Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TaranTheWanderer" data-source="post: 7573095" data-attributes="member: 15882">No, it doesn't.&nbsp; You must not be understanding.&nbsp; No-one said counterspell.&nbsp; You aren't doing damage to force a Concentration check(that was in 3e).&nbsp; You are doing actions that you can normally do:-A rogue thief, as a cunning action, can Slight of Hand a caster's spell component pouch which would seriously limit the spells a wizard could cast.&nbsp; Then they can use their main action to attack and do piles of damage.&nbsp; They can do this on their turn without the need to ready.&nbsp; To me this is way more detrimental to a wizard than readying to knock out the material components for a single spell.&nbsp; -A fighter can disarm a staff used as a focus item on their turn.&nbsp; Which would seriously limit spellcasting.-A person can disarm(or a spellcaster can cast heat metal) on a fighter's +3 greatsword and force them to use a less potent weapon.Would you disallow those actions?&nbsp; I don't see how reserving your action to do it on a trigger is any more potent.&nbsp; And from the games I've used it, it isn't.&nbsp; You are trading an action for an action.Sorry, I don't understand your argument here. Could you clarify?Monks look exactly as powerful as if you tried to disarm them on your turn.&nbsp; The thing that makes monks special is they don't NEED weapons.&nbsp; Even without a readied action you still can't disarm them.&nbsp; So would you disallow disarming, because one class's niche makes them more resistant or impervious to that specific tactic?&nbsp; Or because some classes are more vulnerable to that tactic?&nbsp; Is that what you mean?That said, if they were wielding a +3 holy short sword(a monk weapon), disarming them and picking it up on your turn would still put them at a disadvantage and would totally be worth doing, either as an action or a readied action.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TaranTheWanderer, post: 7573095, member: 15882"] No, it doesn't. You must not be understanding. No-one said counterspell. You aren't doing damage to force a Concentration check(that was in 3e). You are doing actions that you can normally do: -A rogue thief, as a cunning action, can Slight of Hand a caster's spell component pouch which would seriously limit the spells a wizard could cast. Then they can use their main action to attack and do piles of damage. They can do this on their turn without the need to ready. To me this is way more detrimental to a wizard than readying to knock out the material components for a single spell. -A fighter can disarm a staff used as a focus item on their turn. Which would seriously limit spellcasting. -A person can disarm(or a spellcaster can cast heat metal) on a fighter's +3 greatsword and force them to use a less potent weapon. Would you disallow those actions? I don't see how reserving your action to do it on a trigger is any more potent. And from the games I've used it, it isn't. You are trading an action for an action. Sorry, I don't understand your argument here. Could you clarify? Monks look exactly as powerful as if you tried to disarm them on your turn. The thing that makes monks special is they don't NEED weapons. Even without a readied action you still can't disarm them. So would you disallow disarming, because one class's niche makes them more resistant or impervious to that specific tactic? Or because some classes are more vulnerable to that tactic? Is that what you mean? That said, if they were wielding a +3 holy short sword(a monk weapon), disarming them and picking it up on your turn would still put them at a disadvantage and would totally be worth doing, either as an action or a readied action. [/QUOTE]

Verification