Before I go too far, I want to state that I am the DM in this situation and I'm just looking to get a better understanding of the rules here.
Two of my players have been butting heads lately (in character that is) and it finally came to blows. One player ambushed the other and hit him with his Brilliant Energy Longsword - not a problem, as we all agreed to PvP as long as it's in character and this certainly was.
The problem comes from the fact that the second player is a Swashbuckler and wants to parry his next swing (we called it here before dice were rolled) and I'm not sure how that would work. His weapon, while magical, isn't brilliant energy or living, and this I don't know if partying it is even possible.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blade to blade comtact is never stipulated in the description of the swashbuckler's parry ability. If this was the case abilities that trigger off of contact, such as things that damage anypne who attacks a target with a melee weapon, or damage the weapon would be triggered by parry.
So the actual contact could be with the attacker's hilt or arm, or maybe he averts the attack by putting his blade in the way of the attacker's arm, forcing the attacker to pull his swing to avoid getting cut, who knows?
There is no RAW reason that you cannot parry a brilliant energy weapon.
I agree with Java Man. You don't need to touch the blade to parry it. If you're unarmed and someone attacks you with a sword you don't have to block the blade with your hand, you can block their arm, or (fluff time) make your own attack the forces their attack to miss... Eg. You try to hit me with your sword, but I react faster and punch for your face. You're forced to abandon your attack or take a fist to the nose (and I guess if the Riposte is successful, my punch landed even though you tried to dodge).
Presumably, the only realistic portion of the sword to be hit/parried would be the grip in his hand?
Pull a Vader... Parry his hand off. Problem solved, and should fix that pesky pvp problem you're having.
At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity; for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2 penalty on this roll. If her result is greater than the attacking creature's result, the creature's attack automatically misses. The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature's attack is announced, but before its attack roll is made. Upon performing a successful parry and if she has at least 1 panache point, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action make an attack against the creature whose attack she parried, provided that creature is within her reach. This deed's cost cannot be reduced by any ability or effect that reduces the number of panache points a deed costs.
Seriously though, it never technically says your weapons connect, it simply states they automatically miss. And it never technically states you strike their weapon, you make an attack roll as if you were making an AoO, meaning you apply appropriate bonuses, etc.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a classic case of reading too much into the Brilliant weapon ability.
It's not a lightsaber. It's a magical weapon that does exactly what it says it does, and no more.
It cannot harm non-living matter, and it ignores armor.
That's it.
So, it doesn't ignore swords or weapons used to parry it. It ignores armor bonuses, and nothing else. You can't use it to hack through a wall at something on the other side, or stab somebody on the other side of a door. a tower shield being used to provide total cover is completely effective against it, because it's not an armor (shield) bonus.
'Extrapolating out' from what it can do makes it more powerful then it already is. It's already the best PC slaying enhancement in the game, ignoring armor and shields like it does, and nigh useless against undead, and constructs. It doesn't need a buff.
It ignores armor and shields. ANything else still works perfectly against it.
If it 'ignored all non-living matter', then the problem takes care of itself.
You sheath it. The scabbard is non-living. The sword falls right through. The floor is non-living matter, the sword falls right through, and is gone forever into the depths of the world.
If you use TWDefense to get a shield bonus to AC, it ignores your weapons. If you parry, it works fine.
It ignores the shield spell and mage armor, both force effects, not matter, because they are shield and armor bonuses. It still can't penetrate a wall of force.
A skeleton wrapped around you providing you an armor bonus gives no benefit against the weapon. Undead wearing armor could still be attacked with the weapon to deliver touch spells. Even if the sword has elemental kickers like flaming, once put on a brilliant weapon, they can't hurt undead. If you use the 'ignore non-living' language, they can't set anything on fire unless it's alive.
As such,'Non-living matter' is flavor text. It has the mechanical ability it was given, and nothing else.
==Aelryinth
|
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.
