Anyone know if RAW the brilliant energy effect makes the disruption effect nullified?
Similarly, if (for example) brilliant energy and flaming are both active at the same time, is the flaming part incapable of affecting objects?
Further, what about brilliant energy and a slaying arrow?
I was uncertain on this point, as it could be argued either way.
Also, I'm aware this is a PF 1e rules forum, but I'm also curious if and how the answer changes between 3e and 3.5e or similar rules sets.
I realized I should clarify, since nothing particularly changes if dealing with living creautres.
What I meant was, let's presume it's a slaying arrow of undead or constructs. Normally, the slaying arrow property bypasses the typical immunities of those creatures (specifically in regards to fortitude saves), which was the source of the question.
Similarly, a flaming whatever thrust into, let's say, a box. Does the fire damage simply ignore the box, or does the "weapon" damage ignore the box, but the flames affect it as normal?
EDIT: mild word choice for clarity; and again to add a third example; and again, when I realized several of the questions weren't clear as to why I was even asking them! Whooooooooooops!
Also, I should ask about RAI and opinions on balance, too, as well as RAW!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Linking them for easy reference:
Brilliant energy
Flaming
Disruption
Slaying
Brilliant energy looks like it can't score a hit on undead or boxes or whatever. That should stop flaming or disruption working and makes a brilliant energy disruption mace one of the most pointless items that could exist. Slaying allows Fort save effects to work but doesn't seem to change the fact that a brilliant energy slaying arrow won't hit an undead creature.
If someone in a game I ran had a brilliant energy bow and an undead slaying arrow I might let them work together, but that doesn't look like it works RAW. I have no evidence it was ever considered for RAI.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the flaming enchantment would still do damage, but it would just be the 1d6 fire damage.
Nope, brilliant energy weapons cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects... period... it doesn’t simply negate the base weapon damage, it prevents the weapon from harming them at all.
Brilliant energy looks like it can't score a hit on undead or boxes or whatever.This is an interesting line. Because it ignores non-living matter, and cannot harm undead, but it doesn't outright say it cannot hit undead. I wonder, if you had an ability that functioned on hits or even crits, could it proc, even if you weren't able to damage your foe.
Like could a swashbuckler with a brilliant energy rapier regain panache from critting an undead they can't harm.
That... is a line of thought I hadn’t considered. Interesting!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flaming and Disruption are contingent upon a successful hit, and Brilliant Energy = cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects, and therefore is not a successful hit.
This is an interesting line. Because it ignores non-living matter, and cannot harm undead, but it doesn't outright say it cannot hit undead.
I think a strict RAW reading you may be right, but this is a massive leap away from RAI.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flaming and Disruption are contingent upon a successful hit, and Brilliant Energy = cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects, and therefore is not a successful hit.
I think a strict RAW reading you may be right, but this is a massive leap away from RAI.
This is an interesting line. Because it ignores non-living matter, and cannot harm undead, but it doesn't outright say it cannot hit undead.
Didn't we actually have an FAQ about hit/miss/other because of the ability to cause an attack to deflect and deal no damage from Snake Style (before errata?).
So I think there is room to make an argument that cannot harm doesn't mean cannot hit.
Of course, that only makes the parsing of the rules here more complicated. Not less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flaming and Disruption are contingent upon a successful hit, and Brilliant Energy = cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects, and therefore is not a successful hit.
I think a strict RAW reading you may be right, but this is a massive leap away from RAI.
This is an interesting line. Because it ignores non-living matter, and cannot harm undead, but it doesn't outright say it cannot hit undead.
Didn't we actually have an FAQ about hit/miss/other because of the ability to cause an attack to deflect and deal no damage from Snake Style (before errata?).
So I think there is room to make an argument that cannot harm doesn't mean cannot hit.
Of course, that only makes the parsing of the rules here more complicated. Not less.
I would probably treat this similar to the rules for causing no damage due to DR/-. If you hit but DR/- causes the hit to be 0 damage, then any extra effects from the hit (such as poison, Stunning Fist, etc.) don't apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably treat this similar to the rules for causing no damage due to DR/-. If you hit but DR/- causes the hit to be 0 damage, then any extra effects from the hit (such as poison, Stunning Fist, etc.) don't apply.Flaming and Disruption are contingent upon a successful hit, and Brilliant Energy = cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects, and therefore is not a successful hit.
I think a strict RAW reading you may be right, but this is a massive leap away from RAI.
This is an interesting line. Because it ignores non-living matter, and cannot harm undead, but it doesn't outright say it cannot hit undead.
Didn't we actually have an FAQ about hit/miss/other because of the ability to cause an attack to deflect and deal no damage from Snake Style (before errata?).
So I think there is room to make an argument that cannot harm doesn't mean cannot hit.
Of course, that only makes the parsing of the rules here more complicated. Not less.
