Difference between revisions of "Rules talk:Disarm"

Latest revision as of 14:37, 6 June 2008

Hey, in accordance with a certain event in room, I would like to petition the text on this CT's page be changed from strength and speed to damage and speed since disarming apparently deals damage and not expresses an amount of strength in forcing the weapon from their hand.

On top of that by doing double damage twice per day, I do not feel that 45 base days is enough. I would like to suggest that the price be increased to compensate or make it usable only once per day. Lordarikel 04:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing needs taken into consideration 1 if this tech does damage it needs to cost more TD's. Also what happens with weapon needs to be cleared up. NicholasDeLeone 04:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something along the lines of an upgrade when it comes to obtaining a disarmed weapon. It just seems that extra training should be needed to snatch a disarmed weapon out of the air to keep it from it's original owner.... Lordarikel 04:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the cost and strength of this technique is justified because the bonuses from Weapon Proficiency are so large for such a small price -- hence why we insist that if Weapon Proficiency apply to something, it must be something that can be relatively easily disarmed. Disarm is like anti-WP, to that end. Whether the actual placement of the weapon afterward needs to be clarified, however, is debatable. --Ice 05:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The price is adequate. Focused Offense doubles strength and speed for ANY attack made, allowing three uses per day for a cost of only 30 days. While the doubled damage taken is a balancing factor, the damage offered by focused offense is not conditional. Disarm is; if the opponent is unarmed, the technique is useless. As for specifying what exactly HAPPENS to a weapon when it is removed from the grip of the opponent, I see this as unnecessary. It's common role-playing courtesy to consider it from a common-sense point of view, not necessitate every damn thing be explicitly written out in a technique in order to clearly and rigidly stipulate exactly what happens. If a disarm is successful, simple narration should be all the explanation that's required. --Snackycakes 09:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This. Tiryst 09:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with this as well.--Ff0ecaf 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To address the strength vs. damage issue, strength is like the superclass of damage; all damage is caused by a strength of some kind, though not all strength becomes physical damage. The technique is intentionally left "vague" with strength instead of damage to allow the option of simply wrenching it from someone's hand or smacking it away (which translates to concussive damage, of a sort), or that of doing physical damage in an attempt to get the opponent to release his/her grip through distraction (popping someone in the face with the weapon, or slashing at a hand) or forced reflexive action (twisting an arm to its physical limit). --Ice 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is usually just common courtesy to at least spend one post trying to retrieve the disarmed weapon, instead of just grasping it in a flash and attacking in the same post. Of course, circumstances in battle might change things dramatically. If people are fighting above a body of water, it might actually take a little more time to retrieve the weapon, for example. That just depends on who is roleplaying, and how willing they are to add a little more flair to their RP, instead of just numbers and winning no matter the cost.

I also think that the price of this CT is relatively fair. --Marcus