Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tyrlaan" data-source="post: 4870403" data-attributes="member: 20998">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 &quot;it's not in the 4E rules, so you can't do it.&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tyrlaan, post: 4870403, member: 20998"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification