D&D 4E Disarm in 4E

[WalterKovacs]

Grabbing a foe allows you to immobilize it.
Bull rushing a foe allows you to push it.

Disarming a foe allows you to weaken it.

So, Dex Vs. Reflex, on a hit the opponent is weakened until the end of their next turn.

And you can throw in an associated feat to boost it like with bull rush and grab. Also other powers can be "better" versions (such as tide of iron, for example) that can do other things, like perhaps weakened (Save ends) which would mean the weapon may have been harder to get a hold of.

By making it weakened, the monster is doing less damage. And you don't have to deal with tracking where the weapon goes, etc.

 

[Flipguarder]

I am a tremendous fan of "If the players can do it, DMs can do it." I would hate a disarm mechanic being implemented because vs pc's it would either be WAY overpowered or not make sense (such as the -2 to attack rolls but you still can use your weapon...?).

 

[N0Man]

The way that monsters are done in 4th edition, disarming them would do nothing to them. There are some monsters that have powers that state that they must have X weapon or item to use it, but the vast majority of them do not have this requirement. So other than those select few monsters disarm would do nothing to a monster.

Monsters damage is based upon level and role etc. Not the items that they carry.

I dont see this as an abillity etc to appear in future printings except as an odd class power here and there as the one noted in above posts. Disarm was not carried over to 4th edition for a reason, and gladly so as far as I am concerned.

I understand that disarming would do little too monsters by RAW, which is why I was considering it to be a kind of status effect of -2 hit (to emulate loss of proficiency) and -2 damage to emulate a smaller damage di. Many monsters are designed to have both a close and ranged attack as well. Smart players should do the same.

And as for "except for powers here and there", that's exactly what I mean.

The main problem with disarm is that in 4E, there is a big difference between the effectiveness between PC and NPC that I have trouble reconciling in a balanced, fair, and palatable way.

That said, I am in agreement with you about disarms being left out for good reason, and I also don't miss them. However, I have a player that seems to be really bugged by this fact and it does seem to be a big deal to him.

 

[N0Man]

I am a tremendous fan of "If the players can do it, DMs can do it." I would hate a disarm mechanic being implemented because vs pc's it would either be WAY overpowered or not make sense (such as the -2 to attack rolls but you still can use your weapon...?).

Trust me, I'm in 100% agreement with you on the What's good for the players is good for the DM school of thought. A true disarm would be devastating to PCs and insignificant to NPCs as the rules are written.

My proposed solution was a kludge really. It works from PCs to NPCs, but it certainly doesn't work for the reverse.

The above suggestion of imposing the weakness effect on NPCs isn't bad. That's something I could certainly consider.

I fear he might be too much of a simulationist to really find any of my suggestions acceptable though. He's having a very strong adverse reaction to being enlightened that NPCs aren't build just like PCs are (as they were in 3E). Additionally, he keeps highlighting the things that aren't possible (or at least covered by rules) in 4E as opposed to 3E, and fails to recognize that the reverse is also true.

 

[Flipguarder]

honestly, I think it might be more beneficial if you attempt to come up with a simulation argument about how it never made sense for heroes that can jump 80 feet or stop time, slip in between dimensions and what not to have a weapon knocked out of their hand. Anyone who is proficient with a weapon in 4e is considered a fairly awesome expert in "Earth experience"

Remember proficient doesn't mean that you can swing it. It means you have mastered this weapon and can use it as well as almost anyone. Few people on Earth could make that statement and i would imagine very few of them would be susceptible to a disarm attack.

 

[Nytmare]

Disarm is what you do when the opponent is at 0 HP and you don't kill them.

I hate myself for admitting it, but Regicide's answer is exactly how I would handle someone who wanted to make a "disarmer".

 

[On Puget Sound]

If Intimidate can force a bloodied foe to surrender by breaking their morale, use the same formula with Acrobatics (or maybe Thievery) to force a bloodied foe to surrender by taking their weapon away (and impressing them so much with the ease with which you did it, that they don't even try to get it back).

This is like the (disarm = reduce to 0 HP), but it does give some benefit...no more than Intimidate, so it should be more or less balanced. Of course there have been other arguments about whether someone who makes an Intimicheesemonkey should be rewarded, nerfed or both, and the same arguments would apply to a Disarmbot.

 

[Klaus]

So you're saying something like:

Disarm - You can disarm a bloodied opponent by making an Acrobatics or Thievery check against their Reflex defense +10. If successful, the opponent loses his weapon and surrenders. This can only be tried once per encounter on each opponent.

 

[UltimaGabe]

So you're saying something like:

Disarm - You can disarm a bloodied opponent by making an Acrobatics or Thievery check against their Reflex defense +10. If successful, the opponent loses his weapon and surrenders. This can only be tried once per encounter on each opponent.

I think that's the best disarm solution so far. Anybody can do it (but not everyone will be good at it), and it uses an existing mechanic, so it's not particularly gamebreaking. I'll definitely use this if someone in my games ever demands a disarm.

 

[Griogre]

For what its worth you really have two problems here: 1) The guy is your friend so you don't want to say "My way or hit the highway." 2) The guy doesn't want to play 4E, either because he doesn't know the rules or because he doesn't like the rules.

The designers of 4E didn't like disarm. The 4E combat system is not made to deal with disarm and the effect on a PC is far worse than a monster by RAW. It really boils down to do you want to re-design the 4E combat for you friend or do you just want to tell him no on the disarm. Everything you have written seems to say the compromises you were willing to offer won't be acceptable to your friend - so you just might as well say no.

In my case, if I had a friend like this I would just tell him that disarm does not work within the 4E combat system because the designers made it that way. PCs are hurt far more than monsters/NPCs whose powers are generally not dependant on weapons the way PCs are. Thus you would be hurting the group if I were to allow an at-will disarm attack, because in all fairness I would have to have the monsters use disarm too against the party.