Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N0Man" data-source="post: 4869981" data-attributes="member: 64066">So, I've been trying to gather players for a new gaming group (since I've moved), and I have one potential player that is much more of a stimulationist than I am.&nbsp; In fact, he's my former DM from my 2E and 3.0 days.&nbsp; So anyway, he keeps bringing up disarm.&nbsp; While I disagree, he seems to think of disarming as a really basic and fundamental maneuver, and seemingly bugged when I tell him that there aren't any rules specific to disarming.I suggested that that it could be treated as a &quot;stunt&quot; if it comes up.&nbsp; He asked about the possibility of making a character where disarming was a major theme (a monk who carries no weapons,&nbsp; disarms foes and even uses their own weapons against them).I suggested that if it was something they were going to do that regularly, then maybe it might be something that might justify a homemade feat or power, but he strongly rejected this idea since he seems to think that disarming a foe shouldn't require a feat or power anymore than being able to charge or bull rush an opponent.I'm sympathetic to his desire to have disarm, but I'm wary of letting it turn into the old 3.0 shtick builds that often seemed either cheesey or metagamey.&nbsp; What's the best way to handle this?I'm thinking of treating it as a stunt (but a kind of pre-established stunt that we can reference again as needed). Do you think allowing an essentially at-wil stunt is reasonable?Maybe, as an example:Flashy DisarmAt-Will, Standard ActionTarget: One creature Attack:&nbsp;&nbsp; Dexterity vs ReflexHit:&nbsp; Slide the creature's weapon a number of squares equal to your Dexterity modifier, and the creature is Disarmed (receives a -2 penalty to both Hit and Damage for all melee attacks with the Weapon keyword).Does that sound reasonable?&nbsp; Any other thoughts?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N0Man, post: 4869981, member: 64066"] So, I've been trying to gather players for a new gaming group (since I've moved), and I have one potential player that is much more of a stimulationist than I am. In fact, he's my former DM from my 2E and 3.0 days. So anyway, he keeps bringing up disarm. While I disagree, he seems to think of disarming as a really basic and fundamental maneuver, and seemingly bugged when I tell him that there aren't any rules specific to disarming. I suggested that that it could be treated as a "stunt" if it comes up. He asked about the possibility of making a character where disarming was a major theme (a monk who carries no weapons, disarms foes and even uses their own weapons against them). I suggested that if it was something they were going to do that regularly, then maybe it might be something that might justify a homemade feat or power, but he strongly rejected this idea since he seems to think that disarming a foe shouldn't require a feat or power anymore than being able to charge or bull rush an opponent. I'm sympathetic to his desire to have disarm, but I'm wary of letting it turn into the old 3.0 shtick builds that often seemed either cheesey or metagamey. What's the best way to handle this? I'm thinking of treating it as a stunt (but a kind of pre-established stunt that we can reference again as needed). Do you think allowing an essentially at-wil stunt is reasonable? Maybe, as an example: Flashy Disarm At-Will, Standard Action Target: One creature Attack: Dexterity vs Reflex Hit: Slide the creature's weapon a number of squares equal to your Dexterity modifier, and the creature is Disarmed (receives a -2 penalty to both Hit and Damage for all melee attacks with the Weapon keyword). Does that sound reasonable? Any other thoughts? [/QUOTE]

Verification