The bold bit in my last spoiler. Sometimes the use an object action takes an action, other times it is free as part of some other action like taking a potion or scroll out of your pack as part of the action used to drink/read it.
Level Up (A5E) Help with Mirror's Glint:Take Weapon confusion
I'm fairly sure that everytime an object requires an action to use it's specified in the rules. (IE the specific for those is that it's an action). Unless it's specified, the general rule is that it's one of the things you can do on your turn: "Within a single round, you can take an action, a
bonus action, and any free actions (like communi-
cating with allies, dismissing the effect of a thauma-
turgy cantrip you have already cast, or interacting
with an object) during your turn, and one reaction
at any time." (Pg438)
yea but draw a weapon as part of an attack with it is explicit. retrieve it & attack not so much. Rule one way & you have a reaction two point second degree maneuver that can end an attack chain and consume the opponent's action the next round hitting above it's weight since the maneuver user doesn't need to use their action defending the dropped weapon next round to contest recovery or keep the weapon in their offhand potentially imposing a cost.* Rule the other way & you have an ability that's going to have a massively reduced expected power level from table to table. being able to rummage through a mundane nonmagical backpack to draw out a scroll/potion as part of using it sets a pretty high bar that "grab the weapon from the ground & attack" should easily slide under or equal at worst.
* limiting themselves to one handed weapons & keeping a hand free, maybe having a non-adept weapon in their hand ,etc
I'll try to answer in a more complete way later (on my phone, don't have time to formulate thoughts completely) but impression of your concern is very much that while there may be some specific interaction that really screws a single npc in a combat once in a while, that scenario is really unlikely to occur often or really have as much of an impact as you're concerned about. It really seems like a lot of "ifs" and dice roles to lead to the perfect storm of an NPC being completely useless in combat. Similarly, if you are giving the maneuver to every enemy your players face then, yes, it's going to be rough for them losing their favor weapon at the start of every combat. However, the dm has complete control over whether the monsters/npcs have that and if your dm is running this a "broken combo" every single combat... Talk to them about the game not being fun or find yourself another game.
Last edited:
Less if, more when. One of my players is an adept with a quarterstaff (a parry weapon). It's almost guaranteed to come up often.
Kinematics
Hero
This doesn't seem to be in conflict. If drawing a weapon can be done as part of an attack, doing so doesn't require the use of the free action on your turn, so you can use that free action for something else.
Drawing a weapon involves taking the weapon from a prepared location (typically a sheathe) and readying it. Picking up a weapon would involve collecting it from a non-prepared location, so doesn't get the free melding with the attack action itself. Thus it would require the separate object interaction in order to bring it to ready, followed by attacking with it.
Regardless, retrieving the weapon as the object interaction does not prevent you from then using your normal action to attack with the weapon. Any conflict here appears to be entirely imaginary.
That said, I'd probably add a condition that Take Weapon can only be used on a creature that's within 2 size categories of yourself. Otherwise the weapon is simply too large or too small to be manipulated like that and taken away (though getting the creature to simply drop the weapon still seems reasonable).
Even 2 size categories is a bit of a stretch. Could a normal human take and wield a cyclops's club? Or, in the other direction, a pixie's dagger?
So yeah, the maneuver seems completely reasonable against similar-sized opponents, but starts to get wonky against very large or very small creatures.
TBF I did say that there's a lot of "ifs" to get to the condition where it screws an NPC, not that its a question of "if" the scenario will ever happen.
Just to hit a couple points on your scenarios of how I see this:
Players using it against NPCs -
1. Rendering an NPC useless by taking their weapon - This being possible assumes a great many things that would need to take place, all of them very easily mitigated by the DM if they don't want it be a "free win" by using a level 2 maneuver.
A. The NPC is unable to get the weapon back from the PC. Turning an encounter into a back and forth where the NPC attempts to use their whole action to get their weapon back could turn into a fun challenge for the PCs if the weapon is worth spending that much time on (a magical weapon or some other macguffin). This is mitigatable by the DM thinking ahead about what the roles for the NPC/PC to make in this scenario.
