Weapon vs Spell Disarm

[MaxIrons]

In another thread someone brought up an interesting point about specifically [0.8] disarms.

Disarm should cost the same as it does for casters. Disarm should cost the same for a fighter as for a caster. A caster gets all level one spells to choose from (providing they have the spell in their book) for one build, it seems that a fighter should be able to disarm an opponent with the same amount of study.

With the new PTD mechanic where you can only swing the attack once, and can use Meditate to get it back, this actually is actually something to look at. Currently the costs for a Spell Disarm are:
1: Scholar, Templar, Adept, Artisan
2: Rogue
3: Fighter, Scout

The costs for a Weapon Disarm are:
2: Fighter, Scout, Rogue
3: Adept, Templar
8: Scholar, Artisan

Since this is functionally the same one-attack ability delivered by a different method, why are Weapon Disarms so much more costly? When you could swing it until it connected with the target, it made sense, you paid more because you know your ability isn't going to "miss". It might be countered, but you were guaranteed that you would at least blow a defense on the recipient. This may all be intentional, with Casters being able to have access to more Disarms & Shatters and fighters/rogues having more access to Stun Limb, but it seemed like something worthwhile to give feedback on.

So I look at all the things that duplicate, here's Spell Shatter:
2: Scholar, Templar, Adept, Artisan
4: Rogue
6: Fighter, Scout

vs Weapon Shatter:
3: Fighter, Scout, Rogue
4: Adept, Templar
8: Scholar, Artisan

And here is Spell Stun Limb:
(primary Celestial, doubled for Earth Casters)
4: Scholar
5: Adept, Templar
6: Artisan
8: Rogue
12: Fighter, Scout

Weapon Stun Limb:
3: Fighter, Scout, Rogue
4: Adept, Templar
8: Scholar, Artisan

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

There are two differences to take into account: what defenses are applicable, and whether you are holding a weapon in hand (and therefore able to block/strike etc.) while executing the attack.

 

[MaxIrons]

I'm not saying it should be changed. Just providing the feedback in reference to the new way PTD and Meditate change things in [0.8] and looking at the values. I just wanted to provide some of observations in case it was something that wasn't thought of by those who do make the decisions. To paraphrase what I said, working as intended is a perfectly viable answer.

 

[AlikVanmil]

The only reason I could think of as to why fighters pay more for a physical disarm vs a caster paying for a spell disarm is this: a caster has to A) Say a full incant (With Eldrich force I disarm/shatter your ____) then B) has to pick a target in said incant, then C) has to throw a packet and successfully hit their intended target. Where as a fighter literally just says disarm/shatter (in 2.0 at least) and then whatever they hit is disarmed. (or shattered... 2.0 fighter shatter is super broken by the by) So kind of sorry but not sorry, but in my opinion fighters can spend the extra 1bp when they have one third of the work to do vs what a caster has to do.

- LT

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

No worries; this is exactly the kind of stuff we're hoping for people to bring up. It's good that people are talking about these things, because we are NOT perfect, we don't always think things all the way through, and that's why we're going through this process. Example: Poison Strike and the functionality it provides, especially in how it combines with other stuff, raised some concerns about combat roles and rules exceptions that, in the end, may well result in Poison Strike getting pulled. It's good to go over this stuff.

Thank you guys for being so helpful and diligent through this process, by the way. It is appreciated.

 

[Muir]

The only reason I could think of as to why fighters pay more for a physical disarm vs a caster paying for a spell disarm is this: a caster has to A) Say a full incant (With Eldrich force I disarm/shatter your ____) then B) has to pick a target in said incant, then C) has to throw a packet and successfully hit their intended target. Where as a fighter literally just says disarm/shatter (in 2.0 at least) and then whatever they hit is disarmed. (or shattered... 2.0 fighter shatter is super broken by the by) So kind of sorry but not sorry, but in my opinion fighters can spend the extra 1bp when they have one third of the work to do vs what a caster has to do.

- LT

I still suspect location hit shatter is going to be a huge mess of recriminations in play regarding just what got hit first.

Especially with the question of how shatter interacts with the contents of a pouch.

 

[norman b]

I still suspect location hit shatter is going to be a huge mess of recriminations in play regarding just what got hit first.

Especially with the question of how shatter interacts with the contents of a pouch.

Do you mean what happens when a fighter Shatter hits a pouch? Or Spell Shatter Pouch? Or Spell Shatter (item in pouch)? A fighter can't hit something inside a pouch...

Also, if you really want to shatter something in someone's pouch, hit them with a destroy.

