Post/Author/DateTime	Post
NeueRegel 06-09-07, 04:20 AM	Hello friends, Over in the Bracers of Armour thread, one member addressed an off-topic comment of mine about whether or not a brilliant energy weapon bypasses the "armour" of bracers of armour. Now, his take was that because the brilliant energy weapon bypasses "armour/armour bonuses/enhancements", it bypasses bracers. My take on it is that it does not. Bracers convey "an invisible yet tangible field of force. A brilliant energy ignores "non-living matter" A force effect, even one that is granting an armour effect, is not "matter". Thus in our games, at least in discussion, as it has never actually come into play as none of us has a brilliant energy weapon, we ruled that bracers would be an exception, and "not ignored". Sort of a pure magic counters magic thing... However, I post this to not try to sway you, the esteemed reader, but to hear your opinions, pro and con. In doing so, you may also wish to entertain other sorts of force magic comparisons. We not only have brilliance weapons vs. bracers to think about, there is also the "Fortification" special ability of armours to consider, which does not enhance the armour's bonus, but is a force effect against criticals only... Can a brilliant energy weapon ignore a simple 1st level shield spell, and then by extension, a wall of force? Bring on the opinions friends. It's all in good fun, since like I said, it's never come up "for real" in our campaign. (Yet?) Neue
NobodyRemembersThis 06-09-07, 04:27 AM	Yeah, I was the poster in question. The problem is really a non-issue. Brilliant energy specifically indicates that it ignores armor bonuses and enhancement (read = magic) bonuses to AC. It gives a specific list of what AC sources it ignores and which it observes. How that source is gained (ie, a force effect or spell) doesn't matter according to the RAW. Brilliant Energy A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item’s weight. It always gives off light as a torch (20-foot radius). A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor. (Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.) A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, and objects. This property can only be applied to melee weapons, thrown weapons, and ammunition. Strong transmutation; CL 16th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, gaseous form, continual flame; Price +4 bonus. For the record, I was surprised that interaction with force effects was not specifically mentioned - I personally feel that Force Effects should still work against Brilliant Energy. However, that is not the way it is worded :(
NeueRegel 06-09-07, 12:04 PM	You know, I know it seems sort of stupid looking, posting a reply to myself, but I (and my friends) sort of forgot one thing in our random discussions. While I (and thus we) would still stand by our logic, I don't think any one of us remembered to think about the fact that Brilliant Energy is a hefty +4 cost; I suppose for that price, it "should" include force-granted armor bonuses as well. Yep. Logical or not, that would put it on par with Dancing and Vorpal. Still open to any other posters though, for sure. Neue
Pentar 06-09-07, 02:17 PM	Wow... interesting question! I agree with NobodyRemembersThis with respect to RAW, that it should bypass force effects. However, this poses some other problematic issues with regards to balance... Let's take for example, Forcecage. Trap someone in a Forcecage - no save, no resistance... Just, "Haha ur screwed, pwnt!". Now take a brilliant energy weapon with reach. o.O Based on my readings of Force effects, it blocks everything except for a few specific magical effects. Most magic is blocked by a Wall of Force, including line of effect! It transcends dimensional barriers and blocks Ethereal creatures as well! That being the case, I think it can be argued that brilliant energy weapons are blocked by Force effects because it is not; a) antimagic b) a disintegrate effect c) a teleport or non-ethereal dimensional travel effect The argument can be made both ways - although if you follow the strict RAW, then brilliant energy would cut through Mage Armour as easily as it would full plate. The question is just how it would work best in your campaign. I would personally say that it could not bypass force effects.
