Brilliant Energy and other enchantments [Archive] - Wizards Community

Brilliant Energy and other enchantments [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Caelic
07-21-04, 06:00 PM This is a response to a question by Snow in another thread. As such, it will probably be of minimal interest to most, and only marginal relevance to the CO boards (in that it touches on the validity or lack thereof of certain CO strategies.)

My apologies in advance.

First off, to summarize Snow's argument as I understand it:

1. The fact that special abilities are listed on two tables--"ranged" and "melee"--and that certain abilities appear on one table and not the other--has no relevance to which abilities may be placed on which weapons.

2. Special abilities for weapons are not restricted to melee or ranged weapons unless specifically noted in the text of the ability.

3. As proof, Snow offers the "Brilliant Energy" ability, which has a clause specifically restricting it to certain types of weapons. This clause, she reasons, indicates that no other special ability is restricted, because no other ability contains such a clause.

Let's break it down.

First off: we have two mutually-exclusive premises to evaluate here:

A. Certain weapon special abilities can be applied only to melee weapons, and certain ones only to ranged weapons. These restrictions are indicated by the presence or absence of these special abilities on the "ranged" or "melee" charts, respectively.

B. Any weapon special ability may be applied to any weapon, unless the text of the ability specifically notes otherwise.

Now: let's first look at the clause in Brilliant Energy, because it's an interesting one:

This property can only be applied to melee weapons, thrown weapons, and ammunition.

This is significant, because it's not quite what we're talking about. Brilliant Energy isn't restricted to melee or ranged weapons; it appears on both tables. However, the designers, in their wisdom, chose to exclude one specific category of ranged weapons from eligibility.

Thus, we may safely conclude that, whatever the case, this exact footnote wouldn't appear in the text of other special abilities. A different footnote might not be amiss in the text of a melee-only special ability or a ranged-only special ability, but this one would not apply.

Now, with the exact significance of the Brilliant Energy footnote established, let's look at our premises and see how well they explain all of the observable data.

A. Certain special abilities are melee only or missile only.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the purpose of the designers in breaking down abilities into melee and ranged categories on the charts was to restrict certain abilities to melee only or ranged only, and the ones on both charts to both, then we are obligated to answer Snow's question: Why would they then provide a footnote specifically for Brilliant Energy?

The answer, however, seems clear: they needed to provide a footnote for Brilliant Energy because it doesn't fit any of those three cateories. Brilliant Energy weapons are not melee only, they're not missile only, and they're not open to all weapons; thus, they required further explanation...of precisely the sort given in the footnote. Without that footnote, the rules as written would allow BE for all weapons, since it appears on both charts.

Now: we cannot say for certain that the charts were meant to serve this purpose. It is true that there is no passage in the DMG explicitly confirming this. We can, however, say that if this is the correct interpretation, it satisfactorily explains the observed data regarding BE, and eliminates some problems (discussed below.)

This interpretation, however, has its flaws, and these are also discussed below.

B. Any special ability is open to any weapon unless noted in the text.

Again, there is no passage explicitly denying this. However, as I have pointed out, the presence of the Brilliant Energy footnote is not proof that the designers intended this interpretation; even if the prior interpretation is correct, that footnote has to be in the Brilliant Energy description. It is neither proof nor denial of either interpretation.

A better supporting argument exists in the form of the Distance special ability, which DOES explicitly say that it's restricted to ranged weapons in the text of the ability, and the Ki Focus ability, which does explicitly say that it can only be granted to melee weapons. Certain other abilities also have such restrictions--restrictions which argue in favor of this position.

This interpretation, however, presents certain inconsistencies and problems that the other does not. For example:

1. Ranged weapons can be given the Dancing special ability...but, for some odd reason, cannot fire more than five feet. The exception, of course, is ranged weapons with reach, which can fire ten feet.

