WotC Mailbog Podcast up

[MerricB]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

This is kind of a keen idea. I'd like for everyone to have something special they can do when granted Combat Advantage. No reason to let the Rogue have all the fun. It represents the "see an opening!" aspect really well without forcing it to be limited to gamist mechanics, making it a potential "always-on" ability that you still won't always be using.

Interesting...

I agree. Interesting.

Cheers!

[thalmin]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

The idea I like for both Disarm and Trip - if you want to keep thas a standard combat option - would be to require Combat Advantage to use them. (snip)

I really like this idea so much, I gave you you an XP

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

This is kind of a keen idea. I'd like for everyone to have something special they can do when granted Combat Advantage. No reason to let the Rogue have all the fun. It represents the "see an opening!" aspect really well without forcing it to be limited to gamist mechanics, making it a potential "always-on" ability that you still won't always be using.

Interesting...

Exactly. (And you could, if you wanted, also introduce this to 3E, if you think Trip and specifically Improved Trip is overpowered. )

[vagabundo]

The seems to be a disconnect between people wanting Disarm for narrative purposes and those who want more mechanical options - or shortcuts - for killing stuff.

If disarm was like grab I'd probably have it like this:

Disarm: Standard Action
* Target: You can attempt to disarm a creature that is holding a weapon or object. At your DMs discretion you can also temporarily disable an attack power of a creature with natural weapons
* Dexterity Attack: Make a Dexterity attack vs Reflex. Do not add any weapon modifiers.

Hit: The creature is disarmed, you gain combat advantage and they will be unable to use powers that require the weapon keyword. They can unsheathe another weapon or attempt to recover the disarmed weapon. The weapon will land in a square of your choice within a burst 1 of the target.

[Sir Brennen]

Originally Posted by vagabundo

The seems to be a disconnect between people wanting Disarm for narrative purposes and those who want more mechanical options - or shortcuts - for killing stuff.

I think the disconnect is between people wanting a mechanic to re-introduce Disarm into the game and recognizing how powerful such a manuever is, especially in 4E.

Really, what other power in the game can deny a character all of their own weapon based powers? What other action could do this, since it's not even a power, but something anyone could do?

Being disarmed, in game terms, is a penalty with no save. If the character cannot recover their weapon, it can effectively be a Save or Die effect (the save in this case the initial attempt to resist the disarm.)

Remedies suggested include simply requiring the Disarmed character to spend an action to retrieve their weapon. But in 4E, it's far too easy to separate a character from a dropped weapon, so this isn't much of a solution. A PC could potentially lose their weapon permanently, much like the 3.x sunder action.

Another suggested remedy is the ability to pull out a backup weapon. But in those cases where a target doesn't have a backup weapon, like most great-axe weilding orcs? We just shrug our shoulders and say "Oh, well?"

Even if a chartacter pulls out a second weapon, especially a PC, it's likely they will experience a penalty compared to using their primary weapon. This will especially be true for wielders of heavier weapons, who are unlikely to carry an equivalant weapon for backup. A character is likely losing his original weapon's magic bonus, higher base damage and effects/damage of powers reliant on weapon type. So multiple penalties lasting the entire encounter with no save.

And of course, a backup weapon is no guarantee a Disarm is reduced to just this set of penalties, as the backup weapon can also be disarmed, possibly in the same round as one faces multiple opponents.

Given 4E's higher HP and generally higher number of rounds per combat, Disarm becomes a much more effective way to take an opponent out. More effective than most powers. And, given 4E's focus on balance, Disarm as a mechanical option is not balanced.

Cinematically, becoming disarmed usually signifies the end of a fight. Realistically, even if someone has a backup weapon, they're likely to get run through as soon as they reach for it. In those scenes where the fight continues after a disarm, it's usually a duel between two opponents. These scenes are rarely duplicated in a D&D game, as almost all battles are between groups of opponents, where being disarmed is even more likely to result in a surrender.

The suggestion of using the existing mechanic of letting the PC decide what happens when they reduce an enemy to zero hit points to declare a disarm is perfect from a narrative, cinematic perspective.

[Vendark]

Originally Posted by Sir Brennen

Really, what other power in the game can deny a character all of their own weapon based powers?

Other than Exorcism of Steel, the fighter power that disarms the target, any power that dominates the target could effectively disarm or sunder its weapons. You just force them to drop their weapon, or hand it over, or toss it over a cliff.

So any disarm/sunder power should probably start with a dominate power and work backwards. Disarming or sundering is actually less of a screwjob than dominate, since dominate also dazes the target and lets you force them to attack their friends if you want, so taking a dominate power, changing its effect, making it a melee weapon attack vs. Reflex or Fortitude, and reducing its level to account for its reduced effect and limited targets should get you in the right vicinity.

That still puts it in high heroic or paragon territory, and definitely not a maneuver anybody should be able to attempt at any time.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A lot of problems could be avoided in D&D (since 3E at least, but probably before) with Disarm if weapons didn't give a magical bonus to hit.

