Mechanics vs Description (Forked Thread: Disarm rules)

[FadedC]

So the defense for removing features of the game is "it's an abstraction"? What if I removed death? Hitpoints, after all, are merely an ABSTRACTION (!!1!!11!1!) of health. You don't REALLY die when you lose all your hitpoints...nor do you really lose unconsciousness in 4e, but that's another discussion altogether.

Well I'm sure there are some genres or playstyles where not being able to die in combat would be apropriate. That has nothing to do with abstraction though, and is irrelevent to what we are discussing.

Parrying/locking weapons: doesn't happen, since you don't get better at avoiding blows when you get better at fighting. (At least, in 3e. Not sure how 4e works. Not that characters actually deserve such a bonus in 4e, as apparently wizards are just as skilled at swinging a sword as fighters are.)

Actually in every edition you got better at surviving attacks as you gained level. 4e is the only edition where you actually got harder to hit as you became a better fighter, which you'd know if you only knew the rules to the game that your spending so much time complaining about. You'd also know that wizards are not in fact as good at sword swinging as fighters by any remote stretch.

Cutting off hand/stabbing through eye: disarming is a far more likely (not to mention realistic) technique. Also, called shots don't really work. Disarming does.

So wait, why exactly do called shots not work, while disarming does? They are both things a normal person can do in the course of a fight. And I suspect far more people have tried to stab somebody in the eye in a fight then disarm their foe.

Hamstringing: this came late in 3.5, with some of the rogue feats that let you sacrifice sneak attack damage for other effects.

So in 3e only rogues could hamstring, and only if they took the power that let them do so. Your kind of proving my point here.

 

[Eyada]

So the defense for removing features of the game is "it's an abstraction"? What if I removed death? Hitpoints, after all, are merely an ABSTRACTION (!!1!!11!1!) of health. You don't REALLY die when you lose all your hitpoints...nor do you really lose unconsciousness in 4e, but that's another discussion altogether.

First, you are correct. Characters do not die when they lose all of their HP. They suffer a potentially fatal blow that causes them to fall in battle. They don't die until they've failed three Death Saves or been run through while helplessly bleeding out.

Yes, the D&D combat system is abstract. Disarm, along with many other perfectly viable tactics, are all hidden within the abstract mechanics. It is assumed that a trained warrior is always attempting to do potentially battle-ending things like disarm, or called shot. However, unless you choose to exercise the narrative control granted by Powers (ie, using the Fighter power that causes an opponent to be disarmed), the system assumes your opponent is successful in resisting those attempts. When you break your opponent and reduce them to 0 HP, you can feel free to take narrative license and decide that you defeat him via disarm, or any other realistic means.

As far as the rest go:

Parrying/locking weapons: doesn't happen, since you don't get better at avoiding blows when you get better at fighting. (At least, in 3e. Not sure how 4e works. Not that characters actually deserve such a bonus in 4e, as apparently wizards are just as skilled at swinging a sword as fighters are.)

Cutting off hand/stabbing through eye: disarming is a far more likely (not to mention realistic) technique. Also, called shots don't really work. Disarming does.

Hamstringing: this came late in 3.5, with some of the rogue feats that let you sacrifice sneak attack damage for other effects.

-In 4E your ability to defend yourself does increase by level. Parrying/locking weapons is assumed to be happening constantly. Unlike 3.x, a high level warrior will be so skilled with his weapon that he can easily avoid the attacks of a low level character, even without wearing armor. As it should be.
-Wizards are not as effective with swords as fighters are. Wizards are not proficient with swords, and require Feats to wield them as effectively as Fighters do.


Disarm was abstracted away into the combat mechanics because allowing universal narrative license to perform such a feat adds more negatives to the system than positives. It's as simple as that. I'm sorry if this bothers you. However, I'm sure if you sat down and critically re-examined 3.x, you would find numerous similar mechanics. The only reason you are bothered by the lack of a defined disarm option is because 3.x gave all characters the narrative license to force a disarm during battle; unfortunately, time has shown that such a feature detracts more from the system than it adds, so it was removed from 4E.

 

[Psychic Robot]

Well I'm sure there are some genres or playstyles where not being able to die in combat would be apropriate. That has nothing to do with abstraction though, and is irrelevent to what we are discussing.

Actually, it does, but since you're going to dismiss it rather than address it, let's just call it even.

Actually in every edition you got better at surviving attacks as you gained level. 4e is the only edition where you actually got harder to hit as you became a better fighter, which you'd know if you only knew the rules to the game that your spending so much time complaining about. You'd also know that wizards are not in fact as good at sword swinging as fighters by any remote stretch.

And yet, parrying/locking weapons didn't happen in 3e. That's really not the point. The fact is that the wizard gets the same BAB as the fighter, which is ridiculous. However, that is not what we are talking about; we're talking about disarming.

So wait, why exactly do called shots not work, while disarming does? They are both things a normal person can do in the course of a fight. And I suspect far more people have tried to stab somebody in the eye in a fight then disarm their foe.

They don't work mechanically.

So in 3e only rogues could hamstring, and only if they took the power that let them do so. Your kind of proving my point here.

Actually, it was for any character with sneak attack or sudden strike. Hamstringing should have been in Core 3e, though. I'm not even sure what your point is.

what is disarming if not a called shot to the weapon?

really, they work about the same. Disarm is just about as problematic.

What is tripping if not a called shot to the legs?

