To be honest, I'm surprised they kept feint, but dropped some of the other ones. And they didn't even give some Improved Feint feats.
Do you guys think there will be something like an Advanced Combat Guide that gives options back to these players? Personally, I'd love to see a Martial Controller that sunders and disarms, or maybe make a rogue or fighter do something like that. Maybe some power-swap feats like the whip powers could provide them?
Standard Action.
Target must be bloodied. (Since they'll effectively be taken out of the fight, it's essentially like using Intimidate to force a target to surrender.)
Player and target make opposed attack rolls. If the player (or enemy) wins by more than 10, the opponent is disarmed and damage is rolled against the weapon. If enough damage is dealt (usually something I make up on the spot, it's low for mundane weapons), the weapon is destroyed.
Sunder, ehh, never liked Sunder so I am fine with it not returning. I felt it took away more then it added to the game.
Well we already have Trip, it exists in numerous different Powers. Disarm mechanically I would say works quite similar to Trip in terms of what happens mechanically so a Power with Trip can be just reflavoured.
Sunder, ehh, never liked Sunder so I am fine with it not returning. I felt it took away more then it added to the game.
Well, I know we have a lot of Trip stuff built into powers, but I really would like to see something like a Standard Action Dex vs Reflex to make a target prone, and an Improved Trip feat that lets you do it as a minor action against an enemy you hit with a melee attack.
Sunder was pretty bad when DMs abused it. I played in a game where the DM would periodically ruin the Kensei's life in 3.5.
Second, the thing about disarming/sundering is it is useless a lot of the time, and can shut down people completely. Both of these things are a big problem. Because a dedicated disarmer would be useless a lot of the time, it is not fun.
Lots of powers can knock opponents prone, so tripping is there. But if a player wants to just trip a guy p.42 it easy.
As for the rest I believe that they where intensionally removed and as such no official rules would likely put them back in.
They could be house ruled back into the game through. Fitting the old rules into the standard power structure should be easy enough.
I love 4E combat, but when my players say something like "I want to knock the club out of the Ogre's hand and over the bridge", I remember that there really should be rules for that sort of thing.
Why? Why should there be rules for it? What benifit does it have in the game? "The ability to completly neutralize a certain specific group of enemies" is not a good reason for it's inclusion. "It was in 3E" is not a good reason either.
"The ogre is a strong and menacing opponent with a solid grip and capable combat technique. You aren't going to be able to simply knock the weapon out of its grasp."
If they press, explain that they can ultimately do so by reducing the ogre to 0 hp and electing not to kill it. This reflects the ogre tiring and being forced into a bad defensive position, at which point the PCs can finally knock the club out of its hand.
Seriously, disarming a capable opponent is hard. Disarming a mook is easy -- attack a minion and choose not to kill it when you hit.
Why? Why should there be rules for it? What benifit does it have in the game? "The ability to completly neutralize a certain specific group of enemies" is not a good reason for it's inclusion. "It was in 3E" is not a good reason either.
It's also really, really hard to do in real life, to the point where most people just ignore attempting it. There were weapons designed to be capable of breaking weapons, but only if you were lucky and the steel used in their weapon was cheap. Otherwise, they simply locked up the opponent's weapon and gave you better leverage. As for disarming a foe, the very nature of western style weaponry and weapon usage makes this almost impossible short of removing fingers or if you're facing someone using a very thin rapier and you're using something like a broadsword (note, a real on, not a D&D one, which is actually just a heavy longsword.) And forget about disarming a two-handed weapon in real life. You need to remove whole limbs for that one to work. /weapon historian rant
All that said, as has been mentioned, splicing the rules from past editions in wouldn't be a horrible solution, with the noted exception of trip, as it would make certain powers useless and the status of prone is very powerful.
I was gonna settle with "In real life you disarm the same way Vader did."
Well. Sort of. Only there's usually shattered bone and the remains tend to daangle, as opposed to falling off since most blades aren't that sharp. But same basic result. Only with rusty saws instead of instant cauterization.
Why? Why should there be rules for it? What benifit does it have in the game? "The ability to completly neutralize a certain specific group of enemies" is not a good reason for it's inclusion. "It was in 3E" is not a good reason either.
Tripping/disarming seems like a valid choice for a player in combat. Maybe the players aren't trying to kill/knock out everything, maybe they need to make a swift escape from the duke's court, and want to quickly neutralize guards by knocking them prone or removing their weapons before the rest of their forces descend upon them.
There should at least be more powers that sunder or disarm.
Your response to your players should be something like
"The ogre is a strong and menacing opponent with a solid grip and capable combat technique. You aren't going to be able to simply knock the weapon out of its grasp."
Screw that. I'd rather reward them for creativity and keep fights off bridges from that point on.
I think it works really well for minions.
What's next, "I buy a shovel and dig a hole through the dungeon floor so I can get to the second level without fighting through the monsters" is actually going to work?
Normally, I'm used to "creative" solutions also being "sensible" solutions with a "reasonable chance of success." Not "a hairbrained idea that a middle-schooler might attempt, but a seasoned adventurer should know better."
And yes, trying to knock a club out of an ogre's hands if you aren't very well trained in that kind of specific maneuver is a pretty hairbrained idea that shouldn't get you very far. The fact that it could in previous editions means that previous editions had stupid rules.
And yes, trying to knock a club out of an ogre's hands if you aren't very well trained in that kind of specific maneuver is a pretty hairbrained idea that shouldn't get you very far. The fact that it could in previous editions means that previous editions had stupid rules.
Oh, but to compensate, you would have piles and piles of penalties placed on the attempt. Oh, and unless you wasted a feat, you get AoO before you even get to attempt the 5% chance! Does the fun ever stop?
Really, that's what it comes down to. Disarm especially is a very specialized manouver that can only be made on a certain group of enemies, and in 3E was hampered by the usual penalties that were given out like candies with razorblades in that edition. It doesn't need general rules, because it is just so bothersome.
SoW Den of the Destroyer has it.
Disarming Strike (standard; recharge 5 6 ) ✦ Weapon
+11 vs. Reflex; 3d6 + 9 damage (crit 1d6 + 27) and the
target drops one weapon it is holding. The shadar-kai
weaponmaster can choose to catch the dropped weapon
in a free hand or have it land on the ground at his feet
(in his square).
My Weapon Now (free; when the shadar-kai weaponmaster
successfully catches a weapon a target drops; at-will)
The shadar-kai weaponmaster makes a basic attack with
the weapon his target just dropped.
You call that creativity? Really?
What's next, "I buy a shovel and dig a hole through the dungeon floor so I can get to the second level without fighting through the monsters" is actually going to work?
Normally, I'm used to "creative" solutions also being "sensible" solutions with a "reasonable chance of success." Not "a hairbrained idea that a middle-schooler might attempt, but a seasoned adventurer should know better."
And yes, trying to knock a club out of an ogre's hands if you aren't very well trained in that kind of specific maneuver is a pretty hairbrained idea that shouldn't get you very far. The fact that it could in previous editions means that previous editions had stupid rules.
In a world where characters can shoot fire from crystal orbs, a halfling can run past an entire squadron of guards causing them to hit themselves as they attempt in vain to hit her, and huge, scaly humanoids that breath lightning aren't chased out of the village ASAP, knocking a club out of an ogre's hand isn't sensible.
I'm with the majority here that 'disarm' can easily be represented by '0 hp' since '0 hp' simply means the enemy is removed from the fight and is no longer a credible threat. At that point you can roleplay it like a kill, a knocking out or a disarming, fitting the fluff for the different type of enemies you fight.
I think it works really well for minions.
That works really well since HP is just an abstraction, but I still think there should be an option for a PC to Force Orb the eldritch death wand out of the necromancer's hands before he can cast Power Word: Penetrate or a fighter to sunder the puny broadsword of the legion devil's commander so he can show them just how futile their struggle really is.
