Can Dominate disarm a person's weapon?

[CovertOps]

EW talks like a friend of mine. He won't play 4e anymore and has never really cared for D&D in general. It's a bit different for him but in a similar vein. He doesn't like that the GM determines the "DC" for combat. By that I/he means that as DM I get to pick what monsters the party will fight and thus the AC/Fort/Will/Ref of said creature and by extension of that the "DC" that any given party member will need on the d20 to hit said creature. He perfers a game like (and the only one I can think of is) Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay where you have two skills called "Weapon Skill" and "Bow Skill" I think. They are percentile values and all you do is roll equal or less than said "skill" and you hit. Rolls are not opposed.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

EW talks like a friend of mine. He won't play 4e anymore and has never really cared for D&D in general. It's a bit different for him but in a similar vein. He doesn't like that the GM determines the "DC" for combat. By that I/he means that as DM I get to pick what monsters the party will fight and thus the AC/Fort/Will/Ref of said creature and by extension of that the "DC" that any given party member will need on the d20 to hit said creature. He perfers a game like (and the only one I can think of is) Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay where you have two skills called "Weapon Skill" and "Bow Skill" I think. They are percentile values and all you do is roll equal or less than said "skill" and you hit. Rolls are not opposed.

I play Warhammer Fantasy 2E and this statement is only partly true.

 

[eamon]

[...]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.

You're frustrated by this problem, obviously - but what you say simply doesn't hold for every D&D campaign. Not every fighter is Conan; some walk around with actual clothes and armor on, for instance... A fiend that can only be defeated by a powerful magical weapon is a staple of fantasy just as much as is the extremely skilled fighter that can use anything.

To live in a more conan-like world, use inherent bonuses - then any old weapon you pick up (even an improvised one) will be a reasonable tool, even if your chosen weapon will be slightly more effective due to powers and feats.

If you want an unarmed fighter - invest a feat, play a brawler, or be a (reflavored) monk.

Finally, if you still think dominate to disarm is a problem, consider granting a save vs. disarm. At that point any pit you can dump the fighter in is almost certainly a better option than disarming; rendering the entire point moot. However, if we're arguing by fantasy staples, then, well disarming isn't a D&D novelty - that too is a fantasy staple. Why is it any more acceptable to ignore that cliche than it is to ignore Conan?

• There are easy DM tools to make disarming an unattractive option (inherent bonuses, save vs. disarm)
• Even without disarm, dominate is often close to save-or-lose, particularly if it occurs at-will.
• Being almost helpless if disarmed is itself a fantasy (and real-world) staple.

This isn't a problem. It's a choice.

 

[Argyle King]

No offense intended; but (as opposed to what you say next) this is nonsense. Do you expect a specialist swordfighter to be barely affected by the loss of weaponry? How are you going to pan-fry a fish without a pan? How do you intend to post to enworld without a network? How did David kill Goliath?

Tools matter. They really do. Characters are more important than their tools not because tools don't matter, but because characters choose the right tools for the right job. If you're playing a humanoid (as in tool-using rather than bipedal) creature, then your dependance on tools is not a weakness; it's a strength: the farm-boy that goes on to slay the dragon doesn't do so in a boxing match: he uses the right tools (Vorpal weapon X) in the right way (with talent, strength and experience), at the right time (not before he has that experience, and with every tactical advantage possible).

The problem is not that D&D PC's depend on tools. For some campaigns, the dependance on magic tools is problematic, but we have inherent bonuses to deal with that problem. Tool-dependance isn't a problem, but the fact that these characters - smart and skillful enough to be able to fight the good fight against foes far more powerful than they by virtue of their skill at arms - these smart tool-users can easily be outwitted simply by disarming them.

Which of course brings me to the next you say: something I can only agree with wholeheartedly:



The disarming problem is a combination of three factors:

1. Weapon Dependance
2. Ability to neuter weapons
3. Lack of backup weapons.

Fix any one of those three factors, and the problem disappears. Fixing weapon dependance doesn't make sense (though it would be reasonable to ensure that both PC's and monsters play by the similar rules - i.e. use house-ruled/inherent bonuses for PC's just as for monsters so that losing a sword has roughly the same impact on either - a +3 to attack and about twice the damage die, or conversely use greater penalties for monsters).

However, using backup weapons makes perfect sense in-game, and nicely resolves this issue: it's a terrible option to disarm someone if that person can just draw a different weapon, if the alternative is to run past all your allies (provoking OA with CA) and then off a cliff. And it doesn't even require a house rule!

Tools do matter, I agree. However, I feel that the man should define the weapon instead of the weapon defining the man.

While I totally agree that wearing my sneakers makes it far easier for me to run in the morning than a pair of my dress shoes would, I shouldn't suddenly forget how to walk when I change shoes.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

A good system can handle anything vs anything. Sometimes PC's might have a squabble, perhaps some monsters ally with the PC's against other monsters. Endless possibilities are what the game is about after all.

