A player in my campaign wanted to attach his weapon to a chain that goes to his belt, so that when dropped it would swing at his side rather than drop to the ground.
This might be to get rid of the interaction cost to stow a weapon rather than dropping it.
I try to be apermissive DM on stuff, but this seems a bit off.
*It will be a lot harder to disarm the player. Not neccecarely a big issue, but might be relevant.
*He wanted it to be a chain with DC 20 to break, affixed to a light weapon. (This is a no go, as the chain would weigh more than the weapon itself, although a rope might be doable ?
*This naturally must mean that the weapon loses is thrown property.
*Fighting with a weapon that has a two foot cord would mean that you are severly restricded in movement in my opinion.
*If it was short enough to dangle at the side (of a dwarf) , it is not long enough to fight effectivly with is my first thought.
As i said, I try to allow things as often as I can, while stil keeping the game balanced, but I have a bit of issue seeng how this setup can work in a way that is :
A) Cool to the charather that wants it, but is
B) not the type of bonus that makes it a must have item for everybody due to the low cost and big bennefits.
C) Seemingly realistic in the game.
It's stupid. So say no.
Well, that is a clarifying reason: 
Disadvantage on all attacks might be a solution..
Any other suggestions, or should I just explain that it is a hassle for a charather to use it like that.
Jeez.. a spiked gauntlet would be much easer. A bit expensive, gives disadvantage on Disarm rolls, and takes a while to put on or remove......
Elothan wrote:
Seconded. This is kind of silly. Probably not going to break the game, unless they get really clever with it, or unless GM monsters really love disarming people.
It would be more reasonable to have the weapon on a leather strap attached to his wrist or something, though. Like a Wiimote 
This should have a similar effect of protecting against disarms and being droppable without actually losing it.
If it's silly and stupid but it doesn't break the game or provide a huge advantage without a cost then it's not silly or stupid.
Lanyards on weapons - especially on horseback - is pretty standard in reality. Not so much for swords... but you do see axes and maces that had short wrist-straps that would prevent the weapon from being knocked away. In the military, pistols are often set up for lanyards. In an underwater, arial or 'ether' setting, players would probably really want to have lanyards on weapons - since if you drop them - they go pretty far away.
RedSiegfried wrote:
Mjolnir... 'Nuff Said!
Centauri wrote:
Weapon straps for the pommel to wrist yes, those are a thing. The lanyards have been used for daggers (more so stilettos). There has been weapon chains to bond a sword to the forearm too but you certainly wouldnt have a belt to weapon chain or rope to help against disarming etc because you've just made yourself a massive trip hazard there.
We ended up giving it a whirl with:
Treat it as a normal weapon most of the time. (i.e standard costs to stow/draw/pick up/attack/etc/)
Can be disarmed, but enemy cant pick up weapon unless it breaks the bond between the belt and weapon.)
If it is left hanging by the side you can gain disadvantage on certain checks.)
The payer is playing a tempes cleric, and simply would like to keep his weapons on him when he uses a thunder spell, instead of things flying around.
We both agreed that is was an ok compromise.
This teathered weapon now allows enemies to attempt grapple attacks that should only be resisted by Acrobatics. If the teather is a heavy chain, I agree that disadvantage would be applied. If the teather is a rope of some sort then the teather can be cut or removed with magic is some manner, and disadvantage would not be applied.
RedSiegfried wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
This idea can be very hazardous to the PC (and possibly those around him). The trip hazard has already been mentioned. Depending on the type of weapon, this can actually cause injury to the character, especially if they have to move while the weapon is dangling. You would actually be easily grappled (or at least jerked about) by any enemy that chose to do so.
As the DM, you have every right to allow it (with or without restrictions or problems) or to disallow it. It really depends on the kind of game you want to run. This seems to fit more of a cinematic style of game, in which case you could easily just hand-wave the item interaction altogether. I personally find the idea silly, and it would not fit well in my game.
Kazadvorn wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
This really doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to ask for. Plus you can use it with your NPCs as well if you want.
