I'm a bit of a gimmicks player. I love taking obscure rules and trying to optimize it a bit. So in this case, I was wanting to take the multiple touch attack spells and apply sneak attack to them multiple times in a single round. Of course, there are other touch attack sources (a few rods), but I was wanting to work with these spells specifically.
Derklord wrote:
To be fair, the rules always implied it to be that way - the rules on holding a charge say "You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge." It makes no sense that touching an enemy would be a free action when touching a friend takes a standard action, and the word 'normal' in "normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon)" is clearly about it not being a touch attack. RAW, the FAQ actually only enabled something previously impossible, namely making touch attacks to enemies in subsequent rounds.
Thats certainly one argument, I interpreted the rules differently. Why is getting a full attack with punches, aiming for unprotected areas, easier than touching them without aiming for unprotected areas? I wasn't hoping for "free actions", I was hoping for the same treatment as attacks/full attacks (hence the attack roll), though I guess other "attacks" also can only be done as standards (grapples, overruns, repositions, etc...).
I'm sure theres a thread somewhere going through the arguments, this thread wasn't meant to get into the rules.
"Touch Spells: In the Magic and Combat chapters, it says that I can touch a single ally as a standard action or up to six allies as a full-round action and that I can combine delivering a touch spell with a natural attack or unarmed strike. But what if I just want to deliver the touch spell to an enemy? It just says I can do it “round after round.”
Making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it, beyond the free action to do so as part of casting the spell, is a standard action. It can’t be used with a full attack."
I stopped being active here before then. It kinda leaves open multiple charges a round via natural attacks, or spell striking Magi.
I'm trying to get a rogue build that uses frostbite as it's main go to for damage. Naturally, Major Magic comes to mind, but it's either 2 castings a day (not enough) or 1 for every 2 levels (also not enough). I'm really hoping to get 4+ castings a day at level 3.
Dipping and then using pearls of power would be alright, but I really want the caster level to scale. I really want to stick with rogue or a high sneak attack dice class (slayer could be acceptable).
Any thoughts on how to accomplish this?
Bonus points if it is an SLA, the DM is letting people take monster feats if applicable, and reach SLA looks really tempting.
Kensai Finesse Magus with a defending Wakazashi. Stupid high Dex and Int for all of the dodging, stupid high initiative so you don't get caught flat-footed. Take suspicious as a trait (if you get traits) for sense motive class skill so you don't get feinted. Take Long Arm as a spell and lunge as a feat to smack enemies from 15' away so they can't 5' and full round you. With Shocking Grasp you'll still be hitting like a truck, and unless your GM is metagaming hard, enemies will see you as a soft target to attack (initially).
Throw in combat reflexes, bodyguard, arcane strike, gloves of arcane striking, and benevolent armor and your DM will cry.
Well, He's a dwarf in full plate (probably), covered in spikes, with two shields, covered with spikes... Should his nickname be Spikes? ("Yo Spikes, get over here!").
I guess he would look somewhat like a hellbat from Star Craft 2
Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see Combat). This bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Opponents who cannot move back due to a wall or other surface are knocked prone after moving the maximum possible distance. You may choose to move with your target if you are able to take a 5-foot step or to spend an action to move this turn.
On first glance, the feat looks amazing. A -free- bull rush attempt with every attack! But then you realize: Combat Maneuvers are hard to land. And then you also realize: You use the original attack roll instead of a combat maneuver roll.
This sucks. At level 10, average monster AC is around 24 (as per the bestiary). Players have looked at the average CMD and found it to be at around 32. Hitting with an offhand attack is pretty good, but planning on using the same attack roll to score 8 points higher is really asking a lot.
The odds of Shield Slam succeeding is akin to threatening a critical hit.
The reason why many Magi go for Dex is because A. They don't two-hand weapons often, B. Dex potentially adds to many more stats (initiative, AC, reflex saves, number of AoO's a round, etc...), and C. people like the idea of being fast over strong.
Shuriken is treated as ammunition, so no retrieval of magic shuriken if they hit (which sucks a lot).
