It turns out this problem
was previously discovered for Lucky Blade.
Somehow everyone involved came to the conclusion that this was intentional. I don't think this is true, and even if it was, the decision was bad.
Why it's not true: In spite of what skell claimed, I can find no evidence of comments or code structure that points to this being intentional. In fact, the code suggests the very opposite - there is logic such that if your sword is disabled, this negates the ATK boost from Weakness behaviours, and it also negates the No Enemy Defense behaviour for swords (but not on shields, which looks like an oversight since it happens for weapons). This is a blatant inconsistency, which does not seem like a game design you would do on purpose. I also think this is a very easy thing to overlook, as adding new equipment behaviours requires multiple changes across many code files.
Disabled items also can't be 'used' to invoke "
Each use"
script functions, which includes being disabled because of being metal on oremites.
Why it's bad: If a piece of equipment is disabled, it should actually be disabled. None of its properties should apply. This is what most players and architects are going to think, and they are going to make decisions based on that assumption. Now, if this were consistently wrong, and all behaviours still applied for disabled equipment, that might be okay. But instead, some behaviours become inactive, while others don't, which is bad.
There is a worry that fixing this could affect old scores, but I find that unlikely, as it requires counterintuitive behaviour in situations I think are going to be rare.
____________________________
[Insert witty comment here]
Qzvlkx?
