Brilliant Energy ammunition bypasses total cover?


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WWWW wrote:
Eh, the words in the description have meanings and thus those meanings are a part of the description. Since you are ignoring those then you are ignoring part of the weapon description.

What do you mean I am ignoring in the description? I have not meant to ignore anything, merely come up with an explanation for how the weapon works as it does, so quoting what you see as an issue would help me rephrase it so my intended meaning comes across.

Amakawa Yuuto wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
2) and even if you think it's 'always' active, only the 'significant' portion of the weapon is brilliant energy, so the hilt would stop it from falling through the earth and allow you to hold it just fine.
If only the "significant portion" is turned into light, then the still solid "insignificant portion" of an arrow will stop it from passing through a wall. Which is probably the biggest argument for "does not ignore cover". But hey, it's from the first sentence, which pretty much everyone agrees is just fluff.

I'm kind of neutral on whether the first sentence is fluff or not; it often is intended as a quick summary or fluffy description, but not always, and here there's no conflict regardless.

Because the thing is, what the description as a whole says is that part of the weapon transforms into energy, and that makes the weapon ignore nonliving matter.

How this is achieved is, no doubt, fluffy speculation. Perhaps the "insignificant" parts are so few in between and the energy disrupts the magnetic field allowing the particles to pass through solid matter. It doesn't really matter _how_, just like it doesn't matter _how_ the fireball spell turns b+@$~@# into a flaming explosion.

_What_ it does is clear from the text however, it ignores non-living matter, and this is not inherently contradicted by the first sentence.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
I see your joke and raise you differentiating it from a sci-fi lightsaber.

In my mind, Star Wars is fantasy, in SPAAAAACE!!!

At least mostly. The themes it deals with seem to have much more in common with what's common in fantasy (battle between good and evil, coming of age, bravery, magic, the mind affecting the world, prophecies etc) than in sci-fi (consequences of technology (esp AI and transhumanism), parallell worlds, gender, the grayer areas of morality, time travel etc). Of course most texts mix it up a bit, but Star Wars seems to nail almost every fantasy trope while not having any typical sci-fi tropes as part of it's focuses.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Eh, the words in the description have meanings and thus those meanings are a part of the description. Since you are ignoring those then you are ignoring part of the weapon description.
What do you mean I am ignoring in the description? I have not meant to ignore anything, merely come up with an explanation for how the weapon works as it does, so quoting what you see as an issue would help me rephrase it so my intended meaning comes across.

The issue is everything. You are disregarding the original meaning of the description and inventing a new one. If you can't see the problem with saying that the words don't mean what they say they mean because of the unwritten rules of magic then I don't know what to say.


If the first part is fluff, then you run into this:

person holding tower shield for shield AC bonus, arrows pass right through and strike character.

person places tower shield on ground for cover bonus, arrows start bouncing off the shield.

This only works if you through RAW common sense out the window.


WWWW wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Eh, the words in the description have meanings and thus those meanings are a part of the description. Since you are ignoring those then you are ignoring part of the weapon description.
What do you mean I am ignoring in the description? I have not meant to ignore anything, merely come up with an explanation for how the weapon works as it does, so quoting what you see as an issue would help me rephrase it so my intended meaning comes across.
The issue is everything. You are disregarding the original meaning of the description and inventing a new one. If you can't see the problem with saying that the words don't mean what they say they mean because of the unwritten rules of magic then I don't know what to say.

I'm saying the words mean exactly what they say - I just don't know what part you object to.

Every word in the description means what it says. What my additional explanations have been about is how these can be explained to work together without contradicting each other. You can completely skip these explanations and just go right on what it says, no problem, it works the same regardless.


_Ozy_ wrote:

If the first part is fluff, then you run into this:

person holding tower shield for shield AC bonus, arrows pass right through and strike character.

person places tower shield on ground for cover bonus, arrows start bouncing off the shield.

This only works if you through RAW common sense out the window.

I don't know what you're arguing at all now? The first part of the BE description says: "A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light"

That is the part we're discussing if it's fluff or not. I find it irrelevant, as it does not inherently contradict the rest of the rules.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Eh, the words in the description have meanings and thus those meanings are a part of the description. Since you are ignoring those then you are ignoring part of the weapon description.
What do you mean I am ignoring in the description? I have not meant to ignore anything, merely come up with an explanation for how the weapon works as it does, so quoting what you see as an issue would help me rephrase it so my intended meaning comes across.
The issue is everything. You are disregarding the original meaning of the description and inventing a new one. If you can't see the problem with saying that the words don't mean what they say they mean because of the unwritten rules of magic then I don't know what to say.
I'm saying the words mean exactly what they say - I just don't know what part you object to.

