Is that for monsters, or players? Maybe I am just not understanding it.
WotC Mailbog Podcast up
- Thread starter Rechan
- Start date
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
That's the best kind of fun! It's awesome!
Shroomy
Adventurer
I have a question for everyone. Did disarm get used regularly in your 3.x games or is the primary objection to its absence in 4e theoretical? I just re-reviewed the rules in the SRD, and again, I can't shake the feeling that they are too complicated in their implementation, obviously situational, and as a result there are better options to take during combat (unless you optimized towards disarming, and even then, its all dependent on adventure design).
I think that a theoretical re-introduction of disarm to 4e (without resorting to an ad hoc ruling using DMG pg. 42) would eliminate the complexity of the action in comparison to 3.x, since they would be subsumed within the power framework, but it would not eliminate the situational nature of the power, and thus, in the majority of cases (unless you design adventures catering specifically to this power), there would be much better actions to take during combat. I think that if you apply a disarm-like power to non-weapon powers, you'd be better served by a broader power that results in the loss of a single attack action (I'd probably go with the opponents basic attackl) and/or a penalty to hit; mechanically, it would almost be identical to the effects of a disarm, though the opponent would not have to waste an action to pick up their weapon.
All that applies to PCs, since it applies to repeatable actions against varying opponents. I feel differently about monsters, since, most likely, they will only face the PCs once, and because the PCs will most likely be wielding weapons. Apparently, WoTC kind of agrees, if you look at the powers of Kyrion, the shadar-kai weaponmaster from the SoW adventure "Den of the Destroyer."
I think that a theoretical re-introduction of disarm to 4e (without resorting to an ad hoc ruling using DMG pg. 42) would eliminate the complexity of the action in comparison to 3.x, since they would be subsumed within the power framework, but it would not eliminate the situational nature of the power, and thus, in the majority of cases (unless you design adventures catering specifically to this power), there would be much better actions to take during combat. I think that if you apply a disarm-like power to non-weapon powers, you'd be better served by a broader power that results in the loss of a single attack action (I'd probably go with the opponents basic attackl) and/or a penalty to hit; mechanically, it would almost be identical to the effects of a disarm, though the opponent would not have to waste an action to pick up their weapon.
All that applies to PCs, since it applies to repeatable actions against varying opponents. I feel differently about monsters, since, most likely, they will only face the PCs once, and because the PCs will most likely be wielding weapons. Apparently, WoTC kind of agrees, if you look at the powers of Kyrion, the shadar-kai weaponmaster from the SoW adventure "Den of the Destroyer."
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
This isn't a necessary correlation.
Just because someone didn't use the rules in 3e for one reason or another (too complex, AoO's, whatever) doesn't mean that they don't need the capacity to do it in 4e (where they can fix the problems that 3e had).
I mean, 90% of my 3e battle choices were monstrous beasts. That doesn't mean I don't need rules to generate NPC's for battle.
Shroomy
Adventurer
I wasn't really trying to make a correlation, I was just curious. IME, disarming is kind of like counterspelling, its there, but never actually used. The difference is that no one is bemoaning the loss of counterspelling (at least that I can remember; to bring this point back to home, few are exactly lamenting the loss of sunder either, at least in this thread) because its not something that you really see in real world combat, film, novels, etc.
I think that others have discussed the balance, narrative, and gamist issues with disarm, but I do think its situationalism is also a big mark against it given its impact on resource management, at least as we normally conceive of the ability. IMO, for something like that to be re-introduced into the game, I think you have to take a step back and make the action more abstract.
Sir Brennen
Legend
I think I saw a Disarm attempt used once during my years with 3.x, and that was by the DM.
I've never seen counterspell used
I've never seen counterspell used
It does bring up one interesting point though.
If the primary objection is theoretical, and people, for the most part, weren't actually using Disarm in 3e, then it demonstrates that 3e style disarm (infinitely repeatable, largely a trivial penalty because regaining your weapon is easy, etc) isn't necessarily needed.
I try to forget that I ever played 3.x so will answer with general from other editions.
I would use it like crazy! There is a BIG tactical advantage to fighting someone without a weapon on many levels to NOT use it.
Every melee PC I played would attempt to disarm an opponent at least once per combat.
Didn't really see it used at all in 3.x.
Given the number of feats you had available and options to consider, Disarm (and Sunder/Bullrush for that matter) werent high on the list.
And trying to use those options without the improved version? Not happening....
re: Earlier editions
Um, did earlier editions actually allow disarming? I don't remember, was it introduced in Combat and Tactics?
Given the number of feats you had available and options to consider, Disarm (and Sunder/Bullrush for that matter) werent high on the list.
And trying to use those options without the improved version? Not happening....
re: Earlier editions
Um, did earlier editions actually allow disarming? I don't remember, was it introduced in Combat and Tactics?
Called shots. Kind of like a DC on the attack itself, and would allow you to try to do anything! Many times requiring a natural 20.