Then, having to pick an improvised weapon is a weakness, but it's not a terrible one. If we gave Unarmed Attacks a +2 proficiecy bonus in 4E, and there weren't +X weapons, things would be easier...

This fix, interestingly, would only work well in D&D. In Shadowrun, if you were able to disarm the guy with Edged Weapons 5 and Firearms 5, he would be severely hampered. (One of the reason why probably every good powergamer will give his non-spellcaster a good unarmed combat rating and/or Cyberimplantatweapons)

[Kishin]

Originally Posted by justanobody

Home-brew: Birthright sucks. Don't emulate it.

Nice. So myself and everyone else who enjoyed the setting were having wrongbadfun?

Originally Posted by justanobody

Feedback, 4th isn't working: zzzzzzz

Originally Posted by justanobody

Power gamers: Yup, they are jerks. Oh goody, we get graded on Dungeon Delves. Do we get gold stars, or put in detention or summer school if our scores are too low?

You've made over a 1000 posts in less than 6 months, and they all sound the same to me. Truly, sir, your devotion to over the top snark and negative contribution cannot be undervalued, nor your startling capacity to repeat it ad nauseam. Perhaps we should give you a Gold Star of your own for being the message board equivalent of AC/DC.

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by Kishin

Nice. So myself and everyone else who enjoyed the setting were having wrongbadfun?

You've made over a 1000 posts in less than 6 months, and they all sound the same to me. Truly, sir, your devotion to over the top snark and negative contribution cannot be undervalued, nor your startling capacity to repeat it ad nauseam. Perhaps we should give you a Gold Star of your own for being the message board equivalent of AC/DC.

WOW! 40 other people after me commeted on the actual things mentioned in the podcast, and yet somehow you were to first wanting to comment on me personally. I don't know what interest some people have in my personally, but let me go ahead and get this out of the way. I am not here for dating or anything else, so keep your personal affections to yourselves.

Now to address things on topic to thiis thread, which you failed to do in any way with your post; I will explain the portions of my post to you that you attempted to quote and missed the context.

First I will start with the last port of my post, that you are quoting from.

The preceding thoughts were typed while listening to the podcast, and are impromptu based on a first listen.

Here you can tell that I was making the post over the time it took to listen to the podcast and it was what I was thinking at the time it was actually being said. That means I couldn't tell the future to know what was going to be said next while typing on what I was hearing at that moment I was typing and hearing it.

Home-brew: Birthright sucks. Don't emulate it.

Here you can read into it whatever you want. I heard something about Birthright in regards to homebrew and gave my opinion on the matter. Are you saying I don't have the right to my own opinion, and in your oppressive world must subscribe to each and every one of your beliefs? No? Then I stand by what I said, and you can do with that information whatever you please. Birthright sucks. Don't emulate it.

Fungible: ....

Feedback, 4th isn't working: zzzzzzz

You post took things out of context, probably because you failed to read to the end of my post, which I have already provided for you at the beginning of this post with explanation in case you missed it the first time.

The fungible talk went on and put me to sleep or was otherwise uninterested, so I just trailed off until I heard something that did interest me to listen to which happened to be healing surges.

Power gamers: Yup, they are jerks. Oh goody, we get graded on Dungeon Delves. Do we get gold stars, or put in detention or summer school if our scores are too low?

Here I agree with either Dave or Mike that says power gamers are jerks. If you have a problem with that statement then you should take it up with them.

I don't care how long you have been here nor how many posts you have made, but if you are interested in some kind of silly game like that, then I have already addressed that 40+ other users that posted in this thread after my initial post posted on the material brought up in the podcast. So since you were the first to post on me personally, what right do you have to judge any of my actions or posts. Should you be awarded with a Gold Star for attempting to derail a thread? One for being blatantly off-topic? Or any other of reasons that you had to not post anything about the subject of the thread itself, but instead chose to post about me?

NOW......

I think the disarming ideas presented here are pretty good, and don't know how to really add them back myself, but think it really is something missing as a valid tactic in combat that should belong to a game that is...you know...at least partially combat.

I don't think a stun status should be involved for one losing a weapon unless it is sundered because of the impact, but again something needs to allow for both of those avenues of play, and I missed disarm on my first listen of the podcast, and have not gone back and listened since or would have included it in my initial post.

So someone start up a thread about adding disarm/sunder back into fourth with some good ideas so the mental forces here can adapt something for use!

[Rechan]

This might be a little complicated and not satisfy, but:

Disarm (Encounter). All powers the target uses with the Weapon keyword (or requires a weapon) is considered to now be a Recharge ( ) power, and be expended.

Thus, this allows the person to roll at the beginning of their turn to recharge that power, and recharging designates that the disarm effect is over.

