Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brilliant energy ignores only Armor and Shield bonuses to AC. It does not mention ignoring Cover, so by RAW it does not ignore it.
This is my view, and the view I use while GMing all games. My version of the RAW.
This is something that has table variance (expected) and this thread is proof of the table variance. So you have to understand there isn't one true RAW. There are many, with varying degrees of acceptability depending on the reader.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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".
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So, in your mind the 'ignores non-living matter' is just fluff text?
It is to explain:
- It bypasses Armors and Shields by ignoring non-living.
- It can't hurt constructs, undead, etc because they are non-living.
So not fluff, but a rule. A rule that has limitations, being armor, shield, undead, or construct.
|
|
Common sense says it doesn't do what it says mathius? Not every enchant is epic awesome, if we are going to talk balance, it should be at least as powerful as 4 level 1 abilities. Just because dancing sucks doesn't mean this should too (common sense notwithstanding). What would you rather have? + 4 atk and damage or +4d6 damage or a combination plus seeking or the situational ability to shoot through a wall?
Balance perspective standpoint, this is very easily counter able. So you spend the money to get this and a way to see past the wall (not cheap, and limited per day use) you use a standard action to see what's on the other side. Find someone, and then on the surprise round, shoot.
Now everyone in the other room knows what your doing. They arrant going to stay still while you use a standard action to see then a standard to shoot. Even then, readied actions trump this, turning it into a ineffective tactic except for the surprise round.
Sounds on par to me.
|
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a mechanical benefit of ignoring things like cover, you have to pay the consequences of it too. Things like say, being unable to fire a brilliant energy arrow because it ignores the non-living bow string. Or that you would no longer be able to recover a missed brilliant energy arrow, because if you miss your target it either hits living matter and is destroyed, or lands on non-living matter and gets sucked to the center of the earth because gravity.
So by this reasoning all ammunition enchantments are continuously active right. Flaming arrows are always on fire, sonic bolts are always emitting sound, cold bullets are always cold(take damage when you try to load your gun), etc.
Is this what your trying to say here?
|
|
I think people don't understand the phrase of "You can't have your cake and eat it too". Especially in this scenario. It means that you either A. Eat the cake or B. Keep the cake.
Well, I can either shoot the brilliant arrow, or keep the arrow...
@Ozy Also, just because there's no limiting rules doesn't mean it's fluff. Are we playing a video game, where they are strict rules about everything you do, where if it's not listed as an available option than you simply cannot do it (such as picking up a rock in Halo). If so, then this game is awful, why not go play a computer game? Open ended rules are what make the game fun and enjoyable.
Second, that is not the definition of fluff. Fluff is descriptive, it describes what something looks like, how something happens, etc... That line is not fluff, it describes, literally, what something does. It says "Brilliant energy weapons ignore non-living matter". Quite literal, it's a rule. It tells use what it does. Does it explain how other effects work? Sure, but that doesn't make it fluff. In fact, if there was no line about AC, that line would be sufficient.
I've looked around a bit, and it seemed that nobody has really answered this question, but rather assumed it was correct. Take, for example, for following example:
An archer with a orb of scrying scrys the other side of the door to reveal a orge on the other side. He pulls out his brilliant energy bow, tells his friends to hold the door closed, and begins to fire through the wall, checking the orb occasionally to make sure he's hitting.
In essence, do brilliant energy weapons bypass cover/total cover? Assuming you knew the target was there.
Not a new concept, arcane archers can do this, and zen archers (and I think gunslingers with a certain feat) can perform a limited form (requires an opening).
Instead of "scry and fry", do we have "view and spew"?
To the OP: The correct answer is no, Brilliant Energy does not ignore total cover. If it did, it would say so.
Brilliant energy specifically only ignores AC and Shield bonuses from any source.
The 'ignores non-living matter' is fluff meant to justify the above rules, and why it doesn't harm undead and constructs. It is not a rule that lets you shoot through walls.
If Brilliant Energy weapons absolutely and truly ignored non-living matter:
You could not shoot them from a bow...they would fall through.
You could not place them in a scabbard or quiver...they would fall through.
You could never set them down on anything other then a green lawn. Stone, table, whatever...they would fall right through to the center of the earth.
You could get cover bonuses standing behind a wall of pikemen, but not behind a wall. Pikemen are alive, and living creatures can provide cover.
There would be a bunch of rules you'd have to adjudicate based on living/not-living status. For instance, scales and hair could be technically argued not to be 'alive'...they are actually shed skin in the process of fossilizing. Thus, Briliant armor should actually be able to ignore a substantial portion of natural armor out there.
