Some combat house rules to peruse or ignore

[Horwath]

I was thinking of adding advantage on all melee attacks vs. opponents that do not have a melee weapon or proficient natural weapon ready.

As in, if they do not pose a threat you, and you not need to worry about parry/riposte and can make pretty easy melee attacks.

 

[CubicsRube]

They blocked me because I called them out for being rude. I’m not terribly torn up about that.

I always thought you were quite polite.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't see disarm as a big problem for important weapons. The winner of the battle generally gets the gear. Unless people are regularly getting into fights they can't win just to disarm their better equipped foe and then try to escape with their weapon (a high risk proposal) disarming doesn't invalidate having cool gear.

i would have thought it obvious but the goal of disarming someone during battle is not normally about being the one who has the weapon at the end, but depriving them of the ability to use that weapon during the battle and/or using it yourselves (your team.) thats why in a genre/setting which combined frequent disarms, mobs and the like as well as the notion of significant magical weapons, the two hit a conflict.

Like i said, why not instead make a gauntlet that gives the bonuses to whatever sword you wield with the glove? Why would weapons that can be popped out and run off with by by a lucky kobold or three of its buddies etc be the norm? Why would you spend massive numbers of days and months to make a frostbrand or vorpal blade or luck blade and not add in "cannot be disarmed" as an extra day or two of effort?

Some folks think of that when adding rules and choosing rules for their campaigns, other may not.

takes all kinds.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

In a game that had disarm as an action (3e), it didn't come up that often. Mooks weren't running around disarming everyone. There was a few heroic moments like when the captured PC hero was forced to fight a stone gollum bare handed and he disarmed the gollem's adamantine sword and destroyed it with its own weapon. That was epic.

I don't want to ban that kind of thing from my game and, from first hand experience, I know it's not going to turn into a disarm free-for-all. It just won't.

And, actually, locked gauntlets was a thing(in 3e, at least. I'm not sure about the real world). People didn't use them much because they had a significant drawback that You just can't draw any other weapons or potions or do anything with your hands (like stabilize a fallen comrade). So, if I were to put in undisarmable magic weapons in my game (which I wouldn't because they'd be totally unnecessary), I'd give them a similar drawback.

But as I mentioned above, you don't have to like a rule to help someone make one up for their game. If you think it's not balanced, then that's fair enough. No need to expand any further. It's just not helpful to tell someone "I hate that" when they are looking for feedback for how to do something.
[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]

What did you think about using passive attacks as a base DC? I'm wondering if that dc is too low. If you want to make it difficult, and want to use disadvantage, I'd attach a reasoning. Rapiers aren't designed for disarming, so disadvantage but a sai doesn't have disadvantage.

I also think there should be a drawback for disarming otherwise it takes away from the uniqueness of the Battlemaster. A battlemaster should be good at disarming and shouldn't have a drawback. Meanwhile the Champion, risks losing his own weapon if he tries it. (or something like that).

Despite liking disarming, I have to agree that it shouldn't become so easy that it's commonplace. I think 5ekyu has a valid concern.

 

[Charlaquin]

I always thought you were quite polite.

Thank you! I try to be. But no, 5ekyu was being rude, specifically they were being demeaning about other people’s opinions, and I called them out on it.

 

[5ekyu]

In a game that had disarm as an action (3e), it didn't come up that often. Mooks weren't running around disarming everyone. There was a few heroic moments like when the captured PC hero was forced to fight a stone gollum bare handed and he disarmed the gollem's adamantine sword and destroyed it with its own weapon. That was epic.

I don't want to ban that kind of thing from my game and, from first hand experience, I know it's not going to turn into a disarm free-for-all. It just won't.

And, actually, locked gauntlets was a thing(in 3e, at least. I'm not sure about the real world). People didn't use them much because they had a significant drawback that You just can't draw any other weapons or potions or do anything with your hands (like stabilize a fallen comrade). So, if I were to put in undisarmable magic weapons in my game (which I wouldn't because they'd be totally unnecessary), I'd give them a similar drawback.

But as I mentioned above, you don't have to like a rule to help someone make one up for their game. If you think it's not balanced, then that's fair enough. No need to expand any further. It's just not helpful to tell someone "I hate that" when they are looking for feedback for how to do something.
[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]

What did you think about using passive attacks as a base DC? I'm wondering if that dc is too low. If you want to make it difficult, and want to use disadvantage, I'd attach a reasoning. Rapiers aren't designed for disarming, so disadvantage but a sai doesn't have disadvantage.

I also think there should be a drawback for disarming otherwise it takes away from the uniqueness of the Battlemaster. A battlemaster should be good at disarming and shouldn't have a drawback. Meanwhile the Champion, risks losing his own weapon if he tries it. (or something like that).

Despite liking disarming, I have to agree that it shouldn't become so easy that it's commonplace. I think 5ekyu has a valid concern.

In 3.x iirc barring taking feats to boost your disarm, attempting a disarm gave you an AO - that seriously cuts down on the merits.

In 3.x iirc disarm was done instead of an attack causing damage, not just an add-on to an attack that will damage.

Both of those are major game changers to the usability of the disarm and viability of it.