Alternatively, I could see a "Disarm Power" that simply means "Target cannot use x attack until the end of your next turn". This would constitute more than just disarming, but for instance, parrying with a piece of wood and the enemy getting their weapon caught in it, or any other sort of "Augh, my weapon/claw is tangled up!"

[justanobody]

Is that for monsters, or players? Maybe I am just not understanding it.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Kishin

Nice. So myself and everyone else who enjoyed the setting were having wrongbadfun?

That's the best kind of fun! It's awesome!

[Shroomy]

I have a question for everyone. Did disarm get used regularly in your 3.x games or is the primary objection to its absence in 4e theoretical? I just re-reviewed the rules in the SRD, and again, I can't shake the feeling that they are too complicated in their implementation, obviously situational, and as a result there are better options to take during combat (unless you optimized towards disarming, and even then, its all dependent on adventure design).

I think that a theoretical re-introduction of disarm to 4e (without resorting to an ad hoc ruling using DMG pg. 42) would eliminate the complexity of the action in comparison to 3.x, since they would be subsumed within the power framework, but it would not eliminate the situational nature of the power, and thus, in the majority of cases (unless you design adventures catering specifically to this power), there would be much better actions to take during combat. I think that if you apply a disarm-like power to non-weapon powers, you'd be better served by a broader power that results in the loss of a single attack action (I'd probably go with the opponents basic attackl) and/or a penalty to hit; mechanically, it would almost be identical to the effects of a disarm, though the opponent would not have to waste an action to pick up their weapon.

All that applies to PCs, since it applies to repeatable actions against varying opponents. I feel differently about monsters, since, most likely, they will only face the PCs once, and because the PCs will most likely be wielding weapons. Apparently, WoTC kind of agrees, if you look at the powers of Kyrion, the shadar-kai weaponmaster from the SoW adventure "Den of the Destroyer."

[Kamikaze Midget]

Did disarm get used regularly in your 3.x games or is the primary objection to its absence in 4e theoretical?

This isn't a necessary correlation.

Just because someone didn't use the rules in 3e for one reason or another (too complex, AoO's, whatever) doesn't mean that they don't need the capacity to do it in 4e (where they can fix the problems that 3e had).

I mean, 90% of my 3e battle choices were monstrous beasts. That doesn't mean I don't need rules to generate NPC's for battle.

[Shroomy]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

This isn't a necessary correlation.

Just because someone didn't use the rules in 3e for one reason or another (too complex, AoO's, whatever) doesn't mean that they don't need the capacity to do it in 4e (where they can fix the problems that 3e had).

I mean, 90% of my 3e battle choices were monstrous beasts. That doesn't mean I don't need rules to generate NPC's for battle.

I wasn't really trying to make a correlation, I was just curious. IME, disarming is kind of like counterspelling, its there, but never actually used. The difference is that no one is bemoaning the loss of counterspelling (at least that I can remember; to bring this point back to home, few are exactly lamenting the loss of sunder either, at least in this thread) because its not something that you really see in real world combat, film, novels, etc.

I think that others have discussed the balance, narrative, and gamist issues with disarm, but I do think its situationalism is also a big mark against it given its impact on resource management, at least as we normally conceive of the ability. IMO, for something like that to be re-introduced into the game, I think you have to take a step back and make the action more abstract.

[Sir Brennen]

I think I saw a Disarm attempt used once during my years with 3.x, and that was by the DM.

I've never seen counterspell used

[Cadfan]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

This isn't a necessary correlation.

Just because someone didn't use the rules in 3e for one reason or another (too complex, AoO's, whatever) doesn't mean that they don't need the capacity to do it in 4e (where they can fix the problems that 3e had).

I mean, 90% of my 3e battle choices were monstrous beasts. That doesn't mean I don't need rules to generate NPC's for battle.

It does bring up one interesting point though.

If the primary objection is theoretical, and people, for the most part, weren't actually using Disarm in 3e, then it demonstrates that 3e style disarm (infinitely repeatable, largely a trivial penalty because regaining your weapon is easy, etc) isn't necessarily needed.

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by Shroomy

I have a question for everyone. Did disarm get used regularly in your 3.x games or is the primary objection to its absence in 4e theoretical?

I try to forget that I ever played 3.x so will answer with general from other editions.

I would use it like crazy! There is a BIG tactical advantage to fighting someone without a weapon on many levels to NOT use it.

Every melee PC I played would attempt to disarm an opponent at least once per combat.

[Allister]

Didn't really see it used at all in 3.x.

Given the number of feats you had available and options to consider, Disarm (and Sunder/Bullrush for that matter) werent high on the list.

And trying to use those options without the improved version? Not happening....

re: Earlier editions
Um, did earlier editions actually allow disarming? I don't remember, was it introduced in Combat and Tactics?

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by Allister

re: Earlier editions
Um, did earlier editions actually allow disarming? I don't remember, was it introduced in Combat and Tactics?

Called shots. Kind of like a DC on the attack itself, and would allow you to try to do anything! Many times requiring a natural 20.