Er, right. So you're saying that the non-light parts disintegrate since there are no forces holding them together. That the light parts radiate away at the speed of light since they are light. That the weapon no longer follows the motion of the planet since there is no force from the planet causing it to do so. Or are you saying that none of those happen because unwritten magical rules say otherwise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WWWW wrote:


Er, right. So you're saying that the non-light parts disintegrate since there are no forces holding them together.

Are you saying that the description says these things? I'm not sure if you're trying to put words in my mouth or if you're wondering what I'm saying.

My claim is this. The whole description of Brilliant Energy is as follows:

Spoiler:
A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item's weight. It always gives off light as a torch (20-foot radius). A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor. (Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.) A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects.

I think everything here applies. But to shorten it down, if I remove the parts that only deals with very pure mechanical terms and that are not disputed anyway, this is the disputed parts, what's left:
A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item's weight. A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.
I think all this applies:
1. A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light.
2. This does not modify the weight of the item.
3. A brilliant Energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.

That is the gist of it. That is what I think is relevant to the mechanical gameplay (in addition to the removed parts that deal with shining and AC bonuses etc that no-one contends).

Some people seemed to object to this by saying that it "doesn't make sense" or similar things. I then tried to come up with reasons on how it would not be contradictory. That is what I used the "magic" explanation for. Not to ignore any part, but to make it non-contradictory. Because I don't think it's _inherently_ contradictory, just a bit counterintuitive.

Apart from the explanation of how it could work I gave previously, here's an alternate explanation that works if you thought the other didn't feel right:

Spoiler:

It says it transforms "its significant portion", not "a significant portion"; basically, the whole portion that is significant is transformed. The "insignificant", or "meaningless", portion, is just that - meaningless. If it's large enough to in any way affect the mechanics, then it's significant. For an arrow, the whole of the arrow is significant to the rules (at least in this context) and as such, the whole arrow would be transformed. For a sword, the hilt might remain unchanged unless you attacked with the hilt - it is insignificant in regards to the rules.

But again, these explanations are just things I offer as an aid for people who have a hard time swallowing how the weapon does what it does - it is not a statement about what it does. What it does, mechanically, is everything mentioned in the description.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

If the first part is fluff, then you run into this:

person holding tower shield for shield AC bonus, arrows pass right through and strike character.

person places tower shield on ground for cover bonus, arrows start bouncing off the shield.

This only works if you through RAW common sense out the window.

I don't know what you're arguing at all now? The first part of the BE description says: "A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light"

That is the part we're discussing if it's fluff or not. I find it irrelevant, as it does not inherently contradict the rest of the rules.

I was specifically referring to the part that says that Brilliant Energy ignores nonliving matter. Some people are arguing that that is fluff, and some are even saying that 'most' people here think it's fluff. The argument has been that only the defined mechanics of ignoring armor and shield bonuses 'count', which leads to the nonsense I described above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
WWWW wrote:


Er, right. So you're saying that the non-light parts disintegrate since there are no forces holding them together.

Are you saying that the description says these things? I'm not sure if you're trying to put words in my mouth or if you're wondering what I'm saying.

My claim is this. The whole description of Brilliant Energy is as follows:
** spoiler omitted **

I think everything here applies. But to shorten it down, if I remove the parts that only deals with very pure mechanical terms and that are not disputed anyway, this is the disputed parts, what's left:
A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item's weight. A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.
I think all this applies:
1. A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light.
2. This does not modify the weight of the item.
3. A brilliant Energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.

That is the gist of it. That is what I think is relevant to the mechanical gameplay (in addition to the removed parts that deal with shining and AC bonuses etc that no-one contends).

Some people seemed to object to this by saying that it "doesn't make sense" or similar things. I then tried to come up with reasons on how it would not be contradictory. That is what I used the "magic" explanation for. Not to ignore any part, but to make it non-contradictory. Because I don't think it's _inherently_...

Oh, so you were talking about something unrelated to my comment. Well I suppose that explains that.

Well anyway, since you seem to have been discussing something else I have nothing more to say. Unless there is something you wish to say to me I will consider this sub-discussion over for the time being.


LoneKnave wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
If you smack someone with the hilt of a brilliant weapon, by RAW, it's part of the weapon and ignores shield and armor. It's a standard fighting move, too.

Actually, that's using the weapon as an improvised weapon and so you wouldn't get any of the enhancement bonuses/effects. This is why you can't just hit someone with the butt of your reach weapon as a standard tactic and need class abilities to work around that limitation.

So half your post is kinda made on a faulty premise. Maybe you'd like to amend that.

