I have noticed it discusses a few times that dropped weapons are too easy to pick up due to object interactions being sort of 'free' since it takes place outside the Action, Bonus Action, and Reaction categories. Why this matters is that a Battlemaster Maneuver and certain Rogue tricks make use of disarming opponents of one of their weapons. Those take actions and should feel significant.
My suggestion is this: Any creature of size Small or larger picking up an object from the ground while within reach of a hostile creature must take an opportunity attack. If the opportunity attack succeeds, the object is left on the ground. This rule does not apply if the creature picking up the object is prone or can otherwise reach the object without stopping or bending down.
Is this a useful change to the general rule for object interactions?
It’s not a bad addition, especially for “ gritty realism” games. For players one way around it is the sword or saber knot. This is/was a cord connecting the hilt of the sword/saber to a loop around the wrist so that if you drop the sword or are disarmed the weapon is quickly and easily recovered.
Taking opportunity attacks to pick up a loose item seems a bit too harsh to me, and I definitely think it's a bad idea to have it also potentially fail. That feels like doubling up penalties.
Personally, I would suggest that your battlemasters and rogues use their free item interaction to either pick up the dropped weapon or kick it away before their opponent can grab it.
I am seeing an issue with my proposal. A creature can just use half their movement to drop prone, pick up the weapon, then use half their movement to get back up again. That would be a penalty to movement, but would not incur an opportunity attack.
Taking opportunity attacks to pick up a loose item seems a bit too harsh to me, and I definitely think it's a bad idea to have it also potentially fail. That feels like doubling up penalties.
Personally, I would suggest that your battlemasters and rogues use their free item interaction to either pick up the dropped weapon or kick it away before their opponent can grab it.
I think the point of a penalty is that it is punitive. If the only weapon between two people is a knife dropped by an assassin, it should not be easy for the assassin or the intended target to pick up that knife. There might be a tussle over the knife. Or an attempt to use an improvised weapon that is not something on the ground. The point is that a dropped object in the midst of combat is not generally a casual thing. It's usually an occurrence that ramps up the tension for good reason.
I think the point of a penalty is that it is punitive. If the only weapon between two people is a knife dropped by an assassin, it should not be easy for the assassin or the intended target to pick up that knife. There might be a tussle over the knife. Or an attempt to use an improvised weapon that is not something on the ground. The point is that a dropped object in the midst of combat is not generally a casual thing. It's usually an occurrence that ramps up the tension for good reason.
I understand what a penalty is and why you may want to introduce one. I'm not sure why you're being sarcastic after soliciting opinions. That's rude. Giving enemies opportunity attacks is too harsh of a penalty. Adding a chance of failure makes it into two penalties. The game's mechanics already offer a narratively satisfying, appropriate option. But you do what you like - I'm only offering my opinion.
It was not my intention to be sarcastic. I apologize if it sounded that way. However, I do disagree that the current official rules are satisfactory regarding this issue, as kicking away a dropped weapons in the middle of combat is basically an attack action aimed at an object and automatically being able to pick up a weapon dropped at the very feet of your enemy is too easy, lacking any tension.
It is a bad idea, unless you handwave the rules for drawing and stowing weapons. Since you can only draw or stow one weapon with your item interaction per round RAW, characters often are forced to drop their weapons to do stuff rather than stowing them. These drops often are inconsequential, rightfully so, because picking up the item on the next turn is an item interaction too. If you handwave these rules and allow a character to draw and stow multiple weapons per turn, then a penalty for picking up a dropped weapon could work.
A fighter using a disarming attack can easily kick the weapon away or pick it up by themselves if they still have an item interaction available.
Let me repeat myself: nobody just casually picks up a weapon in the personal space of another creature when those two are clearly hostile to each other and can see each other. Unless one of them is literally a giant compared to the other one.
As such, it makes perfect sense that an opportunity attack occurs when picking up a weapon in melee range of a hostile.
I'll push back a little here. Disarming an opponent is almost always a bad strategy when measured against foregone damage. Adding some pain to a character who's been disarmed might make the strategy stack up a little better. In previous editions, many object interactions provoked opportunity attacks.
It is a bad idea, unless you handwave the rules for drawing and stowing weapons. Since you can only draw or stow one weapon with your item interaction per round RAW, characters often are forced to drop their weapons to do stuff rather than stowing them. These drops often are inconsequential, rightfully so, because picking up the item on the next turn is an item interaction too. If you handwave these rules and allow a character to draw and stow multiple weapons per turn, then a penalty for picking up a dropped weapon could work.
A fighter using a disarming attack can easily kick the weapon away or pick it up by themselves if they still have an item interaction available.
As you acknowledge, this is more a statement about how strange the RAW are about switching weapons than about the validity of the OP.
This is an excellent opportunity to introduce more Reactions for the game to make use of.
