Divine bond / inappropriate weapons.

[Onikan22]

In the Paladin Divine Bond class feature, it clearly states that you can add any of the featured magical abilities to your chosen bonded weapon. But some abilities also clearly state that you cannot add it to certain weapons. I.E. Disruption. Only blunt weapons. If you are a paladin, use divine bond on a long-sword to add disruption; does it work? Pretty sure it doesn't but maybe the Paladin divine bond wins. Dunno.

[SlimGauge]

You must still meet the requirements of the magical ability you are attempting to add. Nothing in Divine Bond hints at lifting those requirements.

[The Morphling]

"The rules seem clear to me, but I want to break them. Can anyone give me an excuse to do so?"

[Imbicatus]

It's actually not clear, as the Paladin's Divine bond does not clearly state that the weapon must be of the appropriate type for the enchantment to be applied in the Divine Bond entry. It could be a case of a specific ability (Divine Bond) defeating a general rule (Disruption on blunt weapons only).

[Hendelbolaf]

I actually would read it the reverse order and call Disruption only able to be applied to a bludgeoning weapon a specific rule and the the Divine Bond ability of a paladin as a general rule, but that doesn't really matter.

It should be clear enough that unless specified otherwise, all other rules remain in effect. So a paladin may add Disruption as part of his Divine Bond but only to a bludgeoning melee weapon.

[blahpers]

I'd say the disruption ability (specific weapon enhancement) is more specific than divine bond (class ability granting a lot of weapon enhancements). But it's not a clear thing at all.

This same predicament basically screws the spellslinger. They have some similar enhancements that just don't work.

[Onikan22]

Generally, I have read class abilities to mean something special, beyond the norm, having more than ordinary power vs. the stated rules otherwise. For example, if you are to read the description of Divine Bond:
These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon bonuses to a maximum of +5, or they can be used to add any of the following weapon properties: axiomatic, brilliant energy, defending, disruption, flaming, flaming burst, holy, keen, merciful, and speed. Adding these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the property's cost (see Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities). These bonuses are added to any properties the weapon already has, but duplicate abilities do not stack. If the weapon is not magical, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added. The bonus and properties granted by the spirit are determined when the spirit is called and cannot be changed until the spirit is called again. The celestial spirit imparts no bonuses if the weapon is held by anyone other than the paladin but resumes giving bonuses if returned to the paladin. These bonuses apply to only one end of a double weapon.

Now in this description, I see many qualifying rules stipulated, but none to the powers that can be added. 1. Cannot go over a +5 bonus to attack and damage. 2.All bonuses are equal to what they are in the rules for defined magical cost, even referring to the table. 3. Stating I cannot have a double stacked abilities. So no flaming flaming burst burst (Which could bring in a whole other argument of shocking burst and flaming burst on the same weapon, but not going there). 4. Making sure we know to add a +1 attack and damage bonus before we add any other magical ability. 5. If the paladin drops the weapon or loses it in some way but regains control before the time is done, then the powers are still there but function for no one else. 6. Applies to only one end of a double weapon.
I guess what I am trying to point out is that the description is very specific in many ways. But makes no mention of clarifying on the magical abilities after stating the 'they can be used to add any of the following abilities'.
I, personally, can see allowing a paladin to apply disruption onto any weapon. Or add keen.

[Onikan22]

On a side note, I am the GM in this situation. Trying to have a solid case. But I did enjoy Morphlings post:)

[Tarth]

Onikan22 wrote:

On a side note, I am the GM in this situation. Trying to have a solid case. But I did enjoy Morphlings post:)

As a GM, I would allow it. But I would also change the damage type on the weapon to bludgeoning for the duration of the bond.

Because it's magic, and it doesn't break the game.

[Onikan22]

Thanks Tarth. This argument in the group has been like the great animal companion/familiar battle '09. (Animal companions are stated as loyal, familiars are not.)

[thebigragu]

I agree that it doesn't break the game, but that is not the issue. Rules forum, rules question: I don't think there is a case for misapplying weapon enhancements in this instance. Those are the weapon enhancements available; apply them to a given weapon following the rules. I don't think a paladin gets to have a keen mace either.

[lastblacknight]

If it's RAW - they you apply the ability to the weapon.

You could always make a keen morning-star - it doesn't the keen ability would work.

[Imbicatus]

lastblacknight wrote:

If it's RAW - they you apply the ability to the weapon.

You could always make a keen morning-star - it doesn't [mean]the keen ability would work.

bad example. The morning star does B & P damage, not B or P. It could always be made keen and disrupting and both enchantments would be active and working at the same time.

[lastblacknight]

You're right! I thought keen could only be applied to a slashing weapon.