NobodyRemembersThis 06-09-07, 02:38 PM	Let's take for example, Forcecage.Let's do so. Here is the RAW on forcecage: This powerful spell brings into being an immobile, invisible cubical prison composed of either bars of force or solid walls of force (your choice). Creatures within the area are caught and contained unless they are too big to fit inside, in which case the spell automatically fails. Teleportation and other forms of astral travel provide a means of escape, but the force walls or bars extend into the Ethereal Plane, blocking ethereal travel. Like a wall of force spell, a forcecage resists dispel magic, but it is vulnerable to a disintegrate spell, and it can be destroyed by a sphere of annihilation or a rod of cancellation. Barred Cage This version of the spell produces a 20-foot cube made of bands of force (similar to a wall of force spell) for bars. The bands are a half-inch wide, with half-inch gaps between them. Any creature capable of passing through such a small space can escape; others are confined. You can’t attack a creature in a barred cage with a weapon unless the weapon can fit between the gaps. Even against such weapons (including arrows and similar ranged attacks), a creature in the barred cage has cover. All spells and breath weapons can pass through the gaps in the bars. Windowless Cell This version of the spell produces a 10-foot cube with no way in and no way out. Solid walls of force form its six sides. Seems pretty standard. Now, we look at Brilliant Energy A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item’s weight. It always gives off light as a torch (20-foot radius). A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor. (Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.) A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, and objects. This property can only be applied to melee weapons, thrown weapons, and ammunition. Strong transmutation; CL 16th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, gaseous form, continual flame; Price +4 bonus. This is also relatively straight forward. So far, it seems that we have an impasse. It doesn't harm objects (although it apparently ignores them :bored: ). A forcecage is a magical object that bars most things universally. Complications arise. But wait! It mentions cover - This means the barred version of Forcecage does not block line of effect (ie, total cover)!! So forcecage would provide a cover bonus against a brilliant energy weapon in the barred version. Since the Solid Wall version blocks line of effect (cannot be the target of anything) brilliant energy weapon cannot be used to target a creature in a solid wall forcecage. Cover bonus is not specifically bypassed by Brilliant Energy, so the bonus applies :) So, it seems that it would cause a rules fubar. But, these two effects do not cause a problem when combined. :ayyyy!:
Nezkrul 06-15-07, 12:20 AM	yay for dnd rules!
NobodyRemembersThis 06-15-07, 01:46 AM	indeed. This one almost requires you to come at the problem sideways to determine how the rules interact. :P
mharb 06-15-07, 03:38 AM	Brilliant energy specifically indicates that it ignores armor bonuses and enhancement (read = magic) bonuses to AC. ...<snip>... Brilliant Energy "...A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor..." Your interpretation ignores the last part of the sentence, specifically part beginning "BECAUSE..." You see only one possible interpretation, but I say RAW should be interpreted in the context of the entire sentence. The sentence assumes that the armor bonus is from armor. So what if that assumption isn't true... This is an interpretation problem. It is worth examining similarly structured sentences throughout the core books for insight on interpretation. A druid loses her ability to speak while in animal form BECAUSE she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make. The sentence assumes that the sounds that the normal animal can make are not those required for speech. So can a druid in parrot form (or some other animal that can imitate human speech) speak? BECAUSE the bolas can wrap around an enemy’s leg or other limb, you can use this weapon to make a ranged trip attack against an opponent. The sentence assumes an opponent has legs or limbs. So according to RAW, can a Bola be used to trip a gray ooze? If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll BECAUSE you have to aim carefully to avoid hitting your friend. An incorporeal ally is engaged in combat with a giant. Does one take a -4 penalty on the attack roll against the giant when throwing a non-magical dart that can't possibly hit the all? The Rules As Written are to be interpreted in the context of the entire sentence and paragraph in which they were written. In this case, reading the entire paragraph it seems clear to me that brilliant energy weapons do not ignore force effects, including armor and shield bonuses from force effects, such as mage armor, shield, or a ring of force shield
