D&D 4E Disarm in 4E

[LostSoul]

Oh, my idea is something like this:

Player describes PC's action to disarm.

We resolve it as an attack.

Str or Dex? Based on the description.

Weapon or not? Based on the description.

vs. what? Part of that is going to be based on the description; also, based on the monster. Strong brutes - vs. Fort. Quick little bastards - vs. Ref. A trained warrior - vs. AC (if they use shields), vs. 10 + attack modifier (swordmasters, like drow).

Then we add a modifier because disarming someone is hard. +2 to the defense is my basic go-to. +4 is reasonable. Add in other modifiers, like if the guy uses his weapon in two hands or not, if he's large, etc. Maybe a bonus to defense if the guy's an elite or solo - same as the save bonus.

Hit: The weapon ends up in the target's square.

I'd definitely make it an encounter power against elites and solos - fool me once, etc. Standard guys, not so much.

*

I was looking at high-level monsters and boy, would it be unbalanced! Maybe it's only a heroic tier thing. Maybe a bonus to defense based on tier.

edit: And yeah, it's only for PCs. Monsters who want to disarm should have it in their statblock.

 

[Garthanos]

If they can ever use a weapon attack they will always use it... proficiency bonus +2 or 3 magical item bonus +0 to +6 ... expertise bonus +0 to +3 --- umm ouch and ick

might as well hand the pcs the monsters blade unless they are seriously newbies.

 

[Garthanos]

Something if you want to enable the weapon attack is make two rolls for a disarm

one is either an unarmed grab (aka an athletics check) or a weapon binding as an attack rolls where you lock blades with the enemy... the next roll can be the struggle check with just an attribute.

Note the avenger class (will make even highly unlikely odds much more likely) but since I have been considering a martial avenger as a duelist... well the coincidence is interesting. - or even those mc'ing in to one.

This has the additional advantage of making the action cost two standard actions.

Aspect of Might and the normal roll two attacks element of an Avenger... means they are effectively the go to man for disarms using anything like this model. (so you might want to keep an eye on that).

Intimidate as one skill use can have odds overwhelmingly in the favor of success too... so the key element of it had to be.. only when bloodied (I would add it should have been restricted not against elites or solos )

For disarm they (the elites and solos) should all be considered to have seriously magical weaponry with the same tethering magic that makes sense for pcs).

To theoretically force atleast some strategy you might require CA to initiate the grab or weapon lock.

 

[DracoSuave]

Encounter based save-or-die?

No thank you.

 

[Tai]

I'm pretty much with DS on this one. The save-or-die problem was one of my major bones with 3.x, since playing a spellcaster basically became a binary issue - either you do nothing this round, or you kill someone outright.

On a rules front for disarms, it's worth bearing in mind that NPC allies come with built-in level appropriate bonuses that apply on all their attacks, even unarmed ones. Essentially, if you give your level 8 NPC cleric a +2 sword, it won't give him any bonuses (aside from item powers and properties) because he's already a +2 character. Since the NPCs are designed quite similarly to monsters, it seems reasonable to assume that monsters have the same thing.

 

[Garthanos]

Encounter based save-or-die?

No thank you.

I quite agree... in some sense ... very much like an intimidate used in combat context.

 

[LostSoul]

You guys who think it's save or die:

Give me an encounter I can run where the potential of disarms will be maximized. MM, MM2, and PHB1 stuff only, because that's what I've got. Add in some terrain, like a pit/chasm/well/lava pool that will help out.

Then I guess we'll see.

 

[Regicide]

I'm pretty much with DS on this one. The save-or-die problem was one of my major bones with 3.x, since playing a spellcaster basically became a binary issue - either you do nothing this round, or you kill someone outright.

And since monsters typically saved on anything but a 1, that was 95% of the time you do nothing if you used those spells. Actually, add on spell resistance and it was more like 98% of the time. Seriously, people used spells other than no save no resistance? Weird.

 

[Turtlejay]

I'm pretty much with DS on this one. The save-or-die problem was one of my major bones with 3.x, since playing a spellcaster basically became a binary issue - either you do nothing this round, or you kill someone outright.

On a rules front for disarms, it's worth bearing in mind that NPC allies come with built-in level appropriate bonuses that apply on all their attacks, even unarmed ones. Essentially, if you give your level 8 NPC cleric a +2 sword, it won't give him any bonuses (aside from item powers and properties) because he's already a +2 character. Since the NPCs are designed quite similarly to monsters, it seems reasonable to assume that monsters have the same thing.

I think that most of the pro-disarm camp know this, and that is why they are casting around for a different way to represent the loss of the weapon. Sadly, in most of the examples posted it is much to powerful, or too easy to abuse.

What I don't understand is the purpose of this thread. A similar one was started in the Houserules forum (which makes sense), so this thread should be debating the rules-soundess of a disarm mechanic, not really proposing and tweaking specific mechanics.

I agree with half of lost soul's position, the part where mobs should only get this if it is in their stat block. I would take that a step further, and state that PC's should only get this if it is in *their* stat block.

The 4e way would be to say "yes, and...", but as a DM you need to draw the line. If a wizard wanted to say, make a hard Arcana check to increase the area of one of his burst or blast powers, you might think that is reasonable, and be tempted to say yes, but things like that are dealt with under the established rules. I'd say such a player was looking to get something for nothing, which is also how I feel about this disarming thing. Other players invest in feats and powers to fuel their abilities and make them unique. If you want a disarm, chose feats and powers that most closely approximate it.

Jay

 

[LostSoul]

What I don't understand is the purpose of this thread.

I should stop replying to it.

As a point of comparison, a couple times in my game the PCs have thrown curtains over NPCs to Blind them. Once I even let the rogue get a stab in and deal sneak attack damage. (Probably wouldn't do that again, but that's life.) I also do crazy things like letting PCs use move actions to pull out darts from traps that have immobilized them instead of making a save. (Str check yeah, but still.) And then there was the time a PC jammed an immovable rod into a lich's mouth to keep him from maintaining his spells.

There have been a number of TPKs in my game, so I don't think it's too easy.

I understand that the way I run my game isn't what everyone wants out of D&D. That's cool. I guess I just have my back up.

I personally think 4E can handle a lot of this kind of thing; but who knows, maybe I'm wrong. For example, I've only been looking at this from the perspective of what I've actually played - ie. the Heroic tier. When I took a look at what disarms could do to the uber-baddies, I realized at once that I was wrong.

Anyways, I consider this thread to be a debate over the flexibility of 4E's ruleset.