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

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
One of my players picked up the take weapon maneuver & i'm not sure how to rule on a few parts of it so was hoping to piocj the hive mind a bit.

TAKE WEAPON​

(2 points)
2nd degree Mirror’s Glint reaction
You snatch your enemy’s weapon and use it against them.
When a creature misses you with a melee weapon attack against you using a weapon, you can use your reaction to flip it out of the creature’s hands. The creature makes a Dexterity saving throw, and on a failure it drops the weapon and you grab it from mid-air.
You can spend 2 exertion points to immediately use the weapon to make a melee weapon attack against the creature.

It starts out pretty clear where enemy misses & player uses Take Weapon as a reaction with 2 points exertion to trigger a dex save but things spider web from there if the attacker fails the save. The next line/paragraph does something unusual for maneuver descriptions by saying that "you can spend 2 exertion points to immediately...". What is not clear is:
  • if that second spend 2 exertion is the exertion from triggering it initially or if it is an additional two points for a secondary effect that can be triggered by spending two more exertion after defanging a now weaponless weapon using monster.
  • Regardless of if that second 2 points is the initial effect or a secondary bonus one baked into the maneuver that costs extra, what happens to the weapon after the maneuver user is able to "grab [the weapon] from mid air".
    • Does it go back to the attacker?
    • Does it fall to the ground where AG444 use an object action's text would either allow the attacker to pick up their dropped weapon to use "for free on your turn without spending an action" or more painfully at the cost of a "use an action" action?
  • Does the maneuver user now have the attacker's weapon in their hand(s) allowing them to play keepaway with a harmless foe?
    • If so how does the attacker recover their weapon?
  • Is that second spend 2 exertion just stating the base mechanics of a "stop hitting yourself" type maneuver that hits the attacker with their own weapon?
    • If so do they immediately recover the weapon have it fall to the ground or have the maneuver user now take possession of it & what is needed for them to recover their weapon in the case of multiattack foes & foes that survive the round to need a weapon next round?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

if that second spend 2 exertion is the exertion from triggering it initially or if it is an additional two points for a secondary effect that can be triggered by spending two more exertion after defanging a now weaponless weapon using monster.
it's a secondary effect. if it was the exertion from triggering the maneuver initially it wouldn't specify that you can spend 2 exertion.
Regardless of if that second 2 points is the initial effect or a secondary bonus one baked into the maneuver that costs extra, what happens to the weapon after the maneuver user is able to "grab [the weapon] from mid air".
you...you keep it. the creature drops their weapon and you grab it, and the secondary effect specifies you use the weapon you just grabbed to make an attack. i'm pretty sure the maneuver would specify if you don't keep the weapon.

that said, there is one thing that boggles me about this maneuver - what if the weapon you disarmed from the enemy is two-handed (or, similarly, both your hands are full)? that's when things start getting weird. i guess in that case you'd drop it after activating the secondary effect (assuming you do)? i'd probably rule that either you drop what you're holding or you just can't trigger the maneuver, but that'd be a houserule.
 

niklinna

satisfied?
One of my players picked up the take weapon maneuver & i'm not sure how to rule on a few parts of it so was hoping to piocj the hive mind a bit.

TAKE WEAPON​

(2 points)
2nd degree Mirror’s Glint reaction
You snatch your enemy’s weapon and use it against them.
When a creature misses you with a melee weapon attack against you using a weapon, you can use your reaction to flip it out of the creature’s hands. The creature makes a Dexterity saving throw, and on a failure it drops the weapon and you grab it from mid-air.
You can spend 2 exertion points to immediately use the weapon to make a melee weapon attack against the creature.

