The Feats and fighting styles allow you to disarm an opponent while also dealing damage with an attack. If you don't have those features you can still attempt to disarm an opponent, but it depends on DM interpretation for how you do it... whether it's an athletics check to pull the weapon from their hands, or a sleight of hand check to slip it out of their grip.
While some class/subclass/feat options give you a way to disarm an opponent, there is no general rule for trying to disarm someone. However, Chapter 9 of the Dungeon Master's Guide does have a bunch of optional rules as examples of how a DM can customize gameplay for their specific group. Among them are several combat actions such as Overrun, Tumble, and Disarm. Here is what the DMG offers for a generic Disarm attack:
"A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.
The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller."
Again, this is an optional rule, so you'll want to check with your DM to see if they'll allow you to use it.
You can target weapons or items held or worn by opponents to damage or destroy them.
The PHB reads
"Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."
Many spells note that they target only creatures or specify they don't target objects held or worn, but that line mentions only objects.
The DMG has some rules on destroying objects but although it doesn't explicitly say it, the only example objects mentioned are those not held or worn. HOWEVER, it does note that depending on what you're attacking, the DM can simply rule it as impossible and not give a roll option: "Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does."
There's a list of object armor classes but again, it seems to refer only to objects that aren't held or worn (by suggestion not explicitly): "An object’s Armor Class is a measure of how difficult it is to deal damage to the object when striking it (because the object has no chance of dodging out of the way). The Object Armor Class table provides suggested AC values for various substances."
A static item certainly has no chance of dodging out of the way but a held or worn item can certainly move with it's user. Obviously this can lead to alternative arguments that people wouldn't move their weapon or shield out of the way as they'd be blocking or parrying with them, then further arguments that an opponent would dodge before resorting to armor, shield or weapon parry. Someone else might be aware of other rules out there which clarify this but honestly, I think it's a recipe for disaster in a game and would just slow down gameplay in most circumstances.
I think JC tweeted on this: Q: The base rules for damaging objects don't specify unattended, so any character or monster can do it with a basic attack. Am I missing something? A: Those rules are entirely in the DM's hands. Using those rules, the DM is encouraged to rule that certain types of attacks/damage do nothing to certain objects. Those rules don't provide a foolproof way to wreck plate.
Even then you could argue that breaking an opponent's spear now means they have a staff and breaking an opponent's staff now means they have a club. Personally I would DM that the vast majority of regular weapons couldn't break another steel weapon, shield or armor, even magical weapons unless the magic somehow added to the ability for them to break steel. Adamantine weapons would damage steel for me but not other adamantine. So effectively, same for same (or roughly close) couldn't break each other while worn or held for me but weapons of stronger material could damage weapons, armor and shields or other items of weaker material. Even damage types could come into it where bludgeoning might not do much to a spellcaster's book but slashing and piercing damage would and fire damage might act like it was vulnerable.
You can target weapons or items held or worn by opponents to damage or destroy them.
The PHB reads
"Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."
Many spells note that they target only creatures or specify they don't target objects held or worn, but that line mentions only objects.
The DMG has some rules on destroying objects but although it doesn't explicitly say it, the only example objects mentioned are those not held or worn. HOWEVER, it does note that depending on what you're attacking, the DM can simply rule it as impossible and not give a roll option: "Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does."
There's a list of object armor classes but again, it seems to refer only to objects that aren't held or worn (by suggestion not explicitly): "An object’s Armor Class is a measure of how difficult it is to deal damage to the object when striking it (because the object has no chance of dodging out of the way). The Object Armor Class table provides suggested AC values for various substances."
A static item certainly has no chance of dodging out of the way but a held or worn item can certainly move with it's user. Obviously this can lead to alternative arguments that people wouldn't move their weapon or shield out of the way as they'd be blocking or parrying with them, then further arguments that an opponent would dodge before resorting to armor, shield or weapon parry. Someone else might be aware of other rules out there which clarify this but honestly, I think it's a recipe for disaster in a game and would just slow down gameplay in most circumstances.
I think JC tweeted on this: Q: The base rules for damaging objects don't specify unattended, so any character or monster can do it with a basic attack. Am I missing something? A: Those rules are entirely in the DM's hands. Using those rules, the DM is encouraged to rule that certain types of attacks/damage do nothing to certain objects. Those rules don't provide a foolproof way to wreck plate.
