Disruption is blunt only!

[Kraldor]

As per the SRD, disruption can only be on a blunt weapon:

A weapon of disruption is the bane of all undead. Any undead creature struck in combat must succeed on a DC 14 Will save or be destroyed. A weapon of disruption must be a bludgeoning weapon

Why do we have slashing disruptors if this is the rule?

[The_Cataclysm]

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...916#post881916

[blah77]

Because this rule is silly and doesn't make any sense? There's no good reason why the disruption effect should only be restricted to blunt weapons. You can say that since Vorpal lops the head off of an opponent, it would make sense that it's an effect that only shows up on on slashing weapons. Same thing goes for puncturing, bonebreaking, etc. Shrugs, the way I see it, if a rule is bad, I'm all for breaking it.

[Kraldor]

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...916#post881916

Thanks for clearing that up

[The_Cataclysm]

Thanks for clearing that up

It's a good thing that only one dev answers questions about items so I just had to search though Graal's posting history.

[Gimpster]

Because this rule is silly and doesn't make any sense? There's no good reason why the disruption effect should only be restricted to blunt weapons. You can say that since Vorpal lops the head off of an opponent

The reason is that the most powerful undead, such as Liches, have DR/Blunt. Blunt weapons are more effective towards killing undead than other things.

[Freeman]

The reason is that the most powerful undead, such as Liches, have DR/Blunt. Blunt weapons are more effective towards killing undead than other things.

Unless they happen to be zombies...

[The_Cataclysm]

Unless they happen to be zombies...

Most people don't consider zombies to be among the most powerful undead.

[Turial]

Oh how I miss Ju-Ju zombies.

[Hambo]

Oh how I miss Ju-Ju zombies.

Are those like Gummi-Ghouls?

[Turial]

They were a 1st edition zombie that was made up of a skeleton body and an ooze making up the fleshy bits. The end result was an undead creature that had spell casting abilities and various physical attacks based on the ooze that made it up. Pretty hard to kill because they melted the weapons used on them.

[blah77]

The reason is that the most powerful undead, such as Liches, have DR/Blunt. Blunt weapons are more effective towards killing undead than other things.

No, that's not a good reason. Liches make up what, 0.01% of the overall undead population? You can't formulate a reason that is based on 0.01% of a certain population group and expect people to recognize it as a valid reason. I don't know about you but if I were to enchant a weapon that is specifically designed to kill a certain group of creatures, I personally wouldn't care what kind of damage it does as long as the enchanted effect works.

Now granted, blunt weapons are also required to deal full normal physical damage to skeletons but last I checked, zombies are quite numerous within the undead hierarchy as well. This is not to mention that there are also other powerful undead sub-types to consider such as mummy lords, wraiths or vampires that aren't resistant to non-blunt weapons.

[Gimpster]

I don't know about you but if I were to enchant a weapon that is specifically designed to kill a certain group of creatures, I personally wouldn't care what kind of damage it does as long as the enchanted effect works.

It's not the whim of the crafter- it's how magic works. Different shapes of objects have affinities to hold a kind of magic more in tune with what it looks like.

Disruption is only blunt for the same reason smiting is only blunt- because that kind of weapon beats the DR of the associated monster, it is better at blasting destructive energy into them.

I don't know about you but if I were to enchant a weapon that is specifically designed to kill a certain group of creatures

If I were to enchant a vorpal, I'd want it on a rapier or repeating crossbow. That'd be nice, but it's not how magic works.

[blah77]

It's not the whim of the crafter- it's how magic works. Different shapes of objects have affinities to hold a kind of magic more in tune with what it looks like.

Disruption is only blunt for the same reason smiting is only blunt- because that kind of weapon beats the DR of the associated monster, it is better at blasting destructive energy into them.

That isn't the case here at all. Whether a weapon can get past a creatures DR, it will deliver its enchanted effect all the same as long as it achieves physical contact (a hit). Same logic applies to elemental or alignment magical effect on weaons. Those weapons will also deliver its enchanted effect irregardless of the physical damage type of the weapon itself. Need I also bring up the fact that liches and skeletons are not vulnerable to blunt damages, at least not in the same sense as a fire based creature being vulnerable to cold damage. Blunt weapons only allows the wielder to deal full physical damage to these undead sub-types, as opposed to extra damage. Besides, blunt doesn't do full damage to all undead sub-types so this whole argument is moot.

If I were to enchant a vorpal, I'd want it on a rapier or repeating crossbow. That'd be nice, but it's not how magic works.

Apples and oranges. The Vorpal effect is quite clearly stated as the decaptitation of its intended target. Can you think of a piercing or blunt weapon that can cleanly decapitate its target even in the hands of the most skilled weapon masters? In anycase, the description of the disruption effect mentions nothing about why it should only be on blunt weapons. If anything, based on the description alone, one can argue that its an effect that could be on any weapon since they all can *strike* an undead target regardless of how much physical damage was done.