Actually, as per the FAQ ...

Can I use my longspear to attack at both 10 feet and 5 feet? I know that the rules for reach weapons don't allow them to attack adjacent foes, but can I use the improvised weapon rules to say that the blunt end of my longspear resembles a club and use it to attack adjacent foes? I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?
You could choose to wield your longspear as an improvised blunt weapon. In this case, it threatens only your adjacent squares, and not the further squares. If you are wielding it as a longspear, though, to threaten the further squares, then your grip precludes the use as an improvised blunt weapon. The rules are silent on how long it would take to shift between the two, but switching between a one-handed and a two-handed grip with a one-handed weapon like a longsword is a free action (and can thus be only taken on your turn), so it should take at least as long as that, thus preventing you from simultaneously threatening all of the squares at once. Incidentally, using the longspear as an improvised weapon in this way would not allow you to benefit from any magical enhancements it may possess, nor would you add benefits that apply when attacking with a longspear (such as Weapon Focus (longspear), but you would apply any benefits from using an improvised weapon (such as Catch Off-Guard).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

_Ozy_ wrote:

If the first part is fluff, then you run into this:

person holding tower shield for shield AC bonus, arrows pass right through and strike character.

person places tower shield on ground for cover bonus, arrows start bouncing off the shield.

This only works if you through RAW common sense out the window.

Mage Armor and the Shield spell are NOT non-living objects. Brilliant goes through them. The description of Brilliant immediately contradicts itself thereby.

Greenwood Armor is living armor. Because Brilliant ignores Armor bonuses, no exceptions given, it goes through them. Greenwood armor has no language that it prevails over Brilliant weapons.

A Tower shield being planted and providing cover effectively turns it into an object, akin to a table you kick over, and thus not providing Shield bonuses. I have no problem with Brilliant not punching through once you transform the use of the item.

Kindly note that you can use feats and weapons to get Shield bonuses. Brilliant passes through them.

Kindly note that parry rules require you to use a weapon to parry. Weapons are non=living objects. Thus, you can't parry a Brilliant weapon except with your bare hands.
except there's no rule saying Brilliant weapons can't be parried, either.

The Defender enhancement assumes you are using the weapon to parry once it is activated. Weapons are not alive. Brilliant should ignore Defender since it will pass right through the weapon. It doesn't. It only ignores shield and armor bonuses.

Oh, and if the arrow passes completely through cover, you can't string it, and it falls through your bow. Both are non-living objects. It hits the stone floor, and passes right through, since the ground isn't alive, and if it can punch through a rock wall, it'll pass through a stone floor. You can't even carry it in your quiver, since it'll pass right through, fall to the ground, and be gone.

EVEN IF you use the 'partial' rule, the heads of your ammunition are going to be punching through the bottom of your quiver, pass right through your armor, and poke you in the ass every time you move. Your Brilliant scabbarded weapon is going to ignore its sheath and cut into your leg or backside or bang your thigh every time you move.

'Ignores all non-living objects' is inherently unplayable and can't exist unless you start making 'this or that' exceptions as house rules to make it playable.

The problem is taking 'ignores non-living objects' seriously, which causes infinitely more problems with suspension of disbelief then Brilliant simply ignoring Armor and Shield bonuses as the clearly defined mechanical rules.

Ignore the fluff.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

_Ozy_ wrote:

If the first part is fluff, then you run into this:

person holding tower shield for shield AC bonus, arrows pass right through and strike character.

person places tower shield on ground for cover bonus, arrows start bouncing off the shield.

This only works if you through RAW common sense out the window.

Another point. If I kick over a 5 x 2 wooden coffee table and stand behind it, it's cover.

If I sovereign glue a strap to it after ripping off the legs, pick it up and carry it around to block stuff while I fight, it's now providing a Shield bonus.

How you use something most definitely has an effect on what it provides. How a Tower Shield functions is hardly an outlier.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:


Mage Armor and the Shield spell are NOT non-living objects. Brilliant goes through them. The description of Brilliant immediately contradicts itself thereby.

Not at all. It does not say "doesn't ignore anything that isn't a non-living object".

If an ability says "Objects within 30 ft. heal 5 hp. You heal 5 hp." That doesn't mean you're an object, nor is it contradictory. Likewise, brilliant energy states that it ignores non-living matter, and shield and armor bonuses to AC.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:


Mage Armor and the Shield spell are NOT non-living objects. Brilliant goes through them. The description of Brilliant immediately contradicts itself thereby.

Not at all. It does not say "doesn't ignore anything that isn't a non-living object".