Nor is, "A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter" just 'flavor text'. The idea that the blade would be non-existent to armor, shields, constructs, and other non-living creatures but completely solid to all other nonliving matter directly contradicts the description.
"A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, and objects."
Other weapons are objects. Ergo, a brilliant energy weapon cannot harm (e.g. sunder) other weapons... because it "ignores non-living matter"... like other weapons.
All that being said, the previous responses about non-blade parries are valid. Maybe impose a penalty for having fewer parry options than normal, but it would still be quite possible to parry an effectively incorporeal blade.
|
But when you play with definitions, sometimes you get burned:
"to defend yourself by turning or pushing aside (a punch, a weapon, etc.)"
"to ward off a weapon or blow"
"to evade or turn aside something"
Merriam-Webster
"to defend yourself from a weapon or an attack by pushing the weapon away or by putting something between your body and the weapon"
Cambridge
"to ward off (a thrust, stroke, weapon, etc.), as in fencing; avert."
Dictionary.com
So I can see it go either way, by nature of the word Parry.
Meh. I'd say the parry's allowed. As mentioned, there's still the non-brilliant parts of the weapon to deal with, and as someone else mentioned this also includes important parts of a weapon like the user's hand, fingers, and wrist. As far as a penalty to the attack, I'm not too keen on imposing one as it's not spelled out fully. My only reason for considering one is to make brilliant energy a little better, but that's influenced by seeing countless guides call it a waste of magic.
If you can parry a punch, you can parry a hilt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Nor is, "A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter" just 'flavor text'. The idea that the blade would be non-existent to armor, shields, constructs, and other non-living creatures but completely solid to all other nonliving matter directly contradicts the description.
"A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, and objects."
Other weapons are objects. Ergo, a brilliant energy weapon cannot harm (e.g. sunder) other weapons... because it "ignores non-living matter"... like other weapons.
All that being said, the previous responses about non-blade parries are valid. Maybe impose a penalty for having fewer parry options than normal, but it would still be quite possible to parry an effectively incorporeal blade.
Actually it would fall out of the scabbard, because you don't put the hilt or pommel into the scabbard for most swords.
For many weapons, the significant portion of the weapon might well be the entire weapon (i.e. a staff, a chain, a jo stick, shurikens are all weapon, etc etc.).
People seize on the 'ignores non-living matter' to declare the light of the blade actually passes through such stuff harmlessly...which is not the case. It simply does no damage to them. It does not mean Brilliant striking surfaces are incorporeal - it means they do no harm.
==Aelryinth
Meh. I'd say the parry's allowed. As mentioned, there's still the non-brilliant parts of the weapon to deal with, and as someone else mentioned this also includes important parts of a weapon like the user's hand, fingers, and wrist. As far as a penalty to the attack, I'm not too keen on imposing one as it's not spelled out fully. My only reason for considering one is to make brilliant energy a little better, but that's influenced by seeing countless guides call it a waste of magic.
If you can parry a punch, you can parry a hilt.
Brilliant isn't a waste of magic, it's got a very specific purpose.
It's the best PC and NPC killing enchantment in the game. Being able to ignore 20 pts of armor is ungodly strong.
Against monsters? Nigh on useless, oh so true.
That's why it being on a paladin's sword bond list is devastating. As an ELECTIVE option, it's like having 'Bane- Armor Wearers' at your beck and call.
==Aelryinth
That's why it being on a paladin's sword bond list is devastating. As an ELECTIVE option, it's like having 'Bane- Armor Wearers' at your beck and call.
==Aelryinth
And it is another reason to love the Occultist class. :)
Though they won't get it until 18th level. :(
You can't use it to hack through a wall at something on the other side, or stab somebody on the other side of a door. a tower shield being used to provide total cover is completely effective against it, because it's not an armor (shield) bonus.==Aelryinth
A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.
A Brilliant Energy weapon ignores non-living matter: full stop.