It starts out pretty clear where enemy misses & player uses Take Weapon as a reaction with 2 points exertion to trigger a dex save but things spider web from there if the attacker fails the save. The next line/paragraph does something unusual for maneuver descriptions by saying that "you can spend 2 exertion points to immediately...". What is not clear is:
  • if that second spend 2 exertion is the exertion from triggering it initially or if it is an additional two points for a secondary effect that can be triggered by spending two more exertion after defanging a now weaponless weapon using monster.
Specifying "2 additional exertion points" would have been unambiguous, but there's precedent in other maneuver descriptions for this being additional, and the points are tied to an additional effect beyond what the name of the maneuver implies. I'd say it's an extra cost for an extra benefit.
  • Regardless of if that second 2 points is the initial effect or a secondary bonus one baked into the maneuver that costs extra, what happens to the weapon after the maneuver user is able to "grab [the weapon] from mid air".
    • Does it go back to the attacker?
Why would it? You took their weapon! You could give it back, of course. :)
    • Does it fall to the ground where AG444 use an object action's text would either allow the attacker to pick up their dropped weapon to use "for free on your turn without spending an action" or more painfully at the cost of a "use an action" action?
I don't think "Use an object" applies to weapons. If you "use" a weapon, you are making an attack with it (unless it has some non-attack ability/power), and attacks are covered by different rules. In any case, the text says you take the weapon, so it doesn't fall to the ground—but the weapon you were wielding has to go somewhere (assuming you don't have a free hand to snatch it with). You might wind up with the stolen weapon in your off-hand, by the way, not that that affects attack rolls in D&D (to my knowledge).

Interestingly, I see no rules for picking up an object from the ground during combat, which you'd think would at least require kneeling or bending over—generally a bad idea when engaged in melee, and at the least worth some guidance on adjudicating.
  • Does the maneuver user now have the attacker's weapon in their hand(s) allowing them to play keepaway with a harmless foe?
    • If so how does the attacker recover their weapon?
The maneuver user definitely has the attacker's weapon in their hands! Whether the foe is now harmless is very much not a done deal, however. Maybe they had more than the one weapon, or can draw another, or cast a spell. On the second point, I guess they better have the same maneuver, or another means of disarming their opponent. Maybe they have another weapon on them that they can draw.
  • Is that second spend 2 exertion just stating the base mechanics of a "stop hitting yourself" type maneuver that hits the attacker with their own weapon?
I'd say that would be a different maneuver. This one clearly states that you take your attacker's weapon from them, and optionally use it to attack them. A maneuver wherer you just grab their wrist and puppeteer them to hit themself would be quite fun, though. :LOL:
    • If so do they immediately recover the weapon have it fall to the ground or have the maneuver user now take possession of it & what is needed for them to recover their weapon in the case of multiattack foes & foes that survive the round to need a weapon next round?
Again, no, you've taken their weapon from them. They'd better have another weapon, or a means of getting one. Not a bad deal for 2 exertion points!

I looked up this video for something that turned out not to actually be there, but what the heck, enjoy!
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
it's a secondary effect. if it was the exertion from triggering the maneuver initially it wouldn't specify that you can spend 2 exertion.

you...you keep it. the creature drops their weapon and you grab it, and the secondary effect specifies you use the weapon you just grabbed to make an attack. i'm pretty sure the maneuver would specify if you don't keep the weapon.

It doesn't specify that the user keeps the weapon either, it's very possible to "grab" something without keeping or even having lasting control over it. Take the AG111 deflect missile ability.
You can use your reaction to deflect or catch the missile when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take from the attack is reduced by 1d10 + your Dexterity modifier + your adept level.
If you reduce the damage to 0, you can catch the missile if it is small enough for you to hold in one hand and you have at least one hand free. If you catch a missile in this way, you can spend 1exertion to make a ranged weapon attack with the weapon or piece of ammunition you just caught, as part of the same reaction. You make this attack with proficiency, regardless of your weapon proficiencies, and the missile counts as an adept weapon for the attack, which has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
Deflect Missile is explicit in that the act of catching the missile is simply part of getting rid of it in one of a couple ways leaving little ambiguity like the drop & grab in take weapon does. Take weapon suggests that the grab could be part of something else but doesn't really lean towards either & doesn't have enough for the GM to confidently rule on things like your what if's below. There are tons of martial arts "grab" techniques used to deflect a punch or kick but none of them involve removing the opponent's arm leg fist or foot to stuff in a pocket.
that said, there is one thing that boggles me about this maneuver - what if the weapon you disarmed from the enemy is two-handed (or, similarly, both your hands are full)? that's when things start getting weird. i guess in that case you'd drop it after activating the secondary effect (assuming you do)? i'd probably rule that either you drop what you're holding or you just can't trigger the maneuver, but that'd be a houserule.
Yea there's a lot of ambiguity that makes it difficult to even rule on edge cases like those. It really feels like take weapon has the possibility of invoking flashbacks to the spiked chain era forcing either nothing to ever attack player(s) with it after seeing it in action or everything to start using impossible to take natural weapons. Even what to do after the failed save is a problematic grey area that either makes it a must take maneuver or feels like the player who used 2 exertion is being house ruled out of a meaningful ability

