D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
The worst problem with weaken as an at-will disarm condition is that it hoses solos and elites too much. You should not be able to disarm a solo monster with a single use of an at-will. Fights against solos would be ruined by stuff like that.
Just disarm the weapon and toss it over a cliff and that's it for the rest of the encounter if he has no backup weapon. That is just way too powerful compared to any existing powers.
Or, you know, push him over the cliff and that's it for the rest of the encounter.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
Or, you know, push him over the cliff and that's it for the rest of the encounter.
Which is why Solos you fight on a cliff should have some forced movement resistance, or be able to fly, or something similar. The point is that reducing someone's attack and/or damage for the rest of the encounter is too powerful an effect to be included in an at-will, just like any effect that lasts until the end of the encounter. If you can disarm someone that easily, the only solution will be to have the solo carry half a dozen weapons, or give him natural weapons instead... And you can guarantee that that'll annoy your simulationist player, especially if he builds his character to do disarms all day.
If he's a fan of simulation, he'll like your nifty details such as the 1 cp leather loop protecting your monsters from being disarmed; I know it's handy on my super realistic umbrella.
And thats for the level 1 monsters. Obviously you'd be seeing super-webbing and force-threads at higher levels.
Oh, and theres the actual rule that magic weapons come back to your hand when thrown, so one could assume that every magic-item crafter in the universe would include insurance against disarm and maybe even rust protection as standard.
Now if he wants a super cool ninja who disarms people, as an exceptionally talented hero, well that seems like a good place to start declaring that powers and feats are required.
Sigh wanting frequent disarms ... is not "simulationist" or "realistic" its actually cinematic. And in the cinema ... heros are rarely as dependent on their toys(insert exceptions of artifact wielders here) as they are in D&D ... Enemies that are minions sprinkled all over the place are a perfect for the Zorro / Jackie Chan etc character - combine that with describing various powers as temporary disarms and it really should make that player happy (but if the player "really" wants to hack the game to get more advantage than he should because he was able to do that in another version well that is a different and social issue).
I repeat easy disarming is not sim/realistic even without the tethering magic which is standard in D&D (good point unan).
While the D&D game uses dice and miniatures, the action takes place in your imagination. There, you have the freedom to create anything you can imagine, with an unlimited special effects budget and the technology to make anything happen.
The DM makes D&D infinitely flexible - he or she can react to any situation, any twist or turn suggested by the players, to make a D&D adventure vibrant, exciting, and unexpected.
The DM sets the scene, but no one knows what's going to happen until the characters so domething - and then anything can happen!
In an adventure, you can attempt anything you can think of.
PHB, page 286: Actions in Combat
This section describes how to perform the most common actions that are available to you on your turn.
The list isn't exhaustive - you can try to do anything you can imagine your character doing in the game world. The rules in this section cover the most common actions, and they can serve as a guide for figuring out what happens when you try something not in the rules.
Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it's your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them.
There are a lot of ways to resolve disarms. The DM has to resolve it appropriately for the group he's in. But to say that disarms are somehow not a part of D&D is a really strange statement.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
If someone wants to try a one-time-only disarm, that's cool, page 42 for some options, or some of the good suggestions here, I think what people have an issue with regarding disarming is the direct import of a 3.5 mechanic into a 4e game where the system won't tolerate it well. Not to mention that such builds were often cheesy exploit filled garbage in the last edition.
Several alternatives have been put forward here. Lists of feats, and use of minions to make up for the removal of disarm. These are DMs (and players) doing exactly what the passages you quoted suggest. Too bad that it is not a game breaking at will mechanic, too bad that it doesn't fit with what you want.
I guess my point is that if you're not able to try anything you can imagine, that breaks the game more than some advantage on the battlemap.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
There are a lot of ways to resolve disarms. The DM has to resolve it appropriately for the group he's in. But to say that disarms are somehow not a part of D&D is a really strange statement.
No, not really strange at all, BECAUSE IT ISN'T. Replace "my character wants to disarm" with "my character wants to do called-shot neck and decapitate with every swing." Guess what, SAME ANSWER, it only works when they're at 0 HPs.
Disarm - attack
special: perform any other attack you can legally do, if it reduces the target to 0 or fewer HPs and they die, they instead become disarmed.
Decapitating Blow - attack
special: perform any other attack you can legally do, if it reduces the target to 0 or fewer HPs and they die, their head falls off and can now be used as a bowling ball.
No, not really strange at all, BECAUSE IT ISN'T. Replace "my character wants to disarm" with "my character wants to do called-shot neck and decapitate with every swing." Guess what, SAME ANSWER, it only works when they're at 0 HPs.
Why would you make that ruling? What purpose would it serve?
(The "at-will disarm" of mine is to make it so that PCs can take any action they can imagine, so that the game world can remain real and can be interacted with, so that unexpected and out-of-the-box tactics can be employed, and to reward creativity and expand the range of choices a player can make.)
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
Disarm - attack
special: perform any other attack you can legally do, if it reduces the target to 0 or fewer HPs and they die, they instead become disarmed.
Decapitating Blow - attack
special: perform any other attack you can legally do, if it reduces the target to 0 or fewer HPs and they die, their head falls off and can now be used as a bowling ball.
I guess saying "BECAUSE IT ISN'T" implies the above isnt a 4e rule...
well maybe it isnt.."technically" but it is only very SLIGHTLY a house rule.
The permission to skin our powers and adjust the final resolution (currenly only mentioned are dead and unconcious, should be explicitly opened up to other appropriate effects).
At-will disarming also implies that you can toss someones weapon away about 50% of the time you try it (hit roll). Does this sound appropriate to you? Way too easy in my opinion, unless the foe is a minion, which means he is a lot less skilled than you.