It often doesn't feel heroic during a fight, after you've expended most of your non-at-wills, and you're just chipping away at the BBEG. I think the sheer theatrics of trying to disarm/sunder/trip should be rewarded.
There is a disarm power in the game.
SoW Den of the Destroyer has it.
Disarming Strike (standard; recharge 5 6 ) ✦ Weapon
+11 vs. Reflex; 3d6 + 9 damage (crit 1d6 + 27) and the
target drops one weapon it is holding. The shadar-kai
weaponmaster can choose to catch the dropped weapon
in a free hand or have it land on the ground at his feet
(in his square).
My Weapon Now (free; when the shadar-kai weaponmaster
successfully catches a weapon a target drops; at-will)
The shadar-kai weaponmaster makes a basic attack with
the weapon his target just dropped.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Now that is a badass, cinematic move.
PCs should be capable of doing this.
In a world where characters can shoot fire from crystal orbs, a halfling can run past an entire squadron of guards causing them to hit themselves as they attempt in vain to hit her, and huge, scaly humanoids that breath lightning aren't chased out of the village ASAP, knocking a club out of an ogre's hand isn't sensible.
Your troll-fu is strong, grasshopper.
Completely different situations. There are acceptable levels of suspension of disbelief. Disarming an ogre that towers over you, with hands bigger than your head and a club bigger than your torso just doesn't make any in-game sense.
And minions are specifically designed so that a hero can walk up to them, whack them, and then look at the BBEG and say "you're next." It is not cinematic for the BBEG to get his weapon knocked out of his hand before he's truly beaten. Watch some movies. The only times the hero successfully disarms an enemy is when the enemy is goofing around and not being serious (which you could allow as a "the enemy seems to loosen its grip on its weapon" and pg. 42 it, but make sure the BBEG has a trick up its sleeve) or is a significantly lower level than the hero (in which case the hero has just defeated him) or the hero has beaten the BBEG bloody after a long battle (e.g. reduced the BBEG to 0hp).
In a world where characters can shoot fire from crystal orbs, a halfling can run past an entire squadron of guards causing them to hit themselves as they attempt in vain to hit her, and huge, scaly humanoids that breath lightning aren't chased out of the village ASAP, knocking a club out of an ogre's hand isn't sensible.
Of course it's sensible. You just don't succeed at it until you get the ogre to 0 hp.
Just like the wizard didn't burn the ogre to death with the fire from the crystal orb until it got it to 0 hp.
You're breaking the rules explicitly for the singular case of an opponent with a held object. Not for anybody else. Or are you going to reward your wizard's "creativity" when he says "I want to shoot my fireball at the ogre's head so it instantly kills him!"
As if the PCs aren't already trying to do this!
If you consistently describe fights in a cinematic and differentiated manner, many of the monster deaths likely involve knocking the weapon out of the enemy's hand, then proceeding to run the defenseless foe through.
Disarm was not made a standard generic power for a damn good reason. The designers were not fools, and I'm not a troll for suggesting so.
I'm not a troll for suggesting so.
No, you're a troll because of that horrid wart on you nose and the regenerating limbs. Which reminds me, does wart cream work against troll warts? Or would they just grow back?
If you consistently describe fights in a cinematic and differentiated manner, many of the monster deaths likely involve knocking the weapon out of the enemy's hand, then proceeding to run the defenseless foe through.
I hardly think that is a terrible thing. Minions never have to die in a boring way.
If say a dwarf wanted to make dungeoneering checks and there isn't anything special about the material that it is built from and he has a pick axe on him, why not?
What's next, "I buy a shovel and dig a hole through the dungeon floor so I can get to the second level without fighting through the monsters" is actually going to work?
If say a dwarf wanted to make dungeoneering checks and there isn't anything special about the material that it is built from and he has a pick axe on him, why not?
Because that would take years of solid excavation?
Sunder is the purview of DM who haven't been punched enough and should never, ever come back.
Seriously, disarming a capable opponent is hard. Disarming a mook is easy -- attack a minion and choose not to kill it when you hit.
When I took self defense classes, we learned how to disarm knives. Now, we did it with practice rubber knives, and were left to understand that if a knife is drawn in a fight somebody is going to get cut, but we were still taught. Going beyond my mediocre level of self defense, martial arts like Krav Maga (spelling?) teach disarms, and I'm sure many others do as well.
Disarm doesn't take someone out of a fight either. It is a minor action to pick something back up. It's actually less detrimental of an effect than tripping is, because trip requires a move action to get up.
If a 1st level power that trips is fine, a disarm one should be too. In a 1 on 1 fight, tripping only serves to keep an opponent from getting away from you (because they use up their move standing, so if they want to move away from you they're going to have to provoke an AoO).
As you said, in movies with fencing fights where disarms occur, they generally move the location of the fight. Isn't that what Pushes, Pulls, and Slides do? Obviously these are worth something, so moving someone can be as well.
And people are still able to make unarmed attacks. Yeah, having your +6 weapon disarmed at epic levels will suck, but there's no reason such a character couldn't have magic gauntlets or something. Or you know, they could run and get their weapon or try to get their opponent's weapon.
For my own games, I'm going to bring back sunder, trip, disarm, and especially grappling as basic "powers" that anyone can use. It is ridiculous to me that a 1st level fighter, who is suposed to be a cut above the rest already, can only trip once every five minutes, and even then only if they took the power. I'm sorry, but watch UFC bouts and you'll see it is perfectly realistic for people to be taken down to the ground multiple times in the same fight.
In the end, what would an at-will trip attack give a player? For giving up the ability to deal damage that round, they can take away the opponent's move action and give their allies a +2 attack bonus against them IF their allies delayed to go between the tripper and the target. That's better than Aid Another, but Aid Another is also against AC 10; the trip will be harder to do since it's going to be Str vs. Fort or Dex vs. Ref.
Any Power that Stuns a target can be described as sunder, trip or disarm.
Any Power that causes a target to be Weakened can be described as sunder, trip or disarm.
Example:
PC: "I strike the Ogre's club with my Warhammer, splintering it." or "knocking it from his hands" or "forcing him to his knees" or et cetera. (Rolls for Aid Another and an Ally gains +2.)
DM: (When the Ally attacks) "Because the Ogre is ..., you gain a momentary advantage and your sword strikes home."
DM: (On the Ogre's next turn) "The Ogre reaches up and tears a stout tree limb from a nearby oak and smashes it down upon you." (Roll attack power as normal; the Ogre has rearmed itself.)
As for the house rule (using opposed attack rolls and requiring a Bloodied target), why not just use the rules for Intimidation and describe the successful result as a sunder or disarm? (e.g., the Bloodied opponent was so intimidated it surrendered because it was disarmed.)
Also, Xeviat-DM reminded me of another disarm/sunder/trip the Push/Pull/Slide all may be easily described as such.
"With a clever twist, I flip his sword into the air and it lands nearby. He scrambles over and picks it up."
I kind of like Pathfinder's solution to Sunder with the application of the "broken" condition to sundered items. They can still be used (like Ron's broken wand in the Chamber of Secrets or the shattered Narasil at the opening of Fellowship of the Ring, where the broken blade sunders the One Ring from Sauron's hand), but they act wonky or have greatly reduced ability - definately something you would want to fix as soon as you could.
If it's really that big of an issue, just modify something like bull rush, instead of knocking the ogre off the bridge with it, knock the ogre's weapon away. Give the same save for avoiding a forced fall and call it good. I still think getting rid of the weapon is suboptimal when getting rid of the entire creature is an option.
Disarm is a hilarious trap for newbie players who don't realize how phenomenally useless it will actually be to them in the course of a normal game.
Sunder is the purview of DM who haven't been punched enough and should never, ever come back.
True story.
