Disarm, why so easy?

[Tarquis]

Having a problem with a monk who is now 8th level and is starting to disarm every enemy he can. The way I read it, a disarm requires an opposed attack roll, with all the adjunct modifiers for weapon size, Improved Disarm, etc. This guy is now ripping wands swords and all sorts of items off enemies. He has a +7 attack as he fluries when he does it.

The thing that annoys me is the fact that he is not even required to be able to hit the guy. eg, wizard foe has a brooch of shielding protecting him from the party wizard. The wizard has spells running to the point where he is AC 28, so the monk needs a 20 to hit while flurrying. Yet, to grab the brooch off the wizard, he only has to beat the wizard in an oppossed attack roll, and the monk gets a +4 bonus as stated in the example on page 155. So the monk can hardly hit the guy, finds it difficult to even touch the guy, yet can easily rip a small brooch off him?

The other thing is how easily he can grab a wand that the wizard is holding. The poor wizard actually has a -4 penalty to his roll as it isn't a weapon. Why is there not an opposed strength check to actually wrest it out of his grasp?

Am I missing something here or is disarm really meant to be this easy?

And yes, I know about locked gauntlets, but that is only part of the problem.

 

[frankthedm]

The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a -4 penalty. (An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon, so you always take a penalty when trying to disarm an opponent by using an unarmed strike.)

And i have always felt the +4 bonus was too generous for the feat, IMHO avoiding the AoO is more than enough.

 

[Graf]

The rule works fine in most games.
It sounds like you’re creating nigh-invulnerable NPCs (a wizard with a 28 AC who is protected from magical attacks?) and getting irritated when players think out-of-the-box and solve the problem.

So the monk has a good chance of pulling off a broach on a wizard… so what? The wizard has a good chance of blasting the monk into putty.

Monks are generally a sub-optimal class, and the disarm technique is only going to work optimally against a small group of foes. The vast majority of DnD games focus on conflicts with monsters, who rarely have anything significant to be disarmed of or creatures with high BABs.

Trotting out a specific example when a normally ineffectual tactic (disarm) works really well doesn’t really prove anything about how balanced a mechanic is.

I don’t know anything about the player but if someone in my game were doing something interesting or unusual I would be inclined to praise them, instead of punish them.

 

[Doomhawk]

I'm inclined to agree with Graf, this sounds like one of the rare situations where Disarm is truly useful. Especially with a +7 bonus at 8th level, he won't be able to disarm much of anything other than a wizard.
If you continually find it to be a problem, though, you could houserule that disarming requires a touch attack, like tripping.

 

[Legildur]

Facing a total party kill, my elven paladin successfully grabbed and disarmed the half-demon of her Chaos Diamond. While the negative level was no joy, it was probably the one manuevre that saved our bacon - another Word of Chaos or similar would have had disasterous consequences. My character then went on to Sunder (with a readied action) the half-demon's spell pouch when she went to cast something horrific. My character has neither the Improved Disarm nor Improved Sunder feat, but against a squishy (like this sorceror) it was a viable (and successful) tactic. He wouldn't try it against a warrior type.

 

[FireLance]

Am I missing something here or is disarm really meant to be this easy?

Against a wizard? Yes.

The other thing is how easily he can grab a wand that the wizard is holding. The poor wizard actually has a -4 penalty to his roll as it isn't a weapon. Why is there not an opposed strength check to actually wrest it out of his grasp?

The opposed attack roll is the opposed strength check (plus a few modifiers, and substitutions for feats like Weapon Finesse).

Yet, to grab the brooch off the wizard, he only has to beat the wizard in an oppossed attack roll, and the monk gets a +4 bonus as stated in the example on page 155. So the monk can hardly hit the guy, finds it difficult to even touch the guy, yet can easily rip a small brooch off him?

Is the brooch well-secured (see "Grabbing Items")? If so, the monk can only rip it off with a grapple check, which brings me to my final point:

Monk vs wizard? Be thankful he's trying to disarm instead of trying to grapple.

