I have problem with disarm. It's sound great and love it to use, but on the creature's turn he have free item interaction and can get his weapon for free and can attack again. Can someone explain to me the rule ?!
If you disarm it and kick away/pick it make sense.
I have problem with disarm. It's sound great and love it to use, but on the creature's turn he have free item interaction and can get his weapon for free and can attack again.
When you or someone in your party is ready to pick up the weapon before the target has their turn it's pretty great. Generally an ally who acts next in the turn order can do it, but if your target acts immediately after you in the turn order you'll have to keep a free hand or have someone ready an action to pick up the weapon.
ok, can i disarm him and the i pick up the weapon as a free object interaction ? can i disarm him and the i pick up the weapon as a free object interaction, if i have two handed weapon (glavie) ?
Yes. To my knowledge there is no rule in 5e about unheld items being "in a challenged square" (I remember 4e having that something like it), so as long as the weapon is not worn, held, or carried you can freely pick it up. Yes, but you'd be unable to attack with the glaive while you're just holding it with one hand. But you could attack with the weapon you picked up, if it's one-handed.
I houserule it that disarm makes the weapon fly 1d10 feet away rather than at the target's feet. It always seemed weird to be that forcefully (or deftly) knocking a weapon from someone's hand would cause it just to drop directly at their feet.
Disarming Attack has always struck me as not being a well thought out maneuver, for exactly this reason. The worth of the maneuver shouldn't be dependent on additional circumstances or actions that aren't part of the maneuver itself (such as Commander's Strike or Maneuvering Attack). A character using this maneuver should be able to see a clear mechanical benefit, in a vacuum (1-on-1), for what the maneuver is intended to do--prevent a target from using a weapon (at least one turn).
It would make sense if the maneuver allowed the user, or an allied creature within 5 feet of the target, to pick up the weapon as a part of that action (not burning your 1 free object interaction). It would also make sense if the maneuver allowed the user to toss the weapon to a specific square (not at the enemy's feet).
I also think they missed the opportunity to make the maneuver great. How about "If the target attempts to pick up the dropped object before the start of your next turn, you may immediately make one melee weapon attack against the target as a reaction"? You get a clear benefit regardless of how the creature responds--they are either actually disarmed for at least one round, or you get a reaction attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Disarming Attack has always struck me as not being a well thought out maneuver, for exactly this reason. The worth of the maneuver shouldn't be dependent on additional circumstances or actions that aren't part of the maneuver itself (such as Commander's Strike or Maneuvering Attack). A character using this maneuver should be able to see a clear mechanical benefit, in a vacuum (1-on-1), for what the maneuver is intended to do--prevent a target from using a weapon (at least one turn).
It would make sense if the maneuver allowed the user, or an allied creature within 5 feet of the target, to pick up the weapon as a part of that action (not burning your 1 free object interaction). It would also make sense if the maneuver allowed the user to toss the weapon to a specific square (not at the enemy's feet).
I also think they missed the opportunity to make the maneuver great. How about "If the target attempts to pick up the dropped object before the start of your next turn, you may immediately make one melee weapon attack against the target as a reaction"? You get a clear benefit regardless of how the creature responds--they are either actually disarmed for at least one round, or you get a reaction attack.
If it flung the weapon 10 feet in any direction the Battle Master chose it could at least be used to force an Opportunity Attack if the target moves to retrieve the weapon.
Disarming Attack has always struck me as not being a well thought out maneuver, for exactly this reason. The worth of the maneuver shouldn't be dependent on additional circumstances or actions that aren't part of the maneuver itself (such as Commander's Strike or Maneuvering Attack). A character using this maneuver should be able to see a clear mechanical benefit, in a vacuum (1-on-1), for what the maneuver is intended to do--prevent a target from using a weapon (at least one turn).
It would make sense if the maneuver allowed the user, or an allied creature within 5 feet of the target, to pick up the weapon as a part of that action (not burning your 1 free object interaction). It would also make sense if the maneuver allowed the user to toss the weapon to a specific square (not at the enemy's feet).
I also think they missed the opportunity to make the maneuver great. How about "If the target attempts to pick up the dropped object before the start of your next turn, you may immediately make one melee weapon attack against the target as a reaction"? You get a clear benefit regardless of how the creature responds--they are either actually disarmed for at least one round, or you get a reaction attack.
If it flung the weapon 10 feet in any direction the Battle Master chose it could at least be used to force an Opportunity Attack if the target moves to retrieve the weapon.
