Is disarm useless?

[Hypersmurf]

This is correct. The rule variant is on page 69 of Sword and Fist, under "Double-Handed Disarm." It applies to anyone fighting unarmed, and it says nothing about being able to grab the weapon instead of it dropping to the ground.

It doesn't have to - that part is in the PHB.

p137, Disarm : "If you attempted the Disarm action unarmed, you now have the weapon. Otherwise it's on the ground at the defender's feet."

-Hyp.

 

[Al]

The problem I see with Disarm is that after about 1st level, all but the very most goonish of enemy warriors are going to have Locked Gauntlets. I mean, they are a trivial amount of money compared to PC/NPC wealth past first level, and they defuse a rather nasty little set of attacks. Of course, they aren't foolproof (a fighter with greatsword versus the halfling dagger-wielding rogue can still use disarm very effectively) but they do pretty much mess up Disarm against opponents of roughly equal calibre. Or is this just not the case?

 

[Mistwell]

The problem I see with Disarm is that after about 1st level, all but the very most goonish of enemy warriors are going to have Locked Gauntlets. I mean, they are a trivial amount of money compared to PC/NPC wealth past first level, and they defuse a rather nasty little set of attacks. Of course, they aren't foolproof (a fighter with greatsword versus the halfling dagger-wielding rogue can still use disarm very effectively) but they do pretty much mess up Disarm against opponents of roughly equal calibre. Or is this just not the case?

In all my D&D'ing days, I've never encountered a single opponant with locked gauntlets. It's just not stylish!

 

[AuraSeer]

Locked gauntlets might be useful, but only if you never need that hand for anything else. Putting a weapon into the gauntlet is a full-round action that provokes an AoO. Unless you know for sure that your opponents will try to disarm you, there are plenty of more productive ways to spend that round.