Parrying a Brilliant Energy weapon - how does this work?

[Eviljames]

swoosh wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

Right.

This is the 'adamantine golems are not made of adamantine' nonsense all over again... and with the same players no less.

No thanks.

*plonk*

Naw, I was arguing adamantine golems were adamantine in that thread, so totally different.

The difference being that adamantine golems at least say they're adamantine. That BE weapons can pierce walls or are immune to various things that can effect weapons isn't even really suggested by its description. It just defines the two things the property does and that's it. Extrapolating beyond that is, at best, a bit eye raising because there isn't even much to extrapolate off of.

They're also very significant and powerful mechanical effects and suggesting that they just somehow weren't worth mentioning seems like a bit of a stretch too.

The point is I don't think it's a big stretch to say that maybe trying to extrapolate secondary benefits of a weapon made out of solid, heavy light that you can hold in your hand with undefined fluff and (non-gameplay) mechanics isn't the best of ideas, given how vague all of the processes in question are.

Question for you: Does a +1 cold iron longsword enchanted with the brilliant energy property pierce a leprechaun's DR?

One could debate that since it's made of light it no longer counts as cold iron, IE. it would be wasted on cold iron in most cases but I'd certainly be willing to entertain the idea of it keeping the cold iron property somehow.

The only point I'm trying to make is that BE weapons pass through non-living matter. That that's what "ignores" means no one has offered up any other explanation and it seems the simplest to me. There are still parts than can be blocked or sundered so I see no reason to say it can't be.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

darth_gator wrote:

I fail to see how ignoring all non-living material makes BE overpowered.

That +5 plate armor and +5 shield you're wearing? As far as the weapon is concerned, they don't protect that flesh beneath.

[Elf Wizard]

Aelryinth wrote:

Eviljames wrote:

How is the point of the discussion, so it is anything but irrelevant.

However you are correct that it is irrelevant to the op since I also see no reason why the blade could not be parried regardless of "how".

No, how is irrelevant. how does a mage cast a fireball?

That's classified.

[Eviljames]

swoosh wrote:

Quote:

Magic does not negate logic.

It does defy logic though. Kind of by definition.

Only in it's practice not it's execution.

swoosh wrote:

Quote:

If you tell your players that he can't hit the man behind the tower shield because now he's hiding. he's going to want to know why. Telling him because a wizard can cast fireball is both lazy and breaking suspension of disbelief.

That's also completely non-sequitur and not relevant to the topic though. That's not even remotely what he said.

If a wizard casts a fireball and someone starts complaining about an explosion with no concussive force "it's magic" is a perfectly valid answer. And "it's magic" is a perfectly valid answer for how the brilliant energy property works.

The ability of a wizard and fireball was irrelevant to the discussion to begin with. It was brought up to avoid answering how a BE ignores AC and shield bonuses if it's not passing through the armor and shields. What does the character see if not that. Logic is how we are able to describe the game world and the PC's actions in it. If it's not passing through then what is it doing to ignore AC bonuses? "Magic" is an insufficient answer if you cannot describe how the magic appears to work.

[Ventnor]

You can party a brilliant energy weapon.

End thread.

Roll credits.

[Abraham spalding]

Interestingly enough there's an entire school of fencing where your "parry" is simply repositioning the rapier so your opponent will stab themselves before they can stab you. Most of the maneuvering is done in the wrist for this style. I will try and remember the name of it and post it up here later.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

I would rule it this way.

From what I've read there are mutltiple mechanics that can be called "parrying".

If the method generates a shield bonus, such as Two Weapon Defense, than Brilliant Energy negates it. If the method generates a dodge bonus, than BE does not affect it.

[Gisher]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

This is a classic case of reading too much into the Brilliant weapon ability.

<snip classic case of rewriting the Brilliant weapon ability>

Only the "significant portion" of the weapon is transformed into light. For a sword, that would be the blade. The hilt and pommel are still quite solid. Ergo, no falling out of scabbards or through the floor.
...

If you interpret the word 'ignore' the way that you have described, then I don't believe the statement above is true. The sentence in dispute here doesn't say:

UE wrote:

The portion of a brilliant energy weapon which has been transformed into light ignores nonliving matter.

It actually says:

UE wrote:

A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.

If the hilt and pommel are parts of the weapon then the strict wording tells us that they too ignore living matter. In this case trying to set down or sheathe a brilliant energy sword would most likely end up with it lost in the center of the planet.

If the pommel and hilt aren't part of the weapon then the blade should ignore them. This would result in the blade detaching itself immediately when enchanted and most likely making that same long journey to the core.

If you don't believe that sentence is in anyway fluffy, then I don't see a way around this serious problem.

[Kazaan]

You can parry with or against a brilliant energy weapon for the same reason that your touch spell doesn't deliver against the ground or your clothes or when someone hits you with an unarmed strike or natural weapon. For the same reason the weapon will still damage the surface of the skin and could cause bleeding despite the fact that the epidermis is non-living material. For the same reason that a Scorching Ray or Shocking Grasp will ignore the shield bonus to AC from your tower shield and affect you even if it hits the shield... unless you plant it against the ground and use it as a wall.

[Snowlilly]

swoosh wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

Any argument that has it NOT ignoring nonliving matter (e.g. you can block a brilliant energy blade with a metal sword) is simply rewriting the ability.

And an argument that gives the weapon abilities it does not have (e.g. it cannot be parried or sundered and it can stab people through walls) isn't rewriting the property?

Parrying has never required physical contact. If parrying required physical contact, it would discharge touch-based attacks and held spells.

Attacking through a door or wall is not adding anything. If the weapon behaves as if something does not exist (i.e., ignores) then it never had the ability to block the attack. At best, the target receives concealment due to the attackers inability to see his opponent.

[Liz Courts]

Removed some posts and their responses. Please be civil to each other, and keep real-world religions out of this.