Level Up (A5E) Help with Mirror's Glint:Take Weapon confusion

[tetrasodium]

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.

Ktraken has the ability to swallow things making it very much like a PC who declares that they stuff the fire giant's sword in their pack/bag of holding. Your quibble over how a CR25 monster could learn the take weapon maneuver seems to be a purely technical dance to distract from the fact that anyone (PC or monster) using take weapon could stow the stolen weapon somewhere that makes it entirely unrecoverable. There have been quite a few who said this was a nonissue already so why avoid it in such a way?

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.

Again you are bringing up technicalities in the example, Alice could have been a strength based fighter/martial/berserker/etc with a mere 14 dex & the overlooked herald extra saves wouldn't help. She could also be a herald who simply rolled very badly.

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.

Why are you assuming 4 guards? can the lich & trolls not be trying to escape from the PCs in an encounter that the PCs could be expected to handle. Does changing the lich to some other lower CR creature capable of casting dimension door like a (CR6 mage) not remove your complaint with the technicalities of the example encounter while still maintaining the problem? Why target technicalities of an example to dismiss it rather than the problem the example is used to illustrate?

Even if she's not a herald, then she should have some other abilities--and possibly inspiration to spend on rerolling saves.

She could, but if she's a strength based character those other abilities will usually rely on having a very nice weapon & if you need to resort to citing that inspiration could possibly allow a reroll it's shining a spotlight on the problem that the target could just use take weapon again the next time she attacks it. Eventually it will run out of excertion, but so will her supply of weapons.

 

[lichmaster]

I think you are mistaken & the implied bad GM'ing is not helpful.

The outcome of the game is ALWAYS dependent on the GM, there's really not much else to say about this. It may not depend entirely on his/her choices, but it has a major impact on the game. Encounter design and running is entirely up to them, no amount of rules can save the game from ill intentions.

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.

Sure, but I don't see a reason for a Kraken to ever learn the Take weapon manouvre. It would make way more sense for it to just grab and swallow whole the PC, instead of focusing on a weapon he may barely be able to see.

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?

Meh, I'm not sure they would qualify as monsters with significant martial training... Trolls are still little more than beasts, they normally don't use weapons and surely don't typically rely on finesse when fighting. They are strong and have phenomenal resistance, that's what works for them. A troll bodyguard with a plate mail would make for an even more phenomenal adversary, but I personally wouldn't give it any similar maneouvre.
The lich could easily have a humanoid bodyguard with such a training though, and it would be fine.
I may even let the lich steal a pc's favourite weapon, but I'm not a douche, which means that I would either leave open a possibility for them to track the weapon (another adventure and a real reason to passionately hate the lich), or I would find a way to compensate for the loss.
The point is not necessarily to hold the punches, but not to be a jerk. That's the entire point of the game IMO, the rest is just details.

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?

Honestly I'd simply agree with Cindy and suggest her to change group: if the DM is always creating encounters that directly sabotage the choices of a player, there's little else to say, it's a bad narrator behaviour. Or at least, it's a DM that cannot figure out how to make mildly different encounters, and a simple tier 2 maneouvre is enough to warrant a retroactive nerf of a class feature.

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?

There's never a way to remove all ambiguities, unless you're playing a purely mechanical game.
That's why so much of the fun or frustrations of the game come from the interaction between all the players, DM included.
Learning to play is way more than memorizing the rules and making an endless list of cases, interpretations and exceptions.

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.

It's not written explicitly, but other character can simply use the Disarm action and at least have the enemy drop the stolen weapon. Or they could grapple it so that it doesn't run away. Or surround it.
If the enemy tries to escape, you just got a different combat encounter, where a lasso or a net could have time to shine. Or you could have a chase.
If the enemy teleports away its a hard blow, but I'd ensure there's a good explanation for it to happen and some kind of follow up for the players (a good revenge can be more satisfactory than a treasure sometime).
You don't always need a mechanical counterbalance.

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.

A medium character stealing a Greatsword fit for a monster of Huge size? I don't think so (o5E, and also LU, has unfortunalty very lose rules about the effect of size in most situations).
But even it did happen, the weapon would most likely be on the floor, unless the character is strong enough to carry several dozens of kg of steel with one hand. RAW that just cannot happen (see Oversized weapons).
But even if it did, it came to the cost of 2 exertion and the use of a class feature. It's GOOD! Let the character shine, and the frustrated monster find a way to recover it's weapon! Or not, maybe he'll just hurl a giant boulder to the PC. Or eradicate a tree and use a great club.

 

[niklinna]

The concern now seems to be that Take Weapon is a fairly hard shutdown ability, allowing you to steal somebody's weapon, potentially rendering them incapable of offense. You can do the same thing with the telekinesis spell, though, and possibly a shatter spell*. There's a fair spread in the class levels at which you can get Take Weapon or telekinesis, but then the spell does more and is usable at range. In any case, this was already a thing, and it's not like either ability will let you traipse around the battlefield plucking everybody's weapon from them; uses are limited.