 

[mikestrauss]

Personally, I suspect that 90% of weapon delivered shatters will hit shields. It is a limited skill that generally will only be used when critical, and that is usually when facing off against a shield. Sure, I guess the person could block with their weapon, but that isn't really a bad outcome and isn't actually very likely.

I particularly believe this because I suspect that Shatter will be most popular with archer builds where throwing at a shield is easy and throwing at a sword (or blocking with a sword) is quite hard.

-MS

 

[AlikVanmil]

Personally, I suspect that 90% of weapon delivered shatters will hit shields. It is a limited skill that generally will only be used when critical, and that is usually when facing off against a shield. Sure, I guess the person could block with their weapon, but that isn't really a bad outcome and isn't actually very likely.

I particularly believe this because I suspect that Shatter will be most popular with archer builds where throwing at a shield is easy and throwing at a sword (or blocking with a sword) is quite hard.

-MS

But then the shield will be destroyed? If the defending player blocks in any way, what they block with blows up.

 

[Muir]

Heck, as a defending player I'm going to throw my arm in front of every shatter.

My Arcane isn't going to break, my shirt isn't a tagged item, and I'm not blocking with an illegal target.

 

[Muir]

Do you mean what happens when a fighter Shatter hits a pouch? Or Spell Shatter Pouch? Or Spell Shatter (item in pouch)? A fighter can't hit something inside a pouch...

Also, if you really want to shatter something in someone's pouch, hit them with a destroy.

Fighter shatter specifically, as it is the only one that matters what it physically hits.

 

[Draven]

Heck, as a defending player I'm going to throw my arm in front of every shatter.

My Arcane isn't going to break, my shirt isn't a tagged item, and I'm not blocking with an illegal target.

You know, I didn't think of it, but yeah, immunity to Shatter'll be an interesting advantage of AA.

 

[mikestrauss]

Heck, as a defending player I'm going to throw my arm in front of every shatter.

My Arcane isn't going to break, my shirt isn't a tagged item, and I'm not blocking with an illegal target.

This tactic doesn't concern me. Assuming I am using a melee weapon, if my goal is to shatter my opponent's weapon, I will just wait until they attack me, block with my weapon, and called "Shatter." You can't put your arm in front of that. If my goal is to break the shield, let's be honest, you aren't going to manage to stop that.

-MS

 

[Durnic]

You know, I didn't think of it, but yeah, immunity to Shatter'll be an interesting advantage of AA.

For now.

MUAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

[Muir]

This tactic doesn't concern me. Assuming I am using a melee weapon, if my goal is to shatter my opponent's weapon, I will just wait until they attack me, block with my weapon, and called "Shatter." You can't put your arm in front of that. If my goal is to break the shield, let's be honest, you aren't going to manage to stop that.

-MS

Did something change that either :

A. Allows me to attack with my shield

or

B. Does not require verbals be clearly and completely said before a strike lands to be valid?

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

Pending the official vote, Shatter effects will reduce any suit of armor to 0, whether it is physical, arcane, celestial or natural. The intention is that the advantages of arcane and celestial armor should be limited to not having to wear a phys rep, and that in all other areas physical armor is equal or better.

 

[mikestrauss]

Did something change that either :

A. Allows me to attack with my shield

or

B. Does not require verbals be clearly and completely said before a strike lands to be valid?

As to point A, you misunderstood what I meant. I meant that if I want to hit your shield, it is nearly impossible for you to get an arm in the way of that attack. You might dodge it, but getting an arm in the way is pretty close to impossible (one is holding the shield and the other is presumably partially covered by the shield and holding a weapon).

As to point B, "Shatter" is a very quick word to say. There is a point of no return where I can be certain I will block your swing but before contact has been made. I have no doubt that timing that point of no return will be simple for experienced players.

-MS

 

[Muir]

Hrm. That's actually something that should probably be addressed from a spirit of the rules perspective. A static block is not a swing, after all.

 

[mikestrauss]

Hrm. That's actually something that should probably be addressed from a spirit of the rules perspective. A static block is not a swing, after all.

I don't disagree. I just think that blocks are rarely static. Most blocks that I have seen involve swinging a weapon with force roughly equivalent to the force of the other weapon (if for no other reason than to prevent the attacking weapon from pushing through). You pretty much have to swing your weapon in order to block, unless the person attacking you is specifically aiming for your weapon (which only makes sense if they are also trying to Shatter/Disarm your weapon).

-MS

 

[MaxIrons]

I now have this mental image of two weapons swung and the fighters disarming/shattering each other's weapon simultaneously.

Cooooooooool.