Rules Disarming in 4e

[Cwheeler]

These are the rules that I have put together from the ongoing discussion over in the 4eRules forum (which really should have been forked to here a long time ago).

This discussion has resolved around disarming, and weather such a practice is applicable to 4th ed without breaking the game.

The rules presented in this document are a work in progress, and I would greatly appreciate a bit of feedback.


There are already some changes I am considering:
* Making disarmed into a condition that weakens and grants combat advantage
* Making the paragon and epic feats grant powers
* Making a feat that provides a free slide object action that doesn't provoke an opportunity attack (possibly rolling this benefit into the Expert Disarmer feat)


P.S. I'm not interested in responses of "that can't work, 4e isn't built that way". I'm far more interested in finding a way to satisfy both the stimulationist side and the game-rule side.

[Glak]

I like it, better than a few attempts that I've seen. I'm going to do disarm for my setting as a daily power. I put enough humanoids in that it will be worth it at least once per day.

[DanmarLOK]

I'm not understanding the logic behind the blast and ranged burst disarms? A close blast 1 perhaps but making it a blast 3 or ranged burst and to me that takes it from being very skillful with a weapon to disarm someone to being a magical power where with a wink and nod a bunch of your opponents drop their weapons for some reason. I think the 'continue to attack as if they had the weapon but without the special benefits' is while a good step to reducing the impact of disarm at lopsiding encounters with opponents who need weapons another hard thing for me to accept I suppose from "that makes no realistic sense" and would bug me. The Sunder part I'd not include myself but that's a personal call.

These comments/observations are for my personal playstyle though and not to be taken as a neutral viewpoint but definitely a biased one.

What you have there is a definite step toward allowing for disarms and yet keeping them from being grossly overpowered and rendering some encounters pointless. So in that way they do work.

[Garthanos]

Originally Posted by DanmarLOK

I'm not understanding the logic behind the blast and ranged burst disarms? A close blast 1 perhaps but making it a blast 3 or ranged burst and to me that takes it from being very skillful with a weapon to disarm someone to being a magical power where with a wink and nod a bunch of your opponents drop their weapons for some reason. .

Note the abilities and what they are targeting some are indeed magic.

I would say a paragon level burst 3 for a fighter would be too much but not for all the classes. Its one of the problems of not making these normal class powers.. a wizard of course at paragon tier shocking the weapons out of their hands is quite easy and reasonable... a warlord talks them in to dropping there weapons .. of course intimidate already lets you do anyway. ;-)

I seen Zorro disarm half a dozen guardsman by dropping a chandelier and intertwining all there blades in it. (he whistled the all raised there arms above there heads when it fell they entangled). or maybe he immobiized them or something else.

Over the course of 6 seconds in real life how far can a fast man move 180ft? ok that is a flat out sprinting ;-) ... a blast of 3 is 15 foot radius I bet you can reach quite a bit with a two handed weapon in that radius... is it slightly anime maybe maybe not but actually fun. My ninja drops a smoke bomb on the area and is a blur in the smoke with weapons going clunk.

Yes some of the disarms on his list are magical (have you seen some of the paragon tier stuff some of even the martial stuff has amazing elements.) and others are the impact of intimidation (how far can you shout) Charisma versus Will should also be doable by martial types.

[Cwheeler]

Thanks Garthanos, some of those explanations are the exact feelings I was going for.

I wanted to take a universal approach to disarm, rather than trying to balance each class or power source with a different approach.

This means that the players and the DM get to use a little imagination and creativity!

The barbarian lets out a fierce, intimidating shout. The rogue throws a perfectly targeted cloud of shurikens. The infernal Warlock calls on a swarm of imps to take away the weapons of his foes. The epic fighter stands down an army with nothing but a measured stare...

