Disarm in 4E

[Infiniti2000]

Originally Posted by LostSoul

Why you shouldn't allow disarm:

Because it might unbalance the combat game.

Why you should allow disarm:

Because it means the game world has meaning.

Actually, the same thing can be said for instakills. You shouldn't allow those either because they're mathematically provable to suck for PCs.

It is not possible to create a rule that would work in terms of game mechanics and simultaneously suffice for simulationists. Actually, just try to get the simulationist to grasp the concept that giving a monster a +1 weapon (as opposed to nonmagical) might not in fact change any of its stats.

[Garthanos]

Originally Posted by Infiniti2000

It is not possible to create a rule that would work in terms of game mechanics and simultaneously suffice for simulationists. Actually, just try to get the simulationist to grasp the concept that giving a monster a +1 weapon (as opposed to nonmagical) might not in fact change any of its stats.

I'll bite at explaining it... the +1 weapon is already in the stats for that instance of that monster type...george the +1 weapon wielding gobby didn't develop as he is literally reliant on it.. the chieftain of the tribe might have even rewarded him with it to make up for a weird deficiency in battle he has" additionally there might be other things that the gobbies have which compensate them for not having the +1 weapon, some are slightly more offensively aggressive but have some defense that is also happens to make up for it... a war paint or similar and that's a detail the player will never ever need to know nor ever notice even if you go through the headaches to spec it out... tadah.

I like imagination exercises.

[N0Man]

Yeah, this probably should have started in Houserules... I think my original though was how to use existing rules (and rules in the DMG) to support it, but it does quickly move into a houserules category.

And I agree that he is fixating too much on this tactic. I think he feels that this is a "fundamental" ability that 4E dropped the ball in not allowing. He doesn't want to make into a power, because he feels that's the equivalent of having to take a feat or power in order to bull rush or charge.

The character concept he wants is basically a rehash of a character he played in a D20 game previously.

Trust me, it's frustrating for me too, feeling forced to defend what I feel is an arbitrary and unimportant "feature" that was "omitted". He seems to focus on the things that are no longer possible, without really seeing what new things have become possible. He has trouble seeing that it's different, but it's not really a net loss.

I think he seems to resent changes and omissions in 4.0 that were "unnecessary" and doesn't seem to see how that many of these "unnecessary" changes really were necessary to fit in with the overall design philosophy changes.

Everytime he finds out some random 3E combat maneuvers isn't standard in 4E, he has a negative reaction. He also resents that monsters in 4E don't "follow the same rules" as PCs. Things that I truly see as ranging from not a real loss, to sometimes a positive thing. I was so sick of shtick builds in 3.0 that typically were about forcing enemies to provoke AoO's using some gimmick and punishing them for it.

[Destil]

How about this: Disarm is completely analogous to prone. The opponent, however, instead of falling is fumbling around on the ground for their weapon. Then your guy just takes a bunch of powers that make the opponent 'disarmed'. Prone + slide is when you knock the weapon away and they have to scramble for it.

[Klaus]

Originally Posted by Destil

How about this: Disarm is completely analogous to prone. The opponent, however, instead of falling is fumbling around on the ground for their weapon. Then your guy just takes a bunch of powers that make the opponent 'disarmed'. Prone + slide is when you knock the weapon away and they have to scramble for it.

That's a great description of Downward Spiral (Rogue Daily 5), a close burst 1 that is an auto-prone. Just imagine a swashbuckling rogue wirling his rapier and knocking the weapons of all foes surrounding him! Awesome!

[Garthanos]

Originally Posted by Klaus

That's a great description of Downward Spiral (Rogue Daily 5), a close burst 1 that is an auto-prone. Just imagine a swashbuckling rogue wirling his rapier and knocking the weapons of all foes surrounding him! Awesome!

cool I like it....
I think I will add this to my potential descriptors for any powers inducing prone. ;-)

[tyrlaan]

Originally Posted by LostSoul

Why you shouldn't allow disarm:

Because it might unbalance the combat game.

Why you should allow disarm:

Because it means the game world has meaning.


You have to decide for yourself what's more important to you.

I'm not convinced these are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'm sure they are not. There are plenty of game mechanics that bring meaning to the game world and are balanced.

Originally Posted by Infiniti2000

It is not possible to create a rule that would work in terms of game mechanics and simultaneously suffice for simulationists. Actually, just try to get the simulationist to grasp the concept that giving a monster a +1 weapon (as opposed to nonmagical) might not in fact change any of its stats.

Why am I starting to feel like simulationist/gamist is growing into left wing/right wing? Sure there are some people that need a game to be as close to 100% simulationist as possible, just as there are some that feel the opposite. However, there are actually some people that just expect a happy medium. Ultimately I called out this comment because I feel like simulationist is being tossed around like a derrogatory term, and I think that's a poor trend to start.


Some other thoughts:
In 4e, PCs and NPCs/monsters do not follow the same rules. So why is the common argument that if PCs can do it monsters have to be able to do it as well? More than any other edition, I think it's very plausible to say PCs can disarm and monsters can't.

