Knights & Knaves Alehouse

The ranseur: disarms on a 'to hit' roll of AC 8

I have always wanted to appropriate this style of ruling to dice for 'disarming' with a rapier-like weapon. Hence, I am not fond of the 'disarming' ruling in U.A. I appreciate the simplicity and elegance of the ranseur ruling in the PHB, dicing to hit AC 8, but it seems a little too easy. Does anyone have any thoughts on the ranseur, does it's 'disarming' capacity stand to reason?

Any disarming roll should be primarily modified by the weapon skill of the defender; I really don't like the idea of a straight "hit AC 8 to disarm" rule. I'd consider something like "hit AC (8 - 1 per fighter level) to disarm", as a simple alternative, and/or allow a saving throw for the victim to avoid being disarmed.

Secondary die-roll modifications could come from things like weapon type; a ranseur could exert considerably more leverage than a sai, for example, even though they're both basically the same form of weapon -- the ranseur just has a much longer haft.

Off the top of my head: I'd use swords as the baseline at +0. I'd give a +2 bonus to weapons specifically designed to trap/disarm (e.g. sai, blade-breaker, chain-flail), another +2 for disarming weapons like the ranseur capable of greatly amplifying the wielder's muscle-power. I'd go for -1 for shortswords, daggers and the like, -2 for axes and maces.

Well, bear in mind it is not "AC 8 or better", but AC 8 specifically. So, potentially we are talking a 5% probability, but also not that it just indicates that the weapon is capable of so doing on such a roll, implying that it lies within the jurisdiction of the game master to determine whether it is practical (perhaps by another die roll).

Mojob wrote:

Any disarming roll should be primarily modified by...and/or allow a saving throw for the victim to avoid being disarmed.

Secondary die-roll modifications could come from things like weapon type... the ranseur just has a much longer haft.

Off the top of my head: I'd use swords as the baseline at +0...-2 for axes and maces.

Thanks Mojob, your modifications stand to reason. Connecting the sai and the ranseur was a nice touch as well. This approach, however, is a little too much of a departure from whatever simplicity was intended, just leaves me having to rethink the dice more than I have a taste for at this point.

Matthew wrote:

it is not "AC 8 or better", but AC 8 specifically

Hmmm...well, I missed that one entirely. Matt, why make it AC 8? Appears rather random as opposed to AC10 or AC5, my knowledge of probabilities escaping me here...

sepulchre wrote: Hmmm...well, I missed that one entirely. Matt, why make it AC 8? Appears rather random as opposed to AC10 or AC5, my knowledge of probabilities escaping me here...

Perhaps because it represents the lowest armour class derived from wearing armour. Possibly the attacker chooses between scoring a normal hit or disarming the opponent in that case. For armour classes better than AC 8, you are basically getting a 5% chance to score a disarm, so for example:

THAC0 21 versus AC 7: Miss 60%, Hit 35%, Disarm 05%
THAC0 21 versus AC 6: Miss 65%, Hit 30%, Disarm 05%
THAC0 21 versus AC 5: Miss 70%, Hit 25%, Disarm 05%
THAC0 21 versus AC 4: Miss 75%, Hit 20%, Disarm 05%
THAC0 21 versus AC 3: Miss 80%, Hit 15%, Disarm 05%
THAC0 21 versus AC 2: Miss 85%, Hit 10%, Disarm 05%
THAC0 21 versus AC 1: Miss 90%, Hit 05%, Disarm 05%
THAC0 21 versus AC 0: Miss 95%, Hit 00%, Disarm 05%

Alternatively, it could be just as you describe where the character declares a "disarm attempt" and needs to hit AC 8 or better, in which case a THAC021 character has a 40% chance of doing so. Personally, I think this is the more likely meaning, but I like my alternative.

Matthew wrote:

...but I like my alternative.
*Weapon capable of disarming opponent on a score required to hit AC 8 (38 PHB)

I must confess I like your interpretation more as well, AC 8 or better just seems overwrought. I see your point in casting the chance as AC 8, it being the lowest armor class derived from wearing armor, that is clever. Disarming appears to be an effect moreso coincidental than intended in the design or purpose of the weapon's chance to strike an opponent. Thus the increased probability relative to the level of the wielder is more about landing a telling strike than disarming. That seems to fit and would work well with a rapier or sai.

