Wondering if anyone had any disarming homebrews
Here's an idea: Disarm
- standard action.
opponent is allowed to make an oppertunity attack against you.
If hit you fail to disarm and you take damage as if it were a nomral oppertunity attack, if miss you can use the pickpocket thivery skill against the weapon used in the oppertunity attack.
All the same rules for the pick pocket check for in combat situations would apply you would just be able to do it against the weapon instead of a small item.
I think with these rules it would be very risky and hard to disarm an opponent, but I believe it would be nessisary since you'd be making a monster relatively useless.
I believe there is a disarm power that is like level 17 or something. Letting all classes do it at 1st level at will is a bit overpowered. The problem with disarm is that it is usually completely overpowered (no weapon, reduced to unarmed combat) or doesn't have much effect at all (natural attacks or backup weapons). Balancing a disarm is like trying to balance a SoD.
So in the case you provided, it is either not worthwhile to try it at all, or it will be so useful in that circumstance that it is best to try it round after round until you succeed. If nothing else, it should at least be an encounter power. I would suggest maybe making a feat required for it, and even then you have to take it instead of one of your normal attack powers. And even then I still wouldn't recommend it, because again, its either too powerful for an encounter power, or its completely useless.
Yeah I see what you mean. One of my players really wanted it house rules for us. He's playtesting a monk. So I'll ask him what he thinks about spending a feat and giving up an encounter and the previous stuff I wrote down here.
Do you think you could recall what lvl.17 power did disarming?
And nice Iliad quote!
My personal suggestion regarding any sort of disarm power would be to make it a daily. Let's face it, in any given movie or novel, how often to disarmaments actually happen? 4e is intended to be a bit more cinematic in its feel and flow, after all.
As for the issue of having natural weapons...it might stretch credibility a tad, but it could always be said that the offending limb is struck in just such a way as to render it numb for a few moments...which would be an entire encounter, effectively. As we all know, a good shot to your (not-so) funnybone can leave your hand useless for easily the length of a normal combat in D&D. In a world where even the non-magic-using heroes are still super, it's not a huge leap to say they know how to "stun" just your hand or arm or whatnot. Even so, not all daily powers are effective in all situations anyway, so the fact that Disarm wouldn't work on natural weapons is rendered largely irrelevant.
On the subject of back-up weapons...they still have to stop and grab the thing by the normal weapon-drawing rules, so the disarm is perhaps less effective, but still serves a purpose. Now they're probably using a less effective weapon, at least in some regards, and if its their only back-up then there's nothing to stop someone else from knocking it down too if they have their power to use yet. Anything that changes the nature of the encounter in your favor is good...even though sometimes it's not as much as you'd like...or necessarily worth the effort. Using the power and discovering they had a spare weapon would be disappointing, but not so much so as a failure of the power altogether.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the topic.
Exorcism of Steel Fighter Attack 17
You chop at your foe’s hand, causing a grievous injury and forcing
him to drop his weapon.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. Reflex
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).
So your player wants a level 1 at-will usable by anyone, instead of a level 17 encounter that is available only to fighters (unless he multiclasses).
Definitely make him at least give up a feat and a power slot for it. Making it at least an encounter helps ensure that he doesn't just spam it round after round until it works. I know many people assume this is something anyone should be able to do, but in reality disarming a trained opponent is not a simple maneuver.
You do have a couple other balancing factors. For one, your suggestion provokes an OA, and a successful OA automatially nullifies the attempt. That should make the player think twice about it. Also, your version does not deal damage, vs this one which deals 2[w]. However, assuming the disarm is worthwhile to attempt, the damage is really neglible anyway, since it can become a permanent Weaken effect, especially if the players use cheesy tactics like having an ally ready an action to snatch up the weapon as soon as it drops. Finally, the pick pocket checks for in combat (DC 20 + target's level, with a -10 penalty to the thievery check) are not easy. Overall, I'd say it is sitting pretty good if you make those changes.