When I took self defense classes, we learned how to disarm knives.
Probably the easiest weapon to disarm.
Now, how effective do you think your techniques would be on an ogre? Or hell, how about on anyone wearing metal gauntlets and wielding a basket-hilt blade? When the blade is a couple feet long and they're trying to slash you with it?
If a 1st level power that trips is fine, a disarm one should be too.
The problem is that it's too situational as a power. Not everything can be disarmed, but if you disarm some things, you completely remove them from combat (consider: any caster that is holding their implement).
Let me repeat that. You can remove BBEG casters from combat by hitting them with a successful disarm maneuver.
It's like the save-penalty nova. It's bad for the game.
It is ridiculous to me that a 1st level fighter, who is suposed to be a cut above the rest already, can only trip once every five minutes, and even then only if they took the power.
The fighter can also trip whenever the enemy is reduced to 0hp. Until then, they are successfully defending themselves, even though the fighter may be gaining the upper hand.
I'm sorry, but watch UFC bouts and you'll see it is perfectly realistic for people to be taken down to the ground multiple times in the same fight.
Really?D&D fights have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with UFC bouts.
I mean, maybe in the highly unusual case that you have humanoid opponents facing off in a one-on-one match without weapons, highly trained in unarmed combat, and without the desire and intent to kill each other... but D&D isn't exactly designed to simulate that kind of fighting.
I love 4E combat, but when my players say something like "I want to knock the club out of the Ogre's hand and over the bridge", I remember that there really should be rules for that sort of thing.
To be honest, I'm surprised they kept feint, but dropped some of the other ones. And they didn't even give some Improved Feint feats.
Do you guys think there will be something like an Advanced Combat Guide that gives options back to these players? Personally, I'd love to see a Martial Controller that sunders and disarms, or maybe make a rogue or fighter do something like that. Maybe some power-swap feats like the whip powers could provide them?
They are already in the game.
But I guess you are wanting someone who can disarm or trip as an at-will power...that will never happen
When I took self defense classes, we learned how to disarm knives. Now, we did it with practice rubber knives, and were left to understand that if a knife is drawn in a fight somebody is going to get cut, but we were still taught. Going beyond my mediocre level of self defense, martial arts like Krav Maga (spelling?) teach disarms, and I'm sure many others do as well.
Knives are probably the easiest weapon to disarm. They're rarely longer than 5 or 6 inches, and as you said, somebody is going to get cut. What about someone wielding a two handed sword? Think you could disarm that? There is an inherant disadvantage to disarming. It's not something a normal person would really want to try to do anyway, unless the situation called for it.
Disarm doesn't take someone out of a fight either. It is a minor action to pick something back up. It's actually less detrimental of an effect than tripping is, because trip requires a move action to get up.
In real life, you're right. In D&D, however, you're wrong. You disarm a BBEG with him implement, and you've effectively taken him out of the fight. You disarm the Orc, and although he can keep fighting, he's now a lot less effective.
If a 1st level power that trips is fine, a disarm one should be too. In a 1 on 1 fight, tripping only serves to keep an opponent from getting away from you (because they use up their move standing, so if they want to move away from you they're going to have to provoke an AoO).
Apples and Oranges. See above.
As you said, in movies with fencing fights where disarms occur, they generally move the location of the fight. Isn't that what Pushes, Pulls, and Slides do? Obviously these are worth something, so moving someone can be as well.
Who says that push, pull or slide wasn't made by a disarm. As a creative DM, I have said things like, "You slash at the Ogre and the flat of the blade hits his hand. He throws his hand up in pain and tosses his weapon." This is using the push/pull/slide mechanic to roleplay a disarm.
And people are still able to make unarmed attacks. Yeah, having your +6 weapon disarmed at epic levels will suck, but there's no reason such a character couldn't have magic gauntlets or something. Or you know, they could run and get their weapon or try to get their opponent's weapon.
Again, see my above comments. This takes some people completely out of the fight. At best, they lose a round retrieving their weapon, assuming it can be retrieved. This can be detrimental.
For my own games, I'm going to bring back sunder, trip, disarm, and especially grappling as basic "powers" that anyone can use. It is ridiculous to me that a 1st level fighter, who is suposed to be a cut above the rest already, can only trip once every five minutes, and even then only if they took the power. I'm sorry, but watch UFC bouts and you'll see it is perfectly realistic for people to be taken down to the ground multiple times in the same fight.
If it's right for your campaign, go for it! It's just not right for mine. And in the designers eyes, it just wasn't right for the game. Also, since when was D&D a UFC bout?
In the end, what would an at-will trip attack give a player? For giving up the ability to deal damage that round, they can take away the opponent's move action and give their allies a +2 attack bonus against them IF their allies delayed to go between the tripper and the target. That's better than Aid Another, but Aid Another is also against AC 10; the trip will be harder to do since it's going to be Str vs. Fort or Dex vs. Ref.
But a trip won't take some people completely out of the fight, like disarm can.
You seem to think that the D&D rules have to mimic reality. In all honesty, anything added to the game has to fit within the rules already set up. Disarm simply doesn't fit in as a stand alone mechanic. There are several ways to add it to the game. I mentioned one. This thread is full of others. Be creative, don't be pigeonholed by the rules.
When I took self defense classes, we learned how to disarm knives. Now, we did it with practice rubber knives, and were left to understand that if a knife is drawn in a fight somebody is going to get cut, but we were still taught. Going beyond my mediocre level of self defense, martial arts like Krav Maga (spelling?) teach disarms, and I'm sure many others do as well.
And those disarms end in a broken arm or control lock. If you can remove someones knife from their hands forcibly you're in a position to end the fight. Probably lethally if you've got any sort of weapon of your own, or are just viscious enough.
All of the talk about "sunder/disarm is a no-no, it's free XP!"? All of you who mentioned it have instantly lost the argument. There's an official WotC power that disarms. Do you ban it? If you don't there's no argument against those powers, because they're already in the game. That power is free XP against armed enemies, and it's official, and that's the end of that stupid argument. Period.
Guys...
All of the talk about "sunder/disarm is a no-no, it's free XP!"? All of you who mentioned it have instantly lost the argument. There's an official WotC power that disarms. Do you ban it? If you don't there's no argument against those powers, because they're already in the game. That power is free XP against armed enemies, and it's official, and that's the end of that stupid argument. Period.
A 17th level Fighter Encounter Power vs a 0 level At-will Power everyone can use.
Period.
All of the talk about "sunder/disarm is a no-no, it's free XP!"? All of you who mentioned it have instantly lost the argument. There's an official WotC power that disarms. Do you ban it? If you don't there's no argument against those powers, because they're already in the game. That power is free XP against armed enemies, and it's official, and that's the end of that stupid argument. Period.
Hardly. That power is a level 17 Fighter power, and is an insanely powerful situational debuff. Handing that out to any idiot in the game would be horribly broken. The only reason the Fighter power isn't is because the Fighter can miss, and has to have a free hand open to make it into a long term debuff. Even then it might be too powerful.
Note that it specifies "weapon," which is nice. You can't disable the caster with it.
What I mean is, disarms and sunders exist. I'm not questioning that doing them at-will is a stupid maneuver (Were I handling them, I'd use Page 42 and make sure the character has to roll from 15 to 18 at a minimum to succeed), I'm just here to show how those saying "No, Sunder/Disarm is just plain bad and should not, will not happen EVAR!" are wrong. I DO agree with the idea that making them at-will is foolish, however.
Disarm by itself isn't what I was objecting to. In the future I will specify spammable disarm (or trip). Sunder is just bad 99% of the time and I'm really glad that it's in the DM's hands now (i.e. something can be broken if/when the DM approves).
Fighter multiclass, and a level 17 power swap.
Anyone can have a decent chance at disarming- All it takes is 2 feats.