If a door or wall is made of non-living matter, a brilliant energy weapon will pass through them.Your target may have total concealment, but a Brilliant energy weapon will not be impeded by the intervening material.
That said; even touch attacks can be parried. The swashbuckler is good.
People seize on the 'ignores non-living matter' to declare the light of the blade actually passes through such stuff harmlessly...which is not the case. It simply does no damage to them. It does not mean Brilliant striking surfaces are incorporeal - it means they do no harm.
==Aelryinth
Ignore means exactly what it says: it pays no heed to nonliving matter. If nonliving matter was capable of stopping a brilliant energy weapon, that would mean the nonliving material was having a significant interaction: i.e., not being ignored.
I realize you really want the Brilliant Energy property to read as below, but this is not what RAW says.
And at any point in the description of that does it say a Brilliant weapon can pass through objects and total cover and harm things on the other side, which is the mechanical effect of what you are trying to argue, and a SIGNIFICANT one, wouldn't you say?
No, it does not. it's a fluff statement with no mechanics behind it.
The mechanics say it can't harm undead, constructs or objects. It doesn't say you can swing through them and hit something behind them. It says what it says.
It ignores armor and shield bonuses. It doesn't matter if they are created by real armor or a force effect...they are ignored. That's what the rules say.
Attempting to add more mechanical rules because of fluff text happens far too often. The rules give you what they give you, no more. A Tower Shield providing total cover works perfectly against a Brilliant weapon, and is useless if being used for shield AC.
==Aelryinth
No, the issue is interpreting flavor text as rules, and then inventing new rules to satisfy that interpretation which overpower the weapon.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I fail to see how ignoring all non-living material makes BE overpowered. If it's a sword, it has a total blade (significant portion) length of 1.5 to 3 feet for medium creatures. Exactly that much of the item can pass through a wall (for example), damaging any living matter it strikes. Since most dungeon maps show walls as 5' thick, the sword won't even pass entirely through the wall because the hilt/crosspiece/etc will stop once it makes contact with the wall. Even if the walls are only 6-8 inches thick, the weapon doesn't give the wielder any way to actually SEE what's on the other side of the wall.
And who's to say the target is within 2.5 feet or less of the wall anyway? These issues become even less problematic when applied to other weapons because of the extremely truncated "significant portions": Arrows = about 2 inches, spears = about 8 inches, polearms = about 12 inches. Things like quarterstaves and spiked chains could present a greater issue, but the wielder STILL has no way to actually see a target on the other side of a solid object.
The list of conditions that have to be met for a character to actually use a BE weapon against an opponent on the opposite side of a solid barrier are so specific, they will rarely come up in a game setting. And even if they do, unless the character scores a one-shot kill, it won't matter at all...because the opponent hit will simply back one square away from the barrier and stay completely out of range of any BE weapon the attacker cares to use.
Ok Aelryinth, how do you rationalize the fact that it can't harm objects with your view? (explicitly stated in the crunch)
|
|
I don't think you need to really rationalize it. It's magic. Magic that lets the sword strike true through the toughest of armor but also makes it unable to harm anything that isn't alive.
I mean, magic is sort of by definition something that can't be rationalized.
Fine... but it is still magic that, "ignores nonliving matter".
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 at any point in the description of that does it say a Brilliant weapon can pass through objects and total cover and harm things on the other side, which is the mechanical effect of what you are trying to argue, and a SIGNIFICANT one, wouldn't you say?
==Aelryinth
At what point does RAW say the dead condition renders you prone?
The rules cannot explicitly state every possible detail, they were written with the false assumption that people would apply common sense to rules interpretations.
What you ask for, an explicit list of every possible interaction and implication, would result in a book thousands of pages long. Not only would such a book be impractical, it would still fail to cover every possible occurrence. The legalese required for absolute precision in wording would be illegible to the vast majority of readers.
