[4e] Houserule: Disarm (Combat Action)

[Itomon]

Disarm
You make straightful moves against the enemy, possibly forcing her to drop the weapon she wields.

The character may try to disarm a foe, dropping the weapon on the ground and maybe picking it up.

DISARM: STANDARD ACTION

* Target: You may only use this combat action against a target that is one category size larger, the same size or smaller than yours, and that is wielding a weapon that can be dropped in combat.

* Attack Roll: Choose a creature within your melee weapon reach, and make a basic attack roll against target's Reflex defense. If successful, do not deal any damage, but instead the target suffers -2 penalty to his/her next attack roll - this penalty only lasts until the start of your next turn; in addition, the target immediately makes a saving throw to avoid being disarmed. If the target fails the saving throw, he/she drops the current weapon in the square he/she occupies.
* Picking the enemy's weapon: You (or an ally in his/her own turn) may then pick up the weapon that the target dropped with a minor action. This attempt provokes an opportunity action.


[Additional house rule:]
INTERRUPT PICKING OBJECT: OPPORTUNITY ACTION

* Resisted Dexterity check: this action can stop a target from picking up an object that is in your current square. If you win, the target cannot pick the item and lose his/her action, but he/she can try again if there are actions remaining on his/her turn. Failing this resisted check means that the target successfully picked the object.


- Unarmed Monsters:

This may be troublesome for some DM's to deal with disarmed creatures, so make up a rule that suits best for your game.
* reduce the damage dealt: you can use the [d4] disarmed damage, but it may be very harsh for the challenge balance; you may instead give a damage reduction for all disarmed creature's attacks.
* disable some powers: depending on the case, being disarmed may turn impossible for some monsters to use one or more powers, or just reduce its effectiveness (not giving a certain condition or bonus for a successful attack, in instance). I didnt give it much tought, so I hope that you guys can reply to this and give me your opinion.

Best Regards,
Itomon

[nightwyrm]

Have you considered the potential problem the use of this disarm power by multiple minion monsters against the PCs?

[true_shinken]

If you want combat maneuvers anyone can make, you should play 3.5, really. Even something as simple as a disarm action would have a ripple effect. Disarming specially might potentially break the system, because in 4e you usually really really need your weapon or implement (when you get magical ones, I mean).
So I really don't think it's a good idea. Maybe they'll have some sort of disarming effect in that fortune card booster thing, anyway.

[kyoryu]

I've gotta agree with true_shinken on this. In 4e, if you want to houserule, it's usually best to start by making an appropriate power, rather than a rule available to everyone.

[Mando Knight]

make a basic attack roll against target's Reflex defense.

NO.

Disarm is probably one of the hardest combat maneuvers possible (I mean, have you ever tried to knock a weapon out of the hands of someone who you're fighting? It's really bloody difficult). Weapon vs NAD is supposed to be a relatively accurate/easy attack roll. These contradict each other.

[Kurald Galain]

DISARM: STANDARD ACTION

There are three problems here.

First, using a standard action to only give an enemy a -2 is grossly underpowered and never worth using.

Second, this is unbalanced in that it affects weapon users but not implement users.

Third, the game already has rules for picking up things.


This is a better way to write a Disarm power in 4E:

Disarm, fighter encounter 3
Your fancy handwork causes your enemy to drop his weapon on the ground, forcing him to use his bare hands until he picks it up again.
Standard action, Str vs AC
Hit: 1[W]+Str mod damage, and the target is weakened until the end of your next turn.

[ShaggyMarco]

If you absolutely want anyone to be able to disarm, I would go this direction:


Disarm
With a flash of your blade, your opponent suddenly finds his hand empty.

STANDARD ACTION*Weapon
Range: Melee
Target: One Creature who is holding something
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: The target suffers -2 penalty to attack rolls until the start of your next turn. The target immediately makes a saving throw to avoid being disarmed. If the target fails the saving throw, he/she drops the held item in the square he/she occupies.

This is a very suboptimal use of a standard action. Of course, so is bull rush--this is by design. This will affect both implement and weapon users, and could also be used if, for whatever reason, the opponent has snatched something you need them to not get away with <- which is, honestly, the only big advantage I see to having a disarm action. An advantage covered by "special PC actions" in the DMG (A Dex check vs. Reflex to make a guy drop something?)

Unless a monster power says "Requires (item x)" next to a power, it won't affect the power beyond the -2 attack roll. This Disarm action does not invalidate other disarming powers, grant bonus attacks, or win the game.