Consider Abundant Ammunition(wiz,rang,bard,cleric 1): Cast this and non-magical ammunition is replaced as you use it. If, after you cast this, a spell that affects ammunition is cast, then that magic continues to persist (such as magic weapon, greater magic weapon, flaming arrow, etc...). Lasts minutes/level.
Consider that in conjunction with Named Bullet and one creature type you choose is gonna feel some pain, although named bullet comes quite a bit later.
Thrown weapons in general are hard to use effectively, shuriken certainly being no exception.
P.S. You don't need quick draw, an advantage of shuriken being ammunition (for other thrown weapons, you do need quick draw).
I personally am a concept gamer. Kind of like a power gamer, but I don't play to be the best or save the day, but to have a particular fighting style that I find fun. Sometimes, I end up waiting 6ish.levels to really play what I want, but that's what makes playing that awesome character so much sweeter.
Of course, character deaths and retraining kind of solve the issue.
Just wanted to come back and say that she's decided to go full Oracle, being flavored as a shrine maiden from Japan. Kimono (or something like it) + fighting fan.
Mr. Bad Bite takes pleasure in annihilating his enemies through use of his poisonous bite. His tactic is to simply grapple anything and everything. Every time he maintains a grapple, he gets a free bite attack (via animal fury). At most, he can get 6 attacks (3 actions to maintain a grapple, with 3 free bites) all of which are at full BaB. When he activates his fangs gained from Eldritch Heritage: Serpentine, each bite attack delivers a 1d4 con 2 consecutive save poison. His poison DC can get fairly high when constitution is maxed, reaching as high as DC:40. In addition, Hive Totem Resiliency and his SLA gained from Greater Eldritch Heritage stack very well, he can summon swarm of poisonous snakes to fight along side with while being immune to them himself. Against enemies immune to poison, he takes his role as a crowd control and tank, grappling high threat targets. With ridiculous HP and great saves (especially against spells), he can last a long while in heated combat. His downfall is how long it takes for him to be able to start being really useful. A dip into unarmed fighter might be a good idea for this reason."
I'be also started the foundation to a guide for Poisons, it'seems on zenith's guide to guides. However as it says in its title, it's under construction, and will be for awhile until I can finish some of my other projects.
I actually favor stealth winning out in more circumstances.
I rule that a blind sight creature can see through concealment or invisibility, but a creature using cover would follow the rules for stealth, and the blindsight creature would have to roll a perception roll, since blind sight still requires line of effect.
I think it's similar to how we can see clearly in the day, but some gifted people are able to move fast right when we get distracted.
Bodyguard does not mean the enemy provokes an attack of opportunity.
"When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC. You may not use the aid another action to improve your ally’s attack roll with this attack."
You only have so many attacks of opportunity in a round. Instead of using one of them, you may give an ally +ac for an attack. There is no provoking form the enemy going on. You just have an alternative way of using your AoOs now.
Sometimes, a parent thinks their child couldn't possibly get into trouble in the few minutes they're not looking... and the child stays put.
Wait, not constantly watching your children is a bad idea? <looks right, looks left, and then proceeds to duck down in the shame of being a non-perfect parent>
Repeating is not better than standard. It costs more, and you have to wait until crossbow mastery to use it well. A Light Crossbow becomes fully usable once you have rapid reload, without the need of getting another feat.
So, it comes down to:
Heavy, repeating light and repeating heavy require 2 feats to use consistently (rapid reload, Crossbow Mastery)
Light, hand require only 1 feat(rapid reload)
Heavy deals 1 more damage per hit on average than a light crossbow. So, you can take a feat to use that, or you can get a more useful feat, such as deadly aim, weapon focus, etc...
With that in mind, Light Crossbows are the best you can get.
A 20th level magus could pick up a non-magical longsword, cast greater magic weapon and use arcane pool, to end up with a +5 keen shocking firey frosting corrosive longsword (+10 equivelant).