Fighter multiclass, and a level 17 power swap.
How often can you do it? Daily?
This is NOT what was being talked about. What WAS being talked about was giving EVERYONE AT-WILL disarm, not a Daily* Level 17 Fighter power.
*I assume.
Encounter. Every encounter, you get a shot at SoDding and enemy that uses weapons.
Seriously?
Personally, I find that excessive.
Seriously?
Personally, I find that excessive.
It's in the Player's Handbook on page 83. Considering that there are other encounter powers a 17th level fighter can choose, and that a lower level power needs to be given up to get it, given the situational nature of Exorcism of Steel, it's a decent encounter power for high paragon tier. Essentially, a paragon tier fighter can choose to do 2(W) + STR and then disarm someone wielding a weapon (but not an implement) once per battle. Think of it like this: anyone who's competent enough to wield a weapon and not drop like a Stormtrooper who had too much lum (i.e. any monster/NPC other than a minion) can't be easily disarmed. A 17th level fighter can learn a power that let's him try to disarm an opponent once per combat. Those who want disarming in the game as an at-will ability have two options:
1) create an at-will manuever like bull rush. Make a Str vs. Fort attack. If you suceed the target drops his weapon in its square. If you fail you grant the target combat advantage. Anyone, including NPCs/Monsters can now use this option.
2) create a lower level Fighter power, which allows a disarm with less damage than Exorcism of Steel (probably 1(W) rather than 2(W)) and doesn't allow the fighter to catch the weapon. this would be a fine 7th level fighter power. If it seems lacking, maybe allow a fighter wielding a flail to add his dex to damage.
Either way it will require a little bit of houseruling (although the second option requires much less).
Most Fighters are sword-n-board, two-hander, or two-weapon. They don't have a free hand. So the only result is that the target takes some damage, can't use that weapon for opportunity attacks, and will want to waste an action next turn picking up the weapon (which does not provoke an opportunity attack).
A multiclassed Rogue or Swordmage might have a hand free to catch the weapon. It's still not a Save Or Die, unless every single one of the monster's attacks depends on having that weapon. I don't know if there are any monsters like that.
It's still not a Save Or Die, unless every single one of the monster's attacks depends on having that weapon. I don't know if there are any monsters like that.
Fire Archon Emberguard requires its Greatsword for all it's powers.
Fire Archon Emberguard requires its Greatsword for all it's powers.
Just did a quick flip through of the MM and there's a pretty decent number of monsters that only have Weapon attack powers.
Here's my assessment:
Disarming is more powerful than Weakening on weapon using targets (because their DPR effectively drops to 0, but only if you can keep their weapon away)
Disarming is less powerful than Dazing or Stunning (because it is situational and the target can still grab/bullrush/pick their weapon back up)
My suggestion:
Disarm
1[w] + Str and the target cannot use Powers with the Weapon keyword until the end of your next turn.
This is actually better than Exorcism of Steel is (unless you use EoS with a free hand) because EoS will otherwise only deny them their Minor action for the next turn as they draw a new weapon or pick up their old one, and it's worth pointing out that from my scan of the MM 90% of these weapon-using monsters don't even have a Minor Action power.
My suggestion:
Disarm
1[w] + Str and the target cannot use Powers with the Weapon keyword until the end of your next turn.
This is actually better than Exorcism of Steel is (unless you use EoS with a free hand) because EoS will otherwise only deny them their Minor action for the next turn as they draw a new weapon or pick up their old one, and it's worth pointing out that from my scan of the MM 90% of these weapon-using monsters don't even have a Minor Action power.
I know that I'm going to get bombarded with napalm for this, but that is similar to how it is handled in WoW. For a little bit, you couldn't use your weapon, and instead would begin to punch the enemy. And frankly, I like that way better. It causes less "Okey, so, I kick away his weapon" headaches.
Disarm: Str vs Reflex again. No proficiency bonus. Hit: opponent drops/can't use their weapon until they spend a move action to pick it up or get it back into a good position for attacking again. Another Page 42 ruling., and one that actually makes things like Swordbond useful.
Sunder, however, should never return. Its nigh-mpossible to do n reality, ruins many encounters. Leave it as a cinematic thing.
Now, how effective do you think your techniques would be on an ogre? Or hell, how about on anyone wearing metal gauntlets and wielding a basket-hilt blade? When the blade is a couple feet long and they're trying to slash you with it?
Probably pretty difficult. But I'm a career student and not an action star. How about I turn the question around: Would it be cool in a movie for the hero to disarm the ogre of the tree it's wielding? Would it be tense if the orc breaks the hero's sword and the hero is forced to pick up a downed opponent's weapon?
The problem is that it's too situational as a power. Not everything can be disarmed, but if you disarm some things, you completely remove them from combat (consider: any caster that is holding their implement).
Really? Disarming a wizard of their wand removes them from the fight? I was under the impression that casters could still cast without their impliment, they just lose the enhancement bonus to hit and damage and the impliment's own powers. Just like weapon users, impliment powers can be used without an impliment.
And again, disarming would put the item on the ground in the target's square, only a minor action away. How is that "completely removed from combat"? Especially when every caster monster I can recall neither has or requires an impliment (I'll agree that many monsters have weapon powers that explicitely require a specific weapon to use, but again, minor action away).
My point about UFC is one of realism. I've been in enough fights as a kid to know that I could attempt to trip someone multiple times without having to take a five minute break, and I know for a fact that I can attept to wrestle a bat away from someone when they're trying to hurt me with it. I understand the gamist element of not wanting a player to spam the same move over and over again. Trip could be situationally broken in 3.5, but I don't see any way it would be broken in 4E. Disarm even less so.
Outside of the realism arguements is the Cinematic Arguement. Someone brought up the opening scene of Lord of the Rings; the sword was broken but he was still able to defeat Sauron. I will conceed to descriptive flair when it comes to minions, but this could also be handled by saying disarmed minions flee rather than picking their weapon back up, and minions knocked prone are knocked unconscious. Heroic characters don't have their items broken by mooks, but villians can do it.
I wasn't aware Pathfinder had a broken condition for items; they had this in Saga, and it was very nice. It was something I implimented in my games, but only 2 players in our 8 year history of 3E ever used sunder extensively.
Would it be cool in a movie for the hero to disarm the ogre of the tree it's wielding?
It'd be cooler if he did something to stop the ham sized fist that's about to get plowed into his face.
Would it be tense if the orc breaks the hero's sword and the hero is forced to pick up a downed opponent's weapon?
No. Heroes generally carry cool, iconic weapons that would be lame if they got broken.
My point about UFC is one of realism.
This is hilarious both because you're talking about adding realism in DnD and because you're using bloodsport as an example of realism.
Trip could be situationally broken in 3.5, but I don't see any way it would be broken in 4E. Disarm even less so.
Trip gives the prone condition which includes combat advantage and a +2 to attack rolls plus the need of a move action to stand up. Compare this to Furious Smash and Lance of Faith which it blows right out of the bloody water.
Fire Archon Emberguard requires its Greatsword for all it's powers.
But it's a Greatsword, and cannot be wielded in one hand (if your fighter had that empty hand available)
As for not having attacks, it will still be able to use a basic melee attack - just simply remove the greataxe modifiers from it's basic attack - remove 2 from its attack rolls and replace the 1d12 with a 1d4.
"Unarmed" is still counted as a "weapon". If you're disarmed, you can still use anything that requires a weapon that isn't specific to the weapon type.
Of course, I'm glad that trip and disarm are no longer common mechanics. They should not be brought back as they were - melee classes do not need the extra mechanics on top of everything.
A recent podcast mentioned that you can justify a reduction to zero HP as being anything that would take an opponent completely out of the fight, like getting buried under a collapsing wall ... or getting disarmed or his weapon shattering. There's your disarm and sunder.