Snatch: If a creature attempts to pick up an item within your reach, if you have at least one free hand, you can use your reaction to attempt a contested Dexterity (sleight of hand) chack with them. On a success, you pick up the item. On a failure, they pick up the item.
Knock Aside: If a creature attempts to pick up an item within your reach, you can use your Reaction to knock the item aside. If the Item is free to move, it moves 15ft. directly away from you.
Discourage: Whyen a creature you can see attempts to pick up an item that you can see, if the item is in range of a ranged attack that you can make, you can use your Reaction to Discourage the creature - they can now choose whether to pick up the item or dodge back. If they choose to pick up the item, then you can make a ranged attack against the creature. If they choose not to, then their free interaction is used for the turn and your attack has discouraged them from picking it up this turn.
My suggestion is this: Any creature of size Small or larger picking up an object from the ground while within reach of a hostile creature must take an opportunity attack. If the opportunity attack succeeds, the object is left on the ground. This rule does not apply if the creature picking up the object is prone or can otherwise reach the object without stopping or bending down.
This is actually my preferred way of running it, and I do so on the basis that picking up an object, and picking up an object within reach of an enemy, are not the same thing. Though I would resolve this as an opportunity attack that's unaffected by Disengage (as the target isn't trying to move away).
However, they could use their object interaction to kick the weapon to somewhere safer (e.g- behind themselves), and then try to get it on their next turn. I might also allow some kind of check for something riskier, e.g- if they wanted to try and flick the weapon into reach of their hand, they'd definitely need an ability check (Acrobatics or maybe Sleight of Foot?) but that's a cool cinematic way to do it quickly, but with the risk of knocking it away if you screw it up.
There definitely needs to be some cost to losing your weapon, otherwise disarming is pretty pointless. In cases where an enemy disarms within 5 feet I might also allow an especially high roll (5 or above the defender) to allow the creature to seize the weapon (so you'd affectively need to disarm them back to retrieve it).
I wouldn't call this a gritty realism rule, it's just about making sure disarming actually feels worth doing, and it's the kind of thing you see in movies and TV all the time. It helps to avoid cases where a quest object and similar items in an area are easily obtained.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This is an excellent opportunity to introduce more Reactions for the game to make use of.
Snatch: If a creature attempts to pick up an item within your reach, if you have at least one free hand, you can use your reaction to attempt a contested Dexterity (sleight of hand) chack with them. On a success, you pick up the item. On a failure, they pick up the item.
Knock Aside: If a creature attempts to pick up an item within your reach, you can use your Reaction to knock the item aside. If the Item is free to move, it moves 15ft. directly away from you.
Discourage: Whyen a creature you can see attempts to pick up an item that you can see, if the item is in range of a ranged attack that you can make, you can use your Reaction to Discourage the creature - they can now choose whether to pick up the item or dodge back. If they choose to pick up the item, then you can make a ranged attack against the creature. If they choose not to, then their free interaction is used for the turn and your attack hIt as discouraged them from picking it up this turn.
Snatch works for me.
I would say that "knock aside" would need an attack roll, though, since you're not picking it up but trying to use your weapon to make a very unconventional attack (on an object to move it). It would be like if you were in a basketball game and you were trying to use a bat to hit the ball away from the opposing dribbling player.
I don't like the idea of using a ranged weapon to discourage someone from picking up an item. Not that it can't be done, but I feel like the game mechanics already generally benefit DEX-boosted characters over STR-boosted ones; I would say this that using a bow or crossbow to attempt to negate someone from picking up an object would be more in line with a held action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have noticed it discusses a few times that dropped weapons are too easy to pick up due to object interactions being sort of 'free' since it takes place outside the Action, Bonus Action, and Reaction categories. Why this matters is that a Battlemaster Maneuver and certain Rogue tricks make use of disarming opponents of one of their weapons. Those take actions and should feel significant.
My suggestion is this: Any creature of size Small or larger picking up an object from the ground while within reach of a hostile creature must take an opportunity attack. If the opportunity attack succeeds, the object is left on the ground. This rule does not apply if the creature picking up the object is prone or can otherwise reach the object without stopping or bending down.
Is this a useful change to the general rule for object interactions?
It’s not a bad addition, especially for “ gritty realism” games. For players one way around it is the sword or saber knot. This is/was a cord connecting the hilt of the sword/saber to a loop around the wrist so that if you drop the sword or are disarmed the weapon is quickly and easily recovered.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Taking opportunity attacks to pick up a loose item seems a bit too harsh to me, and I definitely think it's a bad idea to have it also potentially fail. That feels like doubling up penalties.
Personally, I would suggest that your battlemasters and rogues use their free item interaction to either pick up the dropped weapon or kick it away before their opponent can grab it.
I am seeing an issue with my proposal. A creature can just use half their movement to drop prone, pick up the weapon, then use half their movement to get back up again. That would be a penalty to movement, but would not incur an opportunity attack.
