Can Dominate disarm a person's weapon?

[Gradine]

Challenging the players isn't the same thing as building unavoidable "screw you" fights and laughing as they struggle through it. That is more metagame bullying than anything else.

Can't give you more XP but wanted to echo this; I couldn't have said it better myself. This sort of wrong-headed "us against them" mentality is all that's left driving the conversation it seems... DMs should not be exploiting rules (or especially houserules) just to completely screw over the players. D&D is a collaborative effort, not a competition. Refer to any DMG of any edition you'd like for a source on that.

 

[Aegeri]

That's your business I suppose but I don't "have my players" fight anything. My players are not shoved headfirst into pre-constructed fight scenes.

Actually it was in a published module I was running. I couldn't believe someone would ever actually use something like that for real! But they did. The point of the vampires was actually to capture the party - hence the sundering weapons - but it was still one of those things that was just really funny.

Heroes being completely shut down when a meanie takes away their toys=stupid.

I agree that's why common sense suggests that disarming = 0 HP.

I've argued this every single time I've heard arguments about disarming come up. Disarm to me is 0 HP for a monster OR a PC. It represents an inability to fight any further and defend yourself (which is EXACTLY what allowing dominate to do by throwing away a PCs weapon does). I frankly don't see the need to allow dominate, already the most annoying and powerful condition in 4th edition arguably for players, to be an at-will I win button.

This sort of wrong-headed "us against them" mentality is all that's left driving the conversation it seems... DMs should not be exploiting rules (or especially houserules) just to completely screw over the players.

The point is the game should be "What is good for the goose is good for the gander" as someone earlier in the thread commented on one of my posts. The inherent point here is that like many of these things, monsters do it far better than PCs and if the logical thing with dominate is to disarm and toss, then any intelligent monster should do that. Monsters dominate at-will, the terrain is always in their favor (immune to it, they can fly around it or whatever else) and any number of advantages. The fact is, I don't believe this is ever something that the dominate condition should allow to begin with. My reason for that is to maintain game balance but also pure common sense. It's not a case where the PCs can equally pick up a chair and throw it just as effectively as a monster, the PCs are punished immensely harshly while the monsters are barely punished at all in this situation.

There is a degree where you have to say "This is not an intended part of the rules" and determine if you are going to allow that. Now if you're fine with it and you make a lot of weird restrictions on it to make it balanced, that's actually perfectly fine. The point is that this is all going to turn into some big comedic farce at some point as everyone is running around unable to do anything while they retrieve their weapons - because attacking with them is not as useful as effectively sticking your weapon into a dangerous zone, onto the middle of the huge or bigger creatures space (so the PC cannot retrieve it without provoking OAs or occupying the creatures space). It reminds me of the weirdo in Baldurs Gate 2 who bursts into temples and throws a scimitar at you. Maybe once for pure comedy effect, but after that it's not something I view as a RAW and valid way of using dominate.

 

[Trebor62]

For those interested I found the source of my recollection about why Sunder was dropped from 4e.

Its the November 2008 mailbag podcast and the question is actual about Sunder and Disarm being dropped from 4e. Its question number 1 right at the beginning of the podcast after a brief intro.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I agree that's why common sense suggests that disarming = 0 HP.

Common sense says the fight is over at 0 hp. If disarmed = fight over there are some martial artists who might take exception to that.

I've argued this every single time I've heard arguments about disarming come up. Disarm to me is 0 HP for a monster OR a PC. It represents an inability to fight any further and defend yourself (which is EXACTLY what allowing dominate to do by throwing away a PCs weapon does). I frankly don't see the need to allow dominate, already the most annoying and powerful condition in 4th edition arguably for players, to be an at-will I win button.

I still argue that I-win buttons are the constructs of Byzantine needlessly complex rules. Back in my day you if you lost your weapon then you grabbed the best thing you could and carried on instead of cowering like some wimp. It also wasn't the end of the world because the hit bonus you got from using your favorite toy wasn't greater than the die you were rolling to hit with!!

Invisibility? This wasn't a game breaker either. You took a -4 to hit and moved on. -4 was fairly nasty before bloated double digit bonuses were commonplace.

Point to just about any "game breaker" you care to name and it can be traced to a root cause of excess complexity,and numbers bloat skewing things too much.

 

[Trebor62]

Common sense says the fight is over at 0 hp. If disarmed = fight over there are some martial artists who might take exception to that.




I still argue that I-win buttons are the constructs of Byzantine needlessly complex rules. Back in my day you if you lost your weapon then you grabbed the best thing you could and carried on instead of cowering like some wimp. It also wasn't the end of the world because the hit bonus you got from using your favorite toy wasn't greater than the die you were rolling to hit with!!

Invisibility? This wasn't a game breaker either. You took a -4 to hit and moved on. -4 was fairly nasty before bloated double digit bonuses were commonplace.

Point to just about any "game breaker" you care to name and it can be traced to a root cause of excess complexity,and numbers bloat skewing things too much.

Are you waxing nostalgically for THACO, 1 hp first level wizards, and level draining undead?

 

[FireLance]

Frankly, it seems to me to be an encounter design problem more than anything.

Using dominate to disarm an opponent is fine - provided the opponent can retrieve his weapon, possibly with some difficulty. The obvious solution (at least to me) is to never combine opponents who can dominate with terrain that makes it impossible for the PC to recover his weapon.

 

[Aegeri]

Common sense says the fight is over at 0 hp. If disarmed = fight over there are some martial artists who might take exception to that.

This will go into a more meta conversation than I'm intending, but that's because I don't view 0 HP as being mercilessly run through and ones guts hanging out all over the floor. 0 HP represents an inability to fight anymore and one way I view that is being disarmed.