Excellent! I've advocated this one before, but it's nice to have an 'official' statement to refer to.
Can anyone provide a link to the podcast and/or a transcription of the statement? It can serve as an excellent response to many different questions people pose on this board.
I can't go on living in a world where I know everyone's weapons are indestructible, welded to their hands, and their feet and nailed to the ground.
That's a terrifying world. How does anyone get anything done? They can't go anywhere, because of the feet nails. They can't manipulate tools, embrace a loved one, or raise their fist against opression.
They have weapons in their hands. And nails in their feet.
kudos R_C
Probably pretty difficult. But I'm a career student and not an action star. How about I turn the question around: Would it be cool in a movie for the hero to disarm the ogre of the tree it's wielding? Would it be tense if the orc breaks the hero's sword and the hero is forced to pick up a downed opponent's weapon?
Really? Disarming a wizard of their wand removes them from the fight? I was under the impression that casters could still cast without their impliment, they just lose the enhancement bonus to hit and damage and the impliment's own powers. Just like weapon users, impliment powers can be used without an impliment.
And again, disarming would put the item on the ground in the target's square, only a minor action away. How is that "completely removed from combat"? Especially when every caster monster I can recall neither has or requires an impliment (I'll agree that many monsters have weapon powers that explicitely require a specific weapon to use, but again, minor action away).
My point about UFC is one of realism. I've been in enough fights as a kid to know that I could attempt to trip someone multiple times without having to take a five minute break, and I know for a fact that I can attept to wrestle a bat away from someone when they're trying to hurt me with it. I understand the gamist element of not wanting a player to spam the same move over and over again. Trip could be situationally broken in 3.5, but I don't see any way it would be broken in 4E. Disarm even less so.
Outside of the realism arguements is the Cinematic Arguement. Someone brought up the opening scene of Lord of the Rings; the sword was broken but he was still able to defeat Sauron. I will conceed to descriptive flair when it comes to minions, but this could also be handled by saying disarmed minions flee rather than picking their weapon back up, and minions knocked prone are knocked unconscious. Heroic characters don't have their items broken by mooks, but villians can do it.
I wasn't aware Pathfinder had a broken condition for items; they had this in Saga, and it was very nice. It was something I implimented in my games, but only 2 players in our 8 year history of 3E ever used sunder extensively.
Have you ever done weapons based combat? And I don't mean knives, I mean swords and polearms and axes? I do reenactment combat, live steel, rattan, and boffer. I also do sport fencing. My live steel and rattan is specifically polearm, which is actually USMC bayonet. And you don't every try to disarm your opponent. You don't try to knock them down. You try to hurt them, to break their hands, shoulders, ribs, and skulls. You try to run them through. But you most definitely do not try to get in close and grab them. You keep bringing unarmed martial arts to a sword fight, and fighting an opponent with a large weapon is very, very different than fighting someone with a knife.
The thing with a knife is that, ultimately, a knife as we see them today are extensions of unarmed combat. The smallest knife in D&D, however, is going to be around 8", and that a tiny knife. Most opponents will have something bigger, and believe me, you don't want to shoot a double leg of someone with a large, heavy blunt object that they can bring down. And every single weapon other than the dagger fits that description. Believe me, Krav Maga is really nice ad taking out an opponent in one-on-one close and lightly armed and armored combat, but it is significantly less effective on someone in body armor with a large weapon. For one thing, joint locks are less effective, as most armors will inhibit movement long before they normally would. Further, the armor makes a strike much less effective against any vulnerable areas. The biggest weakness an armored fighter, even in leather which is hardened, not the soft supple stuff we think of now, is the inner elbow, the armpit, the area around the crotch (less so if their armor is properly skirted), and the back of the knee. And pretty much every guard for a weapon eliminates the upper-body gaps by keeping them bent and protected. You neck is protected by a piece of armor called a gorget, and the crotch is protected by a hardened codpiece.
1) I never want to see those manuvers ever again. They ended up unfun at best, broken at worse, a waste of time most of the time.
2) The second your DM uses it to their Martial (And probably half your divine) characters, you will be crying foul. For example
A) Monster Moves to Disarm
B) Monster Disarms
C) Monster takes your weapon as a minor. Not in hand. Just takes.
and there you go. It's cripples half you players more effectively then removing the Raise Animal ritual for the Beast Mastery Ranger.
So just no. Forget about it. You don't really want what you think you want.
I can't go on living in a world where I know everyone's weapons are indestructible, welded to their hands, and their feet and nailed to the ground.
That's a terrifying world. How does anyone get anything done? They can't go anywhere, because of the feet nails. They can't manipulate tools, embrace a loved one, or raise their fist against opression.
They have weapons in their hands. And nails in their feet.
Dude, that sounds like a Tool video.
A minion breaks your +6 Vorpal Longsword, another sunders your +6 Godplate Armor, a third steals your +6 Amulet, and then a fourth trips you.
Adventure at it's finest.
Just two statements.
1) I never want to see those manuvers ever again. They ended up unfun at best, broken at worse, a waste of time most of the time.
2) The second your DM uses it to their Martial (And probably half your divine) characters, you will be crying foul. For example
A) Monster Moves to Disarm
B) Monster Disarms
C) Monster takes your weapon as a minor. Not in hand. Just takes.
and there you go. It's cripples half you players more effectively then removing the Raise Animal ritual for the Beast Mastery Ranger.
So just no. Forget about it. You don't really want what you think you want.
the Page 42'ed rules for Trip and Disarm have seen a bit of use in my games, and thus far nothings broken. Remember, tripping is a standard action that does no damage and gets no proficiency bonus. Same with disarm.
the Page 42'ed rules for Trip and Disarm have seen a bit of use in my games, and thus far nothings broken. Remember, tripping is a standard action that does no damage and gets no proficiency bonus. Same with disarm.
Let us be clear. You 'house ruled' it, and you've not abused it. However, if let us not pretend that abuse could not exist, and let us be specific in that this abuse exists only to cripple only one category of character classes, therefore discouraging Martial Classes, and half of your Divine classes as they currently stand. In other words, you return to your game 3E issues.
Bringing Trip and Disarm into common play creates uneven play and cripples current balance between classes. No common maneuvers should create obsolete classes. That was a problem with 3E. We do not need to bring that back.
A minion breaks your +6 Vorpal Longsword, another sunders your +6 Godplate Armor, a third steals your +6 Amulet, and then a fourth trips you.
a Player breaks the DM's jaw.
A minion breaks your +6 Vorpal Longsword, another sunders your +6 Godplate Armor, a third steals your +6 Amulet, and then a fourth trips you.
How in the bloody blue hells is a minion doing all that?
The steal thing, alright. But if you're going to bring back sunder you might as well bring back the fact that you had to have a weapon with equal or high enchantment to sunder a weapon. So why exactly is a minion running around with a +6 anything?
a Player breaks the DM's jaw.
Hey, you're the one that wanted to play with Disarm rules. Not his fault he uses them.
... or Sunder, as the case may be.
How in the bloody blue hells is a minion doing all that?
The steal thing, alright. But if you're going to bring back sunder you might as well bring back the fact that you had to have a weapon with equal or high enchantment to sunder a weapon. So why exactly is a minion running around with a +6 anything?
What, at 30th level Minions can't have magic weapons? Where is that written? Furthermore, who said that you needed a better magic weapon? Where is that written?
Oh, wait, it wasn't. My bad.
As for Sundering, that's gone, and with good reason - it was only useful against a narrow segment of enemies, and it was bad design because you were destroying treasure.
What, at 30th level Minions can't have magic weapons? Where is that written? Furthermore, who said that you needed a better magic weapon? Where is that written?
Oh, wait, it wasn't. My bad.
In the 3.5e books, same place Sunder is written. If you're going to revive a crappy mechanic you should at least bring along the one saving grace it had (if you defeated the enemies you were guaranteed their **** was at least as good as what they just broke).