Exactly. Boiled down to its bare essentials, the maneuver is mechanically trash, but oh so close to being good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The value of Disarming Attack isn't just in disarming opponents of their weapons (though that is good enough, when combined with a second Pushing Attack or simply picking up their weapon yourself)... but also in causing enemies to drop plot items they're running away with, and arguably, forcibly ending grapples on your teammates if "object" includes "creature" (but not vice versa). RAW, objects and creatures are probably wholly different things (too many unintended consequences if they aren't), but your mileage with your DM may vary.
Also, making them drop their Shield is a much bigger deal, since it will take them a whole Action to re-don it.
Truth. "Creatures or Objects" shows up all over the place, "Objects, including Creatures" never does. Still, Pushing Attack will break a grapple too, so nbd.
Is it legal to kick someone's weapon away using the "interacting with an object" free action after using your action to disarm someone?
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
here
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/15/the-disarm-maneuver/
I don't see why not maybe do an constitution(athletics) or a straight strenght check to see how far you kick it.
- - -
What do you do?
- - -
I have problem with disarm. It's sound great and love it to use, but on the creature's turn he have free item interaction and can get his weapon for free and can attack again.
Can someone explain to me the rule ?!
If you disarm it and kick away/pick it make sense.
When you or someone in your party is ready to pick up the weapon before the target has their turn it's pretty great. Generally an ally who acts next in the turn order can do it, but if your target acts immediately after you in the turn order you'll have to keep a free hand or have someone ready an action to pick up the weapon.
I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.
Twooshort
ok,
can i disarm him and the i pick up the weapon as a free object interaction ?
can i disarm him and the i pick up the weapon as a free object interaction, if i have two handed weapon (glavie) ?
Yes. To my knowledge there is no rule in 5e about unheld items being "in a challenged square" (I remember 4e having that something like it), so as long as the weapon is not worn, held, or carried you can freely pick it up.
Yes, but you'd be unable to attack with the glaive while you're just holding it with one hand. But you could attack with the weapon you picked up, if it's one-handed.
I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.
I houserule it that disarm makes the weapon fly 1d10 feet away rather than at the target's feet. It always seemed weird to be that forcefully (or deftly) knocking a weapon from someone's hand would cause it just to drop directly at their feet.
Disarming Attack has always struck me as not being a well thought out maneuver, for exactly this reason. The worth of the maneuver shouldn't be dependent on additional circumstances or actions that aren't part of the maneuver itself (such as Commander's Strike or Maneuvering Attack). A character using this maneuver should be able to see a clear mechanical benefit, in a vacuum (1-on-1), for what the maneuver is intended to do--prevent a target from using a weapon (at least one turn).
It would make sense if the maneuver allowed the user, or an allied creature within 5 feet of the target, to pick up the weapon as a part of that action (not burning your 1 free object interaction). It would also make sense if the maneuver allowed the user to toss the weapon to a specific square (not at the enemy's feet).
I also think they missed the opportunity to make the maneuver great. How about "If the target attempts to pick up the dropped object before the start of your next turn, you may immediately make one melee weapon attack against the target as a reaction"? You get a clear benefit regardless of how the creature responds--they are either actually disarmed for at least one round, or you get a reaction attack.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
If it flung the weapon 10 feet in any direction the Battle Master chose it could at least be used to force an Opportunity Attack if the target moves to retrieve the weapon.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB, & You
DDB CONTENT TROUBLESHOOTING
Exactly. Boiled down to its bare essentials, the maneuver is mechanically trash, but oh so close to being good.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Well, we just found my houserule for it, so thanks for the inspiration!!
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB, & You
DDB CONTENT TROUBLESHOOTING
The value of Disarming Attack isn't just in disarming opponents of their weapons (though that is good enough, when combined with a second Pushing Attack or simply picking up their weapon yourself)... but also in causing enemies to drop plot items they're running away with, and arguably, forcibly ending grapples on your teammates if "object" includes "creature" (but not vice versa). RAW, objects and creatures are probably wholly different things (too many unintended consequences if they aren't), but your mileage with your DM may vary.
Also, making them drop their Shield is a much bigger deal, since it will take them a whole Action to re-don it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
RAW they are different, that’s exactly why some spells affect “creatures” and some affect “targets.”
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB, & You
DDB CONTENT TROUBLESHOOTING
Truth. "Creatures or Objects" shows up all over the place, "Objects, including Creatures" never does. Still, Pushing Attack will break a grapple too, so nbd.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I wonder, is there a possibility to disarm someone with a spell?
Of course. Fear is one such example.