 

[Plane Sailing]

eg, wizard foe has a brooch of shielding protecting him from the party wizard. The wizard has spells running to the point where he is AC 28, so the monk needs a 20 to hit while flurrying. Yet, to grab the brooch off the wizard, he only has to beat the wizard in an oppossed attack roll,

is the wizard holding the brooch of shielding in his hand?

Grabbing Items

You can use a disarm action to snatch an item worn by the target. If you want to have the item in your hand, the disarm must be made as an unarmed attack.

If the item is poorly secured or otherwise easy to snatch or cut away the attacker gets a +4 bonus. Unlike on a normal disarm attempt, failing the attempt doesn’t allow the defender to attempt to disarm you. This otherwise functions identically to a disarm attempt, as noted above.

You can’t snatch an item that is well secured unless you have pinned the wearer (see Grapple). Even then, the defender gains a +4 bonus on his roll to resist the attempt.

I would have thought that a brooch would, by nature, have been considered well secured.

Also don't forget than an unarmed disarm attempt always has a -4 penalty on the opposed check as it counts as a light weapon

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The other thing is how easily he can grab a wand that the wizard is holding. The poor wizard actually has a -4 penalty to his roll as it isn't a weapon. Why is there not an opposed strength check to actually wrest it out of his grasp?

Very few wizards would be helped by making a Strength check to resist. Most Monks (and any other melee fighter) are usually stronger than Wizards.

As others have noted: Keep in mind that the Monk suffers a -4 penalty for using his hands (light weapon). Otherwise, not much can be done to help the Wizard. One of the most important defensive tactics for a Wizard is to stay out of melee. One of the best tricks to do this is usually flying above the enemy. But eventually, the characters will pick up Potions or other items that allow them to fly, too, so it's only a temporary solution.

My personal experience with feats like Improved Disarm or Improved Sunder is that most opponents don't have items worth being disarmed or sundered - demons, dragons, abberations usually don't hold a lot in their hand. You'd have to disarm or sunder them of their claws, bites, wings, tails, which unfortunately is only possible by dealing enough damage to kill them.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I agree with FireLance and Plane Sailing. The brooch should be considered well-secured. In fact, IMO unless something is in hand (and not a ring), it should be considered well-secured. Even more importantly, however, how did the monk see the brooch? Was it not under the robe of the archmagi? Did the monk roll a successful spot check? How did the monk know to grab the brooch at all? Surely, it could have been ornamental. In fact, I frequently deck out my bad guys with spare jewelry so as to confound opponents. In this case, even if you rule it wasn't well-secured, you could ask the monk, "You want to grab his brooch? Which one? He has three."

 

[Artoomis]

I agree with FireLance and Plane Sailing. The brooch should be considered well-secured. In fact, IMO unless something is in hand (and not a ring), it should be considered well-secured. Even more importantly, however, how did the monk see the brooch? Was it not under the robe of the archmagi? Did the monk roll a successful spot check? How did the monk know to grab the brooch at all? Surely, it could have been ornamental. In fact, I frequently deck out my bad guys with spare jewelry so as to confound opponents. In this case, even if you rule it wasn't well-secured, you could ask the monk, "You want to grab his brooch? Which one? He has three."

First, the rules do not define "well-secured," but the game also give some guidance.

There appear to be four categories (you have to read the PHB to really get this right, I think):

Universal rules: Provokes AoO. Opposed attack roll.

1. A weapon in-hand. +4 for two-handed weapon, -4 for light.

2. Item not a weapon. No opposed roll. -4 to opponent's roll

3. Item on person, poorly secured or easily cut away, +4 to attacker's roll. -4 to opponent's roll.

4. Item on person, well-secured, cannot be taken except in a grapple, if pinned, and then defender gets +4 to the opposed roll.

PHB Examples:

Ordinary item (number 2 above): Necklace or goggles.

Poorly secured (number 3 above): Loose cloak or brooch pinned to the front of a tunic.

Well-secured (number 4 above): Ring or bracelet.

There you have it. Not too many things are well-secured.

I used to think there was no opposed roll if the item was not a melee weapon, but re-reading it I see this is not so.