls when the weapon kills, and if the extra damage from the holy oil was deciding factor in getting the kill, I'd still assume my weapon absorbed the soul.
So. My initial instinct was actually the opposite, but I think I'd go with a 'maybe' here - if it's the extra damage on the melee attack, sure, but if it's the spell effect once the target moves away, then no.
Weird interaction, but there it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok, question time!
If you wield Blackrazor for the Booming Blade melee attack as a 18th level caster and the actual primary damage of the weapon does NOT kill a creature, but the additional damage from the spell effect does, do you think that because Blackrazor itself was not the exact cause of the then it would not proc the Devour Soul benefit?
I would rule that you would get the benefit from it
"Whenever you use it to reduce a creature to 0 hit points"
since you use it as part of the spell, so maybe not as intended, but as written. I'd have to read it's description, but if what you said it true, i'd give it to you.
Quick note, RAW makes me think that the smite part of the attack would count still. Also as a reminder, Blackrazor is the copyright safe copy of Strombringer, the Sword of Elric of Melnibone. So the weapon intent is anyone killed in attack by Blackrazor would have their soul consumed. As the sword is basically a demon/devil.
In 5e it is a chaotic neutral sentient sword.
That was done for balancing reasons, if it was still a CE Intelligent weapon, it would cause too many issues with gameplay esp as they recommended it wo Hexblades.
Blackrazor's effect activates when it's used to kill a creature. In the situation you describe, it's the part of the spell that explicitly is not the weapon that kills the creature, so no, the Devour Soul effect doesn't activate. If you could cast the spell from the weapon, sort of like a wand, then it'd be different, but as described, the weapon is unambiguously not the cause of death. You used the weapon to damage a creature, and then you used a different effect entirely separate from the weapon to kill it.
Blackrazor's alignment has wobbled between CN and CE for decades. It's very unlikely that Hexblades had any impact on its alignment in 5E, especially given that it showed up in the DMG several years before the Hexblade was release in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
wobbled yes, but no one denies the history or origin of why the blade was designed, what game it first showed up in, and what blade it was based on. And the blade it's based on was a demon/devil infused into a blade. The 1st mention ( the 1979 adventure module White Plume Mountain) and then forgotten until Baldur's Gate 2.
It was only in the last decade that it has gone back and forth between Evil and Neutral, and 5th ed made it the recommended starter weapon for Hexblades. Which as a DM I say no to that.
edit:
Why did they ever think it was a good thing to write it like this:
No it definitely did not. It suggested that the Blackrazor could work as a patron for Hexblades.
I posted the exact words, they shouldn't even mention it, not in the paragraph describing the class. Because a new player instantly thinks they should get it. It was a bad move whoever wrote that.
You did not post the exact words, not even close. In what world is it a bad move to offer a suggestion as to what a warlock's patron could be?
exact words: 2nd post:
and the answer to the second part, when the suggested patron is one of the most powerful weapons in the game. Thus implying the player should have access to said weapon.
'Emulating a weapon formed in the Shadowfell or forgoing such arms' does not in anyway imply giving a character Blackrazor.
I agree with SagaTympana if the creature is killed by Booming Blade's effect, then Devore Soul shouldn'tt trigger since Blackrazor was not used to reduce a creature to 0 hit points but the spell.
I would tend to think if it was killed by the spell's effect during the strike it should count...but if it was killed due to the secondary damage from moving maybe not.
I'm leaning heavily toward not allowing devour soul if the boom blade damage kills.
Many many moons ago I had Blackrazor, back then it was a CE weapon from White Plume. Boring old CN now :(
I definitely would allow it for the initial damage otherwise other damage addons like smite would not count.
The spell’s effect during the strike is to increase the weapon attack’s damage, not to deal a separate instance of damage, so yes, you are exactly correct. The damage from moving is in no way dealt by the weapon, so there’s no way for the sword’s effect to come into play.
Looking back through the thread, I may have misunderstood OP’s scenario and/or question. If they're asking about that initial damage, then yeah, that's the weapon dealing that damage. I understood "the additional damage from the spell effect" to mean the damage that happens later if the creature moves.
Me too i assumed it since the OP mentioned "actual primary damage of the weapon does NOT kill a creature, but the additional damage from the spell effect does"
Properly speaking, Booming Blade's effect is not additional or extra damage as it doesn't add to a damage roll but instead is a distinct damage roll, seperate from any previous attack.
Actually, above level 5, the weapon attack does do additional damage - in addition to the extra damage if the target moves away.
In a recent adventure we were given holy oil that would grant radiant damage to our weapons. I have a glaive that steals souls when the weapon kills, and if the extra damage from the holy oil was deciding factor in getting the kill, I'd still assume my weapon absorbed the soul.
So. My initial instinct was actually the opposite, but I think I'd go with a 'maybe' here - if it's the extra damage on the melee attack, sure, but if it's the spell effect once the target moves away, then no.
Weird interaction, but there it is.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.