Post/Author/DateTime	Post
UltimaGabe 08-03-04, 05:07 PM	From the SRD: A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion- such as its blade, axe head, or arrowhead- transformed into light, although this ability 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 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. I've got a few questions regarding the Brilliant Energy ability in the DMG. 1. Can a Brilliant Energy weapon be turned off? Meaning, can you choose to have the weapon revert back to its non-Brilliant and non-Energy self, foregoing the ability to negate armor bonuses and other nonliving matter? Let's say you're playing a Paladin with a +3 Dragonbane Holy Brilliant Energy Longsword, and you've spent the last couple adventures hunting down and killing evil dragons. Then, at one point in your adventuring, the Fighter clumsily sets off a trap that summons a bunch of undead soldiers. Or a Rast, immediately prior to being Disintegrated by the party's Sorcerer, animates several chairs and they attack. Or the party encounters a couple incorporeal outsiders. Or something like that. Is the Paladin's UberWeapon utterly useless against these foes? Can he turn it off and attack them normally, or does he have to sit out and tell his friends, "Sorry, I can't join in because of this 128,000 gp I spent on my weapon a couple levels ago"? Because if it's a one-time decision, that could be more of a drawback than a bonus in many cases- and considering it's got such a hefty cost, you'd think there'd be some way to keep it from screwing the group over in addition to eating up all your money. For balance purposes I'd rule that it could be turned off, but there's no such statement in its description. Even the Merciful special ability (+1d6 points of damage, all damage is subdual) can be turned off so it isn't useless against undead and constructs, and that only costs a +1 bonus. Any official rules? 2. Brilliant Energy weapons ignore nonliving matter, and thus armor (and shields, I'm assuming) don't apply to the target's AC. Although this can be quite useful in some situations (such as against a Fighter in Platemail and a Heavy Steel Shield), in other situations it wouldn't be so useful (a rogue in Leather Armor) and in lots of situations it wouldn't provide any bonus at all (a monk, or, more importantly, any creature that isn't humanoid and wearing armor). Against a Dragon it wouldn't provide any bonus. Against a Lycanthrope it wouldn't provide any bonus. One could even rule that against a Druid in Wildshape with Wild armor it wouldn't provide any bonus. Against a Fighter in Full Plate, it's amazing, but that's quite a limited factor for something to take effect. I understand that other enhancements are limited by their situational uses (Alignment-based weapons, and anything with a Bane ability) but those are +2 and +1 bonuses, respectively. Brilliant Energy is a +4 bonus, and isn't useful at all against the majority of the monsters in the Monster Manual (and against some, such as undead, it's useless). I'm not particularly sure that I think it's worth a +4 bonus the way it is. Would it be too unbalanced to allow a Brilliant Energy weapon to bypass Natural Armor as well? After all, I've heard it argued that natural armor isn't any more alive than plate mail (since scales and whatnot are long-dead hardened skin cells or chitin) and thus the description of the Brilliant Energy ability isn't completely scientifically accurate. Allowing it to bypass natural armor would simplify things (it's easier to ask for someone's Touch AC than to ask for their AC without Armor or enhancements but plus their Natural Armor) and it would make it useful in more situations. Since I don't see many people (or anyone, for that matter) rushing to grab Brilliant Energy weapons as it is, I'm sure the +4 bonus will still deter many people from getting it, even if it IS just a touch attack. Thoughts? 3. Does a Brilliant Energy weapon bypass Mage Armor or Bracers of Armor? They both provide an Armor Bonus, but neither is nonliving matter (considering it's armor made of pure magical force). If a Brilliant Energy weapon can bypass Mage Armor or Bracers of Armor, can it bypass a Wall of Force? 4. The description of the Brilliant Energy ability states that it can only be placed on melee weapons, thrown weapons, and ammunition. The notable point is that you have to place it on your arrows, not your bow. While this makes sense, is it necessary? After all, the Flaming ability can be placed on a bow, and it grants the Flaming ability to its ammunition. Why can't this be the same way? Is there something unbalanced about the bow turning its arrows to energy, rather than the arrows needing to be energy to begin with? As it is, it's fine and dandy to make a melee weapon into a Brilliant Energy melee weapon, I don't think anyone in their right mind would make Brilliant Energy arrows or other Brilliant Energy ammunition. As it is, the cheapest you could make is 50 +1 Brilliant Energy arrows, costing 50,000 gp. That's right. 1,000 gp per shot, just to have your arrows bypass physical armor and shields. Would it be too unbalancing to allow someone to make a Brilliant Energy Crossbow, which bestows the Brilliant Energy property onto its Bolts? Considering it's a +4 bonus, I'd expect it to be in keeping with all of the other similar abilities. Any information (official rulings, ad-hoc rulings made by actual DMs, or even educated suggestions) would be most appreciated.
