Bran Blackbyrd
Explorer
takyris said:
Maybe this only seems simple to me but...
If it has ammo in it, it counts as a ranged weapon. If it's empty or the wielder cannot use it as a ranged weapon, it counts as a melee weapon.
Martial Arts in d20
- Thread starter The_Gneech
- Start date
Maybe this only seems simple to me but...
If it has ammo in it, it counts as a ranged weapon. If it's empty or the wielder cannot use it as a ranged weapon, it counts as a melee weapon.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
I'd LIKE to say that whether the pistol is currently a melee or a ranged weapon is based on how it was last used, however something in the new D&D FAQ suggests that changing grip on a weapon is a free action, which means that anyone with any sense holds it as a melee weapon whenever it's not their turn, and as a ranged weapon when they want to fire it.
Finally, I hate to inject realism into this, but can you honestly see a pistol as being easier to disarm someone of than a baseball bat (ignoring the issue of AoO's for the moment) ? Or can you see a pistol that someone just used to club someone else with as being significantly different in this respect to a pistol that was just used to shoot someone? Why should the rules be different based on the intended purpose of the object?
I'd much rather just use the fact that anything held in your hands is a melee weapon (under the improvised weapons rules), and therefore uses opposed BABs to resolve disarm attempts. Leave the 'striking an object' rules for removing things like holstered weapons and grenade pins, items which aren't being actively moved around by someone.
Finally, I hate to inject realism into this, but can you honestly see a pistol as being easier to disarm someone of than a baseball bat (ignoring the issue of AoO's for the moment) ? Or can you see a pistol that someone just used to club someone else with as being significantly different in this respect to a pistol that was just used to shoot someone? Why should the rules be different based on the intended purpose of the object?
I'd much rather just use the fact that anything held in your hands is a melee weapon (under the improvised weapons rules), and therefore uses opposed BABs to resolve disarm attempts. Leave the 'striking an object' rules for removing things like holstered weapons and grenade pins, items which aren't being actively moved around by someone.
I understand that you'd LIKE to have it be that way, as you said, but I don't think that's the case. I was under the impression that making guns easier to disarm was a balance issue.
And, frankly, YES, I DO see a gun as easier to disarm than a baseball bat. A ton easier, in fact. Heck, going halfway to meet you, I can even see a gun that's just been used to club someone as being easier than a gun that's just been used to shoot. Holding a gun in a "ready to fire" position leaves it extremely vulnerable in your hand. The position of the hand and fingers used to steady and fire a gun is far different from the "Hold it as tight as you can and swing hard" position that someone who's just clubbed it is going to use.
Counterquestion for you. You seem quite firm in your belief that the gun is ALWAYS a melee weapon for purposes of disarming. Please explain how I, with a baseball bat, can swing at the wrist of a bad guy with a gun, fail my opposed disarm check, and be disarmed in turn, as the bad guy is perfectly within his rights to do. In your game, by the rules you're using, this will be a pretty common event, and people will have their baseball bats and longswords knocked to the ground by the impressive disarming power of the handgun.
Also, please explain why they said in the rules for disarming ranged weapons, "The weapon gets a +2 bonus if held in both hands"? What ranged weapons do you see that happening with besides guns? Do people in your game run around with grenades clutched in both hands for long periods of time? The rule is pretty much written in there to make "Holding a gun in both hands" an attractive prospect. In your game, however, people will be disarming each other with their handguns, so that's kind of a moot point.
-Tacky
And, frankly, YES, I DO see a gun as easier to disarm than a baseball bat. A ton easier, in fact. Heck, going halfway to meet you, I can even see a gun that's just been used to club someone as being easier than a gun that's just been used to shoot. Holding a gun in a "ready to fire" position leaves it extremely vulnerable in your hand. The position of the hand and fingers used to steady and fire a gun is far different from the "Hold it as tight as you can and swing hard" position that someone who's just clubbed it is going to use.
Counterquestion for you. You seem quite firm in your belief that the gun is ALWAYS a melee weapon for purposes of disarming. Please explain how I, with a baseball bat, can swing at the wrist of a bad guy with a gun, fail my opposed disarm check, and be disarmed in turn, as the bad guy is perfectly within his rights to do. In your game, by the rules you're using, this will be a pretty common event, and people will have their baseball bats and longswords knocked to the ground by the impressive disarming power of the handgun.
Also, please explain why they said in the rules for disarming ranged weapons, "The weapon gets a +2 bonus if held in both hands"? What ranged weapons do you see that happening with besides guns? Do people in your game run around with grenades clutched in both hands for long periods of time? The rule is pretty much written in there to make "Holding a gun in both hands" an attractive prospect. In your game, however, people will be disarming each other with their handguns, so that's kind of a moot point.
-Tacky
Well depending on what type of gun you are using, how strong the person using it is, how skilled the person using it is, and a few other factors, most people don't hold a gun steady and all, especially when shooting for their lives. I wouldn't say that it is easier to disarm a gun. Yeah I can see what you are saying, you swing the bat at my hand to disarm me. (of course doing this is an attack on me and not a disarm attempt since hitting my hand hard enough to make me drop the gun would deal damage) While you get ready to swing I shoot you 5 times before you even get out of your wind up. It's more of a danger thing that I would say makes guns harder to disarm.
