| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it could probably have been done better. But it's too late to fix it now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the effect on a success lasted until the end of the creatures turn (unless they take an action to regrip) would that make everyone happy or is it too powerful? It’s a -2 to their attack which is like the +2 to raise your shield but in reverse (shield benefits you vs attacks, disarm benefits all allies vs one creature). If that’s too powerful then make it against their 1st attack.
The book maybe printed but I would prefer they change it then leave it like it is. The 1st option (without the option to regrip) can be done with swapping one word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why have it at all? Because people like gambling big and getting big rewards.
Disarming someone is a huge effect on a battle if successfully done in many scenarios (happened in a game just recently for me, rogue picked up the dropped weapon and ran with it)
It is something people want to do, but not something that should be easy or common.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the idea is to brainstorm changes to the rules, then this probably belongs in homebrew.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...My intention was not to brainstorm changes.
My example was just to illustrate how things could have been.
My intention was to confirm the devs really created an option that for all intents and purposes is a trap option (that I hadn't missed anything) and discuss why they didn't instead offer something useful, something that would actually work as a build option?
It’s not a trap option. On a Critical Success it’s a fight ender, like all the fight enders in this edition.
“Building” around fight enders isn’t really something you can do this round, which was intentional.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I’d say it’s a high-risk, high-reward option. You can either save it for desperate times and not focus on it, or build to try maximizing that gamble’s odds. But I think building to maximize it also makes you good at other stuff, like attacking with your disarming weapon, so your fallback is baked in?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My intention was not to brainstorm changes.
My example was just to illustrate how things could have been.
My intention was to confirm the devs really created an option that for all intents and purposes is a trap option (that I hadn't missed anything) and discuss why they didn't instead offer something useful, something that would actually work as a build option?
I just want to say that I do not think Disarm in any way qualifies as a "trap" option.
A low risk and high reward ability that doesn't require any amount of excessive investment is not a "trap".
Traps are typically things you're "stuck" doing that seems interesting, but isn't functional.
Now personally, I will not argue whether Disarm is viable/okay in it's current state. I do think that maybe it's not optimal often, but in the event that it does work (and it is guaranteed to work on a 20 if you're disarming someone even remotely in your difficulty range) it is extremely effective.
Even on a regular success, -2 to using the weapon takes away powerful Reactions that require attack rolls (which is something).
However you want to argue the strength of disarm, it doesn't have the other half of what makes a trap a trap, because it doesn't really have any "failed" investment.
Athletics is a great skill that covers lots of maneuvers. Choosing to be trained in Athletics doesn't mean a failed investment, because it offers a lot more than just disarm.
I would also argue that a Trap Option is an investment option that appeals to new players ("bait" if you will). I also feel like this doesn't have that kind of appeal.
If you want to say it's bad, weak, or you don't like the way it works, then sure that's valid.
But I think it's important we keep terms like "Trap" to refer to options that are actually traps and not just "bad choice of action for this particular round".
I also like that there's a "Thanos" scenario in the cards where multiple members can attempt to disarm a pivotal weapon.
So it becomes a viable group tactic at that point, because if 3 people succeed at a disarm, that's a +6 to attempt to disarm (unless I am missing some clause that says that multiple circumstance bonuses do not stack).
Plus there's always a possibility that some Class Feat changes Disarm:
"Uncanny Disarm"
Prerequisite: Expert in Athletics
Benefit: The effects of a successful disarm last until the end of your next turn.
And that takes it from "meh" to a pretty strong debuff you can apply to a creature, that provides a smoother path to a Critical Success opportunity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I'd be down for a normal success on Disarm causing a MINOR penalty (minor because consider that successful disarm is roughly equivalent to successful Demoralize but the enemy doesn't become immune to it, and so Disarm should absolutely NOT provide an effect as good or better than successful Demoralize. Especially since crit disarm is way better than crit Demoralize.).
But that's something the other thread acknowledged as well, so my point still stands.