I agree with that part, but it could matter for stuff like regaining panache on a crit. Possibly other sorts of things.
I absolutely agree you're not going to deal any damage to an undead with a brilliant energy weapon, regardless of what magical enhancements it has on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd allow flaming to stack with brilliant energy. I mean it does damage even if the rest of the weapon does not (for DR as an example); the blade passes clean through the object, the fire however, does not.
I'd probably allow Disruptive too because it's such a trash special ability, the DC is so low that by the time you can add this to a brilliant energy weapon, what are you actually ever going to disrupt?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably treat this similar to the rules for causing no damage due to DR/-. If you hit but DR/- causes the hit to be 0 damage, then any extra effects from the hit (such as poison, Stunning Fist, etc.) don't apply.Flaming and Disruption are contingent upon a successful hit, and Brilliant Energy = cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects, and therefore is not a successful hit.
I think a strict RAW reading you may be right, but this is a massive leap away from RAI.
This is an interesting line. Because it ignores non-living matter, and cannot harm undead, but it doesn't outright say it cannot hit undead.
Didn't we actually have an FAQ about hit/miss/other because of the ability to cause an attack to deflect and deal no damage from Snake Style (before errata?).
So I think there is room to make an argument that cannot harm doesn't mean cannot hit.
Of course, that only makes the parsing of the rules here more complicated. Not less.
I agree with that part, but it could matter for stuff like regaining panache on a crit. Possibly other sorts of things.
I absolutely agree you're not going to deal any damage to an undead with a brilliant energy weapon, regardless of what magical enhancements it has on it.
I think the mechanical intent of regaining Panache/Grit/Luck via rolling a 20 and confirming it is a "doing something awesome during the adrenaline of combat" thing, because you don't regain Panache/Grit/Luck vs. helpless or unaware combatants, nor vs. targets with 1/2 HD as you. It's supposed to be a "High Flair"-style "AHA My Worthy Adversary! I struck you with all strikey-ness! Now die fiend!" sort of thing. So, I would probably consider scoring a critical hit that causes 0 damage = not an "adrenaline of combat" thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That... is a line of thought I hadn’t considered. Interesting!Brilliant energy looks like it can't score a hit on undead or boxes or whatever.This is an interesting line. Because it ignores non-living matter, and cannot harm undead, but it doesn't outright say it cannot hit undead. I wonder, if you had an ability that functioned on hits or even crits, could it proc, even if you weren't able to damage your foe.
Like could a swashbuckler with a brilliant energy rapier regain panache from critting an undead they can't harm.
Swashbuckler with an undead party member and his brilliant energy rapier of panache restoring.
As several have already noted, the inability to do damage isn't the same as unable to hit. A brilliant weapon can hit an undead. It just deals no weapon damage. (Think of the undead as having infinite DR).
Now add flaming to the weapon. A brilliant, flaming weapon can also hit an undead. The weapon does no weapon damage. The flaming is not part of the weapon damage. It is its own separate damage of type energy (fire).
The ability to crit (or not) is unaffected. A brilliant flaming burst weapon could still crit to trigger the burst against the undead. Again the weapon damage would be 0, and the flaming burst would do its normal damage. This also means you could regain panache (though a GM would certainly be within their rights to nerf this if the party included an undead). Just like my gnome might crit with my 1d3-1 dagger to roll double damage against a creature with DR 10/-. I still crit. My damage roll still does not bypass DR. Regaining panache, as written, makes no statement about whether damage was actually done or not, but only requires that I confirmed.
Slaying is a little more unclear to me
This +1 arrow is keyed to a particular type or subtype of creature. If it strikes such a creature, the target must succeed at a DC 20 Fortitude save or take 50 points of damage. Note that even creatures normally exempt from Fortitude saves (undead and constructs) are subject to this attack. When keyed to a living creature, this is a death effect (and thus death ward protects a target).
It is unclear if that is 50 points of additional weapon damage. If it is, then no damage to the undead. Or if it is a bonus damage like flaming (though untyped in this case), in which case it still applies. I personally think it is the latter, that it is not a rider effect on dealing damage with the weapon.
Note that things like poison require the weapon to actually apply damage (get through DR, etc) to apply. But flaming and similar enchants only require a hit, regardless of DR and/or immunity to the specific type of weapon damage (S/P/B). eg, a flaming weapon may or may not deal one of the physical damage types against DR, and the flaming part will or will not deal damage based on a creatures fire reistnace. The two are independent of each other, but both depend on a successful hit.
I think that's blatant abuse of the rules to give a Brilliant Energy Weapon to a Swashbuckler, get an Undead/Construct for a party member (or hireling), and then use out of combat Criticals to have a never ending source of Panache.
I think that's blatant abuse of the rules to give a Brilliant Energy Weapon to a Swashbuckler, get an Undead/Construct for a party member (or hireling), and then use out of combat Criticals to have a never ending source of Panache.