mharb 06-15-07, 03:45 AM	Brilliant energy specifically indicates that it ignores armor bonuses and enhancement (read = magic) bonuses to AC. ...<snip>... Brilliant Energy "...A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor..." The quoted passage offers a rationale that assumes that the armor bonus is from armor. So what if that assumption isn't true... This is an interpretation problem. Question is, are the various explanation and rationales written in the core books, part of the rules, or just fluff? Your interpretation ignores the last part of the sentence, specifically the part beginning "BECAUSE..." I say that the rationales that are written into the book are part of the rules and RAW should be interpreted in the context of the entire sentence. It is worth examining similarly structured sentences in the PHB: A druid loses her ability to speak while in animal form BECAUSE she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make. The sentence assumes that the sounds that the normal animal can make are not those required for speech. So can a druid in parrot form (or some other animal that can imitate human speech) speak? BECAUSE the bolas can wrap around an enemy’s leg or other limb, you can use this weapon to make a ranged trip attack against an opponent. The sentence assumes an opponent has legs or limbs for the bola to wrap around. So according to RAW, can a Bola be used to trip a gray ooze? If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll BECAUSE you have to aim carefully to avoid hitting your friend. The sentence assumes that one has to aim carefully to avoid hitting a friend. What if an incorporeal ally is engaged in combat with a giant? Does the -4 penalty still apply when throwing a non-magical dart that can't possibly hit the ally? While it is certainly possible to treat the explanation and rationales written into the rules books as irrelevant to the rules, I support a contextual approach to interpretation that leads to less frequent absurd results. I say that the rationales are part of the RAW. In this case, reading the relevant clause in the context of the paragraph in which it occurs, and it seems clear to me that brilliant energy weapons do not ignore force effects, including armor and shield bonuses from force effects, such as mage armor, shield, or a ring of force shield
NobodyRemembersThis 06-15-07, 11:58 AM	The quoted passage offers a rationale that assumes that the armor bonus is from armor. So what if that assumption isn't true... This is an interpretation problem. Question is, are the various explanation and rationales written in the core books, part of the rules, or just fluff? Your interpretation ignores the last part of the sentence, specifically the part beginning "BECAUSE..." I say that the rationales that are written into the book are part of the rules and RAW should be interpreted in the context of the entire sentence.You are compltely and utterly wrong. Below, I show you why. The sentence assumes that the sounds that the normal animal can make are not those required for speech. So can a druid in parrot form (or some other animal that can imitate human speech) speak? Parrot's are not in the SRD so are a completely invalid arguement - they have no statistics. More importantly, a Parrot can only mimic sounds it has learned - it is not capable of true speech. As it has to be trained to speak, a Druid cannot use it as a shape to cast spells in. Before you ask, only a raven familiar can speak common. It is a magical beast, and a druid cannot change into it. So again, this arguement is invalid. The sentence assumes an opponent has legs or limbs for the bola to wrap around. So according to RAW, can a Bola be used to trip a gray ooze?You can use this weapon to make a ranged trip attack against an opponent. You can’t be tripped during your own trip attempt when using a set of bolasThe rules say nothing about legs or limbs. Trying to use flavor text instead of the actual rules is a logical fallacy. One more "proof proved incorrect.The sentence assumes that one has to aim carefully to avoid hitting a friend. What if an incorporeal ally is engaged in combat with a giant? Does the -4 penalty still apply when throwing a non-magical dart that can't possibly hit the ally?Here are the relevent rules.An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead, but a hit with holy water has a 50% chance of not affecting an incorporeal creature.Shooting or Throwing into a Melee If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.) If your target (or the part of your target you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character. It talks about threatened squares - nothing about your friend being cover. Again, trying to use flavor text to argue a rule is a logical fallacy. While it is certainly possible to treat the explanation and rationales written into the rules books as irrelevant to the rules, I support a contextual approach to interpretation that leads to less frequent absurd results. I say that the rationales are part of the RAW. In this case, reading the relevant clause in the context of the paragraph in which it occurs, and it seems clear to me that brilliant energy weapons do not ignore force effects, including armor and shield bonuses from force effects, such as mage armor, shield, or a ring of force shieldSo you admit you do not read the rules. your flavor text is not in the RAW - the SRD has all of the relevent rules without the flavor text. If it is not contained in the SRD it is not part of the rule. Your argument is flawed. Brilliant Energy Weapons, as I have just proved again ignore all armor and shield bonuses - your flavor text arguements are not valid for this.
tarkin 06-15-07, 12:08 PM	I can not see a Brilliant weapon ignoring force. It specificailly states it ignores non-living MATTER. Force is not matter. You can not ignore the word matter, anymore than you can ignore the word "non-living". Ignoring either of those words dramatically changes what the item does.