And when you think about how bad an idea most of the knee-jerk ideas to "fix" disarm actually are, the more you realize that maybe, just maybe, the Paizo devs with years of experience actually know what they're doing. XP
Your comparison between the effects of a successful disarm and a successful demoralize are a bit off from each other. A success on disarm gives a bonus to further disarm attempts and penalties to actions using that weapon. This will matter, if they have a chance to take a reaction with that weapon before their turn, or there are multiple disarm attempts going on.
A character who is frightened has a penalty to all checks (including saves) and DCs (including AC).
The frightened effects are ones that are far more likely to be relevant before they wear off.
EDIT: Circumstance bonuses do not stack, so multiple characters cannot build up a heavy bonus to disarm with multiple successes.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My intention was not to brainstorm changes.
My example was just to illustrate how things could have been.
This sounds bit like you want to complain to an audience, not hear solutions.
My intention was to confirm the devs really created an option that for all intents and purposes is a trap option (that I hadn't missed anything) and discuss why they didn't instead offer something useful, something that would actually work as a build option?
Well, you heard reasons for why they made disarming hard. And people agree that the simple success effect is a bit lackluster.
So, a build option? No, I don't think you're "supposed" to build for disarm. You also don't have to buy a lot of feats so it's not like you got trapped into investing in disarm. If you're good at Athletics you can trip and shove and if the ideal situation comes up, you happen to be skilled for disarming too. You didn't have to pay extra for it.
That's not what a Trap is though.
A Trap is something you are stuck using.
There are good scenarios to using Disarm and you are not "investing" into anything except the Athletics skill, which is not at all devalued by the conditional value of Disarm.
Nothing explicitly tells me in the book when a Spell is going to be effective either, it just tells me the effects of said spell.
If a spell has "bad" effects that never are realized, then it would be a "Trap" spell because it costs you something to invest in that spell (a spell known).
Disarm costs nothing. It's an option among an investment alongside a bunch of other maneuvers as well as non-combat oriented things.
Complain about the value of the action if you want, but stop calling it a "trap". It's not a trap.
Any new player that uses Disarm and sees it not be super effective has lost nothing except the two actions of the round it cost them to attempt the disarm, and realistically, it grants benefits according to it's success metric (-2 to all activities with the weapon, so a substantial penalty to reactions with the weapon).
Just like a Stride/Strike/Step, there is a time to use them and a time not to. "Every round" should not be an absolute for any action IMO.
EDIT: Circumstance bonuses do not stack, so multiple characters cannot build up a heavy bonus to disarm with multiple successes.
Not that it surprises me, but is there book text for this I can read? It would be nice to know if it's circumstance bonuses do not stack in general or that circumstance bonuses from the same origin do not stack.
I think your math is off on when attempting disarming the boss is rational. It’s rational any time the first point is true and the expected value of your alternative action is a smaller fraction of a victory than the likelihood of disarming. (Assuming disarming is functionally victory, of course. Adjust as needed.) If I need a crit for my weak weapon to do more than 5% of the boss’s health past resistances, then why not try to disarm? That means disarming is also a good option when you’re going to TPK; a slim chance of turning things around is better than just dying because you can’t kill the boss in time.
For those wondering I found the relevant text on non-stacking:
There are three other types of bonus that frequently appear: circumstance bonuses, item bonuses, and status bonuses. If you have different types of bonus that would apply to the same roll, you’ll add them all. But if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you can use only the highest bonus on a given roll—in other words, they don’t “stack.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not what a Trap is though.
A Trap is something you are stuck using.
There are good scenarios to using Disarm and you are not "investing" into anything except the Athletics skill, which is not at all devalued by the conditional value of Disarm.
Nothing explicitly tells me in the book when a Spell is going to be effective either, it just tells me the effects of said spell.
If a spell has "bad" effects that never are realized, then it would be a "Trap" spell because it costs you something to invest in that spell (a spell known).
