Mechanics vs Description (Forked Thread: Disarm rules)

[Eldorian]

The thread title gave me this idea, and I didn't see that anyone mentioned it, but couldn't one describe a "dazed until the end of your next turn" power as a disarm? It could also be described as a clinch. See? Disarming is already in here, if you're willing to take some narrative action.

 

[Psychic Robot]

The thread title gave me this idea, and I didn't see that anyone mentioned it, but couldn't one describe a "dazed until the end of your next turn" power as a disarm? It could also be described as a clinch. See? Disarming is already in here, if you're willing to take some narrative action.

I'm not sure how being dazed = being disarmed, but if you want to pretend that getting conked on the head and being crippled in terms of the number of actions that you get is equivalent to being disarmed, then go for it.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

I could see it. Dazed: one action per turn, plus combat advantage. So the rest of your turn you are scrabbling around for your weapon, and when you get it back, you aren't dazed anymore.

 

[AverageTable]

More options = more negatives? I see how it goes. If it's in 4e, it's got more positives than negatives. If it's not in 4e, it's got more negatives than positives. If it's coming out in a splatbook, it must have more positives than negatives.

Although you're obviously being sarcastic, you're actually more or less correct. The only real error is that you're expressing the relationship in reverse.

For the most part it's true that:

If it's got more positives than negatives, then it's in 4E.
If it's got more negatives than positives, then it's not in 4E.

One thing to remember when evaluating any new edition of any RPG, D&D included, is that the rules we, the players, finally see are the result of years of work by people who design these games professionally and understand them much better than we ever will.

A disarm mechanic is an obvious addition to any combat-oriented RPG. In fact, 3rd Edition already had one right in the Player's Handbook. Therefore, the very fact that 4th Edition doesn't include such a mechanic is extremely powerful evidence that one would detract from the game more than it would enhance it. It practically goes without saying that during the development of 4th Edition the designers had, at some point, included a disarm mechanic. Hell, they probably tried several different versions. But when the rules were finally published, no such mechanic was present. Why? Because they, the experts on the intricacies of this system, had decided that the game was better off without one.

Moreover, a disarm mechanic is in no way special in this regard. There are doubtlessly dozens upon dozens of other ideas that were also tried and rejected because what they brought to the game was outweighed by what they took away from it.

Long story short: If an idea doesn't appear in the game as printed, that's extremely good evidence that the game is better off without it. So unless you've got a better reason for supporting a disarm mechanic than "it's realistic", you should probably trust that the professionals made the right call.

 

[Eldorian]

I'm not sure how being dazed = being disarmed, but if you want to pretend that getting conked on the head and being crippled in terms of the number of actions that you get is equivalent to being disarmed, then go for it.

Dazed = take only one action, don't provide flanking, grant combat advantage. I could describe that as a "conk on the head" or as being disarmed. It's not MY problem if you cannot.

 

[Psychic Robot]

I could see it. Dazed: one action per turn, plus combat advantage. So the rest of your turn you are scrabbling around for your weapon, and when you get it back, you aren't dazed anymore.

Except someone who is really disarmed wouldn't HAVE to do that.

Dazed = take only one action, don't provide flanking, grant combat advantage. I could describe that as a "conk on the head" or as being disarmed. It's not MY problem if you cannot.

Yeah, and I could describe being blinded as getting stabbed in the eye, but that doesn't make it any less moronic.

 

[hong]

I agree that all of the combat maneuvers in 3e were pretty much a huge time-consuming mess. I would like to see them simplified.

And that's what 4E does.

Forcing a monster to drop its weapon ends the fight...how? How does it end the fight? How does it stop a monster with 1,000 HP left? How does it turn the game upside down with its omgbroken mechanics?

It stops the fight?

It doesn't. It might take a round for the monster to recover, but that makes disarming a tactically valid option.

And an annoying one. Hence banning it.

And you know what? Bull rushing was annoying in 3e. They included it in 4e, though, and it's not going to break the game. Or is that a particular mechanic that can't be abstracted?

Correct?

 

[hong]

Yeah, and I could describe being blinded as getting stabbed in the eye, but that doesn't make it any less moronic.

In MY day, generic food metaphors used peanut butter and ice cream, and we LIKED it.

 

[Psychic Robot]

Although you're obviously being sarcastic, you're actually more or less correct. The only real error is that you're expressing the relationship in reverse.

For the most part it's true that:

If it's got more positives than negatives, then it's in 4E.
If it's got more negatives than positives, then it's not in 4E.

One thing to remember when evaluating any new edition of any RPG, D&D included, is that the rules we, the players, finally see are the result of years of work by people who design these games professionally and understand them much better than we ever will.

A disarm mechanic is an obvious addition to any combat-oriented RPG. In fact, 3rd Edition already had one right in the Player's Handbook. Therefore, the very fact that 4th Edition doesn't include such a mechanic is extremely powerful evidence that one would detract from the game more than it would enhance it. It practically goes without saying that during the development of 4th Edition the designers had, at some point, included a disarm mechanic. Hell, they probably tried several different versions. But when the rules were finally published, no such mechanic was present. Why? Because they, the experts on the intricacies of this system, had decided that the game was better off without one.

Moreover, a disarm mechanic is in no way special in this regard. There are doubtlessly dozens upon dozens of other ideas that were also tried and rejected because what they brought to the game was outweighed by what they took away from it.

Long story short: If an idea doesn't appear in the game as printed, that's extremely good evidence that the game is better off without it. So unless you've got a better reason for supporting a disarm mechanic than "it's realistic", you should probably trust that the professionals made the right call.

Wow. Just, wow. That entire post is so embarrassing that I don't know where to begin.

...I can't respond to this without being reprimanded by a moderator. Let's just call your circular reasoning and blatant inability to assess 4e in a neutral manner a draw, mmkay?

 

[Eldorian]

Except someone who is really disarmed wouldn't HAVE to do that.

He doesn't? Odd. I can see it. Only one action: his attack forces you to spend the rest of it scrambling for your weapon. Grant combat advantage? You were surprised to lose your weapon and are an easy target. No flanking? Lost the weapon you were planning on flanking with, now you cannot. The attack that dazed you forced your action, in a narrative way.

Yeah, and I could describe being blinded as getting stabbed in the eye, but that doesn't make it any less moronic.

I assure you, being stabbed in the eye would blind you. I'm trying to do you a favor here by replying, go ahead and tell me if I should stop.