Disarm with Reach?

[Ruined]

I don't think this is possible, but I just want to double-check with the more experienced people on the board.

You have a weapon with reach (i.e. Longspear). You can attack opponents 10' away from you. But they're not considered adjacent, so you cannot Disarm them, correct?

From the SRD:
Description: The character and an adjacent target make opposed attack rolls with the their respective weapons.

I could see where it might could happen, maybe rolling the spear around to spin the sword out of someone's hand, but it seems very impractical. And it nullifies the AoO if the target cannot reach the attacker, right?

Any clarification appreciated.

 

[1337 h4xor]

yes you can disarm with reach weapons. The spiked chain for example gets a bonus to do so.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think this is an instance where the rules monkeys at WotC missed the implications of the word "adjacent" in the description--if it is interpreted too literally.

I think that it actually means "threatened target" in this case. As evidence, I submit two arguments:

1. The Ranseur is a polearm that doesn't threaten at 5 feet and consequently cannot be used for attack actions at that range. However, it has a +2 bonus to disarm attempts. This would be useless if disarms were limited to adjacent targets (where adjacent is defined as in the five foot area next to the character rather than "in the character's threatened area.") Since it is likely that more thought was put into assigning bonusses and special qualities to weapons than the implications of the word adjacent (which are usually true, even in the most limited sense), I submit that there is good reason to suppose that "adjacent" should be interpreted as "threatened" in this instance.

2. Disarm is a special attack and may be used in place of an attack either in a full attack action, an attack of opportunity, or with expert tactician. Attacks may be taken on anyone the character threatens. While this is a weaker argument than the ranseur argument (because trip attempts are also attack actions but may generally not be made with reach weapons) this is still valid. The weaknesses of the argument can be negated. The description of trip attempts implies that trip attempts will generally be made unarmed and that the weapon is used only in special cases--this is why only certain weapons (spiked chain, guisarme) can trip at 10' range (unless wielded by a creature with natural reach). Disarm on the other hand, is assumed to almost always be attempted with the weapon. Therefore, it is logical to assume that it normally functions at the weapons reach.

 

[0-hr]

I think this is an instance where the rules monkeys at WotC missed the implications of the word "adjacent" in the description--if it is interpreted too literally.

So what do you do with the victim's attack of opportunity (assuming they do not have a reach weapon as well)?

 

[Tyrrell]

So what do you do with the victim's attack of opportunity (assuming they do not have a reach weapon as well)?

I rule that they can't use thier AoO on anything that isn't in their threat range.

 

[kreynolds]

So what do you do with the victim's attack of opportunity (assuming they do not have a reach weapon as well)?

Attack the weapon that was just used to try to disarm/trip/whatever you. It's most certainly in your area.

 

[Stalker0]

You could also rule that the opponent could attempt a disarm or sunder attempt on the weapon, which has to be in your 5foot threatened space at some point. Bascially in that case, its make a disarm attempt or give up your AOO.

Problem with that is if neither guy has improved disarm, you get a lot of back and forth with AOO, but it does make reach weapons a little less powerful.

Edit: First time kreynolds has beaten me to a posting. Let me mark my calender and make it a holiday.

 

[kreynolds]

Edit: First time kreynolds has beaten me to a posting. Let me mark my calender and make it a holiday.

How's D-Day sound?

 

[Stalker0]

I'll make sure my school adds it to there official list of holidays

 

[kreynolds]

Your school? Well hell, boy! You must be a youngin'!