Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 5229535" data-attributes="member: 57112">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.</blockquote>

Verification