I still argue that I-win buttons are the constructs of Byzantine needlessly complex rules. Back in my day you if you lost your weapon then you grabbed the best thing you could and carried on instead of cowering like some wimp. It also wasn't the end of the world because the hit bonus you got from using your favorite toy wasn't greater than the die you were rolling to hit with!!

Invisibility? This wasn't a game breaker either. You took a -4 to hit and moved on. -4 was fairly nasty before bloated double digit bonuses were commonplace.

Point to just about any "game breaker" you care to name and it can be traced to a root cause of excess complexity,and numbers bloat skewing things too much.

This argument you make here though is utterly perfect. But unfortunately we are playing DnD and even since 1st edition PCs have relied on their stuff at least somewhat to be effective in combat (such as monsters that can't be harmed except by weapons of a certain +X). Thus we need to weigh the effect of throwing away peoples stuff vs. the reason why we are justifying it.

IMO throwing your weapon away is the equivalent of suicide, hence a dominated creature will not allow themselves to do it.

 

[Jack Jericho]

This will go into a more meta conversation than I'm intending, but that's because I don't view 0 HP as being mercilessly run through and ones guts hanging out all over the floor. 0 HP represents an inability to fight anymore and one way I view that is being disarmed.



This argument you make here though is utterly perfect. But unfortunately we are playing DnD and even since 1st edition PCs have relied on their stuff at least somewhat to be effective in combat (such as monsters that can't be harmed except by weapons of a certain +X). Thus we need to weigh the effect of throwing away peoples stuff vs. the reason why we are justifying it.

IMO throwing your weapon away is the equivalent of suicide, hence a dominated creature will not allow themselves to do it.

Without a house rule, they have no choice in whether or not they do it in 4E. By RAW and RAI (as clarified by a few WoTC articles,) it is perfectly viable to have a creature attack themselves with powers which allow you to choose the target for the creature's attacks (of which dominate would be one.) I do not think there is still a save for being instructed to do something suicidal like there was in previous editions.

What's really weird is when the creature and the PC both have each other dominated at the same time in 4E. It doesn't break the domination. Instead, the two foes control what actions they take against each other. This can happen at low levels with powers like Mirror Sphere and quite often at high levels if a Lord of Fate is fighting Lolth.

The hilarious thing about making Lolth attack herself is that she then also dominates herself because she is considered a creature making an attack against Lolth. It also means that while she will be controlling her own actions, she's only able to tell herself to use at-will abilities.

 

[Aegeri]

Without a house rule, they have no choice in whether or not they do it in 4E. By RAW and RAI (as clarified by a few WoTC articles,) it is perfectly viable to have a creature attack themselves with powers which allow you to choose the target for the creature's attacks (of which dominate would be one.)

Wait, where is this said that you can attack an enemy with their own attacks? I don't have my PHB on me to check targeting right now, but that doesn't sound completely right. Given basically everything else you wrote was wrong, forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Powers that let you hit an enemy with their own attack usually state so (The Swordcoast Corsair PP I think has a power like this).

I do not think there is still a save for being instructed to do something suicidal like there was in previous editions.

Dominate doesn't forgo a creatures save to jump off a 500ft cliff or into hindering terrain for pretty obvious and logical reasons. Including the fact that the dominate condition actually says it still gets a save.

This can happen at low levels with powers like Mirror Sphere and quite often at high levels if a Lord of Fate is fighting Lolth.

Dominating rebuke is an immediate reaction, when you are dominated you have no actions and therefore she cannot use dominating rebuke. This is why you stun, dominate or daze Lolth first otherwise you're going to end up dominated. While under any of those conditions though, all of whom prevent the taking of immediate actions, you're pretty safe and your melee characters can go spamming at their whim.

The hilarious thing about making Lolth attack herself is that she then also dominates herself

She can't, because she has no actions and doesn't have the ability to use dominating rebuke. Dominating rebuke targets enemies as well (Lolth does not consider herself an enemy). The update to dominate makes it clear that your interpretation is incorrect, a dominated creature does not change who its enemies and allies are.

In any event, a dominating creature can only make who is it dominating take a single action on its own turn - so Lolth couldn't use dominating rebuke anyway. Mentioning again that having no actions means she can't use her immediate reaction anyway and the dominator cannot use powers outside of Lolths turns sp....

Here is the text of dominate:

You can’t take actions. Instead, the dominator chooses a single action for you to take on the creature’s turn: a standard, a move, a minor, or a free action. The only powers and other game features that the dominator can make you use are ones that can be used at will, such as at-will powers. For example, anything that is limited to being used only once per encounter or once per day does not qualify.

You grant combat advantage.

You can't flank.

In spite of this condition, the creature’s allies remain its allies, and its enemies remain its enemies. (Thus, if the dominator makes the creature attack one of its allies, it does not attack an ally of the dominator.) If the dominator tries to force the creature to throw itself into a pit or move into some other form of hindering terrain, the creature gets a saving throw to avoid entering the terrain.

The above is from the compendium.

As you're 0/0 in terms of accurate rules for dominate, I'm not exactly convinced that you can make a creature target itself with powers. Can you give a RAW citation or one of those articles from Wizards?

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Wait, where is this said that you can attack an enemy with their own attacks? I don't have my PHB on me to check targeting right now, but that doesn't sound completely right. Given basically everything else you wrote was wrong, forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Powers that let you hit an enemy with their own attack usually state so (The Swordcoast Corsair PP I think has a power like this).

If the at-will attack power targets creatures (you are a creature) you can target yourself. It's rather suicidal so you should get a save.

There is no need to say you can make the target attack itself it's a matter of the powers at hand and their target entry that enables you to do it or not. The standard MBA/RBA (PHB1 P287) targets creatures so attacking yourself is always an option (even while not dominated).