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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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?

Because I'm not ignoring it. Sheesh. Can I sunder something? No, because the "significant portion" can't do damage to nonliving stuff. Can I disarm something? Generally yes, because I'm not limited to hacking at your sword with my sword. I can use the nonsignificant portions of my weapon, as applicable, to take your weapon out of your hand.

The two are different mechanics - and you're operating under the assumption that I need to bring the significant portion of my weapon to bear on something in order to disarm it. The rules don't require that. If you don't start from that assumption (which is, frankly, baseless), you don't come to the same conclusion.

Then how would you explain disarming a vampire? A construct wielding a weapon?

Well, shucks, now, how about a circumstance penalty?

Basically, I see your interpretation as using the 'ignores all nonliving matter' and the 'significant portion' selectively.

Whereas I see that you're starting from an incorrect premise, and therefore getting incorrect results.

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).

Yes, but only in the case where the nonsignificant portions of the weapon don't need to penetrate the cover - which is why the trick mentioned above is generally limited to whips and spiked chains when not in the presence of very thin walls.

For disarming, you choose not to ignore the nonliving matter and/or assume that the attack might not be with the significant portion.

Because there's no damage being done. If I want to do 1d12 slashing damage to you with my BE axe, I need to hit you with the significant portion of it. If I want to do 1d12 slashing damage to your axe, then I need to hit it with the significant portion of it - which I can't do, because my weapon's BW.

If I don't want to do 1d12 slashing damage to anything, then it's not required that I hit it with my axehead. That doesn't prevent me, however, from hooking your axeblade with the haft of my BE axe and yanking it out of your hands. Is it harder if I don't have my own axeblade to act as a hook? Probably, which is why I mentioned a circumstance penalty.

You can't have it both ways (well, actually you could, but not I mean if you prefer to be consistent).

Balderdash. I am perfectly consistent with my initial premise.

EDIT:

To be perfectly, crystal clear, my initial premise is: "If are attempting to do damage to a target, you must bring the significant portion of your weapon to bear on that target. If you are not attempting to do damage to a target, you may not have to bring the significant portion of your weapon to bear on that target."

If you are attempting to disarm a vampire through a wall with a BE spiked chain, you can't do it. You may strike at the vampire only with the significant portion of your weapon, which ignores the vampire's weapon and the vampire itself. If the vampire were (somehow) wielding a living weapon (c.f. Eberron), you could attempt to disarm or sunder it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

What rule says you need the significant portion for sundering but not for disarming? You're entirely making that up. How about tripping? Can you trip with a BE whip?

The two are different mechanics - and you're operating under the assumption that I need to bring the significant portion of my weapon to bear on something in order to disarm it.

Actually, I'm not making that assumption. You made that assumption for e.g. cover and I just applied that assumption you made to what would be a consistent view for disarming. However, you would rule differently for disarming, which is what I find inconsistent.

Yes, but only in the case where the nonsignificant portions of the weapon don't need to penetrate the cover - which is why the trick mentioned above is generally limited to whips and spiked chains when not in the presence of very thin walls.

Well, see, now you're changing your mind. Earlier, you said:

A wall is nonliving matter, so a brilliant energy weapon ignores it.

You'll note no statement that this only applies to whips or spiked chains, or even merely reach or ranged weapons. You are being selective in your interpretation and, while imminently logical choices I'm sure, it is not based directly on rule.

Because there's no damage being done.

So, is that the new rule? BE ignores nonliving matter, but only when damage is being done (or could be done)? So, you can trip with a BE whip from 10ft away? Are you defining the significant portion as the part that does damage only? For a whip then, that would only be the tip, right? Then, please explain how the whip goes through a wall.

I'm not sure why it appears you are getting upset from your tone. I assure you that my arguments are reasonable from a rules perspective. I totally understand your views on this, and while quite logical, they have an inconsistency with regards to the rules. The rules you are using seem to be solely "ignores nonliving matter" and "significant portion." You've defined the first, and by example the second. However, I claim that your definition of the second is inconsistent.

Here's my premise. A BE weapon ignores nonliving matter exactly how it's defined in game mechanics. I.e. they ignore armor and shield bonuses and do not damage constructs, undead, or other objects. Exactly how/why this occurs is flavor. But, that's the limit. There's no restriction on disarming, tripping, cover, or anything else. You cannot (effectively) sunder with a BE weapon because that would be damaging an object (expressly not allowed). This is entirely consistent within the rules on BE weapons.

 

[AuraSeer]

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?

He's not. You're assuming that a disarm always involves contact with the weapon, which simply isn't true.

A skilled warrior might disarm his opponent by attacking the hand, so the target must choose between dropping the weapon or losing some fingers (and dropping the weapon anyway). A heroically skilled fantasy warrior could use his brilliant energy sword to do disarms that would be impossible in the real world; I imagine a sword thrust that goes straight along the enemy's weapon shaft into his fist, then forces his fingers apart from the inside.

Then how would you explain disarming a vampire? A construct wielding a weapon?

Both of these are clearly special cases. That's why the game includes a DM, who can apply circumstance modifiers or disallow certain actions when necessary.

Against a construct, I wouldn't allow a brilliant energy weapon to be used to disarm at all. It can affect neither the weapon nor the wielder, so any swing is going to pass through ineffectually. Simple as that.