We know Brilliant Energy weapons ignore nonliving matter. Walls and doors are typically, but not always, nonliving. It is a very basic application of common sense/logic to conclude that if something is ignored, it does not stop the Brilliant Energy weapon from passing through.
And at any point in the description of that does it say a Brilliant weapon can pass through objects and total cover and harm things on the other side, which is the mechanical effect of what you are trying to argue, and a SIGNIFICANT one, wouldn't you say?
==AelryinthAt what point does RAW say the dead condition renders you prone?
The rules cannot explicitly state every possible detail, they were written with the false assumption that people would apply common sense to rules interpretations.
What you ask for, an explicit list of every possible interaction and implication, would result in a book thousands of pages long. Not only would such a book be impractical, it would still fail to cover every possible occurrence. The legalese required for absolute precision in wording would be illegible to the vast majority of readers.
We know Brilliant Energy weapons ignore nonliving matter. Walls and doors are typically, but not always, nonliving. It is a very basic application of common sense/logic to conclude that if something is ignored, it does not stop the Brilliant Energy weapon from passing through.
No, the issue is interpreting flavor text as rules, and then inventing new rules to satisfy that interpretation which overpower the weapon.
==Aelryinth
It can be very convenient to label one sentence in the middle of a paragraph as fluff while retaining the sentences on either side as RAW.
Can we apply this technique anywhere we want, with any rule we happen to disagree with? Are there guidelines for when we can and cannot do this? Or is this a special exception we should all make?
I don't think you need to really rationalize it. It's magic. Magic that lets the sword strike true through the toughest of armor but also makes it unable to harm anything that isn't alive.
I mean, magic is sort of by definition something that can't be rationalized.
Fine... but it is still magic that, "ignores nonliving matter".
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.
Parrying does not necessitate blade-on-blade contact. There have been plenty of examples given where this is not the case in Pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
'ignores' does not mean 'passes through'. It means it ignores it. The mechanical text says 'it does no harm to it'. Not that it passes through it.
Maybe the blade of light is like a flashlight beam, and simply trails along the surface.
Maybe it bends around and through it.
Maybe 'armor' isn't thick enough to stop it, but 'cover' of any kind is.
Maybe there's a magical difference between armor and shield bonuses, and normal obstructions. Remember, it ignores non-living matter. Mage Armor and shields are force effects...they are not 'normal matter' by any stretch of the imagination. Brilliant Energy still ignores them because it ignores armor and shield bonuses, NOT matter that grants armor and shield bonuses.
it's magic. It doesn't have to make sense. It merely has to do what the mechanics say it does.
And not dealing damage to objects is what it does. Not 'passes through harmlessly', which opens up all kinds of worms.
And yes, being dead also doesn't mean you can't get up and start attacking again, because they didn't bother to define what being 'dead' is, because people know what being dead is.
But 'ignoring non-living matter' has to be fluff, because it can be interpreted in many ways, and the very mechanics of the brilliant effect do NOT match that statement. Furthermore, the blade would ignore cover and total cover, things which are specifically called out elsewhere in the rules, and it does NO such thing. 'Ignoring matter' is neither self-defining nor matching what Brilliant does, and so does not make an argument.
Brilliant does what it says it does, and not a jot more. That's what the rules do for you. Reading extra abilities into the weapon because of a statement with no attached rules is NOT what is happening here.
==Aelryinth
'ignores' does not mean 'passes through'. It means it ignores it. The mechanical text says 'it does no harm to it'. Not that it passes through it.==Aelryinth
A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.
Rules Text stating basic property of Brilliant Every weapons.
Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor.
The following sentence does not modify the original statement; it clarifies a specific interaction.
Aaaaand so where is clarification that it ignores cover and total cover? You know, because it would pass through cover, as well.
Not there? Despite there being other instances of cover being ignored and specifically called out?
aaaaaand where does your 'clarification' have ANYTHING to do with Mage Armor and Shield, which are NOT nonliving matter?
Are you saying both suddenly provide full protection against Brilliant weapons, now? Which is clearly against the fact it ignores armor and shield bonuses?