But it doesn't, it just ignores shield and AC bonuses, regardless of source (it makes no differentiation between a spell and physical object that provides the same bonuses, for instance). It's an Adventurer (and maybe Hellknight) killing weapon, not a monster slaying weapon.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Short of a FAQ the 'non-fluff' crowd is going to say that "ignores non-living matter" is not fluff and thus the weapon goes through non-living matter such as doors, walls, whatever when you attack with it while the 'fluff' crowd is going to say that "ignores non-living matter" is fluff and only the specific things in the list get ignored.
Thankfully, we can rule how we want in our games. In mine it ignores non-living matter, whatever the consequences of that statement are (such as no cover via a door) we can probably adjudicate them like intelligent people.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Short of a FAQ the 'non-fluff' crowd is going to say that "ignores non-living matter" is not fluff and thus the weapon goes through non-living matter such as doors, walls, whatever when you attack with it while the 'fluff' crowd is going to say that "ignores non-living matter" is fluff and only the specific things in the list get ignored.
Thankfully, we can rule how we want in our games. In mine it ignores non-living matter, whatever the consequences of that statement are (such as no cover via a door) we can probably adjudicate them like intelligent people.
+1
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry guys, I read the RAW to the letter. If it does not specifically states that it ignores cover, then it does not.
Brilliant Energy makes no such statement because living beings can provide cover.
Brilliant Energy does state it ignores non-living matter; how can something the weapon ignores prevent the weapon from passing through it.
If that text doesn't actually refer to a specific effect on game mechanics, then it is indeed fluff.
I always find it amusing how people pull one sentence out of the middle of a paragraph that they disagree with, label it fluff, and still accept the rest of the sentence as RAW.
Please show me the RAW that supports your definition of fluff and allows you to ignore the printed description of effects.
|
|
Flaming is always active once the command word is used. That is why in 3.5 they issued a FAQ that sheathing an elemental weapon supressed the effect. The elemental weapon also have language about not harming the wielder or equipment. Brilliant energy has none of this language.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a mechanical benefit of ignoring things like cover, you have to pay the consequences of it too. Things like say, being unable to fire a brilliant energy arrow because it ignores the non-living bow string. Or that you would no longer be able to recover a missed brilliant energy arrow, because if you miss your target it either hits living matter and is destroyed, or lands on non-living matter and gets sucked to the center of the earth because gravity.So by this reasoning all ammunition enchantments are continuously active right. Flaming arrows are always on fire, sonic bolts are always emitting sound, cold bullets are always cold(take damage when you try to load your gun), etc.
Is this what your trying to say here?
If the ruling is sheathing a weapon suppresses the effect, problem solved. The brilliant energy effect is suppressed while the weapon is sheathed.
Not that you will find RAW in Pathfinder (this is not 3.5) allowing any elemental effect to be suppressed while sheathed, but you are willing to make an exception for while affect while disallowing another.
It will still fall off a bow. If you drop it on the ground, it's gone.
A gun is actually more powerful then a Brilliant effect, because it resolves as a Touch Attack, which ignores Natural Armor...which makes guns monster killers. Guns are equally effective against monsters and PC's, as it were.
Many agree that Brilliant is overpriced...unless you use it against humanoids. Then it is basically a touch attack sword attack, which is horrendously strong. Stick it on the Paladin's sword, and watch what it does to armored foes when you have +17 to hit or something, effectively. Brilliant is situationally brutal. It's a Bane++ against anything that wears armor (note that Bane against its target is ALSO the equivalent of a +4 enhancement, so this has precedence.)
The real shame of Brilliance is that it is 'Brilliance'. In my own campaign, Brilliant weapons ignore Natural Armor bonuses, celestials, and positive energy life forms, and can hit incorps. Umbral weapons ignore Armor/Shields, constructs and undead. Both are absolutely brutal against the foes they are designed to fight.
You can read 'ignores' in many ways, including 'has no effect on'. I read brilliant weapons as just splashing off the surface of objects like liquid light...or like a flash light. They simply do nothing to inanimate objects they hit, but they instead slice into living matter.
In no event do they work through any form of cover. They would specifically have language to allow that if so. They aren't lightsabers. They aren't actually any better at cutting flesh then a normal weapon. Note that, even as they ignore swords and armor...they don't do any damage to the sword or armor! But, since cover is not swords and armor, it's obviously too thick and powerful to be 'penetrated' the same way, the same way anything too thick to be an Armor or Shield bonus suddenly graduates to cover.
So, that's how I rule it. If it's cover, it's too thick to be penetrated, and Brilliant doesn't pass through it to do damage. If it's thin, like armor and shield, a brilliant attack can.