Wow Joe, that actually solves several of the issues with my own GMing. Using a GMPC as an advanced warning system of deadly game practicalities makes me feel a lot less guilty for killing off PCs for stupidity.
I guess I'll get people's thoughts here... Several people have voiced their opinions in turning the Kensai Magus guide into a more generalized Magus guide (though, a specific Kensai adaptation would still exist).
How many people are fine with Walter's work, and how many would like to see a more comprehensive work done, with more in-depth coverage of the archetypes (especially the ones no one talks about, the Myrmidarch and Skirnir especially)?
If there's enough interest, I'll start working on it. If not, then well that just means Walter has done an excellent job that has lasted even when outdated!
It should be plain to see Anzyr, yes, it's repetitive, but thats what spoilers are for, and, it's a common courtesy that everyone should follow O.o. It takes forever to find the prices for everything, and since your already listing them and obviously know the price (how else did you make sure you followed the rules yourself?) you should list it.
Well, Asuna from SAO might fit the concept, a little... Uses a Rapier,wears light armor, and later starts focusing on magic (though mostly buffs and heals). Maybe someone from Shaman King? Heck, even Future Trunks from DBZ would fit the deal. As for video games, WoW enhancement shamans are essentially Magi. Characters from Final Fantasy or Tales of X (like Tales of Sephonia) would also do well IMO. Maybe a Jedi, if only they used something other than lightsabers they'd work better.
Characters from Naruto, Fairy Tale, Bleach, Angela from Eragon (or other such characters), Tamora Pierce characters...
And yeah, I think I've run out of ideas for you. :(
I vote for the option to make identifying creatures a free action. This makes Kirin Strike available in round 2, and makes Kirin Style actually work with the normal rules for identfying creatures.
Ive got a hilarious thing going on with my kensai atm, its more of a gimmick but i just thought id share it:
Combine the butterfly sting feat with quick draw, and wield a keen rapier.
Then, if you confirm a crit on your first (or second attack if youre hasted), you pass on the crit to yourself. This is possible because you count as your own ally. Then, you drop your weapon as a free action and grab your +1 spell storing Tetsubo.
As a swift action spend 4 arcane points to gets its crit range up to x5 and hit touch ac.
You hit & crit with your last attack, dealing 5x 1d10+strength+power attack + the spell stored in your weapon. Profit.
Firstly, you count as your own ally in most, not all, circumstances. Teamwork feats kinda bring up that "you are not your own ally" part of that faq.
Second, the spell only uses the critical range, not the critical multiplier :(
Your over generalizing. They gave exception, in one case, to count SLA's as spells for the purpose of requirements for feats/prestige classes. In all other cases, they don't count. If it was written in the book that way, you'd have no issue, right?
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".
Fluff is text that doesn't use defined mechanical game terms. What other "similar rules are you talking about"?
For other magic weapon enchants that have fluff:
Corrosive:"becomes slick with acid" Slick is a fluff description.
Courageous: "A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle." This is fluff.
Cunning:"This special ability allows a weapon to find chinks in a foe's defenses using the wielder's knowledge of the target" Fluff, you don't actually have to succeed a knowledge check to gain the benefit.
Furious:"A furious weapon serves as a focus for its wielder's anger." Fluff description, can be changed with no impact if you refluff rage.
and so on.
Note that each of those is the first sentence of a paragraph. (And cunning may not require a check, it still does require ranks in knowledge skills)
Doesn't use mechanical game terms? Is "ignore" a mechanical game term?
Would almost the entire second paragraph of fireball be considered fluff by your definition?
"Fireball wrote:
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
Specifically, the bolded sentence. Absolutely no "mechanical game terms" in your sense (assuming you consider the word "ignore" to not be a mechanical game term), but if one of my players tries to shoot a fireball through an invisible barrier, you better believe I won't treat that statement as fluff.
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".
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).
Guass' Quote:
Guass wrote:
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.
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.
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):
Be familiar with these arguements before post:
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!".
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>
Brilliant Energy wrote:
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.
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.
