| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its apparently equivalent to a +4 weapon bonus I which is hugely expensive (48,000 gold at a minimum on a +1 weapon). Yes, the weapon ignores armor and shield bonuses which means that it is particularly effective against humanoids and a very few others, but grants no benefit against the vast majority of foes you might meet and is actually useless against undead and constructs... so you have a weapon that's very effective against maybe 25% of the foes you fight, grants no benefit whatsoever against maybe 60% of the foes you fight and is rendered useless against maybe 15% of your opponents (%'s are mine). How is that better than Speed or even Keen for that matter?
I've mitigated it somewhat by making it something you can 'activate' as a swift action until the beginning of your next turn, but it still seems vastly overvalued to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're forgetting the Cool Factor.
Against most humanoid enemies, it's basically targetting touch AC.
Maybe it's not supposed to be good for every dungeon crawl, but designed for urban campaigns? The same is true for language dependant effects, mind-affecting effects, nonlethal damage, and probably more that I'm missing.
Against most humanoid enemies, it's basically targetting touch AC.
So... it's like a gunslinger with less range and even more expensive than that insanely costly stuff?
EDIT: And only functions for certain creature types?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've mitigated it somewhat by making it something you can 'activate' as a swift action until the beginning of your next turn, but it still seems vastly overvalued to me.
You may already have thought of this, but that mitigation is a lot stronger on classes loaded with swift actions like inquisitors, monks, and warpriests.
If I may offer another mitigation suggestion, put a cap on how much magical armor it can pass through, like making it through 5 armor AC total, or saying it goes through all armor except the enhancement bonus. That way you preserve an in-world explanation (magic armor is magic) and still reduce the power against humanoids.
Because in campaigns were your enemies are primarily humanoid (of which there are a lot) the Brilliant Energy enhancement is incredibly powerful.
Yes, it's only good under a certain set of conditions, but when those conditions are met it's amazingly good.
Would I ever purchase one no? Because the drawbacks are just strong enough to make it not worth it. If it were a +2 enhancement equivalent cost, yeah I'd probably have every weapon be brilliant energy.
It shouldn't be so good that it's a no brainer to decide to purchase the special ability over the straight enhancement bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've mitigated it somewhat by making it something you can 'activate' as a swift action until the beginning of your next turn, but it still seems vastly overvalued to me.You may already have thought of this, but that mitigation is a lot stronger on classes loaded with swift actions like inquisitors, monks, and warpriests.
If I may offer another mitigation suggestion, put a cap on how much magical armor it can pass through, like making it through 5 armor AC total, or saying it goes through all armor except the enhancement bonus. That way you preserve an in-world explanation (magic armor is magic) and still reduce the power against humanoids.
He's not trying to mitigate its effectiveness, he's trying to mitigate its ineffectiveness against undead and constructs. But making you spend action economy against vulnerable foes in order to maintain useability against otherwise immune foes doesn't strike me as a great trade.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would we want to make it even worse?
If I may offer another mitigation suggestion, put a cap on how much magical armor it can pass through, like making it through 5 armor AC total, or saying it goes through all armor except the enhancement bonus. That way you preserve an in-world explanation (magic armor is magic) and still reduce the power against humanoids.
I didn't put down every possibility. The main problem is the mitigation actually nerfs it further for some classes.
My suggestion would go best with a reduction in +X cost, or by letting you activate/deactivate as a free action.
Don't mind me though. To be honest, I don't think many of the weapon properties are priced well to begin with. Speed, for example, is really nice in a party with no haste and no boots of speed. But since every campaign I've ever GM'd or played in had haste, it's just a big waste of money.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't mind me though. To be honest, I don't think many of the weapon properties are priced well to begin with. Speed, for example, is really nice in a party with no haste and no boots of speed. But since every campaign I've ever GM'd or played in had haste, it's just a big waste of money.
Well, that's actually a design decision, and an intelligent one at that. One prices magic items assuming near-optimal conditions for use (which is why an AoMF is so expensive, because they assume it will be used, not by a wizard, but by a druid who is wildshaped into something with a million natural attacks).
So back to the question, does anybody have any idea why something that grants no benefits against 65% of the foes you face and is absolutely useless against another 10-20% is so freaking expensive?
So back to the question, does anybody have any idea why something that grants no benefits against 65% of the foes you face and is absolutely useless against another 10-20% is so freaking expensive?
Because it's priced assuming near-optimal conditions for use, and if it were cheap enough, it would be a must-have backup weapon.
It makes your weapon a touch attack weapon. Basically a lightsaber. It ignores armour bonuses which for some enemies can be a +9 to their AC you just completely mooted. If it's a +4 at base and it ignores +9 of their AC it's basically adding a +13 to your attack potential. Sounds expensive to me! Of course you don't want to use this weapon in some settings; for example
Temple of the constructed undead - Do not use this weapon type.