In 3.5, a +1 sword could sunder a +5 sword if the person wielding the +1 sword could deal enough damage.
And trip is already something a number of powers do, not to mention being inherently less powerful than in 3E because of the minimal disadvantages of being prone (no AoOs, no penalty to attacks, the worst that can happen is losing a move action).
Something that bugs me in 4E is that monsters get all kinds of cool iconic abilities - Hobgoblins can grab someone, choke them, and use them as a human shield; Shadar-Kai can disarm you, grab the weapon from midair, and slice you with it - but PCs never get a chance to learn those tricks. "PCs and monsters are different" shouldn't mean "monsters get to do cool things, PCs need to stick to the basics".
Something that bugs me in 4E is that monsters get all kinds of cool iconic abilities - Hobgoblins can grab someone, choke them, and use them as a human shield; Shadar-Kai can disarm you, grab the weapon from midair, and slice you with it - but PCs never get a chance to learn those tricks. "PCs and monsters are different" shouldn't mean "monsters get to do cool things, PCs need to stick to the basics".
Huh? Have you read the players handbook? It's full of cool abilities that the PC's can get. You know why monsters get cool abilities - because there are a bunch of player controlled jerks breaking into their homes and trying to kill them. That's Why!
The fact is PC's and monsters ARE different. PC's are meant to survive more than one encounter where as monsters are not. PC's can heal themselves in combat with a second wind, which is pretty cool where as most monsters can't do that. So monsters aren't the only ones capable of cool abilities. Many 'monster' abilities can be taken by pc's if you read through the powers, some not till higher level though.
Now, here's a couple things about disarming/tripping/incapacitating an opponent. Martial arts are fine examples - however, I would say that most martial arts that espouse such techniques are done by the equivalent of characters that have a few levels in the class 'martial artist'. Said martial artist may have a power that disarms an opponent.
Now, as much as I have not been taught to use weapons I have learned some things over the years. When firing a gun, specifically when learning to use a gun for self defense - and really shouldn't most of you U.S. people know this don't you all carry guns? :P - you aim for the body. If you aim for the leg, arm, weapon you're only going to do one thing, and that is miss and get yourself killed. You aim for the body you take the person out in the most effective manner possible. You try fancy sh*t and you get yourself killed. Plain and simple. Now if you're a 17th level marksman with revolvers, then go for it try something fancy but if your a first level nobody, like most low level pc's, it's not going to work out well for you.
Now, there is another way to disarm someone. I think it is a common consensus that disarming a weapon effectively removes that person from a fight, yes? Well, couldn't this be accomplished by, I don't know, using intimidate on a bloodied opponent? If you succeed on the intimidate roll you knock the weapon out of their hand or sunder it - which is very hard to do with a weapon, watch Mythbusters - and they are done fighting.
Do you need rules for every little thing in game. No. You use the rules you have accomplish the goal and describe the outcome as you want, within reason, that is. And your done. Easy peasy, lemony squeezy.
First off, disarming doesn't take anyone out of the fight. Protip: Unarmed Strike is a weapon, and casters can still cast spells without an implement. The only thing Disarm does is effectively give someone an attack/damage debuff until they spend a minor action to retrieve their weapon. And it's not like you can't easily carry a backup, for that matter.
The higher level someone is, the more serious a debuff it becomes. An epic level enemy that gets disarmed is losing a +5 or +6 weapon and a +2 or +3 proficiency bonus. Let's say that enemy used to hit on a 11+. Your rogue disarms him, uses his free hand to drop the disarmed weapon into his Bag of Holding, and is now getting hit on an 18+ at worst or a 20 at best. And the enemy's damage drops, should he still hit. And he may lose abilities that depend on the item- a lot of nasty solos (Orcus, Dispater, etc.) are seriously weakened by the loss of their signature weapons.
Spammable disarm can be an easy win. Or totally ineffective, against certain monsters. This is why it's bad- if a character invests heavily, he can trash certain fights but only auto-attack in others. Further, disarm forces the DM to come up with new stats in the middle of combat ("Er, the ogre pulls out a large dagger, let me see..." "I disarm that, too" "OK, scratch that... unarmed strike it is.").
And trip is already something a number of powers do, not to mention being inherently less powerful than in 3E because of the minimal disadvantages of being prone (no AoOs, no penalty to attacks, the worst that can happen is losing a move action).
Easy trip spam with reach weapons is something we've already seen for a few years, and in this case the worst that can happen is action denial. A reach tripper can keep an enemy too close to charge and too far to retaliate. And again, heavy investment in this maneuver tends to make characters that either own an enemy or stand around auto-attacking. Trip spam is a boring and cheap way to take out a foe, and that's why it's gone.
Something that bugs me in 4E is that monsters get all kinds of cool iconic abilities - Hobgoblins can grab someone, choke them, and use them as a human shield; Shadar-Kai can disarm you, grab the weapon from midair, and slice you with it - but PCs never get a chance to learn those tricks. "PCs and monsters are different" shouldn't mean "monsters get to do cool things, PCs need to stick to the basics".
30 levels of powers are nothing cool? When did, say, Purifying Fire or Weaponsoul Dance or Garrote Grip (ahem) or Elemental Maw become "basic?"
Anyway, D&D has never let PCs do everything NPCs do, at least not through the core books. Open up your old Monster Manuals again and count how many races are playable and how many monster abilities (besides auto-attack) are also PC abilities.
When firing a gun, specifically when learning to use a gun for self defense - and really shouldn't most of you U.S. people know this don't you all carry guns? :P - you aim for the body. If you aim for the leg, arm, weapon you're only going to do one thing, and that is miss and get yourself killed. You aim for the body you take the person out in the most effective manner possible. You try fancy sh*t and you get yourself killed. Plain and simple. Now if you're a 17th level marksman with revolvers, then go for it try something fancy but if your a first level nobody, like most low level pc's, it's not going to work out well for you.
Two for the chest, one for the head (just in case they're wearing body armor) and don't stop until the ****er is down. If someone, say NCIS, turns up that you were aiming for an arm or a leg... your command gets notified and you go to Mast and get raped, 'cause you always shoot to kill.
And as for sundering or disarming, why are you Flynning anyway? Shouldn't you just kill or knock-out the enemy (more effective that way)?
Just my ¥2
Please correct me if I am wrong but as far as I can tell, by the rules, you could fireball a library and the books would be fine since they are not creatures.
I believe it's GMs discresion as to whether you can treat objects as creatures for any particular attack. Personally I think that should have recieved more commentary but I'll reserve final judgement until after I see how forcing people to think in this situation works.
I believe it's GMs discresion as to whether you can treat objects as creatures for any particular attack. Personally I think that should have recieved more commentary but I'll reserve final judgement until after I see how forcing people to think in this situation works.
This one's actually in the Errata:
Target [Addition]
Player’s Handbook, page 57
Add the following sentences to the end of the first paragraph: “Some powers
include objects as targets. At the DM’s discretion, a power that targets a creature
can also target an object, whether or not the power lists an object as a potential
target.”
Farmer42, your post was very well written and contained a very sound argument. I will agree that in traditional western armed combat, actions like disarm and trip aren't your best bet. I also will agree that an attack like trying to break someone's shield will be difficult at best, since the shield is designed to deflect. But shields will take damage when they block, and sunder used to exist to help facilitate this.
The only weapons combat I have done was very basic sport fencing with foils, shinai, and boken. The foil fencing was at university, while the others were with friends. So I am not an expert at armed combat (and my unarmed experience comes from a few years of self defense classes and a handful of fights in my teenage years). But I am fairly familiar with various martial arts through friends and my love of such documentaries. I know of several fighting styles which teach such maneuvers; krav-maga, for instance, teaches disarms, and every sport martial art where tripping is legal teach trips. I also know for certain that karate teach the staff as a weapon, using it either as a "double weapon" or akin to a polearm, and they teach trips in addition to standard attacks.
