| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if I had a set of greenwood wooden armor and/or wooden shield, and kept it maintained on a week by week basis, would that technically ensure that I have an armor/shield bonus vs a brilliant energy weapon?
While I know of no official wording on it, I would rule it as such.
Good catch!
Though, to be honest, Greenwood wooden armor is still only a +3 AC, so yes, while it could potentially help deflect a brilliant energy weapon, you're talking about an extremely rare weapon (I believe brilliant is a +4 equivalent enchantment). I think you'll be better off most times having better armor and trying to avoid/disarm the odd brilliant weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just sunder it with an adamantine weapon when someone has the audacity to use a brilliant weapon against you.
I would actually rule that you can't sunder a brilliant energy weapon. If the weapon can pass right through non=living matter, it would make sense that nonliving matter (your weapon, adamantine or not, would pass right through it). Though i suppose you could try to sunder it with a greenwood club.. :-)
|
I would actually rule that you can't sunder a brilliant energy weapon. If the weapon can pass right through non=living matter, it would make sense that nonliving matter (your weapon, adamantine or not, would pass right through it). Though i suppose you could try to sunder it with a greenwood club.. :-)Just sunder it with an adamantine weapon when someone has the audacity to use a brilliant weapon against you.
You sunder the hilt. Something has to be solid, otherwise, It would fall to the core of the planet if you dropped it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would consider the greenwood armor to still be an object, like a tree. While a tree is "alive", it is still considered to be an object. Per Brilliant Energy, it would go through objects. Including objects made of Greenwood.
And something of the brilliant energy weapon would need to be solid, but not necessarily the hilt (if made of brilliant energy it would sit in your hand and not pass through). But, in order to set it down it would need to have a portion that wasn't. Personally I would allow the sunder attempt, but I would probably assign a penalty to the roll since most of the weapon cannot be hit by other weapons. Natural weapons being a notable exception.
From plant creature type entry:
This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive. A plant creature has the following features.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the Brilliant Energy states that "A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects", that doesn't mean that a living plant is ignored by the blade. I think it's RAI that "A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter" means it doesn't ignore living matter, even if that living matter is classified an object under game rules.
While the Brilliant Energy states that "A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects", that doesn't mean that a living plant is ignored by the blade. I think it's RAI that "A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter" means it doesn't ignore living matter, even if that living matter is classified an object under game rules.
This. I assumed that brilliant energy passed right through both living and nonliving matter, damaging the former and ignoring the latter.
While the Brilliant Energy states that "A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects", that doesn't mean that a living plant is ignored by the blade. I think it's RAI that "A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter" means it doesn't ignore living matter, even if that living matter is classified an object under game rules.
Meh, for the cost of the enchant I'd throw the person a bone, as there is wiggle room either way. As a GM I know how I would run it, as a player I wouldn't be too upset either way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, greenwood seems as if it should work to block brilliant weapons, but unless your PC is restricted to light armor, it seems as if living steel would be a better choice, if it exists in your campaign world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brilliant weapons are awesome against creatures wearing armor and shields...Like PC's, and some NPC's.
Against monsters, not so much.
One of the favorite magic items I made up is a CG dagger called Liberty, a +5 Brilliant Keen Dagger. Hellknights are terrified of the thing. Carves right through that hellplate without a problem, ringing happily as it does so.
==Aelryinth
also note that Brilliant Energy ignores objects, but that doesn't mean it passes through them. More likely it just sort of stops.
Something like a Tower Shield that provides full cover works fine against a Brilliant weapon...it ignores armor and shield bonuses, not cover bonuses.
So, for instance, you can't punch a brilliant weapon through a door to hit something on the other side. Since it can't harm objects, and things on the other side have total cover, it can't harm them.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
also note that Brilliant Energy ignores objects, but that doesn't mean it passes through them. More likely it just sort of stops.
Something like a Tower Shield that provides full cover works fine against a Brilliant weapon...it ignores armor and shield bonuses, not cover bonuses.
So, for instance, you can't punch a brilliant weapon through a door to hit something on the other side. Since it can't harm objects, and things on the other side have total cover, it can't harm them.
==Aelryinth
This isn't supported by the text.
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.
Someone behind a tower shield or a door would have concealment from your attacks, but you could attack through (nonliving) cover like it it's not there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brilliant energy should be able to catch opponents flatfooted on the first round:"wait... Someone is actually using this horrid enchantment?!"
I don't know, a +1 Brilliant Adaptive Composite Long Bow would really screw with a fighter/paladin decked out in full plate with a large shield and no dex, especially with some flaming or other enhanced arrows...
also note that Brilliant Energy ignores objects, but that doesn't mean it passes through them. More likely it just sort of stops.
Something like a Tower Shield that provides full cover works fine against a Brilliant weapon...it ignores armor and shield bonuses, not cover bonuses.
So, for instance, you can't punch a brilliant weapon through a door to hit something on the other side. Since it can't harm objects, and things on the other side have total cover, it can't harm them.
==Aelryinth
This isn't supported by the text.
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.Someone behind a tower shield or a door would have concealment from your attacks, but you could attack through (nonliving) cover like it it's not there.