Pshaw, if we're using "it's magic" to just ignore part of the weapon description then that kind of invalidates the whole discussion.
When we are getting pedantic enough to argue the weapon cannot exist because of the abilities text, we need to more closely examine our arguments.
If Brilliant Energy weapons could not exist, there would be no entry for them in the weapon creation rules.
The weapons can, and do, exist within the context of the rules.
Of course they exist in the context of the rules, but at no time do the rules say how long they exist and how functional they are much like the rules do not say whether or not brilliant energy weapons can fly through cover. Both are extrapolation, so for consistency either all are acceptable or none are.
And thats fine. But remember to follow the rules that are already present:
Use Activated Rules:
CRB wrote:
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.
Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.
Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item's activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all.
Use activation doesn't mean that if you use an item, you automatically know what it can do. You must know (or at least guess) what the item can do and then use the item in order to activate it, unless the benefit of the item comes automatically, such as from drinking a potion or swinging a sword.
We can cleary see that weapons are reffered to use activated (unless otherwise noted). You activated it as a non-action as you use it. Therefore, the Brilliant Energy enchantment doesn't come into effect until you use it. All of these "Your ammo falls through the Earth if you put it down" arguements are null and void.
Furthermore, even if the arrow misses, it's destroyed, due to the fact that masterwork ammunition (which all magic ammunition is) are destroyed after use. Therefore, once again, no falling through the planet.
Masterwork Ammunition wrote:
Masterwork ammunition is damaged (and effectively destroyed) when used. The enhancement bonus of masterwork ammunition does not stack with any enhancement bonus of the projectile weapon firing it.
So, picking and choosing which statements you want to actually incorporate into your table is the same as RAW? It honestly sounds more like a house rule, ignoring the "Passes through" and "ignores nonliving" clauses.
First time on the forums I've seriously brought this up, but how do we allow even the simpliest of spells to accomplish the impossible, but when an option that only (or mostly only) non-casters will get we suddenly put on our "realism" cap, parsing the rules as much as we can, to prevent it?
Heck, even when a magical option for martials comes up, we use as much realism (that the game wasn't designed to simulate) as possible to prevent said cool option, because apparently "martials OP".
Put me in the "goes through (read 'ignores') things like walls" camp. If you can ignore the concealment then have at it.
This makes me want to pick up the Arcana which gives Brilliant Energy for my Magus (and then somehow give him Blindsight/Blindsense).
Not even blind sight would work in this case. You have to have line of effect for those to operate.
X-ray vision seems to be the only way to bypass the concealment issues if you want sneak attack. The seeking enchantment would work well, if you had a way to actually see what square they were in. Which invloves, you know, scouting (beware!). Crystal ball would work, as would tremor sense.
If I launch an arrow that ignores non-living matter through a rock, and it changes it's path, then it's not ignoring the rock. In fact, it's acting differently because of the rock. Therefore, it is not ignoring the rock.
You cannot ignore an object in your path without acting like it wasn't there. That is literally the definition of ignore.
Your intrepeteting it as the door ignores the arrow. That is not what the text states, The arrow ignores the door. This is not soviet Russia where hamburgers eat you!
I think we're leaving an important portion of the quoted text unbolded:
PRD wrote:
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.
Up to interpretation, but I think we could probably assume the "major portion" refers to the portion of a weapon that is intended to deal damage, like the blade of a sword, or in this case, the arrowhead (and maybe the top half of the shaft). Therefore, only the major portion is intended to ignore cover, and cannot be outright hurled or shot through the earth, or other solid objects (the back half would still be solid and stopped by the solid door).
We could also assume the significant portion of a bow & arrow is the arrow.
But you're not putting the enchantment on the bow, it has to go on the arrow. (As has already been discussed)
Actually, there's been some misinformation about that.
Apparently, the text describing Brilliant Energy in the CRB and UE differ. UE allows Brilliant Energy to be placed on projectile weapons, whereas the CRB doesn't.
If we go by newest source, then you can, in fact, place brilliant energy on a bow. As for the discrepancy, thrown in your two bit here.
