Cold Iron Brilliant Energy Longsword?

[Hypersmurf]

Get out your anarchic axiomatic holy brilliant energy ghost touch keen admantine gauntlets of disruption! (feel free to calculate cost)

An Anarchic weapon is chaotically-aligned.
An Axiomatic weapon is lawfully-aligned.
A Holy weapon is good-aligned.

Chaotic Lawful Good isn't a valid alignment.

As the special abilities tables note: "Reroll if you get a duplicate special ability, an ability incompatible with an ability that you’ve already rolled, or if the extra ability puts you over the +10 limit. A weapon’s enhancement bonus and special ability bonus equivalents can’t total more than +10."

Anarchic and Axiomatic are incompatible - you can't be both chaotically-aligned and lawfully-aligned. There's no such alignment.

-Hyp.

 

[Sledge]

yeah, none of that Lawful Chaotic weapons eh. Just grab a Quixotic weapon.

The arguments for and against here have convinced me to ditch brilliant energy as is. It is yet another ability that either sucks or is WAY too good. A happy balance needs to be achieved that makes in game sense as well as rules sense.

 

[Darmanicus]

Chaotic Lawful Good isn't a valid alignment...........


-Hyp.

.......for a creature.

I don't see a problem with a weapon having 'incompatible' alignments. Are you saying then that a weapon cannot also, say, be both flaming and frost? They are opposite elements.

 

[werk]

.......for a creature.

I don't see a problem with a weapon having 'incompatible' alignments. Are you saying then that a weapon cannot also, say, be both flaming and frost? They are opposite elements.

That was my thinking (my farcical example may be over +10 too, i didn't think to check, it was made up purely for illustration).
I don't see anything that prohibits this (law&chaos/fire&ice) because I don't see anything that discusses what is 'compatible' or 'incompatible' with regard to special abilities or special resources...no notes about alignment or elements being incompatable (other than common sense or logic, which is what is causing the assumed issue with BE).

Maybe it's because I'm only using the SRD as reference. I'll try to page through my books when I get off work.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Without any specific guidelines for what is compatible and what isn't, we're left with DM fiat.

One might say that a Holy Unholy Longsword would be obviously incompatible, since it deals negative levels to both good and evil wielders, but it's actually a perfect weapon for the enforcers of Neutrality, and the kind of thing I can see True Neutral druids reasonably wanting to enchant their weapons with.


Reiteration: None of the bonuses are listed as being incompatible, but obviously some were intended to be, otherwise compatiblity wouldn't have been mentioned at all. The designers might have assumed what was compatible and not was common sense.

 

[Hypersmurf]

.......for a creature.

I don't see a problem with a weapon having 'incompatible' alignments. Are you saying then that a weapon cannot also, say, be both flaming and frost? They are opposite elements.

"Damage reduction may be overcome by... weapons imbued with an alignment."

"Align Weapon
This spell has no effect on a weapon that already has an alignment."

"Holy: A holy weapon is imbued with holy power. This power makes the weapon good-aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction."

"THE NINE ALIGNMENTS
Nine distinct alignments define all the possible combinations of the lawful–chaotic axis with the good–evil axis."

A Holy weapon bypasses DR X/Good. DR is overcome by weapons imbued with an alignment, therefore a Holy weapon is good-aligned, and imbued with 'an alignment'.

An Unholy weapon bypasses DR X/Evil. DR is overcome by weapons imbued with an alignment, therefore an Unholy weapon is evil-aligned, and imbued with 'an alignment'.

There are nine distinct alignments defining all possible combinations.

None of those distinct alignments - the nine that define all possible combinations - have both Good and Evil aspects. Therefore, since a Holy weapon is imbued with 'an alignment', and none of the possible alignments are both good and evil, and the Holy weapon is good-aligned, it is impossible for a Holy weapon to also be evil-aligned. Since all Unholy weapons are evil-aligned, it is impossible for a Holy weapon to be an Unholy weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Doctor Bomb]

The alternative is to treat the brilliiant energy property as transforming the blade and not just enhancing it such that now the blade is light INSTEAD of whatever it was before. If you do this you have to follow this interpretation through to its conclusion, however. If you are treating the blade as made out of light, it would technically count as energy in the same way that searing light, the lantern archon's ray attack, sunbeam, etc. would count as energy - meaning DR was irrelevant. As light it would count as an non-descriptor type of energy so that no energy resistance would apply. This interpretation makes a brilliant energy weapon perhaps more powerful than it was before - or for a +4 virtual enhancement is perhaps exactly as powerful as it should be considering the rarity of armor and shields on high CR monsters. YMMV

I am thinking really hard about this....

No, not really. I have a slightly different campaign world set up, so this isn't a problem. But here's support for both sides in the RAW:

Brilliant Energy: A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item’s weight. It always gives off light as a torch (20-foot radius). A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor. (Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.) A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm constructs, deathless, undead, and objects. This property can not be applied to ranged weapons, but can be applied to ammunition.
Strong transmutation; CL 16th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, gaseous form, continual flame; Price +4 bonus

It gives off light because it uses continual flame as a part of its creation, which doesn't do any kind of energy damage. A brilliant energy weapon passes through armor because it uses gaseous form in its construction.