I must admit that my posts were seeming contradictory. I was referring to realism one sentence and then referring to cinematics the next sentence. I will make an attempt to explain my position further, in as uncontradictory a manner as possible.
I believe in realism within the game rules up to a certain extent, and that extent is this: If someone can do it in real life, I want them to be able to do it in a game. Someone can wrestle a weapon away from someone's grip. Someone can throw a person to the ground (foot sweeps, hip throws, and good old tackling are all simple examples). Someone can use an axe to cut wood (and thus a wooden shield). I brought up UFC because it is sport fighting that has been refined over the years so that the athletes now know which techniques are the most efficient (back in the early days when I watched, when there weren't weight classes, you'd get mismatched fights where a barrel chested brawler would fight a professional boxer); in the early days, a grappler named Gracie swept many tournaments, and now grappling is a must have skill. I'm aware that is unarmed combat, which is going to be different than armed combat, but my point is that these maneuvers are possible.
Cinematics come into play because that is where players get their influence from. If a player sees something cool in a movie, or reads something cool in a book or comic, they may want to do it in game. If these actions are believable, then an attempt should be allowed. I have one player in particular who loves to look for creative ways to deal with situations: he's asked to pin a goblin between two beds, used tables as barricades, and attacked a beam an archer was standing on, all in one session. Because we can visualize these actions working, and would find them exciting to see in a film, I allow the action to take place, generally requiring an attack roll against an appropriate defense as page 42 suggests.
So, I have two ideals supporting my position. All that is left is game balance itself. So I'm going to compare Aid Another to a theoretical Trip power.
Aid Another
At-Will * Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One Creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC 10.
Hit: One ally gains either a _2 bonus to their next attack roll against the target, or a +2 bonus to all defenses against the target's next attack. This bonus ends if not used by the end of your next turn.
Trip
At-Will * Weapon
Standard Action Melee unarmed
Target: One Creature
Attack: Strength vs. Fort, or Dexterity vs. Ref.
Hit: Target is prone.
Now, the prone condition comes with the following effects:
- You grant combat advantage to enemies making melee attacks against you.
- You get a +2 bonus to all defenses against ranged attacks from nonadjacent enemies.
- You're lying on the ground.
- You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls.
The prone condition can be ended with a move action, unless your square and all other adjacent squares are occupied.
Aid another is vs. AC 10; Trip does not gain weapon proficiency or enhancement and is against Fort or Ref: Advantage, Aid Another.
Aid another is gives one ally +2 attack; prone gives combat advantage (+2 attack) to any melee attack: Advantage, Trip.
Prone gives +2 defenses against ranged attacks from nonadjacent enemies (functionally, this means the attack bonus granted from combat advantage isn't going to apply to the entire group in most parties; odds are that someone's going to be playing a wizard, warlock, archer ranger, or laser cleric): Advantage, Aid Another.
Prone gives a -2 penalty to attack rolls, but the target can use a move action to stand before they attack (unless someone dazes or otherwise limits their actions): Advantage, Trip.
Aid Another can be used to give a defense bonus to an ally, rather than just an attack bonus: Advantage, Aid Another.
So, Aid Another is easier to perform, can give attack or defense, doesn't give the target bonus defenses vs. ranged attacks, and the attack bonus granted isn't circumstantial. Trip is harder to perform, can give attack bonus to multiple attacks and multiple allies, and may end up penalizing the target's attacks.
Since it can be situationally better (such as an all or heavy melee party, like the party in my current game which includes a ranged bard, a barbarian, a shield fighter, a tempest fighter, and a bravura warlord), but it is harder to perform, I'm going to go out on a limb and say such an attack would be balanced. It can be better (if the group has 3 melee attackers), so maybe it should come with some sort of penalty (provoking an AoO) or require a feat to aquire, but I don't think that is necessary; it's harder to perform, but it can be better.
Disarm is difficult. It would be possible to disarm an enemy and then use a minor action to pick up their weapon, but then they could simply choose to attack unarmed or disarm you in return. Officially, Monster and NPC attack bonuses are not based on enhanced weapons, so you're not going to affect their attack bonus at all. But, many NPC and monster attacks do require a specific weapon or implement to perform, so it can be very useful in certain situations.
In the end, I believe Disarm and Trip could be balanced in play. It really comes down to your play style: those that prefer combats with stunts may like having Disarm and Trip in their game. All I can do is present what I feel is a balanced application of them, and individuals can choose if it is balanced for their games or not.
Sunder, however, should never return. Its nigh-mpossible to do n reality, ruins many encounters. Leave it as a cinematic thing.
I sundered an opponent's weapon once while sabre-fencing. It is possible, just a rare occurrence that requires a bit of luck. Note: I can't tell if I'm agreeing or disagreeing.
I sundered an opponent's weapon once while sabre-fencing. It is possible, just a rare occurrence that requires a bit of luck. Note: I can't tell if I'm agreeing or disagreeing.
Ehh, it can happen in sport fencing when one person is strong enough and the metal in the foil isn't good enough. The foils aren't as strong as a true blade, so the repeated elastic collisions slowly wear them down. I've done it in fencing, too. Cheap foils can snap brand new, too. I all has to do with the quality of the metal.
Your response to your players should be something like
"The ogre is a strong and menacing opponent with a solid grip and capable combat technique. You aren't going to be able to simply knock the weapon out of its grasp."
If they press, explain that they can ultimately do so by reducing the ogre to 0 hp and electing not to kill it. This reflects the ogre tiring and being forced into a bad defensive position, at which point the PCs can finally knock the club out of its hand.
Seriously, disarming a capable opponent is hard. Disarming a mook is easy -- attack a minion and choose not to kill it when you hit.
I'd let the player(s) try it as either an Acrobatics or Athletics attempt, with the Ogre's STR modifier as a negative to their attempt. If they succeed, then the Ogre is at combat disadvantage for that round, if they fail, then they are at combat disadvantage till the end of their next turn. Seems fair enough to me. They're heros, so they should have a chance, but if they fail, it costs them.
Trip
At-Will * Weapon
Standard Action Melee unarmed
Target: One Creature
Attack: Strength vs. Fort, or Dexterity vs. Ref.
Hit: Target is prone.
Now, the prone condition comes with the following effects:
- You grant combat advantage to enemies making melee attacks against you.
- You get a +2 bonus to all defenses against ranged attacks from nonadjacent enemies.
- You're lying on the ground.
- You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls.
This is disgustingly powerful.
With one at will attack, you grant a +2 bonus to attacks on the target for all your allies, give the target a -2 penalty to attack, make them waste their next move action, and let anyone with a combat advantage power get a free one in.
Oh. My. God.
This is disgustingly powerful.
You grant a +2 bonus to attacks on the target for all your allies in melee, give the target -2 penalty to attack if they choose to not stand, make them waist their next move action, and let anyone with combat advantage powers use them.
You also give the target, in effect, +2 defenses vs. ranged attacks. It's also harder to hit with. A lot harder. AC 10 is nothing past the first couple of levels; heck, for a 1st level sword fighter, AC 10 is nothing (16 Str nets a sword fighter +7 to hit to start with).
Also, remember, combat advantage in melee IS NOT HARD TO GET. Flanking does it, and the rogue and ranger both have countless abilities (well maybe not countless) to let them move without provoking opportunity attacks. I have never seen a rogue yet make a melee attack without combat advantage. So flanking and using Aid Another nets a higher bonus for one ally.
So yeah, it's situationally better, which is why I said it should have a penalty attached to it (such as an attack of opportunity) or it should require a feat to purchase.
Please Vaalingrade, I respect you as a poster. Don't ruin that by selectively reading my posts.