I think the point of a penalty is that it is punitive. If the only weapon between two people is a knife dropped by an assassin, it should not be easy for the assassin or the intended target to pick up that knife. There might be a tussle over the knife. Or an attempt to use an improvised weapon that is not something on the ground. The point is that a dropped object in the midst of combat is not generally a casual thing. It's usually an occurrence that ramps up the tension for good reason.
I understand what a penalty is and why you may want to introduce one. I'm not sure why you're being sarcastic after soliciting opinions. That's rude. Giving enemies opportunity attacks is too harsh of a penalty. Adding a chance of failure makes it into two penalties. The game's mechanics already offer a narratively satisfying, appropriate option. But you do what you like - I'm only offering my opinion.
It was not my intention to be sarcastic. I apologize if it sounded that way. However, I do disagree that the current official rules are satisfactory regarding this issue, as kicking away a dropped weapons in the middle of combat is basically an attack action aimed at an object and automatically being able to pick up a weapon dropped at the very feet of your enemy is too easy, lacking any tension.
It is a bad idea, unless you handwave the rules for drawing and stowing weapons. Since you can only draw or stow one weapon with your item interaction per round RAW, characters often are forced to drop their weapons to do stuff rather than stowing them. These drops often are inconsequential, rightfully so, because picking up the item on the next turn is an item interaction too. If you handwave these rules and allow a character to draw and stow multiple weapons per turn, then a penalty for picking up a dropped weapon could work.
A fighter using a disarming attack can easily kick the weapon away or pick it up by themselves if they still have an item interaction available.
Let me repeat myself: nobody just casually picks up a weapon in the personal space of another creature when those two are clearly hostile to each other and can see each other. Unless one of them is literally a giant compared to the other one.
As such, it makes perfect sense that an opportunity attack occurs when picking up a weapon in melee range of a hostile.
I'll push back a little here. Disarming an opponent is almost always a bad strategy when measured against foregone damage. Adding some pain to a character who's been disarmed might make the strategy stack up a little better. In previous editions, many object interactions provoked opportunity attacks.
As you acknowledge, this is more a statement about how strange the RAW are about switching weapons than about the validity of the OP.
This is an excellent opportunity to introduce more Reactions for the game to make use of.
Snatch: If a creature attempts to pick up an item within your reach, if you have at least one free hand, you can use your reaction to attempt a contested Dexterity (sleight of hand) chack with them. On a success, you pick up the item. On a failure, they pick up the item.
Knock Aside: If a creature attempts to pick up an item within your reach, you can use your Reaction to knock the item aside. If the Item is free to move, it moves 15ft. directly away from you.
Discourage: Whyen a creature you can see attempts to pick up an item that you can see, if the item is in range of a ranged attack that you can make, you can use your Reaction to Discourage the creature - they can now choose whether to pick up the item or dodge back. If they choose to pick up the item, then you can make a ranged attack against the creature. If they choose not to, then their free interaction is used for the turn and your attack has discouraged them from picking it up this turn.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Thoruk, I like the idea of creating more reactions. Gives more stuff for non-mages to do with that part of their action economy.
This is actually my preferred way of running it, and I do so on the basis that picking up an object, and picking up an object within reach of an enemy, are not the same thing. Though I would resolve this as an opportunity attack that's unaffected by Disengage (as the target isn't trying to move away).
However, they could use their object interaction to kick the weapon to somewhere safer (e.g- behind themselves), and then try to get it on their next turn. I might also allow some kind of check for something riskier, e.g- if they wanted to try and flick the weapon into reach of their hand, they'd definitely need an ability check (Acrobatics or maybe Sleight of Foot?) but that's a cool cinematic way to do it quickly, but with the risk of knocking it away if you screw it up.
There definitely needs to be some cost to losing your weapon, otherwise disarming is pretty pointless. In cases where an enemy disarms within 5 feet I might also allow an especially high roll (5 or above the defender) to allow the creature to seize the weapon (so you'd affectively need to disarm them back to retrieve it).
I wouldn't call this a gritty realism rule, it's just about making sure disarming actually feels worth doing, and it's the kind of thing you see in movies and TV all the time. It helps to avoid cases where a quest object and similar items in an area are easily obtained.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Snatch works for me.
I would say that "knock aside" would need an attack roll, though, since you're not picking it up but trying to use your weapon to make a very unconventional attack (on an object to move it). It would be like if you were in a basketball game and you were trying to use a bat to hit the ball away from the opposing dribbling player.
I don't like the idea of using a ranged weapon to discourage someone from picking up an item. Not that it can't be done, but I feel like the game mechanics already generally benefit DEX-boosted characters over STR-boosted ones; I would say this that using a bow or crossbow to attempt to negate someone from picking up an object would be more in line with a held action.