Gaseous Form
Transmutation
...
The subject and all its gear become insubstantial, misty, and translucent. Its material armor (including natural armor) becomes worthless, though its size, Dexterity, deflection bonuses, and armor bonuses from force effects still apply. Creatures in gaseous form have damage reduction 10/magic. Spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities affect them normally.

But natural armor still applies. Why? Well, I don't see it in the SRD but I do recall reading that a creature's natural armor was both due to it's tough hide or shell and it's inherent density or underlying structure, so I would think at least some of the Natural Armor bonus is due to living material, and trying to split that hair would be a little silly, even for this message board. On the flip side, and in answer to the Ex or Su for damage reduction question raised earlier:

Damage Reduction is either extraordinary (Ex) or supernatural (Su). Use the following guidelines if it is not specified.
• DR X/slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning should be (Ex)
• DR X/adamantine should be (Ex)
• DR X/-- should be (Ex)
• DR X/silver or cold iron should be (Su)
• DR X/magic should be (Su)
• DR X/chaotic, lawful, holy, or unholy should be (Su)

So it looks like in the RAW, you can have an Adamantine Brilliant Energy weapon that loses it's properties, but silver and cold iron weapons should retain their qualities, sinde the damage reduction being bypassed is Supernatural. If it lost that quality, then a Holy Brilliant Energy Morningstar should lose it's ability to beat down creatures with the Evil descriptor. But there is one more thing to look at:

Gaseous Form
Transmutation
...
Continuously active items remain active, though in some cases their effects may be moot.

What could be moot about damage reduction? Well, if the material part of the blade is replaced in the majority by light, then the weapon is no longer mostly constructed of cold iron, and therefore no longer gains the benefits of being constructed of that material. Otherwise you could etch your name in the blade of your longsword in silver and whack away at the lycanthropes with more cash in your pocket.

LOL
Looks like the rules are taking turns contradicting each other.

In my campaign I add a little balance by confusing things further:

DR Type and Equivalent Enhancement Bonus
/magic +1
/crystal, /jade, or /obsidian (OA) +2
/silver or /cold iron +2
/adamantine or /wood +3
/bludgeoning, /piercing or /slashing +3
/lawful, /chaotic, /good or /evil +4
/epic +6

Thus, a +2 longsword or better inflicts normal damage against a werewolf, a +3 battle axe or better inflicts normal damage on a xorn, and a +4 mace or better inflicts normal damage against a titan.
These DR types stack to determine the minimum magical bonus of a weapon, so a balor, with damage reduction 15/cold iron and good, will have its damage reduction bypassed by epic weapons. A character fighting the Xixecal, with damage reduction 20/good and epic and adamantine, would need a +13 or better unaligned steel weapon to inflict normal damage.

That works for me and mine, since they mostly skip the enchantments and just go for the better bonus on the blade. Yes, it's a throwback to 3.0, but it works. Enjoy the predicament.

 

[moritheil]

Well, I look at it as the difference between a hooked hammer and a morningstar.

Both weapons deal bludgeoning and piercing damage. But with the hooked hammer, you have to make a choice which part of the weapon you hit with - the hammer end, or the hooked end. You can either deal bludgeoning damage, or you can deal piercing damage, but not both. With the morningstar, on the other hand, there's no option. When you attack, you deal both bludgeoning and piercing damage. You can't hit with a certain part of the weapon to only deal one type.

That's how a bite attack works. One attack, all three damage types... no picking and choosing.

-Hyp.

A very reasonable interpretation.

Regarding the Unholy Holy weapon, definitely no one should allow it for intelligent items . . . but I'm not sure that the argument against them in general is 100% airtight. There seems to be room for a DM to do something goofy.

There are only nine alignments, and any combination that is outside those is undefined . . . but does a weapon need to have a definable alignment? That is to say, one could argue that the weapon can have the properties, but the overall combined alignment of the weapon is not defined. A weapon is good-aligned, evil-aligned, and lawful-aligned. There is no combined alignment that has those individual components, but is the weapon still aligned?

To consider things further, are all weapons "Neutral aligned" if not good/evil/ax/anarchic? I don't consider them to have any alignment whatsoever, just as I don't usually ask myself, "What alignment is the chicken soup the character just ate?" Or "what alignment is the doorknob?"

It seems to me that there is a potential difference between having a neutral alignment and being unaligned, but feel free to correct me if a rule says otherwise.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To consider things further, are all weapons "Neutral aligned" if not good/evil/ax/anarchic? I don't consider them to have any alignment whatsoever, just as I don't usually ask myself, "What alignment is the chicken soup the character just ate?" Or "what alignment is the doorknob?"

That's right. Align Weapon doesn't work on any weapon that has an alignment. If all weapons were at least Neutral, then the spell would work on no weapon at all.

-Hyp.

 

[kanithardm]

It must really be a pisser to put in its sheath.

(Sheath) Oww my foot!