You seem to think That hitting AC -- something all characters are supposed to do on a semi-regular basis -- is a balancing factor on this hugely powerful ability.
I'm not selectively reading your posts. An at will poer that knocks the target prone is much more powerful than both Aid Another (not situationally, it's ALWAYS more powerful) AND the Leader class attack buffs.
You seem to think That hitting AC -- something all characters are supposed to do on a semi-regular basis -- is a balancing factor on this hugely powerful ability.
No, I seem to think that Aid Another's targetting of AC 10 is the hugely balancing factor. Monster typical AC is 14+level, which means AC 10 is below par immediately out the gate; at first level, you could have written aid another's attack line to be: Str+5 vs. AC. And this just keeps going up, because Aid Another constantly targets AC 10.
At first level, my fairly unoptimized Str 16 Sword Fighter has an attack bonus of +7, which means he'll hit with Aid Another on a roll of 3. At 2nd level, once I've fond a +1 sword, I'll only miss on a 1, and it will be like that for the rest of the game.
I think it is fair to say that a typical party will have 3 melee character (Keep on the Shadowfell's premade party was Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Wisdom Cleric, and Wizard). I've already pointed out how easy it is for a rogue to get combat advantage.
So if the Fighter, Paladin, and Rogue are ganging up on a single target, the fighter can choose between Aid Another to boost someone's attack or Trip. If he uses Aid Another to boost the Rogue's attack bonus, the rogue's attack bonus goes from +2 (combat advantage, the rogue has every reason in the world to be flanking) to +4. The Paladin gets no benefit.
If the Fighter uses trip, it is harder to do (at first level, with no magic weapons, my example fighter's attack bonus of +7 vs. 10 drops to +4 vs. 13 if and only if my fighter is a shield fighter so he took one-handed weapon mastery). It takes away the target's move action, and if the party coordinated its actions the Paladin now gets Combat Advantage. The rogue gets no benefit. The target also loses a move action.
In my current game, we have 4 melee characters and one ranged character (2 fighters, 1 barbarian, 1 warlord, 1 bard). The ability for this group to fully surround a foe so that everyone is flanking is very easy (mostly due to the barbarian and tempest fighter's mobility, and the warlord's ability to move party members), so for them the trip's benefit is taking away move actions.
I know you don't think it's balanced. In my post I did say "maybe it should come with some sort of penalty (provoking an AoO) or require a feat to acquire". That is the part of my thread you were ignoring Vaal, but I also feel you are failing to comment on the evidence I've presented.
Hitting AC, for a melee character is thier bread and butter. There's no reason to consider that a penalty.
Taking something's move action in 4e is a really huge thing, considering how movement oriented the game now is -- also note that monsters can use combat manuevers too. Taking out the rogue's move action pretty much bends him over.
Further, I again point out the combat advantage problem. Yes, people can flank, but over the turn the target is down, your allies can move in on him without flanking and get a free +2 -- and the Rogue can paste him with SA from range.
A penalty simply isn't going to cut it, unless that penalty is 'is an encounter power'. Being able to do it at will in and of itself is overpowered, unless you make it a literal one in a million shot.
Hitting AC, for a melee character is thier bread and butter. There's no reason to consider that a penalty.
Aid Another is not vs. the target's AC. It's vs. AC 10. 10! That means you CANNOT MISS WITH AID ANOTHER PAST THE FIRST COUPLE OF LEVELS UNLESS YOU ROLL A ONE. That is not a penalty, that's a BONUS in favor of Aid Another. It's why Aid Another is worth giving up your standard action when there are at-will powers that grant to hit and also damage.
Taking something's move action in 4e is a really huge thing, considering how movement oriented the game now is -- also note that monsters can use combat manuevers too. Taking out the rogue's move action pretty much bends him over.
Yes, that is a strength for the trip power. In a on-on-one situation, that's the only thing it is useful for. Guess what? Grab does that too.
Now, I'm about to prove that my opinion can be swayed. Grab is a Str vs. Reflex attack, without weapon modifiers, and it's effect is immobilized until escape. It can be sustained as a minor action. Immobilized means you cannot move (effectively you've lost your move action) except via teleport, but you can still be moved via forced movement. Grab also allows you to move the target.
Ending a grab is a Move action Acrobatics vs. Reflex or Athletics vs. Fort check. If you succeed, you end the grab and can shift.
In light of grab, my trip power needs to be reevaluated. Grab immobilizes, and is sustainable. Trip grants combat advantage if melee attacks are made before the enemy stands, but it grants bonus defenses vs. ranged attacks.
If you don't want an enemy to escape, grab is a better option. Trip comes with more effects, but it also has several counters. I think Trip is fairly close to Grab in effectiveness, due to grab's sustainability, but Trip might require a feat. I don't like Trip requiring a feat because anyone can do it, but proper trips are techniques that need to be learned.
... and the Rogue can paste him with SA from range.
No he can't. Read Prone again: the combat advantage is for melee attacks, and Prone also grants +2 to Defenses vs. Ranged attacks. See, you didn't fully read my post.
No, the target grants combat advantage. Period. Full stop. there's a bonus to defenses at range, but the target still grants combat advantage to everyone.
That appears to be incorrect. Prone (PHB p.277) says:
"You grant combat advantage to enemies making melee attacks against you."
A prone opponent evidently does not grant CA to ranged attacks. I had not been aware of this myself... good to learn something new. Thank you Xeviat.
Also, I really like the way grab works. I'm working on a list of maneuvers that can be used while you're grabbing someone, such as making both you and them prone (and the grabber would gain the combat advantage against the prone target while the grab is maintained; the person on the bottom of a floor grapple is under the control of the person on top), and pinning (gives the restrained condition). A feat can exist to add unarmed damage to the grab and subsequent grappling maneuvers, to allow for unarmed fighters and not have to wait for monks (or for those who don't want to deal with the future Ki power source).
I also now think that Bull Rush needs a little buff, and it's an excellent opportunity to add greater pushing ability. I think 3E's style of pushing them more than 5 feet if you move with them should be brought back. I also think that very strong characters and creatures should be able to use Bull Rush to shove someone a considerable distance, not just 5 feet. Pushing someone 5 feet is a relatively minor effect, and compared to Aid Another it is very small (you'll notice that there are at-wills which deal damage and grant +2 to hit or +2 defenses, and there are at-wills which deal damage and push. Aid Another is nearly impossible to fail past the first couple of levels, but Bull Rush is raw str vs. Fort, which means it will rarely succeed at higher levels as the Fortitude defense of monsters scale at +1/level and Str mod only scales at +1/2 per level plus a potential +4-5 from ability increases; the lack of enhancement bonus from weapon/impliments hurt it, and I'd argue that Bull Rush should just use Athletics).
As for Disarm, the only way for disarm to be useful in 4E would be for someone to disarm while unarmed (and thus force someone to disarm them to get their weapon/implement back), or if kicking an item away were to be deemed a minor action ("manipulate an item" is a minor action, but throwing something has traditionally been a standard action because it's an attack). Realistically, kicking something would take the same amount of time and energy picking something up would take, and as long as it isn't being used as an attack there shouldn't be an issue. All in all, otherwise, disarm is only denying someone a minor action, and spending a standard action to deny them a minor action is pretty weak.
PS: The only addition to prone in the errata was this:
Prone [Addition]
Player’s Handbook, page 277
Add “You can’t move from your space, although you can teleport, crawl, or be
forced to move by a pull, a push, or a slide.”
This was already implied.
BoOm!!
*cough* BONZIA!!!
Either way, back to the OP's point. I don't think Wizards will remake these as basic powers. While I think they can be balanced, Wizards has all but made explicit that prone is an encounter-only condition; this will only be changed if a class gets an at-will attack which renders' an enemy prone. We might see something like that with the monk, but it's doubtful.