Even then you could argue that breaking an opponent's spear now means they have a staff and breaking an opponent's staff now means they have a club. Personally I would DM that the vast majority of regular weapons couldn't break another steel weapon, shield or armor, even magical weapons unless the magic somehow added to the ability for them to break steel. Adamantine weapons would damage steel for me but not other adamantine. So effectively, same for same (or roughly close) couldn't break each other while worn or held for me but weapons of stronger material could damage weapons, armor and shields or other items of weaker material. Even damage types could come into it where bludgeoning might not do much to a spellcaster's book but slashing and piercing damage would and fire damage might act like it was vulnerable.
Thanks. I plan on using this for a monk's martial arts to disarm an opponent
While some class/subclass/feat options give you a way to disarm an opponent, there is no general rule for trying to disarm someone. However, Chapter 9 of the Dungeon Master's Guide does have a bunch of optional rules as examples of how a DM can customize gameplay for their specific group. Among them are several combat actions such as Overrun, Tumble, and Disarm. Here is what the DMG offers for a generic Disarm attack:
"A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.
The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller."
Again, this is an optional rule, so you'll want to check with your DM to see if they'll allow you to use it.
Thanks. This may come in handy for my monk's martial arts
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is it necessary to have a feat or fighting style selected for disarming opponents during battle, or can you call it out as an option during battle?
The Feats and fighting styles allow you to disarm an opponent while also dealing damage with an attack. If you don't have those features you can still attempt to disarm an opponent, but it depends on DM interpretation for how you do it... whether it's an athletics check to pull the weapon from their hands, or a sleight of hand check to slip it out of their grip.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
While some class/subclass/feat options give you a way to disarm an opponent, there is no general rule for trying to disarm someone. However, Chapter 9 of the Dungeon Master's Guide does have a bunch of optional rules as examples of how a DM can customize gameplay for their specific group. Among them are several combat actions such as Overrun, Tumble, and Disarm. Here is what the DMG offers for a generic Disarm attack:
"A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.
The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller."
Again, this is an optional rule, so you'll want to check with your DM to see if they'll allow you to use it.
You can target weapons or items held or worn by opponents to damage or destroy them.
The PHB reads
"Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."
Many spells note that they target only creatures or specify they don't target objects held or worn, but that line mentions only objects.
The DMG has some rules on destroying objects but although it doesn't explicitly say it, the only example objects mentioned are those not held or worn. HOWEVER, it does note that depending on what you're attacking, the DM can simply rule it as impossible and not give a roll option: "Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does."
There's a list of object armor classes but again, it seems to refer only to objects that aren't held or worn (by suggestion not explicitly): "An object’s Armor Class is a measure of how difficult it is to deal damage to the object when striking it (because the object has no chance of dodging out of the way). The Object Armor Class table provides suggested AC values for various substances."
A static item certainly has no chance of dodging out of the way but a held or worn item can certainly move with it's user. Obviously this can lead to alternative arguments that people wouldn't move their weapon or shield out of the way as they'd be blocking or parrying with them, then further arguments that an opponent would dodge before resorting to armor, shield or weapon parry. Someone else might be aware of other rules out there which clarify this but honestly, I think it's a recipe for disaster in a game and would just slow down gameplay in most circumstances.
I think JC tweeted on this:
Q: The base rules for damaging objects don't specify unattended, so any character or monster can do it with a basic attack. Am I missing something?
A: Those rules are entirely in the DM's hands. Using those rules, the DM is encouraged to rule that certain types of attacks/damage do nothing to certain objects. Those rules don't provide a foolproof way to wreck plate.
Even then you could argue that breaking an opponent's spear now means they have a staff and breaking an opponent's staff now means they have a club. Personally I would DM that the vast majority of regular weapons couldn't break another steel weapon, shield or armor, even magical weapons unless the magic somehow added to the ability for them to break steel. Adamantine weapons would damage steel for me but not other adamantine. So effectively, same for same (or roughly close) couldn't break each other while worn or held for me but weapons of stronger material could damage weapons, armor and shields or other items of weaker material. Even damage types could come into it where bludgeoning might not do much to a spellcaster's book but slashing and piercing damage would and fire damage might act like it was vulnerable.
Thanks. I plan on using this for a monk's martial arts to disarm an opponent
Thanks. This may come in handy for my monk's martial arts