-------

With this method of doing things, I may need to find a way to re-word the atack line to allow for more variation in the execution of the disarm

It needs to be able to include:
Str vs Fort: Using physical force
Dex vs Ref: Using finesse
Int vs Ref: Using Magic and guile
Cha vs Will: Using force of personality
Wis vs Will: Using spiritual force

------

Possible Feat:

Sly Oppertunist (heroic)
You gain combat advantage against disarmed opponents.

------

What you have there is a definite step toward allowing for disarms and yet keeping them from being grossly overpowered and rendering some encounters pointless. So in that way they do work.

Thankyou: that was the goal.

I'm trying to set it up as a mechanic that will influence combat tactics and enhance realism. Part of that is finding ways to make it an attractive option, without breaking the game.

What types of things to you feel would make it a more complete mechanic?

[Garthanos]

Originally Posted by Cwheeler

Thanks Garthanos, some of those explanations are the exact feelings I was going for.

I wanted to take a universal approach to disarm, rather than trying to balance each class or power source with a different approach.

This means that the players and the DM get to use a little imagination and creativity!

Thats what reskinnning is for.. but yeah if everyone has potentially any style then they do have to pull a little more imagination out of the hat....

Oh I noticed you used the word guile in intelligence ... but charisma is to me the domain of spontaneous trickiness (not just personality force) and intelligence pre planned trickiness ;-) Wisdoms use as perceptiveness and discepline (arent always the domain of cleric magic so spirituality isnt always involved.)

[Zero Cochrane]

I went a differnent way. I adapted the Disarming and Sunder rules from 3rd edition and Star Wars Saga edition. Here is a "copy n paste" from my document:

DISARM adapted from Star Wars Saga Edition
You may attempt to force an opponent to drop one weapon (or other object) that he is holding.
DISARM: STANDARD ACTION
♦ Strength Attack: Make a Strength attack vs. Reflex defense; your opponent gets a +10 bonus to his Reflex defense. If your opponent is holding a weapon with more than one hand, you take a -5 penalty on your attack roll to disarm him.
Hit: Your opponent is disarmed. If you successfully disarm your opponent with an unarmed attack, you can take the disarmed weapon. Otherwise, it is on the ground at your opponent's feet (in his fighting space).
Miss: Your opponent can make a free basic attack against you.
♦ Improved Disarm: If you have the Improved Disarm feat, you get a +5 bonus on your melee attack roll to disarm an opponent, and your opponent doesn't get to make a free attack against you if your disarm attack fails.
♦ Ranged Disarm: If you have the Ranged Disarm feat, you can attempt to disarm your opponent with a ranged attack. If the attack fails, your opponent doesn't get an immediate free attack against you.

Improved Disarm (Heroic tier feat) adapted from Star Wars Saga Edition
You are skilled at disarming opponents in melee combat.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 13, Defensive Mobility
Benefit: You gain a +5 bonus on any melee attack roll made to disarm an opponent. In addition, if you fail to disarm your opponent, he doesn't get to make a free attack against you.

Ranged Disarm (Paragon tier feat) adapted from Star Wars Saga Edition
You are skilled at disarming opponents in ranged combat.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 13, Far Shot
Benefit: You can disarm an opponent using a ranged attack. If your ranged disarm attack fails, your opponent doesn't get to make a free attack against you.

SUNDER adapted from Disarm from Star Wars Saga Edition
You may attempt to damage or destroy one weapon (or other object) that an opponent is holding.
SUNDER: STANDARD ACTION
♦ Strength Attack: Make a Strength attack vs. Reflex defense; your opponent gets a +10 bonus to his Reflex defense. If your opponent is holding a weapon with more than one hand, you take a -5 penalty on your attack roll to sunder his weapon.
Hit: Compare your attack roll to a DC set by the DM. If your roll equals or exceeds the DC, the weapon (or object) breaks.
Setting the DC: Consult the table: DCS TO BREAK OR BURST COMMON ITEMS, on page 262 of the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK. If the item is magical, add +1 to the DC for every 2 levels the magic item has.
Miss: Your opponent can make a free basic attack against you..
♦ Improved sundering: If you have the Improved Disarm feat, you get a +5 bonus on your attack roll to sunder an opponent's weapon, and your opponent doesn't get to make an immediate free attack against you if your sunder attack fails.
♦ Ranged sundering: If you have the Ranged Disarm feat, you can attempt to sunder your opponent's weapon with a ranged attack. If the attack fails, your opponent doesn't get an immediate free attack against you.

