I'm new to this forum, and really only joined because of this particular thread. I recently played a session with some friends of mine and we ended up fighting a mind flayer and an animated suit of armor. I was not the DM so I do not know their stats, but the mind flayer dominated our Barbarian and threw away his +2 Vicious Executioner's Axe. Now, it was interesting, but it totally dismayed our Barbarian and he was useless for the rest of the encounter because the mind flayer and suit focused on him, using multiple target attacks to get around the defender and ended up dropping him. He only got in one attack for the entire fight. Now, that also seems to be a little broken. I can only agree that dominate was not meant to be used in that way.
Can Dominate disarm a person's weapon?
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
I would allow this sort of situation on a case by case basis. It has obvious slippery slope connotations, because while it will bone over the odd implement or weapon using monster its effect on a PC is plain devastating. When a monster does this to a PC its going to feel like a really abusive punishment as opposed to a clever use of a power. This is why sometimes I feel its important to take the "spirit" of a ruling into account: If you don't like the idea of something doing it to you it shouldn't really be something you do. In this case while it's funny to do it to a BBEG or whatever, it's plain broken on a PC and makes them utterly useless immediately (as the example above will attest).
Something that a few posters seem to be missing when it comes to applying this trick to players:
So you can use any melee power that requires a melee weapon with your unarmed attack.
You are only crippled in the sense you lose any magical bonus and the benefits of feats. Your unarmed strike has a proficiency of +2.
The people this trick is going to really bugger are ranged weapon users, as you can't throw your fist.
PHB pg56 said:
So you can use any melee power that requires a melee weapon with your unarmed attack.
You are only crippled in the sense you lose any magical bonus and the benefits of feats. Your unarmed strike has a proficiency of +2.
The people this trick is going to really bugger are ranged weapon users, as you can't throw your fist.
Also there are many monster powers which require the use of a weapon. Just pulling one at random, the Bugbear Warrior's Skullthumper power says: Requires morningstar and combat advantage.
So if a monster lost its weapon, these powers I would say would be out simply because the monster's statblock says it NEEDS that weapon to complete it. (Otherwise I see no point in that line to begin with!)
As for a dominated player/monster running off a cliff? I'd argue that deserves a saving throw. The same way that someone who is force moved into hazardous terrain gets a saving throw. If the target makes the save, they instead just fall prone in the square.
So if a monster lost its weapon, these powers I would say would be out simply because the monster's statblock says it NEEDS that weapon to complete it. (Otherwise I see no point in that line to begin with!)
As for a dominated player/monster running off a cliff? I'd argue that deserves a saving throw. The same way that someone who is force moved into hazardous terrain gets a saving throw. If the target makes the save, they instead just fall prone in the square.
deadsmurf
First Post
I can see making a dominated player or monster drop their weapon in an adjacent space as their single action, with a saving throw if it's down into a pit or something. Still bad, forces them to use some more actions to reequip it when they have their faculties.
throwing it away completely seems just mean to me - if they have magic weapons you could treat it like a magical thrown weapon - it will return to the owner's hand on a hit or miss.
throwing it away completely seems just mean to me - if they have magic weapons you could treat it like a magical thrown weapon - it will return to the owner's hand on a hit or miss.
dvvega
Explorer
My party is not of sufficient level (or composition) to use Dominate yet, however they have experienced it first hand and did not like it when the Dwarf Fight began carving up party members with a series of criticals.
The creature in question was a Vampire Muse from Open Grave (page 190). Her "Beguilling Eyes" power is quite potent. The party was 8th level at the time so she was well within the power range of the group and was a culminating encounter for them gaining 9th level.
So if you want to play with Dominate and show the party what it is like, this creature is quite well written to defend herself. Add in some tactical support - I used 1 Artillery with 3 Skirmishers and 4 minions (summoned by Artillery) if I remember correctly.
The creature in question was a Vampire Muse from Open Grave (page 190). Her "Beguilling Eyes" power is quite potent. The party was 8th level at the time so she was well within the power range of the group and was a culminating encounter for them gaining 9th level.
So if you want to play with Dominate and show the party what it is like, this creature is quite well written to defend herself. Add in some tactical support - I used 1 Artillery with 3 Skirmishers and 4 minions (summoned by Artillery) if I remember correctly.
On Puget Sound
First Post
A while back my party were all disarmed and tied to pillars, awaiting sacrifice by gnolls. The barbarian broke free, kicked a guard and took his spear. I had to create an ad hoc disarm attack, but for that moment it seemed like the thing to do.
For the next few rounds he was fighting with a non-magical spear, requiring some number crunching on the fly, as he cut a comrade loose and they fought together to reach their weapons piled near the altar. It was an interesting fight, and allowing the disarm as a special circumstance attack didn't create any precedent; no one has tried disarming anything since then.
For the next few rounds he was fighting with a non-magical spear, requiring some number crunching on the fly, as he cut a comrade loose and they fought together to reach their weapons piled near the altar. It was an interesting fight, and allowing the disarm as a special circumstance attack didn't create any precedent; no one has tried disarming anything since then.
Without more details, I'd be hard pressed to say how fair this was.
Was the Mind-flayer previously aware/informed that the Barbarian would be the nastiest character?
I've been known to focus monsters on one player, but only once that player has shown himself to be a serious threat.
Less intelligent monsters might throw themselves at the biggest/toughest looking, and moderately intelligent monsters might target casters.. but I play so that each encounter represents an honest threat to the health of the players.. and just like players vs monsters, the best method is to isolate and destroy individuals at a time.
I can well understand why your barbarian player would be immensely frustrated.. but that's also why every Pc should have a few other weapons on hand. Going from a +2 magic weapon to a non-magical club/Dagger/Chair leg/Monster Limb is definately a down grade.. but all our powers would still work.
Was your defender adequetely using the effects of an ignored mark? They can be quite nasty..
Gradine
🏳️⚧️ (she/her) 🇵🇸
This doesn't strike me as anything fundamentally different from what spellcasters in earlier editions were capable of at comparable levels.
I get concerned sometimes that the only true opportunity players have to be creative at the table is in re-flavoring their powers. If they cant use their powers creatively, then you remove virtually all role-playing from combat.
I of course would allow the tactic, and any foes with domination clever enough to think likewise will attempt it too. Creative use of combat powers should always be allowed and encouraged.
I get concerned sometimes that the only true opportunity players have to be creative at the table is in re-flavoring their powers. If they cant use their powers creatively, then you remove virtually all role-playing from combat.
I of course would allow the tactic, and any foes with domination clever enough to think likewise will attempt it too. Creative use of combat powers should always be allowed and encouraged.
Infiniti2000
First Post
I disagree because players will always gravitate towards the most powerful exploit allowed by the DM. Always. Allowing lots of freedom to twist and exploit rules makes the game unmanageable. Even worse, it leads even more to one trick ponies that forcing players to use the rules and also leads to extremely boring combats.
Sooner or later, every tactic will be about one of three things: how to disarm your opponent or stop him from using powers, how to teleport him hundreds of feet into the air (or over a lava pit), or how to stun-lock him.
All of these tactics suck ass (for the game) and should be avoided at all costs.
Similar Threads
