D&D 4E Disarm in 4E

[Shin Okada]

If I were you I will not make it into an at-will power or an action which anyone can take. Because,

1. If everybody (including monsters) can do it, it will really hurt PCs.
2. If you make it a class's at-will power, it is like creating a new build option of that class. Maybe you need too much play-testing to balance it out.
3. Special Maneuvers need not to be an at-will power IMHO.
4. An encounter power can still be one's "signature" maneuver. He is doing once in every combat.

So, if I were you, I will make it into an encounter power. Maybe an encounter exploit for Fighter or Rogue.

I like the "weaken, save ends" idea. That is simple enough and you don't need to check if a creature has a droppable weapon or not. Some monsters like Ice Archon Frostshaper is using powers with weapon keyword but they can create weapons indefinitely at-will. And Balor is using weapons but It's stats block does not have Equipment like because they are meant to be broken when a Balor dies. Do you really want to check and argue on those factors every-time a PC attempts to disarm his opponent?

Also, "weaken, save ends" power will work well both on armed and unarmed creatures. Just make the flavor of that power says "You will either knock opponent's weapon away or hit an opponent's hand and make it numb for a while" or something like that.

As an encounter power, it can be an ordinary weapon power with damages. "As weaken save ends" maybe too strong as an effect of L1 encounter power, you may lower either attack bonus or damages, or both.

That is just my 2-cents.

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

Weakened is a far to powerful of a condition to place on a creature for this. Especially considering he will likely be doing this each round as is.

 

[Garthanos]

Somehow I think this whole thing belongs on the house rules forum. ;-)

It is usually people thinking they want realism asking for easy disarming rules ... 4e has it in a couple of places for instance a 17th level fighter can steal his enemies steel), even though prevalent disarming is anything but realistic.

The pacifist fighter idea I empathize with actually.

Hit points are not necessarily wounds and that is a reasonable skin to make on all attacks forcing adversaries to exhaust themselves... but could also see his attacks as being pressure point strike attempts and body slams which if they finally get through might only temporarily paralyze. If he wants to use enemies weapons against one another without actually disarming them that works too its the jackie chan move.

Use the new monk to get your flavor pre-cooled maybe if you want but allowing high damage attacks intended to not damage can be done with skinning other classes. (reapers touch on a wizard would be quite a bit of work,but it might work ;-)). ok I was thinking a ranger/rogue with a home grown feat that allows him to use his fists in place of light blades.

If he wants to use the disarming of his adversaries as a mid battle defense.... that is tougher as its a serious impairment I win the game. Using something like Tyrleens ideas but with more like -5 instead of -2 so its only reasonable if you more completely outclass your adversary. And is otherwise sticking your neck out.

If can be combined with the other method....of allowing him to reflavor the final defeat as a disarm and let any hero or arrogant villains do it in a grandiose way as a choice in place of knocking the enemy out there weapon then flies from there grip suitably out of there easy reach (not just at their feet).... the enemy is exhausted and out of luck at that point after all! (set the enemy hit points at 0 instead of negative and may hap treat them as stunned till next round just for good measure.... throw in a automatic successful intimidate check if you like.... its a finale at this point make it fun.

 

[Infiniti2000]

IMO you're making a huge mistake. I find it startling that someone who hasn't played 4E is so unbelievably fixated on a character concept that he knows isn't allowed in the rules and would require a massive amount of effort to get working at all, let alone well. Then, trying to force a someone to come up with a slew of houserules to get it to work is simply uncool. Call me cynical, but why does it seem like this is a "setup" to see 4E fail? Has this guy already played every 4E character concept out there such that they're all boring now?

 

[LostSoul]

Why you shouldn't allow disarm:

Because it might unbalance the combat game.

Why you should allow disarm:

Because it means the game world has meaning.


You have to decide for yourself what's more important to you.


How you should rule it, if you do:

Go with whatever makes sense based on the game world situation at the moment. If you are going to embrace the primacy of the fiction/fluff/colour in your game, might as well go with it!