Letting Monsters use this action will be problematic and probably ruin your game. One of the designed benefits of 4ed is that you almost never have to completely recalculate your stats mid-combat due to loss of weapon, armor, magic item, or ability scores. Making a PC figure out what his attack and damage rolls are like without his +3 Baddie-slaughter Longsword or his +2 Orb of Mind-Wuju will slow things down. Pcs losing their stuff is ALWAYS worse than Monsters in 4ed.

[Itomon]

Guys, thanks for answering the thread. I do not hope Disarm is something ordinary or necessary, but sometimes its fun to see in a combat scene the disarming; or the PCs may find that the "only" way to win a particular encounter. Use it as you will - you can even make it valid only in a specific encounter to favor this kind of action/drama.


nightwyrm, this should not be an appealing combat action and monsters should not likely use this. Or, being a houserule, DM may just assume its not avaliable for NPCs (or most of them).

true_shinken, I don't think disarming is "unfitting" for D&D4e; it seems that 4e rules tend to make people think that is only possible to do in game world what your character sheet says so. And also, i don't think weapons and implements are that important, except for those who take them as requirement (like rogue or ranger). But, that's just me.

kyoryu, you may be right, and for that we will have to discuss "Disarming consequences" (see below). But, basically, disarming can be nice, a new option to overcome an encounter in an interesting, exciting way.

Mando Knight, what you say is true, but the Disarm action do not deal damage, and gives the target a chance to resist the disarming effect. If it is still "easy" to disarm, we should probably give the target a bonus to his/her saving throw, but not to the attack roll, since the character is already abdicating of dealing damage on that combat round. I hope you may come back and give us some ideas, too. Thanks!

Kurald Galain, the disarm combat action was meant to be among bullrush and aid another actions, and should not be under or overpowered. And the "interrupt picking" is just a way to make it even harder to steal an enemy's weapons (he can pick it up again in his turn, if the attacker cannot pick the weapon in his/her own turn, but needs more thoughts... later we think about it ^^')


now, to give reason to the Disarm move creation:
Disarming Consequences
I did not give much thought about disarming consequences, but basically it should not be something that "defeat" the foe, as some stated in other threads and sites.

Many creatures (and PCs!) do not suffer from being unarmed, while other specifics have lot of trouble with that. And that is why we need to discuss about being unarmed.

* Monsters lose their weapons: a monster that lose his/her weapon, unless DM states otherwise, suffer a -2 penalty to the damage he deals that depends on that weapon. This penalty is increased by -4 in paragon tier, and to -6 in epic tier. The monster can still use the same powers he did when wielding the weapon.
The DM can also state that some other effects are lost (for example, a creature which basic attack deals damage and knocks the target prone may lose the knocking prone ability), or that one or more powers are disabled (use that wisely, or make the encounter even more interesting - maybe the only way to overcome a combat is by disarming one or more foes).

- - -

Shaggy Marco Sorry, i was writing the reply above before having your answer here, so thanks for coming! And what you say is very similar to what i had thought, but simplier to handle. And yes, it was made for the PCs, not the monsters, although any monster could have this option that would be more like a new power for the monster, rather than a basic rule that everyone can use.

So, in the end, i would use your or mine rule, since they are very alike and should (i hope!) not mess too much with rules balance.


(sorry if i miswrite something, me no english speaker! XD)

Best Regards,
Itomon

[Sipex]

I find this useful, my PCs like to think my D&D world works how they expect it to work, water and metal conduct electricity and people can be disarmed. We work together to come up with solutions for this but having an actual houserule which seems (overall) balanced works just fine for me.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

What about having Disarm be an effect you can gain for any attack made by spending an action point? That would put it out of the reach of minions, and it would also keep it at the dramatic level that it should be. (Disarming is very, very rare, and you usually kill the opponent first, unless you're trying to be a nonviolent fighter. Even then, it's very hard and you rarely have the opportunity to do it.)

[true_shinken]

true_shinken, I don't think disarming is "unfitting" for D&D4e; it seems that 4e rules tend to make people think that is only possible to do in game world what your character sheet says so. And also, i don't think weapons and implements are that important, except for those who take them as requirement (like rogue or ranger). But, that's just me.

