Rules talk:Disarm

From AltWiki
Revision as of 02:27, 6 June 2008 by Tiryst (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

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)