2. The most logical thing for a warrior to wield in his off-hand is not a shield or a second weapon, but a fistful of shuriken. A handful of Defending shuriken allow for a monstrous AC bonus at a very cheap price; ammunition is much better at defending than melee weapons or defensive items. A handful of Mighty Cleaving shuriken allow the wielder to make multiple additional Cleave attempts in a round. For the price of a single Spellblade enchantment, the shuriken-wielder can be immune to any number of nasty spells.

(As an aside, even restricting abilities to their respective charts leaves some hideous oversights. I'm frankly shocked that I never saw anyone here exploit the monstrous cheese that is 50 Doomwarding arrows in 3.0. Here's my 33,500 GP; that's 350 extra partial actions for me, thank you very much, or 350 rerolls of any die.)

Overall? My take is that neither interpretation is wholly satisfactory, and that the best solution would be to correct the glaring oversights. Certain abilities (like Dancing) were fairly obviously intended to be melee only, but someone neglected to add the appropriate text.
ShadowCrown
07-21-04, 07:19 PM These types of situations come up often in D&D in general, because people like those on these boards are looking for ways to maximize characters, and they are far more of them than there are Wizards editors.

I myself don't see why these questions are so pressing; yes, I do understand that this is the character optimization forum and therefore the point is to look for loophole-type mechanics. But I see these precise type of mechanical arguments in all the boards, all the time, and it truly puzzles me. It doesn't take brilliance to realize that the rules are ambiguous on this point, that the intent of the authors is not obvious. So then, why does everyone continue to look for that intent, when what really matters is which interpretation is better for the game at hand. That's all that really matters for any rule; we just generally go with what the game designers have done, because they, in general, make the decisions that are best for any particular game. So then, when looking to them fails, which it does often, in my opinion, we have to figure it out ourselves.

And then in this case, the answer is then obvious. Which is better for game balance, that someone can buy an offhand 'shield' that gives a +6 unnamed, explicitly stacks with all others including itself, bonus to AC for 480 gold (and that assumes you can only hold 3 shuriken in your off-hand, which is a conservative estimate at best), or that the entire system of formulas governing cost of AC bonuses for various slots should take precedence?

If the rules are ambiguous, the DM in question decides which is best for his/her game. Yes, I know the RAW are what's considered 'open' here, but the RAW themselves call for DM intervention, and they give it an implicitly superior position to the rest of the rules, in fact, by calling it 'Rule Zero.'

I'm not saying that we shouldn't look for these things. I'm saying that these long discussions of ambiguous rule sets completely miss the point. The 'RAW' shouldn't determine rulings on issues like this; the intent of the designers isn't obvious. The DM, who is in all likelihood completely capable of making the appropriate decision if it has been considered in the depth shown here, ought to make the ruling that's right for the game at hand.
Snow Savant
07-21-04, 07:22 PM Caelic ... you'll probably get a reminder that the subject and content of this thread is not C.O. related and deserves a thread on the appropriate forum (Spells/Magic).

Unless of course, you revise it to include some C.O. related stuff.

Just as info.

XO,
Snow :cloud9:
Mucknuggle
07-21-04, 07:36 PM Umm, sorry to butt in, but can't you just ask the Sage? Maybe get him to write a "Rules of the Game" article on it so that he can change some more rules (referring to Polymorph for those of you that have no idea what I'm talking about). ;)
Caelic
07-21-04, 08:11 PM Ennh. To be honest, Snow, I'm less than terrified by the prospect. This argument really has no relevance outside of the CO Forum as far as I'm concerned--because most of what we're disputing would never be allowed in the majority of campaigns, and is thus purely an abstract exercize in optimization.

I prefer to keep the response on the board where the question was asked; if they get cranky about that, oh well.

Besides, I think that tricks that grant 350 extra partial actions/rerolls or instantly kill any character of a given alignment below 51st level qualify as "optimization," don't you? :)
Snow Savant
07-21-04, 08:23 PM Stembolt's age-old C.O. FAQ kinda states otherwise. Especially noted in his first post once you enter the document (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64298).