The weapon does not, however, pass through cover. Nowhere does it say it ignores cover bonuses to AC. Attempting to say it does is expressly attempting to give it a power it does not have.
A Tower Shield providing Cover, or a rock or a door, are 100% effective against a brilliant weapon. It ignores Armor and Shield bonuses to AC, full stop. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.If it had a line that read 'treat cover bonuses to AC as concealment', you'd have an argument. it isn't there, so Brilliant cannot do what you say.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The weapon does not, however, pass through cover. Nowhere does it say it ignores cover bonuses to AC. Attempting to say it does is expressly attempting to give it a power it does not have.
A Tower Shield providing Cover, or a rock or a door, are 100% effective against a brilliant weapon. It ignores Armor and Shield bonuses to AC, full stop. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.If it had a line that read 'treat cover bonuses to AC as concealment', you'd have an argument. it isn't there, so Brilliant cannot do what you say.
==Aelryinth
Cover implies something is physically stopping the attack, which is not the case with brilliant energy weapons.
I would grant somebody obscured by a tower shield, or behind a closed door, concealment.
You can house rule as you like.
However, there is NOTHING in the item description that allows it to attack on the other side of solid objects. Furthermore, it ignores spells like Mage Armor and Shield, despite the fact these are NOT objects...yet it does NOT ignore a Wall of Force.
It ignores armor and shield bonuses to AC, regardless of source...even if made by a blade that can actually parry the brilliant weapon! (because surely such a thing that ignored inanimate matter would ignore an opponent's weapon, too! And be unscabbardable. And drop to the earth's core if you let go.)
Brilliant does what it does, and no more. If you want to grant it extra powers, that's your call. But it IS a House Rule.
==Aelryinth
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cover bonuses you get to AC are merely to reflect how much harder it is to hit someone you cannot see properly, so yes you probably would still get those bonuses as you cannot see through the shield/door. However, you would still be able to attack through those objects with the cover AC bonus/concealment but ignore the actual armour AC that they would grant.
Being able to ignore nonliving material doesn't mean cover suddenly goes away.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cover, in the military, EMS and Pathfinder, is a solid object that blocks an attack.
Concealment is anything that obscures view, such as smoke, a sheet, leaves etc. but does not physically block the attack.
Pathfinder assumes all cover to be of the same value (as far as stopping power) and only measures surface area covered.
In the real world, the strength of the attack determines whether something is cover or concealment.
On popular comment about the AK47 is "7.62: turning cover into concealment since 1947."
The flavor text would indicate that a brilliant weapon turns all cover into concealment. Someone on the other side of a door would have 100% concealment and a 50% miss chance.
But that is only the flavor text. I think either interpretation would be valid.
Cover, in the military, EMS and Pathfinder, is a solid object that blocks an attack.
Concealment is anything that obscures view, such as smoke, a sheet, leaves etc. but does not physically block the attack.
Pathfinder assumes all cover to be of the same value (as far as stopping power) and only measures surface area covered.
In the real world, the strength of the attack determines whether something is cover or concealment.
On popular comment about the AK47 is "7.62: turning cover into concealment since 1947."
The flavor text would indicate that a brilliant weapon turns all cover into concealment. Someone on the other side of a door would have 100% concealment and a 50% miss chance.
But that is only the flavor text. I think either interpretation would be valid.
Plus it's really cool that way too. ;)
|
Being able to ignore nonliving material doesn't mean cover suddenly goes away.What is your cover made of?
If it is non-living material, what would lead you to believe a brilliant energy weapon does not ignore it?
Cover is something that blocks view also and makes a person's exact positioning difficult to know. A brilliant energy weapon doesn't see through materials it is guided by the user, who can't see the exact position of his foe due to cover. If the user suddenly has x-ray vision or something all bets are off though!
However, there is NOTHING in the item description that allows it to attack on the other side of solid objects.A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.I will avoid the house rules. Your shield offers you no protection at all.
Since the brilliant weapon only ignores shield and armor bonuses, a tower shield being used for a cover bonus provides perfect protection against it.
So, yes, House Rule. If you can find the place where it says Brilliant Energy ignores Cover bonuses to AC, you might have a point. Alas, it does not exist, and you are reading into rules which have no actual effect on gameplay.
Ergo, you are making house rules...which can be turned on you and extrapolated into truly zany things.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to ignore nonliving material doesn't mean cover suddenly goes away.What is your cover made of?
If it is non-living material, what would lead you to believe a brilliant energy weapon does not ignore it?
Cover is something that blocks view also and makes a person's exact positioning difficult to know. A brilliant energy weapon doesn't see through materials it is guided by the user, who can't see the exact position of his foe due to cover. If the user suddenly has x-ray vision or something all bets are off though!
No. Concealment blocks view (Obscuring Mist, for example).
Cover physically blocks attacks.
I thought cover represented that a smaller portion of your body was able to be hit by an attack. Concealment represents being harder to see. A giant glass wall should still provide me cover even if you can see me properly. Its not my fault we live in this stupid opaque object oligarchy!
A wall of force would provide cover, but not concealment.