Knightblde 06-15-07, 12:22 PM	Can you name anything besides thought that is not matter? I am not saying you can't, but I am a lowly 'trades man' not a man of science. If I remember correctly matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. If I cannot walk 'through' it wouldn't that prove it takes up space even though you cannot see it? Isn't it true that if I can punch it, and hurt my hand, that it has mass? Wouldn't that mean that it has a greater mass than my hand? My opinion is that you have to decide if it is living or not. As such I choose to believe that force effects are non living. Therefore brilliant energy would pass through a force effect. Whether or or not a force effect is matter means nothing to me, and I believe the rules. I come to this conclusion because I believe the desingers would trust that we the players could decide what is living and what is not living with ease. I do not believe that they expect us to apply physics (I think) to each item or force that we come into contact with. Also, since we really know little about 'antimatter' or things that are not matter, how would we identify them? Basically I think it comes down to a modified touch attack. Touch attack + Natural Armor = the to hit number. Just my thoughts. You do you.
NeueRegel 06-15-07, 01:10 PM	Gods and Goddesses, but I dislike agreeing with Tarkin, lol. But, as in my OP above, my gut instinct is still there. I don't think it was ever intended that a brilliant energy weapon "ignore" anything but steel and leather armor, even enhanced armor (which makes the armor better, not really harder to hit). Deflection still counts, which is "magically warding off blows"; I think that when this brilliant energy idea was conceived, that the writer was still in the old mindset that Bracers of AC-X were deflection items, as they used to be, and the parenthetical "(Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.)" should include "force effects" as one of those "other such bonuses still apply". (Like I can only suspect and theorize that he probably was.) A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor. I think it's fairly obvious that his mind was on the physical armor, "matter", in what the brilliant energy bypassed, and he forgot that the terminology "bonuses to AC" are now also given by force effects sometimes, not just deflection magic. And I can't very well say that "mage armor or bracers force field doesn't work but fortification force field does. So, in summary, thank you all for a wonderful little debate, but I have to idiotically copy Tarkin and say, I think that what I have just posted sums up the RAI, instead of the very debatable RAW. Neue :ton:
NobodyRemembersThis 06-15-07, 01:23 PM	Intent doesn't matter in this regard. Brilliant Energy ignores Armor and shield bonuses. That's it. It does not specifiy exceptions. You still gain benefit from cover (Shield). You do not gain a benefit from an armor bonus. Period (Mage Armor, Magic Vestment, et all)
mvincent 06-15-07, 01:24 PM	I can not see a Brilliant weapon ignoring force.By RAW, brilliant energy "ignores Armor and shield bonuses to AC". It'd be considerably weaker if it ignored "Armor and shield bonuses to AC (unless they come from force effects)". This has been (conclusively) discussed several times before. The whole "matter=energy" argument shouldn't even need to be brought up (since D&D isn't science)... the whole point of brilliant energy is to "ignore Armor and shield bonuses to AC"
Pentar 06-15-07, 01:50 PM	All things considered, the fact that it is a +4 enhancement to a weapon, it should go through [Force] effects, just for that reason alone. It is a powerful enchantment. It is meant to be effective. Obviously they (WoTC) could not account for all cases, so we do what makes sense in context of the item and the intention of the benefits it should provide. It is already limited in that there are certain creatures that will be utterly immune to the effects of a +4 enhanced weapon - and we're talking fairly common critters like undead and constructs. So having it chop through a Level 1 Mage Armour spell isn't inconceivably broken or unbalanced, and it doesn't "matter" what a [Force] effect is... (heheh, sorry, I had to).