But it is unfitting, Itomon. This is a game where all you can do is in your character sheet. That's one of the premises of 4th edition.
So tell me, why would you be able to disarm an opponent, but unable to trip him? Why can you disarm an opponent, but can't break his equipment?
And weapon/implements are important for anyone. The game math includes implement/weapon bonuses, including the enhancement bonus.
Also, 4e is extremely gear dependant. If a Tiefling Fighter loses his Flaming Sword, this dude will be hitting a lot less often.
This is stuff 3.5 cares nothing about, but 4e is all about the balance. And this would really screw up the balance (specially as written, becaus it doesn't apply to implements). That would be the best action always for any intelligent creature to use on any martial character. Picture a two-weapon ranger - if you take alway one of his weapons, he can't use his powers or his class abilities. Guy becomes useless, period.

I find this useful, my PCs like to think my D&D world works how they expect it to work, water and metal conduct electricity and people can be disarmed. We work together to come up with solutions for this but having an actual houserule which seems (overall) balanced works just fine for me.

I think you're playing the wrong edition, then.
Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Kurald Galain]

Kurald Galain, the disarm combat action was meant to be among bullrush and aid another actions, and should not be under or overpowered.

And yet it is. Bullrush is underpowered, but still sometimes useful. Aid Another is so underpowered that it's never worth using. And your Disarm action is weaker than Aid Another, at least for the PCs.

Many creatures (and PCs!) do not suffer from being unarmed,

Actually, all PCs suffer a lot from being unarmed. Aside from taking a -1 to -11 penalty to-hit, they are now unable to use any and all of their weapon specific powers (e.g. sneak attack), and their damage may drop from 2d6 brutal to 1d4.

For example, a rogue that has +10 to hit and deals 3d8+12 damage is now reduced to +7 to hit and dealing 1d4+6 damage.

The DM can also state that some other effects are lost

By 4E philosophy, powers should have clear and consistent effects, not "whatever the DM feels like" effects.

We work together to come up with solutions for this but having an actual houserule which seems (overall) balanced works just fine for me.

I'm in favor of that, but this houserule isn't "overall balanced" - it's not even in the same ballpark as "balance".

[Sipex]

But it is unfitting, Itomon. This is a game where all you can do is in your character sheet. That's one of the premises of 4th edition.
So tell me, why would you be able to disarm an opponent, but unable to trip him? Why can you disarm an opponent, but can't break his equipment?
And weapon/implements are important for anyone. The game math includes implement/weapon bonuses, including the enhancement bonus.
Also, 4e is extremely gear dependant. If a Tiefling Fighter loses his Flaming Sword, this dude will be hitting a lot less often.
This is stuff 3.5 cares nothing about, but 4e is all about the balance. And this would really screw up the balance (specially as written, becaus it doesn't apply to implements). That would be the best action always for any intelligent creature to use on any martial character. Picture a two-weapon ranger - if you take alway one of his weapons, he can't use his powers or his class abilities. Guy becomes useless, period.



I think you're playing the wrong edition, then.
Sorry, couldn't resist.

I disagree unfortunately. D&D is whatever you make it, and that's one of the good things about houserules, they're yours to use. The world won't end nor will the game forever change if I implement a houserule you don't agree with. I believe forcing my players to think with their character sheet quickly stagnates the game and isn't something that should be promoted.

That said, we're here to give input on this so I'm not going to argue that your opinion on the rule is invalid and it has already helped the OP redesign it from the looks of things.

[nightwyrm]

Looking at your newest iteration, it seems that the disarm action is quite useless for a PC while being quite good for monsters. PCs suffers tremendously for being disarmed. A -2/-4/-6 to damage is nothing, while a weapon-wielding PC sudden goes from d12s to d4s. A PC's "to hit" can drop by 4+ points since most classes are not proficient with unarmed attacks. Not to mention all the powers and feats that requires the specific use of a weapon type.

I mentioned minions in my last post because that's one of the easier ways you can cheat the action economy in NPC's favour. Minions do piddly damage most of the time, but since you can have 4 minions for every standard monster, you can have 4 standard actions instead of one. This can be very advantageous for actions like bull rush and aid another. What is a weak power for one monster with one standard action, can be very useful if you have 4 times the attempts to do it.

[Itomon]

I'm in favor of that, but this houserule isn't "overall balanced" - it's not even in the same ballpark as "balance".

Then I just hope we find a balance for this, and for every other options that seems imbalanced and/or stops players of having fun.

I gave thought of this rule because a player in my game session (I am the DM) asked about it. Thanks for stating that it is unbalanced, so I will have to work more about it, but I cannot just say "no" to my player if he finds interesting to disarm an opponent.

