Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Burrito Al Pastor" data-source="post: 4678027" data-attributes="member: 27303">Disarm and sunder effects have always been nightmarish in terms of long-term campaign logistics and consistency. Your temporary equipment damage solution is an elegant way to do it; it does not deny the party loot, nor does it unfairly benefit monsters with natural weapons/armor - just throw some kind of a healing clause on there for removal of penalties to natural weapons and armor, and you've solved the sunder problem very tidily.The disarm problem is more enduring. It was always problematic in that it was devastating against some monsters, and completely unusable against others. You haven't found a fix for this, and I can't see a way to implement it in 4e, simply because of the way weapons get used in statblocks. It's easy enough to adjust their stats for losing a weapon; most attacks based on that weapon still do a multiple of the appropriate damage dice of a weapon of that type and size. A Salamander Lancer (large) has to attacks that do 1d12+6 damage; one is his basic longspear attack, and the other explicitly requires a longspear. Thus, if he lost his longspear, we can safely say that his basic attack would deal 1d6+6 damage, reach 2, ongoing 5 fire.The problem is this: the salamander's melee capabilities are now 1d6+6 damage, reach 2, ongoing 5 fire. Total. He is completely incapable of doing anything else in melee. You've defeated a level 14 brute in two attacks.This happens for hill giants, and the Efreet Fireblade, and the Marut, and the Cambion Hellsword, and...You get the idea. Disarming is fundamentally unbalanced, and makes the DM's life hard; either some of the PC's enemies will be completely and utterly neutered within two rounds, or there's a big chunk of the Monster Manual he can't use.I like the sunder, though. I like it a lot.</blockquote>

Verification