tarkin 06-15-07, 02:23 PM	Can you name anything besides thought that is not matter? I am not saying you can't, but I am a lowly 'trades man' not a man of science. A lowly trades man? Of a fantasy world? Have you perhaps heard of LIGHT? Light is not matter. It consists of photons traveling at the speed of light, which is, by Einstein's laws, impossible for matter. If there is a sufficient amount of Light, it CAN push matter (Light Sail article in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_sail)), which means non-matter can physically affect matter. Also electromangetic fields are not matter. As a human being, you could not physically put your hands through a sufficiently powerfull magnetic field, because you have iron in your blood. ---------------------- Objects can exist as matter, anti-matter, or pure energy. Matter and anti-matter are made of the same thing: fermions. Fermions have 1/2 number 'spins' and can never occupy the same space (i.e. you can't put one matter through a wall of matter). Everything else is currently made out of Bosons. Bosons include photons (light), Gluons, Higgs Bosons (responsible for mass/weight), and a couple of other things. Sometimes, but NOT all times Bosons can occupy the same space as mass. For example, Photons often bounce off a mirror instead of being absorbed into one. They can not occupy the same space, so they bounce. Note techincally, as proven by a LIGHT SAIL, the mirror moves a small amount backwards everytime light hits it. That is, the mirror bounces off the light. See Newton's 3rd law of motion: to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Knightblde 06-20-07, 02:06 PM	A lowly trades man? Of a fantasy world? Have you perhaps heard of LIGHT? Light is not matter. It consists of photons traveling at the speed of light, which is, by Einstein's laws, impossible for matter. If there is a sufficient amount of Light, it CAN push matter (Light Sail article in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_sail)), which means non-matter can physically affect matter. Also electromangetic fields are not matter. As a human being, you could not physically put your hands through a sufficiently powerfull magnetic field, because you have iron in your blood. ---------------------- Objects can exist as matter, anti-matter, or pure energy. Matter and anti-matter are made of the same thing: fermions. Fermions have 1/2 number 'spins' and can never occupy the same space (i.e. you can't put one matter through a wall of matter). Everything else is currently made out of Bosons. Bosons include photons (light), Gluons, Higgs Bosons (responsible for mass/weight), and a couple of other things. Sometimes, but NOT all times Bosons can occupy the same space as mass. For example, Photons often bounce off a mirror instead of being absorbed into one. They can not occupy the same space, so they bounce. Note techincally, as proven by a LIGHT SAIL, the mirror moves a small amount backwards everytime light hits it. That is, the mirror bounces off the light. See Newton's 3rd law of motion: to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I did wonder about light. But the complexity of your post proves my point more than anything. I believe the RAI is for us to decide what is alive and what is not, rather than to determin what is matter and what is not. Does that make sense? I noticed you left that part out of your post. You do you!
aeulous 06-25-07, 12:34 PM	The laws of physics state that Force=mass*accerleration. Thereby any force effect has a mass otherwise it is not able to effect something. Thereby Brillant Energy weapons bypass force effects.
Pentar 06-25-07, 12:50 PM	The laws of physics state that Force=mass*accerleration. Thereby any force effect has a mass otherwise it is not able to effect something. Thereby Brillant Energy weapons bypass force effects. I really don't think that's the kind of "Force" we're talking about here... :rolleyes:
TheQuickBrownFox 06-25-07, 02:38 PM	Here is the relevant text from the spell Disintegrate, as per the SRD: Disintegrate ... When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10- foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field. Clearly, force effects are considered nonliving matter.