Dungeon of the heavily armoured humanoid. aberration and magical beasts - Use this weapon type.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So back to the question, does anybody have any idea why something that grants no benefits against 65% of the foes you face and is absolutely useless against another 10-20% is so freaking expensive?
Those numbers will vary from one campaign to the next. In some campaigns it could be upwards of 80% of enemies that are severely affected by this weapon enhancement and have their defenses gutted.
Setting that aside, this is really a 3.5 hold-over. It was a +4 equivalent in 3.5, and this was maintained in Pathfinder. It'd be only one of many things whose power was over-estimated, and I really wouldn't think too much of it in that respect.
Pathfinder does add one important wrinkle, however. The Paladin can spontaneously add the Brilliant Energy enhancement to her weapon starting at 14th level. This completely bypasses the situational nature of the enhancement and allows Paladins to apply it only when it's desirable and gain other enhancements when it's not. This does make it tricky to make an argument on it being situational, since for Paladins they can use it selectively and use a different enhancement otherwise.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So back to the question, does anybody have any idea why something that grants no benefits against 65% of the foes you face and is absolutely useless against another 10-20% is so freaking expensive?
Because the original design of the enchantment was to make fighters incredibly powerful against armored foes, which was the intended foes for fighters in the design space of the time. Since those were the designated foes, the percentage of fights that benefit from it was much, much higher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So back to the question, does anybody have any idea why something that grants no benefits against 65% of the foes you face and is absolutely useless against another 10-20% is so freaking expensive?
I'm going to assume that you're essentially making those percentages up. The enchantment is absolutely devastating against anything living that wears armor, which is essentially most martial characters, and almost all magi. You laugh at folks wearing enchanted platemail. Unless you are running in a campaign that is absolutely devoid of such foes, the enchantment is pure gold.
Unless it's a found item, no one is twisting your arm to buy it.
A +1 brilliant energy weapon gives a bonus to attacks against certain opponents, but a +5 weapon gives a bonus to attack *all* opponents.
A +8 to hit folks in plate mail is great, but the question isn't "does brilliant energy do something useful", the question is whether brilliant energy is worth giving up a +4 to hit and damage, a +3 and keen, a +2 keen and bane, or whatever else. I think the answer has to be "no".
Brilliant energy is a gamble, a +20 to hit someone with +5 full plate and a +5 shield is great, seeing your 50,000gp weapon become useless vs. undead is terrible. That is way too random for me. If I'm investing in my main weapon (and at 50,000gp minimum I am) I need something that is going to be consistently useful, not devastating against some things, terrible against other things, and suicidal against others.
I'd much rather have a +5 weapon than a +1 brilliant one.
Tell me again when the brilliant energy weapon is essentially wiping out a 13 armor bonus or more. Especially in the hands of a medium BAB character who relies more on carrier effects than direct plus damage.
But anyone who wants to rely on ONE weapon for all occasions is asking for it.
Brilliant energy is a gamble, a +20 to hit someone with +5 full plate and a +5 shield is great, seeing your 50,000gp weapon become useless vs. undead is terrible. That is way too random for me.
Not ever campaign has undead. If you are playing Campaign of the Living Dead, skip it. If you are reenacting the crusades, pick it up.
Also, although not planned back then, there are multiple classes that can temporary add enchantments to their weapons: Paladin (bonded item), Warpriest, Magus (Card Caster archetype or Ghost Blade arcana), and Fighter, Myrmidarch Magus, Sohei Monk and everyone via VMC Fighter (Warrior Spirit AWT). For those, Brilliant Energy can be a very strong choice!
I'd much rather have a +5 weapon than a +1 brilliant one.
That's true for most weapon enchantments with +x bonus as cost. Keen is almost never worth it (it's equivalent to a feat, where +1 to attack and damage is worth 1.5 feats - and that's without counting the DR penetration). Speed is generally worse than Boots of Speed, and both are useless if you have someone casting Haste (which can easily be an improved familiar with a wand). The bonus-damage-on-crit enchantments are completely undervalued. Bane, Holy are useless against many enemies.
Because it's a situational +10 or so to hit.
Because it's a property that encounters must be GM'd around.
Because it can negate its cost in common opponent's gear.
Because it would be problematic if it were available earlier.
Because it's too much martial hate to be affordable.
Because it's a situational +10 or so to hit.Slightly disingenuous because it ignores what you're losing by comparison. +10 to hit really ends up being +6 to hit -4 to damage comparatively over a +5 weapon, or +4 to hit -2d6+6 to damage compared to a +4 bane weapon and +10 is very much toward the high side of armor bonuses, so this is close to best case scenario for brilliant energy.
Against enemies with more normal armor the numbers quickly become even less impressive, to the point where BE is actually a strict downgrade against lighter armors.
