If a creature is disarmed, do they suffer any penalties? I cannot seem to find anything about it other than the two rules for disarming, which are the battlemaster maneuver and the optional rule in the DMG.
Since AC is mostly dependent on dexterity, armor, and magic, I assume that you do not "parry" any attacks, without an ability to parry with a weapon, and a creature does not need a weapon in melee range to defend. Except for creatures that use unarmed fighting, like the monk and other natural weapon creatures, it bugs me that a creature that usually fights melee weapon to melee weapon would not suffer any penalties to AC when disarmed.
Of course, an attacker has less of an ability to attack when disarmed, but it should also have less of an ability to defend itself. If the creature trained in defending itself with a sword loses that sword, I expect the creature defending itself to have less of an ability to do so if disarmed. I expect that a disarmed opponent would either have a negative to AC or the melee attacker would have advantage on the disarmed creature within reach. In RAW, there seems to be no swordfight in combat. At least you can claim to be able to naturally dodge with the AC bonus based on dexterity, but if the two combatants do not have any dexterity bonus, they technically hit each other all the time. The attacks either don't hit hard enough to smash, slice, or pierce armor (armor AC bonus) or hurt through natural toughness (base 10 AC). If the base 10 AC is just a pure attacker miss chance, part of that miss should be due to deflection of blows by weapons. If part of the base 10 AC was the disarmed creature swinging their arms to deflect blows, it makes little sense that it doesn't have an increased chance to get its arm broke, sliced, or pierced by the weapon coming down on its arm and causing enough damage to take HP loss. Therefore, it seems weird that there is no penalty to AC or bonus to hit when a creature is disarmed and a melee attacker is within range of the target. Just as when knocked prone and losing the ability to fight normally, I think melee attack advantage against a creature within reach that is disarmed would be fair, at least until the disarmed creature picks up its weapon or something else to defend itself against melee attacks.
In the end, the disarmed condition just feels "off", and I just wanted to see what others thought.
To my knowledge, disarmed is not a condition there for there is no things that go along with it.
You miss interpreting AC (but also assuming a lot) to be deflections and bouncing off of armor. But it can also be simply side stepping an attack when it comes to descriptions. So why would having no weapon in hand cause their AC to be lower? Monks don't carry weapons and wizards usually don't have a sword in hand yet they receive no penalty to their ACs. Why should your oponent not having their weapon in hand dish out some form of bonus? The opponent can still avoid attacks. Your argument for this is based on all weapon wielders avoiding damage by parrying attack which, as you keep pointing out, has no impact on the calculation for AC so I'm not sure why a disarmed person should receive a penalty other than - you don't have your weapon and now must try to pick it up (generally this requires and action)
If you disarm a creature of a weapon, it can no longer use the attack associated with that weapon. For example, if you disarm a goblin of it's scimitar, it can no longer use it's scimitar attack. It still has it's shortbow, and all creatures can make unarmed strikes. That's the penalty.
For spellcasters, it can be a little different as the stat block doesn't specify if they're using a focus (and if so, what focus), a components pouch, or material components. It's just assumed the have whatever they need to cast their spells. Therefore disarming a spellcaster such as a mage would have whatever effect the DM decides.
For spellcasters, it can be a little different as the stat block doesn't specify if they're using a focus (and if so, what focus), a components pouch, or material components. It's just assumed the have whatever they need to cast their spells.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. My comment was that stat blocks don't specify components, so the disarmable element (if needed) could be one for the following:
Spellcasting class appropriate focus
Components pouch
Material components
If an NPC is not of a specified class that gets a focus (like how rangers, eldritch knights and arcane tricksters don't), they would have to use a components pouch
Okay, so here is the thing. "Trained to defend with the sword" implies a feat, subclass skill like the kensei, some interpretations of Defensive Fighting Style, item bonus, etc. A bow using Ranger isn't going to be parrying, nor will a dagger using rogue, a spellcasting wizard. Especially not when the enemy is a charging boar instead of another humanoid. These classes shouldn't be penalized for losing their weapon, because it never factors in the first place. Instead, those who do rely on weapons for parrying end up with feats or features that rely on having said weapons, such as the Dual Wielding feat. Notice how the feat specifically calls out the need for a separate melee weapon in each hand. Disarm a weapon, lose the bonus.
"There is no skill vs skill aspect to any given swing."