Pentar 06-25-07, 03:22 PM	Here is the relevant text from the spell Disintegrate, as per the SRD: When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10- foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field. Clearly, force effects are considered nonliving matter. Not that I disagree with you, I'm just playing devil's advocate... but the wording says that it "even affects objects constructed entirely of force". The use of the word even implies that [Force] is not lumped into the "Nonliving matter" and thus it has to be spelled out separately to ensure its inclusion. Again, I agree Brilliant Energy should by-pass [Force] armour protection, I just don't think your example is solid proof of that :)
mvincent 06-25-07, 04:22 PM	Not that I disagree with you, I'm just playing devil's advocate... but the wording says that it "even affects objects constructed entirely of force". The use of the word even implies that [Force] is not lumped into the "Nonliving matter" and thus it has to be spelled out separately to ensure its inclusion.I think if it used the word "also", "or", "additionally" or somesuch then it would be an "exception that proves the rule". However, use of the word "even" implies that it is making a clarification for something the reader might consider an exception. Example, the rules say "Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.". If other text said "Armor never affects a supernatural ability’s use" (but did not include the 2nd part), we would not interpret the previous SLA line as providing an exception that proves a rule for supernatural abilities. The disintegration text implies that force is non-living matter (at least for this spell), not that the spell affects force in addition to non-living matter. At the most, it implies that the writer's couldn't include clarifications for every possible interpretation in every description, but if they could, this clarifying text would be present. At the least, this means that the "force is not matter" argument is not a truism, and so could not be used as a basis for over-ruling the weapon's stated effect (i.e. bypassing shield and armor bonuses).
sleepydeath 06-26-07, 03:39 AM	To the one guy talking about "force=mass*acceleration". This for formula only works on things that has mass. Consider electromagnetic fields and light which have no mass. And e.g. mage armor has no mass for sure, because if it would have mass, it would also have weight because of the gravitity, and by the rules its weightless. BTW if you take it that serious, the weapon would not ignore undeads too because of bacteriums and other microscopic small living inside the undeads body, that you dont see. Your sword would be sometimes stuck in the air because of bacteriums/other suff that is in the air. Back from theorie, which definitely has no place in an fantasy game with magic und stuff, to the topic: A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) this are the most important lines. It looks like with "Armor and shield bonuses to AC" they meant mundane armor/shield and mundane armor/shield improved by magic (see "(including any enhancement bonuses to that armor)"). BTW a I dont see a force field count as nonliving matter
Leilond 06-26-07, 04:00 AM	I want to correct only this If it is not contained in the SRD it is not part of the rule I'm playing D&D. The D&D official rules are those on the manuals. SRD is an usefull resource but it's not an official D&D rule source Do you know that the Beholder stats aren't in the SRD because it is under WOCT copyright? Do yuo know that the Displacer Beast stats aren't in the SRD for the same reason? Are you saying us that the Displacer beast "is not part of the rule"? Sorry, the displacer beast isn't part of the SRD, but it is part of the D&D rules and we play D&D, not SRD
NobodyRemembersThis 06-26-07, 10:14 AM	Leiland, you have still not found any way to answer that the brilliant energy description explicitly states that it ignores armor and shield bonuses. There is no other way to read it. It does not make exceptions.
Leilond 06-26-07, 10:27 AM	I'm sure that RAW it ignores armor bonus. No matter of force effect But I was responding to another WRONG assumption, the assumption that SRD is a more official rule source. It is wrong. It isn't official at all
Pentar 06-26-07, 12:06 PM	I think if it used the word "also", "or", "additionally" or somesuch then it would be an "exception that proves the rule". However, use of the word "even" implies that it is making a clarification for something the reader might consider an exception. Example, the rules say "Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.". If other text said "Armor never affects a supernatural ability’s use" (but did not include the 2nd part), we would not interpret the previous SLA line as providing an exception that proves a rule for supernatural abilities. The disintegration text implies that force is non-living matter (at least for this spell), not that the spell affects force in addition to non-living matter. Hmm, that does make sense... Because as this thread proves, many people consider [Force] to be an exception to what constitutes "Matter". I find it particularly odd simply because [Force] interacts with the Ethereal plane, something standard non-living matter on the Material plan can't do. Basically, it does not possess the standard qualities or properties of 'matter', but is counted as it for the purposes of Disintegrate and other effects.
mvincent 06-26-07, 12:45 PM	this are the most important lines. It looks like with "Armor and shield bonuses to AC" they meant mundane armor/shield and mundane armor/shield improved by magic Per established D&D terminology "Armor and shield bonuses to AC" includes things like force effects. Example: the D&D glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_shieldbonus&alpha=S) says: "shield bonus: A bonus to Armor Class granted by a shield or by a spell or magic effect that mimics a shield." It seems likely that the D&D writer's would be aware of this when using these particular terms.
