Cold Iron Brilliant Energy Longsword?

[rkanodia]

You don't recall correctly. Brilliant Energy in 3E specifically ignored enhancement bonuses.

-Hyp.

Huh. Thanks for the information. I wonder why I used to think it was a worthless enchantment.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

RE the sheathing problem, there's a material in Eberron called Livewood that continues to live (and grow, slowly) even without a tree or any source of food or water. It'd be great for a scabbard for a brilliant energy weapon.

 

[Gort]

Heh, all these people bashing my choice of weapon.

Okay, first off, sure, you can't turn it off. That's why I ALSO have a +5 adamantine longsword. (this isn't a monty haul campaign, we have the "appropriate" amount of gear - I just feel brilliant energy is good enough to warrant using in the current circumstances)

The campaign is an evil campaign. This means that it's possible that at some point I could be fighting any one of the party members around me, should the necessary conflict of interest arise. Now, I can hardly hit myself (AC 44, attack bonus +31) with my +5 adamantine longsword, let alone the half-dragon with the tower shield and the full plate (AC 45) - but she loses TWENTY TWO AC when I use the brilliant energy sword. Which opens her up for a nice big power attack for 10 or so, which in turn leads to damage in excess of a hundred, rather than the paltry 20 or so I'd otherwise get.

Not to mention that the BBEGs our DM likes to use are often barbarians or fighters with ACs boosted through the roof with magic armour and shields. I think time will prove it a good purchase.

 

[Nail]

Not to mention that the BBEGs our DM likes to use are often barbarians or fighters with ACs boosted through the roof with magic armour and shields.

Well, there you go.

Still, it can't be both "brilliant energy" (i.e. Light) and cold iron (i.e. not Light). One or the other, bub.

 

[ARandomGod]

Well, there you go.

Still, it can't be both "brilliant energy" (i.e. Light) and cold iron (i.e. not Light). One or the other, bub.

I dunno.
I'm voting with the crowd that says that it can't be light (which doesn't go through living OR nonliving material) and "brilliant energy" which states that it explicitely does harm living material.

I also agree that it can't replace both the significant portion (which is a lot, but not all, by definition) and the entire thing, which is by definition MORE than not all.

Therefore implying that it indeed can, and even must be both brilliant energy and the metal that it's made out of.

 

[Chun-tzu]

The exact quote from the DMG is:

"A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion - such as its blade, axe head, or arrowhead - transformed into light, although this does not modify the item's weight."

Note that the text says "its" significant portion "such as its blade," not "a" significant portion. The whole blade is made of light, but it somehow retains the blade's weight.

 

[Gort]

This could all be avoided if the word "transformed" was simply "sheathed in" or something.

 

[Felix]

Start with ice.

Add heat.

Ice becomes liquid water.

Continue adding heat.

Liquid water becomes steam.

In these two reactions, the substance is transformed (from Ice, to Water, to Steam) but in every way retains the same mass and basic chemical composition - H2O.

Now, if you want a reason to have a Brilliant Energy Cold Iron Longsword, you can argue that the brilliant energy enhancement transforms the signifigant part of the weapon to light in a similar way that heat transforms ice to water to steam. The mass and the chemical composition remain the same. This case being argued, I would say that because of the retained chemical composition, the weapon still has the same effects.

"Can't make something out of [material] that doesn't have metal as its signifigant portion."

The Brilliant Energy Cold Iron Longsword is made of metal. It is beyond liquid metal, or even beyond vaporous metal -- it is light-metal. It is still metal, but only in a different state.

Of course, this is just an argument you could use. But if you want +4 enhancements to lose their weapon's material's DR bypassing, then by all means, say no. But it isn't an unreasonable argument.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Start with ice.

Add heat.

Ice becomes liquid water.

Continue adding heat.

Liquid water becomes steam.

In these two reactions, the substance is transformed (from Ice, to Water, to Steam) but in every way retains the same mass and basic chemical composition - H2O.

Except after the second step, it would no longer overcome DR 10 / Cold, and would no longer be subject to Energy Resistance 5 / Cold.

 

[Scion]

Except after the second step, it would no longer overcome DR 10 / Cold, and would no longer be subject to Energy Resistance 5 / Cold.

But it would still deal material type damage (H2O).

A solid piece of ice might do bludgeoning, cold, and H2O damage. When melted it might not do the first or second anymore, but still the third.

Material type vs energy type, there is a difference