Hey all,
I searched for this but couldn't find anything.
I'm wondering about disarmning an opponent in 5e.
I see a general rule for trying to disarm someone, and then there is the Battle Masters version. But I'm curious as to what's the point?
The reason I ask this is, it's a free action to pick up a weapon or draw a new one. According to the side bar on p190 of the phb it can be done 'in tandem with your movement and action.' I read that as going "I pick my weapon back up, and make my attack."
So, since there is no consiquence having to pick your weapon up, why bother trying to disarm someone? Or, more to the point.. why *isn't* there a consiquence for having to pick up a dropped weapon?
Trip someone, and they at least have to give up part of there movement to get back up. Top that, it gives you advantage on the subsiquent attacks that round as he is now prone.
I'm very curious as to the thinking here. What's the 'intention' behind the design of disarm in 5e?
Thanks!
If you have a free hand when you disarm someone, you can take their weapon instead of leave it on the ground for them to pick up.
If you have party members working in tandem with you, you can disarm an enemy and have someone else create distance between the enemy and their weapon.
If you have a DM that isn't trying to intentionally defeat the purpose of your choice of action by sticking strictly to the letter of the rules rather than doing what a DM is meant to do and adjudicate things in a way that fits their group and the scenario at hand, a disarm can leave the weapon on the ground nearby, but not within immediaste reach, requiring the enemy to at least reposition before reclaiming the weapon - or maybe the enemy acts how the group would expect someone to react to being disarmed in real life rather than letting the rules of the game change the way that the fictional characters being portrayed believe things to work.
OK, I officially *facepalm* myself on this. I hadn't thought of actually picking up the weapon (as the attacked) instead of just leaving it laying on the ground. Or kicking it away, etc. In that light it makes much more sense.
Thanks for that! 
Its more than that.... it is only a free action if there are no other mitigating circumstances.
Its a free action to plant a banner...unless the ground is solid rock
Its a free action to draw a sword...unless you are carrying an anvil
Its a free action to kick a small stone...unless you are on grease/ice/etc
etc
etc
Its a free action to pick up an axe...unless someone is standing right next to you and trying to kill you....
It is the DMs job to adjuicate the situation using the precise variables at that precise time. Sure its trivial to pick up an axe with no one around, but in melee combat....?? Maybe a skill check is needed, maybe it gives the enemy advantage on next attack, maybe.....
Well, I'd count everything as object interaction anyway. But with not a free action you mean it consumed a full action, right?
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I'm not sure. Moving the mage hand consumes a full action, whereas just kicking it away while moving past it just consumes your object interaction.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Actually that wasn't my point, of course these things are situational. I just started to think that using the term "Free action" is confusing because some people use it to mean "You can do as many of them as you like" while others mean "You can only do one free action per turn, if you do a secondary, you need to use your action for it". So I started to differentiate between free action and object interaction.
I actually had a similar case in my last game where, rather than being disarmed, an opponent dropped his bow in order to use his melee weapons. My character ducked in to take the bow so he wouldn't be able to shoot us later. The DM allowed it as my object interaction, but required a Sleight of Hand check for the difficulty of snatching it from under the feet of the dueling characters (the opponent and one of our melee types).
It was just what the situation happened to require.