Disarm costs nothing. It's an option among an investment alongside a bunch of other maneuvers as well as non-combat oriented things.
Complain about the value of the action if you want, but stop calling it a "trap". It's not a trap.
Any new player that uses Disarm and sees it not be super effective has lost nothing except the two actions of the round it cost them to attempt the disarm, and realistically, it grants benefits according to it's success metric (-2 to all activities with the weapon, so a substantial penalty to reactions with the weapon).
Just like a Stride/Strike/Step, there is a time to use them and a time not to. "Every round" should not be an absolute for any action IMO.
EDIT: Circumstance bonuses do not stack, so multiple characters cannot build up a heavy bonus to disarm with multiple successes.Not that it surprises me, but is there book text for this I can read? It would be nice to know if it's circumstance bonuses do not stack in general or that circumstance bonuses from the same origin do not stack.
Page 444. Circumstance bonuses do not stack with other circumstance bonuses at all, just like every other bonus type, in 2E.
There are three other types of bonus that frequently appear: circumstance bonuses, item bonuses, and status bonuses. If you have different types of bonus that would apply to the same roll, you’ll add them all. But if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you can use only the highest bonus on a given roll—in other words, they don’t “stack.” For instance, if you have both a proficiency bonus and an item bonus, you add both to your d20 result, but if you have two item bonuses that could apply to the same check, you add only the higher of the two.
Circumstance bonuses typically involve the situation you find yourself in when attempting a check. For instance, using Raise a Shield with a buckler grants you a +1 circumstance bonus to AC. Being behind cover grants you a +2 circumstance bonus to AC. If you are both behind cover and Raising a Shield, you gain only the +2 circumstance bonus for cover, since they’re the same type and the bonus from cover is higher.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s no mastering of the rules required, Disarm is pretty explicit in its presentation. You need a Critical Success in order to fully disarm someone.
If a new player thinks they can get Critical Successes all the time then that’s a player expectation issue, not a Disarm issue.
There’s also no investing in it, just being Trained in Athletics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disarm isn't a trap option IMO. A bad option, but there is nothing baiting you into taking it before knowing the consequences.
You take it when you decide to take the action, and it is clear that you make an athletics check with the corresponding results. You know that only a critical success gives a broadly useful ability, every other outcome giving a mediocre result. Nothing is obscured here, nothing is making the analysis between trip and disarm and grab and shove difficult to tempt you to take the least broadly useful option.
Now, that said it is a bad option. The only circumstances where the success effect helps is when you know an enemy has AoO and that someone has to provoke it, or you know the next party member is also going to disarm. Why is it bad? We don't really know, but we can speculate. Perhaps they don't want people spamming a low-investment potential fight-ending tactic so they made comparable options with weaker benefits on crits but stronger benefits on successes. Perhaps the debuff was meant to last until the end of the enemy's turn but an editing error occurred.
Perhaps they want disarm to be an option easy to learn but hard to master, and then print feats for fighters and swashbucklers to represent mastering it. Already we have feats for fighters that make them better at using athletics to disarm, and make them able to disarm freely on their second and third attacks. The swashbuckler class is coming out with the APG, and the playtest coming soon may show us more ways to be better at disarm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
c=
Yeah, it could probably have been done better. But it's too late to fix it now.
Not really. Fixing things that could have been done better is one of the main things you do with errata, after all.
It’s not a trap option. On a Critical Success it’s a fight ender, like all the fight enders in this edition.
“Building” around fight enders isn’t really something you can do this round, which was intentional.
Yeah, but with most other 'fight enders', Paizo went out of their way to make sure that they had more mild but still meaningful effects with the actions when not critting. Color Spray blinds someone for a whole minute on a critical failure, but it still provides significant penalties on a failure and minor ones on a successful save. The various combat skill actions tend to follow a similar model (albeit less debilitating since they aren't spells).
