Pathfinder 1E Disarm vs. Steal

[Starfox]

I am looking at the Disarm and Steal maneuvers and comparing them.

Disarm

Steal

Disarm say you can disarm an object the target is carrying. Steal is more specific, and clearly excludes things held in the hands. As far as i can see, Disarm does what Steal does, only better. Also, it is an attack rather than a standard action.

Disarm is from the basic book, Steal from Advanced Player's Guide. This means Steal did not exist when Disarm was written. You could say that later rules supersede earlier rules. But I don't think I will, I think I will let Disarm work on anything carried as per the original rules.

My reasoning is based on splatbook paralysis. This is a common phenomenon in successful games; Shadowrun was particularly susceptible. Splatbook paralysis is when something that was a feasible tactic in the original game is no longer possible once the expanded rules are published. Added rules make old tactics not worth bothering with and makes the game less heroic. In this case, it makes taking a worn object (such as a brooch) way too hard, and doubles the feat requirement if you want to be able to both Steal and Disarm.

With this ruling, Steal becomes a niche option. If you lack the Improved Unarmed Combat feat, you take a -4 penalty on unarmed Disarm attempts, which Steal does not. This is basically the only use I can see for the Steal maneuver.

Comments? Did I call this one right?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think it's meant that Steal is for items not held in hands, and disarm is for items held in hands. Yes, that's a freaking stupid, arbitrary, and insanely narrow point of distinction.

I'm still pissed that the Steal combat maneuver EXISTS.

1.) This is basically what the largely worthless Sleight of Hand skill is supposed to be for. Why couldn't stealing be a SoH check like feinting is a bluff check? They didn't feel the need to shoehorn the idiotic, broken-numbers combat maneuver mechanic on that action!

2.) Rogues should be the best at stealing. By making it a combat maneuver, things a rogue lacks, like high BAB, and being really big and strong, become of prime importance, insuring that rogues will suck at it. The best thief is a high strength barbarian, fighter, or eidolon/synthesist. Totally makes sense.


I hate all of the new combat maneuvers, really. They're too narrow and worthless, and should have just been made additional options of existing maneuvers (except steal, that should be the SoH skill). There is no good reason why drag and bull rush need to be separate maneuvers requiring their own feats and crap. Reposition could fit either w/ drag/bull rush or with trip and it'd make sense. Dirty Fighting would fit right in w/ Disarm.

 

[SteelDraco]

I think [MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION] has it right with Disarm vs Steal. Disarm is for items carried in the hands, Steal is for items on their person. I agree that it's not necessary; our group has used the disarm mechanics for other items when cutting things free with a melee weapon. I agree that Sleight of Hand vs Perception would work well too, even in a combat situation, though I'd probably have it provoke on a failed roll. It should be risky, after all. There's some precedent - there's a rogue advanced talent that lets you disarm with a Sleight of Hand check. (Why they thought that was worth a 10th+ class ability, I have no idea.)

Reposition should be a replacement for drag - there's not really any reason for the limitations on drag when reposition exists. I think you should be able to move people into dangerous terrain, though, otherwise what's the point of having dangerous terrain on the battlefield in the first place? That restriction is silly for GMs wanting to create a more interesting battlefield. Fighting on top of a cliff should have some risk of getting pitched over the cliff.

I quite like the Dirty Trick combat maneuver - it's probably my favorite, actually.

 

[Starfox]

The issue, to me, is that if my group doesn't use Advanced Player's Guide, it is clear that Disarm can do what Steal does. The expansion book adds new options, but does that mean that it can remove old options without explicitly saying so?

I guess whoever wrote the Steal rules had missed the carried word in the Disarm description.

About using diasarm/steal with Sleight of Hand, that is very useful. Not only can you have skill ranks equal to your level (instead of BAB equal to 3/4 of your level as a rogue), you also get to add 3 for a trained skill and possibly traits/feats/race to add further bonuses. And you ignore size penalties if you are Small. You still seem to provoke an AoO and suffer a -4 penalty if unarmed, it seems, so further feats are needed for this to be really good. Seems to me you do get the bonus on disarm checks on these feats, the effect is not tied to CMB. Depending on how you read the ability, you can still use this with a weapon and get enhancement and weapon bonuses.

Quite a useful option for a rogue, especially for small races or grimspawn theiflings. Until lvl 10, you have to settle for normal Disarm, but after that you become markedly better.

 

[rkarnes]

My reasoning is based on splatbook paralysis. This is a common phenomenon in successful games; Shadowrun was particularly susceptible. Splatbook paralysis is when something that was a feasible tactic in the original game is no longer possible once the expanded rules are published. Added rules make old tactics not worth bothering with and makes the game less heroic.

Yes, this. IMO, This is the single worst thing about games Pathfinder/3.5 and other popular games. I remember back in 3.5 a game broke down into arguing when one player wanted to charge, and as part of that charge, jump as per the jump rules. I allowed it, and then another player started to scream that he needed a feat to do that; that it was in one of the dozens of splat books that he pours over for character options, and that it's not fair to give one player a "free feat" when not everyone else got a "free feat".

I just kicked him out of the group right there, then got back to our running-jumping good times. We explained the sudden death of his character by saying that watching this character charge & jump was too much for his mind, and he had a stroke as he struggled to comprehend how it was possible.