Brilliant Energy vs. Fortification

[James McMurray]

How does it make real-world sense that an object which ignores non-living matter would also ignore living matter, but only if that living matter were a really thick skin?

Dragons would not be "top dogs" because a power attacking fighter could kill them in a single round now that their ACs are crap. 5 attacks, full power attack for +40 damage, all hit unless you roll a one. Assuming a base damage of 2d6+20 (which is actually pretty low for a 20th level fighter), you can expect to do 335 damage in a full attack against a dragon whose AC is now 6. That dragon's hit points (for an old CR20) are only 378. If you crit it is almost gauranteed to die, if any of your friends also hurt it, it is almost gauranteed to die.

So yes, if by "down to reaonable levels" you mean "near certain death" then your version of brilliant energy is a good one.

 

[Scion]

Almost nothing? Turning someone's AC from a 40 to a 20 is "almost nothing". That's odd, it looks like an extra 10+ points of power attack damage to me.

20 points of natural armor? how many creatures does this really apply to? almost none?

So against them it is a good choice, if they are made of living matter at least, which they may not be.

It is exactly reciprocal to a person useing +5 plate and having a +5 shield. Both are 20 points of armor, but right now only one is ignored useing the weapon. Guess which one is the pc? (in most games at least).

So it will work for the pc's as well as the npc's. Good. Where is the problem?

Actually it makes it a must have item. High CR creatures are frequently a challenge because they can't just be power attacked into oblivion by the party fighter. Let's take the Tarrasque as an example, he's a fairly scary CR 20 critter. AC: 35. Touch AC: 5. At 20th level that's an extra 100 points of damage per round that the fighter will be able to output with a full attack.

Where is the bad part? It makes some enemies easier to hit, which is all it does now. Once again, all my change does it make it more reciprocal for both pc's and npc's. Nothing you have said here changes that in any way.

High level tank wearing lots of armor vs high level creature with lots of natural armor. Why is it pefectly fine for the weapon to be able to power attack one into 'oblivion' but not the other? Both are useing 'armor', both sets of armor are effectively 'nonliving' as well. Dragon scale (which provides the natural armor) is made into regular armor. So it is the exact same thing which is bypassed in one and not bypassed in the other.

Again, the weapon should be useful to both pc's and npc's, instead of the way it currently is.

There are no real power issues here, a few extra points of power attack if planned ahead for is fine. It takes a +5 item min that cannot be used on a large subset of creatures, requires being high level, requires spending at least one feat, and can still be outdone to some extent by a little preperation by the target.

So far it sounds like a great plan, for dm's and players alike. More choices, harder choices, and the choices can pay off in the proper circumstances.

In addition, high natural armor creatures tend to be high hp creatures. So a few extra points of damage for your trouble sounds like a good tradeoff.

Huh? I don't see anywhere in the item description that says you can't sheathe a briliant energy weapon or that if you drop it is disappears. Yeah, if you toss in house rules that make weapons disappear, you'll probably have to up the power level on them.

Umm.. Most sheathes are made of nonliving matter. The weapon passes right through that. The world is made of nonliving matter. The weapon passes right through that. Looks like it is written there to me

Now if you want to say that 'ignore' and 'passes through' are two seperate things then that is fine, what exactly is it doing when it 'ignores armor'?

Many magical swords that are found will shed light, and can't be put out. How is Brilliant any different from those? If you put it in a sheathe, its light is going to be blocked, just like with any other weapon.

Who said it was? Why does it have to be different? A drawback is a drawback, just because 'something else in the world has the same drawback' isnt saying that it isnt a drawback.

Again, what sheathe? It ignores your sheathe.

Come play in one of my campaigns at some point. Generally its humanoid foes that are the movers and the shakers, alongside their extraplanar or undead allies. A brilliant energy weapon will be useful about 60% of the time, not so useless about 20% of the time, and completely useless the other 20%.

So this change would effect almost nothing in your campaign really. What is the problem?