I guess if there ever was a "charter" for the C.O. Forum, his would be it.

Besides, I don't see the optimization angle you are talking about at all. Although I totally dig the rules aspect of the issue.
Arkhain
07-21-04, 08:24 PM I'm sorry to butt in, as well, but what is "RAW" which ShadowCrown refers to? It's not in the Dict of Terms...
tempeitri
07-21-04, 08:41 PM RAW = Rules As Written. That is to say, exactly as written without any extrapolation or assumption.
Caelic
07-21-04, 08:47 PM Originally posted by Snow Savant

Besides, I don't see the optimization angle you are talking about at all. Although I totally dig the rules aspect of the issue.

Demonstrating that proposed optimizations don't work is sort of crucial. Otherwise, we get illegal builds and nobody willing to correct them.

Like I said, though, the thought of being warned just doesn't fill me with apprehension. This thread was a courtesy to you and a direct response to a question you asked. Probably should've been a private message, actually.

If they decide to ban me for my sins, I'll go do something productive with my time.
Mommy was an Orc
07-22-04, 01:59 AM Actually, that's not true.

In order to get the benefits of a weapon, you usually need to attack with it(unless it specifies otherwise) - under Activation on page 222 in DMG 3.5. Also, it is against the rules to wield more than one weapon in a single hand - you need quickdraw and/or TWF to use multiple shurikin in a round and as you have to decide at the beginning of the round what the defending allocation is, that stops that.

Which also punches one giant hole in those people who spike their armor and then put spellblade on it.

In any case, there's the further problem of wielding an offhand weapon - unless you have TWF, that's not going to be pretty...

