firm rulings

[nswanson27]

The piling on and piling on of meta knowledge is what I object to. It goes against everything 5e was designed for, streamlined ease of rulings at the table and DM empowerment. I play a PFS druid, and the amount of knowledge outside Core I found I was expected to know about animal companions was annoying. Books I had never heard of and didn't own, changes to what was in the Core, and a gazillion FAQ questions to wade through to find the info on it that I needed, on a website I don't normally visit. It made everything a million times more complicated than it needed to be.

I don't think what I'm suggesting is to going to reach that point. Not even close. As I've stated earlier, there aren't many of these that tend to cause issues, and the ideal situation would be to clear it up in errata. The worst scenario is to keep having them show up mid-game and be a disruption to playing.

 

[kalani]

I can state for the record that the AL has no intention of making campaign-wide rulings for general rules questions.

The AL rule on the matter is - The DM has full authority to make a ruling at their table for any ambiguous rule or situation the rules do not cover. The DM cannot however make rulings that contradict the printed rules in an official rules source

 

[nswanson27]

I can state for the record that the AL has no intention of making campaign-wide rulings for general rules questions.

The AL rule on the matter is - The DM has full authority to make a ruling at their table for any ambiguous rule or situation the rules do not cover. The DM cannot however make rulings that contradict the printed rules in an official rules source

Ok. I'm curious - in the case of disarming strike, is the ability to pick up the enemy's weapon considered "in the rules" or not? To me it seems like it is, but on forums there's enough debate to make me think it's not. If not, then I guess I won't be choosing that maneuver then for a fighter, for fear that it just one day "won't work" on my character, which would really suck.

 

[KahlessNestor]

If you have a free hand and haven't used your object interaction yet, yes, you should be able to pick it up. Or kick it away. Or have a party member take care of it.

 

[Pauper]

If you have a free hand and haven't used your object interaction yet, yes, you should be able to pick it up. Or kick it away. Or have a party member take care of it.

But not every DM will allow this, because there's no specific rule about it.

The general rule that covers this situation is this: "Expect table variation."

If you can't handle that, and need your character to perform precisely the same at every table you play at, then you should probably only ever play at one table.
--
Pauper

 

[Granville]

I know some time back the rules were tweaked a bit on wild shape and summoning spells. I was curious if you can still use the Polymorph spell to turn an ally into a T-Rex? Or is Giant Ape (Still very good) where the buck stops?

 

[KahlessNestor]

But not every DM will allow this, because there's no specific rule about it.

The general rule that covers this situation is this: "Expect table variation."

If you can't handle that, and need your character to perform precisely the same at every table you play at, then you should probably only ever play at one table.
--
Pauper

If picking up an object is specifically listed as an example of object interaction then why would it fall under table variation and not RAW?

 

[Byakugan]

If picking up an object is specifically listed as an example of object interaction then why would it fall under table variation and not RAW?

Technically, if you are using weapon attacks, then your 'free' object interaction is being used on the weapon you used. I can see plenty of DMs deciding that on the spot. I've seen plenty DMs rule that if you spent your turn opening a door you couldnt attack because your weapon had to be sheathed or 'unreadied'.

Biggest problem with Disarming strike as I see it is that an NPC with said ability could use it against the PCs and that would be uber annoying. Bad guy disarms your Dawnbringer, picks it up and runs like hell...please deduct the magic item from your character sheet...ohh sorry I am not allowed to give out magic items so theres no more Dawnbringer fornyou to get back...ouch.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Technically, if you are using weapon attacks, then your 'free' object interaction is being used on the weapon you used. I can see plenty of DMs deciding that on the spot. I've seen plenty DMs rule that if you spent your turn opening a door you couldnt attack because your weapon had to be sheathed or 'unreadied'.

Biggest problem with Disarming strike as I see it is that an NPC with said ability could use it against the PCs and that would be uber annoying. Bad guy disarms your Dawnbringer, picks it up and runs like hell...please deduct the magic item from your character sheet...ohh sorry I am not allowed to give out magic items so theres no more Dawnbringer fornyou to get back...ouch.

If you drew tour weapon then yes, you couldn't pick it up because you used your free interaction. So don't use disarming strike then. Use it next round when you have your free interaction available.

The maneuver is still useful even if you can't pick it up. The enemy can't pick it up until his turn, so that leaves him unarmed until then. Opportunity attacks would be limited to unarmed. Someone else could pick it up in the meantime. Someone could shove the enemy away from his weapon, etc.

 

[RCanine]

The biggest problem with abilities like disarming strike is it increases the challenge of the DM to suddenly have to improvise how a monster would attack while disarmed. It's a small thing, but DMing is stressful enough.

That said, oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth when PCs realize that their weapons on the ground are also fair game, and that you drop what you are carrying when you fall unconscious.