If an ability says "Objects within 30 ft. heal 5 hp. You heal 5 hp." That doesn't mean you're an object, nor is it contradictory. Likewise, brilliant energy states that it ignores non-living matter, and shield and armor bonuses to AC.

You are evading the point.

People are attempting to justify the 'non-living matter' argument as the explanation as to WHY Brilliant works.

If that was why Brilliant worked, then Mage Armor, Shield, and Greenwood Armor would all be unaffected by Brilliant. They aren't.

The mechanical benefits of Brilliant are CLEARLY DEFINED. It ignores shield and armor bonuses from all sources, be they feat, weapon, armor, shield, living things, spells, or force effects. The fluff of non-living is IRRELEVANT to those mechanical benefits, which clearly contradict the fluff language.

There have been no exceptions made in language or rules for Brilliant ignoring weapons for parries, Greenwood armor working against them, force effects stopping them, and the like.

You can't shoot Brilliant ammunition under the 'non-living' argument ...it would fall right through the bow/crossbow/gun. You can't stow it, since it would fall out of its container, or at least the Brilliant portion would (i.e. the dangerous part). You can't set it down, since it will fall through any surface you put it on.

It's contradictory and unplayable. Ignore the fluff and stick with the mechanics. If you want something that can ignore cover and pass through walls, Make a Phase Enhancement that does what a high level Arcane Archer can do!

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:


You are evading the point.

People are attempting to justify the 'non-living matter' argument as the explanation as to WHY Brilliant works.

No. It's the reverse. The rules are clear - it is you and some other people who try to claim the rule isn't a rule through "explaining" why it shouldn't work.

Quote:
If that was why Brilliant worked, then Mage Armor, Shield, and Greenwood Armor would all be unaffected by Brilliant. They aren't.

No. They are separate sentences of the ability. Again, if an ability said "All objects heal 5 hp. You heal 5 hp.", that doesn't mean you're an object. Just like with BE, which says "Ignores non-living matter. Ignores armor and shields.".

Quote:
There have been no exceptions made in language or rules for Brilliant ignoring weapons for parries, Greenwood armor working against them, force effects stopping them, and the like.

Parries aren't a base rule in pathfinder, and most of the things that are described as parrying - shield of swings, two-weapon defense etc - actually give a shield bonus, which is ignored. So, yeah.

And about the greenwood armor, again, different parts of the ability.

Quote:
You can't shoot Brilliant ammunition under the 'non-living' argument ...it would fall right through the bow/crossbow/gun.

Sorry but no. Magic weapons are use-activated unless noted otherwise, so it doesn't transform until fired. The same is true for stowing, etc.

Please don't reiterate the same faulty talking points that have already been brought time and again and been thoroughly shot down.

It is not contradictory, it is not unplayable. Upon firing it, any relevant parts transform into light, ignoring non-living matter, shields and armor. That's what it says it does, that's what it does.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Something to make note of....There was not Greenwood spcial materials when Brilliant Energy was written.


The rules are clearly not clear or this wouldn't be 200 posts long. It doesn't help that both sides are correct depending on how important the "ignores non-living matter" line is.

I'm personally in the "just ignores armor and shield bonuses and can't hurt blah blah blah", if only because the full implications of "ignores non-living matter" were clearly not thought out. If only the head of an arrow is transformed, how does it pass through anything? Spears are even worse, because the part of a spear that's significant is the head and you need to hold the shaft to use it. If only the head transforms you can't stab someone 10 feet away through a wall. If the whole thing transforms do you drop it unless you're holding it barehanded? Does it merge with your gloves if you're no longer swinging it? Questions the ability itself doesn't answer.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
The rules are clearly not clear or this wouldn't be 200 posts long. It doesn't help that both sides are correct depending on how important the "ignores non-living matter" line is.

Sometimes the rules are clear but people don't like them.

The arguing seems to be like this:
For: It ignores non-living matter, it says so right in the text.
Against: It doesn't, because reason X!
For: Reason X doesn't hold up, because of these and these and these things.
Against: It still doesn't work because reason Y!
For: Reason Y doesn't hold up, because of these and these and these things.
Against: It still doesn't work because reason Z!
For: Reason Z doesn't hold up, because of these and these and these things.
Against: It still doesn't work because reason X!
For: *le sigh* we've been over this.

The arguments against range from bad to factually incorrect, and whenever this is pointed out the opponents of the rule just jump right on to some other incorrect argument, mostly one that has already been shut down.

Like claiming "well if it ignores non-living matter it shouldn't ignore greenwood shields" or "you couldn't carry it because it'd fall through the quiver".
They have already been thoroughly shot down yet they are just repeated over and over.