B. The NPC is unable to make attacks any more because their weapon is gone. This one applies to any old joe the PCs are fighting against, "Oh no my sword is gone, now all I can do is punch them!" seems a pretty silly conclusion to jump to. How many weapons to level 1 NPCs get from their recommended weapons or their O5E starting equipment? NPCs should be no different in that regard. Anyone worth fighting is going to have a backup weapon, whether that be a dagger or other simple weapon or something. I'd give the PCs a win by making the NPC have something that is not quite as good as the thing that was just stolen. Similarly, an NPC who has actually lost all their weapons can still use most basic maneuvers to be useful - a grapple or knock down among a large group can be more devastating that a common sword swing.
2. Super powerful monsters using this against PCs.
A. Why the heck would a dragon be using maneuvers to knock a PCs sword out of their hands? First they'd have to be close enough to the fighter or barbarian for them to hit back. Second, breath weapons, special attacks, or even their multi attack is going to be way more effective against a group of PCs. Additionally, giving just any monster a maneuver might be interesting as a reflavor but overall these things are meant to represent martial prowess. Most high CR monsters would not be trained as a martial (again not that you couldn't reflavor it as something else but how many times are you going to do that?)
B. High level NPCs having this and rendering a PC useless. I would argue that this is not a problem unless its overused. One time will be a "holy crap what do I do they took my awesome weapon" problem solving type of thing. Time after time would be very not fun but you have total and complete control over that. It's also not fun to fall into a pit trap 20 times while you walk through a dungeon... Just... don't do that. Mix it up.
Ultimately the ability is guarded by a saving throw and a 2 exertion maneuver. PCs (minus fighters/adepts since they get bonus exertion) can use it maybe 6 times between short rests at level 20. A more common scenario is a level 5-12 PC and they can use it 3 or 4 times there. Is that really more game breaking than an Adept stunning striking and forcing con saves twice as much? Getting the BBEG another weapon is way easier than avoiding death when stunned for a full round.
Really when compared to other abilities it doesn't seem like its going to break the game in the way you are presenting. It's possible it might become tedious to play against if a PC uses it all the time but you can always have a conversation with that player and explain what its like from your side of the screen. Find a way to mix it up so everyone has fun!
Edit: fun fact I just learned because I forget they exist all the time, this maneuver is just a slightly better version of the basic maneuver "Disarm". Literally everyone can do it, just not as effectively against two handed weapons or as a reaction. Disarm can be used to replace an attack, so someone who has had their weapon stolen can attempt to disarm back instead of their next attack and then pick it right up.
Last edited:
lichmaster
Hero
Without offense, but I think you summed up pretty well what a crappy Narrator would do: antagonistic behaviour.
Combat maneuvers are supposed to be very advanced tecniques that require specific training, ordinary monsters and humanoids without significant martial training are not supposed to have any. The Disarm action can indeed be taken by any creature that has prensile limbs, but that would cost 1 attack (which would make very low basic maneuvre damage), require a save, and then the weapon would simply be dropped, not be stolen and swallowed as a reaction.
Combat encounters can be designed to be simply an obstacle or a main plot point, in which case they can and should be interesting and present unique challenges, one of which I presented above. It's not meant to be a way to completely disable a PC, but more as a distraction (at least that's how I'd run it), and no normal PC would only have one weapon. It's a way to make one encounter (or maybe a particular enemy) memorable in some way.
Same thing in reverse: if the party is fighting against some very dangerous enemy wielding a strong melee weapon, it would totally make sense that the PCs would use their capabilities to their advantage. Not allowing them to do so once in a while is contrary to the spirit of the game itself (like making all monsters resistant or immune to fire now that the wizard can cast a fireball).
As a Narrator you're responsible for designing and running encounters. They should be varied, challenge the PCs but also reward their choices.
Last edited:
I think you are mistaken & the implied bad GM'ing is not helpful.
In the first example I chose a monster that should always be a dangerous big deal, it happens to also have a maneuver DC over what a strength build with a nat20 could achieve showing that a single dex save for such a powerful result is over the top.
In the second example I used a lich with trolls inspired by the War Trolls employed by the DoSK in eberron, surely plate clad weapon wearing trolls being used by a Lich qualify as monsters with significant martial training? It was an example though so I simplified it to troll bodyguards & a lich, is a lich not capable of plausibly employing guards with significant martial training?