Fully agree. Though if you have undead/construct PCs you are pretty far off the beaten path for normal games (not that it doesn't happen, its just not common over the total sum of games). Personally, the restriction on regaining panache not working on targets below half your HD, helpless, or unaware creatures should probably also include willing creatures (including creatures who could claim they are unwilling, yet knowing full well they could not be harmed by the attack).
Question.
What if I have brilliant energy, ghost touch, and disruption and seek out an incorporeal undead?
Again, looking for RAW, RAI, Opinions on Balance, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ghost touch negates the effect of incorporeal. Proceed from there as you would otherwise.
"Cannot harm undead." - RAW.Question.
What if I have brilliant energy, ghost touch, and disruption and seek out an incorporeal undead?
Again, looking for RAW, RAI, Opinions on Balance, etc.
Which is a very fascinating way to read it.
Is that a descriptive or proscriptive?
In other words, does a brilliant energy weapon not harm undead because it ignores non-living matter (and the brilliant energy feature doesn't apply to corporeal creatures), or does it not harm undead because brilliant energy sucks as a +4 cost that also comes with an additional downside?
Ghost touch negates the effect of incorporeal. Proceed from there as you would otherwise.
Accurate! ... although one of the reasons I value feedback from others is because, "do what you want" gives no sense of the community's general perception of how the game is supposed to work, nor any sort of reasoning why from which I could choose to agree or deviate.
Ghost touch in particular states,
A ghost touch weapon deals damage normally against incorporeal creatures, regardless of its bonus. An incorporeal creature’s 50% reduction in damage from corporeal sources does not apply to attacks made against it with ghost touch weapons. The weapon can be picked up and moved by an incorporeal creature at any time. A manifesting ghost can wield the weapon against corporeal foes. Essentially, a ghost touch weapon counts as both corporeal or incorporeal. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons and ammunition.
Now, brilliant energy says that it can't harm undead, and people are reading that as a proscriptive element of the bonus. But if so, how does that interact with the equally validly proscriptive, "deals damage normally against incorporeal creatures, regardless of its bonus" text?
Now, I'm one to figure that interpreting ghost touch in that manner "feels" somewhat odd (), but so does leveling the extremely specific limitation against harming undead found within brilliant energy, which seems to exist because it "ignores nonliving matter" - which is more clear, I feel, in the older 3.X version, but that's likely nostalgia; and while the older version isn't PF, it's useful to have an understanding of where the system came from in making the decisions for determining how things interact (even if only to acknowledge the system has diverted from that original text; ).
That's why I'm bringing this to the community. I can just give myself an answer, but I'm not interested in just being one voice, because it could well be a problem of understanding in my case, and I want to know or see why.
It deals it's normal damage which against an undead is none.
Is that "normal"?
EDIT: Again, it's not a wrong take, but it's a proscriptive one. And that's what I'm asking. Why is it proscriptive instead of descriptive? That is why is it a mandate instead of simply clarifying a previously described aspect?
It absolutely can (and probably is by most) read as making a blanket statement of, "it simply doesn't hurt undead" but why is that true? What makes it so?
EDIT 2: These questions (from the edit) aren't specifically part of this thread, but they're part of my broader questions about what is or is not how the things work, and trying to understand why the community (or at least as many as actually respond) takes them that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On ghost touch cancelling more than just incorporeality; it doesn't cancel absolutely every means of being unable to touch a target. You can't cut a gale in half, or parry a spell with a ghost touch weapon if you couldn't with plain steel.
Or looking at it from another angle - a mage armor spell gives its AC bonus against an incorporeal attack, but doesn't against a brilliant energy weapon, neither mage armor nor brilliant energy suggest otherwise. It doesn't block ordinary touch attacks either. There's no general rule or principle that things which counter incorporeality counter everything.
So no, a ghost touch weapon can't be assumed to fix a brilliant energy weapon's problems (tho' it'd work just fine on living incorporeal creatures). It fixes one type of problem and only one.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a brilliant energy weapon turn up in a game. If I was running a level 20 one-shot and some player turned up with a brilliant energy mace of disruption costing a quarter of their WBL, and I hadn't caught it until too late I might let it work to avoid slowing down an already cripplingly slow game Otherwise I'd probably let people know it wouldn't work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind Incorporeal isn't an undead exclusive quality. Plenty of outsiders have it, and a brilliant energy, ghost touch weapon would work on the, but still not undead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brilliant Energy is quite clear in it's wording, that the weapon simply cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects... So combining it with something like Undead/Construct Bane, Breaking, or Smashing is a pointless endevour... a Flaming Brilliant Energy weapon won't deal any fire damage to Undead, Constructs, or Objects... Interestingly though, a Brilliant Energy weapon of Disruption, would still have a chance of destroying an undead target, as would a brilliant energy weapon of dispelling still have a chance to render a construct inert or deanimate some undead creatures.