Can Dominate disarm a person's weapon?

[Gradine]

I'd like to point out we're getting into the whole reason this isn't really something that people should "allow" the power to do by this point. At this moment, we are now assuming things like creatures carrying golf bags of weapons to negate the potentiality of having their weapons thrown away and all manner of silly things like that. Do we really need to go into meta explanations for a problem that shouldn't be a problem in the first place? I mean, claiming the creature carries around a golf bag of clubs or whatever is accomplishing the same effect (making this tactic useless anyway) without fixing the actual problem the interpretation has created. If you don't happen to have a weapon of +5 hanging around and you lose your +6 weapon, whooops your screwed. Yet monsters are assumed to have magical golfbags of handy weapons on their person, having had the foresight to predict this sort of nonsense ahead of time.

I mean there is a simple and elegant solution here that maintains the games coherency and expected power of what dominate as a condition is. It doesn't involve golfbags.

"No", while simple, is hardly elegant.

And no one to my belief (though my memory may be a bit fuzzy on this) mentioned golf bags full of clubs. I think it's pretty reasonable for most people who utilize weapons to have a "last chance" weapon on their person. It could be as simple as a knife or a handaxe, a smaller blade, etc. By the time your characters have a +6 weapon, they and their party should have enough abilities to mitigate the loss of such a weapon for a few rounds.

Also, I don't believe that combat should be as dummied down as humanly possible. I've seen complaints about stun, or monster marking... I mean... why have conditions at all? I don't mean to be smarmy, but there comes to a certain point where you have to make a decision about how simple you want your combat to be. And personal combat, in any speculative media you want to look to, is never so cookie-cutter. I'm hardly a simulationist, but I do believe we've come a long ways from the days of "I stand there and swing my sword at him. Do I hit?" Every combat needs a little spice; a little flavor.

Just because something is simpler to resolve does make automatically make it preferable.

 

[Aegeri]

And no one to my belief (though my memory may be a bit fuzzy on this) mentioned golf bags full of clubs. I think it's pretty reasonable for most people who utilize weapons to have a "last chance" weapon on their person. It could be as simple as a knife or a handaxe, a smaller blade, etc. By the time your characters have a +6 weapon, they and their party should have enough abilities to mitigate the loss of such a weapon for a few rounds.

Okay, I dominate him and make him toss those weapons as well. I've now turned the combat away from a fight into a weapon tossing contest and who can toss whose weapons the fastest. Eventually we might even get to the point of attacking one another, perhaps we won't even have armor on or pants by this point. It will become some kind of strange DnD wrestling match with everyone punching and biting everyone else because they've run out of weapons. That's sure heroic!

Also, I don't believe that combat should be as dummied down as humanly possible.

Dumbed down and sensibly balanced around realistic expectations of "fair" rules is another thing. You've added an interpretation to a power that is frankly very silly. Now you've got equally silly golf clubs, backup knives and other things to avoid this being a "I win" button. Of course, that PCs basically instantly lose when this is done to them is the core point here. Monsters don't have to care at all what equipment they have, but they're also the most likely to have dominate powers at-will. So sure, you pull out your +5 backup bow, enjoy watching that go over the cliff next. Then your +4 bow. Then your +3 bow, because didn't anyone mention many monsters dominate at-will?

How many weapons does a PC need to carry around with them before they are safe from this? 2? 3? 4? 5? I mean monsters can dominate at will and later tieflings in epic can dominate instead of stun (making it more common for them). So they can go through quite a few weapons here if they want to. A couple of backup weapons isn't going to be enough.

I don't mean to be smarmy, but there comes to a certain point where you have to make a decision about how simple you want your combat to be.

It's not about being simple, it's about common sense. Do I come up with tortuously ridiculous things to thwart it or make PCs carry around a golf bag of miscellaneous random weaponry? The BBEG is carrying his artifact of doom and for some reason, is carrying a similar artifact of doom in his backup when you get him to throw away his first one. When you make him throw away his second one, he pulls out a third one and so on. Alternatively he throws away the defenders shield and sword in consecutive turns and then beats him to a bloody pulp while the rest of the party is helpless to do anything about it.

