A Question about the Knight [Archive] - Wizards Community

A Question about the Knight [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ian0311
03-18-07, 01:25 AM Knights, in most cases, are honorable and do their best to win in fights. I wonder, however, about the Improved Disarm Feat. Would a knight (a lawful good one, at that) disarm his enemies? Wouldn't that be make the battle less honorable? Or would it prove his prowess on the field of battle and thus make him more honorable?
Skrillex
03-18-07, 01:28 AM Knights, in most cases, are honorable and do their best to win in fights. I wonder, however, about the Improved Disarm Feat. Would a knight (a lawful good one, at that) disarm his enemies? Wouldn't that be make the battle less honorable? Or would it prove his prowess on the field of battle and thus make him more honorable? I think he should be able to disarm his enemies, seeing as they posed a threat to him and his companions.
1hitparry
03-18-07, 02:56 AM The way I see it, a knight would disarm his opponent and insist his opponent yield. If the opponent does not yield, I guess the knight would do everything he can to defend himself (fighting defensively, combat expertise, subdual damage maybe). Still kind of vague.
Ranger REG
03-18-07, 03:22 AM Knights, in most cases, are honorable and do their best to win in fights. I wonder, however, about the Improved Disarm Feat. Would a knight (a lawful good one, at that) disarm his enemies? Wouldn't that be make the battle less honorable? Or would it prove his prowess on the field of battle and thus make him more honorable?
It's not always kill or be killed. If your enemy surrenders, then you shoud give him the courtesy to lay down arms. It's also give you the right to take your enemy as a prisoner for ransom, unless you or your overlord wish to render a judgment of law against him.
TheOinodaemon
03-18-07, 04:17 AM I think disarming is perfectly fair. The knight gave his opponent a chance to ready his weapon, then showed his mastery by taking it away. Good way to avoid killing if you don't have to.
Southernskies
03-18-07, 08:31 AM I just designed a new character around this concept. :D

With Improved Disarm, your secondary attack is practically as good as your primary attack. The premise is: 1st attack for damage, if high AC, 2nd attack is disarm, else attack for damage and use 3rd attack for disarm.

As they can't disarm you back, using those attacks that can't hit their AC anyway give a really good defensive synergy (they lose actions getting a new weapon out, for an attack that wouldn't hit anyway).
Dismas
03-18-07, 08:55 AM The knights preference of disabling rather than detroying his target is more than on the honorable side, but destroying a disabled opponent is not. Of course, if they keep coming, put'em down with non-lethal damage.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ian0311 03-18-07, 01:25 AM	Knights, in most cases, are honorable and do their best to win in fights. I wonder, however, about the Improved Disarm Feat. Would a knight (a lawful good one, at that) disarm his enemies? Wouldn't that be make the battle less honorable? Or would it prove his prowess on the field of battle and thus make him more honorable?
Skrillex 03-18-07, 01:28 AM	Knights, in most cases, are honorable and do their best to win in fights. I wonder, however, about the Improved Disarm Feat. Would a knight (a lawful good one, at that) disarm his enemies? Wouldn't that be make the battle less honorable? Or would it prove his prowess on the field of battle and thus make him more honorable? I think he should be able to disarm his enemies, seeing as they posed a threat to him and his companions.
1hitparry 03-18-07, 02:56 AM	The way I see it, a knight would disarm his opponent and insist his opponent yield. If the opponent does not yield, I guess the knight would do everything he can to defend himself (fighting defensively, combat expertise, subdual damage maybe). Still kind of vague.
Ranger REG 03-18-07, 03:22 AM	Knights, in most cases, are honorable and do their best to win in fights. I wonder, however, about the Improved Disarm Feat. Would a knight (a lawful good one, at that) disarm his enemies? Wouldn't that be make the battle less honorable? Or would it prove his prowess on the field of battle and thus make him more honorable? It's not always kill or be killed. If your enemy surrenders, then you shoud give him the courtesy to lay down arms. It's also give you the right to take your enemy as a prisoner for ransom, unless you or your overlord wish to render a judgment of law against him.
TheOinodaemon 03-18-07, 04:17 AM	I think disarming is perfectly fair. The knight gave his opponent a chance to ready his weapon, then showed his mastery by taking it away. Good way to avoid killing if you don't have to.
Southernskies 03-18-07, 08:31 AM	I just designed a new character around this concept. :D With Improved Disarm, your secondary attack is practically as good as your primary attack. The premise is: 1st attack for damage, if high AC, 2nd attack is disarm, else attack for damage and use 3rd attack for disarm. As they can't disarm you back, using those attacks that can't hit their AC anyway give a really good defensive synergy (they lose actions getting a new weapon out, for an attack that wouldn't hit anyway).
Dismas 03-18-07, 08:55 AM	The knights preference of disabling rather than detroying his target is more than on the honorable side, but destroying a disabled opponent is not. Of course, if they keep coming, put'em down with non-lethal damage.