I'm really puzzled why anyone would go to the lengths suggested in this thread just to stop a player who has a clever idea about something not covered by the rules.
Do you really think he's cheating the system that much that you need to throw disadvantage on all his attacks?
Centauri wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
RedSiegfried wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Have you ever heard about anyone doing this in real life? Roman soldiers? Vikings? Modern fencers? Nope... hence there is likely an obvious reason to this. Most weapon require large swing radius and the arm is already 3' long. That means you nead a 6' or so line hanging from it. It's going to effectively fall to the ground if you drop it anyway. Worse... it's long enough to get caught around other weapons, your opponents weapon, your feet, other arm, belt, armour, etc. If you are using chain... you have the added weight of swinging 5' of chain everytime you strike. As others have suggested, it is likely worth a disadvantage for trying to wield a weapon that way.
Finally, there is little in game reason to attempt this.
You are only permitted to interact with one object per round as part of either your move or your action. One. After that you need to use your action to interact with a second object. There are no free actions in 5E. I don't see anywhere in the rules where dropping an object is a free action -- as such things do not exist. Even if it was. You still need to use the action to draw the weapon again -- whether it is on your belt, the ground, or on a 5' chain attached to your belt. Many DMs would argue that it takes more time to try using a chain to pick an item off the ground rather than reaching down and picking it up. In any case, walking around with a longsword attached to a 5' chain is likely a disadvantage and reduced movement.
Oh, I know very well that it is a impractical, potential dangerous and utter useless thing in real life, and it is not anything I wanted to do as player either.
But as a DM, I want to be a guy who can work with a player, to make sure of two things:
A) the player has a good time
B) The balance stay somwhat reasonable.
If a player wants his char to have a chain that keeps his weapon from blowing away in case of a thunderous boom, well, he can have it, but with a warhammer fastened like that, a so is there some negatives attached. A dis. on dex-related stuff seemed apropriate. My #2 Houserule is: I reserve the right to nerf, change or otherwise fix custom stuff that breaks game balance and/or fun for people involved. (#1 is that Healing potions are blue :p )
So, while there is a lot of advice here against it, I choose to be the doofus that goes against (almost) all advice and tries this out.
Shiroiken wrote:
My first thought on reading that was "would he still get the motion to swing the weapon?". But i also dont see how it helps with disarming and stowing because either the chain is long enough for him to swing it which also means it hang very freely at the waist, meaning it swing around walking and hurt himself, or its short to stop that but it wouldnt allow him to swing. I might be missing something here but thats how im seeing it.
Centauri wrote:
Hello guys, So Elothan just nudged me to this post, and Im the crazy cleric that wants his warhammer on a cord so it can club me in the head 
So the reason I wanted it isent some mayor rule breaking, or beeing able to use the cord for reach.
1. I think a strap or even better chain is great on a dwarf weapon. Yes I grant that a wrist chain is better, but in my case I needed a hand free and this suited me better then have it dangling from my wrist.
2. I am able to release the weapon and instead of it smacking to the ground, It wil be left hanging in my belt and I still need to use the same interaction to get it as from the ground. Also seriously guys, if you had a magical sword worth half your house, would you realy drop it on the ground 3 times a day? Hell no you would keep it perfect and take good care of it... This dropping of weapon is totaly idiotic no matter how you look at it, and if I made the rules id give penelty on damage on the next attacks until the weapon was sharpened each time they hit rocks or other hard materials. Try dropping a sharp axe, edge first on stone 3 times and you wil see what I meen.
3. As a tempest cleric some of my spells have kickback effect. If the weapon is lying on the ground I effectly blow my weapon 10-15feet away, and thats a hassle to say the least...
4. If someone else(enemy or friend) looses an item im able to pickup that item withouth having to sheath or again drop my weapon, since its dangling from my belt.
5. Im able to aid my fellow group by giving them healinr or potions of healing in battle withouth having to drop my weapons here and there.
So this might seem strange, you might argue about the reach, agility etc. And that why the DM gave me disadvantage on Dex check while the hammer is dangling from my belt.