Also, soon he will say that it should target reflex defense, because it would be odd if it targeted AC. It gets worse and worse on this path.
In most cases a successful disarm means defeat (in movies, in real life, in books), unless it is the hero who momentarily loses his weapon. That is easily described as stunned or weakened.
At-will disarming also implies that you can toss someones weapon away about 50% of the time you try it (hit roll). Does this sound appropriate to you? Way too easy in my opinion, unless the foe is a minion, which means he is a lot less skilled than you.
Also, soon he will say that it should target reflex defense, because it would be odd if it targeted AC. It gets worse and worse on this path.
In most cases a successful disarm means defeat (in movies, in real life, in books), unless it is the hero who momentarily loses his weapon. That is easily described as stunned or weakened.
Minions dont have to be less skilled just tons less lucky... somethings shouldn't happen unless a character is all out of luck (minions sort of count as that way by default).
In real life you have to completely outclass your enemy for it to really have a likely chance of working (I dont mean realiably even then)... err its probably a lot safer to main or kill somebody. If they are after realistic -- calculate the odds of an instant kill --- umm so lets not do realistic that sounds un fun.
If you want to envision the enemy not being wounded by the disarm allow that last attacks "damage" to be negated it was a disarm after all (but remember they will likely be demoralized and afraid... so figure they do indeed have zero hitpoints).
Last edited by Garthanos; 12th August 2009 at 09:00 AM..
I fully agree. I just wanted to point out that minions might be those kinds of opponents that you see disarmed in movies etc. But proper "villains" often lose their weapon only when the fight is almost over (0hp fits this fine).
The real point where simulationism is lost in D&D is that you can hit someone in the face with a battleaxe three times, and they don't die. In real life, it is possible to disarm an opponent, but it's a great deal harder than just killing them. You can't say that it's unrealistic to forbid people to try disarming enemies, because the whole hitpoints system is an obstraction to start with. It's the reason disarming and sundering was so powerful in previous editions - because effects that can disable an opponent by means other than reducing them to 0 hitpoints are way more effective.
The real point where simulationism is lost in D&D is that you can hit someone in the face with a battleaxe three times, and they don't die.
If my players are attacked by a battle axe attack 3 times... I have them
describe how luck and desparate last second skill and the various factors incorporated in hit points (read the definititon of hitpoints from version 1 through 4 for ideas) reduce and minimize those attacks...
The neat part of letting the player describe this part is you get to involve them out of turn (some players ask me to do it... others love having defensive narrative permission - I only rarely have to adjust there description)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tai
In real life, it is possible to disarm an opponent, but it's a great deal harder than just killing them. You can't say that it's unrealistic to forbid people to try disarming enemies, because the whole hitpoints system is an obstraction to start with. It's the reason disarming and sundering was so powerful in previous editions - because effects that can disable an opponent by means other than reducing them to 0 hitpoints are way more effective.
Mechanics which semi permanently nerf somebody who arent nearly out of luck is not a good idea or a good simulation and never was.
Basically the house rule using zero hit points in the permanent disarm are using something quite like an extension of intimidate rule (and very likely with its flaws removed.)
Instead of tying it to a too easily front-loaded/over-optimized skill it is tied to a normal attack and instead of using the bloodied threshold it is tied to being within reach of being out of the battle by a single attack. (those maybe very close to the same point )
The intimidation mechanics limitation of your target being bloodied is nearly mechanically the same as being within one heroic attack of being defeated. (but maybe only for enemies of the same level and there are important exceptions). And those exceptions are good reasons to use an attack for the disarm check and use the zero hit points threshold.
Presentation is all the difference.
So the jackie chan pacifist pc describes his attacks as him defending himself in way that humiliate and exhaust his enemies turning there attacks against him in to attacks against there allies and themself etc all working at exhausting his enemies when the dm describes them like they are frazzled tired or seriously confused he makes an attack and describes it as a form of disarming if it works and causes sufficient hitpoint loss they lose there weapon... if it fails they dont lose there weapon but next round another such attack is very likely to work and his enemies are likely demoralized and afraid so at disarmed zero hitpoints they run away.. or he might have had there weapon bounce back from one of there attacks and clonk them in the head and they just fall unconcious. If the player suspects npcs as being minions (for instance the described exhausting defensive attack against one results in the target knocking themself out) he changes a bit and describes a nice flamboyant disarm even though the next one doesnt already seem bloodied aka ready for disarming... and sure enough the minions weapon gets stuck in the cieling...
There is already a disarm mechanic in the game. It's taking damage and losing HPs.
That doesn't answer the question.
But... have you looked at the Kuo-Toa Marauder?
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
Also, soon he will say that it should target reflex defense, because it would be odd if it targeted AC. It gets worse and worse on this path.
I can see it being an attack vs. Reflex, AC, Fortitude, or something like attack skill +10, with bonuses or penalites applied as appropriate.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
Yes but this is a passive ability in that it only occurs if the Kuo-Tau Marauder is attacked in melee and missed by that attack.
If Kuo-Toa Marauder is successful with Sticky Shield the targets weapon drops in the targets hex where it can be recovered with a minor action.
In essence this power could cost a melee attacker a minor action in the event of an unsuccessful melee attack against the Kuo-Toa Marauder.
Furthermore if the attacker had not yet used there minor action for the turn they could pickup and rearm themselves before there turn ended, effectively making Sticky Shield an excercise in needless die rolling.
That being said the Sticky Shield was a good find and serves as an excellent starting point for house ruling a disarm attacks
Last edited by Trebor62; 12th August 2009 at 07:04 PM..
Reason: further comment
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
