Brilliant Energy Bow...why not? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTimePost
KnightArcanus

08-26-07, 08:03 AM
In 3.0, the Brilliant Energy spell worked on melee and ranged weapons, it just bestowed the property on the ammo. In 3.5, you have to enchant the ammo separately...why was this changed?

Or am I reading it wrong, because it seems kinda one sided.
Shaggy_Shaggs

08-26-07, 08:07 AM
Presumably it's because the significant portion of a bow or crossbow is the string, and it'd be very difficult to propel arrows or bolts with a string that ignored their existence.
KnightArcanus

08-26-07, 08:24 AM
Presumably it's because the significant portion of a bow or crossbow is the string, and it'd be very difficult to propel arrows or bolts with a string that ignored their existence.

Ah, but the old spell enchanted the arrow, not the bow itself. So it was a normal looking magic bow that shot arrows of light energy. Came with a better pricetag then buying BE arrows.
CantripN

08-26-07, 09:07 AM
There's Hank's Energy Bow in some booklet. It's Brilliant Energy and you can Power Attack with it. 18K or so, but I can't seem to find a link. Ask in the CO boards if you're interested.
Shaggy_Shaggs

08-26-07, 09:20 AM
There's Hank's Energy Bow in some booklet. It's Brilliant Energy and you can Power Attack with it. 18K or so, but I can't seem to find a link. Ask in the CO boards if you're interested.

Only if you shoot first though, right?
CantripN

08-26-07, 10:25 AM
Only if you shoot first though, right?

I don't really get what you mean. It creates it's own arrows, which are Brilliant Energy.
PhaedrusXY

08-27-07, 12:57 AM
There's Hank's Energy Bow in some booklet. It's Brilliant Energy and you can Power Attack with it. 18K or so, but I can't seem to find a link. Ask in the CO boards if you're interested.It's not a BE weapon. It's much better than that... http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a
KnightArcanus

08-27-07, 07:53 AM
Alright, lets try again, is the change intented or is it changed in an Errata or what?
NobodyRemembersThis

08-27-07, 08:40 AM
The change was intentional. They changed the wording in the rules, not in the errata. Why? Probably because Andy Collins enjoys screwing fighters.
KnightArcanus

08-27-07, 01:56 PM
The change was intentional. They changed the wording in the rules, not in the errata. Why? Probably because Andy Collins enjoys screwing fighters.

More like a hit to Rangers, Melee touch attack Manyshot and Rapid Shot goodness.

The Rogue can SA with a BE weapon and the Fighter raises holy hell with one, lets throw the Rangers a bone huh?