There is a skill vs skill mechanic in RAW... the prone condition. The idea that an attacker can get advantage when attacking a prone creature and the creature has disadvantage on attacks is a skill vs skill mechanic. The prone condition is similar to the concept of disarm, in that the target cannot optimally defend itself (or attack). The problem lies in 5e attempting to apply universal conditions. Since a "disarmed condition" would only apply to creatures holding weapons or other items, like a chair, to defend themselves, it could not be universally applied to creatures with natural weapons, like the monk or beast. Since it cannot be universally applied, having a condition would be moot. Although I think it is weird that there is not a penalty to AC or bonus to hit, I understand there is no universally applicable disarmed condition.
Through this discussion, it made me really consider what constitutes AC. I cannot seem to find any official statements about what constitutes the base 10 AC. Within that 10 must be the ability to fight optimally, which is affected by the prone and other conditions, causing advantage/disadvantage. That base 10 is not just "sidestepping" because a dexterity of 1 only reduces the base down to 5. The remaining 5 cannot be just random miss by the attacker... wind, hit an obstruction, random movement, slipping, bird flies in, etc... without it also being defensive actions by the target. Unless the remaining 5 is just toughness of the body to eliminate damage and random miss by the attacker, the skill of the target to defend themselves must also be in the base AC.
In the end, I appreciate everyone's views on the subject. It's why I posted the discussion.
Through this discussion, it made me really consider what constitutes AC. I cannot seem to find any official statements about what constitutes the base 10 AC. Within that 10 must be the ability to fight optimally, which is affected by the prone and other conditions, causing advantage/disadvantage. That base 10 is not just "sidestepping" because a dexterity of 1 only reduces the base down to 5. The remaining 5 cannot be just random miss by the attacker... wind, hit an obstruction, random movement, slipping, bird flies in, etc... without it also being defensive actions by the target. Unless the remaining 5 is just toughness of the body to eliminate damage and random miss by the attacker, the skill of the target to defend themselves must also be in the base AC.
In the end, I appreciate everyone's views on the subject. It's why I posted the discussion.
The answer to your question about the 10.... its random chance. Half a d20. All else considered equal, a high roll on a d20 is a hit, a low roll is a miss. The 10 stands for the same random conditions of the fog of war that the d20 does, just in reverse.
Trying to figure out what it means is futile, because it doesn't mean anything, really. It sets the standard. Two average humans with average stats (10s in everything) and no proficiency have a half chance of hitting each other. Well, 45%. The 10 is there just to establish a baseline.
They cannot actively choose to parry and they almost certainly do not hit as hard without a weapon. They likely are not proficient in unarmed combat, so they likely are less accurate. What exactly are you expecting here? Disarming equalling crippling?
Weapons do not have any effect, whatsoever, on defense. Disarming them has no effect on their defense.
There are feats or features that can allow it but without these weapons do not alter defense.
You're free to homebrew as you want, of course. Personally that seems too much of a headache to be worth it (since you'll now have to rebalance every martial-based class, adjust several feats to prevent them being rendered pointless, and adjust every weapon-wielding monster you will use). But hey, whatever works for you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Through this discussion, it made me really consider what constitutes AC. I cannot seem to find any official statements about what constitutes the base 10 AC. Within that 10 must be the ability to fight optimally, which is affected by the prone and other conditions, causing advantage/disadvantage. That base 10 is not just "sidestepping" because a dexterity of 1 only reduces the base down to 5. The remaining 5 cannot be just random miss by the attacker... wind, hit an obstruction, random movement, slipping, bird flies in, etc... without it also being defensive actions by the target. Unless the remaining 5 is just toughness of the body to eliminate damage and random miss by the attacker, the skill of the target to defend themselves must also be in the base AC.
In the end, I appreciate everyone's views on the subject. It's why I posted the discussion.
The answer to your question about the 10.... its random chance. Half a d20. All else considered equal, a high roll on a d20 is a hit, a low roll is a miss. The 10 stands for the same random conditions of the fog of war that the d20 does, just in reverse.
Trying to figure out what it means is futile, because it doesn't mean anything, really. It sets the standard. Two average humans with average stats (10s in everything) and no proficiency have a half chance of hitting each other. Well, 45%. The 10 is there just to establish a baseline.
Basically, all carryover from older editions. Here are a couple old rules affected as well. They aren't currently in 5E from what I know but, I'm sure some people are using them.
Taking 10. When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful.
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).
I cannot seem to find any official statements about what constitutes the base 10 AC.
Honestly, you're thinking too hard here. Base 10 AC is to make the math work out, just like the arbitrary base 8 for magic save DCs. D&D is not just a simulation, it's also a game that requires some artificial structure to support the d20-centric design.
As for why disarm rules are sparse and vague, it's because disarming is a huge can of worms. You need to know what every enemy is holding and exactly what benefits they get from it. You need to account for monster features, class features, magic items, etc. It bogs the game down.