[Namelessone]

I would imagine the rule is based from 2nd edition.

Clerics could only use blunt weapons, no slashies and no piercing weapons. So Blunt weapons are rather tied to the PC rather than the mob.

Clerics could then use blunt weapons to beat up on undead.

Personally I like this rule, but I am a little partial to 2nd AD&D.

[Richtenfaust]

Why not complain that Smiting is put on weapons other than a mace? After all, there is no such thing as the "smiting" special ability...only the Specific Weapon "Mace of Smiting." I'm sure someone somewhere has complained about the fact that if a construct *is* crit by a Mace of Smiting, there actually isn't supposed to be a save...it's instant death in PnP. It's also supposed to have a *x4* multiplier against Outsiders on crits. Don't see that anywhere on the weapon.

Now, if someone would like to argue that the exact same process in creating a Mace of Smiting could be repeated with a different weapon, then why aren't all Smiting weapons +3 and usable at lvl 6?

Do you think they increase the required DC check for extraplanar creatures based on a Banishing weapon being able to overcome their DR through special properties? I don't...but then, the DC is 4 higher than it should be, too. I don't see anyone complaining that a Banishing weapon is usable as many times as you please, as opposed to the 3/day listed in the PnP source. Of course, arguably, they made it crit-only as opposed to on-hit, which balances the 3/day somewhat.

Finally, the big one...what about *PARALYZING*? Has anyone started a whiny post about Paralyzing *not* only working just 1/day? In PnP, it's a 1/day thing. Activate it and swing until you hit something, then wait 24 hours to do it again. This weapon is significantly more powerful in DDO...of course, arguably, that is balanced by the fact that it isn't just a +1 modifier. But why change it from PnP? They have everything in place to make it work how it should work.

Do I want them to change these things? No. But people whining about an insignificant detail such as Disruption being put on non-bludgeoning weapons is waaaaaaay down on the list of things that deviate from the way certain things *should* work according to D&D. I say this because DISRUPTION HAPPENS ON A HIT, NOT A CRIT!!! It doesn't matter if you stick it on a slightly worn toothpick!! The weapon is not affected by crit range, so why complain about what sort of weapon it is supposed to be put on?? I think the Smiting thing is a legitimate complaint, but I don't even really care about *that*! Yet you whine about something that has no bearing on mechanics at all.

Next time you have a thought...just let it go.

[Rog]

make about as much since as a +1 holyburst bastard sword of greater oozebane.
whynot
lunarsong

[Denomicon]

In my opinion, the only reason to limit an affect to a particular weapon type is role-playing flavour. Which is why when I was playing in a high level game back in the old AD&D days, I had my cleric create an enchanted weapon with the "Impactive Decapitation" ability. It functioned exactly as the Vorpal sword did. Any reason why we couldn't have just called it a Vorpal Mace, not really. It was just more flavourful to call it a Mace of Impactive Decapitation.

I can not see any valid reason why any effect should be limited to a particular weapon type. If it really puts a bee in your bonnet, rename the affect when applied to a particular weapon type.

[Ithrani]

I would imagine the rule is based from 2nd edition.

Clerics could only use blunt weapons, no slashies and no piercing weapons. So Blunt weapons are rather tied to the PC rather than the mob.

Clerics could then use blunt weapons to beat up on undead.

Personally I like this rule, but I am a little partial to 2nd AD&D.

This is the reason why the Mace of Disruption is the prototypical Disruption weapon. Clerics in old ed. of DnD used maces and morning stars, very rarely war hammers and even more rarely edged weapons.Since good Clerics are the natural enemy of undead it became fitting that blunt weapons held this property. Does it have anything to do with DR's like Gimp states, maybe a bit, I agree that since alot of undead take damage from blunt it could be a addition to the reason. So why in 3.0-3.5 does it not change, because DnD Wizards realizes has a lot of tradition behind it, and it would **** off way to many fans and players to change things like a the Disruption ability.

Granted MT proved me wrong when I used tradition to back up my interpretation of the Harm spell. It now in 3.5 can kill with a failed save, never could it before, but it is so traditionally not a lethal spell that huge arguments and debates erupt from this change. Even Paizo screwed up in the FAQ about its new effect as well as a CS from Wizards.So being so steeped in tradition is the reason why disruption is bludgeon only. Anyone want to call on St. Cutbert for his Mace? He'll tell you the same thing, Clerics like blunts and tradition is a part of magical creation (and game mechanics)

[Lorien_the_First_One]

In addition to the reasons given above probably one of the reasons to limit it to blunt is to provide balance. Ideally you want some things available only on each type so that no matter which way you specialize there is something specail in it for you.