Disarm does basically next to nothing on a success, which makes it a really punishing action and also an outlier compared to other abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spells give decent consolation prizes because you’re expending a resource. They generally take two actions, as well.
Spells require you to:
- Prepare a slot with that specific spell (that you cannot change)
or
- Use a vital "known" spell slot on said spell
- Can only be used a limited number of times per day
- Trigger reactions
An Athletics check to disarm requires none of that.
If Disarm was any better, it would make spells look terrible by comparison.
Grease:
If you target an attended object, the creature that has the object must attempt an Acrobatics check or Reflex save. On a failure, the holder or wielder takes a –2 circumstance penalty to all checks that involve using the object; on a critical failure, the holder or wielder releases the item. The object lands in an adjacent square of the GM's choice. If you cast this spell on a worn object, the wearer gains a +2 circumstance bonus to Fortitude saves against attempts to grapple them.
Now it does last 1 minute, but it also costs you a slot and it gives them two options for the save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting note: because fighter riposte happens on the enemy's turn, that gives you a full round to exploit it and go for that fight-winning critical success.
And yes, knocking a greatsword fighter down from 4d12+possibly some d6 down to 1d4 is basically fight-winning.
Interesting note: because fighter riposte happens on the enemy's turn, that gives you a full round to exploit it and go for that fight-winning critical success.
Oooofffff that’s good. A two action Disarm at the cost of a reaction with a full round to go for Disarm at the +2?
Not only is this awesome for going for the critical, it means if this is their first action, you’ve given them a -2 for using it in any subsequent uses of the weapon/item.
That’s not just good, that’s a character I’m gonna go build real quick lol also pretty low investment since a strike is always good as a response so even without the ultra value of the disarm it’s still a solid reaction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this thread should be merged with the original one. Two conversations on the same topic going on at once is confusing.
Interesting note: because fighter riposte happens on the enemy's turn, that gives you a full round to exploit it and go for that fight-winning critical success.
And yes, knocking a greatsword fighter down from 4d12+possibly some d6 down to 1d4 is basically fight-winning.
That’s assuming he can’t retrieve it or has no backup (which would be dumb on his part). Dropping it in his own space isn’t exactly a show-stopper since it would just be an interact (probably giving up an AoO) to pick it back up. You’d have to assume the PCs would succeed at picking it up and getting away, and I’m sure that’s a given.
|
|
That’s assuming he can’t retrieve it or has no backup (which would be dumb on his part). Dropping it in his own space isn’t exactly a show-stopper since it would just be an interact (probably giving up an AoO) to pick it back up. You’d have to assume the PCs would succeed at picking it up and getting away, and I’m sure that’s a given.Interesting note: because fighter riposte happens on the enemy's turn, that gives you a full round to exploit it and go for that fight-winning critical success.
And yes, knocking a greatsword fighter down from 4d12+possibly some d6 down to 1d4 is basically fight-winning.
In PFS1 it was very rare for enemy statblocks to list a serious replacement weapon, probably because PFS1 writers had to work with a fairly strict wordcount. So the GM's hands are rather tied in that case - run as written, Disarm was taking advantage of a meta-reason why it was so effective.
In PF2, since disarming requires a crit, it's most likely to happen on your first strike, leaving you time to pick up the weapon.
And let us not pretend that weapons are the only things you will be disarming with disarm.
You can ready action disarms as well even without reaction granting abilities.
As for taking attacks of opportunity in return for picking up a weapon. Well, that is all about positioning and whether the foes has access to AoO. It is still utterly debilitating if pulled off.
I think your math is off on when attempting disarming the boss is rational. It’s rational any time the first point is true and the expected value of your alternative action is a smaller fraction of a victory than the likelihood of disarming. (Assuming disarming is functionally victory, of course. Adjust as needed.) If I need a crit for my weak weapon to do more than 5% of the boss’s health past resistances, then why not try to disarm? That means disarming is also a good option when you’re going to TPK; a slim chance of turning things around is better than just dying because you can’t kill the boss in time.I agree disarming might be an option for, say, a Wizard out of spells, left using a useless dagger that can't get past resistances. Going for disarm means that instead of doing absolutely nothing, at least you'll do real good if you roll a 20!