==Aelryinth
The shaft itself is insignificant damage-wise. It could perhaps deal like what..0,4 damage? ok rounded down like everything else is that's still 0.The shaft is still heavier and propelled with more force than a throwing dart.
Note that pathfinder darts are notably heavier than an arrow. 20 arrows + quiver weighs 6 lbs, while 20 darts with no quiver is 10 lbs. A dart also has a sharp metal point. If you're talking about dartboard-type darts, those don't exist in pathfinder so we can't really compare them very well.
Guns may ignore armor, but they don't ignore cover. You can't shoot someone who's totally covered by a brick wall, unless your shot does enough damage to the wall to pierce it.StuffThen that enchantment is WAY over priced, seeing as how guns do pretty much the same thing.
Though on the other hand, guns bypass natural armor, which brilliant energy doesn't.
On the third (vivisectionist) hand, a brilliant energy longbow can reliably hit people five hundred feet away, a gun is more like 50 ft on a good day.
|
|
Guns may ignore armor, but they don't ignore cover. You can't shoot someone who's totally covered by a brick wall, unless your shot does enough damage to the wall to pierce it.StuffThen that enchantment is WAY over priced, seeing as how guns do pretty much the same thing.
Brilliant energy doesnt say it ignores cover.
Personally I read the entry as ignores cover but not concealment so you can shoot throw walls/doors but your chance of hitting isnt very good without some kind of help.
or, you get the result that Brilliant does what it does, and the fluff is just text you can ignore in game play since it has no real effect.
Which doesn't mean it shouldn't be defined better if they are going to include something so radical, but simply because of all those inherent contradictions, you just stick with the primary rules and the rest you get to ignore.
==Aelryinth
Guns may ignore armor, but they don't ignore cover. You can't shoot someone who's totally covered by a brick wall, unless your shot does enough damage to the wall to pierce it.StuffThen that enchantment is WAY over priced, seeing as how guns do pretty much the same thing.
You can't ignore the brick wall with a brilliant weapon without a house rule, either. Brilliant does not say it ignores cover bonuses.
But I think you would find that a touch attack trumps bypassing cover any day of the week, tyvm.
There was a 2nd level Ranger spell in 3.5, Wraithstrike, which turned a ranger's attacks into touch attacks. It was one of the most overpowered and promptly abused spells in the game. Wand Chambers and UMD for the win!
==Aelryinth
Note that pathfinder darts are notably heavier than an arrow. 20 arrows + quiver weighs 6 lbs, while 20 darts with no quiver is 10 lbs. A dart also has a sharp metal point. If you're talking about dartboard-type darts, those don't exist in pathfinder so we can't really compare them very well.The shaft itself is insignificant damage-wise. It could perhaps deal like what..0,4 damage? ok rounded down like everything else is that's still 0.The shaft is still heavier and propelled with more force than a throwing dart.
Yeah, war darts are not small. They are big honking suckers with fairly big fins and some weight to them so they can do damage.
Dartboard type darts might qualify as needle shuriken.==Aelryinth
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't ignore the brick wall with a brilliant weapon without a house rule, either.
A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.
Is the brick wall alive?[Y/N]
if N then ignoredBrilliant does not say it ignores cover bonuses.
Not all cover comes from a non-living source.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
brilliant energy sword passing right through a carried tower shield, but being utterly confounded if that shield is placed on the ground to use as cover.
There is no rule on how it ignores, so the GM determines how the RAW works. You apparently have the blade work while passing through the tower shield. I would have the tower shield suppress the other end of the blade that would be on the other side of the shield. Just like I would block attacking through a wall with the blade.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ruling otherwise goes directly against the RAW written above.Your RAW, not my RAW.
This pretty much sums up every rules debate ever.
aye, it's fluff. Natural armor is, for the most part, not alive. It's dead skin cells. So your 'RAW' should be dragon hide, too.
It doesn't. It ignores armor and shield bonuses, that's it. Anything else, and you're getting into 'but-if' statements that can go on forever. Treating that fluff as raw is going to get you into a ton of edgecase rulings which the clearly stated powers absolutely ignore.
I have a much easier time justifying it bending around and past a thick shield that's being moved around to defend and can be forced aside then one that is planted and the light can move around or bend.
And ignoring that brick wall may just mean sliding uselessly over it like a flash light, leaving not a mark.
The ignoring non-living is fluff that does NOT work, mechanically or otherwise. The first time you dropped it on a stone floor, it'd plunge to the heart of the planet. It's non-functional fluff that doesn't work any way you look at it.
Now, if you want to rule it ignores cover bonuses, go ahead, your campaign. But that's not spelled out, and so it doesn't DO that.
