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

[Nazerel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Not very well?

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]

That's what I was thinking, as well.