I can live with this, and it seems to me like an good solution but im open for better sugestions.
Also il quote 2 thing from the net. These sources seems good but il leave that up to you. These are both from enworld, and are questions asked and answered from the makers of DND 5. Take a look and think about what they are saying compared to what I want and what they say. link: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1900-D-D-5th-Edition-Sage-Advice-from-Designers-Mearls-Crawford#.VA3WAfl_u73#ixzz3Ck2JBKxC
1. Question: Any advice on handling Clerics/druids with shields and spell casting? They seem disadvantaged without a hand free for S/M comps.
Answer by Mike Mearls: Just stow that weapon in the shield hand for a moment and you're good - the rule isn't there to restrict, but to clarify.
2. Question: What would the action sequence be like for sheathing one weapon,drawing another,and attacking?Is that all 1 action?
Answer my Mike Mearls: yeah - the intent is to avoid punishing players for that stuff by charging an action.
I dissagree with the 2. one but the 1. seems ok but depends if you then get the dex from the shield and when you can get the hammer back in your hand/what you need to do to get it to and from the shield!
I think that its just the actual mechanics of the idea that many people are thinking of rather than the game mechanics.
Durwan wrote:
Durwan wrote:
Elothan wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
The straps really won't work as the player intends. Using them to prevent a disarm is fine. Having them so that you can fire a missile weapon and then switch to a melee weapon should provide disadvantage as it would hinder loading and firing weapons. The problem would be worse for thrown weapons as your balance would definitly be off.
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
DLfan wrote:
DLfan wrote:
A bit of a read, but this is my experience with the subject after eleven years of playing 2e and onward.
A weapon Lanyard, as they are called, is a handy thing for an adventurer to have. It's not a stupid idea. Even the military of our modern age uses them. But here's my thoughts on it in D&D terms. Let your player use a lanyard, but don't let them use a chain. ESPECIALLY a chain with a DC20 to break, as this playing is SPECIFICALLY asking you to allow him to make something, not neccisarily game breaking, but still will be used in a way against you, as DM, to make your job harder and to give the player a special benefit that may or may not be munchkin-cheese. Instead, make the lanyard a length of cord, wither thin leather or thick string, or even silk rope would work. This makes it viable as a lanyard, but also means your player needs to worry about it getting cut. Not every monster will go for the weapon lanyard when they can just kill whoever is using the weapon, and if a particularly intelligent adversary would like to dissarm him, he could just make an attack roll against the lanyard, which should have an AC of 10 at most, there-by cutting the lanyard, giving him a chance to dissarm next round. Smart enemies do these kinds of things, they look for easy targets, and dibilitate their enemies with quick thinking and ingenuity.
Second to consider is that, yes, your player should lose the abilty to throw this weapon. Period. There should not be any, "I throw my dagger and pull it back to me using the cord" nonsence. If you allowed this, then the attack is made at dissadvantage, probably opens the player up to an opportunity attack, and might even shorten the range of the weapon thrown. This concept is just silly, and no self respecting goblin would even consider doing it themselves, let alone would they consider the character being any sort of a decent combatant with such a silly trick.
If you decide to let your player have a length of chain, then I would consider making his attacks with the weapon have dissadvantage at all times while it is connected to the chain. A thick, heavy chain that wont break but on a DC 20 is, well, heavy. It should constitute as some sort of hassel to draw and fight with the weapon, and it should get in the way of thier attacks. Otherwise, the chain should be thin, maybe break on a DC of 10 to 15 AT MOST, and would be made of mythril, so very hard to get, and very, very pricey, like sturdy jewlery chain.
Lastly, unless I remember anything else, the lanyard should be allowed on nothing larger or heavier than a long sword. Having a lanyard on a ploe-arm, bow, cross bow, battle axe, or any other such weapon that you, as DM, deem unfit, should not be allowed, only on principle that the lanyard and attached weapon would get in the way, and if the weapon is dropped it would be too cumbersome to dance around while fighting.