So, the experience with 3.x vs the benefits of this thing is not even close.

They share the word disarm and depriving the enemy of weapon, but little else.

Key Point for Analysis - just cause two different games use the same word for something - that doesnt mean they are comparable by nsme alone and the most basic simplistic not even thinking 101 analysis needs to look at more than the name to choose how to compare them.


In 5e, when you use attacks to get other effects as genersl maneuvers - shove and grapple being good examples - its not just added onto your damaging attack.

Magic Items Design - So, if someone wanted to enchant a magic item to prevent disarming, you would require that magic item ti have significant drawbacks? Did you add significant drawbacks to all magic items?

If not, why insist that a magical counter to disarm get them? After all, it sounds like disarm is a minor thing, so why force a significant drawback on an additional feature you describe as "totally unnecessary"?

To me, when folks want additional effects that are minor, maybe good for flavor, but which are certainly in the impact of "totally unnecessary" i let them go pretty easy. I dont go all "must have significant drawback" on rather trivial effects.

But hey guess it takes all kinds.

And if all you get from this is "i hate it" , seems pretty dismissive of posts you dont like which had a bit more than that in them.

 

[5ekyu]

Maybe this has been forgotten? Idk..

Some of the intentional designs of 5e were driven by the idea of "more hits, less misses" because they felt players enjoyed it more. So "getting hits" was made broadly easier even while the value of a single hit was kind of mitigated by HP inflation, quicker recoveries etc.

So, when you see an ability for 5e compared to an ability from 3.x which say drops a reaction attack and drops the "you do no damage" and *replaces them* with "hey, give up that advantage, which is also easy to get in 5e" it really starts to beggar rhe quality of the "analysis" being done.

In games i run and play in, it is rare that we dont see attacks with advantsge during a combat. If we were to allow an add-on disarm at the cost of that advantage, keeping all the damage you normally do, then i cannot imagine agsinst any significant enemy with weapon that disarm not being done. I cannot imagine it not becoming the go-to tactic against any enemy that uses weapons and lasts.

Thats inconsistent with a world where potent blades of power exist without any disarm proofing but even worse, its gonna drive play too much towards that niche. Walking weapon trees so you can keep drawing reolacements are not a direction i think this idea was aiming for (at least, not openly) but its a result its going to favor or incentivize.

Or maybe all thst means is (to some) "i hate it" so dismiss away.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I wasn’t being dismissive. I’m just trying to focus the discussion. But sometimes your words come across as condescending or inflammatory. I’m not sure if you do it intentionally because you often have good things to add to the discussion. You’ll even note that I said you had valid concerns.

As far as 3x disarming, I think it was done well. I’d offered the solution of having a disarm be an attack that causes no damage and provokes an AoO but the idea was dismissed. I think it still has merit. I like the idea of a drawback coming with a bonus because it forces people to really weigh risk/reward. And then it makes the Battlmaster much better because their version of disarm is all reward.

 

[S'mon]

I'd be alright with most of this, but did you mean Reloading a Crossbow? Otherwise you have 2 attacks of opportunity for using a bow, which is pointless since you only get 1 reaction per round (and even cool effects only give you 1 per turn). Really improves the crossbow over the bow, but overall ranged while in melee becomes ugly (which I'm okay with).

If you already have an X-bow loaded, you can shoot it without provoking an opp att. Whereas you can neither load nor shoot a regular bow - it'll always provoke an opp att.

 

[S'mon]

In a game that had disarm as an action (3e), it didn't come up that often. Mooks weren't running around disarming everyone. There was a few heroic moments like when the captured PC hero was forced to fight a stone gollum bare handed and he disarmed the gollem's adamantine sword and destroyed it with its own weapon. That was epic.

I don't want to ban that kind of thing from my game and, from first hand experience, I know it's not going to turn into a disarm free-for-all. It just won't.

And, actually, locked gauntlets was a thing(in 3e, at least. I'm not sure about the real world). People didn't use them much because they had a significant drawback that You just can't draw any other weapons or potions or do anything with your hands (like stabilize a fallen comrade). So, if I were to put in undisarmable magic weapons in my game (which I wouldn't because they'd be totally unnecessary), I'd give them a similar drawback.

But as I mentioned above, you don't have to like a rule to help someone make one up for their game. If you think it's not balanced, then that's fair enough. No need to expand any further. It's just not helpful to tell someone "I hate that" when they are looking for feedback for how to do something.

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]
What did you think about using passive attacks as a base DC?

I definitely prefer attack vs AC with disadvantage, followed by an active save at a low base DC. It may need a lot of GM adjudication to prevent abuse, though. Some circumstances where I'd give Advantage, such as attacking from the rear or shooting from above, actually make a disarm less, not more, likely.

I used these for the first time Tuesday running Watchers of Meng. Unsurprisingly no one attempted a disarm. Mobbing came up twice:

1. The fifth PC entered melee vs a Mummy and got advantage.
2. 5 skeletons attacked the Barbarian, 5th one got advantage.

I'd say it worked ok, didn't add or detract much. It makes hordes of mooks slightly more dangerous. It is an extra thing to remember, though, whereas the other house rules generally require specific actions first.