[Disarm] Clarification regarding 2 Handed and Light weapons Please

[Freesword]

This topic was brought up back in the Alpha discussion and got no official response.

Is the Bonus/Penalty to Disarm checks (and Sunder checks for that matter) for 2-Handed and Light weapons gone? If not, is it still the same as 3.x?

There is no mention of it in the Beta. In 3.x there was a +4 for 2 handed and a -4 for light weapon modifier to disarm and sunder checks.

Also, what is the correct DC to disarm an item held in both hands (such as a 2 handed weapon)?

While it states that a successful roll causes the target to drop "one item it is carrying (of your choice)", it then proceeds to say that if you succeed by 10 or more then the target "drops the items it is carrying in both hands". This could be taken to mean that a 2 handed weapon (or any item held in both hands) requires you to succeed by more than 10 to cause both hands to drop it.

If, as I suspect, this is NOT the case, could the wording be changed for the sake of clarity from:

Beta p150 wrote:

"If your attack exceeds the DC of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands)."

to something more along the lines of:

"If your attack exceeds the DC of the target by 10 or more, the target drops an additional item it is carrying in another hand (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands)."

[Jason Bulmahn]

Hmm.. there is a bit of ambiguity here that I will work to clarify.

However, I want to avoid adding micro, circumstantial bonuses to these checks unless absolutely necessary... They often just lead to micromanaging of the roll (ex. I rolled a 26, oh.. that was not good enough, how about a 30, I forgot it was two handed... ahem.. excuse me, it is a pet peeve of mine).

Moving along.. I want these rules to be as clean as possible, while still maintaining the verisimilitude of the 3.5 core. I am not 100% sure whether or not this particular nuance (the size bonuses) is worth the trouble.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[Quandary]

(reposted from other thread with different topic)

If Light/2H modifers were added back in (I presume it's just overlooked and not modified from 3.5)
it could state "Light/2H weapons have +/-4 to CMB both attempting a Disarm and Resisting one."
or if Maneuver AC is adopted "+/-4 to Disarm Attacks and to Maneuver AC vs. Disarm Attempts."

That seems simple, memorable, and easy to write in next to a weapon (doesn't change DC, just attack/AC bonus)

[Freesword]

Thanks for responding Jason.

I appreciate your confirming that the weapon size modifiers were intentionally omitted.

I will also take your comment as confirming that disarm DC is per item regardless of whether it is held in one or both hands and that exceeding the DC by 10 or more is only necessary to disarm a second held item. (unless you say otherwise)

While I am willing to leave conditional modifiers to DM discretion, I have no doubt you will find others insisting that they be spelled out in the rules.

[Quandary]

If Light/2Handed Modifiers ARE to be included (I think 2Handed Weapons SHOULD be more difficult to Disarm), I realized something:

Light and 1-Handed (no modifier) Weapons are BOTH held in one hand, so Light Weapons don't really need a penalty to BEING Disarmed, though a penalty to DISARMING others seems reasonable.

So:
2 Handed Weapon/Item: +4 to Disarm Attacks AND Maneuver AC vs. Disarm
Light Weapon: -4 to Disarm Attacks

[Majuba]

I'd drop any bonus (or penalty) to +2, matching the feat change. And honestly I'd only apply it to the defense of two-handed weapons, not offense. Which leads to this being a very rare situational bonus that might not be worth bothering with (as Jason mentioned).

It's a niggler.

[Robert Brambley]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hmm.. there is a bit of ambiguity here that I will work to clarify.

However, I want to avoid adding micro, circumstantial bonuses to these checks unless absolutely necessary... They often just lead to micromanaging of the roll (ex. I rolled a 26, oh.. that was not good enough, how about a 30, I forgot it was two handed... ahem.. excuse me, it is a pet peeve of mine).

Moving along.. I want these rules to be as clean as possible, while still maintaining the verisimilitude of the 3.5 core. I am not 100% sure whether or not this particular nuance (the size bonuses) is worth the trouble.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I'll chime in on my opinion of the matter; that a $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee (though not so sure in Seattle).

Disarm; I would remove the "if you beat the DC by 10 you can disarm something in each hand." I think that's too potent of an option to disarm a two-weapon wielder.

However, restate it to "If you succeed, you successfully disarm your enemy with a one-handed weapon, or knocked one hand off of a weapon being wielded in both hands (requiring a move action on his part on his turn to re-ready the weapon). If you beat the DC by 5, you completely disarm someone weielding a 2 handed weapon."

I wouldn't give a bonus to someone using a two-handed weapon to disarm - just be harder to be disarmed.

For Sunder: A two handed weapon will typically have more hit points thus harder to be sundered. AND wielding a two-handed to perform a sunder will typically do more damage since it is 2 x power attack and 1.5 str dmg. So the mechanics for sundering better with a 2-handed weapon are already built into it. Perhaps not succeeding in the CMB check, but there are built-in benefits; by adding more bonuses to performing the CMB with a 2-handed weapon, it just spikes the power creep making it all the more lucrative all around; it's like double dipping the benefits.

Regardless, I would make certain weapons - like a Flail - add one to the CMB check to disarm someone, as it is designed to do so, or certain weapons with a basket hit add 2 to the DC to be disarmed.

Regardless of what is to be done, I think the verbage needs to be clearer in the description of the maneuver as the OP pointed out.

Robert