D&D 4E Any body have a 4e style disarm move?

[Pale Jackal]

• Effect Stunts: Sometimes you don't want to apply a bonus to your roll, you want to apply some effect (like knocking your opponent down). This counts as an extreme stunt (-5 penalty on your check, or you face a harder DC than usual). If you fail, then something similarly bad happens to you (like, you fall down).

Examples:

Disarm: "I twist my blade around, wrenching the sword from his grasp!"
- Standard action targeting an adjacent enemy; basic attack -5 vs basic attack; your foe drops his weapon in an adjacent square of your choice. No consequence for failure (standard action stunt).

Knockdown: "Lowering my shoulder, I plow into my foe with all my weight."
- Standard action targeting an adjacent enemy; Strength vs Fortitude; the target falls prone. No consequence for failure (standard action stunt).

Trip: "I use fancy footwork to overbalance my opponent."
- Standard action targeting an adjacent enemy; Dexterity vs Reflex; the target falls prone. No consequence for failure (standard action stunt).

Takeaway: "I grab it right out of his hands!"
- Standard action targeting an adjacent enemy; Strength vs Reflex or Fortitude (whichever is better); you now hold one of your opponent's items. No consequence for failure (standard action stunt).

I assume these are options when you have a +2 bonus from some advantageous situation?

If so, does anyone think it'd be 'broken' (or unfun) to allow any PC to perform the Trip and Knockdown maneuvers whenever they want? (At the cost of a standard action.) I'd also implement the "one size category difference" rule, that is, a Small creature can't trip a Large creature.

Though I suppose versus certain solos, it could make for very uninteresting fights.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I assume these are options when you have a +2 bonus from some advantageous situation?

If so, does anyone think it'd be 'broken' (or unfun) to allow any PC to perform the Trip and Knockdown maneuvers whenever they want? (At the cost of a standard action.) I'd also implement the "one size category difference" rule, that is, a Small creature can't trip a Large creature.

Though I suppose versus certain solos, it could make for very uninteresting fights.

It is a little "risky" to allow it, but I think the designers might have been a little conservative with effects besides bull rush and grab.

My guideline at the moment is - if the attacker has combat advantage, he can make a STR (maybe even DEX) attack to trip a foe (and maybe even disarm?) - but deals no damage. That's a strong opportunity cost in my estimation - you spend your actions, can't deal damage, and you lose an opportunity to use combat advantage. Most characters would probably rather use an encounter or daily power when they have combat advantage raher than merely knock their opponent prone - but sometimes this option might be interesting anyway. (For example, to aid he Rogue to get Sneak Attack or enable another character to use his encounter or daily - or to merely run away afterwards.)

---

Disarms main problem has always been reliance on magical items that is built into the game system. 4E might have reduced the number of items that are cruicial for it, but it still has them. If you want to use it more often in your games, maybe remove the enhancement bonuses from the game and replace them with inherent bonuses depending on level.

---

For a monster power:

Disarming Strike (At-Will/Recharge 5 6/Encounter; Reliable): Standard Action. Target: One creature that grants combat advantage and/or** is bloodied, Monster attack bonus vs Reflex. Hit: Target is disarmed and its weapon drops to the ground on an adjacent square chosen by the attacker

*) Whatever you prefer. I think "one-trick ponies" that use an annoying power are terrible, so I would probably go with encounter.
**) Pick between: One condition needs to apply, either condition needs to apply, both conditions need to apply. Also dependent on how common you want it see used. If you want to have it an encounter power, you might even decide that there is no prerequisite for the target.

 

[77IM]

In my system, each stunt is per encounter. You can do as many stunts as you want in an encounter, but each one has to be different. This is partly to discourage repetition (which is a vector for boredom) and partly to encourage tactical thinking (you only get one disarm attempt so make it a good one), but it's also partly for balance. If you allow players to do these things at-will you never know when someone will come up with an awesome tactic and start doing it repeatedly.

That said, trip and knockdown don't seem too powerful, so you could certainly try allowing them at-will. Prone grants combat advantage and it also consumes a move action next round to stand up, but at the cost of a standard action and a difficult check, that may be balanced.