Furthermore, you know who is almost always screwed by being disarmed? PCs. If you can do it, so can your enemies, and if it's a super effective strategy then every fight with intelligent creatures is going to be 2 rounds of everyone disarming each other and then 8 rounds of fumbling around trying to recover your weapons or figuring out what you can do without them. It's just a mess and doesn't sound like a lot of fun.
In this case they have decided to sacrifice the simulation for the game, and I agree with the choice. But they did leave it open enough so that you can houserule whatever you want if that's what you want. I would guess after a few sessions you might change your mind though.
"If a creature is disarmed, do they suffer any penalties?"
Not to there stats/abilities etc
However, say I was to disarm the creature and their sword falls to the floor, you can interact with an object as a Free Action on your turn. This means you can kick the sword away from the creature or even pick it up.
When it comes round to the creatures turn, theoretically saying they don't have any other weapons stashed on them, they then either have to wrestle the weapon back off the disarmer (costing one of their attacks if they have more than one), or run to grab the sword which would trigger an attack of opportunity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello anyone,
If a creature is disarmed, do they suffer any penalties? I cannot seem to find anything about it other than the two rules for disarming, which are the battlemaster maneuver and the optional rule in the DMG.
Since AC is mostly dependent on dexterity, armor, and magic, I assume that you do not "parry" any attacks, without an ability to parry with a weapon, and a creature does not need a weapon in melee range to defend. Except for creatures that use unarmed fighting, like the monk and other natural weapon creatures, it bugs me that a creature that usually fights melee weapon to melee weapon would not suffer any penalties to AC when disarmed.
Are there any rules I am missing?
What are your thoughts?
Thanks!
Of course, an attacker has less of an ability to attack when disarmed, but it should also have less of an ability to defend itself. If the creature trained in defending itself with a sword loses that sword, I expect the creature defending itself to have less of an ability to do so if disarmed. I expect that a disarmed opponent would either have a negative to AC or the melee attacker would have advantage on the disarmed creature within reach. In RAW, there seems to be no swordfight in combat. At least you can claim to be able to naturally dodge with the AC bonus based on dexterity, but if the two combatants do not have any dexterity bonus, they technically hit each other all the time. The attacks either don't hit hard enough to smash, slice, or pierce armor (armor AC bonus) or hurt through natural toughness (base 10 AC). If the base 10 AC is just a pure attacker miss chance, part of that miss should be due to deflection of blows by weapons. If part of the base 10 AC was the disarmed creature swinging their arms to deflect blows, it makes little sense that it doesn't have an increased chance to get its arm broke, sliced, or pierced by the weapon coming down on its arm and causing enough damage to take HP loss. Therefore, it seems weird that there is no penalty to AC or bonus to hit when a creature is disarmed and a melee attacker is within range of the target. Just as when knocked prone and losing the ability to fight normally, I think melee attack advantage against a creature within reach that is disarmed would be fair, at least until the disarmed creature picks up its weapon or something else to defend itself against melee attacks.
In the end, the disarmed condition just feels "off", and I just wanted to see what others thought.
To my knowledge, disarmed is not a condition there for there is no things that go along with it.
You miss interpreting AC (but also assuming a lot) to be deflections and bouncing off of armor. But it can also be simply side stepping an attack when it comes to descriptions. So why would having no weapon in hand cause their AC to be lower? Monks don't carry weapons and wizards usually don't have a sword in hand yet they receive no penalty to their ACs. Why should your oponent not having their weapon in hand dish out some form of bonus? The opponent can still avoid attacks. Your argument for this is based on all weapon wielders avoiding damage by parrying attack which, as you keep pointing out, has no impact on the calculation for AC so I'm not sure why a disarmed person should receive a penalty other than - you don't have your weapon and now must try to pick it up (generally this requires and action)
If you disarm a creature of a weapon, it can no longer use the attack associated with that weapon. For example, if you disarm a goblin of it's scimitar, it can no longer use it's scimitar attack. It still has it's shortbow, and all creatures can make unarmed strikes. That's the penalty.
