Disarm, why so easy?

[Ridley's Cohort]

It's not only the wizards, but all his bodyguards as well. I'll admit they were 3rd to 4th level bodyguards wielding bastard swords one handed. With his flurrying, he was disarming one per round and grabbing their swords.

Yes, a wizard is weak in melee, so does this mean that effectively a wizard should never try to use a wand, rod or other spell item in combat? Because it will just end up being ripped out of his hand.

Maybe the Wizard should not depend on items to be effective? In a pinch, I dunno, maybe he can cast spells or something?

First of all, annoying Wizards is one of the few things a Monk does well. We might as well complain that Barbarians have an annoying habit of hitting things.

Second of all, the Monk just isn't that good at disarming. Even in the worst case, that is 2 or 3 mooks who pull out shortswords now that their +1 bastards swords are taken away. So what? A optimized Barbarian has a pretty good chance of killing 3 mooks with a Power Attack + Cleave full iterative attack.

I think one thing that bothers me is that the monk does not need a minimum attack roll. Any roll is a disarm attempt. Say a low level monk rolls a 2 and adds +7 due to feats and stuff. This doesn't even Touch (let alone hit) a flat footed peasant, yet the wizard has to beat this roll at -4 or lose his wand (which would surely be harder for the monk to hit in the first place than a flat footed peasant).

Perhaps a touch attack should be required first?

A flatfooted peasant has an AC of 10. Gee, maybe someone who cannot make a 10 in an opposed roll should be penalized if they find themselves in melee?

 

[Deset Gled]

Besdies A spell component pouch is what you can purchase. Nothing stops you from owning more than one, of course, but the game defines it as a single pouch.

What stops a character from buying a spell component pouch, and then splitting the contents up between many pockets? It makes a lot of sense to me that a character would want to store their spiders in a different place than their berries.

In play, this type of interpretation could mean that sundering or disarming of one pouch/pocket would allow the attacker to stop the caster from casting a specific spell, but not all spells. Seems like a nice compromise to me.

Edit: Or, what Pielorinho said.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Since no one has mentioned mirror image yet ... the wizard could have used mirror image.

Or Blur. Or Displacement.

I have a Wizard who runs around the G-series modules with AC 12. I figure that if a giant gets near me, it will hit. At least my AC. I have to know how to live with that fact.

Mirror Image. Protection from Arrows. Sometime Blur/Displacement. And most important of all: big, thick, happy, healthy meat shields.

Mine is an extreme example. But in my book if a Wizard is depending on AC, then he is already in trouble. Disarm is the least of his problems. Grapple is more annoying, and you can never count on your Touch AC being high enough to protect you.

 

[Artoomis]

What stops a character from buying a spell component pouch, and then splitting the contents up between many pockets? It makes a lot of sense to me that a character would want to store their spiders in a different place than their berries.

In play, this type of interpretation could mean that sundering or disarming of one pouch/pocket would allow the attacker to stop the caster from casting a specific spell, but not all spells. Seems like a nice compromise to me.

Edit: Or, what Pielorinho said.

That's not the way D&D 3.5 is designed. All low-value, regular spell components fit in one pouch. If you start splitting them up, you start having to figure out how much space they REALLY take up and tracking them all. If you REALLY want ot go there, be my guest.

As it is, a spell component pouch is a virtual magic item - it's not magic, but what you need is always there and you always find what you need right away.

 

[Deset Gled]

That's not the way D&D 3.5 is designed.

D+D is designed to be so strict in definition of its items that characters are not allowed to transfer items from a pouch to a pocket, but it's also designed loosely enough that the word "until" doesn't have to mean "until"?

 

[Pielorinho]

That's not the way D&D 3.5 is designed. All low-value, regular spell components fit in one pouch. If you start splitting them up, you start having to figure out how much space they REALLY take up and tracking them all. If you REALLY want ot go there, be my guest.

First, Artoomis, I meant to reply to your post, but hit the wrong button. I hope I was able to restore your post to its original form; my apologies for my error!

Second, my reply:

Well, of course I want to go there--why is "REALLY" capitalized? There's nothing remotely difficult about it: you figure that purchasing all necessary spell components, plus a container to put them in, costs about 5 gp and weighs about 2 lb. Divide that cost and weight among as many pouches, within reason (and I submit Mialee is not within reason), as the player wants. The illustration of the spell pouch on page 130 shows two pouches side by side; there's no good reason why it couldn't be four pouches or eight pouches scattered over the body.

Finally, I'll note the wording: "A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting...." It does NOT say that "A spellcaster MUST have a spell component pouch in order to cast spells with material components and focuses." A spellcaster could easily ignore the pouch requirement altogether, carrying material components separately in a bunch of different pockets. A supremely harsh DM might require them to list the components separately, but the rules do not require it.

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

...Finally, I'll note the wording: "A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting...." It does NOT say that "A spellcaster MUST have a spell component pouch in order to cast spells with material components and focuses." A spellcaster could easily ignore the pouch requirement altogether, carrying material components separately in a bunch of different pockets. A supremely harsh DM might require them to list the components separately, but the rules do not require it.

Daniel

If you do NOT have a spell component pouch, you lose the the assumption of having "all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting." Without that assumpiton, I would presume you'd need to list them all out, track quantities, know how much space they take up, etc., etc. Who wants to do that?

 

[Pielorinho]

If you do NOT have a spell component pouch, you lose the the assumption of having "all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting." Without that assumpiton, I would presume you'd need to list them all out, track quantities, know how much space they take up, etc., etc. Who wants to do that?

As I said, a supremely harsh DM might make that requirement, although it's not specifically required by the text. The text says that with the pouch you may make that assumption. It does NOT say that without the pouch you lose that assumption, and I see no reason to forbid other ways of allowing players to maintain that assumption.

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

retracted for error.

 

[Pielorinho]

In your way, then, a character could more easily qualify for the Vow of Poverty since they do not need to have a "spell component pouch."

By the rules, nobody needs to have one. That's what I'm saying. It doesn't make sense from a common-sense perspective, and it's not what the rules say. Its effect on a power in a splatbook aren't something that especially worries me.

Daniel