Why you hittin' yo'self? (damage reduction questions)

Infiniti2000 said:
No, I won't say it's flavor text, but I do say that the following sentences clarify it further as to what AC bonuses specifically do not apply.

I don't think it does.

The actual rules text to determine the effect of brilliant energy is:

SRD said:
A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.

It then provides an example of what that means in game terms:

Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor.

This is actually just a continuation of the above rule. Brilliant Energy weapons don't ignore armor and shield bonuses to AC because that's what they do, they [generally] ignore those bonuses because they come from nonliving matter which BE weapons do ignore.

The second sentence is therefore illustrative and not restrictive.

Of course, applying this enhancement as Patryn suggests to thrown weapons or missile weapons causes such weapons to fall through the planet and rest comfortably in the earth's core (gravitational pull and whatnot). Actually, getting your weapon disarmed does that same thing.

No, it doesn't. That would be silly! ;) Notice that:

SRD said:
A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item’s weight.

The "significant portion" of a thrown dagger is the blade, not the handle. The significant portion of an arrow is the arrowhead, not the shaft and fletchings. So, if you were to drop it, the blade might fall into the earth (though, again, it might not if it ended up lying on the grass), but the handle wouldn't.

Which brings us to why this tactic really only works with whips and spiked chains: the significant portion of a whip is the whip's tail, not the handle, and the significant portion of a spiked chain is basically its whole length apart from the handles.

You can then use these weapons to strike through a wall because the significant portion of the weapon is big enough in relation to their reach to make it through a narrow wall. For other weapons, the nonsignificant portion is too big to get the striking surface through most walls - though you could certainly swing a brilliant energy longsword through a rice paper wall.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Infiniti2000 said:
Of course, applying this enhancement as Patryn suggests to thrown weapons or missile weapons causes such weapons to fall through the planet and rest comfortably in the earth's core (gravitational pull and whatnot). Actually, getting your weapon disarmed does that same thing.
Thrown weapons wouldn't completely ignore cover in any case, because they have handles. If you tried to fling a brilliant energy dagger through a door, the metal hilt would plink against the surface, stopping the blade from penetrating deeper than its length. The same effect stops a brilliant weapon from dropping to the planet's core.

A reach weapon like a whip doesn't even have that problem, because the user keeps hold of the handle at all times.

On the other hand, you're totally right for weapons that are all blade. A brilliant shuriken will go straight through inorganic cover, but if you drop it on a stone floor you'll lose it forever.
 



So, then, do you get a bonus to avoid being disarmed, seeing as how you have less of a weapon (the not significant portion) to affect? Obviously, no rule stipulates that, but you are IMO extending the brilliant energy effect to cover, so it should be similarly extended to other examples.

Can you disarm someone if you have a brilliant energy weapon? Can you sunder their weapon or have yours sundered (the not significant portion must be considered)? Can you aid another versus a construct?

My answers to the above are simply derived from the brilliant energy description. It doesn't say otherwise, so they all act normally. The only one where we likely agree is on sundering someone else's weapon with your BE weapon. This can't be done because BE specifically says it doesn't harm objects. Not that it passes through objects, just that it doesn't harm them. Note that BE only specifies that it passes through shields and armor.
 

Infiniti2000 said:
So, then, do you get a bonus to avoid being disarmed, seeing as how you have less of a weapon (the not significant portion) to affect?

Nope - but the DM might decide to apply a circumstance bonus.

Can you disarm someone if you have a brilliant energy weapon?

Yes, given that "Disarm" doesn't mean "I hit your sword with mine and you drop it."

Can you sunder their weapon or have yours sundered (the not significant portion must be considered)?

If I have a BE weapon, and he doesn't? Then no, I can't [generally speaking] sunder his weapon. Mine, however, could probably still be sundered, depending on the weapon (i.e., the difficulty in sundering a BE axe is largely unchanged, though a sword might be more difficult). I'd probably advise any DM to consider a circumstance bonus in this instance, as well.

Can you aid another versus a construct?

Since you can do that anyway, even when you couldn't reasonably damage a creature to begin with, yes.

SRD said:
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action.

