Mechanics vs Description (Forked Thread: Disarm rules)

[IanArgent]

Forked from: Disarm rules

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

See, what you just described isn't actually disarming him. Disarming someone means knocking his weapon away. Instead, what you described is defeating an opponent. That's when you beat him.

That's the benefit of disarming someone. You know, how when you knock his weapon away, he can't use it to fight until he recovers it? Makes sense, I think.

That's a failing of the system.

Forked because I wanted to address this specifically.

What, mechanically, are you trying to accomplish with a Disarm mechanic? In much of the source material, a disarm ends the fight - one combatant disarms the other, places his blade at the throat of the other, and says "Do you yield?" This is a defeat - 0 HP and proceed from there.

In the other it temporarily inconveniences the disarmee - he has to scramble to get either his own weapon or another one conveniently left around. Mechanically, what does a temporary[/] disarm effect? The target can't use his "Weapon" keyword powers to full effect, because his primary weapon isn't available. See the conditions table for ways to mechanically represent this. So you have powers that, when you are fighting a weapon-wielder, represent the weapon having been disarmed until they save, or the power ends, and they can recover it; but that power isn't gimped against a non-weapon user.

A lot of 4E is like this - the end-state mechanical effect is not depended on the descriptive path taken to get there. I understand why this is going ot drive some people around the bend; this round my disarm attempt does HP damage as I attempt to disarm and it fails (mechanically, I did a basic attack which did damage), but the next round my opponent's weapon goes flying out of his hand and as he yields I smash his skull with the hilt of my weapon and knock him unconscious (same mechanical option and effect- basic attack to do damage, but a different description).

Even with powers that provide their snippet of flavor text, you can feel free to ignore it, as long as what you describe bears some relationship to the effect. (I'm not going to describe Scorching Burst as surrounding the opponent with spectral kittens unless the spectral kittens have flaming claws - though if I want spectral kittens I can have them that way... But I could describe Thunderwave as an localized earthquake, a shell of force erupting from me, or even swinging my staff over my head with power crackling at the tip, forcing the opponents back in awe and fear as they are brushed by that power).

In short, the rules and the descriptions don't have to be tightly bound.

 

[blargney the second]

In much of the source material, a disarm ends the fight - one combatant disarms the other, places his blade at the throat of the other, and says "Do you yield?"

Sounds like Intimidate to me.
-blarg

 

[generalhenry]

Sounds like Intimidate to me.

There's actually very little difference between a zero hp enemy and an intimidated enemy in 4E.

 

[blargney the second]

There's actually very little difference between a zero hp enemy and an intimidated enemy in 4E.

Yep, exactly. You can simply reflavour a successful Intimidate check against a bloodied opponent as knocking his weapon away, putting him at sword point, and forcing him to submit.

 

[robertliguori]

Forked from: Disarm rules



Forked because I wanted to address this specifically.

What, mechanically, are you trying to accomplish with a Disarm mechanic? In much of the source material, a disarm ends the fight - one combatant disarms the other, places his blade at the throat of the other, and says "Do you yield?" This is a defeat - 0 HP and proceed from there.

In the other it temporarily inconveniences the disarmee - he has to scramble to get either his own weapon or another one conveniently left around. Mechanically, what does a temporary[/] disarm effect? The target can't use his "Weapon" keyword powers to full effect, because his primary weapon isn't available. See the conditions table for ways to mechanically represent this. So you have powers that, when you are fighting a weapon-wielder, represent the weapon having been disarmed until they save, or the power ends, and they can recover it; but that power isn't gimped against a non-weapon user.

A lot of 4E is like this - the end-state mechanical effect is not depended on the descriptive path taken to get there. I understand why this is going ot drive some people around the bend; this round my disarm attempt does HP damage as I attempt to disarm and it fails (mechanically, I did a basic attack which did damage), but the next round my opponent's weapon goes flying out of his hand and as he yields I smash his skull with the hilt of my weapon and knock him unconscious (same mechanical option and effect- basic attack to do damage, but a different description).

