Disarm Question

[EscherEnigma]

So getting ready to start a new campaign, and one of my players came up to me with a tactics/rules question.

He's going to be playing a Battle Master, and naturally wants to screw with his opponents. One of his ideas was to disarm a bad guy then use his "free object interaction" (PHB pg 190) to kick the dropped weapon away from the baddie, and wanted to know my thoughts.

I checked the rule and, well, it's kinda fuzzy. So here's my thoughts, and was wondering what other people had, and if anyone had experience with a player doing such a thing.

Long story short: No.

Long story long: Looking for other parallels/examples, I looked at doors first. If you're next to the door, then you get to open it unless there's a reason it's hard to open. If, however, right in front of the door is an angry pugilist, opening the door doesn't sound like it should be easy anymore. Similarly with a lever or button, if it's in the "occupied space" as a hostile guy, even if the guy is bare-handed, I don't think I'd let the player just hit it for free.

So if you can move the bad guy first such that the air-space of the dropped weapon is no longer a hostile area, then sure, kick it as a free action. But if it's still occupied territory, then no.

Anyway, looking forward to other opinions.

[PeteNutButter]

That's interesting, going off of spells there is definitely something to be said about unattended objects being easier to manipulate.

You can pick up a weapon as part of your free object interaction, so logic would say kicking it away isn't far fetched. I'd allow him to kick a weapon (assuming he doesn't use the free interaction elsewhere) but maybe have him make an athletics check.

Think about it. If the enemy can pick up the weapon for free there is no consequence for the disarm. If the player can kick it 5-10 feet away, then the monster might have to move away to reclaim his weapon thus provoking AoOs. As it stands RAW disarming doesn't do much except make the enemy's reactions weak until his turn.

If you really feel its too powerful later, just start having monsters carry more than one weapon. Players do it, so why not. I would keep it within reason though, unless the monsters have foreknowledge of the PCs. In that case they'll all bring a wagonload of axes to every fight. :smallbiggrin:

[SouthpawSoldier]

Pretty sure your player's intent is the way to use Disarm, by general consensus. Otherwise, foe can use their "Interact with Object" to pick weapon up and continue with no penalty or effect. Interacting with Object doesn't trigger AoO's, doesn't eat up Action, etc. No profit to Disarming other than kicking the weapon away and making foe move (triggering AoO) or fighting unarmed.

[Arial Black]

Definitely let him kick the weapon away/pick it up.

It is not an auto-win button for a campaign; many enemies don't have weapons to lose!

[Slipperychicken]

If you allow him to pick it up right after, just say he wrestled the weapon directly from his enemy's hands. I think it makes a lot more sense that way.


I don't think the disarming maneuver is such a big deal. It costs him a short rest resource that he only has like 5 of, it only works on a subset of enemies, and even those can potentially negate the advantage for less than 50 gold. Though it does have a niche if an enemy doesn't have a great strength score and is holding something valuable like a magic weapon, scroll, focus, or macguffin.

[SharkForce]

if you deny interact with object to the player because an enemy is adjacent, you also have to deny it to the enemy he just disarmed, because an enemy is adjacent to them also and therefore they cannot pick up the weapon anyways (because it is the same "interact with object" action).

[Shaofoo]

if you deny interact with object to the player because an enemy is adjacent, you also have to deny it to the enemy he just disarmed, because an enemy is adjacent to them also and therefore they cannot pick up the weapon anyways (because it is the same "interact with object" action).

It isn't because they have an adjacent enemy, it is because the weapon always drops at the feet of the wielder. The player will have to reach out and kick it out while the enemy will just have to pick it up.

This has been discussed before and I'd basically say make an athletics check to kick the weapon away but you can just have him do it or not. Of course he could Disarm then Push the opponent away to get at the weapon for sure without any complications.

[Bladeyeoman]

So getting ready to start a new campaign, and one of my players came up to me with a tactics/rules question.

He's going to be playing a Battle Master, and naturally wants to screw with his opponents. One of his ideas was to disarm a bad guy then use his "free object interaction" (PHB pg 190) to kick the dropped weapon away from the baddie, and wanted to know my thoughts.



It's actually kind of weird that 5e disarming leaves the weapon at the feet of the wielder. That's both (a) totally unrealistic for any disarms that I've dealt with, and (b) as others point out, largely useless mechanically, as the opponent can grab it for free. Rather than allowing the player to kick the weapon away, you might just houserule that the act of disarming knocks the weapon 5-15 feet away (or perhaps, with an athletics check, allows the player to hold the weapon).

Sort of related: series of disarms in which the disarm-er gets the weapon: **https://youtu.be/zjrePRf2QRA?t=6**

[Shaofoo]

It's actually kind of weird that 5e disarming leaves the weapon at the feet of the wielder. That's both (a) totally unrealistic for any disarms that I've dealt with, and (b) as others point out, largely useless mechanically, as the opponent can grab it for free. Rather than allowing the player to kick the weapon away, you might just houserule that the act of disarming knocks the weapon 5-15 feet away (or perhaps, with an athletics check, allows the player to hold the weapon).

Sort of related: series of disarms in which the disarm-er gets the weapon: **https://youtu.be/zjrePRf2QRA?t=6**

I think the point for the rules is exactly the reason to prevent being able to somehow steal or move away the weapon as part of the actual attack, at least kicking the weapon away needs your item interaction. Also note that Disarm works on all items held in the hand, not just weapons, and also that you can Disarm using a ranged attack. Also the opponent cannot grab at the weapon unless it is his turn so it isn't useless. Heck if you really want to go at it by RAW just use an attack to hit the weapon with a Push attack as well.

D&D is not supposed to be modeled after reality, it is a game first and foremost and any "violations of reality" is welcome if it can produce a more balanced game.

[Basch]

I see no reason not to let him kick it away. If you're really concerned about it have the NPC draw a dagger or something else underwhelming. The BM in our group kicks weapons all day long. And by all day long i mean as long as his dice last. It's helpful, but not going to wreck an encounter unless it's one foe with a single weapon.

[Bladeyeoman]

I think the point for the rules is exactly the reason to prevent being able to somehow steal or move away the weapon as part of the actual attack, at least kicking the weapon away needs your item interaction. Also note that Disarm works on all items held in the hand, not just weapons, and also that you can Disarm using a ranged attack. Also the opponent cannot grab at the weapon unless it is his turn so it isn't useless. Heck if you really want to go at it by RAW just use an attack to hit the weapon with a Push attack as well.

The push attack is a good point. But the opponent being unable to grab the weapon unless its his turn, while not useless, is far from useful. It basically means that his attack of opportunity is weaponless, right? So the BM is using a somewhat limited resource to possibly reduce damage from attacks of opportunity between his turn and the enemy's (but only on enemies with weapons). I can definitely see the balance reason to avoid letting the BM take the object, but just knocking it to the ground at the opponents feet feels kind of... lackluster.


D&D is not supposed to be modeled after reality, it is a game first and foremost and any "violations of reality" is welcome if it can produce a more balanced game.

Totally, and realism isn't a good reason to change the rules. When realism and balance both align, though, and are also aligned with the rule of cool ("You shoot the orc's sword from his hand, and it skitters across the floor to stick, vibrating, in the wooden door frame!") it's pretty tempting.

[EscherEnigma]

Hrm. Well, I'm convinced. The disarm is resource-limited, and as pointed out, with how easy it is to draw/pick-up weapons in this edition, it's not as damaging to the other guy to start with. So kicking is in.