Yes? No? Oh, you're just weighing down on the undefined effect you like, because 'the rules don't say you can't do this', which is like the worst argument for rules there is.
You're using flavor text to justify a mechanical change that is in direct conflict with the mechanics of the ability as defined. Selectively ignoring the contradictions isn't going to make your point.
i.e. if they ignore armor and shield bonuses because they ignore non-living matter, they would also ignore cover bonuses provided by non-living matter.
They also would NOT ignore force effects, and so you'd get your Bracers of armor and Shield spells and mage armor against them.
But the rules make no such distinction of what and where the armor and shield bonuses come from, cover bonuses are never cited, and that whole justification for new abilities just goes down the tubes from inherent self-contradiction.
===Aelryinth
Aaaaand so where is clarification that it ignores cover and total cover? You know, because it would pass through cover, as well.
===Aelryinth
Not all cover is nonliving, e.g., attacking an opponent with a reach weapon while an ally/opponent is in the way.
aaaaaand where does your 'clarification' have ANYTHING to do with Mage Armor and Shield, which are NOT nonliving matter?
Are you saying both suddenly provide full protection against Brilliant weapons, now? Which is clearly against the fact it ignores armor and shield bonuses?
Your argument, not mine. I've not touched on the subject of force effects, but they are obviously nonliving.
You're using flavor text to justify a mechanical change that is in direct conflict with the mechanics of the ability as defined.
You are taking a single RAW sentence, in the middle of a paragraph, and attempting to dismiss it by claiming it is fluff instead of RAW. You cannot simply dismiss RAW you personally disagree with in such a manner.
He's not trying to sunder the BE blade, so what difference does it make?
He parrying it. Allowed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'ignores' does not mean 'passes through'. It means it ignores it. The mechanical text says 'it does no harm to it'. Not that it passes through it.==AelryinthA brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.Rules Text stating basic property of Brilliant Every weapons.
Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor.The following sentence does not modify the original statement; it clarifies a specific interaction.
See, I agree that's the problem-too many players read that description and they immediately picture a lightsaber.
*Brilliant Energy
*passes through Armor
*ignores non living matter
Ignores is the big factor here, and heres an example why:
Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20 (see Additional Rules).
Players read that block of text and immediately think of Wolverine and his Adamantium claws that slice through almost anything. How does Adamantine ignore hardness less than 20? It slices straight through it.
Players overlay their interpretation of one as the default interpretation of the other. They read the flavor text, imagine a sword of light, see the word ignore, read that it's a +4 enhancement near the bottom of the list, automatically assume due to that fact that it must be one of the most powerful enchantments in the game, and arrive at the Lightsaber conclusion.
Aaaaand so where is clarification that it ignores cover and total cover? You know, because it would pass through cover, as well.
===AelryinthNot all cover is nonliving, e.g., attacking an opponent with a reach weapon while an ally/opponent is in the way.
aaaaaand where does your 'clarification' have ANYTHING to do with Mage Armor and Shield, which are NOT nonliving matter?
Are you saying both suddenly provide full protection against Brilliant weapons, now? Which is clearly against the fact it ignores armor and shield bonuses?
Your argument, not mine. I've not touched on the subject of force effects, but they are obviously nonliving.
You're using flavor text to justify a mechanical change that is in direct conflict with the mechanics of the ability as defined.You are taking a single RAW sentence, in the middle of a paragraph, and attempting to dismiss it by claiming it is fluff instead of RAW. You cannot simply dismiss RAW you personally disagree with in such a manner.
Uh, huh. Way to go with the selective vision/quoting route.
So, I notice you didn't quote where I asked where the language was that it ignored cover and total cover from non-living matter. I guess it must have been too logical, and such an outright impossibility to justify, that you decided to just try to not remind people of it.