It's kinda funny.

I'm hardly a simulationist, but I do believe we've come a long ways from the days of "I stand there and swing my sword at him. Do I hit?" Every combat needs a little spice; a little flavor.

Do you need something that's a save or die to do that? Like right now I'm making encounters on a huge creatures flesh, with giant forests made out of very long hairs and tooth like structures across its surface. All the while the flesh is tearing (As the creature has been heavily injured by the PCs actions) and deep wounds as big as small lakes rip open that spill forth blood archons, abominations and daemons. I mean where do I need a mechanic that instantly screws my PCs to make that spicy?

Just because something is simpler to resolve does make automatically make it preferable.

Sometimes the simpler approach is by far the best approach.

I can imagine what fighting an Astral Kraken would be like. It has no weapons and dominates at-will when people miss it with an attack. By the end of the encounter everyone is Astral Kraken food because every miss means that PCs weapon is going overboard into the astral sea. I mean, I do find it hilarious that the fighter is biting and chewing on the tentacle as it crushes the life out of him - don't get me wrong I'm not a monster here. But at the game table I don't think anyone is going to be happy when monsters are using at-will dominate powers to also render a PC utterly worthless.

Edit: The point here I guess, is that this situation is something I seriously dislike and that's an arms race. In this case, it's not even an arms race PCs can hope to win because monsters can dominate at will and often don't rely on weapon/implement attacks at all. Sure someone can claim this makes for a creative solution to the odd encounter, but throwing a weapon into dangerous terrain - let's be clear that epic DnD especially emphasizes this kind of terrain - pretty much is instant win for a monster. A monster can take an axe off the ground and fight perfectly normally with it. A PC takes an axe of the ground and is virtually worthless with it.

 

[Gradine]

I'm beginning to repeat myself, so I'll simply sum up and flesh out my main points here.

1: PC's who lose their weapons are not in a "save or die" or even a "save or suck" situation. In a campaign setting with inherent bonuses, there's absolutely no way it's "save or suck"; and even if everyone's toting a level-appropriate magic weapon, the enhancement bonus is nothing compared to the kinds of attack bonus/defense penalties that will your party members will likely have on hand which should mitigate circumstances until they can pick it back up. I brought it up before, but the Dark Sun campaign introduces a new mechanic that is all about PC's losing their weapons. And this is by player choice, no less. Why create a mechanic that makes the character suck? Because it doesn't. It encourages preparedness. Carry a spare. Or pick up a fallen foe's weapon. You can't just dismiss something because it causes characters to lose their weapons because that happens in the RAW at the behest of the players now.

1.25: I don't know who's interpreting the dominate/disarm as being able to toss people's weapons off of cliffs or into lava, but it certainly wasn't me. I very clearly stated I wouldn't allow this. Dominate gives you access to at-wills, which include basic attacks (including basic ranged attacks with improved weapons, which is the core idea behind the tactic), and basic attacks require targets. This is a strawman argument designed to make the tactic sound more ludicrous and unfair than it really is, and it doesn't have a place in the conversation.

1.5: Just to nip this is the bud; "But wait, what if there's a flying creature floating over a cliff? You could just have the dominated character throw the weapon at the creature!" First off, this requires such gross metagame thinking by the dominating creature that no DM worth his salt would ever stoop to it. A dominated PC should attack other PCs. No exception. On the extremely rare off-chance that
A: A PC is flying or levitating
B: Has the gall to park themselves over a cliff or other instagib terrain
C: Is within Improvised Range Attack range of another PC
D: That PC is wielding a magic weapon (if it's a 15 GP longsword who cares?)
E: That PC is dominated
F: The dominating creature really can't think of anything better for the dominated PC to do
I think I'd have self control not to utterly screw over a character just because I can.
It's interesting to me that this debate turned from "players can exploit it!" into "DMs can exploit it!" Particularly since, as the DM, it's your choice whether to exploit it or not. If you're the kind that would, then yeah, you probably should be limiting your own options.