Who bans vorpal now? Nobody I know. And I find it hard to imagaine a group that would contemplating allowing Briallant Energy to ignore natural armor but be worried about the less than one in twenty chance of instant death that vorpal grants.

I dont know any dm's that run with vorpal for actual campaigns. It is always seriously modified or just gotten rid of entirely. Bypassing the hp mechanic and save mechanic all in one fell swoop is what some people consider 'bad'. Now not everyone has a problem with it, but everyone I have ever played with save one guy does. That one guy wanted vorpal 'because' it invalidated both hp and saves.

::shrugs:: to each their own of course. Ignoring natural armor would not imbalance anything in my campaign, it would actually put dragons into the range of 'hittable' with any sort of reliability. Going from an ac of 50+ (from your 41 dragon earlier, they can cast spells and use items after all) down to 30+ means that the fighter in the group would have a chance to use some of his feats (maybe even power attack! doing 800+ points of damage will take some time)


It does seem to come down to a couple of things though.

Is the enhancement worth it given its drawbacks?
What should the enhancement be priced to make it worth it?

These questions are somewhat campaign dependent, which is unfortunate. However, most questions are. If everything in your campaign takes extra damage from fire then firiery burst might need to be upped in price.

So, at high levels campaigns I have been in have been:
1/3 - 1/2 creatures who would be considered immune.
1/3 - 1/2 creatures who are resistant (ie have natural armor)
and whatever is left (yes, sometimes none) would be the ones wearing armor.

In this instance brilliant might be worth a +1 (without the change), with the change it would go back to +4 (after all, it is exactly the same as if it ignored natural armor but did not ignore armor people are wearing)
In a campaign where nearly everyone you might fight wears armor and is not immune for some reason, then my change will have no effect and it would work either way. It would also probably be worth a +5 with or without the change.
In a campaign that has a sold mix of creatures that have armor and natural armor then I think it would be a valid change. It would make it be more desireable yes. However, it would actually be useful in a good amount of situations. Possibly enough to make it +5, but it is hard to say.

I still think that negating natural armor would be best though. That way it would work in nearly every campaign setting, rather than just those who have people wearing large pieces of iron around. Being good for both pc's and npc's is a good thing. Plus with this option certain builds become a bit stronger, most of those were underused builds anyway.

It being a high plus, along with being ignored with pretty much anything with con -, difficult to sheathe properly, shedding light all over the place, and it not ignoring natural ac? horrible. My way? tolerable, strong in some campaigns, completely indifferent in others, average in the rest. Sounds good to me.

 

[Scion]

How does it make real-world sense that an object which ignores non-living matter would also ignore living matter, but only if that living matter were a really thick skin?

dead skin = nonliving matter. exoskeletons, scales, thick hide are all nonliving.

If you had an armor that was brilliant energy for some reason (cool visual ) then creatures with long nails could still scratch you. That sort of thing.

Dragons would not be "top dogs" because a power attacking fighter could kill them in a single round now that their ACs are crap. 5 attacks, full power attack for +40

Against a creature with a 60+ ac you hit only on a 20. With this enhancement you hit them on something like 5+ or 10+ for your primary attack. Seems fine.

full power attack for +40 is just dumb, I said that earlier, that is a problem with the new power attack, not with this option.

Even then though the fighter has to get up to the dragon, has to be able to unleash a full attack on the dragon, has to somehow be able to hit an ac 40+ on a 2+ 5 times in a row (yeah right).

Of course if the only two options are 'cannot be hit except on a 20' and 'with proper equipment choice be able to hit on a 2' then I know which I'd rather have in my games. It is just crazy to have creatures immune to being hit like that.

The dragons still have flight, 6 attacks per round, tons of gp worth of items, spells, breathweapon, thousands of years to plan, and who knows what else. He IS still the top dog. But everyone has a weakness here or there. Just because one tactic has a valid way of actually hurting him does not mean it is bad. The fact that there are so few necesitate that the few are very good. This one is very good. Time for that dragon to have a strategy.

