Disarm is too small an effect to show up in 4E really. People want disarm to be some big huge effect that permanently alters combat, but 4E combat is modeled after anime or WWE "wrestling" where someone is bleeding on the canvas, they take a healing surge, spring back up and are suddenly jumping from the top ropes slamming their opponent to the mat. What happens when The Undertaker has the chair knocked out of his hands or Jackie Chan's vase gets shattered? They pick it or something else up and keep going.
D&D 4E Disarm in 4E
Disarm is too small an effect to show up in 4E really. People want disarm to be some big huge effect that permanently alters combat, but 4E combat is modeled after anime or WWE "wrestling" where someone is bleeding on the canvas, they take a healing surge, spring back up and are suddenly jumping from the top ropes slamming their opponent to the mat. What happens when The Undertaker has the chair knocked out of his hands or Jackie Chan's vase gets shattered? They pick it or something else up and keep going.
tyrlaan
Explorer
This seems like an extreme assessment. The player could just want disarm rules. Just because 4E doesn't have them doesn't mean he's opposed to 4E as a whole.
I think this is a mistake. The concept of disarming makes far too much logical sense to just brush off because 4E chose not to handle it RAW. There are plenty of things I think a game can expect a player to suspend disbelief for, but this one just goes too far in my opinion. Trip attacks are in the same family here.
I do think that the player is expecting a bit much, however. My vote would be to use the stunting rules and adjust as you go. The player has to understand that whatever you build to support this ability is going to require playtesting because 4E RAW does not support what he wants to do. And if he really wants to do it a lot, the idea of building a power to support it makes a lot of sense. Also, don't forget that in 3E a disarm attempt provoked an OA. I'd say it should in 4E as well, regardless of the implementation you decide on.
Overall, I feel like people are too willing to say "it's not in the 4E rules, so you can't do it." I think this is a bad trend that people need to get past. Saying yes (with caveats) is a much better place to be as a GM than saying no.
Gort
Explorer
Yeah, I don't really like the "intimidate bloodied opponent into surrendering" mechanic, because it's really easy to get a ton of bonuses in skills. Perhaps if the intimidate mechanic was rebalanced to take into account that anyone who really wants to can get massive bonuses to it (basically make the intimidate DCs a lot higher) then I'd agree with this solution.
Anyone know what the highest Acrobat skill bonus you could get at level 1 is?
Alabast
First Post
Regicide had it right. Disarming should be a option for when you knock an opponent to 0 hit points, because disarming someone is effectively the same as defeating them.
If your friend is a simulationist, that's fine, but he needs to understand that D&D 4e is NOT a simulationist system. 3rd edition is the simulationist system, with 4e being a deliberate attempt to make the game more balanced and gamist, like a MMO.
That said, if you REALLY want to give him a system for disarming, make sure it is not something he can do off the bat in a single round. If it were me, I'd require that the enemy be already bloodied, and the PC have combat advantage and spend an action point after hitting the opponent.
If your friend is a simulationist, that's fine, but he needs to understand that D&D 4e is NOT a simulationist system. 3rd edition is the simulationist system, with 4e being a deliberate attempt to make the game more balanced and gamist, like a MMO.
That said, if you REALLY want to give him a system for disarming, make sure it is not something he can do off the bat in a single round. If it were me, I'd require that the enemy be already bloodied, and the PC have combat advantage and spend an action point after hitting the opponent.
Nytmare
David Jose
I had been thinking along the lines of retooling the intimidate rules at first, but then I remembered that intimidate has the catch that if you don't make the check, you can't try to intimidate them anymore. I think that will stick in too many throats to work effectively as a "I want to disarm them and pick up their sword and continue combat till I murder them" kind of rule.
My vote is to use the things that already exist in the game, and call them disarming. You intimidate someone? You got someone to 0 hitpoints? Great, you knock their sword out of their hands and they give up. If that doesn't fit in their world view, give anyone disarmed person a lone imaginary hitpoint so the player can take it away from them. If even that doesn't work, I'd begin to question whether it's the concept they like or the previous editions overpowerd combo.
