D&D 4E Disarm in 4E

[N0Man]

So, I've been trying to gather players for a new gaming group (since I've moved), and I have one potential player that is much more of a stimulationist than I am. In fact, he's my former DM from my 2E and 3.0 days. So anyway, he keeps bringing up disarm. While I disagree, he seems to think of disarming as a really basic and fundamental maneuver, and seemingly bugged when I tell him that there aren't any rules specific to disarming.

I suggested that that it could be treated as a "stunt" if it comes up. He asked about the possibility of making a character where disarming was a major theme (a monk who carries no weapons, disarms foes and even uses their own weapons against them).

I suggested that if it was something they were going to do that regularly, then maybe it might be something that might justify a homemade feat or power, but he strongly rejected this idea since he seems to think that disarming a foe shouldn't require a feat or power anymore than being able to charge or bull rush an opponent.

I'm sympathetic to his desire to have disarm, but I'm wary of letting it turn into the old 3.0 shtick builds that often seemed either cheesey or metagamey. What's the best way to handle this?

I'm thinking of treating it as a stunt (but a kind of pre-established stunt that we can reference again as needed). Do you think allowing an essentially at-wil stunt is reasonable?

Maybe, as an example:

Flashy Disarm
At-Will, Standard Action
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs Reflex
Hit: Slide the creature's weapon a number of squares equal to your Dexterity modifier, and the creature is Disarmed (receives a -2 penalty to both Hit and Damage for all melee attacks with the Weapon keyword).

Does that sound reasonable? Any other thoughts?

 

[Flipguarder]

If your pcs are fighting monsters with weapons, and those weapons are as important for them (for their to hit) as they are for pcs, all disarming becomes just too powerful at high levels. At heroic level, and maybe mid paragon its fine. But think about the penalty to disarming a lvl 30 fighter/kensai using a longsword:

+3 prof bonus
+6 from magic item
+1 from fighter style
+1 from kensai paragon path
+3 from expertise

Disarming that character gives him a -14 to hit.
add the penalty from the at will and its -16

An at will vs non-ac attack to give someone an -16 to hit until he goes up to 10 ssquares and picks up his weapon is just unreasonable.

 

[fba827]

I applaude the attempt, but I'm not sure that easily could work without creating an entire subsystem to handle weapon loss and a whole lot of questions...

If you disarm someone using what you presented, and they are still hitting for 2d10+4 (-2 from your flashy disarm) someone might wonder what steroids the monster is taking. Plus, if you allow it for melee weapons, you'd have to do the same for ranged weapons.

And also what is good for the PCs is good for the monsters, so what if a smart monster wants to try the same thing? The PC couldn't just get a -2 to attack and damage, they'd loose their proficiency bonus (which could be 2 or 3, which is about the same, but their damage would drop form W to unarmed.

I'm not saying it's an unreasonable mechanic if it works for you, but i know in my group, it would open up a lot of space for questions... "How can he hit me for so much with his fist? How can that archer still attack at range if I've disarmed his bow? How come when I disarm his sword he still hits me for 1d10 but when he disarms me, i drop to a 1d4?" and so on...

And it's simply not a reasonable option to say he can't attack at all for the stated damage range (which I know is not what you're suggesting, just exploring an alternative here for the sake of comparison).



What if you were to describe 0 hp as being disarmed for some monsters, and therefore they don't want to fight when they're offense-less... ? That would allow the PC to feel like they've disarmed the monster, making said monster a nonthreat (which is what 0hp is supposed to represent). This wouldn't be exactlt what you're going for (since you dno't necessarily want to say the monster is neutrered by a disarm) but it is one way to do it without making something new.

Alternatively, you could describe any daze or stun effect from a PC attack as being disarmed (the monster has to take a moment to reach down and grab the weapon that you dislodged from his grasp, etc).

But, if you do decide to go with it, having a static penalty to apply (the -2) is a much better way to do it than if you were to say the monster is unarmed which would make him not a threat relative to the PCs.

