Seems the best use of Disarming Attack is when taking a readied action when a creature steps within 5 ft but before it makes an attack... Your reaction triggers upon melee range, allowing the fighter to attack, allowing the use of this maneuver, possibly disarming the attacker, causing the weapon to drop to their feet... but what does that accomplish? The attacker can simply pick the weapon back up prior to making any attacks. Maybe you set a readied action to attack if a target pulls out a potion to disarm the object before the target can drink it... but assuming you're successful in disarming the potion, it simply falls to the target's feet, and they can just pick it back up without penalty. I suppose the disarm might have destroyed the potion as it falls to the ground, but not all potions are in delicate glass vials. Metal flasks work just as well. Seems the fighter could elect to simply aim for the potion in the first place and accomplish the same results without the use of superiority dice if the goal is to simply break the potion so it can't be used.
Or you can simply disarm a creature during your turn... knocking an object out of their hands to their feet. But as the ability specifies, the object falls to the targets feet, which is not in the space you occupy... you cannot pick up the object since it is out of reach, and nothing prevents the target of the disarm from simply picking the object back up. The fighter could potentially disarm two weapons from a creature, forcing the creature to select which of the two weapons it can pick up to use on the next turn, but superiority dice are in limited supply, whereas picking up a weapon costs a resource renewed every turn.
So the question is: Why use Disarming Attack? Does it actually have a use?
Does it have a use? Of course. Disarm can be an absolute encounter-ender. With one attack the CR17 Death Knight's melee capcity is reduced to a +5 to hit / 6 damage offense with no multiattack or parry capability... if you can keep his weapon away from him.
If you're next to a dropped item, you can pick it up. You state that you're out of reach of the item because it's at the opponent's feet... are you purely considering this in the context of reach/ranged weapons?
At range, I like combining Disarm with Pushing Attack. Knock the opponent's weapon out of his hands and shove him away from it. Timed properly, either an ally can swoop in to pick up the dropped item or your frontliners can make it impossible/impractical for the enemy to attempt a retrieval.
sigfile wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
You are assuming the enemy can automatically just pick up the weapon with no penalty.
Sure, picking something up from the ground is normally pretty easy; doing so while trying to keep an eye on the person (or persons) standing next to you trying to kill you.... not so easy. Sure sounds like an "unusual obstacle" to me.
Could make it an action, or at least a bonus action, or make it a dex check with or without disadvantge, or perhaps give the attacker advantage, or have it effect his AC, or......
Coredump00 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
It's reasonable for the DM to require spending an action to retrieve the weapon or an opposed check to grab it. I can see different DM's handling the weapon differently depending on their own interpretation of how to deal with the weapon at the opponents feet. If the DM considers picking up the weapon as interacting with one item during the opponents turn, then it's reasonable to state that interacting with that same weapon can be the on interaction during the attack as the fighter's turn. Possibly a DEX (sleight of hand) check, if an empty hand is available, which is how I handle it.
Regardless of how DM's interpret the actions to deal with the disarmed weapon there are clear rules that can help. Ready an action to work with someone else after having disarmed the opponent is an easy consideration on what that person does with the readied action (like shove). Multiple attacks make is easier. Disarm, shove (or pushing attack maneuver), move forward to occupy the space and make it difficult to retrieve the weapon. If you can't pick up the weapon when it's in the opponent's space, how is the opponent to pick it up once you occupy that space? Those rules work both ways. You could disarm him, grapple him, and drag him away from the weapon.
I don't think it matters if a DM doesn't see eye-to-eye on retrieving the weapon if multiple attacks (or teamwork) enables moving the target so he's no longer occupying the same space as the weapon, and I think disarming attack is one of the better maneuvers available.
Disarming Strike is one of the weaker manuevers. Of all of them it's the most situational, not even working against opponents with natural weapons.
Leugren wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Coredump00 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
I will answer in reverse order...
Ganymede425 wrote:
Ok, so your ruling here is more a quirk of your DMing style than a general ruling that object interactions adjacent to opponents are materially more difficult.
Coredump00 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Wouldn't reaching into another creature's square at least draw an opportunity attack? Even if they're unarmed, they can still attack. Plus things like trying to grapple you or whatever.
Ganymede425 wrote:
Reius wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Reius wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
It hasn't come up in my 5e games yet
I think I will let it be a free action as most pc's I have noted fight with both hands holding something anyway
If it becomes annoying and is spoiling the game , making combats dull and easy, I'd discuss with group their opinion
I would have it be some kind of check, but otherwise free 'use object' interaction for the round (if one has not been used yet). It seems like a swahbuckly thing to do but I do not want to bypass heavy armored fighters doing this either. I think it is generally risky to try pick up a weapon when someone is swinging an axe at you, without oppotunity attack I think it should somehow reflect this as well.