+10 shield and armor together is easy enough to hit, and that's why I listed it as "situational", but I agree that might be too situational to use as the operating number. Since the question is "why is this expensive", it wouldn't make sense to list the benefit minus the opportunity cost- the price is based on the benefit. Since damage is generally two per point of attack, it works out equal to the extra +4 enhancement against combined armor and shield of +6. That's a breastplate, or chain mail plus a shield, or light armor with a little enhancement. Break even vs. best non-magical medium, win against heavy, and lose against light. Lose against unarmored, undead, construct, or DR-heavy creatures, but win against anybody with magical medium or heavy armor, plus most armor-with-shield combos. If it were a +3 bonus, it would be too good, since it would be better for most medium armor on top of all heavy armor. Human-bane is an unreasonably good deal, yes, so probably a bad comparison point.
In addition, there are ways to get this without buying it. +3 would be too cheap when compared to most non-enchancement bonuses (again, Bane is a really good deal, and probably bad for use in comparison).
Brilliant energy can be amazing when you can do it on the fly (paladin, warpriest, magus with ghost blade arcana, etc.)
For what it does under optimal circumstances it earns its +4 cost, but it's ultimately a badly written ability.
(Brilliant energy just cutting natural armor, armor, and shield bonuses in half might be a better compromise?)
|
Because it's a situational +10 or so to hit.Slightly disingenuous because it ignores what you're losing by comparison. +10 to hit really ends up being +6 to hit -4 to damage comparatively over a +5 weapon, or +4 to hit -2d6+6 to damage compared to a +4 bane weapon and +10 is very much toward the high side of armor bonuses, so this is close to best case scenario for brilliant energy.
Against enemies with more normal armor the numbers quickly become even less impressive, to the point where BE is actually a strict downgrade against lighter armors.
+10 shield and armor together is easy enough to hit, and that's why I listed it as "situational", but I agree that might be too situational to use as the operating number. Since the question is "why is this expensive", it wouldn't make sense to list the benefit minus the opportunity cost- the price is based on the benefit. Since damage is generally two per point of attack, it works out equal to the extra +4 enhancement against combined armor and shield of +6. That's a breastplate, or chain mail plus a shield, or light armor with a little enhancement. Break even vs. best non-magical medium, win against heavy, and lose against light. Lose against unarmored, undead, construct, or DR-heavy creatures, but win against anybody with magical medium or heavy armor, plus most armor-with-shield combos. If it were a +3 bonus, it would be too good, since it would be better for most medium armor on top of all heavy armor. Human-bane is an unreasonably good deal, yes, so probably a bad comparison point.
In addition, there are ways to get this without buying it. +3 would be too cheap when compared to most non-enchancement bonuses (again, Bane is a really good deal, and probably bad for use in comparison).
#1 way a being gains AC in the bestiaries is natural armor... which brilliant energy does nothing against. Spirit based things tend to get deflection bonuses, which brilliant energy does nothing against. Plenty of things are undead or constructs. If the total AC from armor and shield does not break 4, then you've lost damage and have not gain to hit from an equally priced weapon.
Honestly, brilliant weapon is only, and I mean only, strictly better than any other choice when you are fighting something with massive armor or shield AC. Which pretty much just means humanoids(including giants here) and a very few outsiders.
Let us also not forget that the weapon is no longer made of metal and will not be able to bypass any DR based on weapon material.
Creatures AC(CR 15+) vs Brilliant Weapon difference from +4 weapon
(All undead, ineffective)
(All constructs, ineffective)
CR 15 Fire Yai Oni, AC 29, touch 10, flat-footed 28 (+8 armor, +1 Dex, +11 natural, -1 size)
+4 to hit, -4 damage. Creature can gain +4 natural armor by shifting into a giant form.
CR 15 Very Old Black Dragon, AC 35, touch 8, flat-footed 35 (+27 natural, -2 size)
-4 to hit
CR 15 Crucidaemon, AC 29, touch 16, flat-footed 23 (+5 Dex, +1 dodge, +13 natural)
-4 damage
CR 16 Wind Yai, AC 31, touch 11, flat-footed 28 (+4 armor, +3 Dex, +16 natural, –2 size)
-4 damage
CR 21 Elysian Titan, AC 37, touch 5, flat-footed 34 (+9 armor, +3 Dex, +23 natural, –8 size)
Gains +5 to hit, -4 damage
Basically, if you know you'll never need to fight animals, dragons, aberrations, outsiders, constructs, fey, magical beasts, oozes, plants, undead or vermin... then hey, brilliant weapon will be useful some of the time!
At that point, though... if you're fighting only humanoids in your campaign you're probably fighting only one kind. A +3 bane weapon would probably be considered superior due to the extra damage.
Or the same price of a brilliant energy weapon buys you 4 +1 bane weapons.
Brilliant energy not necessarily competes with +4 enhancement - if you have options like Greater Magic Weapon at hand. Then you can have both, and the question is rather: Is brilliant energy better than a given combination of other non-enhancement bonuses, worth +4 altogether?
EDIT: Just noticed the GMW spell has the limitation of not bypassing DR beyond magic, making the decision even a bit more complex.
A 10 gp cold iron morningstar is an acceptable backup weapon against almost any undead.