D&D 5E Disarming results

[Kobold Stew]

Playing around with fighters today, we discover some weird stuff, which leads me to believe that I might just be missing something: and so I come to ENWorld for insight.

There are two ways to disarm an opponent:
a: strength vs str-or-dex (How to play, p. 12)
b: combat maneuver "disarm", which is automatic if 1 or 2 dice are spent (Maneuvers p. 2).

Observations:
1. with a., if you have a free hand you can grab the item. Otherwise, it falls to the ground. Can you then pick it up? It's not clear.

How to play, p. 14 says: "Many of the most common interactions with items—drawing or sheathing a sword, moving through a door that opens easily, picking up a scroll, withdrawing a potion from your backpack, and the like—do not require an action. You are generally assumed to be able to incorporate such uses into your turn, while you move and take your action."

So presumably you can just pick it up (if you have a free hand), regardless of how you disarmed your opponent (a or b). If you can't just pick it up, then your opponent can on her turn, without any penalty. In either case, the benefit of disarming is not entirely clear.

While I'm happy not to be thinking in terms of move-actions, etc. any more, I can't help but feel there needs to be something here -- that picking up a dropped weapon takes a turn, or at least prevents any movement, or whatever.

What are your thoughts?

2. On the other hand, it can become pretty trivial to disarm an opponent. With the maneuver (b), you can even disarm someone several sizes larger than you (something not possible with a). Now it may be fun to have your fighter disarming a storm giant or whatever, but should this be happening?

Further, should it be unopposed? With the maneuver, there is nothing the defendant can do to avoid being disarmed, every single round! I felt that the opponent should be able to resist this in some way. Thoughts? (The same thing happened with the Trip and Bull Rush maneuver.)

3. Trip and Bull Rush are not even fighter specific (and Disarm is available to non-fighters through the Called Shot Feat). This means that at 9th level, you can have a Cleric or a Rogue automatically disarming fighters and storm giants. Since the Rake gets a general maneuver for free at first level, he can be tripping opponents unopposed from level 1.

Have others encountered these issues? Thanks!

 

[DogBackward]

Now it may be fun to have your fighter disarming a storm giant or whatever, but should this be happening?

Yes. When most people think "disarm", they think the Hollywood-style act of physically battering your opponent's weapon until it flies out of their hand. This is... not very realistic, to say the least. It's very difficult to knock a weapon out of someone's hand by sheer force, unless you have overwhelming force. Far more often, a "disarm" is actually hitting the opponent's hand or forearm: you cut a finger or jar their arm hard enough to make them let go of the weapon.

So yes, even a Storm Giant will drop his weapon when the Fighter stabs him in the wrist.

Further, should it be unopposed? With the maneuver, there is nothing the defendant can do to avoid being disarmed, every single round! I felt that the opponent should be able to resist this in some way. Thoughts? (The same thing happened with the Trip and Bull Rush maneuver.)

Here, the opponent gets his AC to resist, just like with any other attack. This is enough: generally, you should either attack the target, or force a saving throw, not both... unless the attack is especially powerful. If you don't want the Fighter to do bad things to you, have a high AC and beef up your defenses. It's not automatic, because it only happens when you hit the target.

I will admit that I don't like the current Bull Rush maneuver specifically because it is automatic: you don't have to hit with an attack roll or provoke a saving throw. I would prefer it be changed to match the other maneuvers: if you hit with a normal attack, you can spend your MDD to push the target 5ft (not 5ft per MDD, only 5ft). And I'd suggest allowing you to spend more MDD to affect larger targets, by harrying them and driving them back with attacks as opposed to directly, physically shoving them.

Also remember that the Parry ability turns a hit into a miss if you reduce the damage of an attack to zero, which would cancel any maneuver effects that were added to the hit. This only helps Fighters, but this does make a Fighter the best at defending against these maneuvers, which I think is the way it should be. If someone is using their MDD for maneuvers instead of damage, it will be much easier for a Fighter to defend against their attacks by using their own MDD to reduce the damage and turn the hit into a miss.

 

[Sekhmet]

[MENTION=50642]DogBackward[/MENTION] In my experience, disarming techniques are done with very little force whatsoever, instead relying on the opponent's natural tendency to move in specific patterns through manipulation of joints, muscles, and ligaments. It takes very little force at all to disarm an adult human male, so much so that I taught a ten year old boy to do it effectively.
If you consider the difference between a ten year old human boy and a fully developed, muscular, adult human male, and compare it to a fantasy world extremely muscular, adult human male (PC) against a typical storm giant, I can hardly imagine the scenario playing very differently.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Thanks for this.

Yes. When most people think "disarm", they think the Hollywood-style act of physically battering your opponent's weapon until it flies out of their hand. This is... not very realistic, to say the least. It's very difficult to knock a weapon out of someone's hand by sheer force, unless you have overwhelming force. Far more often, a "disarm" is actually hitting the opponent's hand or forearm: you cut a finger or jar their arm hard enough to make them let go of the weapon.