There are also a few counters in the game that prevent or hinder disarming (such as Armaments of Nature, p. 207, Hand-Mounted weapon property, p. 313) or allow one to get help to find a new weapon. Plus there's the plain old Disarm maneuver to knock the weapon out of the thief's hands and gain an opportunity to pick it up off the floor. Or two combatants could both have Take Weapon and go back and forth until they run out of exertion points.... The game is full of moves and counter-moves; why is this particular one such a big deal?

* I'm surprised there isn't a straight-up disarm spell, to be honest, as I have seen in other RPGs and LARPs, but then D&D spellcasters already have a huge toolbox and better things to be doing with the spell slots.

 

[lichmaster]

* I'm surprised there isn't a straight-up disarm spell, to be honest, as I have seen in other RPGs and LARPs, but then D&D spellcasters already have a huge toolbox and better things to be doing with the spell slots.

Well, command "drop" kinda does that, and is a level 1 cleric spell

 

[niklinna]

Well, command "drop" kinda does that, and is a level 1 cleric spell

Clerics have all the fun.

 

[tetrasodium]

The outcome of the game is ALWAYS dependent on the GM, there's really not much else to say about this. It may not depend entirely on his/her choices, but it has a major impact on the game. Encounter design and running is entirely up to them, no amount of rules can save the game from ill intentions.

Sure, but I don't see a reason for a Kraken to ever learn the Take weapon manouvre. It would make way more sense for it to just grab and swallow whole the PC, instead of focusing on a weapon he may barely be able to see.

Meh, I'm not sure they would qualify as monsters with significant martial training... Trolls are still little more than beasts, they normally don't use weapons and surely don't typically rely on finesse when fighting. They are strong and have phenomenal resistance, that's what works for them. A troll bodyguard with a plate mail would make for an even more phenomenal adversary, but I personally wouldn't give it any similar maneouvre.
The lich could easily have a humanoid bodyguard with such a training though, and it would be fine.
I may even let the lich steal a pc's favourite weapon, but I'm not a douche, which means that I would either leave open a possibility for them to track the weapon (another adventure and a real reason to passionately hate the lich), or I would find a way to compensate for the loss.
The point is not necessarily to hold the punches, but not to be a jerk. That's the entire point of the game IMO, the rest is just details.


Honestly I'd simply agree with Cindy and suggest her to change group: if the DM is always creating encounters that directly sabotage the choices of a player, there's little else to say, it's a bad narrator behaviour. Or at least, it's a DM that cannot figure out how to make mildly different encounters, and a simple tier 2 maneouvre is enough to warrant a retroactive nerf of a class feature.

There's never a way to remove all ambiguities, unless you're playing a purely mechanical game.
That's why so much of the fun or frustrations of the game come from the interaction between all the players, DM included.
Learning to play is way more than memorizing the rules and making an endless list of cases, interpretations and exceptions.

It's not written explicitly, but other character can simply use the Disarm action and at least have the enemy drop the stolen weapon. Or they could grapple it so that it doesn't run away. Or surround it.
If the enemy tries to escape, you just got a different combat encounter, where a lasso or a net could have time to shine. Or you could have a chase.
If the enemy teleports away its a hard blow, but I'd ensure there's a good explanation for it to happen and some kind of follow up for the players (a good revenge can be more satisfactory than a treasure sometime).
You don't always need a mechanical counterbalance.

A medium character stealing a Greatsword fit for a monster of Huge size? I don't think so (o5E, and also LU, has unfortunalty very lose rules about the effect of size in most situations).
But even it did happen, the weapon would most likely be on the floor, unless the character is strong enough to carry several dozens of kg of steel with one hand. RAW that just cannot happen.
But even if it did, it came to the cost of 2 exertion and the use of a class feature. It's GOOD! Let the character shine, and the frustrated monster find a way to recover it's weapon! Or not, maybe he'll just hurl a giant boulder to the PC. Or eradicate a tree and use a great club.

It may not be possible to remove all ambiguities but there are some pretty bit ones in Take Weapon. Take your comment about how the fire giant's weapon "the weapon would most likely be on the floor, unless the character is strong enough to carry several dozens of kg of steel with one hand. RAW that just cannot happen.", it directly contradicts multiple statements people have made and goes back to my original points . Carrying capacities are hardly an area where PCs are constrained with strength*15 capacity & the "in one hand" is not something covered by capacity rules at all while it does nothing for powerful strength based weapon using opponents that are not giants.

