Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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.
According to you. I'm following RAW 100 percent.
It ignores non-living in a few ways that are enumerated. Specifically Armor and Shield bonus and preventing you from attacking to damage objects, undead, and constructs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.According to you. I'm following RAW 100 percent.
A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.
No. You are not.
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?
You cannot pull one sentence that you disagree with out of the middle of a paragraph, label it fluff and disregard it. That is not how RAW works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Artanthos, could you point out where I said that
You cannot pull one sentence that you disagree with out of the middle of a paragraph, label it fluff and disregard it.
?
In fact, I am pretty sure I was defining what each camp was saying and then stated what stage the debate was at. Perhaps you should re-read my post.
Please do not take my posts out of context and then post a response to a statement I did not make.
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.
And now you're saying it's use-activated, which also is not in the description of the weapon. As a matter of fact, there's no indication that, unlike flaming, you can turn brilliant on and off at all. So, you drop it, it's gone.
There's no more justification for a brilliant energy weapon to not be able to go through a tower shield used as cover as there is for it to ignore the tower shield in the first place. It's magic. Obviously, something changed magically and once planted, there's a change somewhere and the magic isn't working like it did a moment ago. Wuzzah, justified.
Why does Brilliant ignore Mage Armor and Shield spells? They aren't non-living material. They are force effects. They are ignored because Brilliant ignores armor and shield bonuses.
Why would Greenwood Armor protect against Brilliant, but a wood golem made from still-living wood still be immune? Because mechanically it ignores constructs, and it wouldn't ignore Greenwood armor because it ignores armor bonuses.
'Ignores' non-living matter does not mean 'treats it as if not there.' It means the weapon has no effect on the item. Sure, you can say it's now phasing through matter, but that's a very powerful magical effect totally out of line for what it does. For all intents and purposes, it simply makes more sense that the Brilliant energy has no more substance to non-living matter then a beam of light, NOT that it punches all the way through it and treats it as immaterial.
It does not, after all, say "Treats all non-living matter as if it did not exist." 'Ignore' translates best in the game as 'deals no damage to', not 'all is suddenly immaterial'.
Which is what you're trying to play up.
And my natural armor explanation is exactly as valid as your Greenwood example. You are citing corner case justifications, especially the tower shield, and I'm throwing natural armor back at you, which operates exactly the same way, and you don't like it.' A large number of natural armor types ARE non-living matter, yet suddenly the fact they could qualify as non-living matter is not relevant, but the tower shield turning to cover is?
That's a double standard of cornercase minutiae.
Which is why you ignore the fluff and play it by the rules.
If it grants an armor or shield bonus, you ignore the bonus.
It doesn't matter where or how it comes from...living matter, unliving matter, force effect. It's ignored.
Full stop.
If Paizo wants to FAQ the flavor text into something more extensive, that's fine, I'll be happy to see how they reconcile all this.
If you want to make your game different and interesting by doing other stuff with Brilliant, that's your right.
But the core rules have to be core, and are firmly stated. Everything else is interpretation at that GM's table, and until they FAQ it, that's what they'll be.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is not how RAW works.RAW works like this:
We read the rules and determine the meaning.You come to a different meaning reading the rules. That is fine. Run your game that way and I'll run my game by the rules as written that I read.
RAW does not mean discard the parts you disagree with.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. Is there any source that I am unaware of that specifies what "ignores nonliving matter" actually means, as, if we're being really technical, it is incorrect to assume that ignores non-living matter must mean pass through non-living matter just because the weapons pass through armor (including living armor).
Sometimes you just have to use a dictionary and knowledge of the English language.
The alternative would be a glossary larger than the CRB.
ig·nore
/iɡˈnôr/
verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.
"he ignored her outraged question"synonyms: disregard, take no notice of, pay no attention to, pay no heed to
adj. 1. Not endowed with life; same as inanimate. Opposite of living and animate.
mat·ter
/ˈmadər/
noun
noun: matter; plural noun: matters; noun: the matter
1. physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.
To paraphrase: a Brilliant Energy weapon takes no notice of physical structures not endowed with life.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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'd like to take a moment to look at the structure of the paragraph itself. For those that do not believe that "A Brilliant Energy weapon ignores nonliving matter" is rules text I'd like to point out that it is quite the oddity to have fluff text in the beginning of a paragraph AND a break in the mechanical text to put out more fluff text.
