Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8622275" data-attributes="member: 6915329">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).</blockquote>

Verification