Force effects are not 'matter'. If you try to argue that they are, I am seriously going to LAUGH at you. They ARE shield and Weapon bonuses. But if your 'logical justification' is true, they are NOT ignored by Brilliant energy.
But the Text of the ability, the RAW, says that armor and shield bonuses are ignored, and does NOT mention non-living matter. You are now in contradiction of the defined abilities of the weapon.
I am taking a single FAW sentence, and noting that it is fluff, not a rule. You cannot simply declare Fluff to define new rules because you like the fluff so much, and declare it to be RAW because of that.
See how that argument turns around on you like that?
Because unlike your arguments, I can point to the rules and say this is what Brilliant does...it is defined RIGHT THERE.
And what YOUR 'RULE' does, is invalidate part of the RAW that are defined, and open up cans of worms for cover and force effects, that ARE NOT IN THE RULES and not defined for this effect. You are making things up to justify new rules based on fluff, and I'm calling you on it.
You don't have an argument. You have a 'wish list' that does not work, an attempt to make 'logical justification' into a set of non-existent rules from a fluff statement.
==Aelryinth
|
|
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?
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.
Ummm... no.
Ruling that you cannot block or sunder a brilliant energy blade with a metal blade is not rewriting anything. Nor is allowing one to stab through walls. Those things do not contradict the description of the property in any way. Indeed, they are simply logical extensions of the brilliant energy description.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ignores non-living matter is not DEFINED. What exactly does this ability do?
It doesn't say. It's just thrown out there. It's fluff.
What Brilliant energy DOES is ignore armor and shield bonuses, and cannot harm undead, constructs and objects. That's it. Anything else is an add-on.
that's it. That's the hard mechanics. Anything else is undefined, and a 'the rules didn't say I can't do this, so I can!' justification.
Logic has nothing to do it. WIggling your fingers and muttering something so a ball of fire explodes four hundred yards away is not logical, either.
If you try to take it as a rule, and start making up OTHER rules, it contradicts that rules that are already there, AND forces you to add in other rules that are powerful enough that they are quoted elsewhere when they apply...but obviously aren't, here.
'Able to stab people on the other side of walls'. Not worth noting in the weapon descrip?
'Ignores cover bonuses from non-living matter.' Also not worth mentioning?
'Can't be kept in a normal scabbard because it would fall right through it.' Also not worth mentioning?
'Can't be parried or sundered.' Definitely not worth mentioning?
'Is still stopped by force effects that grant shield and armor bonuses.' Since it contradicts written rules, that might be important to mention.
Yeah, I don't think so. Brilliant is a hugely powerful effect...against PC's. It doesn't need to be made any stronger.
==Aelryinth
It ignores the bonuses provided by them.
What do i win?
How is irrelevant, frankly.
The problem with fluff as mechanics:
A significant portion of the weapon is transformed into light. [sarc]FULL STOP![/sarc]
Light can't shine through armor, walls, etc. so, in fact, this weapon does absolutely nothing, except act as a torch.
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?
(crickets) I mean, I can personally think of at least ten variations on 'how to cast a fireball', but it doesn't meant anything, because the process is not defined. If it was defined...you'd be taking the definition and running with it to allow this and that and other things.
its magic. That is how it works. Full stop. No different then a spell.
No one is saying it is blocked by force effects - EXCEPT if you say the reason it works is that it ignores non-living matter. Force effects are NOT non-living matter.
So there would be a contradiction the other side is valiantly trying to ignore so they can stab through walls.
The only form of living cover is shooting into combat. All other cover is non-living...like hiding behind a wall, a pillar...or a tower shield.
And yeah, you could throw a shuriken through them, but not an arrow. A staff, but not a spear. A chain or whip, but not a flail.
See where logic gets you? now you have to make up yet MORE rules based on the weapon type, because of the silly assertion on how the ability 'works'.
It doesn't 'work' that way. It does what it does, full stop. That's it. The flavor text is flavor, not how it works.
===Aelryinth
I'm starting to think this might be FAQ-worthy...