--

[Cwheeler]

While this approach works fine for the action of disarming someone, the ramifications are not so clear in 4e.

The issue is that the system is not constructed symmetrically, like it is in 3e or Saga. Creature Damage is not generally dependent on weapons (or at least, it's not transparently stated), and taking away a players weapon is utterly crippling to some classes, and neigh pointless to others.

What rules/guidelines do you use for the effects of disarming?

[Stuntman]

My general impression is that there is potential to end some combats really early (or at least swing it drastically in favour of the disarmer). If you just disarm round after round until you succeed, you can potentially reduce the effectiveness of a creature much sooner than using standard powers. After that point, the encounter may end up being just a mop up as the creatures you disarm may become rather ineffective. They even have a much harder time getting the weapon back.

If you haven't done so already, try playing out a couple of battles both ways: one with heavy disarming and one without any disarming and see the effect. Also try playing with disarming against the PC's and see if they still feel it is fun.

[RangerWickett]

I wouldn't use it. Then again, my disarm rule is: If you have an opponent grabbed, you can as a standard action try to disarm them. Make an attack, Str or Dex vs. Fortitude. You take a -5 penalty if you're trying to disarm an implement. If you succeed, you disarm your opponent. If you have a free hand, you can choose to grab the weapon or implement. Otherwise, it falls in a square of your choice adjacent to your opponent.

[Garthanos]

It occured to me that the limits you are placing on this disarm could be incorporated in to the game as a generic re-use on encounter powers for instance... and let the reuse limitations be a sort of extension of page 42... ie you can do improvise any of the powers that could be skinned as disarming... but improvised they are limited.

1 You must have combat advantage.(but gain no benefit from it).
2. You suffer a -4 penalty on performance.
3 If the power normally does damage reduce the damage by [W] or d8 or halve it whichever is worse.
4 a minor action can undo any condition applied....

that kind of thing.

I would err on the side of caution

[Cwheeler]

I'd rather just have a quick and easy ruleset that everyone can use :P.

Personal preference though!

[Garthanos]

I think Intimidate provides the only model extant for a at-will disarm... switching off to Athletics might be the only real change it requires...

What made me think of it was well intimidate is the Warlord disarm... people usually give up or flee when disarmed. Then use the weakened if they chose not to for monsters and npcs.

If weakend doesnt seem good enough you can intensify it without more than a shrug.

I think that tethering magic. The same stuff in the D&D world which says that thrown magic weapons return to there users hand implies something similar would normally prevent disarms against those with magic weapons... and pcs would have to face something able to overcome that to have to ever worry about npcs disarming them.

So a disarm at-will if enemy bloodied .... that required you to have combat advantage cuts the defense bonus back from 10 to 8. (this is a skill not a normal weapon use so proficiency (being trained is worth 2 or 3 more than weapon proficiency and skill focus gives you +3 right away but weapon expertise gradually boosts)... so if we want to use an attack we could justifiably reduce the difficulty by 3 just because being trained is much better so based on an attack it would be versus defense +5 (and no benefit other than requiring CA)
this disarm might indeed be a takes your enemies weapon result like that of the 17th level fighter because we have a certain amount of... if you succeed on the intimidate check it works...

the enemy not understanding your language isnt an issue but they need to be using a weapon... lets call that equivalent if you want to wound a wolf or dragons mouth in some way so that its attacks against you are weakened that would be an analog and would up the enemies opposed defense (by 5).