The wording on the same page in the PHB just above the note on 'disarming' also lends itself to your interpretation:

ltalics indicate weapon capable of dismounting a rider on a score equal to or greater than the ”to hit” score (38 PHB).
very different from...
*Weapon capable of disarming opponent on a score required to hit AC 8 (38 PHB).

Matthew wrote:I like my alternative.

You don't allow 13th level Fighters to disarm then Matthew?

kent wrote: You don't allow 13th level Fighters to disarm then Matthew?

On a "1", maybe.

Matthew wrote:

So, potentially we are talking a 5% probability, but also not that it just indicates that the weapon is capable of so doing on such a roll, implying that it lies within the jurisdiction of the game master to determine whether it is practical (perhaps by another die roll).

Not sure why another dice roll is needed here...what are you getting at?

sepulchre wrote: Not sure why another dice roll is needed here...what are you getting at?

Well, basically its the idea of a level 0 man-at-arms disarming a level 20 fighter with the same ease as he might disarm any other character (including fighters of levels 1-19). Whether 5% or 40%, the static probability seems unpalatable and the PHB seems to leave room for doubt. One (very) simple method would be to apply a penalty equal to the fighting ability of the opponent to the attack roll, meaning that:

Level 0 versus Level 0: 40%
Level 0 versus Level 1: 35%
Level 0 versus Level 2: 30%
Level 0 versus Level 3: 25%
Level 0 versus Level 4: 20%
Level 0 versus Level 5: 15%
Level 0 versus Level 6: 10%
Level 0 versus Level 7: 05%
Level 0 versus Level 8: 00%

So, a level 0 man-at-arms would have no chance of disarming a superhero, for instance. Alternatively, you could make it a die roll, where if the attacked character rolled under his level on 1d20, he would resist being disarmed.

Matthew wrote:

Whether 5% or 40%, the static probability seems unpalatable

I see your point, yet this seems a slippery slope, do we interpret in this way the qualities of other weapons listed when employed by lower lvl. types vs. higher lvl.:
a. those that cause double damage (set weapon or mounted lance)
b. those that dismount an opponent (lance or pike)
c. those that entangle (see whip)
d. those that entrap (see mancatcher - U.A or kua toa entry)
e. those that catch a weapon (see khopesh sword)
The former approach begins to resemble something like that of the assassin's table; this seems cumbersome and something unpalatable as well.

Your initial view of a static probability, that is having to roll exactly the number needed to hit AC 8, no less and no more, regardless of your level, still seems to me a fine interpretation. I say this because, as above, I believe these additional effects the weapons produce is something coincidental with their primary purpose which is to function as a lethal weapon, it is not their inherent purpose. The ranseur is designed to cause bodily harm, and in addition one may sometimes achieve disarming an opponent.

I allow the defender a saving throw, just like the UA disarm rule. The advantage of a ranseur or spetum is that the attacker only needs to hit ac 8 (or better).

Ken-do-nim wrote:

I allow the defender a saving throw, just like the UA disarm rule. The advantage of a ranseur or spetum is that the attacker only needs to hit ac 8 (or better).

Yah, I understand. I think Matt and I were just bandying about the idea of different readings of the rules-as-written here on the ranseur pre-U.A. To me Matt's initial reading isn't all that different than the logic behind unmodified roll of the sword of sharpness or voral blade, just a lower armor class value. I still feel the saving throw adds a bit of unnecessary complication...

Realised something interesting about the "hook-fauchard" today:

Unearthed Arcana, p. 77 wrote: Hook-Fauchard: This pole arm is principally useful as a device to dismount or fell opponents. It is a normal fauchard with its tip hook greatly elongated and curved into a sickle shape. The wielder attacks by making a sweeping motion to encompass the target with the hook of the weapon. A successful hit will have a 20% probability of dismounting or toppling (to knees or prone position) the target. This assumes that the wielder is larger than his or her opponent, or at least over 50% of the target’s height and weight.

This may well be where I got the idea of a static 5% chance reading.

Interesting...so, 20% beginning with number needed to hit opponent AC?
As in opponent is wearing chain, a 1st lvl. fighter dices a 15-18 to disarm adversary?
I usually rolled a percentile as a separate roll, but I think your reading of the percentile being an aspect or part of the d20 roll is more to the point.