Can Dominate disarm a person's weapon?

[Gradine]

I also don't see the comparison between this and bag of rats. Bag of rats is an issue with exploiting the RAW to do something that clearly wasn't intended a nearly-limitless number of times all at once; dominate/disarm would essentially be a house rule to add a new "condition" or whatever that would be of marginal benefit at best. I don't know about anyone else here, but as a player I would try to do this because it seems like a cool thing to do; not to pully a cheesy exploit to essentially win the fight. Note that everyone here who is for doing such a thing (or at least conceptualizing what it would like) admit that it's at best going to limit the enemy's damage a step, even at worst it's going to cost the enemy a minor action to pick up/draw a new weapon.

It strikes me that the most game-breaking function of dominate/disarm is when it could be used against characters. It may strike many as the ultimate "save-or-suck" against weapon users, but remember that with the upcoming Dark Sun campaign there is now a RAW mechanic that assumes characters will be losing weapons mid-combat. If you're playing an inherent-bonus campaign, or especially Dark Sun, well, then they should be carrying spares. 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 who can hold it (if friend, minor action to give it back, if foe, kill the foe with your spare and pick it back up with a minor.)

Either way it's nothing catastrophic. No, it's not supported by RAW, but acting like it's a game-breaking, bag o' rats-esque cheese-fest is a bit of a stretch as well.

 

[Trebor62]

Question for those who do not see a problem with dominate and ditch the weapon. How is that different than the "Sundering" rules from 3.5 which were dropped from 4e because of the crippling effect depriving monsters and PC of there main weapon has under the 4e combat mechenics.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Question for those who do not see a problem with dominate and ditch the weapon. How is that different than the "Sundering" rules from 3.5 which were dropped from 4e because of the crippling effect depriving monsters and PC of there main weapon has under the 4e combat mechenics.

It isn't. The sundercriers were babies too.

Adventuring is uncertain and dangerous. If your big bad barbarian is going to sit down and cry just because his axe is out of reach then perhaps saving the day, and overcoming insurmountable odds just isn't the right career path.

What kind of hero just gives up the moment things get tough?

 

[Aegeri]

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

 

[Gradine]

Question for those who do not see a problem with dominate and ditch the weapon. How is that different than the "Sundering" rules from 3.5 which were dropped from 4e because of the crippling effect depriving monsters and PC of there main weapon has under the 4e combat mechenics.

I DMed a Sundering Monk in 3.5 and I have to say it was far from crippling. I don't know if this was the officially stated party line on why Sunder was dropped from 4.0, but I can imagine one of the (if not the biggest) reasons Sunder was dropped was because they were such cumbersome rules. Hardness and HP for every weapon, every armor, every shield... and since Monsters Aren't Characters(TM) they would need to set up a whole new set of damage for each monster; figure out which powers were or weren't usable, etc. It would be FAR too cumbersome to add a Sunder or Disarm mechanic to the RAW.

Fortunately, DMs have far more flexibility in terms of making spot decisions. It's MUCH simpler to say "Okay, the monster rolls D6's instead of D8's for damage until he gets his axe back" in the spur of the moment than it is to figure out "disarmed" stats for every monster in the book.

I did have one whip-wielding disarmer in another 3.5 campaign (I think it was the same player as the monk too) and while he was quite effective at taking people's weapons away, it was pretty much all he was capable of doing. It was his shtick. And even then I would never have called it game-breaking.

 

[Trebor62]

I DMed a Sundering Monk in 3.5 and I have to say it was far from crippling. I don't know if this was the officially stated party line on why Sunder was dropped from 4.0, but I can imagine one of the (if not the biggest) reasons Sunder was dropped was because they were such cumbersome rules. Hardness and HP for every weapon, every armor, every shield... and since Monsters Aren't Characters(TM) they would need to set up a whole new set of damage for each monster; figure out which powers were or weren't usable, etc. It would be FAR too cumbersome to add a Sunder or Disarm mechanic to the RAW.

Fortunately, DMs have far more flexibility in terms of making spot decisions. It's MUCH simpler to say "Okay, the monster rolls D6's instead of D8's for damage until he gets his axe back" in the spur of the moment than it is to figure out "disarmed" stats for every monster in the book.


I did have one whip-wielding disarmer in another 3.5 campaign (I think it was the same player as the monk too) and while he was quite effective at taking people's weapons away, it was pretty much all he was capable of doing. It was his shtick. And even then I would never have called it game-breaking.

Thats a good point about the old Sunder and Disarm mechanics. What I recall reading or it may have been a podcast was one of the WOTC people responding to a question about why Sunder was dropped had to do with the "swingyness" (my term).

 

[Trebor62]

It isn't. The sundercriers were babies too.

Adventuring is uncertain and dangerous. If your big bad barbarian is going to sit down and cry just because his axe is out of reach then perhaps saving the day, and overcoming insurmountable odds just isn't the right career path.

What kind of hero just gives up the moment things get tough?

But from a mechanics point of view what are your thoughts how Dominate and ditch the weapon differs from the old Sunder rules. Gerdine made a good point about the complexity of the old Sunder rules; a negative, and WoTC has sought to reduce swingyness which Sundering would increase; another negative; along with adding complexity.

 

[VannATLC]

But from a mechanics point of view what are your thoughts how Dominate and ditch the weapon differs from the old Sunder rules. Gerdine made a good point about the complexity of the old Sunder rules; a negative, and WoTC has sought to reduce swingyness which Sundering would increase; another negative; along with adding complexity.

The weapon isn't destroyed?

The raw nature of the 3.x monster-creation makes weapons far more important than they are in 4e. 4e gives greater leway for DM intelligence and logic, or drama and story, to affect the results of such an action.

It is, like many things in 4e, something that is, imo, better left to the DM.
And it becomes a measure of the DM as to how they consistently make such decisions.

 

[Trebor62]

The weapon isn't destroyed?

The raw nature of the 3.x monster-creation makes weapons far more important than they are in 4e. 4e gives greater leway for DM intelligence and logic, or drama and story, to affect the results of such an action

.

I agree for the monsters. But for the PC's it can matter a lot.

It is, like many things in 4e, something that is, imo, better left to the DM.
And it becomes a measure of the DM as to how they consistently make such decisions.

True; if you have a good DM it will workout fine, and if not it won't matter anyway. As a DM my monsters would have a backup weapon(s), and if I planned do this to the PC's I would first make sure they had the chance to acquire suitable backup weapon(s) of there own. I already send missle throwing monsters to retrieve missle weapons from fallen comrades if thats there special attack.

 

[Aegeri]

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.