Originally posted by Caelic
2. The most logical thing for a warrior to wield in his off-hand is not a shield or a second weapon, but a fistful of shuriken. A handful of Defending shuriken allow for a monstrous AC bonus at a very cheap price; ammunition is much better at defending than melee weapons or defensive items. A handful of Mighty Cleaving shuriken allow the wielder to make multiple additional Cleave attempts in a round. For the price of a single Spellblade enchantment, the shuriken-wielder can be immune to any number of nasty spells.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caelic 07-21-04, 06:00 PM	This is a response to a question by Snow in another thread. As such, it will probably be of minimal interest to most, and only marginal relevance to the CO boards (in that it touches on the validity or lack thereof of certain CO strategies.) My apologies in advance. First off, to summarize Snow's argument as I understand it: 1. The fact that special abilities are listed on two tables--"ranged" and "melee"--and that certain abilities appear on one table and not the other--has no relevance to which abilities may be placed on which weapons. 2. Special abilities for weapons are not restricted to melee or ranged weapons unless specifically noted in the text of the ability. 3. As proof, Snow offers the "Brilliant Energy" ability, which has a clause specifically restricting it to certain types of weapons. This clause, she reasons, indicates that no other special ability is restricted, because no other ability contains such a clause. Let's break it down. First off: we have two mutually-exclusive premises to evaluate here: A. Certain weapon special abilities can be applied only to melee weapons, and certain ones only to ranged weapons. These restrictions are indicated by the presence or absence of these special abilities on the "ranged" or "melee" charts, respectively. B. Any weapon special ability may be applied to any weapon, unless the text of the ability specifically notes otherwise. Now: let's first look at the clause in Brilliant Energy, because it's an interesting one: This property can only be applied to melee weapons, thrown weapons, and ammunition. This is significant, because it's not quite what we're talking about. Brilliant Energy isn't restricted to melee or ranged weapons; it appears on both tables. However, the designers, in their wisdom, chose to exclude one specific category of ranged weapons from eligibility. Thus, we may safely conclude that, whatever the case, this exact footnote wouldn't appear in the text of other special abilities. A different footnote might not be amiss in the text of a melee-only special ability or a ranged-only special ability, but this one would not apply. Now, with the exact significance of the Brilliant Energy footnote established, let's look at our premises and see how well they explain all of the observable data. A. Certain special abilities are melee only or missile only. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the purpose of the designers in breaking down abilities into melee and ranged categories on the charts was to restrict certain abilities to melee only or ranged only, and the ones on both charts to both, then we are obligated to answer Snow's question: Why would they then provide a footnote specifically for Brilliant Energy? The answer, however, seems clear: they needed to provide a footnote for Brilliant Energy because it doesn't fit any of those three cateories. Brilliant Energy weapons are not melee only, they're not missile only, and they're not open to all weapons; thus, they required further explanation...of precisely the sort given in the footnote. Without that footnote, the rules as written would allow BE for all weapons, since it appears on both charts. Now: we cannot say for certain that the charts were meant to serve this purpose. It is true that there is no passage in the DMG explicitly confirming this. We can, however, say that if this is the correct interpretation, it satisfactorily explains the observed data regarding BE, and eliminates some problems (discussed below.) This interpretation, however, has its flaws, and these are also discussed below. B. Any special ability is open to any weapon unless noted in the text. Again, there is no passage explicitly denying this. However, as I have pointed out, the presence of the Brilliant Energy footnote is not proof that the designers intended this interpretation; even if the prior interpretation is correct, that footnote has to be in the Brilliant Energy description. It is neither proof nor denial of either interpretation. A better supporting argument exists in the form of the Distance special ability, which DOES explicitly say that it's restricted to ranged weapons in the text of the ability, and the Ki Focus ability, which does explicitly say that it can only be granted to melee weapons. Certain other abilities also have such restrictions--restrictions which argue in favor of this position. This interpretation, however, presents certain inconsistencies and problems that the other does not. For example: 1. Ranged weapons can be given the Dancing special ability...but, for some odd reason, cannot fire more than five feet. The exception, of course, is ranged weapons with reach, which can fire ten feet. 2. The most logical thing for a warrior to wield in his off-hand is not a shield or a second weapon, but a fistful of shuriken. A handful of Defending shuriken allow for a monstrous AC bonus at a very cheap price; ammunition is much better at defending than melee weapons or defensive items. A handful of Mighty Cleaving shuriken allow the wielder to make multiple additional Cleave attempts in a round. For the price of a single Spellblade enchantment, the shuriken-wielder can be immune to any number of nasty spells. (As an aside, even restricting abilities to their respective charts leaves some hideous oversights. I'm frankly shocked that I never saw anyone here exploit the monstrous cheese that is 50 Doomwarding arrows in 3.0. Here's my 33,500 GP; that's 350 extra partial actions for me, thank you very much, or 350 rerolls of any die.) Overall? My take is that neither interpretation is wholly satisfactory, and that the best solution would be to correct the glaring oversights. Certain abilities (like Dancing) were fairly obviously intended to be melee only, but someone neglected to add the appropriate text.
