Weapon Straps?

[Ogrork the Mighty]

This isn't really covered by the rules (at least to knowledge), but why not put a strap on every weapon you wield so that if you're disarmed (by an armed opponent), the weapon doesn't drop to the ground where it can potentially be picked up by anyone?

AFAIK, there isn't really any penalty for using weapon straps and, although it wouldn't prevent disarms, it would prevent totally dropping your weapon and potentially losing it to someone else. Not to mention it would have some kind of impact on an unarmed opponent trying to steal your weapon away.

Thoughts?

 

[Jack Simth]

Let's see.... why didn't most soldiers do so in history? Weight/balance, perhaps? A strong, sturdy loop right where your opponent can slip a blade in? The lack of the ability to do other things with the hand by putting away the sword?

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Yeah, well that would be a good argument but for the fact that double swords and dire flails exist. So back to the original question...

 

[Shin Okada]

AFAIK, there isn't really any penalty for using weapon straps and, although it wouldn't prevent disarms, it would prevent totally dropping your weapon and potentially losing it to someone else. Not to mention it would have some kind of impact on an unarmed opponent trying to steal your weapon away.

Thoughts?

More correctly, there is no rule regarding weapon straps. So no one can say whether if there is penalty or not. Also, no one can say if it is really good against disarm (rule wise).

So it is totally up to each DM and should be a house rule.

If I were a DM, I will allow to use weapon straps. But while I will give circumstance bonus against disarm (+2, the golden rule), I will also give circumstance penalty on attack rolls (-1 is enough IMHO). Indeed, straps should restrict various maneuvers and tricks.

 

[Ruvion]

I agree with the above poster...a weapon strap would be unwieldy to have in combat methinks...anyways it's funny that you should bring that up...I had a DM use adamantine strapped warriors sent against my disarm-focused finessed fighter: they could pick up their weapon as an attack (and continue their full attack). Needless to say, I felt shafted.

 

[Jack Simth]

Yeah, well that would be a good argument but for the fact that double swords and dire flails exist. So back to the original question...

I didn't say it never happened - I asked why not most. If a simple leather strap caused no significant problems, and greatly secured a weapon against disarming, everyone would want one. Some of the suggestions above (such as -1 to attack rolls for a +2 to maintain a hold of the weapon) would cover the why - historicall, disarms weren't common practice in most battles, while hitting the opponent was. Something that makes a common task more difficult to help safegaurd a rare occurence in a life or death situation is generally a bad idea. Some (especially the particularly well-trained) could afford the drawback, and would be facing the rarer task often enough for it to be worth the while.

For something within the rules as written to help you against disarming, you might try the Locked Gauntlet:

Gauntlet, Locked: This armored gauntlet has small chains and braces that allow the wearer to attach a weapon to the gauntlet so that it cannot be dropped easily. It provides a +10 bonus on any roll made to keep from being disarmed in combat. Removing a weapon from a locked gauntlet or attaching a weapon to a locked gauntlet is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. The price given is for a single locked gauntlet. The weight given applies only if you’re wearing a breastplate, light armor, or no armor. Otherwise, the locked gauntlet replaces a gauntlet you already have as part of the armor.

While the gauntlet is locked, you can’t use the hand wearing it for casting spells or employing skills. (You can still cast spells with somatic components, provided that your other hand is free.)

8 gp, 5 lbs

 

[jeffhartsell]

This isn't really covered by the rules (at least to knowledge), but why not put a strap on every weapon you wield so that if you're disarmed (by an armed opponent), the weapon doesn't drop to the ground where it can potentially be picked up by anyone?

AFAIK, there isn't really any penalty for using weapon straps and, although it wouldn't prevent disarms, it would prevent totally dropping your weapon and potentially losing it to someone else. Not to mention it would have some kind of impact on an unarmed opponent trying to steal your weapon away.

Thoughts?

edit: what Smith said.

IMO If you don't want to drop your weapon when you let go use the locking gauntlet rule and assuming they are weapon straps for those that do not like the idea of wearing a gauntlet but instead have gloves.

Gauntlet, Locked: This armored gauntlet has small chains and braces that allow the wearer to attach a weapon to the gauntlet so that it cannot be dropped easily. It provides a +10 bonus on any roll made to keep from being disarmed in combat. Removing a weapon from a locked gauntlet or attaching a weapon to a locked gauntlet is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
The price given is for a single locked gauntlet. The weight given applies only if you’re wearing a breastplate, light armor, or no armor. Otherwise, the locked gauntlet replaces a gauntlet you already have as part of the armor.
While the gauntlet is locked, you can’t use the hand wearing it for casting spells or employing skills. (You can still cast spells with somatic components, provided that your other hand is free.)
Like a normal gauntlet, a locked gauntlet lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike.

 

[dcollins]

This isn't really covered by the rules (at least to knowledge), but why not put a strap on every weapon you wield so that if you're disarmed (by an armed opponent), the weapon doesn't drop to the ground where it can potentially be picked up by anyone?

If the "locked gauntlet" only provides +10 against disarm attempts (i.e., by the rules you can still disarm even this), then by implication a simple strap must get ripped off in a successful disarm attempt. Slice the strap with a sword, etc.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

It's not so much for being disarmed, it's for actually losing the weapon. It's one thing to have it knocked out of your hand, it's quite another to have someone take the weapon away or pick it up off the ground.

I don't see it giving any benefit to the disarm mechanics. But it would mitigate the loss of failing such a check.

 

[dcollins]

But the definition of "disarmed" is that the weapon is knocked to the ground. From the SRD:

Step Three: Consequences. If you beat the defender, the defender is disarmed. If you attempted the disarm action unarmed, you now have the weapon. If you were armed, the defender’s weapon is on the ground in the defender’s square.

Again, if a successful disarm, by the core rules, manages to break a locked iron chain gauntlet, then a free leather strap certainly can't be allowed to do any better.