# Brilliant energy weapons... what's the deal?



## Nazerel (Mar 1, 2005)

I'm a bit annoyed at how brilliant energy weapons function. According to the RAW, the property is continuously active and can't be shut off. Just how does one sheathe a brilliant energy sword, for example, if the blade ignores nonliving matter? It'd fall out of the scabbard each and every time (unless the scabbard was made of still living flesh - a neat if somewhat disturbing idea). I realize there are some who simply say you can sheathe a brilliant energy weapon and leave it at that, but it kind of goes against common sense and the RAW. Another issue is, why don't brilliant energy weapons ignore shields and shield enhancement bonuses? Aren't they "nonliving matter" similar to armor as well? So an armored foe throws up his nonmagical heavy steel shield, and it miraculously blocks the brilliant energy blade when it has so far ignored his magical full plate armor during a fight? Very inconsistent. There's the issue of cover when shields are involved, I know, but it doesn't gel, imho. 

You'd think that at a somewhat pricey +4 bonus (+5 total since it still needs to be at least a +1 weapon), the brilliant energy property would give you more bang for the buck. As it is, the weapon always throws off light (forget about trying to hide while it's unsheathed... not that you could sheathe it in the first place without houseruling it), and it's totally useless against undead, constructs, and objects. At best, brilliant energy weapons excel at attacking a very narrow and select few armored, living opponents. And there are a lot of living foes who don't bother to rely on armor (beasties with natural armor, for example). Not quite worth the price, I think.

Is anyone else bothered by this? I've been thinking of houseruling that the brilliant energy property on the weapon can be turned on and off as a standard action (similar to a flaming, frost, or shock weapon), and that its normal form appears as any other mundane (metal, wood, etc.), though still magical, weapon. While the brilliant energy property is active, any special properties the weapon would have otherwise possessed due to material (bypassing damage reduction due to cold iron, silver, adamantine, etc.) would be lost for that duration (a fair trade off, imho). Also, it can't be sundered nor can it be used in any sunder attempts, or be affected by acid or rust-based attacks, or spells and effects that target weapons (chill/heat metal) while it's active. Switching between modes can be somewhat of a hassle in a fight, but it does give the weapon some added flexibility without it being relegated to trash against undead, constructs, and objects - plus, you can sheathe it as normal.

Thoughts? Criticisms? Rants?


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 1, 2005)

Nazerel said:
			
		

> Just how does one sheathe a brilliant energy sword, for example, if the blade ignores nonliving matter?



Animal companion. Err - _former_ animal companion. 



> Another issue is, why don't brilliant energy weapons ignore shields and shield enhancement bonuses? Aren't they "nonliving matter" similar to armor as well?



They do. Before ranting, always doublecheck the rules.  

From the srd:

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.

There you go!


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 1, 2005)

The whole weapon wouldn't be energy.  The hilt, crossguard, and a bit of the base of the blade would be normal, and so you could put it in a sheath.  Of course, I think the rules for brilliant energy are silly as written.  We all want it to act like a light saber, so why not do that?  Say it ignores up to 8 points of armor, shield, and natural armor bonuses to AC, as well as up to 8 points of hardness.  And let the wielder turn it off and on, so you can get that nifty Anime-esque "Hikari yo!"


----------



## dcollins (Mar 1, 2005)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> They do. Before ranting, always doublecheck the rules. From the srd: 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.




Interesting. I must admit that I have an old downloaded version of the 3.5 SRD here that I checked, that does _not_ have the "and shield" clause in there. Checking the current 3.5 SRD at Wizards it _does_ have it. I wasn't aware that they were revising it, I wonder when that happened?

I remember that originally the 3.0 language (in which shield bonuses didn't exist) was copied directly to 3.5, and the missing "and shield" was pretty obvious. Someone may want to check the 3.5 DMG, I may guess that it does _not_ have the "and shield" clause.


----------



## RigaMortus (Mar 1, 2005)

In 3.0 there was a tactic where you could have a Tower Shield and use it as Total Cover, then use your BE weapon to attack through it and hit your enemy.  Can't really do that in 3.5.


----------



## Darkness (Mar 1, 2005)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Someone may want to check the 3.5 DMG, I may guess that it does _not_ have the "and shield" clause.



I looked it up only two days ago and it didn't say "and shield." *double-checks* No, it doesn't.

Which isn't surprising, as the text probably was (mostly?) lifted from 3e, where there was no need for such a distinction, as shields were treated as armor (but stacked with actual armor) then. (3.0 PHB, p.104.)