That is about perspective of the game. You can give as much importance to rules as you want, but in a good, balanced D&D game, the main point is not making rules balanced first, but instead certify that everyone in the game feels the same about rules.

If in the same game session one players care all about rules, and other gives no importance to it and favors the dramatics, it is my duty as DM to find a reasoning in between. And that is why I am trying to make disarm an option for PCs.


I wasn't aware of the specification about weapons, but I liked the option to make "disarm action" simply a variant of melee attack that make the foes drop an item - weapon or implement.


I thank you all for what you said! I learned a lot and I feel i'm ready to consider using a houserule for Disarming.


Cheerfully
Itomon

[true_shinken]

I gave thought of this rule because a player in my game session (I am the DM) asked about it. Thanks for stating that it is unbalanced, so I will have to work more about it, but I cannot just say "no" to my player if he finds interesting to disarm an opponent.

Make it a power like Kurald suggested. There, fixed.

[Kurald Galain]

I cannot just say "no" to my player if he finds interesting to disarm an opponent.

I agree. There are two things to consider.

First, actions should require one roll to work (usually an attack roll). Your action requires three rolls to be successful: 1. the attack roll, 2. the saving throw, and 3. the dex check. That means that it has a very low chance to succeed.

Second, actions should have a meaningful effect. Giving an enemy a -2 to damage as the only effect is too small.

So my advice is (1) make it work on one attack roll, and (2) give it a bigger effect. That applies to disarming, but also to any other fun custom move the players want to try.

I don't think it's a problem that this action is overpowered in the hands of monsters: that's under the DM's control, and most monsters simply won't do that.

[true_shinken]

I don't think it's a problem that this action is overpowered in the hands of monsters: that's under the DM's control, and most monsters simply won't do that.

But why wouldn't they? Not all monsters are stupid. It hurts verossimilitude. Of course you can just to hell with that... well, 4e basically already did that, so scratch what I said.

[Kurald Galain]

But why wouldn't they? Not all monsters are stupid. It hurts verossimilitude. Of course you can just to hell with that... well, 4e basically already did that, so scratch what I said.

Ah, you'd be surprised how high level a party you can massacre with a bunch of level-2 elf archers in a forest...

[Sipex]

I think part of the consideration you should be taking as a DM when running an encounter is "Would this be fun?"

A monster disarming the player every once in a while (maybe an elite or something) and knocking their weapon away might be fun and dramatic.

Monsters coming up with incredibly complex plans to 'beat' the players by...oh, I don't know, swarming them with minions who disarm then run off the the pilfered weapons to clear the way for the actual challenging monsters is not fun.

This is the same with terrain advantages. A teeth clenching encounter where a grey dragon tries to push you off a cliff while you battle it back can be exhilerating.

Every monster you come by waiting for the just opportunity to kill you by bullrushing you off the nearest structure isn't.

Basically, your players shouldn't feel like you, the DM, are out to get them because let's face it, if that were the case it wouldn't be fair at all since you have total control over most of the game.

[true_shinken]

Basically, your players shouldn't feel like you, the DM, are out to get them because let's face it, if that were the case it wouldn't be fair at all since you have total control over most of the game.

But that's not the case. You presented specific monsters over specific terrain. Unless you basically waltzed yourself into that situation, yes, it would feel like the DM was out to get you. But if anyone can disarm, why wouldn't any monster with half a brain do it? Do they want to lose? Is it fun if everything you fight wants to lose?

[Hal]

Hm . . . I would imagine that someone disarmed in combat is essentially helpless. What if this were a utility power or feat to allow you to "intimidate" an opponent into surrendering. Say, Athletics vs. Reflex, using the other rules of Intimidate as given?

It seems like it would better fit the feel of 4e.

[Sipex]

But that's not the case. You presented specific monsters over specific terrain. Unless you basically waltzed yourself into that situation, yes, it would feel like the DM was out to get you. But if anyone can disarm, why wouldn't any monster with half a brain do it? Do they want to lose? Is it fun if everything you fight wants to lose?

It's not necessarily "Want to lose". This is easily justified by monsters not being self aware of their stats. Most monsters aren't going to know their proficiency in disarming vs that of the PCs and might decide to stick with something they're more comfortable with (attacking, grappling, whatever they're built for pretty much).

Plus, having every monster abuse the same tactics over and over just because it works would get extremely boring and become predictable. "Okay everyone, drink your reflex potions I brewed en-masse because we're fighting humanoid monsters and you know what THAT means."