tarkin 08-03-04, 05:34 PM	1. Can a Brilliant Energy weapon be turned off? No. Get a back up weapon 2. Yes, it is limited. That is why you have a back up weapon. Brilliant is a GREAT enchantment for use in any of the following: A)10 out of your fifty arrows. B) ONE head of a double weapon 3. Good question. I would rule that it can bypass force., but I am not sure it is right. 4. I could see it being House Ruled as you suggest, but would prefer to use the logical reasoning that WoTC used, it logcially should not work that way, so no. Besides, smart people get ammo with it, as I stated above, so that not ALL there ranged attacks must have the ability.
smrtgmp 08-03-04, 05:56 PM	I agree with tarkin's rulings I also agree with the original poster that its not worth the +4 price mod. Unless I'm missing something, it seems like a very high price to pay for something that is only effective against a small minority of the foes you will be facing.
UltimaGabe 08-03-04, 06:23 PM	Originally posted by tarkin 1. No. Get a back up weapon 2. Yes, it is limited. That is why you have a back up weapon. So... you're saying I'm spending a minimum of 50,000 gp so that I can use a different weapon instead? My point was that for a +4 modifier, that's one hell of a drawback. So much so, that I don't think it's even close to being worth a +4. I sure as heck don't want to spend half my money enchanting something so that I can put it away when the time comes and use that other weapon I spent money on instead.
PhaedrusXY 08-03-04, 06:23 PM	Leather armor is non-living, and more importantly from a rules perspective, it provides an Armor bonus to AC. Brilliant Energy specifically states that it ignores all Armor bonuses to AC. So a Brilliant Energy weapon would ignore the armor bonus from leather armor and also from Bracers of Armor, the Mage Armor spell, and the like (unless their descriptions state otherwise). Even with the limitations it has, a brilliant energy weapon is incredibly powerful in the right circumstances in the hands of a character with a full base attack bonus and the Power Attack feat (especially if the weapon is being used as a two-handed weapon). I agree that I am not sure it is worth a +4 enhancement bonus, though. It also ignored Natural Armor bonuses in 3.0, which made it much more appealing and worth the +4 bonus. Now I'd say it's only worth a +3, personally.
Lord Lorac Silvanos 08-03-04, 06:26 PM	I also agree with Tarkin, but I would definately not let it bypass a Wall of Force even if I agreed that it could bypass Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor. Even if a part of the weapon/arrow is now made of light the other part of it cannot penetrate the wall.
cheesegrater 08-03-04, 06:32 PM	It's situational, but when that situation kicks in, the benefits are staggering. Against a high level fighter with magic fullplate and shield, you're talking the equivalent of a +22 to hit. (+8 fullplate armor, +5 fullplate enhancement, +4 tower shield, +5 shield enhancement.) I personally think that's worth a +4, especially in a campaign that features humanoid opponents.
UltimaGabe 08-03-04, 06:43 PM	Originally posted by cheesegrater It's situational, but when that situation kicks in, the benefits are staggering. Against a high level fighter with magic fullplate and shield, you're talking the equivalent of a +22 to hit. (+8 fullplate armor, +5 fullplate enhancement, +4 tower shield, +5 shield enhancement.) ...And the other 99.5% of the time?