Weapon thongs are another idea. Think the leather strap on Thor's hammer from the movies or comic books. Thor wraps the leather loop around his wrist when weilding the hammer. It allows him to keep a better hold of the weapon when fighting, or twirl it around and release when Thor wants to fly. A weapon thong is also a good idea, but if the weapon is dropped and another pulled, while the first weapon still dangles from the character's wrist, then all attacks using the new weapon should have dissadvantage, as your player now has a second weapon dangling from his wrist.
Hope this helps. Don't be disscouraged when your PCs think of cool things to do. Just remember that part of your job as DM, and it can seem like a job at times, is to make the game fair. Let you player have their lanyard, but don't let it get in the way of the game.
Centauri wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
First, I want to appolgize to the OP for derailing this thread.
Centauri: you are not playing the same game I am. It seems that in your world, players do no wrong and the DM is a callous jerk if he disagrees with anything. You and your group may have a lot of fun, but you have to realize that many other groups find such methods unacceptable.
Shiroiken wrote:
I think if I had a player that wanted to do this with the weapon dangling on a chain at his side, I would rule that every time he lets it go to dangle, he'd have to make a DEX save to see if it pierces his leg as it drops. If he saves, no big deal. If he doesn't, he takes 1d4 damage.
Centauri wrote:
Centauri wrote:
alienux wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
Centauri wrote:
alienux wrote:
Centauri wrote:
alienux wrote:
It's just a weapon chain, though they are not normaly attached to belts, but the the gauntlet of the person holding it. If all he's doing is trying to get around the item intereaction, I'd say no. If his character is known for coming up with crazy stuff like this, then maybe, but I'd say that a light weapon would lose it's light property and while it's dangling at his side, his speed is reduced by 5 because he has to focus on not tripping over it as it bounces around his legs and feet.
One issue that no one has touched upon is if the character is tethered to his weapon (this case cord/chain to the belt) that any case where his weapon is grabbed or stuck can become a serious issue for the character. One fight with a mimic and the idea of the umbilical will seem deadly. Likewise, should he be disarmed, even with advantage the chain gives him, and an opponent picks up the tethered weapon, the character may well find himself at the mercy of the opponent because of this.
It seems the player's request comes with both upsides and downsides, so overall it "balances."
I would allow it if a player wanted this. In fact, if the player is acting in good faith I might go further and say, "No need for the chain." There are special grips and pommel wraps that make being disarmed much more difficult. For X amount of gold you can buy a set and will gain advantage vs. disarm attempts." The scabbard could be handled similarly by introducing a type of scabbard or weapon stowage device that accomplishes the player's request. Both options with require a small purchase price and possibly a small roleplay session with a weapon maker or tinker (to make it fun).
My caveat with allowing concessions like the above is when players start this sort of thing to gain major advantages down the line. The "Oh by the way" syndrome I call it.
An example of "Oh by the way" happened to me in a Pathfinder campaign not to long ago. The player wanted a small non combat pet for free. I said Yes. It turned out to be a small dinosaur that can spit poison at will. No problem I said. Then the player's weapons were covered with said poison anytime he wanted. I asked if the character had poison use. The player said he didn't need it because his pet had a trick that could cause him to produce and apply the poison at will. I said Yes to even all that and with every game the poison either gains strength, lasts longer and so on...
Not all players act in "good faith" and it can be difficult to determine at the time a request is made.
Also, many DMs are gun shy from the 3.5 era where a simple, seemingly harmless advantage stacked and grew into a game breaking monstrocity a few class features, items and feats later.
All that said, I still tend to say Yes even after all the problems it has given me and my players over the years. I would say Yes to the OP's player with the possible inclusion of the items I mentioned above to help him make it so, and then hope it doesn't come back later to bight me in the rear or anger a fellow player somehow.
Centauri wrote:
This idea is no worse than Sword-chucks....
Not much better either, however.
Carl
Centauri wrote:
If you're against this idea, please ask yourself if what you're really against is the player getting around the possibility of being disarmed (which, to my understanding, is not a common or crucial tactic, but IS greatly disliked by players) and of having to drop their weapon when wanting to do something else with their hands.