Yo Berk,
Bad terminology on my part then. No one is arguing that a bat is more effective in combat than a gun. Yes, if I hit you and you shot me, you'd win. But if I took a good solid swing at your gun and either hit the gun itself or the wrists on the hands holding the gun, dealing nonlethal damage, I have a good chance to take it out -- and the gun-wielder has very little chance to counterdisarm me. At least, in real-life, that's the case. In the game, the "gun as melee weapon" camp would hold that the gun is just like the baseball bat, except that a baseball bat is medium, and many pistols are Large, so the gun would have a +4 bonus in attempting to disarm me.
As for "Holding the gun steady", that's accounted for as a +5 bonus to defense for an object being held and not used as a melee weapon.
-Tacky
Bad terminology on my part then. No one is arguing that a bat is more effective in combat than a gun. Yes, if I hit you and you shot me, you'd win. But if I took a good solid swing at your gun and either hit the gun itself or the wrists on the hands holding the gun, dealing nonlethal damage, I have a good chance to take it out -- and the gun-wielder has very little chance to counterdisarm me. At least, in real-life, that's the case. In the game, the "gun as melee weapon" camp would hold that the gun is just like the baseball bat, except that a baseball bat is medium, and many pistols are Large, so the gun would have a +4 bonus in attempting to disarm me.
As for "Holding the gun steady", that's accounted for as a +5 bonus to defense for an object being held and not used as a melee weapon.
-Tacky
jerichothebard
First Post
takyris said:
I gotta agree whole-heartedly. Having read some of his writings (tao of Jeet Kun Do), he was all about quick, lethal blows and finishing the opponent without any fancy footwork or daring acrobatics. Even the high kicks and such in his movies were just for the camera, and he wrote rather negatively about them in his own work. This was the man who could lift highly-trained martial artists off their feet with a punch starting ONE INCH from their chests and with no windup or pulling back. I've seen the pictures.
He was all about hitting you really, really hard so that you couldn't hit him. No fancy moves, no katas, no high kicks. Just precision whoop-ass in a small Chinese container.
jericho
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Takyris - precisely how is a rule which would stop a 3rd level character from whomping a 12th level character unbalancing (even though it wont... see below)?
Next up - baseball bat vs handgun. Baseball bat medium. Handgun tiny to small. Handgun users are hardly going to be disarming the users of baseball bats left right and centre.
My arguing the point came from my thinking that the skill of the wielder of ANY object would be important in avoiding a disarm attempt.
Looking at the numbers, that actually occurs regardless of whether you're treating an object as a melee weapon or not, I just forgot the existence of defense bonuses in d20 modern.
In fact, a handgun is probably LESS likely to be disarmed under the strike an object rules than under the disarm a melee weapon rules. By my count, the ac of those pistols the gunslinger is carrying is something like 21+dex bonus, versus your attack bonus of only 3+str bonus. (and no bonuses for size for you...)
So - to sum up.
If you treat a gun as an object, the defender gets his class defense bonuses, plus his own dex bonus, plus a bonus for the gun being small. Improved disarm in this scenario means nothing, and the gun wielder gets no AoOs.
If you treat the gun as a melee weapon, the defender gets his class BAB, plus his strength bonus, minus a penalty for the gun being small. Improved disarm is required to avoid your opponent from disarming you back or gaining an AoO.
I know which one makes more logical sense to me - the second one. It also favours strong disarmers versus dextrous characters (ie it favours melee specialists over ranged specialists). Finally IMO, the more people in a combat who are capable of taking an AoO, the better - it emphasises the use of interesting tactics, and skills such as tumble.
So... take your pick.
Next up - baseball bat vs handgun. Baseball bat medium. Handgun tiny to small. Handgun users are hardly going to be disarming the users of baseball bats left right and centre.
My arguing the point came from my thinking that the skill of the wielder of ANY object would be important in avoiding a disarm attempt.
Looking at the numbers, that actually occurs regardless of whether you're treating an object as a melee weapon or not, I just forgot the existence of defense bonuses in d20 modern.
In fact, a handgun is probably LESS likely to be disarmed under the strike an object rules than under the disarm a melee weapon rules. By my count, the ac of those pistols the gunslinger is carrying is something like 21+dex bonus, versus your attack bonus of only 3+str bonus. (and no bonuses for size for you...)
So - to sum up.
If you treat a gun as an object, the defender gets his class defense bonuses, plus his own dex bonus, plus a bonus for the gun being small. Improved disarm in this scenario means nothing, and the gun wielder gets no AoOs.
If you treat the gun as a melee weapon, the defender gets his class BAB, plus his strength bonus, minus a penalty for the gun being small. Improved disarm is required to avoid your opponent from disarming you back or gaining an AoO.
I know which one makes more logical sense to me - the second one. It also favours strong disarmers versus dextrous characters (ie it favours melee specialists over ranged specialists). Finally IMO, the more people in a combat who are capable of taking an AoO, the better - it emphasises the use of interesting tactics, and skills such as tumble.
So... take your pick.