However, there is NOTHING in the item description that allows it to attack on the other side of solid objects.A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.I will avoid the house rules. Your shield offers you no protection at all.Since the brilliant weapon only ignores shield and armor bonuses, a tower shield being used for a cover bonus provides perfect protection against it.
So, yes, House Rule. If you can find the place where it says Brilliant Energy ignores Cover bonuses to AC, you might have a point. Alas, it does not exist, and you are reading into rules which have no actual effect on gameplay.
Ergo, you are making house rules...which can be turned on you and extrapolated into truly zany things.
==Aelryinth
Please refer to the sentence I have previously quoted.
A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.
If you have something RAW that contradict that statement, post it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Artanthos, I don't have to.
I'm quoting rules.
You're quoting flavor text.
By YOUR rules, a brilliant sword cannot be scabbarded.
By YOUR rules, if you drop it, it plunges through the ground and is gone forever.
By YOUR rules, an undead creature cannot wield one. Nor can a construct.
By YOUR rules, you can throw it right through a wall or door.
But none of those are RULES.
The only rules for Brilliant Energy are that it ignores shield and armor bonuses to AC. Full stop. That's it, done.
Everything else is flavor text. So stop trying to pass flavor text off as rules!
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arelyinth, while I understand your interpretation, it isn't the only valid one. Flavor text is a name we players have added. It is not a game term. You have to make up the term to get to your interpretation.
"A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light"
That means the blade or macehead or other "business end" of a weapon. An undead/construct could still grab it by the handle. It would smack its guard into the door, going no further (but certainly impaling anyone propped up against it) and then dropping harmlessly, blade still on the other side.When you drop it to the floor, it, again at no harm to the surface, sinks in like you'd dropped it in water, until it gets to the non-energy part. It would probably then tip over or stay as-is depending on the weight distribution or weapon type.
So, what you're saying is you can smack an undead with the pommel of your weapon and deal damage?
Um, no. That's not how the rules work.
You're cherry-picking flavor text to try and make sense. You have to apply all of it or none of it. Since all of it together makes no sense, you have to treat it as flavor text, and in combat, apply only the definite rules.
In combat, the only effect brilliant has is that it ignores armor and shield bonuses to AC.
If it ignored cover bonuses, it would say so. If it treated cover as concealment, it would say so. If you could stab someone on the other side of a door, it would say so.
There's no language that says it passes harmlessly through the ground and acts like you say. Again, you can add it in as a house rule, but that's not what it says it does.
Likewise, by your rules, you couldn't even scabbard the blade. It would pass through the scabbard and probably cut off your leg.
The only thing you can do with Brilliant is restrict yourself to the mechanical effects that it says actually apply. everything else is flavor text.
It's not a lightsaber, guys. I personally have it pass through inanimate surfaces, as powerless as cutting water, and if they are thicker then armor or shields, it loses any killing power while doing so...because that fits the rules. Likewise, undead can wield them, because the weapons have no power over them and can't actually hurt them. Heck, there's an FR novel that has an undead champion using a brilliant weapon, which is taken away from it and proves unable to hurt it.
Flavor Text vs rules. However you want it to apply in your own campaign is fine, but you have to be more conservative and restrict yourself to the actual rules that apply for the rest of us.
===Aelryinth
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lightsabers do not ignore non-living matter. They clearly cut through doors. Even blast doors.
Undead could always wield them. Did anyone say they couldn't?
And yes, you could smack undead with the pommel and deal damage. I would call it an improvised weapon that does a lot less damage than the original weapon.
"Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor."
That indicates to me that a Tower Shield will not help you against a brilliant energy weapon.
None of those interpretations require me to make anything up or read into the rules. They only require a different interpretation than yours.
Brilliant Energy weapons ignoring non living materials has nothing to do with use in combat.
The only combat rules that Brilliant has is ignoring armor and shield bonuses.
It does NOT ignore cover. It would say so if it did. A tower shield being used for cover is providing a cover bonus, not a shield bonus, and the sword does not ignore it. Period. Reading what you want into the description is a house rule.
That's just the way it is. There are MANY ways to interpret 'ignore'. But the fact of the matter is, 'ignore' is not mechanics. It specifically states the mechanical benefits of Brilliant. And that's quite literally all you get.
Anything else, House rule.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring the ignore rule is a house rule.
And yet, it's a interpretation, as so many things are, it's not a RULE.
There's exactly one defined rule with brilliant weapons. All the rest is fluff...and whether you want to make the fluff your own rule is completely up to you. But as it's not defined and laid out, it's definitely not 'official' in any sense of the word.
If 'ignore objects' meant 'ignore cover bonuses' it would say so in the description.
==Aelryinth
And yet, it's a interpretation, as so many things are, it's not a RULE.
There's exactly one defined rule with brilliant weapons. All the rest is fluff...and whether you want to make the fluff your own rule is completely up to you. But as it's not defined and laid out, it's definitely not 'official' in any sense of the word.
If 'ignore objects' meant 'ignore cover bonuses' it would say so in the description.
==Aelryinth
An interpretation is an understanding of a rule. A rule cannot be used until it is interpreted.
Based on that, I don't understand your first point.
Seebs showed a great example of why I disagree with your second point.