A strength save is already required to save vs the disarm, picking it up I would require a dex (acrobatics) check as a use object action DC 15 while threatened I think, you could disarm and make a check to see if you can catch it in your free hand maybe or flip it up with your foot or weapon and grab it. Though I'd allow for the choice to eat an AoO to pick up the weapon, if the opponent(s) hasn't (haven't) used their reaction yet.
Kicking it away 10' I'd probably handle the same way but would allow the use of attack bonus, and allow for an attack or bonus action to be used for this purpose.instead.
It seems a bit lame for someone to disarm and then have it picked up as a free action without consequences something like this seems fair enough for either side.
EzechielDantan wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
I think that in the case of a disarmed opponent, sometimes it will be a free object interaction to grab the weapon and other times it will be a contest or an action under the threat of an OA or any number of other things. The important thing in my view is not so much doing it the same way every single time (or having a single rule try to cover all situations) but telegraphing what it will be like to grab a weapon this time so that a player isn't blindsided by the need to spend an action, make an ability check, or have an attack roll made against his character. "The veteran swordsman's longsword clatters to the ground, but he is unfazed, bringing his shortsword into an attack position, daring you to lay hands upon his fallen blade." This is me telegraphing an OA, for example. My goal is to create an exciting, memorable story. There is no single, consistent ruling that can be applied to every situation that will lead to that goal in my view.
It's like you reached into my brain, grabbed my thoughts, reorganized and rearticulated them into something reasonable and well-reasoned, then typed it up on the computer. Thanks, Iserith. I hope you washed your hands both before and after.
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Seems Iserith and Yunru assume incorrectly:
I'm not looking to empower through rules nor am I houseruling... I'm assuming that I'm a player who has a DM who adjudicates against the player, ruling that grabbing a weapon in an occupied square, a square the character doesn't occupy, isn't an option.
So if picking up the weapon isn't an option, what good is the ability? You disarm the weapon, it falls to the enemy's feet, and the start of the enemy's turn goes like so:
1 free object interaction: pick up weapon.
Action: attack/multiattack with weapon.
The enemy's turn is completely unchanged and the player has expended a superiority dice for no reason and no benefit.
I was considering houseruling that the enemy provokes an OA from the fighter upon reaching for the weapon.
Hence the reason for the thread. What use is the ability? Does it have inherent functionality when the rules suggest is has no mechanical benefit, other than perhaps removing the ability of the enemy to hit you with their weapon during an OA as you retreat.
If however we consider that a character can pick up a weapon at the enemy's feet, in a square the character doesn't occupy, what prevents the fighter from simply disarming an enemy of all their weapons, forcing the enemy to resort to 1 bludgeoning damage from unarmed strikes? I don't know of many greatsword fighters who carry backup greatswords just in case they get disarmed and their weapon snatched off the ground.
If a character can pick up a weapon in an enemy's square, does that make Disarming Attack overpowered?
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
You added this bit while I was responding above:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
As a player, I would generally never choose an ability which relies almost entirely on DM fiat to be effective, particularly when there are alternatives such as Riposte or Menacing Strike which do not at all rely on DM fiat to be effective.
DM: He swings his sword at you and misses.
Player: I use my Riposte maneuver to chop off his head as he overextends himself. I roll a 22 to hit, and I do 18 points of damage.
DM: Nope. In my desire to make the game more fun and entertaining for everyone, I rule that you slip on a banana and hamstring yourself, since this makes for a more believable and exhilirating story.
Player: Why do I even bother to play with you, since none of the decisions I make in this game ever lead to predictable outcomes? I may as well just roll a die when choosing maneuvers.
Thanks for posting this thread. I was thinking about taking Disarming Strike for my Mountain Dwarf Battle Master, but now I've moved it back down to the bottom of the list where it belongs. This thread has saved me a lot of potential strife, because something that I thought was pretty black and white turns out to be anything but black and white in the eyes of people whom I have come to believe are fairly reasonable.
The one thing that Disarming Strike seems to have going for it which does not rely entirely on DM fiat is this: unless your opponent is wielding two weapons, he will have to hit you with an unarmed strike if you provoke an OA by trying to move away after you disarm him. This could be situationally useful if, for instance, you are low on hit points and want to run away, but are afraid to do so because your opponent is wielding a massive weapon. That's a lot of ifs for a staple maneuver, however. Given that you get so few martial maneuvers over the course of your career, taking Disarming Strike would be like the martial equivalent of choosing the Continual Flame spell as a Wizard in older editions of D&D.