Lord Lorac Silvanos 08-03-04, 06:46 PM	UltimaGabe: How many places have you posted this question :confused:
cheesegrater 08-03-04, 07:04 PM	Originally posted by UltimaGabe ...And the other 99.5% of the time? What do you want? It's situational. Are rogue levels worthless because you can't sneak attack all the time? It's a super powerful ability when it does kick in, so you can't reduce the price. In some campaigns it will kick in more often than others. You don't have to pick this enchantment if you don't like it, you know. Myself? I do like it, and I'd take it at the cost listed.
UltimaGabe 08-03-04, 09:05 PM	Originally posted by Lord Lorac Silvanos UltimaGabe: How many places have you posted this question :confused: Just this forum and the DMG forum. I wasn't sure which would be more appropriate. Anyway, I'm aware that Brilliant Energy is situational, as is a Rogue's sneak attack. However, sneak attack affects well over half of the creature types in the game- and in the worst-case-scenario, it simply doesn't take effect, leaving you with your base damage. Brilliant Energy, however, is worse that useless against a small percent of the creatures in the game (since a Brilliant Energy weapon cannot harm Undead, you'd be better off without the enchantment). Not only that, it provides no bonus whatsoever against non-humanoids, and even against humanoids it ranges from non-functional (monks, wizards) to extremely functional (the aforemention Fighter with +5 Full Plate and a +5 Tower Shield). However, if Fighters with +5 Full Plate and +5 Tower Shields comprise any more than 0.5% of the enemies in your campaign, something is wrong. It's entirely based on the campaign. If you're in a campaign that consists primarily of fighting humanoids wearing heavily enchanted armor, then it's definitely worth the +4 bonus. In a campaign that isn't primarily focused on fighting humanoids in heavily enchanted armor, it isn't. I'm going to venture out on a limb and say that the majority of campaigns have more non-humanoids-in-armor than humanoids in armor- in fact, the majority of the campaigns out there have FAR less humanoids in armor than non-humanoids-in-armor. Therefore, it should have a LOWER price, scaled UP in the special case of humanoid-in-armor-based campaigns. The way it is, it's not worth the +4. At all. Seriously- on average, which would you rather have- a +1 Brilliant Energy longsword, or a +5 Longsword? I'd take the +5 Longsword. There's not a single enemy in the game that's going to be completely unaffected by a +5 Longsword, whereas a +1 Brilliant Energy Longsword can't even scratch undead or constructs.
Turin 08-03-04, 10:06 PM	Originally posted by UltimaGabe It's entirely based on the campaign. If you're in a campaign that consists primarily of fighting humanoids wearing heavily enchanted armor, then it's definitely worth the +4 bonus. In a campaign that isn't primarily focused on fighting humanoids in heavily enchanted armor, it isn't. <SNIP> Seriously- on average, which would you rather have- a +1 Brilliant Energy longsword, or a +5 Longsword? I'd take the +5 Longsword. I would probably take the +5 longsword too, but that doesn't mean that Brilliant Energy is useless. Look, the campaign doesn't have to consist primarily of fighting humanoids wearing "heavily enchanted" armor in order to be useful. If a bad guy is wearing plain ol' nonmagical chain shirt and heavy shield (pretty common through low levels), you're already talking about an effective +6 to hit. Is the enchantment worth +4? Probably not in all campaigns. But what should it be? Let's face it, if it were only a +1 or +2 enchantment, PCs would be lining up out the door to get this, because at those levels they can reasonably expect in the average campaign to face a lot of guys in armor. Maybe +3 might be more appropriate, but I still think not... it turns the tide SO much in the right circumstances that it would be almost be foolish not to have a backup Brilliant Energy weapon if they were cheaper. I like the suggestion of getting it for a small amount of arrows... it's much more useful this way, in the same way that an archer in 3.5 might have a quiver full of different arrows for different DR's (like silver, cold iron, etc), but a fighter still isn't going to carry around 3 different swords.
