Disrupting Weapons

[DaMullet]

Why are they so oddly specific? To be precise, why must they always be bludgeoning? It strikes me that that is a meaningless limitation.

Vorpal weapons being slashing only, I can understand (although a vorpal greatclub would be hilarious in description), but for some reason you can't destroy undead with a slashing weapon. It makes no sense to me, except that Liches have DR that is overcome with bludgeoning weapons. That's the only explanation I can see, and it doesn't seem kosher.

Anyone got a reason?

[the_tick_rules]

That, well that's actually an excellent question I really don't know.

[Yuki Akuma]

It's thematic. Clerics are the usual hunters of the undead, right? Clerics generally only use blugeoning weapons; that is, weapons that don't draw blood.

[Jayabalard]

bludgeoning weapons deal their damage by smashing what they hit

slashing weapons deal their damage primarily by wounding the thing that they hit; wounding an undead is not as useful as smashing it.

[the_tick_rules]

yeah but but what about stuff with zombies that DR 5/slashing? using a bludgeon weapon on them is an inefficent choice.

[Jayabalard]

yeah but but what about stuff with zombies that DR 5/slashing? using a bludgeon weapon on them is an inefficent choice.

That seems kind of silly, since they don't need their blood, so cutting them shouldn't really help; breaking their bones, or crushing portions of their body, on the other hand, means that they lose stability as their body becomes less useful.

[the_tick_rules]

I think for zombies them having having broken bones is not a real problem. Your break a zombies arm he just continues to use it, or hobble on a broken leg. You have to cut it off. but it may be because of the whole cleric using maces historicaly and well in D&D their limited weapon selection makes maces very common. but that is kinda silly, undead are everyones problem.

[Darion]

It's a holdover from 2e. A Mace of Disruption was a specific weapon (like a Flametongue sword or a Holy Avenger). In 3.x, its an odd, nostalgic carryover that doesn't make any rules sense, but hey, little things for the old school crowd are always appreciated.

[Meat Shield]

Its a thematic consideration rather than a mechanical one - back in second edition and prior, clerics could only use bludgeoning weapons. Thus, specialized undead hunting weapons had to be bludgeoning.

D'Oh! Simu'd! But definitely going to second the little nuggets thrown in for the old-schoolers (like me).

[Matthew]

It's thematic. Clerics are the usual hunters of the undead, right? Clerics generally only use blugeoning weapons; that is, weapons that don't draw blood.

Veh? It's D&Dmatic, I think. Clerics are pretty much limited to Nerf Bats if they can only use weapons that don't draw blood.
Yeah, Holdover.

[Yuki Akuma]

Veh? It's D&Dmatic, I think. Clerics are pretty much limited to Nerf Bats if they can only use weapons that don't draw blood.
Yeah, Holdover.

This is actually based on real historic clerics. They weren't allowed to draw blood.. so they used weapons that cause internal bleeding, like maces.

[SpiderBrigade]

Also, I think the "archetypal" undead for D&D isn't really the zombie, it's the skeleton...and those are vulnerable to bludgeoning damage.

[Maroon]

This is actually based on real historic clerics. They weren't allowed to draw blood.. so they used weapons that cause internal bleeding, like maces.

Based on common myths surrounding real historic clerics, that is. Besides, what's this about maces not drawing blood? There's a reason they're used to smash things instead of softly nudge things. Clerics might not have been allowed to draw blood but some did it anyway, and a few just preferred maces to do it with.

[Lapak]

Based on common myths surrounding real historic clerics, that is. Besides, what's this about maces not drawing blood? There's a reason they're used to smash things instead of softly nudge things. Clerics might not have been allowed to draw blood but some did it anyway, and a few just preferred maces to do it with.

Indeed. If you smash someone at full speed with a heavy metal object, they're going to bleed.

A lot.

[Meat Shield]

Indeed. If you smash someone at full speed with a heavy metal object, they're going to bleed.

A lot.

Yeah, but it's the (non-bleeding) thought that counts, right?

Of course, none of this takes into account the fact that morningstars have always been available to clerics as well. (Big iron balls with three inch spikes around the outside, bludgeoning my a&&.)

[enderrocksonall]

This is actually based on real historic clerics. They weren't allowed to draw blood.. so they used weapons that cause internal bleeding, like maces.

Could they draw blood from undead enemies?

[DaMullet]

I don't think Undead have blood... Some may have foul ichor, but that's about it.

That's interesting information about the earlier editions, and it makes something not entirely unlike sense now.

[the_tick_rules]

Ah, well they should consider making disruption more versatile now.

[JackMage666]

I'd love to see a Disrupting Rapier. That would make no sense.

"I poke the skeleton, and it explodes"

[Matthew]

This is actually based on real historic clerics. They weren't allowed to draw blood.. so they used weapons that cause internal bleeding, like maces.

Based on common myths surrounding real historic clerics, that is. Besides, what's this about maces not drawing blood? There's a reason they're used to smash things instead of softly nudge things. Clerics might not have been allowed to draw blood but some did it anyway, and a few just preferred maces to do it with.

Indeed. There is 'almost' zero evidence for this view of Clerics. It all goes back to the Bayeux Tapestry and a misinterpretation of one Scholar's suggestion as to what it might mean that Odo of Bayeux had a 'rod' or 'mace' in his hands. Incidently, so did William in the same scene. It's completely unfounded.

There was no prohibition regarding 'drawing blood'. There was one prohibiting violence and bearing arms, which was roundly and often ignored.

[Cyborg Pirate]

Indeed. There is 'almost' zero evidence for this view of Clerics. It all goes back to the Bayeux Tapestry and a misinterpretation of one Scholar's suggestion as to what it might mean that Odo of Bayeux had a 'rod' or 'mace' in his hands. Incidently, so did William in the same scene. It's completely unfounded.

There was no prohibition regarding 'drawing blood'. There was one prohibiting violence and bearing arms, which was roundly and often ignored.

I thin blunt weapons Were pupular among the clergy, but not because of any codes or such, but simply because blunt weapons are easier to learn to use then cutting weapons. For men of the cloth, who are not professional fighting men but do run the risk of danger, blunt weapons are an easy way to be dangerous in a fight without having to train intensively for it. And those blunt weapons would also be effective when facing armoured men, another plus for using blunt weapons.

[Matthew]

Try proving it, though. There's just about no evidence at all. Many Clergy were from Knightly families. Just look at the mythological Turpin from Roland or any Clerical combatant on a Crusade.

The only one indication it might be true goes back to Odo of Bayeux and his depiction in Wace's version of The Battle of Hastings, but I have yet to read it, so I cannot substantiate it.

The symbolic function of the Mace is another story, however.

Top it off with the fact that Clerics were modelled on Templars and we are completely lacking a 'historical' reason to restrict them to Maces.