Bob Bob Bob wrote:
If only the head of an arrow is transformed, how does it pass through anything? Spears are even worse, because the part of a spear that's significant is the head and you need to hold the shaft to use it.

Like this. If it is needed, it is by definition significant.


With the fact that brilliant can be applied to ranged weapons themselves as of Ultimate Equipment IIRC, and the depiction of Brilliant Energy Weapons that are around has the weapons only having the places that are standard holding positions for the weapon, like the handle of the sword or the haft of an ax. On the ranged effects of weapons though it is typically applied when launched. So at the very least bullets from brilliant energy guns should be completely energy. Bows and Crossbows are harder to argue in favor of full conversion to BE and thus need the FAQs more for clarification. If it is only the significant portion the bullet is the only one that clearly launches as such.

So it seems either this idea works for all of them or it gives guns a rather potent and strangely difficult to use boon.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Aelryinth Wrote:

Mage Armor and the Shield spell ... Brilliant goes through them +1

Greenwood armor has no language that it prevails over Brilliant weapons. +1

A Tower shield being planted and providing cover ... Brilliant not punching through +1

feats and weapons to get Shield bonuses. Brilliant passes through them. +1

except there's no rule saying Brilliant weapons can't be parried +1

The Defender enhancement ... Brilliant should ignore ... It doesn't. It only ignores shield and armor bonuses. +1

'Ignores all non-living objects' is inherently unplayable and can't exist unless you start making 'this or that' exceptions as house rules to make it playable. +1

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the end, it comes down to this. I can't know for certain from the rules which side is right. Either both sides agree to their own versions of RAW and accept that, or not.

46 people have post in a thread of 222 posts. We only have 6 FAQ clicks. Clearly we all should know this isn't something we can solve, and click the FAQ link.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think, despite his obvious exasperation, Gaberlunzie has the right idea. I don't see how ammunition would work unless it was material at the point of initial action and then became energy after leaving the vehicle used to accelerate them. Arrows simply don't work if the head is the only thing that's energy, which infers heavily that the whole thing must be.

Greenwood doesn't work because its living. Brilliant energy would not reference a material that existed in the future. The list of things it can bypass is not necessarily exhaustive... the list goes on.


Trogdar wrote:

I think, despite his obvious exasperation, Gaberlunzie has the right idea. I don't see how ammunition would work unless it was material at the point of initial action and then became energy after leaving the vehicle used to accelerate them. Arrows simply don't work if the head is the only thing that's energy, which infers heavily that the whole thing must be.

Greenwood doesn't work because its living. Brilliant energy would not reference a material that existed in the future. The list of things it can bypass is not necessarily exhaustive... the list goes on.

Agreed. That, like living steel wasn't around so how could they have accounted for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

In the end, it comes down to this. I can't know for certain from the rules which side is right. Either both sides agree to their own versions of RAW and accept that, or not.

46 people have post in a thread of 222 posts. We only have 6 FAQ clicks. Clearly we all should know this isn't something we can solve, and click the FAQ link.

That would imply that I have more faith in the FAQ system than I do in the collective capacity of the human mind to parse information.

It is no secret that I do not. The FAQ can't agree with itself. Why should we listen to anything written in it?

Lantern Lodge

@WWW

Just a sidepoint, but you have mentioned, or alluded to that light isn't affected by gravity... It's actually one of those weird characteristics of particle/wave duality, it is affected by gravity. Thats how we can see (detect) black holes, by looking at reflections of stars. Once again, just a side point.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@WWW

Just a sidepoint, but you have mentioned, or alluded to that light isn't affected by gravity... It's actually one of those weird characteristics of particle/wave duality, it is affected by gravity. Thats how we can see (detect) black holes, by looking at reflections of stars. Once again, just a side point.

No, the light part just isn't affected by gravity that comes from non-living matter, just as the non-light part is also unaffected, gravity from living matter works just fine. However living planets, much less living black holes, are sufficiently rare that in most cases it's not going to matter.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But... the significant portion that's turned into light weighs the same...

Before we make the claim that being affected by gravity is "not ignoring", let me remind those wishing to tread this part that we do not know what gravity is. For that matter, we don't even know how attractive forces work, although we have solid theories about repulsive forces.

That, and there's also a good chance that the druids are right: The planet is alive, although it's made of non-living material, and hence the planets gravity is important to note.

For all we know, gravity comes from some random alternate dimension in which a living creature is sucking all existence into it's vile mouth, and that each particle is really a small portal to that monster's realm.

Lantern Lodge

Made a FAQ request thread HERE. Free feel, if no obligated, to discuss the issues relevant in that thread.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

But... the significant portion that's turned into light weighs the same...

