Disarm rules

[Thasmodious]

They didn't rip anything off.

But they did borrow heavily

Tank
Dps
Healer

v

defender
striker
leader
controller

It's not quite 1-1 and it flowed both ways. WoW borrowed from D&D.
#1 by accident. With 4E WotC is trying to repeat the success of WoW in PnP form.

You must be new to gaming. The concept of "tank" wasn't invented by MMOers, its been around since 1e. In the 1e PHB there is a section about it being ideal to balance a party around the character roles - tank, wizard, healer, skill monkey (not their terminology, but tank has been in use since the 70s).

When 4e has elements that D&D has always had, but that also happen to be elements that WoW borrowed from D&D, that doesn't mean that D&D is now "reborrowing" them from WoW. They were already there. Roles are nothing new, just the terminology is more set and the concept more internalized than before. Your class comparison list is ridiculous, since those are all classes D&D has always had. There has always been a fighter class. Just because WoW has a warrior class doesn't mean D&D somehow copied WoW by having the fighter class its always had in its new edition, nor wizard, cleric, paladin, ranger...

Your reasoning is really, quite incredibly, flawed.

 

[Paul Strack]

The problem I see there is that it covers actions that you can't do with existing powers. But in this case there is an existing power. Should we really let players parrot powers using DMG42?

Um ... yes? Provided that it would be something a normal person can reasonably do.

You just need to make sure the "generic" maneuver is distinctly worse than the power. For example:

Disarm: Attack vs. Reflex + 5, no damage. If you hit, your opponent's weapon drops at his feet (not yours).

You can pick up a weapon as a minor action only if you occupy its square, so you would need to figure out how to push away your enemy to get his weapon and to keep him from just picking it up again on his turn.

I really don't think faking these kinds of things are that hard.

 

[generalhenry]

You must be new to gaming.

been playing since OD&D

just the terminology is more set and the concept more internalized than before.

the concept existed. But 4E formalized it into the design.

My point wasn't about the roles. It was about the design influences.

since those are all classes D&D has always had.

Most the classes did exist, but their design was influenced. Rangers where a warrior variant in previous editions, they where changed to a striker similar to the hunter class.


The 4E class list is closer to the WoW class list than it is to the 3E class list.

 

[generalhenry]

I really don't think faking these kinds of things are that hard.

I didn't say no, I just asked the question.

And I think you gave the right answer. Yes, but we should use existing powers as an upper limit and aim much lower.

Disarm: Attack vs. Reflex + 5, no damage. If you hit, your opponent's weapon drops at his feet (not yours).

You can pick up a weapon as a minor action only if you occupy its square, so you would need to figure out how to push away your enemy to get his weapon and to keep him from just picking it up again on his turn.

well done. The recovery is the key I think.

 

[Thasmodious]

There where outside influences on the design.
Disarm is an ugly game mechanic.

Now both of those I will agree with. What MMOs got right have certainly influenced PnP RPGs, and 4e D&D, and for the better. The biggest one has been achieving effective class balance. A model where classes are easily balanced because they share the same framework is a simple and elegant way to achieve balance. MMOs didn't invent the idea, but they certainly ran with it and "perfected" it. Class balance is an essential element of an MMO. Balancing the game around powers is much easier than realizing an entire class is overpowered and trying to find a way to fix it. Find a broken power, fix that one power, move on with your day. Easy.

 

[generalhenry]

<--- needs to learn to say the simple answer at the start

 

[Terwox]

Yep, use p42 - figure out how hard it should be such that it compares reasonably to other options. If you want a standard solution, you need it to be on par with taking -9 attack and -15 damage at 30th level, say.

Which is... a bunch.

I do not understand where you got the -9 to attack from for level 30. In the example, she just rolls Str vs. Fort, with no negative to attack.

The -15 to damage I understand.

 

[Thasmodious]

Most the classes did exist, but their design was influenced. Rangers where a warrior variant in previous editions, they where changed to a striker similar to the hunter class.

This is where you have it backwards. Since 1e, rangers have always been archers or two weapon fighters that dealt good damage and were light armored and mobile. It was never a warrior variant, meant to play the tank role. The ranger was in the same category as the rogue, as it is now. WoW used that exact concept for its hunter class. So, in 4e, the ranger continues with the same schtick its always had, but somehow, now, its a copy of the hunter class that was a copy of the ranger class?? That's Vizzini level logic right there.

"but being an educated man, you would know that the hunter came from the ranger class, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me"

 

[erik_the_guy]

To be honest, I do see disarming as a little imbalanced. You can end a fight pretty quickly with it. In movies, when someone gets disarmed, it usually marks the end of the combat.
Here is my take:
- An enemy at high HP is likely to be holding their weapon tightly.
- When a player gets a monster to 0 HP they can knock it out instead.
- Once the monster is reduced to 0 HP, I say "with a flourish of your sword, you knock the weapon out of your foes hand and point your blade at his throat".

Here you can incorporate disarming into the game as fluff rather than trying to work it in against the rules.
If the players are insistent on disarming a conscious opponent, keep in mind that a level 17 fighter power does the same thing, and balance it against that.
Ex: to disarm an opponent, it must be bloodied. Then, when you hit with an attack, instead of dealing damage you can attack again (STR against reflex) to disarm the opponent. Maybe add the enemies magic weapon bonus to the difficulty.

 

[keterys]

I do not understand where you got the -9 to attack from for level 30. In the example, she just rolls Str vs. Fort, with no negative to attack.

The -15 to damage I understand.

The equivalent of losing your +6 Weapon of Choice is roughly on par with losing 9 to attack and 15 to damage in many situations. In some situations, not quite so much, but it's an important consideration.