sparkster4242 08-04-04, 02:07 AM	tarkin: re: 3 A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. 'non-living matter' is a key phrase - note that a few types of armor _are_ living, and some armor is not 'matter'. Armor bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it This is pretty straightforward, but inconsistent - in the same sentence: because the weapon passes through armor. if you read only the sentence beginning 'Armor bonuses to AC', you would deduce that all armor bonuses, regardless of source, are ignored. however, Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor are _not_ 'matter', nor are they 'armor'. hmm, doesnt VoP give an Exalted Armor bonus? that is also not 'matter' nor 'armor'. The smallest change to rectify this inconsistency would be to insert the phrase 'from non-living armor' after 'Armor bonuses to AC'. The thing will work adequately either way, as long as its used consistently - this kind of thing is what DM's are for :p
Quetzalcoatl 08-04-04, 02:25 AM	You may as well ask why you would ever want Ghost Touch on a weapon...or Holy, for that matter. Yes, the +5 Longsword is infinitely more versatile than the +1 Brilliant Longsword...but the +5 longsword isn't going to help you against something incorporeal, when the +4 Ghost Touch sword will. What you really want is a Shifting Sword (an item left over from second edition which had different abilities every time you drew it) to take the greatest advantage over any particular foe.
PhaedrusXY 08-04-04, 03:55 AM	Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl What you really want is a Shifting Sword (an item left over from second edition which had different abilities every time you drew it) to take the greatest advantage over any particular foe. Or 3.0 Polymorph Any Object back... You could change one magic item into another one with that spell.
redraven 08-04-04, 05:09 AM	In my experience, the only excitement that comes when a Brilliant Energy weapon is acquired surrounds how much money the players will get for selling the weapon. I cannot imagine how the +4 is justified, unless you are playing in a completely humanoid NPC environment. Natural Armor is the #1 source of AC for 99% of the monsters the PCs are likely to face, the weapon happens to be completely useless against all undead, constructs, objects, doors, incorporeal creatures, and so on, in addition to the fact that it cannot be turned off? If anything, I'd say that the Brilliant Energy weapon is going to be the back-up weapon nearly all of the time. And when you are carrying around a 50,000 gp back-up weapon before level 15, then something is usually wrong. Possible fixes/house-rules: As written, except +3 enhancement cost. As written, but can revert to normal magic weapon upon command. Bypasses Natural Armor, but weapon is considered light (no Power Attack) and wielder can only apply half their STR mod to damage. I'd probably go with the second one, myself. -Red Raven
tarkin 08-04-04, 11:05 AM	The weapon works FINE as is. Not all enchantments are perfect for all builds Frankly you have to be pretty stupid to modify a perfectly good enchantment to make it work for your particular build instead of just taking another enchantment. This particular enchantment works better for someone if they use it on arrows or if they are using a Double weapon when they only enchant ONE head with it. For double weapon fighters and for archers it is definitely worth +4 as is. Making it +3 so it becomes worthwhile for the fools that want to take it but are playing builds where it is inappropriate is just a munchkin crap that makes it over-powered for the smart people that are taking it as part of an intelligent build such as archery/double weapon fighter.
redraven 08-04-04, 03:00 PM	Originally posted by tarkin [...] Frankly you have to be pretty stupid to modify a perfectly good enchantment to make it work for your particular build instead of just taking another enchantment. [...] Making it +3 so it becomes worthwhile for the fools that want to take it but are playing builds where it is inappropriate is just a munchkin crap that makes it over-powered for the smart people that are taking it as part of an intelligent build such as archery/double weapon fighter. I am glad civility remains one of the defining characteristics of these boards. -Red Raven
Lion21 08-04-04, 07:40 PM	Sadly, the enchantment is overpriced. Its not a matter of being inappropriate for "certain builds", but rather inappropriate for 90%+ of most parties encounters, especially when compared to almost all the other enchantments availible. Its too expensive as is for its extermely limited functionality. Thus, I am of the school of thought that says the enchantment cost should either be toned down significantly, OR, transform the enchantment into a command word activated enchantment, thus allowing it to be "toggled". Still another alternative, but one I am apprehensive about, is too allow the enchantment to pass through Natural Armor as well as unliving armor...but that might warrant an upgrade to +5.
Xeviat-DM 08-05-04, 03:19 PM	It's great for rogues, who already would rather not fight foes that are non-living. A rogue in my party, a dagger user, is wanting to get a set (probably about six) of +1 Ghost Touch Brilliant Energy Daggers. But you all have me thinking. Soon, I'm going to go through every monster in the MM, and every premade NPC (assuming human) in the DMG to see how the item fairs.
Goreg Skullcrusher 08-05-04, 06:25 PM	While I too feel that the +4 value on Brilliant Energy is a little hefty, it suddenly becomes very potent if you ignore natural AC's. (Think of Golems and Dragons with Natural AC bonuses close to 30) What I've houseruled is that BE weapons also ignore cover, but not total cover. That makes the weapon that much more viable, without going to an extreme.
UltimaGabe 08-05-04, 11:13 PM	Originally posted by Goreg Skullcrusher (Think of Golems and Dragons with Natural AC bonuses close to 30) Remember, of course, that Golems can't be affected by a Brilliant Energy weapon. Now, as it is, I don't see anybody taking Brilliant Energy- and true, it would be QUITE powerful against a Dragon and such if it ignored Natural Armor as well, but considering it's worse than completely worthless in a large portion of situations (fighting undead or constructs, attacking objects, and so on), and considering that there's tons of things that are much deadlier than a Brilliant Energy Weapon that ignore Natural Armor as well (Harm, Disintegrate, and a host of other offensive spells that already put spellcasters far ahead of fighters when it comes to high-Natural Armor foes), I honestly don't think it would be too overpowering if, for a +4, and I don't think I would see too many people flocking to get it. Sure, it's good, but unless you've got a ton of money to spend on something that isn't always gonna be useful, I sure wouldn't spend a +4 on it. After all, until around 20th level, not many people can afford to have their SECONDARY weapon have at least an effective +5 enchantment. It's great for some builds, but it's a hefty enough cost as it is, and it simply isn't available to many people.
SamualT Barronsword 08-07-04, 04:29 PM	Maybe the +4 is because, in addtion to ignoring AC from armor, with the exception of those creatures it can't effect, an energy weapon also deals full damage to every creature it hits. That is it ignores DR. Per Pg. 307 of the 3.5 MM, Damage Reduction (EX or SU): A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks...The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks... Or am I wrong about this?
redraven 08-07-04, 05:25 PM	Brilliant Energy does not ignore DR. The damage it deals is normal for the weapon - nothing in the description mentions that the weapon deals energy/magical damage. Although that would be something to justify the +4 price, if it were house-ruled to deal unspecified energy damage. As for allowing Brilliant Energy to bypass Natural Armor, you cannot do so without caveats. All weapon attacks essentially become touch attacks that way, and so everyone is going to be doing full Power Attacks against those Great Red Wyrms whose AC dropped from 41 to 2. A Brilliant Energy greatsword in the hands of a Frenzied Berserker would be rather scary. I've already suggested a way to "fix" a Brilliant Energy weapon that bypasses Natural Armor: weapon is considered light (no Power Attack) and wielder can only apply half their STR mod to damage. I would definitely be more inclined to pick up such an enhancement, even if it were raised to +5. -Red Raven
SamualT Barronsword 08-07-04, 07:04 PM	The description of adamantine in the DMG does not state the damage done by a adamantine weapon does anything other than normal damage by weapon type, it simply describes what adamantine weapons (and armor) are, and properties unique to adamantine objects. Yet we know that if a blade weapon is of adamantine, then it’s damage will bypass the DR of creatures with DR whatever/adamantine. The same is true for cold iron weapons, silver weapons, etc. I agree the description of “Brilliant Energy Weapon” doesn’t specify that the damage done by a brilliant energy weapon does anything other than normal damage by weapon type, it simply describes what brilliant energy weapons are. Yet I would argue that even so we know it’s blade is of energy (it certainly isn’t made of anything else), and that therefore such a blade will (or at least should) bypass the DR creatures with DR whatever/energy. The fact that that happens to be all creatures with DR is an interesting quirk, but irrelevant.