Necroramo 06-26-07, 01:56 PM	I agree with NobodyRemembersThis. Brilliant energy weapons bypass armor bonuses. Bracers of armor bestow an armor bonus. End of story. Knightblde: I can name something that isn't matter: Energy.
sleepydeath 06-26-07, 03:37 PM	Per established D&D terminology "Armor and shield bonuses to AC" includes things like force effects. Example: the D&D glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_shieldbonus&alpha=S) says: "shield bonus: A bonus to Armor Class granted by a shield or by a spell or magic effect that mimics a shield." It seems likely that the D&D writer's would be aware of this when using these particular terms. you missed "including any enhancement bonuses to that armor". Magic affects that increase armor (like force effects) are already enhancement bonus that means it cannot be improved by magic again leading us to the conclusion that it only works on normal armor made of some kind of material (nonliving matter - as written in the description). I'm sure that RAW it ignores armor bonus. wrong, it only ignores non living matter, this is the exception. and there is no point arguing that a field of force is some kind of matter, it isnt, deal with it, u dont have to use the enhancement. If your Dm allows it, fine, it doesnt matter, because +4 is hefty and wouldnt make it unbalanced but like it is written, it doenst by pass force effects.
mvincent 06-26-07, 03:41 PM	Magic affects that increase armor are already enhancement bonusNope.
Leilond 06-26-07, 04:46 PM	you missed "including any enhancement bonuses to that armor". Magic affects that increase armor (like force effects) are already enhancement bonus that means it cannot be improved by magic again leading us to the conclusion that it only works on normal armor made of some kind of material (nonliving matter - as written in the description). Totally wrong assumption. That part only say that if you wear an armor (and only if) you can ignore the enanchement, it doesn't say ANYWHERE that only the material armor are contempled wrong, it only ignores non living matter, this is the exception. And are force effect living matters? and there is no point arguing that a field of force is some kind of matter, it isnt, deal with it, u dont have to use the enhancement. If your Dm allows it, fine, it doesnt matter, because +4 is hefty and wouldnt make it unbalanced but like it is written, it doenst by pass force effects. The rules don's say so. You can argue how much you want, but a force effect still isn't a living matter
NobodyRemembersThis 06-26-07, 04:47 PM	I'm sure that RAW it ignores armor bonus. No matter of force effect But I was responding to another WRONG assumption, the assumption that SRD is a more official rule source. It is wrong. It isn't official at allCompletely incorrect. The SRD is the OGC and official rules standard for all d20.
NobodyRemembersThis 06-26-07, 04:50 PM	wrong, it only ignores non living matter, this is the exception.Please provide a quote from the SRD or the DMG that says that force effects that grant Armor or shield bonuses are not ignored by brilliant energy weapons. You can't, because there are NO exceptions in the rules. Brilliant Energy weapons ignore armor and shield bonuses without exception.
WhiteHarness 06-26-07, 08:27 PM	I disagree. I think the rules are pretty clear that it only ignores physical armour; magic forces have their usual effects. Honestly, why is everyone out to totally nerf armour in this game?
mvincent 06-26-07, 08:37 PM	I think the rules are pretty clear that it only ignores physical armourIf it was (as you believe) "pretty clear" I doubt we would be having this conversation. Conversely, it seems "pretty clear" to me that you are incorrect, but I do not say this as a generalization because (clearly) this is not as self-evident to everyone. Honestly, why is everyone out to totally nerf armour in this game?By your own indication we are evidently not trying to nerf "armor". Conversely, why are you trying to nerf brilliant energy? The benefits of force bonuses to AC have been proven (and are certainly not underpowered). However, for it's price, brilliant energy's ability to bypass armor and shield bonuses (as opposed to merely armor and shields) is actually a bit underpowered before your nerfing.