----------



## Greatwyrm (Mar 1, 2005)

I don't think storing it would be that bad.  You'd probably need some kind of hard case -- metal or wood.  It would just need to hold the hilt still and then enclose the space the blade fits in.  Then you wouldn't have to worry about anyone touching the blade or having the blade flop around somehow and come whipping out the side of the case.


----------



## Khayman (Mar 1, 2005)

Out of curiousity, how would a brilliant weapon affect warforged or other clankers with the living construct subtype?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 1, 2005)

Khayman said:
			
		

> Out of curiousity, how would a brilliant weapon affect warforged or other clankers with the living construct subtype?




Not very well?  



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, and objects.




There's nothing in the [Living] subtype that mentions this invulnerability would change, so ...


----------



## Khayman (Mar 1, 2005)

That's what I was thinking, as well.


----------



## Yair (Mar 1, 2005)

Nazerel said:
			
		

> Just how does one sheathe a brilliant energy sword, for example, if the blade ignores nonliving matter? It'd fall out of the scabbard each and every time (*unless the scabbard was made of still living flesh - a neat if somewhat disturbing idea*).



Very neat. *Yoink*

On topic, I agree brilliant energy weapons need to circumvent shields as well.
Energy weapons are nothing like light sabres. Adamantine is closer to a light sabre, an adamantine vorpal keen scimitar, perhaps? With flaming to inflict fire damage on vault doors each round? Light sabres just can't be mimicked in D&D unless you assume HP's are not representing wounds so the sword misses until it cuts the character in half and kills him, it just cuts through everything too damn well.


----------



## domino (Mar 2, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> Light sabres just can't be mimicked in D&D unless you assume HP's are not representing wounds so the sword misses until it cuts the character in half and kills him, it just cuts through everything too damn well.



_Technically_, that's how things work.  They have some excuse about HP actually being the fighter's greater training at avoiding hits, and rolling with punches, etc... until you run out of luck.

But I've NEVER met anyone that really plays it like that.


----------



## Sir ThornCrest (Mar 2, 2005)

A +3 keen Sword of Sharpness, brilliant energy weapon I have not looked at 3e swords of sharpness but the 2e version, would be pretty close to the light sabre. You would also have to have the sword handle be equal to that of a glove of storing, call it a handle of storing, when triggered *poof* instant light sabre. You would also have to "break" or alter the B.E. part to damage non living matter but add 1d6 damage in exchange.....the blade could not be sundered, that would be the benefit of having a energy blade.

I think that would cover it just a 200,000 gp weapon build and your there!

Thorncrest


----------



## salemcse (Jan 16, 2012)

*Brilliant Energy vs Fire Resistance on Armor*

Wrong place, sry


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 16, 2012)

IIRC The remaining material of a Brilliant Energy weapon was depicted as baroque filigree in some of the weapon's illustrations. I'd assume that was what kept the weapon from falling out of the sheath.







Not a fan of the BE enchantment. An expensive mod to get a random, but sometimes huge bonus to hit in exchange for the chance the weapon won’t get any bonus or often won’t do anything at all, just does not sit well with me.

An awesome glowing weapon that is less dangerous to the undead than a *NERF*TM foam bat is something that should have been sent back to the drawing board.

Brilliant Energy weapon and Warforged - Aug 25, 2009
Fortification vs. Brilliant Energy‎ - Oct 29, 2006
Cold Iron Brilliant Energy Longsword? - Page 8‎ - May 27, 2005
Brilliant Energy vs. Fortification - Page 2‎ - Mar 4, 2004



Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> There's nothing in the [Living] subtype that mentions this invulnerability would change, so ...





Dannyalcatraz said:


> Warforged are explicitly _living_ matter.  You might be able to argue that the brilliant energy ignores their armor plating, but the fact is that their mass- despite being metal and wood and so forth- is living.





StreamOfTheSky said:


> Or treat the armor plating *as armor, like it was intended* and the warforged *as living creatures, like it was intended* and leave them just as well/bad off against a BE weapon as any other player in armor.  But gods forbid if we don't treat the warforged as special little snowflakes at every opportunity!





Jhaelen said:


> This gets my vote. They introduced the living construct subtype precisely because they didn't want warforged to be immune against everything constructs are immune against. If in doubt they aren't immune.



If someone tries to argue with the sentence that refers to 'type', you simply inform them that line was written before the introduction of the warforged's subtype, thus it is the prerogative of the DM to decide how those rules interact, especially since none of the creature types listed in BE 'live'.







cru121 said:


> According to Sage, warforged are affected by brilliant energy weapons:
> Ask Wizards: 01/10/2007


----------