And yes, the 'living greenword' armor and shield would indeed be ignored, because it ignores armor and shield bonuses, and I'm not making corner case exceptions for non-functional fluff.
==Aelryinth
|
|
So who exactly gets to say what part of a discription is 'fluff'? Is it the first sentence in a paragraph? One of the middle sentences? All the sentences? What makes up a fluff sentence?
Where is the fluff sentence in this discription?
"Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So who exactly gets to say what part of a discription is 'fluff'? Is it the first sentence in a paragraph? One of the middle sentences? All the sentences? What makes up a fluff sentence?
Where is the fluff sentence in this discription?
"Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given."
Fluff is any text that doesn't fit your position.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Ruling otherwise goes directly against the RAW written above.Your RAW, not my RAW.Considering your RAW directly contradicts the text of the ability, I'm pretty comfortable assessing your RAW as not.
And again, how do you explain the weapon passing through the shield when held, but somehow being suppressed when the shield is on the ground?
That is the cool part. The rules are written in a more conversational way, and not in a clinical way. So no one can ever know for certain which way is correct until there is an FAQ.
Your RAW:
Passes through doors like they don't exist.
My RAW:
The weapon doesn't penetrate a door, a shield, or anything. If you want to attack a living target, you have no more benefit than a +4 sword. You just ignore armor and shield bonus in exchange for not being able to deal damage to objects, undead, or constructs.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Except that your RAW not only disregards the text 'ignores non-living material' it directly contradicts it. Furthermore, you are ignoring the text.
Not quite, but I noticed you didn't understand what I'm saying. So I'll restate it.
The scenario of PC using a Brilliant Energy sword and swing that sword through his own worn Shield. The Shield could have just as easily been a door or a wall or a shield on the floor. In this case, I see the sword doesn't do anything and doesn't appear on the other side of the worn Shield. This is all academic, since no attack roll was made.
In your scenario, the Brilliant Energy weapon is used to attack someone with a Shield. In that scenario, it passes through the Shield and strikes the target ignoring the Shield and Armor.
My RAW is consistent with the rules in Brilliant Energy, doesn't break any thing that is written. Allows you to hold it. Prevents it from dropping through the planet. Strikes targets.
Your RAW leads to bizarre scenarios like falling through the floor when dropped.
I'm happy saying both are RAW, but not happy if you tell me mine isn't RAW.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
or, you get the result that Brilliant does what it does, and the fluff is just text you can ignore in game play since it has no real effect.
Which doesn't mean it shouldn't be defined better if they are going to include something so radical, but simply because of all those inherent contradictions, you just stick with the primary rules and the rest you get to ignore.
==Aelryinth
Since there is no clear distinction of what is and is not "fluff", one can use that argument to skip exactly anything. Just like you can say "ignores non-living material" is fluff, I can say "ignores shields and armor" is fluff.
Unless one can give a specific reason why it should be considered fluff, there's no reason to believe it is.
And the primary hint of fluff is it being the first sentence in a description, which this isn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no rule on how it ignores, so the GM determines how the RAW works.
There is no rule on how an attack hits when it rolls higher than the target AC, that doesn't mean the GM can choose to have it miss when it should have hit just because "well it hit in the wrong way".
It ignores non-living matter. That's a very clear statement. Excactly how the physics or magics behind it function is irrelevant to how the rule functions.
"Ignore" is a very common term in the Pathfinder rules, and in every other case we seem to accept it as meaning "act as if it's not there". What makes this special?
Fluff is text that has no direct correspondence to game mechanics, and can be ignored without changing anything mechanically, that is, it is purely descriptive of a possible way the game mechanics could be pictured to occur in character.
That's not how it's used though. If that was the case there'd never be any reason to bring it up in a discussion about rules at all, since it wouldn't matter if it's there or not there and no side would claim that would matter. "Ignore non-living things" clearly affects how the rules works, so by your definition it should be considered fluff, but still people are arguing it's fluff so we should ignore it... which would be irrelevant if it wasn't a part of the rules.
TLDR: Fluff text is any text that doesn't reference a game mechanic. It is generally followed directly by text that does reference mechanics that approximates what the fluff text describes. This following text is rules text.
What is and isn't game mechanics is also a bit loose at times. Both non-living and ignore can be seen as game mechanics, as they are repeatedely used terms referring to a specific thing, but they can also be considered just plain text. There are many other similar examples.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My RAW:
The weapon doesn't penetrate a door, a shield, or anything. If you want to attack a living target, you have no more benefit than a +4 sword. You just ignore armor and shield bonus in exchange for not being able to deal damage to objects, undead, or constructs.
You choose to ignore the rules text stating Brilliant Energy weapons ignore non-living material. You then make several house rules to support this ruling.