I think some of the ideas about taking advantage of existing condition mechanics are really good and I don't want to begrudge them by implying a new mechanic is necessarily required here. However, I have trouble reconciling how disarm completely nullifies a character when a mere minor action undoes the damage of the disarm.

[CovertOps]

Originally Posted by N0Man

Yeah, this probably should have started in Houserules... I think my original though was how to use existing rules (and rules in the DMG) to support it, but it does quickly move into a houserules category.

And I agree that he is fixating too much on this tactic. I think he feels that this is a "fundamental" ability that 4E dropped the ball in not allowing. He doesn't want to make into a power, because he feels that's the equivalent of having to take a feat or power in order to bull rush or charge.

The character concept he wants is basically a rehash of a character he played in a D20 game previously.

Trust me, it's frustrating for me too, feeling forced to defend what I feel is an arbitrary and unimportant "feature" that was "omitted". He seems to focus on the things that are no longer possible, without really seeing what new things have become possible. He has trouble seeing that it's different, but it's not really a net loss.

I think he seems to resent changes and omissions in 4.0 that were "unnecessary" and doesn't seem to see how that many of these "unnecessary" changes really were necessary to fit in with the overall design philosophy changes.

Everytime he finds out some random 3E combat maneuvers isn't standard in 4E, he has a negative reaction. He also resents that monsters in 4E don't "follow the same rules" as PCs. Things that I truly see as ranging from not a real loss, to sometimes a positive thing. I was so sick of shtick builds in 3.0 that typically were about forcing enemies to provoke AoO's using some gimmick and punishing them for it.

First of all it is likely that this player will never like 4e. He sounds like an even more hardcore simulationist that some of my players that don't like this edition. Of course the most vocal one did comment last week that "I could have made a better game than this in 2 months". I was forced to roll my eyes and sigh. Whereupon he described the changes he would make which sounded vaguely like GURPS which gave me a real laugh.

I think I would start with this player that he doesn't get to make ANY demands about abilities until he has played the game by RAW for at least 3 gaming sessions (with my own group we played RAW for about 6-8 sessions - once a month - till I was much more comfortable with how the system works before I even considered house rules or the like). Saying that a game system is broken by not allowing things and demanding them of the DM before you ever play is just silly. Once you have that firmly set then put the work on him. Make HIM come up with a disarm that works within the framework of the current rules without being cheese or broken. Don't let him make you try to come up with something that will make him happy, but instead make him come up with something and veto it if it's overpowered.

If you're willing to let him off the hook (figuratively speaking) then of all the ideas I've seen here I like mine and the knock prone one the best. Both work within the system as written and as long as you restrict or get rid of the damage for the attack then it's not overpowered. (An at-will that lets you do damage AND disarm would certainly be OP - reference Bull Rush which does no damage and only applies a push 1 - and charge only gives you +1 an a basic attack so neither one of these things does very much).

Disarm
Action: standard
Attack: STR vs. Fort
Target: One creature
Hit: The target is weakened (save ends).

OR

Disarm
Action: standard
Attack: DEX vs. Reflex
Target: One creature
Hit: 1d4 damage and the target is knocked prone (note that there is no stat mod or static bonuses added to this...just 1d4 damage)

4e, as the designers have said many times, is about CHOICES. If one choice is vastly superior to all other choices then there is really no choice. By keeping away from a disarm attack that does damage you force the player to choose between do I want to disarm my foe, or do I want to do damage knowing that the disarm will not prevent him from killing me. Prone has the advantage that it grants combat advantage (IIRC) so helps your party Rogue get his sneak damage in.

Personally I would not let him off the hook. The best medicine for this player is to make him come up with the power for disarm. If it's overpowered you might consider letting him have it...both for his character AND for every monster in the parties next encounter. If you're feeling nice just tell him that whatever he comes up with will be included in the powers for every monster for the next encounter. That should at least keep him in check from giving himself something over the top. The more you tell us about this player the less I like him.

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by tyrlaan

I'm not convinced these are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'm sure they are not. There are plenty of game mechanics that bring meaning to the game world and are balanced.

I agree, I don't think they are exclusive either.

Originally Posted by tyrlaan

However, there are actually some people that just expect a happy medium.

I think that 4E supports simulationism just fine. I'm using "simulationism" to mean "what is going on in the game world."

You just have to rely on the DM.

Originally Posted by tyrlaan

In 4e, PCs and NPCs/monsters do not follow the same rules. So why is the common argument that if PCs can do it monsters have to be able to do it as well? More than any other edition, I think it's very plausible to say PCs can disarm and monsters can't.

I wouldn't say they can't, just that they are unlikely to if it's not in their statblock. Their statblock defines how they fight, so generally speaking they're not going to try a combat move they aren't comfortable with.

[tyrlaan]

Originally Posted by LostSoul

I think that 4E supports simulationism just fine. I'm using "simulationism" to mean "what is going on in the game world."

You just have to rely on the DM.

That's the magic sentence right there.

