Trip? Disarm? Sunder? Gone forever?

[Aaron]

Don't you people get it? Since it's not in 4E, it couldn't have been important!

That's not the point.

In a RPG you should feel free to make your character do what your fantasy suggests.

Heck, that's he main reason many people play pen and paper RPGs instead of videogames: the possibility of doing almost anything.

How can I accomplish this goal if my swordmaster can't disarm a kid?

What about a giant that can't sunder an halfling sword with single, mighty swing?

So if your players ask about it, just make it so difficult that they'll only try once and then never bother you again.

My players don't "bother" me.

We try to have fun playing D&D, so I'm searching something to avoid a simple "you can't do it, and now shut up", or the same answer camouflaged under difficult checks.

 

[Andur]

Here is a portion of a Power which effectively disarms:

Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target drops one weapon it is holding. You can choose to catch the dropped weapon in a free hand or have it land on the ground at your feet (in your square)

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Trip, disarm, and sunder should be basic attack actions listed in the PHB along with Bull Rush and Grab. I'll work them up and add them to my list of house rules later.

 

[Knightlord]

Meh. If one of my players wants to perform one of these manuevers, I'll probably just call for an opposed Basic attack roll. Whoever wins gets to perform the manuever.

 

[Thasmodious]

That's not the point.

In a RPG you should feel free to make your character do what your fantasy suggests.

Heck, that's he main reason many people play pen and paper RPGs instead of videogames: the possibility of doing almost anything.

How can I accomplish this goal if my swordmaster can't disarm a kid?

What about a giant that can't sunder an halfling sword with single, mighty swing?
.

But if the rules don't spell it out for you, with a table and everything, then you can't do it? That's what you are saying? Newsflash, that IS a videogame.

The DMG tells the DM to say "yes" and goes on to include several sections and a couple of tables to help the DM adjudicate their players doing something interesting outside of their powers. Trip, disarm and sunder ARE in 4e. As is a whole host of things not expressly covered under their own section headings in the PHB. It's really not that hard to figure out.

 

[mmadsen]

Happens all the time in Lone Wolf and Cub. "I'll parry your weapon!...." THWACK! Then the guy who haplessly attempted to parry our hero's blade is left standing there with half of a sword and his head split in half.

Lone Wolf is wielding a special blade, a dotanuki of some repute, and generally -- not just in Lone Wolf and Cub -- sundering is, as you describe, a side-effect of someone parrying with an inferior weapon, not an intentional effort to attack the other guy's weapon rather than his body.

 

[Hussar]

You've got to be kidding. There is very little abstract about 4E combat except hit points. Everything else is very detailed, with specific "exploits" for every possible tactical act.

No, if I was kidding, I'd use smilies. Like that.

Unless you believe that the people in your game world are actually five foot cubes, always fighting on 45 degree angles, only ever capable of making a single attack every six seconds exactly, I would say that D&D combat is still very, very abstract.

Granted, it's less abstract than say, 2e combat with its 1 minute combat rounds, but, compared to a number of systems out there, such as GURPS for example, D&D combat is a Picasso painting.

The existence of "exploits" in no way adds realism to a game. And, detail =/= concrete. An MC Escher painting is extremely detailed, yet, no less abstract for all that. The rules of Chess are very detailed and pretty elaborate, yet chess is still an abstract game.

 

[SDOgre]

First of all, it's simply false that big weapons like what D&D would call greataxes and greatswords were slow by any reasonable definition.

Second and more importantly, this is almost exactly backwards as far as how the actual arms race went. People used smaller weapons, not because they were faster (by and large, they're not), but because a shield was essential for keeping one alive. When heavy armour became more prevalent, it was so effective as to render a shield redundant, and that is when and why you start seeing big two-handed weapons not designed for formation fighting. It's true that most of them could crack armour better than their smaller equivalents, but the same is true of a (one-handed) mace or warhammer. The major advantage of a larger weapon is reach.

Relatively speaking a claymore or other two handed weapon is much slower than a sabre or epee. That's what I mean by slow.

Second, I never said smaller, I said lighter and quicker. I'm comparing fencing to medieval combat, not one-handed weapons to two-handed.

It is true that the shield was eliminated because heavy armor made it redundant, and knights needed both hands to swing heavy two-handed weapons to try and injure or knock down their opponent. If you did that you'd break out the dagger and use it to shove in an unprotected spot if you could and take out your opponent.

Always take into consideration though when talking about European medieval warfare that you're talking about 1,000 years of history across dozens of cultures, none of which did all the same things in all the same ways. It's one of the reasons historians argue about the historic names of particular weapons.

I'm curious though about your comment that this is almost exactly the opposite of how the arms race went. Your comments didn't support that. What do you mean?

I'm always happy to learn more.

 

[hong]

Katanae are really fast. Just look at Dante.

 

[Obryn]

I can't pity Sunder much.

It was the biggest screw-the-PCs feat there was.

(1) They have no incentive to sunder the big bad's weapon, most of the time.

(2) The big bad has no reason whatsoever not to sunder their weapons.

-O