Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 5498545" data-attributes="member: 12460">My personal feelings are that the crux of the issue is poor definitions in the original rules set of how to adjudicate actions beyond simple "I swing my sword" attacks. If the player wants to disarm his foe, there are some very generalized guidelines for the Dungeon Master (if you are playing AD&D and have the AD&D DMG) on how to do this, but for the most part, it is left for the DM to decide how this is accomplished (what kind of roll) and how difficult it is (how high the player needs to roll).A permissive DM who wants to encourage unique tactics might just have the player roll to hit the weapon against AC 10. A less permissive DM who wants to allow such things but doesn't think they should be easy might simply call for an opposed attack roll. A DM who doesn't think it should be possible for whatever reason ("the goblin has a firm grip" or "the ogre is too strong for you to knock his club away"), even if it isn't a really good reason, might simply disallow it.As the game has evolved, more of the rules have been put into the hands of the players so that there is common agreement on what is allowed, and how it is done. This leads to less diversity in gaming experience, which is arguably either a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view. But players tend to prefer knowing how the mechanics work for more than just swinging a sword to strike an enemy. After all, the wizard gets very descriptive examples of how his spells work, under which conditions, and how likely they are to succeed. Why should the fighter be so much different?</blockquote>

Verification