I agree with you. 4E doesn't do 100% simulationism necessarily, but I don't feel it's so far across on the gamist scale that simulation is unsupportable.

Originally Posted by LostSoul

I wouldn't say they can't, just that they are unlikely to if it's not in their statblock. Their statblock defines how they fight, so generally speaking they're not going to try a combat move they aren't comfortable with.

Right. If I were to introduce disarm mechanics and run with the notion that since PCs and NPCs/monsters are different, the rationalization I'd use for why NPCs and monsters don't disarm is that the PCs are just that good. PCs are the action heroes and don't lose their weapons unless its dramatically cool.

[Garthanos]

Originally Posted by tyrlaan

I'm not convinced these are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'm sure they are not. There are plenty of game mechanics that bring meaning to the game world and are balanced.


Why am I starting to feel like simulationist/gamist is growing into left wing/right wing? Sure there are some people that need a game to be as close to 100% simulationist as possible, just as there are some that feel the opposite. However, there are actually some people that just expect a happy medium. Ultimately I called out this comment because I feel like simulationist is being tossed around like a derrogatory term, and I think that's a poor trend to start.

I am a D&D simulationist ( OK I want to simulate movies and tv and literature...). But I like working through reasonable rationales for things and I am willing to make rules changes if it makes a nicer model.

Originally Posted by tyrlaan

Some other thoughts:
In 4e, PCs and NPCs/monsters do not follow the same rules. So why is the common argument that if PCs can do it monsters have to be able to do it as well? More than any other edition, I think it's very plausible to say PCs can disarm and monsters can't.

A fighter character currently might as well put up his hands and give up if the DM made the mistake of giving the npc Baron Somnalux the same power as the 17th level fighter. ... This seems to be a clue.

1) Do not ever build npcs the way you build a pc.(it means I have to be really really careful if I build npcs... I thought DMing was supposed to be easier? - builder lets me build pcs easy ;-))
1a) The Classes are not NPC friendly.
2) pcs are too dependent on their toys.(insert house rules here).

Originally Posted by tyrlaan

I think some of the ideas about taking advantage of existing condition mechanics are really good and I don't want to begrudge them by implying a new mechanic is necessarily required here. However, I have trouble reconciling how disarm completely nullifies a character when a mere minor action undoes the damage of the disarm.

-9 to hit and less than 1/3 rd damage is damn near nullified.
(oops thats a pc problem monsters we arent even sure they get a penalty)
The minor action un does it unless some combo is used like
somebody force moves them or similar. ;-)

I argue disarm is quite hard and very much a trained move in real life
that you will rarely be able to use against anyone but somebody you completely outclass... (ie it is very far from fundamental ) so most of the players arguments fall flat.

And as somebody noted encounter powers as signature moves are fine...(I also like the disarm at zero hitpoints rule but I am a liberal simulationist)

[DracoSuave]

Originally Posted by Ravellion

My take would be slightly different. I like the weakened idea, it is easy to run and powerful enough (half damage is nothing to sneeze at). The save ends mechanics mean that solos and elites will have an easier time getting their weapon back/improvising a suitable weapon/drawing a new weapon. The lack of OA will speed up play.

Disarm
At-Will * Weapon
Standard Action Melee Weapon
Target: One creature no more than one size larger than you, wielding a weapon
Attack: Strength -4 vs. Fort OR Dexterity -4 vs. Reflex
Hit: The target is weakened (save ends).
Special:
If the target is your size or smaller, you receive a +2 bonus to hit.
If the target wields its weapon in only one hand, you receive a +2 bonus to hit.
These two bonuses stack.

1) Save ends should never appear on an at-will for a condition like weakened. Compare to the damage mitigation of temporary hit points, and the like.

This would actually make a better encounter power, make it a straight Strength vs Fort for a Fighter, and forget the extra +2 bonuses specials that only complicate the power needlessly. That'd actually be good for a s+b fighter who is focused on mitigation.

[Cwheeler]

I like the use of the weakened condition: It allows characters and monsters to keep fighting, but highly encourages them to find another weapon. I can see a whole world of fun being had with improvised weapons. (to this end, I would say 'weakened until you can find another weapon/implement')

There is the issue of losing enhancement bonuses, and there are two ways you can deal with this:

a) Just let them use the enhancement bonus of whatever weapon/implement they where originally wielding.

b) Run a game where the enhancement bonuses are built into the characters, rather than the weapons...

Also, 'disarming' a character or monster that uses unarmed strikes/natural weapons could be dealt with as 'weakened till end of it's turn', or 'weakened, save ends'...

[Flipguarder]

enhancement bonus isn't anywhere near the only problem

prof +3
Expertise +3

thats another +6 right there, barring any class bonuses.

[Cwheeler]

Originally Posted by Flipguarder

enhancement bonus isn't anywhere near the only problem

prof +3
Expertise +3

thats another +6 right there, barring any class bonuses.

That's presuming you need exact simulation. I'm happy with just getting the 'cinematic feel' of disarmament.