In the third example, how would you answer Cindy's question without assuming the Narrator is a bad narrator? If you can't answer it wiuthout assuming bad GM'ing does that not present a problem that elevates Take Weapon into a disjunction adjacent redzone?
They were examples showing ways the ambiguities could cause problems, I simply chose monsters that fit the needs. Can you give examples with good monsters so we can talk about how the ambiguities create problems instead of attacking a hypothetical narrator?
That bold bit is the problem with Take weapon, it does that to both PCs & monsters. There's no save on later rounds like control & debuff spells it's just a single dex save with a save or lose payload attached on the failed save.
With Take Weapon "very dangerous enemy wielding a strong melee weapon" is unlikely to be anything but a dex based opponent sporting a raging pressed spiderbulb addiction & excludes the vast majority of monsters that would fall under that "some very dangerous enemy wielding a strong melee weapon" label. Fire Giant is a CR11monster sporting multiattack with a +11 to hit with a 6d6+7 Greatsword. It also has a +4 dex save, a level 9 PC is likely to have a dc17 maneuver DC it will need to roll a 13 or better to not lose that 6d6+7 weapon attack.
Faolyn
(she/her)
Take Weapon says you can take the weapon and spend two more exertion to use it. It says nothing about eating the weapon--which, since it's an edged weapon, should do some damage going down. Also, since maneuvers are learned abilities, not innate ones, you'd have to figure out how the kraken learned a maneuver involving weapons that are toothpick-sized to it.
Trolls aren't very bright, but I suppose they could learn stuff. Still, this is an outlier, and in your example Alice, who is wielding a holy avenger, seems to have a grand total +2 to her Dex save. Assuming that she's a herald, she should be getting a bonus to her saves equal to her Charisma modifier--which should be pretty high, because she's a herald. Also, liches are CR 21 and basic trolls are CR 5 each, then assuming four guards, that's CR 41, right there. By the time that this is anything other than an impossible challenge for the party, the Alice will have probably have lots of other tricks to help her retain her hold on her weapon, like expertise die. Even if she's not a herald, then she should have some other abilities--and possibly inspiration to spend on rerolling saves.
You can't, because the Narrator is being a jerk here by deliberately targeting Alice. If the party was fighting a bunch of, say, brigands and they saw her take one person's weapon and so switched to weaponless fighting, that would be one thing. A dumb thing, unless they're all trained pugilists, but a thing. You could even get away with it if some brigands escaped, because you could claim that they warned their brigand friends. But if Alice keeps taking weapons so the Narrator presents mostly weaponless foes? Yeah, that's not good GMing. That's being antagonistic. If you want to be fair, you need to have a mix of foes using melee weapons, using ranged weapons, and using no weapons.
Also, Take Weapon costs 2 points to use and 2 points to then use the weapon immediately. Even if Alice never uses the weapon to make an extra attack, she's going to run out of points sooner rather than later--more so if she spends points on any of the many adept abilities that cost exertion. She's only going to be using this maneuver once, maybe twice in an encounter, if that. And there's still a saving throw to it.
Sure: any example that makes sense. Of the three examples you provided, only one--the lich with the troll guards--makes any sense. There's no logical reason why a Gargantuan kraken would learn to grab weapons for Medium creatures when it can grab the entire Medium creature and throw it away. And deliberately targeting a single player to the point that the player notices and is upset is jerky.
So what monsters would learn maneuvers? The book describes maneuvers thusly: Combat honed by warriors devoted to learning the maneuvers encompass the techniques nuances of battle, discovered and perfected through innumerable fights and countless hours of practice.
Meaning, any monster who could logically have spent "countless hours of practice" into learning them. I.e., monsters with class levels, who are likely to be named individuals, not minions, which means that even those troll guards are a bit iffy.
Which is why your monsters should have backup weapons. Oh, you stole his sword? Good thing he has another one. And drawing a sword doesn't take an action (see the Use An Object action).
Similar Threads
Level Up (A5E)
Maneuvers Again: RAW, RAI and Reasonable Rulings