Oh, wait, that's okay because knocking people over is actually in 4e. If it weren't, you'd be squalling about how knocking people over is an unnecessary, overly-complex game mechanic that is abstracted into combat.

OMG OMG IT REQUIRES EXTRA RULES FOR STANDING UP IN COMBAT!!1!!11!

First, you are correct. Characters do not die when they lose all of their HP. They suffer a potentially fatal blow that causes them to fall in battle. They don't die until they've failed three Death Saves or been run through while helplessly bleeding out.

Can't see the forest through the trees, can you?

Yes, the D&D combat system is abstract. Disarm, along with many other perfectly viable tactics, are all hidden within the abstract mechanics. It is assumed that a trained warrior is always attempting to do potentially battle-ending things like disarm, or called shot. However, unless you choose to exercise the narrative control granted by Powers (ie, using the Fighter power that causes an opponent to be disarmed), the system assumes your opponent is successful in resisting those attempts. When you break your opponent and reduce them to 0 HP, you can feel free to take narrative license and decide that you defeat him via disarm, or any other realistic means.

Again, a failing of the system. You shouldn't have to have a magic power to attempt to disarm your opponent. You should be able to try without some magic ability, since I'm pretty sure even I, a lowly commoner, could attempt to disarm someone. I might fail repeatedly, but I could actually try--and I might succeed.

Disarm was abstracted away into the combat mechanics because allowing universal narrative license to perform such a feat adds more negatives to the system than positives. It's as simple as that.

More options = more negatives? I see how it goes. If it's in 4e, it's got more positives than negatives. If it's not in 4e, it's got more negatives than positives. If it's coming out in a splatbook, it must have more positives than negatives.

 

[James McMurray]

And yet, parrying/locking weapons didn't happen in 3e. That's really not the point. The fact is that the wizard gets the same BAB as the fighter, which is ridiculous. However, that is not what we are talking about; we're talking about disarming.

In 4e, even more so than in 3.x, same BAB != same skill.

 

[IanArgent]

Again, a failing of the system. You shouldn't have to have a magic power to attempt to disarm your opponent. You should be able to try without some magic ability, since I'm pretty sure even I, a lowly commoner, could attempt to disarm someone. I might fail repeatedly, but I could actually try--and I might succeed.

It's been a while since I checked the disarm rules, but IIRC it became pretty difficult for someone not trained to do so; to the point that you essentially required a 20 on your to-hit roll.

 

[hong]

So the defense for removing features of the game is "it's an abstraction"? What if I removed death?

Yes, I banned death. It works quite well. Your point is...?

 

[IanArgent]

Yes, I banned death. It works quite well. Your point is...?

Not in D&D, but in SR, I not only blatantly fudged to prevent PC death, but it was an explicit part of the campaign that the PCs would not die (though fates worse than death awaited). This was in partial reaction to the sheer amount of time chargen in SR took, I'll admit. OTOH, it worked.

In some ways, that kind of thinking would work in 4E as well; particularly once I pick up Eberron again - death of main characters is so anti-pulp. Defying death, OTOH...

 

[Aezoc]

I'm really trying to keep this from being a threadcrap, but this just seems like two pages of people trying to explain how 4e's abstract mechanics can mesh with various narrative interpretations, and PsyRobot arguing it. Statements like "it shouldn't have to be that way..." and "that's a failing of the system" really just read like thinly veiled edition wars to me.

There's a pretty clear philosophy in 4e to make combat streamlined, which requires a lot of abstraction - more so than I think has existed in any previous edition, and D&D combat has never been particularly detailed. Disarm in 3e is a three-step process and failure can prompt the same three-step process in reverse if you don't have imp. disarm. It's got modifiers for the size of the weapon, whether it's wielded two-handed or not, and whether or not it's a melee weapon. In short, it's anything but streamlined.

If it's critical that you have a disarm action, something like Starbuck's suggestion looks pretty good to me. But I think that 9 times out of 10, a disarm ends the fight anyways, so there's no reason it can't just be narrative fluff as part of whatever action ends the combat. 4e requires a different mindset than 3e did in a lot of cases, but I don't think calling it better or worse makes sense, they're just driven by different design philosophies.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

Well said, Aezoc.

 

[Psychic Robot]

There's a pretty clear philosophy in 4e to make combat streamlined, which requires a lot of abstraction - more so than I think has existed in any previous edition, and D&D combat has never been particularly detailed. Disarm in 3e is a three-step process and failure can prompt the same three-step process in reverse if you don't have imp. disarm. It's got modifiers for the size of the weapon, whether it's wielded two-handed or not, and whether or not it's a melee weapon. In short, it's anything but streamlined.

I agree that all of the combat maneuvers in 3e were pretty much a huge time-consuming mess. I would like to see them simplified.

If it's critical that you have a disarm action, something like Starbuck's suggestion looks pretty good to me. But I think that 9 times out of 10, a disarm ends the fight anyways, so there's no reason it can't just be narrative fluff as part of whatever action ends the combat. 4e requires a different mindset than 3e did in a lot of cases, but I don't think calling it better or worse makes sense, they're just driven by different design philosophies.

Forcing a monster to drop its weapon ends the fight...how? How does it end the fight? How does it stop a monster with 1,000 HP left? How does it turn the game upside down with its omgbroken mechanics?

It doesn't. It might take a round for the monster to recover, but that makes disarming a tactically valid option.

And you know what? Bull rushing was annoying in 3e. They included it in 4e, though, and it's not going to break the game. Or is that a particular mechanic that can't be abstracted?