[Kurald Galain]

But if anyone can disarm, why wouldn't any monster with half a brain do it?

Because D&D is not a tactical wargame: the DM does not play against the players.

[true_shinken]

Because D&D is not a tactical wargame: the DM does not play against the players.

But that's not the point. I'm talking about verossimilitude here.
If disarm was a standard option in 4e, monsters not using them would ruin verossimilitude (but like I said earlier, 4e doesn't really care about that anyway). Assuming you do care about verossimilitude, this is akin to a dragon that doesn't strife with his breath weapons just because the players can't fly behind him (this example is from 3.5, actually, since I don't know 4e dragons).
As a DM, you can design encounters so that it doesn't come up. Don't throw dragons against groups without flight, don't throw intelligent creatures against players that would die if disarmed.
But if suddenly you need opponents to hold the idiot ball for the game to work, well, there is a reason that trope is under bad writing.

[Sipex]

I think you're arguing a different thing than we're arguing.

Monsters being able to disarm when appropriate isn't a bad thing. Monster lost their weapon? Go for the disarm. Monster going 1 on 1 duel with a PC? Disarm.

What you seem to be saying to me (and I may be off base here) is if the option exists (and the monsters are of human intelligence or greater) the monsters should always use it because it's a superior option.

I mean, if you're just arguing that the monsters shouldn't avoid using disarm just because it's effective then I agree to that extent. I'm just advocating avoiding using it repeatedly because in it's unbalanced form it may be mechanically superior.

[tbarrie]

But it is unfitting, Itomon. This is a game where all you can do is in your character sheet. That's one of the premises of 4th edition.

Then why does the DMG have that section on resolving PC actions that aren't covered by powers, with the statement that this is something a DM would want to encourage?

So tell me, why would you be able to disarm an opponent, but unable to trip him? Why can you disarm an opponent, but can't break his equipment?

Who says you can't do those things?

[Sipex]

Oh yeah, my PCs like tripping too, they do that without powers that state it, I just make sure that the generic tripping is less effective than a power which trips.

[Doug Lampert]

I mean, if you're just arguing that the monsters shouldn't avoid using disarm just because it's effective then I agree to that extent. I'm just advocating avoiding using it repeatedly because in it's unbalanced form it may be mechanically superior.

I think if disarming is mechanically superior then you've failed.

If it's not a power but an at-will action available to everyone, then it needs to be weaker than a class granted at-will attack for almost everyone in almost every situation.

Like Bull's rush. It should be situationally useful (for both monsters and PCs), but only rarely worth it. IMAO that's the ballance you SHOULD be trying for if just anyone can do this.

But being disarmed is potentially crippling. Losing his non-magical dagger could drop a first level rogue from one attack at +10 to attack 1d4+2d8+8 to one attack at +0 for 1d4+0 damage. And monsters that use weapons often have all their at-will attack powers require the weapon. Even if you let them attack unarmed, it won't be much better than that rogue for many of them.

This is basically a single strike win power. It's hard to make that only situationally useful if it's even possible for it to come up at all often.

You can declare "screw that", disarmed only costs you a small amount of damage and a small to hit penalty regardless of what the powers say. You still attack with your vicious greatsword's enhancement bonus and critical effect for the rest of the encounter even if disarmed. But then why call it "disarmed" if it doesn't actually prevent armed attacks?

You could declare that everyone carries six spare weapons "just in case", and that all the monsters have quick-draw. But then why bother?

This is an "I win" power if it hits, and yet it needs to be nearly useless.

Alright, I can manage that. Heck, the game already has one in the ability to use Intimidate to get a surrender out of a bloodied foe! Anyone can do it, yet it's rarely done.

Note: If the target isn't bloodied or helpless then it probably shouldn'd be subject to single action "I win" powers. So I'll require that the target be bloodied or helpless.

Disarm
Standard Action
Melee Touch, 1 bloodied, helpless, or minion target.
You make an strength based ability check vs. the target's Fortitude defense +2. If this succeeds then the target drops one item it was holding (chosen by the attacker) into a space it occupies adjacent to the attacker (chosen by the attacker).
Special: If the target has an unspent action point, then it may spend an action point without gaining an extra action or any other bonuses to avoid dropping the item.

DM Note: Elites and Solos should have their equipment revised to include a backup weapon like a dagger or knife and a basic attack with the backup weapon.

[WitchSlayer]

I play Dark Sun, thus people losing their weapons doesn't effect the PCs THAT much.