And the monkey grabs your magic amulet!

[Jdvn1]

LOL!
Actualy I haven't played DnD since before 3.5 came out. Stupid work schedules combined with family have made it next to impossible.

I can understand that. If you're ever in Houston and have free time on a Friday, feel free to stop by for a game! I'm sure you can pick up the idea again.

 

[mmadsen]

Anyway, it would appear that our thieving monkey draws an attack of opportunity; if that does any damage, his attempt immediately fails.

Actually, as a tiny monkey, he faces an attack of opportunity simply entering the defender's square; he has no reach. Then he faces another attack of opportunity trying to disarm. Poor monkey.

 

[Jdvn1]

Ouch. Well, at least the monkey doesn't have to worry as much if the opponent doesn't have Combat Reflexes...

 

[mmadsen]

Actually, as a tiny monkey, he faces an attack of opportunity simply entering the defender's square; he has no reach. Then he faces another attack of opportunity trying to disarm. Poor monkey.

Now, an invisible monkey -- or an imp -- would ignore both of those attacks of opportunity, right? And would get a +2 attack bonus on the disarm? But the fact that the defender loses his Dex bonus to AC wouldn't have any effect, since it's an opposed attack roll, right?

 

[Corlon]

Yes, it'd be very hard for such a monkey to get the item off the person. Such is the sad case of interesting moves in DND, most of them are too hard.

then again, if they were at all easy, we'd all have characters with 5 trained monkeys to take all the items off our enemies .

 

[Hammerhead]

I'm sorry, but I'm thinking that any monkey trying to take off an amulet, usually worn underneath clothes and/or armor, is going to have a devilishly hard time. Especially if you're in combat. Then that monkey is probably going to be grabbed by the tail and used as an impromptu missile weapon. Note that the monkey never tried to steal the headpiece of Ra in Raiders of the Lost Ark

Everything is better with a monkey

 

[dvvega]

Actually ... to keep the concept of monkey stealing items ala Indiana Jones (or any other movie with a monkey - Pirates of the Carribean for example), I would say the monkey has natural weapons and can "disarm" the amulet from the character.

The character would only be able to use a tiny weapon or hands in retaliation to the disarm and may end up getting bitten on the hand.

Really depends on if you want the monkey to have a decent chance or just die from the first AOO.

D

 

[mmadsen]

Really depends on if you want the monkey to have a decent chance or just die from the first AOO.

If you want the monkey to have a chance, it looks like you have to bend the rules by ignoring the -4 for a light weapon (unarmed), and the -8 for a tiny attacker (against a medium defender) -- which I think is perfectly reasonable, if the monkey is taking something off a character's belt rather than wresting a sword from his hand.

Even with the +4 for a poorly secured item, the monkey's not likely to win an opposed attack roll. Hmm...that's got me thinking: Does a flat-footed character suffer any penalty in an opposed attack roll? Or is a flat-footed character easy to hit but hard to disarm?

 

[Tellerve]

I still really like the rule in 3.0 sword and fist that allowed monks, and for this instance could work for a monkey, to use its two hands together as a medium/non-light weapon (obviously not medium for the monkey). In any event it was to help monks disarm and visually worked better for me to have someone use both their open and available hands to disarm the guy with the mace or whatever.

Tellerve

 

[nameless]

I think using the amulet's size modifier (probably diminutive or fine) would be a fair concession to the monkey. Other than that, let the dice fall where they may. A low-level guy would get his amulet snatched, but fighters with a couple of levels under their belts shouldn't be too vulnerable to crappy little monkeys.