Please then ask yourself why and post the answer here. I'm honestly very curious to know.
I can just imagine this with a warhammer :p
Centauri wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Hello again good fellows, crazy trolls and lawyers of the rules. Its me the crazy cleric ;)
So first of all I need to clear something up. This has nothing todo with disarm, and I do not get any bonuses on that whatsoever.
As it stands we play the weapon on the normal rules and the only bonus I get is that by releasing the hammer it wil stay by me and not go away. I also get disadvantage on dex saves and must take a dex save if I try to move while the hammer is swinging on the cord. As for material we play it like a cord with no break resistance, but call it chain for estetics on a dwarven weapon. Its also removable from the chain with a clip but hat takes an action.
It wil not be used for ranged attack or any other ideas you might have...
Then I want to commend Keend for the funny picture. We actualy discussed this, but agreed I had to find a pretty mad tinkerer if it could even by done but its fun.
As for Captain_Kobold you are right and we dident in fact think of the length of the weapon si that is a miss. So for future players thinking about this, a good idea might be to get a studd om the shoulder of the armour or a shoulder strap to fasten it instead of the belt. Then the weapon string would follow the arm like a sweather, and when released dangle to your hip/knee in a nice arch.
I also understand people think the idea is crazy but personaly I like it. If you want crazy ideas how about:
Use the old ideas of cyanid pills in the teeth and replace em with health potions.
Tossing ash zombies on your foes.
Using the halfling as dragon bait
Building an 1 handed crossbow into a shield with a slot
Etc ;)
Durwan wrote:
As mentioned, I don't think anyone has an issue with what you were trying to achieve. Just the way you were going about it. There is a reason that weapon straps and cords were generally attached to the wrist or forearm.
Durwan wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Captain_Kobold I agree, but the speach about the knee was a low shot ;) I figure if you cannot have fun with the game, whats the use of the game? I agree that there are limits, and I agree that powerplayers might be a problem in any game. Thats why I atleast try to make fun things instead of going all out on weapons and armour. If can use some brain power instead of brawn thats good too me. Iv seen to many hack and slash parties while the great tools for ideas the Dm puts their way are lost in the bloodshed. The game seems to come alive and the players light up around teh table when something else then "I hit it" comes around.
As for the tooth I atleast hoped a dwarven tooth would give an D4 or atleast D2 of health ;)
And the shield, yes its for beating. Maybe it best to rig the crossbow so it fires automaticly on a hit to the shield? ;)
And i actualy would really throw the halfling to the dragon if I was sure id would end him...
Elothan wrote:
Durwan wrote:
Now I think it's you who was slightly uncharitable, Mr. Centauri 
Centauri wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Centauri wrote:
As for the shield crossbow, that would work awesomme for some type of stationary turret with a balista
How the mechanics would work.... Perhaps a full round to reload, and a move action to turn or somesuch,with a craption of damage ... a good thing in defence of a city...
*Start working on mechanical ideas for one*
A handheld version would be way to complicated to use effectivly I think...
Elothan wrote:
Beyond the fact it wouldn't really work in combat there are only really two reasons I can see for wanting a weapon chain. To get around the Somatic requirement of spell casting and disarming mechanics in combat.
As for the first, you are the DM. If you want to ignore Somatic components they by all means do so. No need to come up with some trinket to do it. I've played in many a game where it was ignored unless it was a dramatic story telling device ie "your hands are tied behind you back while villain monologues so no spell casting till the rogue cuts you free". It will however make casters (including enemy NPCs) more versatile and make the War Caster feat weaker but as DM that's your call.
The advantage against disarming however is another issue. Fighters, Battle Masters in particular spend class resources on the ability to Disarm an opponent. If every goblin and storm giant can negate this ability with a simple leather strap it isn't fair.
Either way as long as the players know up from what rules are in effect and that they apply equally and consistently to everyone (including the Drow assassins stalking the PCs) they'll work.
The focus of the game should be about a group of friends sitting around a table telling a story not about number crunching, min/maxing or trying to distort the spirit of the rules to get an advantage.