1.75: A part of the above section bears repeating. A dominated PC attacks other PCs, no exceptions. This applies to monsters too. Considering the limited range of improvised weapons and the fact that your weapon has now landed at the feet of your ally, it is not going to be difficult to walk over and pick up the weapon again. It's at best, a way to turn your round of domination into a 1d4+X damage and a rather wonky one-round daze effect.
And don't say "and what if your enemy picks up your weapon!" because no one in their right mind would, in the middle of an intense combat, waste their time running over to pick up a foe's weapon just to say "neener neener got your sword." As a DM I can't think of a situation where I'd ever stoop to such a thing. A player might try it but losing weapons isn't generally as bad for monsters (see below) and besides, how many PC builds leave you a free hand?

2: Monsters who lose their weapons are also not in a "save or die" or "save or suck" situation either. This requires a bit more adjudicating on the DM's part, but this can be as simple as, as has been suggested many times before, lowering the die a step.

2.5: In the artifact of doom example, remember that the operative word there is artifact. You're perfectly within your rights as DM to say "no, the artifact really doesn't want to leave its master's hands right now." I don't care how dominated Orcus is, you're not convincing him to part with his wand anymore than you're convincing his wand to part with him.

3: We've now established that, whether dominate/disarm afflicts a monster or player, it isn't a gamebreaker provided the players are aware of the possibility. I think this is a point that has been missed; as a DM I wouldn't just spring this on the players and say that it's okay now. I personally wouldn't even bring it up until the players tried to do it, which would lead to this exchange:
DM: "Sure you can. You realize this works both ways though, right?"
Player: "Crap. We better start carrying backups."
The fact that it's not particularly effective also ensures that it's not going to be spammed, so there's not at all going to be any sort of weapon-tossing contest. Even if players are aware they can do it it's not likely to come up often; there's a lot better things to do with a dominated creature, and dominate isn't exactly the most common condition.

4: So if it's not especially effective in most cases, why allow it? Why even bother? Well, if the player wants to do it, and it makes sense within the context of the power, why not let them? I think the context of domination bears discussion. There seems to be two schools of thought as to what domination represents. If it is, as has been suggested, simply confusing the monster into thinking its allies are enemies and enemies are allies, then obviously it wouldn't make sense to have them throw their melee weapon. If it is, however, exerting some sort of influence over the creature, then by RAW it's a ranged basic attack with an improvised weapon. Given the fact that it's the player that controls the dominated creatures actions, I can't help but believe that dominated is meant to be the latter.

Again, as a DM you're perfectly within your rights to disallow the tactic. I'll buy the "sticking to what's clearly in the RAW with combat" argument, though I can't say I personally agree with it. But you can't convince me that aren't perfectly good reasons to allow it, and you can't convince that it's game-breaking save-or-suck cheese, because neither of those are true.

 

[Aegeri]

1. Campaign settings by default do not assume inherent bonuses except Dark Sun, making this point irrelevant for most campaigns. This isn't something in reference to Dark Sun specifically.

1.25. This is perfectly allowable, because you can target squares with powers that target creatures. Therefore you can indeed toss the weapon anywhere you feel like. If you're confused as to targeting, see the players handbook and note that powers that target creatures can be used to target squares.

See page 272 of the PHB:

When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy.

1.5. This is irrelevant because you can target squares with powers, meaning that there isn't a requirement to throw the weapon at a creature.

See page 272 of the PHB:

When you use a melee attack or a ranged attack, you can target a square instead of an enemy.

Which pretty much means that your entire argument on the previous point and this second point you make falls apart instantly. If that square is over a cliff, in the elemental chaos or into the ocean it's a valid target because you can target squares. A ranged basic attack with an improvised weapon is a power that targets creatures, therefore it can target squares and therefore if it was going to disarm you, it might as well chuck your weapon where you can't get it.