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.

Heavy losses are expected but hitting a target that size shouldn't require a natural 20.

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

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

Magic weapons in general are not a huge issue. Needing the bonus from one (or a made up bonus from nothing to replace it) just to score a hit is a bit much.

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.

Actually I'm thinking of lowering defenses all around and making magical weapons influence damage more than accuracy. That way a fighter will retain the majority of skill level to land a blow with a normal weapon but the effectiveness of each hit will be less without the magic weapon.

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.

It isn't. 3.5 suffers from more than it's share of bonus bloat too.

 

[Kingreaper]

Heavy losses are expected but hitting a target that size shouldn't require a natural 20.

"hitting" in D&D isn't about your weapon touching them, it's about your weapon striking them hard enough, in a vulnerable enough spot, that they actually notice it.

I reckon less than 5% of untrained peasantry would be able to actually HURT aBluespawn Godslayer

Magic weapons in general are not a huge issue. Needing the bonus from one (or a made up bonus from nothing to replace it) just to score a hit is a bit much.

So, you hate the old versions of D&D that literally said "if you don't have a +X weapon, you CAN'T hit this guy"

 

[eamon]

A good system can handle anything vs anything. Sometimes PC's might have a squabble, perhaps some monsters ally with the PC's against other monsters. Endless possibilities are what the game is about after all.

In theory, sure - that's neat. It's a blemish that 4e doesn't work well like that - for instance because it makes dominate vs. PC's much more dangerous than dominate vs. monsters since PC vs. PC attacks deal deal a huge amount of damage relative to PC hitpoints, whereas monsters deal hardly any damage relative to monster hitpoints. But on the whole, it's not usually important.

On hitting enormous creatures without the right equipment (i.e. too low attack bonus).

Heavy losses are expected but hitting a target that size shouldn't require a natural 20.

Hitting in D&D represents not merely touching the target but also penetrating its armor and doing so with enough force to inflict actually relevant damage. Touching a large creature may be easier; penetrating it's thicker skin harder; hitting deeply enough to be more than a mere scratch: even harder.

Actually I'm thinking of lowering defenses all around and making magical weapons influence damage more than accuracy. That way a fighter will retain the majority of skill level to land a blow with a normal weapon but the effectiveness of each hit will be less without the magic weapon.

Are you going to do that for PC's and monsters? Doing so will dramatically change the game, which may be OK but don't expect normal balance assumptions to hold. PC's that trade higher defenses for lower damage (swordmage, paladin) will lose out relative to those that trade defenses for more damage (barbarian). THP and resistance rather than defenses will be much more attractive (barbarian, battlerager). Marking won't matter much unless there's a rider. Cover, concealment even total concealment become much less relevant unless there's some combination of factors. Power attack gets a lot better. And so on... Actually, if you want major balance changes, I think you should consider just switching to a different system since one of 4e's main strengths is its extremely robust balance: ask yourself what 4e brings to table if you take that away (not that there aren't other advantages, but I'm not so sure they're enough). 3.5 for example already took that path; merely hitting isn't usually a problem (except for those with many iterative attacks), the problem is dealing enough damage and status effects.

 

[ExploderWizard]

"hitting" in D&D isn't about your weapon touching them, it's about your weapon striking them hard enough, in a vulnerable enough spot, that they actually notice it.

I reckon less than 5% of untrained peasantry would be able to actually HURT aBluespawn Godslayer

What are hit points for then? OK so a peasant hits a gargantuan monster with his hoe scoring 1d4 damage.Lets say the monster has 800 hp. The peasant didn't score meaningful damage looking at the big picture and has no hope of winning a fight.

So, you hate the old versions of D&D that literally said "if you don't have a +X weapon, you CAN'T hit this guy"

If the creature is immune to the effects of normal weapons for whatever reason he may still get hit by them, they just won't score any damage. I always described weapons having no effect as making contact if the hit roll was sufficient. This was an important clue, as opposed to just saying "you missed" and misleading the player into thinking the monster just might have a sky high AC.

 

[eamon]

What are hit points for then? OK so a peasant hits a gargantuan monster with his hoe scoring 1d4 damage.Lets say the monster has 800 hp. The peasant didn't score meaningful damage looking at the big picture and has no hope of winning a fight.

Does armor grant hitpoints, damage reduction, or AC? It's a choice, and D&D generally models such this in terms of defenses, not damage/hitpoints.

 

[Kingreaper]

What are hit points for then? OK so a peasant hits a gargantuan monster with his hoe scoring 1d4 damage.Lets say the monster has 800 hp. The peasant didn't score meaningful damage looking at the big picture and has no hope of winning a fight.

The difference is, in that case, the peasant did something.

Peasant vs. tank. Peasant hits the side of tank with his hoe, doing...

Absolutely -all.