Can Dominate disarm a person's weapon?

[Black Knight Irios]

Only someone who stores all his wits in a sword can be so easily outwitted.

Call it however you like. You might be able to bring one spare weapon probably already a plus lower than your main weapon. A second spare weapon will probably be much lower again.

If you lose your main weapon at levle 4. You might lose +1 to hit. But at level 28+ it means more like a loss of +6 to hit.

So how many spare weapons do you suggest one should bring to a fight with (lots of) dominate-disarm w/o crippling the rest of your gear?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Call it however you like. You might be able to bring one spare weapon probably already a plus lower than your main weapon. A second spare weapon will probably be much lower again.

If you lose your main weapon at levle 4. You might lose +1 to hit. But at level 28+ it means more like a loss of +6 to hit.

It is the fact that you DO lose so much to hit and that you need every bit of it not to suck is the problem.

So how many spare weapons do you suggest one should bring to a fight with (lots of) dominate-disarm w/o crippling the rest of your gear?

Not an unreasonable amount. Bringing a golf bag isn't a solution to the underlying problem. A highly trained, upper level fighter should be a force to be reckoned with whether with a chosen weapon or anything he/she happens to pick up.

Consider the basic D&D fighter. A master at arms and effective with whatever is at hand: an axe, a bow, a tree branch club, etc. The best attack table along with defenses that don't scale to a point that require ridiculous bonuses to provide basic competence at the fighter's job, which is to overcome foes through a force of arms.

Conan didn't need special tools to kick major butt an neither should PC heroes. The mechanics ought to provide for heroes to keep doing their thing either with their megasword of death or the jawbone of an ass.

As it stands an epic level fighter couldn't even hit an even leveled minion with any accuracy without his utility belt. When even the mooks can slap you around, there is a problem.

 

[Infiniti2000]

As it stands an epic level fighter couldn't even hit an even leveled minion with any accuracy without his utility belt. When even the mooks can slap you around, there is a problem.

So, are you saying that minions should have lower defenses than all equal-level non-minions? If not, explain the relevancy of the minion comment.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, are you saying that minions should have lower defenses than all equal-level non-minions? If not, explain the relevancy of the minion comment.

No. I'm saying that defenses as a whole (along with bonuses) should be lower. A high level fighter should be a badass. He should be able to fight at least competently with just about anything.

 

[CovertOps]

No. I'm saying that defenses as a whole (along with bonuses) should be lower. A high level fighter should be a badass. He should be able to fight at least competently with just about anything.

So how do you feel about scaling attack/defenses as the measure of that "badassness" so that a 1st level fighter just can't hit Lloth or does damage/HP scaling work better for you (or both)?

 

[ExploderWizard]

So how do you feel about scaling attack/defenses as the measure of that "badassness" so that a 1st level fighter just can't hit Lloth or does damage/HP scaling work better for you (or both)?

Not saying that defenses ought to be the same at levels 1-30 but when bonuses/target numbers add the d20 roll to the bonus instead of the other way around things get silly.

HP can do the job. Lolth has a 51 AC! So we are talking +31 bonus to hit to have a 5% chance.

Barring supernatural resistances/immunities, an army of 1st level soldiers should be able to bring down a giant even though it might be terribly costly to do so. Steeply scaled defenses artificially cut off meaningful interaction between entities in the game world based purely on level disparity. This is too MMO-like for me.

 

[Aegeri]

I hate to tell you this but 4E as a system is absolutely awful when you try to apply monster vs. monster scenarios. It works out absolutely terribly because it's not something it does well at all. PCs and monsters are balanced against one another, not towards PCs vs. PCs and Monsters vs. Monsters.

Also technically an army of level 1 soldiers could take down a giant, enough critical hits adds up. But a giant is going to be more than capable of squishing numerous people.

 

[Kingreaper]

Not saying that defenses ought to be the same at levels 1-30 but when bonuses/target numbers add the d20 roll to the bonus instead of the other way around things get silly.

HP can do the job. Lolth has a 51 AC! So we are talking +31 bonus to hit to have a 5% chance.

You clearly haven't read the rules. You ALWAYS have a 5% chance to hit. a 20 always hits.

Barring supernatural resistances/immunities, an army of 1st level soldiers should be able to bring down a giant even though it might be terribly costly to do so.

And, indeed, they can. But it'll be terribly costly.

Steeply scaled defenses artificially cut off meaningful interaction between entities in the game world based purely on level disparity. This is too MMO-like for me.

So D&D other than 3.5 is too MMO-like for you?

(you know, the whole "+x weapon" thing)

 

[Trebor62]

ExploderWizard what would you think of a fifty fifty mix of weapon magic bonus with inherent bonus. Then an Epic fighter would lose at most a +3 bonus if he lost his magic weapon and had to use an ordinary one.

 

[CovertOps]

You clearly haven't read the rules. You ALWAYS have a 5% chance to hit. a 20 always hits.


And, indeed, they can. But it'll be terribly costly.

So D&D other than 3.5 is too MMO-like for you?

(you know, the whole "+x weapon" thing)

What makes you think 3.5 is ANY different really? This is a quality of ALL versions of D&D. It's varied a bit to be sure, but the fundamentals have been there all along.