 

[Tai]

Personally, I'd make disarmed a status effect which gives people some kind of penalty to attack and/or damage rolls. So an attack power could make someone become disarmed until the end of your next turn, or disarmed (save ends). That way it works in a similar way other status effects, and it's easier to balance against them. If your simulationist player complains, just say the whole game is an abstraction, and that the effect being short term means he either picks up his weapon or replaces it with another one. To be honest, you can always say that dazing, stunning, blinding, could all be game representations of disarming someone.

 

[bganon]

If I gave a player any kind of at-will disarm due to their need for "simulationism", you'd better believe I'd start giving most weapon-using creatures backup weapons. After all, doesn't everyone carry a spare dagger in their boot?

But seriously, I wouldn't slide the weapon more than a square for an at-will disarm. And keep in mind that picking things up is a minor action - so it's not that hard to for them to just pick it back up.

Monster weapons at high levels aren't as important as they are for PCs; the rules just don't work the same. This will probably bother your simulationist player, but that level 22 war devil just carries a normal trident.

 

[Regicide]

Disarm is what you do when the opponent is at 0 HP and you don't kill them. If he wants to disarm, he just has to hit them lots. After all, damage isn't damage, right? It's how close to being disarmed they are.

 

[Klaus]

The Fighter has a disarm power: Exorcism of Steel, iirc.

 

[N0Man]

I think I was guilty of subconscious plagiarism. Apparently there is a only a single monster that has a disarm effect, and that is "Jarlaxle Baenre" from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, and it is also called "Flashy Disarm". I had chosen that name to represent that it would be a kind of swashbuckler disarm based on finesse, speed, and skill rather than brute force.

I think you misunderstood the intent of the at-will. It's not an additional penalty to add on to losing the effect itself, but rather to emulate the loss of weapon. The -2 to hit is to emulate the loss of weapon proficiency. The -2 in damage was my way of reflecting reducing damage from wielding a weapon to unarmed attacks. This is just a quick and easy simplification to avoid having to worry about different size weapons, different sized enemies, and the difference between minion and normal damage.

In 4E, creatures don't need magical weapons in order to get gains in hit and damage (which I find rather convenient and makes life easier for the DM with the only thing lost are simulationist stats that are usually behind the DM screen anyway, but my friend thinks is "stupid".)

I could have also referenced the type of weapon it was using to come up with the penalty, and also could just change the [W] for all weapon attacks to 1d4, but that wouldn't seem right for minions or for large or huge weapon wielding creatures.

My concern is that that if this is a typical and normal combat maneuver, then it seems just as likely that NPCs can do it to PCs as PCs do it to NPCs. If NPCs were to suffer the same penalties as PCs did, I think it would be overpowered as well as not conform to the rules on how NPCs are designed.

I don't think that 4E does a good job of accounting for a disarm mechanic that doesn't feel broken... but I think that was the case in 3E as well. That's why I thought I'd just "fake it".

 

[N0Man]

Wow, lots of replies while I was still typing. Yeah, I see the problems in disarm mechanics also, which is why I have struggled with this a little.

And to the person that said that it should apply to ranged attacks as well, yes you're right. In fact, it should apply to any attacks used by the weapon used for that weapon keyword. What you haven't even brought up was that it should also apply to implements for casters. It starts getting ugly.

I completely missed Exorcism of Steel. Good catch on that! However, it doesn't really address the effect of disarming, and by RAW, it seems like the effect would be very different between PCs and NPCs.

I wouldn't be surprised if this pops up in Martial Powers 2.

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

The way that monsters are done in 4th edition, disarming them would do nothing to them. There are some monsters that have powers that state that they must have X weapon or item to use it, but the vast majority of them do not have this requirement. So other than those select few monsters disarm would do nothing to a monster.

Monsters damage is based upon level and role etc. Not the items that they carry.

I dont see this as an abillity etc to appear in future printings except as an odd class power here and there as the one noted in above posts. Disarm was not carried over to 4th edition for a reason, and gladly so as far as I am concerned.