Against a vampire I might allow a disarm attempt with a hefty circumstance penalty. This could be explained as a certain surprising strike at the vamp's weapon hand, hoping to reawaken some leftover reflexes from its alive days, causing it to react even though it can't really be hurt. That's not likely to work (-10 or -15 on the opposed attack roll if I allowed it at all), but heroically skilled fantasy warriors are capable of doing the "impossible" when it leads to a dramatic and entertaining result.

[Edited to add]
As Patryn points out in his most recent post, some weapons may be capable of disarming even if the "significant" portion is removed. For instance, if you remove most of the blade from a halberd or battleaxe, it's still a big stick with a kind-of-a-hook-thing on the end. That by itself might be enough to use in a disarm, so you might still be able to use your brilliant energy halberd to disarm a construct of its weapon (depending on your DM's judgement).

 

[Infiniti2000]

I was composing while you were editing.

To be perfectly, crystal clear, my initial premise is: "If are attempting to do damage to a target, you must bring the significant portion of your weapon to bear on that target. If you are not attempting to do damage to a target, you may not have to bring the significant portion of your weapon to bear on that target."

The correlation of "significant portion" to "damage" is no greater than for other manuevers like disarming. It is entirely baseless as an extrapolation of the BE rule and is therefore inconsistent. There is a much greater correltation to say that the significant portion of a weapon is necessary for all combat manuevers with that weapon.

 

[Infiniti2000]

He's not. You're assuming that a disarm always involves contact with the weapon, which simply isn't true.

Of course it's true. When you disarm with a weapon, you disarm with the weapon. When you attack with a weapon, you attack with the weapon. Why do you attack with the significant portion of a weapon and yet disarm with any part of the weapon or, worse yet as you propose, not even the weapon at all! It's inconsistent.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

.
Well, see, now you're changing your mind. Earlier, you said:

...

You'll note no statement that this only applies to whips or spiked chains, or even merely reach or ranged weapons. You are being selective in your interpretation and, while imminently logical choices I'm sure, it is not based directly on rule.

Balderdash and pishposh!

I've never changed my mind - only clarified for those who didn't already get the point (like you).

Can you snap a BE whip through a 5' thick wall? Yes, because brilliant energy of the weapon ignores the wall, and I can hold the whip handle on my side and send the whip over to your side, where it reaches 10' beyond the wall.

Can you stab a BE sword through a 5' thick wall? No, because the brilliant energy of the sword ignores the wall, and while I can hold the handle on my side, the blade isn't long enough to penetrate the wall. So, you could stab it into the wall, but not *through* the wall.

Can you stab a BE guisarm through a 5' thick wall? No, because while the blade would penetrate the wall, the haft is what gives the weapon its reach. The haft - being a nonsignificant portion of the weapon - does not ignore the wall. So, again, you could stab or slash into the wall, but not through the wall.

And, frankly, the rules do not specificy that the only effects of the BE weapon is that it ignores Armor and Shield bonuses to AC. It says that it ignores them because the significant portion of the weapon can pass through nonliving matter. It is an effect, not a cause.

EDIT:

In other words, the rules state that BE weapons possess a certain trait (they ignore non-living matter), which we'll call A. This implies a certain effect (they ignore a target's Armor and Shield bonus to AC), which we'll call B.

1. A => B

This is true, and no one disagrees. However, what you are arguing is that because B is specified, A can never imply C (for any value of C).

2. Therefore, A !=> C

There's no basis to make that statement, however. The only reason B exists is because A exists.

This is similar to the problem that came up recently in the mixing manufactured and natural weapons thread. A bit of rules text stated that because certain natural weapons gained via a spell were primary, they therefore did not suffer any penalties when mixed with manufactured weapons.

Note that important chain of causation: "Because the weapons are a member of a certain set, they have a given effect." However, that effect is not a trait of that set, and therefore the rules text is meaningless.

Similarly, the set of Brilliant Energy weapons has the trait "ignores nonliving matter." Within the trait "ignores nonliving matter" is the effect "ignores [generally] armor and shield bonuses to AC." However, it is by no means the only effect within that trait, as the rules themselves say: "because the weapon passes through armor."

 

[AuraSeer]

Of course it's true. When you disarm with a weapon, you disarm with the weapon. When you attack with a weapon, you attack with the weapon. Why do you attack with the significant portion of a weapon and yet disarm with any part of the weapon or, worse yet as you propose, not even the weapon at all! It's inconsistent.

You misunderstand. I'm talking about contact with the target's weapon.

Say I'm wielding a brilliant energy longsword. You're wielding an adamantine greatclub. Obviously my weapon is unable to directly affect yours. But does that mean I'm unable to disarm you? No! To repeat my example from above, I might aim my swing at your hand and force you to drop the club. Or you might do the same to me, even though your club cannot make contact with the blade of my sword. And that's just one explanation I happened to think up, out of the bazillion ways of describing the results of a combat round.

Combat in D&D is abstract. Disarming you of the greatclub does not necessarily mean I must hit your greatclub with my sword. (If you believe the rules explicitly require Disarm to involve weapon-to-weapon contact, I invite you to cite the rule that says so.)