Before we make the claim that being affected by gravity is "not ignoring", let me remind those wishing to tread this part that we do not know what gravity is. For that matter, we don't even know how attractive forces work, although we have solid theories about repulsive forces.

That, and there's also a good chance that the druids are right: The planet is alive, although it's made of non-living material, and hence the planets gravity is important to note.

For all we know, gravity comes from some random alternate dimension in which a living creature is sucking all existence into it's vile mouth, and that each particle is really a small portal to that monster's realm.

Eh, are you saying that brilliant energy weapons don't ignore forces originating from non-living matter.

Ah, the old "carved from the living rock" deal I mentioned before. If we're going down that route then we're basically saying that we have no idea what non-living matter even means and the whole discussion falls apart there.

Bah, for all we know reality is an illusion.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Why should we listen to anything written in it?

Because if you are disagreeing with a FAQ as "not RAW" then in most cases your RAW isn't their RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Why should we listen to anything written in it?
Because if you are disagreeing with a FAQ as "not RAW" then in most cases your RAW isn't their RAW.

Oh I agree with you there. The FAQ very frequently has nothing to do with their RAW. As in the rules as they are written. The FAQ contradicts both itself and the RAW, so I have no faith in the FAQ.

When the rules explicitly say X is not Y and the FAQ comes in and says X is Y while also saying X is not Y, it's hard to take it seriously. It even seems to suggest they don't, which might be one of the reasons I'm not particularly interested in FAQ rulings if we even get them, and if we get them and they aren't changed when they're b!!@~&%s (oh hi Monks).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:

If the first part is fluff, then you run into this:

person holding tower shield for shield AC bonus, arrows pass right through and strike character.

person places tower shield on ground for cover bonus, arrows start bouncing off the shield.

This only works if you through RAW common sense out the window.

Not really. The shield bonus is you interposing the shield between you and the arrow. The cover bonus is the shield blocking the archer's sight of where to shoot, so that it goes through the shield and hits open air instead.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ashiel wrote:
Oh I agree with you there. The FAQ very frequently has nothing to do with their RAW

You don't agree with me. If you have a version of RAW that doesn't agree with the FAQ then your are reading it wrong. You need to adjust your interpretation so that their version match yours, if you want to run RAW. When we know what the rules actually say (via the FAQ), that is how you read it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

If the first part is fluff, then you run into this:

person holding tower shield for shield AC bonus, arrows pass right through and strike character.

person places tower shield on ground for cover bonus, arrows start bouncing off the shield.

This only works if you through RAW common sense out the window.

Not really. The shield bonus is you interposing the shield between you and the arrow. The cover bonus is the shield blocking the archer's sight of where to shoot, so that it goes through the shield and hits open air instead.

That would be concealment, not cover. Cover is a physical obstacle that blocks an attack.

Shadow Lodge

James Risner wrote:
When we know what the rules actually say (via the FAQ), that is how you read it.

What about when they post a FAQ that says the RAW is wrong?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Aratrok wrote:
That would be concealment, not cover. Cover is a physical obstacle that blocks an attack.

Where does it say that it 'blocks' an attack? All I read is that it provides a bonus to AC. It doesn't mention how.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@ TriOmegaZero

Cover provides concealment, your right, but the AC bonus is from -cover-, and the vision issue is from the concealment said cover provides.

Concealment doesn't provide AC bonuses.

While you do have a point that neither term is exactly defined, that is the generally accepted interpretation. Fighting against that would be folly.

Consider why a character with cover receives a bonus to reflex saves against a fireball, when a character with concealment does not.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Concealment doesn't provide AC bonuses.

While you do have a point that neither term is exactly defined, that is the generally accepted interpretation. Fighting against that would be folly.

Never said it does, and nor would I fight against it. But I will point out that it DOES make sense in unaccepted interpretations. Whether you choose to accept it or not is irrelevant.

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Consider why a character with cover receives a bonus to reflex saves against a fireball, when a character with concealment does not.

Why would I consider that any more relevant than the price of tea in Tian Xia?

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because, it's an example, a mental exercise if you will, showing that cover provides bonuses from being physically protected, not that the bonuses you get are from being harder to see.

It's the proof of the common interpretation. The interpretation you use doesn't work with this easy example.

Another easy example: There's no rule saying that a blind person ignores the bonus from cover.

Many such examples exist, to the point that it's safe to say your interpretation is wrong.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
It's the proof of the common interpretation. The interpretation you use doesn't work with this easy example.

Sure it does. Reflex saves are against things that hit areas, not points.

Nor did I say that ONLY this interpretation is used. I describe results as needed for each individual situation.

The fact that one interpretation works does not exclude other interpretations from working.