For spellcasters, it can be a little different as the stat block doesn't specify if they're using a focus (and if so, what focus), a components pouch, or material components. It's just assumed the have whatever they need to cast their spells. Therefore disarming a spellcaster such as a mage would have whatever effect the DM decides.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Yep, that's what I said:
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. My comment was that stat blocks don't specify components, so the disarmable element (if needed) could be one for the following:
If an NPC is not of a specified class that gets a focus (like how rangers, eldritch knights and arcane tricksters don't), they would have to use a components pouch
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Okay, so here is the thing. "Trained to defend with the sword" implies a feat, subclass skill like the kensei, some interpretations of Defensive Fighting Style, item bonus, etc. A bow using Ranger isn't going to be parrying, nor will a dagger using rogue, a spellcasting wizard. Especially not when the enemy is a charging boar instead of another humanoid. These classes shouldn't be penalized for losing their weapon, because it never factors in the first place. Instead, those who do rely on weapons for parrying end up with feats or features that rely on having said weapons, such as the Dual Wielding feat. Notice how the feat specifically calls out the need for a separate melee weapon in each hand. Disarm a weapon, lose the bonus.
"There is no skill vs skill aspect to any given swing."
There is a skill vs skill mechanic in RAW... the prone condition. The idea that an attacker can get advantage when attacking a prone creature and the creature has disadvantage on attacks is a skill vs skill mechanic. The prone condition is similar to the concept of disarm, in that the target cannot optimally defend itself (or attack). The problem lies in 5e attempting to apply universal conditions. Since a "disarmed condition" would only apply to creatures holding weapons or other items, like a chair, to defend themselves, it could not be universally applied to creatures with natural weapons, like the monk or beast. Since it cannot be universally applied, having a condition would be moot. Although I think it is weird that there is not a penalty to AC or bonus to hit, I understand there is no universally applicable disarmed condition.
Through this discussion, it made me really consider what constitutes AC. I cannot seem to find any official statements about what constitutes the base 10 AC. Within that 10 must be the ability to fight optimally, which is affected by the prone and other conditions, causing advantage/disadvantage. That base 10 is not just "sidestepping" because a dexterity of 1 only reduces the base down to 5. The remaining 5 cannot be just random miss by the attacker... wind, hit an obstruction, random movement, slipping, bird flies in, etc... without it also being defensive actions by the target. Unless the remaining 5 is just toughness of the body to eliminate damage and random miss by the attacker, the skill of the target to defend themselves must also be in the base AC.
In the end, I appreciate everyone's views on the subject. It's why I posted the discussion.
The answer to your question about the 10.... its random chance. Half a d20. All else considered equal, a high roll on a d20 is a hit, a low roll is a miss. The 10 stands for the same random conditions of the fog of war that the d20 does, just in reverse.
Trying to figure out what it means is futile, because it doesn't mean anything, really. It sets the standard. Two average humans with average stats (10s in everything) and no proficiency have a half chance of hitting each other. Well, 45%. The 10 is there just to establish a baseline.
Everyone is proficient in Unarmed Combat.
The simple answer:
Weapons do not have any effect, whatsoever, on defense. Disarming them has no effect on their defense.
There are feats or features that can allow it but without these weapons do not alter defense.
You're free to homebrew as you want, of course. Personally that seems too much of a headache to be worth it (since you'll now have to rebalance every martial-based class, adjust several feats to prevent them being rendered pointless, and adjust every weapon-wielding monster you will use). But hey, whatever works for you.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Basically, all carryover from older editions. Here are a couple old rules affected as well. They aren't currently in 5E from what I know but, I'm sure some people are using them.
Taking 10. When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful.
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).
Honestly, you're thinking too hard here. Base 10 AC is to make the math work out, just like the arbitrary base 8 for magic save DCs. D&D is not just a simulation, it's also a game that requires some artificial structure to support the d20-centric design.
As for why disarm rules are sparse and vague, it's because disarming is a huge can of worms. You need to know what every enemy is holding and exactly what benefits they get from it. You need to account for monster features, class features, magic items, etc. It bogs the game down.
Furthermore, you know who is almost always screwed by being disarmed? PCs. If you can do it, so can your enemies, and if it's a super effective strategy then every fight with intelligent creatures is going to be 2 rounds of everyone disarming each other and then 8 rounds of fumbling around trying to recover your weapons or figuring out what you can do without them. It's just a mess and doesn't sound like a lot of fun.
In this case they have decided to sacrifice the simulation for the game, and I agree with the choice. But they did leave it open enough so that you can houserule whatever you want if that's what you want. I would guess after a few sessions you might change your mind though.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
"If a creature is disarmed, do they suffer any penalties?"
Not to there stats/abilities etc
However, say I was to disarm the creature and their sword falls to the floor, you can interact with an object as a Free Action on your turn. This means you can kick the sword away from the creature or even pick it up.
When it comes round to the creatures turn, theoretically saying they don't have any other weapons stashed on them, they then either have to wrestle the weapon back off the disarmer (costing one of their attacks if they have more than one), or run to grab the sword which would trigger an attack of opportunity.
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.