When you reduce a monster to zero hit points killing the monster is only one option.
You also have the option of knocking it unconscious. It would work just as well to take it's weapon and have it give up when it hits zero.
This is how I do it in my campaign. It's not a power or anything, but a combat option much like Charge or Bull Rush.
Disarm - As a standard action you can Make a Dexterity or Strength check vs your
Opponent's Reflex defense. if successful, your opponent must make an immediate saving
throw or he drops his weapon at his feet.
If the pc wants to kick the weapon away it requires a a minor action. The weapon is pushed 1d6 squares from the pc in any direction.
Here's a feat to go with it
Improved Disarm
Benefit: You can attempt to disarm your opponent as a Move action instead of a Standard action. In addition, if you have a free hand, you can take the weapon into your free hand instead of having it fall at your feet.
What I have found in my games is that when the pc's want to do it, it works maybe a third of the time, but when it does work, it makes the combats more lively as the characters either have to pull secondary weapons or run after thier prized weapon.
My other DM buddy just uses opposed Strength or Dexterity checks (You choose which to use).
Darth Singe, I think your version is extremely overpowered for the reasons I outlined to the OP. At-will is just too powerful for this sort of effect. I think it should at least be limited to an encounter power, and even if it is a power available to everyone, it should take up a power slot. Also, this is something that takes training to pull off, every single person who picks up a weapon should not be doing swashbuckler-type disarms. Besides, you've completely obsoleted Exorcism of Steel.
Darth Singe, I think your version is extremely overpowered for the reasons I outlined to the OP. At-will is just too powerful for this sort of effect. I think it should at least be limited to an encounter power, and even if it is a power available to everyone, it should take up a power slot. Also, this is something that takes training to pull off, every single person who picks up a weapon should not be doing swashbuckler-type disarms. Besides, you've completely obsoleted Exorcism of Steel.
worse, every minion has every reason to attempt disarm checks against the PCs since it certainly is more of a threat than pitiful minion damage
There's nothing overpowered about disarming. Come on, guys. If your DM is resourceful and actually knows what he's doing, the choice to disarm should feel significant, but it shouldn't by any means be a game ender.
Introducing Disarm as an at-will ability changes the environment. If PCs can do it, NPCs and monsters can too. It becomes another consideration just like anything else. In a world where people can disarm, smart fighters are going to know how to deal with it and will come prepared, either with a back up weapon, another ability that doesn't require a weapon, or a way to get their weapon back. You could even see situations where the really shrewd ones are starting combat with their weaker weapons out of the gate in anticipation of a disarm attempt, or just in an attempt to beguile their opponent.
And exorcism of steel? I understand your concern, Bone Naga, but I can't really bring myself to care about it. Invalidating exorcism of steel just comes with the territory of allowing disarm as an at-will. It's not the end of the world. To the OP, it's not worth preventing a more enjoyable gaming experience just to preserve one little rule in a book.
Disarming is part of combat. I think everyone skilled in fighting should be able to do it. In our campaign, fighters and rogues get it as an at-will. I feel that's a good enough balance, and it makes sense to us as an ability exclusive to skilled combatants. The mechanics work identically to DarthSinge's disarm (Str for fighters, Dex for rogues), except for two things. Firstly, instead of a saving throw, there's an OA that can interrupt the disarm (or if the target's a fighter or rogue, potentially disarm the disarmer!). Secondly, when the target is disarmed you roll 1d8 to decide which square it lands in (8 adjacent squares around a medium target), and you choose a number between 1 and 8. If you happen to roll your number, you can make a Dexterity vs. AC 10 attack to grab the weapon. No problems yet.
So, 4e, if to a slightly lesser extent that it's predecessors, prettymuch requires that a PC have a magical weapon to be effective. (And it's introduced implements, so that requirement is now universal in scope). If you happen to be running one of those 'low magic' games, where you get an enhancement bonus based on level, fine, you can make disarming universeal and relatively easy without screwing things up. Otherwise, being disarmed is a serious issue, and gets potentially worse as you go to higher levels (and enhancement bonuses become a larger and larger part of your total attack bonus).