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Many such examples exist, to the point that it's safe to say your interpretation is wrong.

I like how you tell me I'm having badwrongfun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Oh I agree with you there. The FAQ very frequently has nothing to do with their RAW
You don't agree with me. If you have a version of RAW that doesn't agree with the FAQ then your are reading it wrong. You need to adjust your interpretation so that their version match yours, if you want to run RAW. When we know what the rules actually say (via the FAQ), that is how you read it.

No, again, for reasons stated. When you have to ignore what the RAW actually says to "align with their interpretation" you are deviating from the RAW and just jumping on board the Paizo house-rules wagon.

Again, the FAQ contradicts itself and/or is subject to changing. The RAW is not without errata. It's not complicated (the concept of FAQ vs Errata).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@WWW

Just a sidepoint, but you have mentioned, or alluded to that light isn't affected by gravity... It's actually one of those weird characteristics of particle/wave duality, it is affected by gravity. Thats how we can see (detect) black holes, by looking at reflections of stars. Once again, just a side point.

As another aside, the relativistic interpretation is that light is not directly affected by gravity. Photons always travel along the shortest path through space-time (the geodesic). Gravity distorts space-time itself, making the "straight" path in four-space be a curved path in three dimensions. From this perspective gravitational lenses don't bend the light, they bend the space through which the light passes.

Lantern Lodge

@Gisher
I'm a little rusty with relativistic theories, but isn't gravity explained as those distortions, or an effect thereof?


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
But... the significant portion that's turned into light weighs the same...Before we make the claim that being affected by gravity is "not ignoring", let me remind those wishing to tread this part that we do not know what gravity is. For that matter, we don't even know how attractive forces work, although we have solid theories about repulsive forces.

True, we don't know exactly what gravity is yet. But our understanding of other attractive forces such as that between oppositely charged particles or opposing magnetic poles is just as solid as our understanding of electromagnetic repulsive forces.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@Gisher

I'm a little rusty with relativistic theories, but isn't gravity explained as those distortions, or an effect thereof?

Relativity doesn't provide a cause for gravity. As you mentioned, the cause of gravity is still one of the great unanswered questions of physics. What relativity does is provide a non-newtonian model for understanding gravity. Treating gravitational fields as equivalent to distortions in space-time allows us to explain many observed effects that a Newtonian model fails to predict.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16


The arguing seems to be like this:
For: It ignores non-living matter, it says so right in the text.
Against: It doesn't, because it's JUST FLUFF.
For: Fluff doesn't hold up, because I'm just going to ignore the contradictions!
Against: It still doesn't work because reason Y!
For: Reason Y doesn't hold up, because of these and these and these more house rules I'm going to make so they fit.
Against: It still doesn't work because reason Z!
For: Reason Z doesn't hold up, because of these and these and these more house rules that we make up to solve the contradictions in our favor.
Against: It still doesn't work because you're just making up more house rules!
For: *le sigh* we've been over this. I'm good at house rules and ignoring contradictions.

The arguments for range from bad to factually incorrect, and whenever this is pointed out the opponents of the rule just jump right on to some other incorrect argument, mostly one that has already been shut down.

Like thinking "well if it ignores non-living matter it shouldn't ignore greenwood shields" or "you couldn't carry it because it'd fall through the quiver" are not exactly what would happen under their rules.

They have already been thoroughly shot down yet they are just denied over and over.

Due to obvious errors, I fixed this post for you, Gaber.

And for your other erroneous example, let's correct that, shall we?

"This spell heals objects. It heals you of 5 hit points."

This is what you must mean to say. Because this is exactly the kind of thing Brilliant says...an undefined description of how the power works, followed by the mechanical description of the actual effect.

there is no mechanical definition for 'ignores non-living objects.' None. It's FLUFF. Treating it as a mechanic immediately elevates it self-contradicting and impossible to adjudicate without further house rules.

In your corrected 'example', what would immediately happen is that you would claim the spell can heal objects, which is totally undefined. I would immediately counter-claim the only thing defined in the spell is that it heals you of 5 hit points damage.

It gives absolutely no definition of how it would heal objects, how it would reconcile that with healing a non-object, and yet you would go ahead and claim that you gain benefits from the effect that are not defined in the effect, simply because of FLUFF.

As for Greenwood and parries happening after Brilliant - why, that's absolutely correct, Brilliant is in the Core Rules. Which must mean, if they were meant to bypass Brilliant, or Brilliant to ignore them, that should clearly be listed in the description of the items/skills as a special benefit/weakness...and it's NOT.

Brilliant does one thing...ignores shield and armor bonuses. Until any other benefits are defined mechanically, that's all it does. The rest is fluff turned into house rules.