redraven 08-08-04, 02:52 AM	Yet I would argue that even so we know it’s blade is of energy (it certainly isn’t made of anything else), and that therefore such a blade will (or at least should) bypass the DR creatures with DR whatever/energy. The blade is made of light, as per the description, not energy. The term "energy" has several game mechanics-related meanings, which is probably why they specified the blade is not made of energy. I'm all for making Brilliant Energy a more worthwhile +4 enhancement and I even like the idea of allowing the weapon to deal pure energy damage (and thereby bypassing DR), but such a change is not supported in the rules. It would make a fantastic house-rule though. -Red Raven
SamualT Barronsword 08-08-04, 12:14 PM	Originally posted by redraven The blade is made of light, as per the description, not energy. The term "energy" has several game mechanics-related meanings, which is probably why they specified the blade is not made of energy. Where again is it specified that the blade is not made of energy? The DMG describes mithril as a "silvery, glistening metal", am I to read this to mean that mithril weapons are not, in fact, made of mithril, but are rather made of "silvery, glistening metal". Read it as you like. IMO, just because they describe a brilliant energy weapon in one place as being made of light, does not "specify" that the weapon is not made of energy. A laser could be said to produces a beam of intense light, or it could be said to produce a beam of intense energy, either statement is correct, and neither statement excludes the other from being true. A brilliant energy weapon is called thus by name, and in three other places in the text of the item description. They do not, therefore, have to call or describe a brilliant energy weapon as being a brilliant energy weapon a fourth time before I decide that yes, this is a weapon of brilliant energy which manifest itself as a beam of bright light. Anyway, those are still my thoughts on the matter, and while I respect the fact that you disagree, you have not convinced me that my interpretation is a house rule. I still think it is a proper and logical application of the rules as written to decide that a brilliant energy weapon is a weapon of energy, and that since all creatures, even those with DR, take full damage from energy, then all creatures, even those with DR take full damage from a brilliant energy weapon.
cheesegrater 08-08-04, 12:55 PM	Check the players handbook, page 308. Energy damage is define as 'Damage caused by one of five types of energy (not counting positive and negative energy): acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic. A brilliant energy weapon clearly isn't any of those five, so it isn't energy damage. It's clearly not positive energy damage, because it doesn't heal it's targets. If it were negative energy damage, it would heal undead instead of having no effect on them. So it's not energy damage, unless you're inventing a new kind of energy - which must be a house rule.
Princeoflowlight 08-08-04, 01:37 PM	Brilliant Energy is an excellent enchantment for a game with primarily humanoid and demihuman opponents. Of course, such games tend to have fairly low magic levels, and Brilliant Energy would be pretty much out of the question for most of the game.... Making it a simple touch attack would make it Epic. It's that simple (see the aforementioned Great Wyrm example.) Ignoring DR and Hardness might be good, though. Give it a nice "Lightsaber" feeling.
april151978 08-08-04, 05:01 PM	It depends on the campaign... In my world, it would be worth a +4, hands down... Sure, you may need a backup weapon, but I run a lot more humanoid encounters than monster encounters... If you want, adjust it down for the world you are in if it is less effective (undead and constructs galore), to say +3, or even +2 for that matter... The other thing you can do is make it like flaming and other abilties in wording... That way, you have to turn it on to get the effect... Might make it more usefull in a "standard" campaign...
bitnine 08-08-04, 05:38 PM	What do you want? It's situational. Are rogue levels worthless because you can't sneak attack all the time?Well, some folk have made the case that rogue levels devalue greatly at higher levels because of the number of creatures immune to criticals or with fortification armor or shields. Really, if only there were some way to bypass those, it'd be great...