In other words, I can Aid Another against a golem using my non-improved Unarmed Strike, and my ally would still gain a +2 bonus to AC or attack rolls.

My answers to the above are simply derived from the brilliant energy description.

The answers you didn't give?

It doesn't say otherwise, so they all act normally.

Except it does say otherwise: "ignores nonliving matter." Denying your opponent their Armor and Shield bonuses to AC is one example of what "ignores nonliving matter" means - it even says that in the sentence you keep referring to: "because the weapon passes through armor."
 

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
The answers you didn't give?
The answers I didn't give because I thought they'd be obvious, but also if you were interested you could ask. :) I'll take this rhetorical question as a request for my answers, however. They are, in fact, identical to yours, and for the same reasons. A circumstance bonus is always open to DM fiat, so I wouldn't disagree with that, either. However, I am surprised at the lack of consistency in your answers:

On the one hand, the "significant portion" of a BE weapon ignores cover (an object).

On the other hand, the "significant portion" of a BE weapon does not ignore opponent's weapons (other objects).

You either need to be strict on all cases or none at all. I see you being strict on disarming (i.e. siding with me in that BE doesn't strictly deny the ability to disarm) and yet loose on cover (using the 'ignores nonliving matter' rule). Either the 'significant portion' of the weapon always ignores nonliving matter or it doesn't and if it does, you have to rule accordingly in all those cases. Can you give me a reason why you don't think you are being inconsistent with respect to disarming (as a case in point)? Do you, for instance, assume that you don't have to disarm someone with the "significant portion" of the weapon?
 

Infiniti2000 said:
I see you being strict on disarming (i.e. siding with me in that BE doesn't strictly deny the ability to disarm) and yet loose on cover (using the 'ignores nonliving matter' rule). Either the 'significant portion' of the weapon always ignores nonliving matter or it doesn't and if it does, you have to rule accordingly in all those cases.

And I have, because, as I wrote: "Yes, given that 'Disarm' doesn't mean 'I hit your sword with mine and you drop it.'"

If that's all disarm was - I take my sword blade and hit your sword blade, and you drop it - then I could see a better reason to disallow disarming.

However, that's not what disarming means. First, that's not how it works in real life (where, if it's attempted at all, it tends to be much more like a grapple). Secondly, and more importantly, that's certainly not how it must work in the rather flavorless D&D rules, where a Disarm is nothing more than an opposed attack roll. How is it non-mechanically accomplished? Ask your DM.

Accordingly, there's nothing that prevents a BE weapon from being used in a disarm, but your DM might decide to apply circumstance modifiers if it seems like not having the blade of your sword to act as a lever might make it more difficult to pull off.

On the other hand, he's just as likely to decide that the ability to ignore your opponent's sword blade, crossguard, hilt, and gauntlets might make it easier to cut his fingers (forcing him to drop the weapon), and might grant a circumstance bonus.

Me? I'd likely call it a wash and let the attack roll proceed as normal.
 

Just popped in to say that I've been looking for a situation to use a brilliant energy net through a wall for ages.

Also, a fight between two brilliant energy swordsmen in a room of hanging curtains would be really, really cool.
 

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Accordingly, there's nothing that prevents a BE weapon from being used in a disarm...
Sure there is. "Ignores all nonliving matter." It's the exact same reason you give to ignore cover. How can you use this statement on one hand and then ignore it on the other?

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
On the other hand, he's just as likely to decide that the ability to ignore your opponent's sword blade, crossguard, hilt, and gauntlets might make it easier to cut his fingers (forcing him to drop the weapon), and might grant a circumstance bonus.
Then how would you explain disarming a vampire? A construct wielding a weapon?

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Me? I'd likely call it a wash and let the attack roll proceed as normal.
Basically, I see your interpretation as using the 'ignores all nonliving matter' and the 'significant portion' selectively. For cover, you choose to ignore the nonliving matter and assume that the attack is only with the significant portion (in effect that the not significant portion does not ever have to go through the cover). For disarming, you choose not to ignore the nonliving matter and/or assume that the attack might not be with the significant portion. You can't have it both ways (well, actually you could, but not I mean if you prefer to be consistent).
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top