|
| 19 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
<FAQ plea> Do Brilliant Energy arrows bypass cover bonuses from non-living materials? In other words, can I shoot brilliant energy arrows through a solid wall of non-living material? </FAQ plea>
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.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the thread this comes from has a lot of circling arguments, here's a rundown of the debate thus far (in order of memory):
1. These arrows do not bypass cover because if they did they'd fall out of your quiver/fall to the center of the Earth/pass through the bowstring.
a. Weapon Enchantments are use activated (unless otherwise stated), therefore, the property does not activate until fired.
b. Masterwork ammunition is "effectively destroyed" when used (regardless of hit or miss).
2. Brilliant Energy does it what it says it does, and nothing more, specifically BE only does something in regards to armor and shield bonuses to AC. (It doesn't say it can bypass cover, and therefore it can't).
a. It says it ignores non-living matter.
b. Specific limitations do not need to be mentioned, this is not a video game. Many abilities have loose wording, and just as BE, can be used in non-standard/imaginative/creative ways.
c. It doesn't make sense that a BE weapon can bypass the AC bonus from a tower shield, but if the target takes cover behind the tower shield, the BE weapon suddenly cannot bypass the tower shield's cover bonus. (a counter counter arguement being that the cover bonus comes from the loss of sight of the target. counter-counter-counter arguement: that is not the intent of cover but rather concealement).
d. It doesn't say it ignores cover because not all cover is non-living. At the the time BE was printed in CRB, no living materials existed for armor and shields.
3. These arrows would break the game!
a. Even if you bypass the total cover, the target still have total concealment.
b. In order to make good use of such a weapon (a +1 Brilliant Energy Longbow), you would need a way to find out what square the target is in, which is either done by risky scouting and reporting or by divination spells/items (which are not cheap). Blindsense/blindsight require line of effect, and thus do not work, though tremorsense, X-ray vision, and crystal vision does.
c. Even after providing all the above, it is an easily defeat-able tactic. Moving every round, readying actions to move, finding the assailant etc...
d. Arcane Archers do have the ability to shoot through walls, while both Arcane Archers, Zen Archers, and even Gunslingers (though not as well) can shoot around cover.
4. The line "ignores non-living matter is fluff"
a. There is no reason to say it's fluff.
b. It's in the middle of the ability's description, an unusual place for fluff
c. It doesn't not have the usual signs of being fluff
d. It has clear, rule-like language that has direct influence on it's behavior.
5. The first sentence says "significant portion is transformed into light", which means only the arrowhead is affected.
a. The first sentence of an ability is often used as fluff.
b. If only the arrow-head was affected, how would the arrow reach past heavy armors?
c. When using a bow and arrow, the arrow could be considered the significant portion and the bow itself the insignificant.
d. Not all arrows have arrow-heads. Some are simple sharpened sticks with fletching.
6. In this case, "ignore" means the arrow will be stopped by the wall without doing any damage to the wall.
a. That is the wall ignoring the arrow, not the arrow ignoring the wall.
b. Citations to dictionaries reveal that ignore does NOT mean that.
7. <insert random off the wall consequence of bypassing cover here>
a. The game isn't a physics engine
b. In other cases, so what if the arrow hits a random troll? The more plot hooks for GMs the better!
I'm not perfect, in fact I'll admit I'm biased towards allowing BE arrows to bypass cover. First, because I don't think the reasons against it are really any good, and Secondly, for the traditional arguements of "Rule of Cool!" and "Martials need more utility!".
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Pretty sure the answer is no.
If you check out the linked thread, you will see there are people on both sides with passionate opinions with two separate versions of RAW of this ability. I don't think there is any words either side can quote to change the other side's opinion. This isn't a solvable problem.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guass had it right on. It boils down to whether the rules are exhaustive or non-exhaustive (IE every action you may take is explicitly stated OR the rules do not list every action that you may take).
Guys, you are arguing interpretation of RAW, not RAW itself.
The Con-Cover camp argument: If "ignore non-living material" is not fluff then it is a rule that is then defined by the sentences that follow it (armor, shields, objects, undead, and constructs)
The Pro-Cover camp argument: "ignore non-living material" is not fluff and what follows are specific examples of what is non-living material. The book cannot be expected to outline every specific as to what qualifies as non-living material.
There is not going to be a solution without a FAQ since we are clearly in the "is not" vs "is too" stage of debating.
Perhaps someone should author a FAQ?
Some say the rules are exhaustive
Some say the rules are non-exhaustive
Some say the rules are both exhaustive/non-exhaustive
Honestly, if I wanted a game with a exhaustive ruleset, then I'd play a computer game. The uniqueness and fun of table top gaming is being creative, using the same things for new situations, even if it wasn't meant to be that way.
I'd say no...because Total Cover is determined, at leats in part, by your inability to target the person behind said cover due to a lack of line of sight.
I'd say you need a way to see through said matter before firing an arrow through it.