Alternatively, early on (before I created the stunt system) I had an idea of balancing these maneuvers not by usage limits or difficulty, but by consequences for failure. This allows players to try as often as they like and have a reasonable chance of success -- but if they fail, they have set themselves back a bit. http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/230337-house-rule-combat-maneuvers.html

-- 77IM

 

[Garthanos]

In my system, each stunt is per encounter. You can do as many stunts as you want in an encounter, but each one has to be different. This is partly to discourage repetition (which is a vector for boredom) and partly to encourage tactical thinking (you only get one disarm attempt so make it a good one), but it's also partly for balance. If you allow players to do these things at-will you never know when someone will come up with an awesome tactic and start doing it repeatedly.

That said, trip and knockdown don't seem too powerful, so you could certainly try allowing them at-will. Prone grants combat advantage and it also consumes a move action next round to stand up, but at the cost of a standard action and a difficult check, that may be balanced.

Alternatively, early on (before I created the stunt system) I had an idea of balancing these maneuvers not by usage limits or difficulty, but by consequences for failure. This allows players to try as often as they like and have a reasonable chance of success -- but if they fail, they have set themselves back a bit. http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/230337-house-rule-combat-maneuvers.html

-- 77IM

A very frequent real life consequence of trying to disarm somebody (who you don't outclass) using your weapon is that your own weapon is fumbled. A very frequent consequence of doing a trip or throw may be that you fall over.. that isn't a bad thought.

The fighter power exorcism of steel actually takes the adversaries weapon and is less like a real disarm which deposits it in an adjacent square.

(I wonder how to balance a multi-person affecting spell version ;-) which just causes them to drop it at there own feet.

 

[jdriele]

A proposition by a french gamer :

Disarm become a feat that grants an at-will power. This power is managed like a basic attack but versus reflex, if hit roll damage only to check if you put your target under 0 hit point you disarm your target but you do no damage

To this power you can add bonus for some weapon (critical / +W....)
You can add new feats that increase critical or boost damages or rise the hit point tier for disarming (0 to 1/4 hp)

 

[jdriele]

A proposition by a french gamer :

Disarm become a feat that grants an at-will power. This power is managed like a basic attack but versus reflex, if hit roll damage only to check if you put your target under 0 hit point you disarm your target but you do no damage

To this power you can get bonus from some weapons (critical / +W....)
You can add new feats that increase critical or boost damages or rise the hit point tier for disarming (0 to 1/4 hp)

 

[Garthanos]

A proposition by a french gamer :

Disarm become a feat that grants an at-will power. This power is managed like a basic attack but versus reflex, if hit roll damage only to check if you put your target under 0 hit point you disarm your target but you do no damage

To this power you can add bonus for some weapon (critical / +W....)
You can add new feats that increase critical or boost damages or rise the hit point tier for disarming (0 to 1/4 hp)

That sure embraces the hit point loss = fatigue model of current D&D, while not having to retro in the different effect at zero hitpoints....
Could even be smashing disarm which is versus Fortitude or twisting which is versus Reflex and give two handed weapn users a +2 on there defense if we wanted a touch more detail.

 

[Fieari]

On the subject of making PCs less dependant on equipment in the first place, one solution is to give the PCs inherant + bonuses equivelent to what they "should" be getting at that level.

On the other hand, you don't want equipment to be never given out. So what this suggestion includes is the idea that because you use a weapon (perhaps for a long time), it gains some of your skill, granting someone of lesser skill a bonus to them, bringing them up closer to your skill level.

So a sword would be set at +5, for instance, and if your bonus was less than +5 total, it would bring it up to that. If your bonus would go higher, the sword is like any other sword.

This way, if you want to give players something really powerful, you can give them a "mere" +1... but that's +1 over what they currently have, a +5% to hit, and a massive bonus in game. And then when they level up? The bonus goes away and you get to thrill your player by maybe doing it again, finding them something new. Planned obselence!

 

[Garthanos]

This way, if you want to give players something really powerful, you can give them a "mere" +1... but that's +1 over what they currently have, a +5% to hit, and a massive bonus in game. And then when they level up? The bonus goes away and you get to thrill your player by maybe doing it again, finding them something new. Planned obselence!

note the exmple earlier this thread regarding a sword which allowed one to fight at a specified level... if you were below that level and if you were above it only had the kind of benefit from a masterwork.

Its still useful but definitely something to hand to a henchemen now ;-)

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, when i want to play a character who does massive knockdown and trips, I bust out a barbarian with rages and encounter powers that knock prone a lot. Knocking prone -is- a powerful effect in D&D, it's one of the tools a defender uses for stickiness. Being able to do so at-will would be extremely powerful in the hands of a defender-class... it's something I'd be very weary about.