Right?
Well, to me that's great ammo for the opposing argument.
If a game reduces your options to this, why not just stop playing and watch a rerun of Seinfeld or something?
Or, once you use the weak Disarm to give a boost to your allies, a guy with high Str and who also has high athletics joins in with the increased success chance? Meaning Disarm, a full fight-ender, requires some minor investment (a feat from at least one person, and skill ranks from two, but they'll both like the skill, usually).
EDIT: if 10+proficiency gives them a -2, then the next guy needs no more than 18+proficiency to end the fight, and give them +4 str for a natural 14 makes it... or 35% of basically ending the fight, in ONE ROUND. And it gets even better as they get higher Str at 10 and Apex Item.
And no one is making you use Disarm. You can go for Trip instead. Or, for said Wizard, prepare a combat cantrip or two. And maybe put some runes on your staff, so you can fight with that in a pinch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I contend it is useful as it is and MORE than ambitious enough. Let's take a classic team. Warrior, Skills, Arcane/Occult, Primal/Divine.
The two casters don't matter... actually, let's say they give a Heroism +1.
Warrior is anything that gets an option for +str at level 1. They take Athletics because that's their thing.
Skills just has lots of skill ranks. They take Athletics and Assurance to help the Warrior.
Skills attacks, then uses Assurance on two more maneuvers. Trip and then Disarm. If the Trip fails, they go for a Grapple instead. Let's assume it works, though. Disarm gets the exact same result, so it gives the +2 to disarm them in full.
If a 10 is just barely enough, then Warrior needs a nat 20 base to do it. But, Warrior has +4 str as opposed to the flat 10 the skill used from assurance and gets +2 effective from Skills doing a disarm. Also +1 Heroism. Instead of nat 20, they need only a 13 to do it. 40% to end the enemy's ability to fight, for 5 actions (disarm 1, heroism was 2, and warrior's disarm was another, then one more action to pick up their weapon so they can't use it). Trip could be a 6th, but that's just a diagnostic to check their defenses (and give them a different debuff).
So, 5 actions. 3 for future enemies. Utterly remove any target martial that uses weapons from the fight, or for just ONE action, realize it's not a good idea. If there's more, the Warrior can chuck the weapon away so a mage can pick it up and keep it away, and repeat with Skills.
Again, that's a battle-ender. It's an I-win button. Yes, it takes two people to do it well, but you CAN do it, and it's something you can build to spam, unlike Baleful Polymorph or Phantasmal Killer.
TL;DR: I posit they didn't make it more ambitious because it's already OP if you invest just a bit into it, with a skill that's not reasonable to invest in in the first place. Yes, it's high-risk that you wasted some of the actions, but it's spammable, and if the odds are bad, then you can just not do it after spending ONE action finding out.
Arcane/Occult
Find yourself a transmuter for Physical Boost: +2 status bonus to the next Acrobatics check, Athletics check, Fortitude save, or Reflex save it attempts.
Disarm should normally only be allowed within a reaction or readied action is the issue. Or somewhere explained that's how you get value from it.
The fact that this is not explained is sloppy at best.
A player can easily screw themselves over by assuming that it would effect the creature. Then they find out it doesn't.
That player is going to write off disarm entirely.
Weighing it's worth solely off its critical effect makes it obvious something is wrong.
Absolutely nothing wrong with the -2 lasting until the end of the enemies turn. It doesn't unbalance a damn thing.
Its critical effect is, for said Warrior, still a 25% fight-ender, at-will, WITHOUT any other party investment (and 50% of getting the -2 without the fight-ender, for 10% chance on the second attempt). That's a 32.5% chance of, with just two actions + picking up a dropped weapon, ending the fight with JUST a skill investment.