ShadowCrown 07-21-04, 07:19 PM	These types of situations come up often in D&D in general, because people like those on these boards are looking for ways to maximize characters, and they are far more of them than there are Wizards editors. I myself don't see why these questions are so pressing; yes, I do understand that this is the character optimization forum and therefore the point is to look for loophole-type mechanics. But I see these precise type of mechanical arguments in all the boards, all the time, and it truly puzzles me. It doesn't take brilliance to realize that the rules are ambiguous on this point, that the intent of the authors is not obvious. So then, why does everyone continue to look for that intent, when what really matters is which interpretation is better for the game at hand. That's all that really matters for any rule; we just generally go with what the game designers have done, because they, in general, make the decisions that are best for any particular game. So then, when looking to them fails, which it does often, in my opinion, we have to figure it out ourselves. And then in this case, the answer is then obvious. Which is better for game balance, that someone can buy an offhand 'shield' that gives a +6 unnamed, explicitly stacks with all others including itself, bonus to AC for 480 gold (and that assumes you can only hold 3 shuriken in your off-hand, which is a conservative estimate at best), or that the entire system of formulas governing cost of AC bonuses for various slots should take precedence? If the rules are ambiguous, the DM in question decides which is best for his/her game. Yes, I know the RAW are what's considered 'open' here, but the RAW themselves call for DM intervention, and they give it an implicitly superior position to the rest of the rules, in fact, by calling it 'Rule Zero.' I'm not saying that we shouldn't look for these things. I'm saying that these long discussions of ambiguous rule sets completely miss the point. The 'RAW' shouldn't determine rulings on issues like this; the intent of the designers isn't obvious. The DM, who is in all likelihood completely capable of making the appropriate decision if it has been considered in the depth shown here, ought to make the ruling that's right for the game at hand.
Snow Savant 07-21-04, 07:22 PM	Caelic ... you'll probably get a reminder that the subject and content of this thread is not C.O. related and deserves a thread on the appropriate forum (Spells/Magic). Unless of course, you revise it to include some C.O. related stuff. Just as info. XO, Snow :cloud9:
Mucknuggle 07-21-04, 07:36 PM	Umm, sorry to butt in, but can't you just ask the Sage? Maybe get him to write a "Rules of the Game" article on it so that he can change some more rules (referring to Polymorph for those of you that have no idea what I'm talking about). ;)
Caelic 07-21-04, 08:11 PM	Ennh. To be honest, Snow, I'm less than terrified by the prospect. This argument really has no relevance outside of the CO Forum as far as I'm concerned--because most of what we're disputing would never be allowed in the majority of campaigns, and is thus purely an abstract exercize in optimization. I prefer to keep the response on the board where the question was asked; if they get cranky about that, oh well. Besides, I think that tricks that grant 350 extra partial actions/rerolls or instantly kill any character of a given alignment below 51st level qualify as "optimization," don't you? :)
Snow Savant 07-21-04, 08:23 PM	Stembolt's age-old C.O. FAQ kinda states otherwise. Especially noted in his first post once you enter the document (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64298). I guess if there ever was a "charter" for the C.O. Forum, his would be it. Besides, I don't see the optimization angle you are talking about at all. Although I totally dig the rules aspect of the issue.
Arkhain 07-21-04, 08:24 PM	I'm sorry to butt in, as well, but what is "RAW" which ShadowCrown refers to? It's not in the Dict of Terms...
tempeitri 07-21-04, 08:41 PM	RAW = Rules As Written. That is to say, exactly as written without any extrapolation or assumption.
Caelic 07-21-04, 08:47 PM	Originally posted by Snow Savant Besides, I don't see the optimization angle you are talking about at all. Although I totally dig the rules aspect of the issue. Demonstrating that proposed optimizations don't work is sort of crucial. Otherwise, we get illegal builds and nobody willing to correct them. Like I said, though, the thought of being warned just doesn't fill me with apprehension. This thread was a courtesy to you and a direct response to a question you asked. Probably should've been a private message, actually. If they decide to ban me for my sins, I'll go do something productive with my time.
Mommy was an Orc 07-22-04, 01:59 AM	Actually, that's not true. In order to get the benefits of a weapon, you usually need to attack with it(unless it specifies otherwise) - under Activation on page 222 in DMG 3.5. Also, it is against the rules to wield more than one weapon in a single hand - you need quickdraw and/or TWF to use multiple shurikin in a round and as you have to decide at the beginning of the round what the defending allocation is, that stops that. Which also punches one giant hole in those people who spike their armor and then put spellblade on it. In any case, there's the further problem of wielding an offhand weapon - unless you have TWF, that's not going to be pretty... Originally posted by Caelic 2. The most logical thing for a warrior to wield in his off-hand is not a shield or a second weapon, but a fistful of shuriken. A handful of Defending shuriken allow for a monstrous AC bonus at a very cheap price; ammunition is much better at defending than melee weapons or defensive items. A handful of Mighty Cleaving shuriken allow the wielder to make multiple additional Cleave attempts in a round. For the price of a single Spellblade enchantment, the shuriken-wielder can be immune to any number of nasty spells.