Also, unless you're running an unusual game where most enemies work more like PCs (weapon users, with a non-trivial amount of attack bonus coming from the weapon, itself), it's something that'll impact PCs much more than NPCs.
In 3.x, my fighter carried more than a few weapons (for one thing, because you needed a variety of weapons to overcome varied DRs), so he always had a backup if disarmed or sundered, and his BAB was generally enough to get by, if he had to use a 'mere' MW weapon for a bit (though he might not bother with as many full attacks w/o a decent magic weapon to help the itteratives hit).
4e doesn't work that way. There's not much reason to carry multiple weapons. One melee & one thrown is about all you need. DR rarely cares what weapon you're using. And, there's no high-BAB class that can still take on level-apropriate threats and hit dependably without his usual enhancement bonus.
I have to agree that in 4E disarming at-will is entirely too powerful. The game would become a series of disarm maneuvers because of how effective they would be which is not what heroic fantasy combat should look like.
Anyone trained in using weapons should be well trained in not losing it as well. So one can just assume that they're too good at weapon retention to suffer a disarm except in extreme circumstances (like fighting a 17th level fighter willing to use a daily power to disarm them).
Disarm also unduly targets martial classes since it actually prevents the use of many of their powers unlike the other classes which merely lose their enhancement bonuses.
When you drop someone to 0 hit points they can easily be considered disarmed and subdued (especially since you can choose to not kill them at will with no penalty). That's the perfect disarm mechanic to me. It doesn't allow you to side step the hit point mechanic, which it shouldn't.
The game is more fun without disarm and sunder IMO.
The game would become a series of disarm maneuvers because of how effective they would be which is not what heroic fantasy combat should look like.
Why would this necessarily be the case? There are players out there whose combat strategies and decisions are informed by more than just what the most statistically powerful effect is. I mean, if that's what your game is reduced to, then shame on you. I personally see disarming as a style point. I have a great weapon fighter that would never do such a thing. He's all about charging head first into battle and smashing face. An old rogue I used to play would be disarming like it was his job. If ruled with the proper safeguards in place, disarming can be as punishable as it is punishing.
Anyone trained in using weapons should be well trained in not losing it as well. So one can just assume that they're too good at weapon retention to suffer a disarm except in extreme circumstances (like fighting a 17th level fighter willing to use a daily power to disarm them).
This isn't a bad point. Careful, though. I think you have to take into account the intentions of players like the OP, however, and understand that the desire for a disarm mechanic comes from the desire to have the active ability to disarm someone. They want a disarm action. I'm already pretending that I'm fighting. I'd like the feeling of rolling a dice and having it pertain specifically to an effect, as opposed to just assuming something is happening or not happening within the realm of my pretend actions. Assumption within imagination? Whoa, dude, you're blowing my mind! It's fun for disarm to exist as something that you can be good and bad at, as it further plays into the feedback between a character's motivations and his capabilities, which is really at the foundation of what makes D&D a great game from the PC's perspective.
When you drop someone to 0 hit points they can easily be considered disarmed and subdued (especially since you can choose to not kill them at will with no penalty). That's the perfect disarm mechanic to me. It doesn't allow you to side step the hit point mechanic, which it shouldn't.
This is an interesting point. That's certainly one way of looking at it. I do take contention, however, with your belief that disarming somehow sidesteps the hit point mechanic (or is that what you believe?). If you're disarmed, that in no way means you're out for the count. You have to come up with another solution. This is part of what makes the game interesting to me. Sometimes it's alright to leave player's without the opportunity to use their precious powers and think creatively and get through a problem through different means. I really don't think it's that hard to deal with when you lose a weapon. Nut up, I say! 
This has come up before (pretty often) - I worked out the math once - if anyone cares to see what I came up with, it's in this thread