So the "a" method is the Hollywood-weapon bashing, and "b" is the precision wrist-stab? That's a cool insight, and even explains the size limitation on "a" that isn't on "b". Thanks.

As for your second point: that helps, but it still seems odd. AC is not enough (or maybe shouldn't be) when it means losing a magic weapon, or a wizard's staff, for instance.

And if the attacker doesn't get to pick up the disarmed weapon, then what's the point of disarming in the first place?

I get the point about Parry, but most armed monsters (at least as they are now) do not have the ability -- does it need to be written in to every gnoll and ogre description of someone who's conceived of as a fighter? That's cumbersome.

Thanks also for the insight about Bull Rush -- I hadn't noticed that.

 

[Li Shenron]

Observations:
1. with a., if you have a free hand you can grab the item. Otherwise, it falls to the ground. Can you then pick it up? It's not clear.

Why not? However, the text under "Use an Item" mentions that the DM is free to require your round action to do so if it's difficult enough. I think it would be fair if, whatever the DM's choice (actions required or not), it's the same for the PC and the monster. So maybe if the combat is hectic enough, with others fighting nearby, it's better to require an action to pick it up.

2. On the other hand, it can become pretty trivial to disarm an opponent. With the maneuver (b), you can even disarm someone several sizes larger than you (something not possible with a). Now it may be fun to have your fighter disarming a storm giant or whatever, but should this be happening?

Further, should it be unopposed? With the maneuver, there is nothing the defendant can do to avoid being disarmed, every single round! I felt that the opponent should be able to resist this in some way. Thoughts? (The same thing happened with the Trip and Bull Rush maneuver.)

Well, it's a special class feature of the Fighter class, and at the moment a Fighter only gets 5 of such maneuver during her entire career. I'd say if a Fighter "spends" 20% of her potential in maneuvers for this Disarm, it's fine if it's powerful! Even against a Giant.

The only thing I don't like about this Disarm maneuver is the apparently unavoidable damage. Normally when I play a Fighter, if I take a special ability to disarm my opponents it is because I want a non-violent option for combat (although this is not the only option... it could also be taken just because it's a valid tactic to then more easily hack the opponent to pieces). Of course it's easy for a DM to allow the PC to forgo the damage, but it's just looks weird on paper that this is not allowed by the RAW.

 

[MarkB]

Maybe picking something up from an opponent's space should require some form of action, or an opposed check, or come with the potential of a punitive response.

 

[DogBackward]

[MENTION=50642]DogBackward[/MENTION] In my experience, disarming techniques are done with very little force whatsoever, instead relying on the opponent's natural tendency to move in specific patterns through manipulation of joints, muscles, and ligaments. It takes very little force at all to disarm an adult human male, so much so that I taught a ten year old boy to do it effectively.
If you consider the difference between a ten year old human boy and a fully developed, muscular, adult human male, and compare it to a fantasy world extremely muscular, adult human male (PC) against a typical storm giant, I can hardly imagine the scenario playing very differently.

Oh, okay. I know firsthand that brute force smacking a guy's weapon isn't gonna do much, and I've heard of disarms using cuts or attacks against a hand or arm, but I didn't realize it could also be accomplished through the proper application of physics. Nifty! Thanks.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think it would be fair if, whatever the DM's choice (actions required or not), it's the same for the PC and the monster. So maybe if the combat is hectic enough, with others fighting nearby, it's better to require an action to pick it up.

I agree -- but if it doesn't cost an action, then the point of disarming is pretty minimal.

Maybe picking something up from an opponent's space should require some form of action, or an opposed check, or come with the potential of a punitive response.

This would work, but (goose/gander) it would need to be true for recovering one's own weapon as well.

The only thing I don't like about this Disarm maneuver is the apparently unavoidable damage. <snip> but it's just looks weird on paper that this is not allowed by the RAW.

RAW: Nonlethal damage, p. 18 of How to Play. Granted, it's still damage, but it is entirely in the spirit that you want (I think).

 

[Sekhmet]

Oh, okay. I know firsthand that brute force smacking a guy's weapon isn't gonna do much, and I've heard of disarms using cuts or attacks against a hand or arm, but I didn't realize it could also be accomplished through the proper application of physics. Nifty! Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GGVJ4vbwHio#t=28s

While I am not a practitioner of taekwondo, nor do I approve of it as a combat style, this clip shows just how easy it is to disarm a weapon without application of egregious force.
It takes less than about five pounds of force, regardless of how well the opponent has a hold of his weapon. The wrist folds inward causing the fingers to extend, your other hand claps it out of their grip without any effort at all.

I haven't found a weapon I couldn't do it to, ranging all the way up to an AK47 and all the way down to a SEAL's SOG knife (about a three inch blade).

 

[MarkB]

This would work, but (goose/gander) it would need to be true for recovering one's own weapon as well.

I was thinking in terms of it being inherently dangerous and difficult to reach into someone else's personal space during combat, even if they are currently unarmed. It should be a greater task than picking up something in your own space or an unoccupied adjacent square.