@niklinna Much like those grab & redirect techniques that inspires the scenes, martial arts movies have long included many examples of protagonists taking control of a weapon to attack a foe without taking it. Here's an example from Ip Man
Between Ip Man 1 &2 that kind of thing happens quite a few other times without breaking down into the sort of action comedy below
That one is especially notable in that he grabs the polearm & maintains control over it even seeming to hit the opponent at least once but doesn't take a weapon until the second broom is convenient to use just before it breaks into almost slapstick weapon takebacks & swaps really only ever seen in action comedy like he's known for.[/spoiler]
 
Last edited:


Others have already replied to your questions and I agree with the overall answers you got: you have to spend the extra exertion to perform the attack, which you can only perform if you have enough free hands, and the weapon stays in your hands.

What just I wanted to comment on is that this maneouver alone can make for some very interesting (unique I'd say) combat sequences:
  • Imagine a BBEG who has minions that istead of being meat shield, they are very nimble, fast, and have this maneouvre. It can debilitate the classic heavy hitting berserker, who has to either change weapon, or chase those pesky minions in order to have his favourite weapon.
  • Even funnier: as above, but the minions play hot potato with this weapon! The free item interaction could be throwing it to a nearby (but not adjacent) ally, giving the weapon even greater mobility.
  • Same thing but in reverse: a heavy hitting melee adversary can become a much easier target if the party attempts to take its weapon. This could make for very interesting collaboration interaction, with the spellcasters/defenders upping the AC of the PC member who'll attempt this maneouvre (as the enemy has to miss him first), and the character using the reaction to take its weapon and then using disengage to move away as quickly as possible (or maybe using misty step).

RAW this would in principle be somewhat possible with O5e and the sleight of hand check in combat, but I've never seen it used this way (or read about parties using this trick). Here instead you can literally build a character around this concept. Imagine a PC who specializes into stealing enemies' weapons and throwing them in a ditch/chasm/lava/etc!
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
Others have already replied to your questions and I agree with the overall answers you got: you have to spend the extra exertion to perform the attack, which you can only perform if you have enough free hands, and the weapon stays in your hands.

What just I wanted to comment on is that this maneouver alone can make for some very interesting (unique I'd say) combat sequences:
  • Imagine a BBEG who has minions that istead of being meat shield, they are very nimble, fast, and have this maneouvre. It can debilitate the classic heavy hitting berserker, who has to either change weapon, or chase those pesky minions in order to have his favourite weapon.
  • Even funnier: as above, but the minions play hot potato with this weapon! The free item interaction could be throwing it to a nearby (but not adjacent) ally, giving the weapon even greater mobility.
  • Same thing but in reverse: a heavy hitting melee adversary can become a much easier target if the party attempts to take its weapon. This could make for very interesting collaboration interaction, with the spellcasters/defenders upping the AC of the PC member who'll attempt this maneouvre (as the enemy has to miss him first), and the character using the reaction to take its weapon and then using disengage to move away as quickly as possible (or maybe using misty step).

RAW this would in principle be somewhat possible with O5e and the sleight of hand check in combat, but I've never seen it used this way (or read about parties using this trick). Here instead you can literally build a character around this concept. Imagine a PC who specializes into stealing enemies' weapons and throwing them in a ditch/chasm/lava/etc!

This is a good example of why questions left unanswered like what rules to use when a weapon is dropped or seized & the original user wants to recover it. @niklinna restated my original point where there don't seem to be any rules for "picking up an object from the ground during combat" making both the hardline interpretation & ambiguities problematic. Combine those and Take Weapon has the capability of operating on par with the old school Mage's Disjunction spell.


