D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5 Quick Question] Brilliant energy?

[Ashrem Bayle]

Could some kind soul please answer this question since I don't have my books with me.

Has anything changed about the brilliant energy weapon enchantment? Still a +4 power? How about the caster level required to make it?

Thanks!

I always thout it was slightly underpowered compared to it's costs.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Its not changed...

Oh, and that picture in your sig is making my browser go all jumpy every time you post.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

Thanks, and for your effort, I'll remove the pic.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Could some kind soul please answer this question since I don't have my books with me.

Has anything changed about the brilliant energy weapon enchantment? Still a +4 power? How about the caster level required to make it?

Thanks!

I always thout it was slightly underpowered compared to it's costs.

I always thought it was more than slightly underpowered, like insanely underpwered.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It doesn't bypass shields anymore. But I expect the errata to clear this up (I sent that in).

 

[Spatzimaus]

Like Shard, I think it was severely underpowered in 3E. It was okay IF you changed it to bypass Natural Armor as well. I mean really, let's compare:

+5 weapon: +5 attack, +5 damage. It also does better against DR and Sunder, but let's ignore that for the moment.

+1 Brilliant Energy: +A+1 attack bonus, +1 damage, where A is the Armor AC bonus of the target.

So, even without the other drawbacks of BE weapons (useless against constructs, glows a lot), the only way it'd be more useful is if your AVERAGE opponent had an Armor AC of 8 or more, assuming a 1:1 tradeoff from attack bonus to damage. It's just useless against far too many enemies, and with the prevalence of light armor in 3E even the intended enemies weren't really hurt much by it.

So, at first we let it bypass Natural Armor as well, after seeing the Psionic Feat "Deep Impact". The problem with this is, if you allow it to bypass both Armor and Natural Armor, it basically becomes a touch attack, incredibly strong against certain creature types (Dragons, for example). Being able to make a touch attack once or twice is good, but every single attack was too much.

We ended up converting it into a +3 enchanment that cut Armor, shield, Deflection, and Natural Armor ACs in half. If you use that 1:1 pricing, that means the break-even point is +12 AC from Armor/NA/shields, not counting the other drawbacks (DR, constructs, etc.)

 

[nameless]

I disagree. At higher levels (12+), almost every opponent will have +5 or +6 armor bonus. The guys that don't have a significant armor bonus almost always have a terribly low AC anyways, so the point is moot. Not to mention how effective a Brilliant Energy weapon is against a fighter in fullplate +5. If most of your damage comes from the weapon, then Brilliant Energy is a bad choice, but between strength, specialization, and power attack, it's very easy to trade more hits (especially on second and third attacks) for less powerful ones.

The only things it's not very effective against are Dragons (and other things with twenty-plus natural armor), and the Undead/Constructs that it's unable to effect. My solution to that is a second weapon specialized against the things my Brilliant Energy weapon won't hurt. A sunblade is very nice, since it does lots versus undead. Something with Ghost Touch, and either Undead or Construct bane is also a good choice. Maybe a Mace of Disruption or a Mace of Smiting.

Besides all that, comparing a +5 sword to a +1, brilliant energy sword is a little flawed. Comparing a +3, speed sword to a +3, brilliant energy sword is a bit more accurate. It's a high level ability, and comes into its own at higher levels.

 

[Skinwalker]

Re: Re: [3.5 Quick Question] Brilliant energy?

I always thought it was more than slightly underpowered, like insanely underpwered.

I'd have to agree. For the same price, you could get multiple elements placed on the same weapon. Why make a weapon that does +1d6 variable element damage when you could do 4d6 worth of various elements at the same cost?

 

[Snipehunt]

Good points, but an enhancement that requires a backup weapon when the first fails shouldn't be cost +4. It doubles your weapon costs.

I disagree with having a +3 BE weapon - I would never use one. At high levels (the only place where you would even consider it), a +1 BE weapon, used as a backup, can be useful. But, unless we're talking epic, a weapon with a +7 mod is too expensive to not be the all-the-time, hack-everything weapon.

BE is really useful, though, if you can cast GMW. Not useful enough to be worth the price, IMO.

 

[Spatzimaus]

I disagree. At higher levels (12+), almost every opponent will have +5 or +6 armor bonus.

Every HUMANOID opponent, you mean. I've never seen a high-level campaign where every opponent was a humanoid with class levels. There are always a large number of dragons, undead, advanced creatures with templates, and so on, usually exceeding the number of humanoids.

If every opponent you faced had a +8 Armor bonus AND the weapon had no other downsides, then it'd be balanced at a +4 cost, since a +4 Enhancement gives +4 attack and +4 damage.
(You'd actually need it to be +12 Armor with the new Power Attack rules for 2H weapons, but let's ignore that)

Most types of opponents won't have an Armor AC AT ALL, let alone a +8. Let's see... things without an Armor AC bonus... that'd be Aberrations, Animals, Beasts, Dragons, Elementals, Magical Beasts, Oozes, Plants, and Vermin. Against all those creature types it's a useless enchantment.
Against Undead and Constructs, it's not only useless, it's a drawback; the entire weapon becomes unusable.
Against the remainder (Shapechangers, Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Giants, Outsiders) it's only useful if they're wearing armor and/or using spells like Mage Armor.

Against the SMALL number of enemies with higher than a +8 Armor AC, Brilliant Energy is a better choice than putting a straight Enhancement bonus on the weapon. Against the majority, it's a far worse choice, and that's before we even factor in the negatives of BE or the other benefits of an Enhancement bonus.