The fact targeting doesn't work the way you think it does collapses most of your entire defense of this.

1.75. This is not how targeting for powers work by RAW.

2. I never claimed they were, in fact I pointed out it's directly irrelevant for most monsters.

2.5. That is true, but again why bother allowing it in the first place when the only times it would be useful for PCs to use it you're going to deus ex machina into being useless?

I believe my point is being made right now in fact.

3. Yeah, they better carry a lot of backups

Also, dominate is a common condition for tieflings because they can turn all stun powers into dominates these days. Quite handy that.

4. For PCs it has little benefit, for monsters it has a huge benefit and utterly crushes a PCs ability to fight effectively.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yeah, my players were so convinced their martial characters were worthwhile when I had them fight vampires with monk levels that were specialized in sundering.

Spoiler

I don't have to tell you how this worked out

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.

 

[Zaran]

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.

Unless you build your encounters while your players wait around every encounter you plan is pre-constructed. And what's wrong with creating a fight that challenges the players in ways they are not prepared for? What happens when Indiana reaches for his gun to shoot the sword guy and it's not there?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Unless you build your encounters while your players wait around every encounter you plan is pre-constructed. And what's wrong with creating a fight that challenges the players in ways they are not prepared for?

The statistics for whatever might be in a given place may be already written but this is not the same thing as a pre-constructed encounter.

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.

The whole problem here isn't with the concept of disarming an enemy. This is a concept that exists in all the source fiction of fantasy gaming.
The real problem is the mechanics which make such a staple of the genre into this monstrous game breaking event.

Defenses scaled such that they require a tool of X bonus to even allow a chance of hitting = stupid.

Statblocks without a ranged attack determining that a held item cannot be thrown when common sense says otherwise = stupid.

( Think about it. Wasn't the scene from The Mummy where Rick grabs a chair, hurls it at Benny and slams him to the ground not the coolest thing ever? I doubt Rick had "hurl nearby chair" listed in his statblock.)

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

What happens when Indiana reaches for his gun to shoot the sword guy and it's not there?

Well if we are playing a game where Indiana is the badass hero because of who he is, rather than what he happens to be carrying then the player will think of something appropriate for the situation and the game mechanics will back that up with a reasonable chance for it to work.

 

[CovertOps]

The real problem is the mechanics which make such a staple of the genre into this monstrous game breaking event.

Defenses scaled such that they require a tool of X bonus to even allow a chance of hitting = stupid.

This is not new. This has been a staple of the game since AD&D unless you're suggesting one more sacred cow for the spit. Also, Inherent bonuses makes this go away.

Statblocks without a ranged attack determining that a held item cannot be thrown when common sense says otherwise = stupid.

Fine... verisimilitude I get it. That response was a pure RAW answer to the OP. And likely the one that I'll use if it ever comes up in my game. It also makes sense from the stand point of...if you're wielding some big weapon that really isn't designed to be thrown and someone dominates you, but all they can make you do is something you'd normally do, but against an "ally", then yes it makes sense. It's an axe...I've never thrown it in my life...why would I throw it now?

( Think about it. Wasn't the scene from The Mummy where Rick grabs a chair, hurls it at Benny and slams him to the ground not the coolest thing ever? I doubt Rick had "hurl nearby chair" listed in his statblock.)

DMG p42...yup this one is covered.

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

Inherent bonuses makes this go away. I'm a big supporter of them.

Well if we are playing a game where Indiana is the badass hero because of who he is, rather than what he happens to be carrying then the player will think of something appropriate for the situation and the game mechanics will back that up with a reasonable chance for it to work.

Yes.

 

[Infiniti2000]

1.25: I don't know who's interpreting the dominate/disarm as being able to toss people's weapons off of cliffs or into lava, but it certainly wasn't me. I very clearly stated I wouldn't allow this.