@niklinna The shatter spell very explicitly would not apply to a weapon being wielded by a foe since "Any nonmagical items within the area that are not worn or carried also take damage." is clear on excluding said weapon. Command requires a one word order & fails if the order is immediately harmful to the target making it not really capable of matching take weapon's ability to remove a foe from mattering.

 

[lichmaster]

It may not be possible to remove all ambiguities but there are some pretty bit ones in Take Weapon. Take your comment about how the fire giant's weapon "the weapon would most likely be on the floor, unless the character is strong enough to carry several dozens of kg of steel with one hand. RAW that just cannot happen.", it directly contradicts multiple statements people have made and goes back to my original points . Carrying capacities are hardly an area where PCs are constrained with strength*15 capacity & the "in one hand" is not something covered by capacity rules at all while it does nothing for powerful strength based weapon using opponents that are not giants.

You're making a very weird case.
There's a very clear rule which I mentioned: Oversized weapons. It clearly say that PCs cannot wield wepons more than 1 size larger than them. The Fire Giant's greatsword is clearly such a case. It's not even just about weight, but about the bulk, or more specifically about the implied moment of inertia. Even if the sword itself wasn't that heavy, it's way too long to be picked up from one end even with two hands (try picking up even just a barbell from the end, which is surely way lighter than the above mentioned greatsword)

Edit: I mistakenly remembered the Oversized Weapons rule from WOIN (I was comparing the weapons chapters from the two games). But there's still one rule in LU that is applicable in this case: Bulky item (>40lbs of 4 ft, which is definitely the case). I wouldn't let any character run happily around with such a massive item as if it were a pen...
Edit 2: I remembered there was something similar. Funnily, I found rulings for oversized weapons in o5e (page 277 of dmg) but not in LU. Anyone able to point me to the LU equivalent, if exists?

 

[Faolyn]

Ktraken has the ability to swallow things making it very much like a PC who declares that they stuff the fire giant's sword in their pack/bag of holding. Your quibble over how a CR25 monster could learn the take weapon maneuver seems to be a purely technical dance to distract from the fact that anyone (PC or monster) using take weapon could stow the stolen weapon somewhere that makes it entirely unrecoverable. There have been quite a few who said this was a nonissue already so why avoid it in such a way?

No, I "quibble" because it's ridiculous that a Gargantuan monster would take the weapon from a Medium creature (with the weapon itself being Small or Tiny) instead of just grabbing the creature and throwing it into the ocean. I also don't really care if others said it was a non-issue or not.

Again you are bringing up technicalities in the example, Alice could have been a strength based fighter/martial/berserker/etc with a mere 14 dex & the overlooked herald extra saves wouldn't help. She could also be a herald who simply rolled very badly.

You specifically gave her a +2 to her roll of 12. If she were a herald, then she would likely get an additional +3 to +5 from her save bonus.

The herald saves are definitely not overlooked, not IME. In my o5e game, the paladin's player always remembers to tell the other people about the bonus to their saves because of the aura, and heralds get the same bonus.

But if you're going to say "who simply rolled very badly," then the inverse is also true: you can roll very well. The wielder may roll well enough to rarely fail their save.

Why are you assuming 4 guards? can the lich & trolls not be trying to escape from the PCs in an encounter that the PCs could be expected to handle. Does changing the lich to some other lower CR creature capable of casting dimension door like a (CR6 mage) not remove your complaint with the technicalities of the example encounter while still maintaining the problem? Why target technicalities of an example to dismiss it rather than the problem the example is used to illustrate?

Four guards is a handy number. You want there to be a dozen guards? One guard? Doesn't matter. It changes the CR, though. And you're missing the point. You're basically assuming that Monster has this maneuver and uses it to against Player. OK. But the higher the level of the player, the higher the chance that the player will have things that will bump their save up.

You do realize that you're targeting technicalities of the maneuver in order to dismiss it, right?

She could, but if she's a strength based character those other abilities will usually rely on having a very nice weapon & if you need to resort to citing that inspiration could possibly allow a reroll it's shining a spotlight on the problem that the target could just use take weapon again the next time she attacks it. Eventually it will run out of excertion, but so will her supply of weapons.

There's not nearly as much of a problem as you think there is.

Player is fighting Monster. Monster disarms Player, either by using Take Weapon, the Disarm basic maneuver, or some other ability. Player pulls out second weapon. Monster eventually dies, as is the fate of most monsters, and Player retrieves weapon. Monster--unless it is very high level--will simply not have enough exertion to remove all of Players' weapons. And the apostrophe is in the right place there, because there are multiple players, and most monsters shouldn't have maneuvers. Especially if you're running a large group of them at once, because it'd likely slow down combat.

Pointing out that inspiration exists doesn't show there's a problem, unless you think that there's also a problem with all maneuvers and all spells and every other thing that requires a save. The entire purpose of inspiration is to give you a second chance.