Round one
  • GM: "Ok Bob Berserker you are up first what are you doing?"
  • Bob: "I move up & attack the Kraken with a 23 & a 1+5+3...seven misses"
  • GM: As a reaction it uses take weapon, make a dex save.
  • Bob: "nat20+2... twenty two?..."
  • GM: "The Kraken grabs your+3 greataxe and... eats it... better hope it doesn't flee..."

Later:
  • GM:"Alice the herald you are up next"
  • Alice: "I attack this one of the Lich's body guard trolls with my hypothetical plus five holy avenger, 27 & 1+5+5... eleven"
  • GM: "The bodyguard took some good damage on that first hit but on that miss it's going to use Take Weapon as a reaction, make a dex save..."
  • Alice: "eek... 12 plus two... fourteen?....
  • GM: "the troll beats you with your precious like so & is that your whole turn?" ...
  • GM: "That brings it to the lich who steps up to the troll in question, puts a hand on it & casts dimension door to go somewhere"
Even later at a different table:
  • Cindy: "I notice nothing with weapons attacks my adept since the first time I used take weapon & shoved it in a bag of holding... Plus it seems like there is a suspiciously high percentage of natural weapon users facing the group since then... I feel like I'm being penalized for my choices."
  • GM: "Yea kinda, not even going to try and soften the blow on that one Cindy. Encounters need to stay interesting for the whole group & much as I want to interpret the take weapon differently, you guys put up quite the case for a hardline ruling against strength based weapon users showing up very often from there on way back at level 4 when you said "well does the statblock say they have other weapons cause a fist is 1+strength right?". Nobody in their right mind would go into combat heavy professions as a strength user if that was how the world worked."

Players almost always have much more investment in their weapons but take weapon +flee/keepaway is old school disjunction/flame strike level evil. If it's supposed to be disjunction level scary to hear the GM speak the words the ability needs to be more explicit. Even without the GM using it against players it's a 2 point second degree maneuver available as early as level 4 that hits way above other maneuvers if it allows players to steal weapons mid combat.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
This is a good example of why questions left unanswered like what rules to use when a weapon is dropped or seized & the original user wants to recover it. @niklinna restated my original point where there don't seem to be any rules for "picking up an object from the ground during combat" making both the hardline interpretation & ambiguities problematic. Combine those and Take Weapon has the capability of operating on par with the old school Mage's Disjunction spell.
I would say that's a Use An Object action.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
I would say that's a Use An Object action.
AG444 not clear on that though... Retrieve a dropped/disarmed weapon from the ground to attack with is a common enough thing where there should be a clear "yea it says right there that it works like so"
Normally, you use an object while performing another action, such as drawing a sword while running forward or or an arrow as part of an attack. You are also able to interact with one object for free on your turn without spending an action (like opening an unlocked door, undoing a peace bond on a weapon, or tearing down a wanted poster). When an object otherwise requires your action for its use (like administering or drinking a potion), you take the Use an Object action, which can also be useful when you need to interact with more than one object on your turn.
When the game veers into things that will potentially crash right through a wall where monsters can steal prized weapons from players attempting to fill their class/group niche with those weapons that ambiguity is going to be poison.

My group decided it for me by both strength based melee players remaining silent when the dex based adept argued for a maximalist approach on all ambiguities* the first time he used it so I can just point at him or their silence if they don't like a dragon stealing their weapons or something but the second I do that those players are going to be walking on eggshells scared to attack anything forevermore.

* including the phrase "why would I ever spend the extra two points, I already have their weapon & we can ignore them"
 

Anselm

Adventurer
Why is it not simply you "interact with an object" part of your turn? (Pg422)

Most physical interactions with the environment
simply require a player to announce their intentions
to the Narrator. A statement like, “I open the ward-
robe,” is normally all that is necessary to set an
action into motion.
Some interactions, however, may require an ability
check. A wardrobe that won’t open might require
a Dexterity (thieves’ tools) check to pick a lock or
a Strength check to pull it open despite rusted hinges.

Depending on the situation... You just pick it up. If there's resistance... It requires a roll.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top