Disarming a Prone Opponent

[Hypersmurf]

Should both Prone modifiers apply to the Opposed Attack Rolls when disarming a prone opponent?

-4 to the Prone guy for "Attacker Prone", and +4 to the disarmer for "Defender Prone"?

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

I'd say "no". The prone character isn't attacking.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'd say "no". The prone character isn't attacking.

But he's making an attack roll.

I'm not sure which modifiers apply to the defender in a Disarm, though.

Would you take into account a non-proficiency penalty?
Racial Attack Bonus, like gnomes vs goblins?
True Strike?
Bane Weapons?

Edit - and which of those would apply to the attacker in a Disarm?

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

I'm seeing a distinction between "attacking" and being forced to make "an opposed attack roll".

Certainly different DMs will rule differently on your detailed investigation. For me:

- Non-proficiency, yes, disarm mentions "with your respective weapons".
- Racial bonus, no, the attack isn't really against the person of the target.
- Bane weapons, no, see above.
- True strike, ambiguous, the spell mentions both "next attack" and "next single attack roll". For the defender I'd fall on the side of "no" to prevent the spell from being robbed by a disarm attempt.

For the attacker, I'd answer the same, except allow true strike to apply as well.

 

[Hypersmurf]

For the defender I'd fall on the side of "no" to prevent the spell from being robbed by a disarm attempt.

I think I'd be inclined, from a "should" standpoint, to certainly allow the spell to be robbed by a disarm attempt.

If someone makes the Spellcraft check to identify True Strike being cast, and figures "Better do something about that!", I'd think forcing an opposed attack roll would be a perfect way to do it.

As for Prone, isn't that relatively similar to the non-proficiency penalty? NPP - you're awkward because you don't know what you're doing. Prone - you're awkward 'cos you're in a lousy position.

-Hyp.

 

[Sejs]

Should both Prone modifiers apply to the Opposed Attack Rolls when disarming a prone opponent?

I'd say yes. It's harder to hold onto your weapon if you can't move like you're trained to fight. Various prone fighting feats/abilities would remove that thru additional training.

I'm not sure which modifiers apply to the defender in a Disarm, though.

Would you take into account a non-proficiency penalty?
Racial Attack Bonus, like gnomes vs goblins?
True Strike?
Bane Weapons?

Non-prof? Yes - you don't know how to use it, you should be easier to disarm.

Racial Attack Bonus? Yes - trained to fight the race all around, I'd say. However, I tend to give humanoid races attack bonuses to match their demihuman counterparts. Cept giants, I see that as mainly a size thing.

True Strike? No - spirit of the spell indicates that it's for making you be able to hit someone, not defend against being hit.

Bane Weapons? Yes - the weapon is made to be more effective against the target. *shrug*


Just my oppinions.

 

[e3_Jeb]

I'd say yes in regard to the prone defender. If you think about this in a movie sense then it's just like stepping on the guys sword so he can't use it. Well that's my cents...

 

[Li Shenron]

- Non-proficiency, yes, disarm mentions "with your respective weapons".
- Racial bonus, no, the attack isn't really against the person of the target.
- Bane weapons, no, see above.
- True strike, ambiguous, the spell mentions both "next attack" and "next single attack roll". For the defender I'd fall on the side of "no" to prevent the spell from being robbed by a disarm attempt.

I'll toss my opinion too...

I would apply all the above to the disarm-attacker, and all except True Strike to the disarm-defender: I agree to consider the disarm attempt an "attack" and the counterroll something different. I am not 100% sure of disallowing TS anyway, at least there should be the possibility for the defender to benefit from it, if he really wanted, not to be disarmed.

I would apply Racial bonuses because I decided to consider them the result of experience in fighting that creature (e.g. reading body language, knowing the typical training or attitudes...) just as Ranger's favored enemy bonuses, and I apply racial bonuses also to grapple checks for example.

I would apply Bane bonuses from the weapon because I decided to consider them the magic attitude of the weapon to inspire the wielder to do the right thing against the specific creature.

Also, the main reason for the above would be to keep it simple, which is usually my #1 concern.

Perhaps I would not apply the -4 to the prone defender to resist disarm, but only to the counter-disarm attempt if he does any.