If you attempted an intimidate during an encounter you cant try again against that target this encounter... ah so it is an encounter per target limited ability(But I would say you can still do the old finishing stroke disarm at zero hit points).

[LostSoul]

I like pretty much like everything that's been suggested here.

One thought: if a guy has a loop on his weapon, instead of being on the ground in his square, it's dangling from his hand. I think I'll use that for my disarm. Professional soldiers only; goblins and bandits might not use that, but hobgoblins would. And elites.

[Garthanos]

Discussing it here is the right place I think... rules are as hide bound or not as you want them to be... here most of the suggestions will be more liberal... and sometimes dangerous. ;-). Mr wheelers sunder weapon feat makes the disarmed state permanent without additional effort on the users part ... combat advantage is way less of a limit than for instance the limit on intimidate requiring the enemy be bloodied. (that is the defining limit on intimidate other limits like the +10 hostile enemy limit is fairly overcome-able in a front-loaded way sadly enough).

Ranger Wickets idea is cool because it is simple but takes two actions... but they are definitely the unarmed variety disarm (and you really should provoke an opportunity attack when grabbing somebodies weapon arm - though nothing says you do). Also he really under estimates the difficulty wrestling a weapon away from a trained enemy... its not going to be a raw fort or reflex defense .. at best give them something kin to a proficiency bonus with the weapon at minimum (+2 to +3) and an extra +1 to per 5 levels of the enemy to represent subtle magics which bind weapons and implements to their wielders (these woud seem likely in as magical a world as D&D presumes even if the weapon isnt magical).

The impact on elites and solos really needs dealt with in any of these rules... there are some cool possibilities which have me fascinated but .. need handled with care.

[Garthanos]

I seem to have a bit of an obcession with this.. hellpppp!!!!!
There are clues that a battle field intimidate might be intended to be skinnable as a disarm --> a Wandering duelist background gives a +3 on intimidate ? how and why ? if he succeeded on his intimidate roll a partof that roll was doing a disarm... and it wasnt important that he disarmed them it was important they gave up or ran away after he did it. Charisma is not just charming or regal impressiveness its also a inspired trickiness attribute and a real life disarm is as much trickiness as strength or agility... and doing it after you have got them tired (bloodied) makes all the difference.

[Alex319]

I like pretty much like everything that's been suggested here.

One thought: if a guy has a loop on his weapon, instead of being on the ground in his square, it's dangling from his hand. I think I'll use that for my disarm. Professional soldiers only; goblins and bandits might not use that, but hobgoblins would. And elites.

Interesting idea. Of course it seems there would be no reason not to use a loop if that were the case, unless there were some other kind of penalty.

Also, this brings up an interesting consideration for those who claim that the game is "unrealistic" or "unsimulationist" without a disarm maneuver. I've heard it claimed in previous threads that disarming isn't really that powerful because players can put a loop on their weapon to prevent it from being lost during a disarm. Did real-life medieval soldiers use such "weapon loops"? (That's an honest question: I don't know the answer.) It seems like if disarming were an effective combat tactic IRL, and "weapon loops" were an effective countermeasure, then such loops would have been commonplace. If not, then this seems like a blow to the "realism" argument.

(Note: For those who don't know what we're talking about, a "weapon loop" is a cord that goes around the user's wrist and attaches to the handle, thus preventing it from dropping. The Wii controller has one of these.)

[Garthanos]

nope didnt use loops twasn't necessary ... because it was and is very difficult to disarm somebody who knows what they are doing, sufficiently so that they its easier to cut your enemies arm badly (probably killing them). Its also not easy to knock somebody unconcious without risking seriously harming them... or similar tricks. And both occur in movies which is the inspiration for more than a little of people's thinking not realism.

D&D 4e has what I call tethering magic being very common... which returns weapons back to there users hands (see thrown weapon) and sword mages which epitomize it... but a how much cheap is a ritual that would draw on the natural bond between a warrior and his blade and cause it to cling.