I suppose you'd be surprised to find out that you did, in fact, very clearly state you would allow this, way back in post #39: "I of course would allow the tactic, and any foes with domination clever enough to think likewise will attempt it too."

 

[Gradine]

I suppose you'd be surprised to find out that you did, in fact, very clearly state you would allow this, way back in post #39: "I of course would allow the tactic, and any foes with domination clever enough to think likewise will attempt it too."

I actually said nothing there about tossing weapons off a cliff in that post; I simply stated I would allow dominate/disarm in my games. You'll also find I said much later, in post 71: "Even in a typical magic-weapon heavy campaign, you could rule that the character wouldn't permanently part with a trusty, powerful weapon even if dominated (so forget having them toss it off a cliff or into lava) but they could drop it at their feet or throw it at somebody else"

I later refined that by even taking away the "dropping it at their feet" by stating that a dominated PC must target another PC, believing that attacks requiring targets to be the RAW. I do stand corrected in this, and it does seem to allow the kind of volcano tossing that everyone (including myself) finds ridiculous and cheesy.

Keep in mind, though, that we're essentially talking about a houserule here, so I propose a complimentary houserule:
"Dominated creatures must target or attempt to hit one or more of his or her allies."

This seems consistent with what is reasonable, as even the RAI behind the "Target any square" rule was designed to at least attempt to hit an enemy. Problem solved.

As I mentioned way back in the beginning, this kind of give and take in the heart of an encounter is precisely what I believe is the heart of roleplaying. Any quality DM would be able to allow the player to have their clever moment while still adjudicating it fairly and without it completely unbalancing the game.

Of course, this is all moot because now we're talking about limiting the DM's ability to exploit something, and the DM doesn't need to create houserules and loopholes to limit themselves. That's what self-control is for. It's as simple as saying "Well, instead of having the dominated fighter toss his +5 Frost Warhammer into the lava, I'll just have him attack the undefended Wizard instead." Any DM who would purposefully cheese the players over to that extent when there are better options around just because he can isn't worth his salt, IMHO. Like I also said, this also requires an absolutely gross amount of metagame thinking on the DM's part; your dominating shaman isn't thinking about how to forever gimp a player, he's thinking about how to kill them right then and there and survive. This lends itself far more to "attack allies" then it does to "toss away weapon." This kind of behavior is domination wish-fulfillment, not good storytelling.

4e is a wonderful game and it does have a very strong combat system with fairly (for the most part) well plotted balance. But I believe it's missing the versatility and open-endedness that made previous editions so great. Let's consider, for the moment, a combat featuring the swashbuckler's favorite set piece: the chandelier. He can't use the chandelier to swing across two platforms he would normally be unable to jump because there's no "Swing on Chandelier" power, and it would be unfair to allow him such movement unless he had a power that specifically allowed that kind of movement (which could then be flavored as Swing on Chandelier.) Similarly, say some unperceptive foe is standing directly underneath the chandelier. The clever swashbuckler slashes the rope (hoping it is, of course, the Right Rope) to drop the heavy chandelier on his foe. "Well, I didn't really plan on the chandelier being a hazard and I didn't stat it up, so you can't do it." "Oh... well then I Twin Strike the goblin next to me."

As a DM, regardless of what of system I'm playing, I get the greatest enjoyment in trying to figure out, in the spur of the moment, how to let the players Do Something Cool. As a player, I'm always looking for the opportunity to Do Something Cool. At that is why I'd like nothing more than to find ways to make Dominate/Disarm, or Swing on Chandelier, or Teleport Straight Up possible for players who'd like to try... because it means they get to Do Something Cool and I get to make it happen. Everybody wins, except of course the goblins, but I'm not really rooting for those little frackers anyway.

If that's not your game, then it's not your game, and 4e is practically perfect for you as is. For those of us who like that open-endedness of combat in days of yore, we'll continue to try to tweak and bend the rules as to be more open-ended yet still remain fair and balanced.

...Actually, ought to make that balanced and fair. Wouldn't want to give the wrong impression.