As for whether Brilliant Energy ignores Cover bonuses to AC I'd like to say that Cover is not a typed bonus. There is no reason to believe that it's simply just because you have something in the way that that is the only benefit the cover has. You can't see through it after all so while the wall itself may not be obstructing the weapon, you're still unable to make a proper attack.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
LoneKnave, basically four:
- It doesn't harm the wall when it strikes.
That would be the wall ignoring the arrow, not the arrow ignoring the wall.
That would be reacting to non-living matter, not ignoring it.It hits the wall and bounces off harmlessly.
That would be the wall ignoring the arrow, not the arrow ignoring the wall.
That would be reacting to non-living matter, not ignoring it.It phases out when pressed against non-Armor and non-Shield non-living matter.
That would be reacting to non-living matter, not ignoring it.
It passes through everything including walls, planets, hands, etc.
That would be ignoring it, except it doesn't state it ignores living matter (like hands).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW does not mean discard the parts you disagree with.Amazingly I could reply the same to you.
RAW also doesn't mean you get to pick the interpretation when there are multiple valid English meanings for the phrase.
Please supply an alternate definition for "ignores nonliving material"
A source with an alternate definitions of each of those words, that still makes sense in context, would be useful.
WWWW: as the name implies, a brilliant energy weapon is made of energy, not matter :) (and yes i know matter is energy too but it doesnt have to)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WWWW: as the name implies, a brilliant energy weapon is made of energy, not matter :) (and yes i know matter is energy too but it doesnt have to)It occupies space and has mass so it would seem to be matter. Or perhaps you are saying that your interpretation is that the weapons don't do those things. I suppose that could work. Since a portion of the weapon is transformed into light (which has no mass) that part would not be matter. As this does not effect the weight of the weapon presumably the extra mass is somehow placed in the part of the weapon that isn't turned into light (which would still disintegrate and fly off into space). Of course that presents its own problems what with the light part of the weapon also shooting off into space rendering the whole thing useless.
Or, it's magic, and has weight even though it isn't matter.
I mean, it's not like the first time pathfinder is iffy about changes in mass.|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Please supply an alternate definition for "ignores nonliving material"
- Can't deal damage to objects.
- Can't deal damage to undead.
- Can't deal damage to constructs.
The issue is you can't stand behind a 3 word line and take some sort of rigid meaning of that phrase. There isn't enough information to know what that line does for certain. You take it to have all sort of additional meanings. Maybe it does. But it could also be simply the mesh explaining why it doesn't hurt objects, undead, or constructs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 3.5 version of this spell was much more limiting because in the text it stated that only the arrow head was brilliant energy.
The PF version leaves things much more open to interpretation.
Personally I'd say that ammunition fired from bow/crossbow/ etc is a 'significant portion' of the weapon. Not sure why anyone would pay to have just the ammunition enchanted as it costs the same to have the bow/etc enchanted.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please supply an alternate definition for "ignores nonliving material"
- Can't deal damage to objects.
- Can't deal damage to undead.
- Can't deal damage to constructs.
The issue is you can't stand behind a 3 word line and take some sort of rigid meaning of that phrase. There isn't enough information to know what that line does for certain. You take it to have all sort of additional meanings. Maybe it does. But it could also be simply the mesh explaining why it doesn't hurt objects, undead, or constructs.
Those three things are certainly true, but not exclusive. Lacking RAW to the contrary that rigid definition is exactly what we have. Ignores nonliving matter means: Ignores. Nonliving. Matter.
Anything else is a house rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pshaw, if we're using "it's magic" to just ignore part of the weapon description then that kind of invalidates the whole discussion.
We don't use it to ignore, we use it to explain.
Ignoring it would be acting as if it isn't there (kinda like how BE ignores non-living materials), not using it to explain how it would work.|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Lacking RAW to the contrary that rigid definition is exactly what we have. Ignores nonliving matter means: Ignores. Nonliving. Matter.
Anything else is a house rule.
RAW is an interpreted thing, so by your interpretation other things are house rules. But you can't dictate what RAW is for others.
In this particular issue, you can ignore a wall as much as you like. You ignore anything the wall says. You can ignore it right up until you crash into it and get stopped in your tracks. You are no longer ignoring it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lacking RAW to the contrary that rigid definition is exactly what we have. Ignores nonliving matter means: Ignores. Nonliving. Matter.
Anything else is a house rule.
RAW is an interpreted thing, so by your interpretation other things are house rules. But you can't dictate what RAW is for others.
In this particular issue, you can ignore a wall as much as you like. You ignore anything the wall says. You can ignore it right up until you crash into it and get stopped in your tracks. You are no longer ignoring it.