==Aelryinth


Gisher wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

@WWW

Just a sidepoint, but you have mentioned, or alluded to that light isn't affected by gravity... It's actually one of those weird characteristics of particle/wave duality, it is affected by gravity. Thats how we can see (detect) black holes, by looking at reflections of stars. Once again, just a side point.

As another aside, the relativistic interpretation is that light is not directly affected by gravity. Photons always travel along the shortest path through space-time (the geodesic). Gravity distorts space-time itself, making the "straight" path in four-space be a curved path in three dimensions. From this perspective gravitational lenses don't bend the light, they bend the space through which the light passes.

Though if we're allowing for interactions mediated through a non-mater source then the other forces probably start to work again given the nature of their force carriers and we're dealing with a different set of problems.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

The arguing seems to be like this:
For: It ignores non-living matter, it says so right in the text.
Against: It doesn't, because it's JUST FLUFF.
For: Fluff doesn't hold up, because I'm just going to ignore the contradictions!
Against: It still doesn't work because reason Y!
For: Reason Y doesn't hold up, because of these and these and these more house rules I'm going to make so they fit.
Against: It still doesn't work because reason Z!
For: Reason Z doesn't hold up, because of these and these and these more house rules that we make up to solve the contradictions in our favor.
Against: It still doesn't work because you're just making up more house rules!
For: *le sigh* we've been over this. I'm good at house rules and ignoring contradictions.

The arguments for range from bad to factually incorrect, and whenever this is pointed out the opponents of the rule just jump right on to some other incorrect argument, mostly one that has already been shut down.

Like thinking "well if it ignores non-living matter it shouldn't ignore greenwood shields" or "you couldn't carry it because it'd fall through the quiver" are not exactly what would happen under their rules.

They have already been thoroughly shot down yet they are just denied over and over.

Due to obvious errors, I fixed this post for you, Gaber.

And for your other erroneous example, let's correct that, shall we?

"This spell heals objects. It heals you of 5 hit points."

This is what you must mean to say. Because this is exactly the kind of thing Brilliant says...an undefined description of how the power works, followed by the mechanical description of the actual effect.

there is no mechanical definition for 'ignores non-living objects.' None. It's FLUFF. Treating it as a mechanic immediately elevates it self-contradicting and impossible to adjudicate without further house rules.

In your corrected 'example', what would immediately happen is that you would claim the spell can heal objects, which is totally undefined. I...

Tell me, what is fluff? Define "fluff". Give me a solid reason why this is "fluff" and why many other similar rules statements are not "fluff".


Aelryinth wrote:

Mage Armor and the Shield spell are NOT non-living objects. Brilliant goes through them. The description of Brilliant immediately contradicts itself thereby.

Greenwood Armor is living armor. Because Brilliant ignores Armor bonuses, no exceptions given, it goes through them. Greenwood armor has no language that it prevails over Brilliant weapons.

A Tower shield being planted and providing cover effectively turns it into an object, akin to a table you kick over, and thus not providing Shield bonuses. I have no problem with Brilliant not punching through once you transform the use of the item.

Kindly note that you can use feats and weapons to get Shield bonuses. Brilliant passes through them.

Kindly note that parry rules require you to use a weapon to parry. Weapons are non=living objects. Thus, you can't parry a Brilliant weapon except with your bare hands.
except there's no rule saying Brilliant weapons can't be parried, either.

The Defender enhancement assumes you are using the weapon to parry once it is activated. Weapons are not alive. Brilliant should ignore Defender since it will pass right through the weapon. It doesn't. It only ignores shield and armor bonuses.

Oh, and if the arrow passes completely through cover, you can't string it, and it falls through your bow. Both are non-living objects. It hits the stone floor, and passes right through, since the ground isn't alive, and if it can punch through a rock wall, it'll pass through a stone floor. You can't even carry it in your quiver, since it'll pass right through, fall to the ground, and be gone.

EVEN IF you use the 'partial' rule, the heads of your...

I have to say that when I started reading this thread I was firmly in what I call the maximalist camp: that the statement about passing through nonliving matter was the governing part of the description and that the other statements were merely specific examples of that general rule. Thus brilliant weapons could be used to attack through walls and other non-living cover.

But after reading through the thread again, some of your arguments have convinced me that the minimalist position (limiting brilliant weapons to the specific effects noted), is the more coherent approach. Not the arguments about passing through the bow string. (I was joking when I posted that theory). But the interactions with mage armor, greenwood armor, and parries makes your approach seem more consistent with the existing game rules.

Thank you.

201 to 250 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Brilliant Energy ammunition bypasses total cover? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.