There are a number of different ways to resolve it:

Attacks:
stat vs. defense
weapon attack vs. defense
magical attack vs. defense
vs. DC
+/- modifiers to attack and/or defense

Hit:
1[W] + stat damage
xdx + stat damage
no damage
weapon ends up in the target's square
weapon ends up in the PC's hands
weapon ends up somewhere else
monster deals 1d4+str damage
monster deals same damage
monster deals damage one step lower on the chart
monster has a -2 to attack
monster has no penalty to attacks
monster has a huge penalty to attacks
monster can't use powers
monster can use powers

etc.

Just go with whatever makes the most sense at the time, based on the description of the PC's attack and the description of the monster and how that monster fights.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Why you shouldn't allow disarm:

Because it might unbalance the combat game.

Why you should allow disarm:

Because it means the game world has meaning.

Actually, the same thing can be said for instakills. You shouldn't allow those either because they're mathematically provable to suck for PCs.

It is not possible to create a rule that would work in terms of game mechanics and simultaneously suffice for simulationists. Actually, just try to get the simulationist to grasp the concept that giving a monster a +1 weapon (as opposed to nonmagical) might not in fact change any of its stats.

 

[Garthanos]

It is not possible to create a rule that would work in terms of game mechanics and simultaneously suffice for simulationists. Actually, just try to get the simulationist to grasp the concept that giving a monster a +1 weapon (as opposed to nonmagical) might not in fact change any of its stats.

I'll bite at explaining it... the +1 weapon is already in the stats for that instance of that monster type...george the +1 weapon wielding gobby didn't develop as he is literally reliant on it.. the chieftain of the tribe might have even rewarded him with it to make up for a weird deficiency in battle he has" additionally there might be other things that the gobbies have which compensate them for not having the +1 weapon, some are slightly more offensively aggressive but have some defense that is also happens to make up for it... a war paint or similar and that's a detail the player will never ever need to know nor ever notice even if you go through the headaches to spec it out... tadah.

I like imagination exercises.

 

[N0Man]

Yeah, this probably should have started in Houserules... I think my original though was how to use existing rules (and rules in the DMG) to support it, but it does quickly move into a houserules category.

And I agree that he is fixating too much on this tactic. I think he feels that this is a "fundamental" ability that 4E dropped the ball in not allowing. He doesn't want to make into a power, because he feels that's the equivalent of having to take a feat or power in order to bull rush or charge.

The character concept he wants is basically a rehash of a character he played in a D20 game previously.

Trust me, it's frustrating for me too, feeling forced to defend what I feel is an arbitrary and unimportant "feature" that was "omitted". He seems to focus on the things that are no longer possible, without really seeing what new things have become possible. He has trouble seeing that it's different, but it's not really a net loss.

I think he seems to resent changes and omissions in 4.0 that were "unnecessary" and doesn't seem to see how that many of these "unnecessary" changes really were necessary to fit in with the overall design philosophy changes.

Everytime he finds out some random 3E combat maneuvers isn't standard in 4E, he has a negative reaction. He also resents that monsters in 4E don't "follow the same rules" as PCs. Things that I truly see as ranging from not a real loss, to sometimes a positive thing. I was so sick of shtick builds in 3.0 that typically were about forcing enemies to provoke AoO's using some gimmick and punishing them for it.

 

[Destil]

How about this: Disarm is completely analogous to prone. The opponent, however, instead of falling is fumbling around on the ground for their weapon. Then your guy just takes a bunch of powers that make the opponent 'disarmed'. Prone + slide is when you knock the weapon away and they have to scramble for it.

 

[Klaus]

How about this: Disarm is completely analogous to prone. The opponent, however, instead of falling is fumbling around on the ground for their weapon. Then your guy just takes a bunch of powers that make the opponent 'disarmed'. Prone + slide is when you knock the weapon away and they have to scramble for it.

That's a great description of Downward Spiral (Rogue Daily 5), a close burst 1 that is an auto-prone. Just imagine a swashbuckling rogue wirling his rapier and knocking the weapons of all foes surrounding him! Awesome!