Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 2446961" data-attributes="member: 23094">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 => BThis 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 !=> CThere'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."</blockquote>

Verification