Even with powers that provide their snippet of flavor text, you can feel free to ignore it, as long as what you describe bears some relationship to the effect. (I'm not going to describe Scorching Burst as surrounding the opponent with spectral kittens unless the spectral kittens have flaming claws - though if I want spectral kittens I can have them that way... But I could describe Thunderwave as an localized earthquake, a shell of force erupting from me, or even swinging my staff over my head with power crackling at the tip, forcing the opponents back in awe and fear as they are brushed by that power).

In short, the rules and the descriptions don't have to be tightly bound.

Much of the source material does not include people who can call upon the dark things that dwell beyond the stars and make your brain dribble out your ears with a glance. In the traditional representations of swordfighting you reference, your weapon is both your hit points and your attack mechanism; it's all parry and cut, with very little pure dodge or blow absorption.

These are not assumptions that map to D&D; an enemy can have a weapon and still be an effective threat once they've lost it. Plus, enemies sometimes have backup weapons.

 

[James McMurray]

I think there's room for both versions.

Disarm + yielding works as a narrative of Intimidate or when choosing not to kill the opponent with the last attack. Disarm as a house ruled mechanic would be when you're disarming them without it assuring victory, something which also happens frequently in literature and film.

 

[Cabral]

What, mechanically, are you trying to accomplish with a Disarm mechanic? In much of the source material, a disarm ends the fight - one combatant disarms the other, places his blade at the throat of the other, and says "Do you yield?" This is a defeat - 0 HP and proceed from there.

In terms of the mechanics availble thus far for 4e, I would say that description was:
Disarm*, Grab (Pin) and Intimidate.

Failed check and downed opponent quick draws a small blade to deflect the heroes blade as he recovers his original weapon and the fight continues. A successful disarm is not necessarily the end of the encounter in the source material.

The problem isn't 4e per se, it's translating dramatic license into a turn based mechanical system.

Maybe we'll see some special abilities along these lines in upcoming splat books.
Ie, an encounter attack that leaves opponent dazed, prone and disarmed and a feat that allows you grab with a weapon (ie, blade to throat)

Edit: * Okay, so Disarm isn't really present in 4e but will probably appear in a splatbook on advanced Martial classes or something.

 

[James McMurray]

Edit: * Okay, so Disarm isn't really present in 4e but will probably appear in a splatbook on advanced Martial classes or something.

Fighter 17, Exorcism of Steel. This shows that disarming is possible, but it requires GM intervention to do it without one very specific power.

 

[starwed]

What, mechanically, are you trying to accomplish with a Disarm mechanic?

People want a disarm mechanic because some players like the idea of disarming enemies.

So, the mechanical result should be such that:

1. The player feels that they accomplished something cool and useful in combat.
2. The DM doesn't have to worry about PCs constantly disarming enemies instead of attacking them.

Within the context of 4th edition, I'd probably make it so that a disarm check is fairly difficult when using a normal attack, but give an extra bonus if the player is using an action point.

 

[Mengu]

In short, the rules and the descriptions don't have to be tightly bound.

Yes. As a matter of fact the lack of fluff descriptions for powers, monsters, monster powers, etc, encourages this more so in this edition, than any previous edition. It's like playing with legos. These pieces only fit together in certain ways, but we get to build whatever we want out of them.

Maybe we'll see some special abilities along these lines in upcoming splat books.
Ie, an encounter attack that leaves opponent dazed, prone and disarmed and a feat that allows you grab with a weapon (ie, blade to throat)

Edit: * Okay, so Disarm isn't really present in 4e but will probably appear in a splatbook on advanced Martial classes or something.

It's tough within the rule system, because of the way powers and conditions are so generic. If a character wants to pick a power that disarms an opponent, this power will only come into play if they are fighting an armed opponent. A majority of the monsters in the MM do not use weapons. So this makes the power weak compared to other powers. And since picking up an item is a minor action, even forcing the opponent to drop a weapon is a rather weak attack compared to everything else you could be doing.

I wouldn't hold my breath on a power that disarms an opponent. Some other future game mechanic is more likely, but still would be tough to design.