mharb 06-27-07, 02:29 AM	You are compltely and utterly wrong. Below, I show you why. Actually, you have made my point for me. By ignoring what you call "flavor text" you make the exact absurd conclusions that I predicted some people would make. Specifically, you conclude that... 1... Parrots do not exist. 2... Bolas can be used to trip oozes, despite their lack of limbs. 3... A character can get a +4 bonus to his AC by allowing an ineffective enemy to hang around threatening him in melee. Likewise, based on the assumption that the text: "A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter." is merely flavor text, you conclude that a brilliant energy weapon penetrates force armor.
Leilond 06-27-07, 03:46 AM	Actually, you have made my point for me. By ignoring what you call "flavor text" you make the exact absurd conclusions that I predicted some people would make. Specifically, you conclude that... 1... Parrots do not exist. 2... Bolas can be used to trip oozes, despite their lack of limbs. 3... A character can get a +4 bonus to his AC by allowing an ineffective enemy to hang around threatening him in melee. Likewise, based on the assumption that the text: "A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter." is merely flavor text, you conclude that a brilliant energy weapon penetrates force armor. The rule is A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item’s weight. It always gives off light as a torch (20-foot radius). A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor. (Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.) A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, and objects. This property can only be applied to melee weapons, thrown weapons, and ammunition. Nothing here is "flavor text". This is a rule, from the beginning to the end The weapon ignores "nonliving matter" The weapon ignores "armor and shield bonus to AC" Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural and othe such bonuses still apply.) A force effect provide a armor bonsu to AC and is a nonliving matter. It can be ignored by brillant energy If you consider a undead a "nonliving matter" you cannot wound them with this weapon Same for constructs
NobodyRemembersThis 06-27-07, 07:44 AM	So you are admiting you can't find any proof to back your arguements? Thanks, I guess. :bored: Let's go over this slowly. 1.) It explicitly states that it ignores armor and shield bonuses. 2.) It explicitly states that other AC sources are valid - but does not contradict (1). 3.) Brilliant Energy explicitly cannot harm undead, constructs, and objects. End of story - I sked you to provide a quote that proves that force effects that give an armor or shield bonus are excluded - you have not. No more needs to be said on this subject - the rules are completely clear that the enchantment ignores force effects that grant armor and shield bonuses.
Leilond 06-27-07, 07:55 AM	So you are admiting you can't find any proof to back your arguements? Thanks, I guess. :bored: Let's go over this slowly. 1.) It explicitly states that it ignores armor and shield bonuses. 2.) It explicitly states that other AC sources are valid - but does not contradict (1). 3.) Brilliant Energy explicitly cannot harm undead, constructs, and objects. End of story - I sked you to provide a quote that proves that force effects that give an armor or shield bonus are excluded - you have not. No more needs to be said on this subject - the rules are completely clear that the enchantment ignores force effects that grant armor and shield bonuses. EVERYTHING that give armor bonus is excluded, as written
NobodyRemembersThis 06-27-07, 01:06 PM	EVERYTHING that give armor bonus is excluded, as writtenThat is 100% correct; I was mearely point out that force effects are also included in that "everything" despite what some of the posters in this thread have tried to argue that they are not.
Pentar 06-27-07, 05:29 PM	God..! I can't believe people are still arguing about this?? Even if one could argue that [Force] effects are not "non-living matter", it certainly is not living matter. The only other consideration then is what sort of bonus does it provide. It provides Armor bonus. Ergo, Brilliant Energy bypasses it. Simple. Done. Clean.
aeulous 06-29-07, 10:23 AM	there is only one type of armor effect that brillant energy does not ignore that is a exalted bonus as it is written in the book of exalted deeds. However the only way to get that bonus is to have either vow of poverty of or the second one out of vow of peace/nonviolence can't remember which off hand.