So with that interpretation of ignore, does that mean greater blind fight still requires you to roll for miss chance for enemies with concealment?
Because "ignore concealment" means "ignore anything the concealment says"?When the rules for incorporeal touch attacks say they "ignore cover bonuses", does that mean cover bonuses still apply to them just that the attacks won't talk back at the cover bonuses?
Age Resistance lets you pretend as if the age penalties weren't there, when they still are? Honestly it should be an illusion spell then.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
And thats fine. But remember to follow the rules that are already present:
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 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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not all cover comes from a non-living source.
THANK YOU! This was driving me crazy while I was reading through this thread. It's really nice to see that someone actually pays attention to the rules!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That's a sick joke.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty much in the "nonliving cover can suck it" crowd. The rule, not fluff, says the weapon ignores nonliving matter. Ignores does not mean bounces off of, deals no damage to, or plugs its ears and hums loudly to itself, it means it acts as though it were not there.
So a brilliant energy weapon could pass through a wall but not through a living tree. This isn't rocket science. As Artantos pointed out, there are plenty of things that provide cover that are alive (you can even use your horse as cover with a ride check).
To have total cover from a thing, the line of effect cannot pass through a solid barrier. Brilliant energy weapons explicitly ignore things that aren't alive, thus there is no solid barrier to prevent its travel, because to the arrow ignores it.
Concealment is still a thing though as I think most everyone agrees on.
Concealment is still a thing though as I think most everyone agrees on.
Ach, that thars a fine solutin! If I do saw so me'selfs!
+1 if the Total Cover is ignored via ignoring nonliving matter, apply 50% concealment ala Total Concealment since you can't see your target.
Uh, you realize I was talking about the part where when you try to use it the material part loses cohesion and the light part radiates away at the speed of light. And anyway since brilliant energy weapons aren't subject to the gravity of non-living matter they wouldn't necessarally fall through the planet in the first place, rather they would stop following the motion of the planet, solar system, etc. as those things no longer exert any force on the weapon.
You're over-thinking it. It's a fantasy lightsaber.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're over-thinking it. It's a fantasy lightsaber.Yeah, but then brilliant energy ammunition would be a fantasy blaster bolt, which doesn't fly through cover.
...are you suggesting that shots from a brilliant energy bow don't ignore non-living cover because blasters in Star Wars don't?
|
|
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.
The way I see it, ammunition IS the significant portion of the weapon used, i. e. Bow-arrow, Crossbow-bolt, Firearm-bullet, etc. so the ammunition is brilliant energy. Otherwise the arrowhead itself isnt enough to do much damage and would also be stopped by the wood shaft just after passing through the armor.
No. I'm suggesting that your "It's a fantasy lightsaber." claim is an oversimplification of the matter at hand....are you suggesting that shots from a brilliant energy bow don't ignore non-living cover because blasters in Star Wars don't?You're over-thinking it. It's a fantasy lightsaber.Yeah, but then brilliant energy ammunition would be a fantasy blaster bolt, which doesn't fly through cover.
I was responding to your discussion on the brilliant energy weapon destroying the handle and flying off. It's a magic lightsaber that only harms living matter. It just works, exactly how the text says that it works.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing is, you're right WWWW. Lightsabers don't ignore objects, they tend to destroy them (ignoring massive amounts of hardness no doubt, or dealing massive damage), but brilliant energy weapons pass through them as though they weren't there, not harming them, not obstructing them.
"Ignores" again. It just is as if it weren't there in the first place. Too bad they can't harm undead, it'd be nice to be able to take stabs at those pesky incorporeal undead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, you realize I was talking about the part where when you try to use it the material part loses cohesion and the light part radiates away at the speed of light. And anyway since brilliant energy weapons aren't subject to the gravity of non-living matter they wouldn't necessarally fall through the planet in the first place, rather they would stop following the motion of the planet, solar system, etc. as those things no longer exert any force on the weapon.You're over-thinking it. It's a fantasy lightsaber.
As opposed to a real lightsaber?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As opposed to a real lightsaber?Uh, you realize I was talking about the part where when you try to use it the material part loses cohesion and the light part radiates away at the speed of light. And anyway since brilliant energy weapons aren't subject to the gravity of non-living matter they wouldn't necessarally fall through the planet in the first place, rather they would stop following the motion of the planet, solar system, etc. as those things no longer exert any force on the weapon.You're over-thinking it. It's a fantasy lightsaber.
I see your joke and raise you differentiating it from a sci-fi lightsaber.