If Assurance works at their level, then the Str Warrior has, at a MINIMUM, almost a 1-in-3 shot per turn of ending it. Still pretty potent, and it only gets stronger if invested in (more str with level, other party members helping).
I agree that the text could stand to call out the "START of THEIR turn" drawback, though.
Disarm should normally only be allowed within a reaction or readied action is the issue. Or somewhere explained that's how you get value from it.
The fact that this is not explained is sloppy at best.
A player can easily screw themselves over by assuming that it would effect the creature. Then they find out it doesn't.
That player is going to write off disarm entirely.
Weighing it's worth solely off its critical effect makes it obvious something is wrong.
Absolutely nothing wrong with the -2 lasting until the end of the enemies turn. It doesn't unbalance a damn thing.
Using it as a reaction is risky because you need to time it so that if you disarm them they can’t use another action to pick the weapon up. You can improve the success condition but you nerf the critical success.
Unless you had another ally ready an action to pick up any dropped weapons....this is about as complicated as Star Lord’s plan to get the glove off Thanos.
Its critical effect is, for said Warrior, still a 25% fight-ender, at-will, WITHOUT any other party investment (and 50% of getting the -2 without the fight-ender, for 10% chance on the second attempt). That's a 32.5% chance of, with just two actions + picking up a dropped weapon, ending the fight with JUST a skill investment.
If Assurance works at their level, then the Str Warrior has, at a MINIMUM, almost a 1-in-3 shot per turn of ending it. Still pretty potent, and it only gets stronger if invested in (more str with level, other party members helping).
I agree that the text could stand to call out the "START of THEIR turn" drawback, though.
25% is also the odds you'd like on an at-will circumstantial fight-ender with low investment requirements. A fight is generally expected to last about four rounds. With a 25% chance, the expected length of the fight is the same. Since it's circumstantial, then you aren't gambling every fight.
Well, to me that's great ammo for the opposing argument.
If a game reduces your options to this, why not just stop playing and watch a rerun of Seinfeld or something?
I don't think the game usually reduces your options to this, but if you took this away for a balanced-for-success option, this wouldn't be available. You'd just have one more maneuver option that works similarly to trip or intimidate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disarm should normally only be allowed within a reaction or readied action is the issue. Or somewhere explained that's how you get value from it.
The fact that this is not explained is sloppy at best.
A player can easily screw themselves over by assuming that it would effect the creature. Then they find out it doesn't.
That player is going to write off disarm entirely.
Weighing it's worth solely off its critical effect makes it obvious something is wrong.
Absolutely nothing wrong with the -2 lasting until the end of the enemies turn. It doesn't unbalance a damn thing.
Using it as a reaction is risky because you need to time it so that if you disarm them they can’t use another action to pick the weapon up. You can improve the success condition but you nerf the critical success.
Unless you had another ally ready an action to pick up any dropped weapons....this is about as complicated as Star Lord’s plan to get the glove off Thanos.
I'd much rather rely on the success rather than the critical. I'm not into gambling.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
In media, when one swordfighter makes another drop their weapon it's almost always a sign that the disarmed combatant is significantly less skilled than the other, or that the fight is nearly over.
Attempting a Disarm in real life is risky and unlikely to succeed. In combat, you're much better off trying to cut off the opponents hand than to try to pry their weapon from their grip while they're trying to kill you.
If you want a reliable way to consistently remove a weapon from an equal level foe, you're asking to be overpowered, to the detriment of the gameplay and storytelling and realism.
As it is, Disarm is great for:
* A gamble at possibly ending a fight with an equal level opponent
* A way to disable and humiliate low level opponents
Even without a better Success condition, it's a welcome addition to a toolkit.
However, I do agree that a slightly better Success condition would be welcome. An action to regrip to remove the penalty, or extending the penalty to the end of their turn are both options for this.
That being said, what's with this uncouth second thread to try to get back control over the discussion? Please don't make a habit of this.