My vote is to use the things that already exist in the game, and call them disarming. You intimidate someone? You got someone to 0 hitpoints? Great, you knock their sword out of their hands and they give up. If that doesn't fit in their world view, give anyone disarmed person a lone imaginary hitpoint so the player can take it away from them. If even that doesn't work, I'd begin to question whether it's the concept they like or the previous editions overpowerd combo.
tyrlaan
Explorer
While I'm not keen on the incessant 4E = MMO on tabletop analogy, if you want to take that route, you're argument is wrong. WoW has disarm mechanics and it's quite prevalent. Players and mobs alike can disarm and its a temporary loss of your weapon, which does indeed both reduce your damage output as well as restrict what abilities you can use.
So if 4E is a tabletop MMO, it should support disarm.
inkmonkeys
First Post
Offhand, I'd guess 17.
The real question to ask if you're going to make up disarm rules is to decide how badly you want the enemy to be screwed over when you disarm them.
Lets suppose you want to use the regular rules for weapons dropped in the square of their owner. In that situation, unless you can move the enemy after you disarm him, he's going to lose a minor action picking the weapon back up. Price that as you will.
Lets suppose you want to make the weapon fall away from him. If its within one square, he can shift over and pick it up. You've basically forced your enemy to move one space and then spend a minor action. Price that as you will, its about as good as sliding your foe one space and then dazing them, minus the combat advantage.
Lets suppose you want to make it so that the weapon is stolen, or flies far away, or so that the disarm is coupled with an attack that pushes the enemy far from his weapon. In that case your enemy will have to fight with a secondary weapon, or go through great lengths to get his weapon back. He may even be incapable of making meaningful attacks in the meantime. That's going to be more equivalent to being weakened (using a crappy new weapon), or getting extra attacks (forcing your foe to provoke OAs to run over and get his sword). Price that as you will.
Personally, I go for the "disarm = 0 hp and not dead" theory. It fits better with disarming someone as a means of actually stopping them from fighting.
Lets suppose you want to use the regular rules for weapons dropped in the square of their owner. In that situation, unless you can move the enemy after you disarm him, he's going to lose a minor action picking the weapon back up. Price that as you will.
Lets suppose you want to make the weapon fall away from him. If its within one square, he can shift over and pick it up. You've basically forced your enemy to move one space and then spend a minor action. Price that as you will, its about as good as sliding your foe one space and then dazing them, minus the combat advantage.
Lets suppose you want to make it so that the weapon is stolen, or flies far away, or so that the disarm is coupled with an attack that pushes the enemy far from his weapon. In that case your enemy will have to fight with a secondary weapon, or go through great lengths to get his weapon back. He may even be incapable of making meaningful attacks in the meantime. That's going to be more equivalent to being weakened (using a crappy new weapon), or getting extra attacks (forcing your foe to provoke OAs to run over and get his sword). Price that as you will.
Personally, I go for the "disarm = 0 hp and not dead" theory. It fits better with disarming someone as a means of actually stopping them from fighting.
Halfling rogue, Dex 20, trained in Acrobatics, Skill Focus: Acrobatics = +15. What am I missing?
Options:
1. If you just want the guy to play let him have whatever he wants for the power, then just don't ever send monsters that use weapons against the party.
2. Whatever you decide for the effect make sure it's realistic including the -16 to hit and such mentioned by another poster by the time you hit epic. Make sure to include several monsters in every battle with said power and just wait for him to ask you to get rid of the power.
3. Sarcasm aside I think the best option I've seen here is the weakened condition. Give him an at-will power that does NO DAMAGE but inflicts the weakened condition (save ends). What, he wanted to do damage AND disarm? This gives it a good existing system effect and a way to overcome the effect, plus you now have to CHOOSE what you're going to do....did I want to disarm him or kill him? Also this allows you to let anyone use the power. Make it STR vs. AC, but also work with that combat training feat so you can use your prime stat for it.
Me? I'd go with option 2.
1. If you just want the guy to play let him have whatever he wants for the power, then just don't ever send monsters that use weapons against the party.
2. Whatever you decide for the effect make sure it's realistic including the -16 to hit and such mentioned by another poster by the time you hit epic. Make sure to include several monsters in every battle with said power and just wait for him to ask you to get rid of the power.
3. Sarcasm aside I think the best option I've seen here is the weakened condition. Give him an at-will power that does NO DAMAGE but inflicts the weakened condition (save ends). What, he wanted to do damage AND disarm? This gives it a good existing system effect and a way to overcome the effect, plus you now have to CHOOSE what you're going to do....did I want to disarm him or kill him? Also this allows you to let anyone use the power. Make it STR vs. AC, but also work with that combat training feat so you can use your prime stat for it.
Me? I'd go with option 2.