So yes, if by "down to reaonable levels" you mean "near certain death" then your version of brilliant energy is a good one.

That, or.. well.. 'down to reasonable levels' means 'down to reasonable levels' one of the two

The dragon still has lots of tactics. As do all of the other creatures you listed.

Like I keep saying, it is no different than the tank wearing armor or the dragon in his scales. It should work the same way either way.

Why is it ok to negate x amount of armor here, but not x amount of armor over there? Where is the problem??

Both cases are exactly the same. Either they are both overpowered or they are not.

With the change little to nothing would change with your game. The weapon would be effectively the same. In the ones I have been in it would be the reverse, it would go from being completely useless up to the same level of use that it is in your game (well, still less, there are more undead in the games I've been in.. and constructs.. and elementals.. and people who cast spells to gain such traits)

With both things in there it would be useful in both campaigns, and from what I've seen of the examples, just be 'useful enough to take in the proper circumstances' but hardly an easy choice still.

 

[heliopolix]

I can understand that you're trying to make the weapon useful to PC's again, and allowing it to ignore natural armor is defintely one way to do it. As I tried to show earlier, The main part of the AC's of higher level bash-type monsters is NA, just as a high level fighters AC comes from his armor.

I would say that about 1/4 of the CR 13+ monsters (estimated from the MM) are immune to the weapon. Another 1/4 (im being generous with this estimate) are going to have little natural armor (being wizzie-type mosters). The remaining 1/2 of the monsters are going to have 15+ NA. Of those, only intellegent weapon-weilding foes would use a BE weapon Vs the party, and I estimate that at about 1/3 of the bash-types. My point being: A fighter PC using a BE weapon would Lower the AC's of 1/6 of the bash-type mosters in the MM the same amount that they could lower his by weilding a BE weapon. Vs. the other 1/3 of the bash-types, he lowers their AC by a significant amount, and they have no mechanism to lower his.

Since this topic has diverged quite a bit from BE vs Heavy Fort. almost into the terrain of the house-rules forum, ill add this: i like the suggestion to have it halve NA and regular armor/ shield. That way its better for the PC's vs most of the mosters, and a little worse vs those that actually wear armor. It would still be a significant drop in AC most of the time, and still worth it to buy at the +4 price.

It is interesting to note that it does have "a large portion of the weapon" turned into energy, but not the handle/haft/shaft/etc. When u sheathe a weapon, a sword uses it guard, an axe uses its axe-head, and arrow rest on their points. Because it doesnt specifically mention not being sheathe-able, and because you wouldnt want to carry it around all the time, I imagine you can come up with a way to tie it off.

Also, almost humorously, a BE weapon is useless at bashing down doors/ opening chests.

Just on a cheese note, the last thing a fighter PC wants to see is a Hasted BBEG 10th lvl Dervish w/ BAB 16+, GTWF, and a pair of +1 BE Wounding scimitars. Thats 15 points of con damage in one round((4bab + 3twf)*2thousand cuts +1haste), followed by 8 points/ round after that. Nasty! (and Yes, that BBEG is frikin loaded w/ 2 +7 weapons.)

 

[UltimaGabe]

And yes, it IS basically an auto-hit; no real amount of Deflection or DEX AC can cause me to miss a Dragon with a touch attack, if I'm the right level to be fighting it.

Maybe not in 3.5. In 3e, however, there was a spell that turned all of a dragon's Natural Armor into Deflection- in the Bastion of Broken Souls adventure, the final boss had somewhere in upwards of a 65 AC, and all of it was Touch. None of us (including me, the 20th-level Barbarian with a main attack of at least +40) could hit it except on a natural 20.

 

[Pax]

UltimaGabe, there's now the "Scintillating scales" spell, in the Draconomicon. Add a deflection bonus to AC equal to your Constitution modifier, but subtract half that much from your NAtural Armor bonus.