Leugren wrote:
Disarming Strike is fine. The friction is how a table sees poking a hand into a creature's space. It appears the OP is trying to use the Steal Your Stuff Strike. In that case, change the maneuver so that the weapon falls at the PC's feet if you feel hampered by the creature's space. If you don't do that, at least warn the rogue that removing things in a baddy's space during a fight is going to be a problem.
The disarmed weapon sticking into the rafters is a little more exciting than a weapon always falling at the foes toes. Tweak for the sake of coolness, IMO.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Miladoon wrote:
It does what it says it does and deals damage. I have not adjudicated the maneuver but I have had a cleric command drop the baddy's weapon in play. I would of handled it the same way if the Battlemaster used the maneuver.
YMMV
Miladoon wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Miladoon wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Dunno what most people want. Just saying that the weapon is on the ground. If you can't do something with that, then leave it and take riposte and keep watch on your one reaction per round.
I am reading it this way. If the bad guy has used his move and his action and then gets disarmed, he can't 'simply' pick it up as the OP states. The free action is used in tandem with move and action. That leaves room for others to nab the weapon if they are up before the bad guy's turn. The question then becomes, can a PC reach into a hostiles space to pick up the dropped weapon in tandem with their move and action?
● If your enemy has a backup weapon it's pointless.
● If your enemy doesn't use non-natural weapons it's pointless.
● If your DM ignores rule 0 and says "even though you've invested resources into this tactic, no/here's some more stuff for you to potentially fail", it's pointless.
Yunru wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Miladoon wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Miladoon wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
I will add that I have some experience with this maneuver. My 3rd-level fighter, Butch Uprise, recently subclassed into Battlemaster. I took disarming attack, goading attack, and trip attack. But I was already disarming, goading, and tripping people before I ever took those manuevers. In fact, I almost never attack with my weapon, preferring instead to simply state a fictional action that is cool as flumph and let the DM adjudicate it. In three levels (some HotDQ and some Defiance in Phlan), I've attacked with my battleaxe maybe 4 times. I took those maneuvers because I wanted to be able to do those things with more certainty following an attack roll.
But my DM is pretty good and I don't have to worry about her screwing me over. To that end, issues with disarming attack and D&D 5e in general often come down to who your DM is and whether you can trust him or her to do a good job. No mechanic in this game is going to protect you from a bad DM.
(This post was an addendum to my last and isn't a response to Leugren's above which I will respond to hopefully shortly. New Years Eve preparations are calling...)
We could of reached consensus earlier had you all just agreed with me.
Smiley face added to indicate I am playing.
Even tho I am right.
I am still confused why some people keep ignoring certain rules as if they don't exist. I think people also confuse a DM's ruling with a DM creating House Rules.
If a PC wants to leap across a space, grab a bar, and swing to safety.... the DM makes a Ruling about the required DC. This is not a 'house rule', it is the DM doing his *job* by making a ruling.... which is exactly what "The Rules" say he should do.
Now, by defintion, this is "DM Fiat"... but the rules are created and designed based on the *need* for DM Fiat.... it is his *job* to make decrees and adjudicate what happens. (I feel like some people are using the term 'DM Fiat' implying that it is a bad thing.... arbitrary and inconsistent rulings may be a bad thing... but that is not an inherrent part of 'by Fiat'.)
Lets look at the rules for Object Interaction..... It says you 'can' interact with one object.... it does not say you can *always* interact with any particular object, in any way you want....
In fact, it specifically and explicity states that it is the DMs Job to adjudicate when you can and cannot do these things.
The rules also state that it is the DMs Job to determine when your declared actions may have an uncertain outcome, and thus require an ability check. (With or without adv/disadv)
These are Rules as Written... they are in the Book, they are clear and explicit, yet folks keep ignoring them. When the DM makes such a determination, they are not making a 'House Rule', they are following the RAW and making a Ruling as they are instructed to do.
The book provides a list of examples... but again, it never says you can *always* do these things; i fact it (also again) specifically states that the DM must adjudicate the situation. This may mean it takes a full action, or an ability check, or both.....
Pull a potion out of your pack... sure.... Do it while rolling down a hill? Perhaps an ability check is required.
Planting a banner in the ground...sure.... Do it on a stone floor? Maybe not. On very rocky ground? perhaps a full action.
Open a door.... sure.... Open a door that is stuck? Perhaps a full action.
Remove a ring...sure... Do it while grappling two people...?? Maybe not so 'automatic'
Pick up a fallen axe....sure....pick it up from 5' away, with someone standing over it, trying to kill you? Perhaps a full action
Pick up a fallen axe.....sure....pick it up while someone is next to you trying to kill you, and you are defending against him and others? Perhaps an acrobatics or Athletics check...
Bloodscythe wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Leugren wrote:
iserith wrote:
Leugren wrote:
iserith wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Leugren wrote:
iserith wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Leugren wrote: