Disarm rules

[generalhenry]

Since 1e, rangers have always been archers or two weapon fighters that dealt good damage and were light armored and mobile.

That where inferior to fighters at both archer and two weapon fighting.

I will admit I skipped 1E and so I'm talking 2E here, but in 2E Fighters, paladins and rangers where warriors. Same attack bonus HP etc..

The same was true in 3E.

It wasn't until 3.5 that they started to shift. But even then they where inferior since the fighter hadn't given up his martial superiority.


4E is the first edition where rangers do more damage than fighters.
No I don't think it's because they copied WoW hunters. I think it's because they copied the design philosophy for balancing classes.

That game play balanced trumps all other factors. Fighters may be the masters of weapons, but that does not mean that other classes shouldn't out damage them with weapons.

Yes I am aware the hunter is a lot more influenced by the ranger than the other way around. But the important part isn't to look at what stayed the same. It's to look at what changed.

I will admit it's a weak example.

Most the shift really occurred in the fighter class.

 

[generalhenry]

In movies, when someone gets disarmed, it usually marks the end of the combat.

Disarming as a variant of the don't have to kill at 0 HP rule.

Bravo

 

[Felon]

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.

I gotta say, the notion of trying to take a meaningful option and make it a meaningless bit of description is going to leave a bad taste in my mouth, as well as that of the player who thinks it's a good way to gain a tactical advantage against a foe. I've seen plenty of movies where losing your weapon didn't render a character incapable of acting. If it shouldn't be effective against big bads, then make it hard to do against big bads.

Removing the ability to undertake reasonable actions just because they seem "ugly" from a gamist point of view is a big step towards taking away the big feature makes PnP gaming superior to other types of games.

 

[Felon]

W've got a lot of work to undo the reliance on "a rule for everything" that 3e bred into people...

We've also gotta work on people in rules forums offering up rule zero as a novel response that had gone unconsidered until they brought it up. Sure, the ability to improvise in unusual situations is important, but having a formal and consistent rule for something that can up with regularity is desirable. Disarm could come up way more often than, say, pushing a monster into a brazier. That's why it's an "ugly mechanic" after all.

 

[generalhenry]

Removing the ability to simulate reasonable actions

I don't think we need to remove it. But the main cinematic use is at the end, so his version works for the main use of disarm.

Yes there are times when the disarm should happen mid fight. The fighter ability covers those to an extent and Paul Strack's version covers the rest I think.

That's why it's an "ugly mechanic" after all.

The reason it's so ugly is because while HP damage hurts everyone equally. Disarming can vary from trivial to completely crippling.

Even worse it can end up completely crippling to a solo monster. It needs to be balanced considering that possibility.

Which leads to the unsatisfactory result that for against 99% of possible targets it will be a very weak option.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Even worse it can end up completely crippling to a solo monster. It needs to be balanced considering that possibility.

Which leads to the unsatisfactory result that for against 99% of possible targets it will be a very weak option.

What if:
Elites get +5 vs. Disarm.
Solos get +10 vs. Disarm.

That might help.

 

[generalhenry]

What if:
Elites get +5 vs. Disarm.
Solos get +10 vs. Disarm.

That might help.

certainly would.

hmm.

Elites +2
Solos +5

to keep it inline with the save bonuses.

 

[keterys]

So... Furious Smash or Righteous Brand, then Disarm?

 

[generalhenry]

So... Furious Smash or Righteous Brand, then Disarm?

yep. pulling in a team effort and defeating an elite is fine.

 

[Jonathan Drain]

It's reasonably easy to add disarm back into the game as a combat option, but the question is, do you want to?

Say you fight a villain who's deadly with a sword. An attack will deal him damage, but a sunder or disarm will be just as easy to manage and renders him nearly powerless for the rest of the combat. Don't forget that this could be used by an enemy against your weapon, too.

Perhaps it's a matter of changing the tone of combat. You can't called shot to decapitate someone because the meaning of hit points is that you can keep fighting until you run out. Allowing you to lose your weapon, at least while you still had hit points left, is almost as bad.