Grabbing A Spear Impaled In You?

[Death_Lord12]

If a person is attacked by a piercing weapon such as a spear, is it possible they can then grapple to grab the weapon and either hold onto it so the wielder of the weapon can't use the spear effectively and/or not move without dropping the weapon?

If this is possible by either Core or 3rd party methods, what is the way to do it, and if the rules make no mention of it, what would be the best way to go about it? Would they make a Fortitude save or a concentration check to see if they can focus through the pain to make the grab? Would it be a grapple check or a disarm check? What kind of penalties would be given?

I had in mind an undead NPC trying this, so would that make a difference? If it does what would the difference be?

Thanks in advance.

[Rainshine]

Ready an action to disarm?

[Necroticplague]

Sounds like it would just be a normal grapple with a bit of fluff attached. Normally, you'd need to prepare an action to use it like that. However, Robilar's Gambit or Karmic Strike would also let you do it reflexively (using up an AoO).

[Troacctid]

When disarming, if you have a hand free, you can attempt to grab the enemy's weapon instead of knocking it out of their hands. This is done by using your unarmed strike in the opposed attack roll. Generally, you would want to do this before they stick the spear in you, rather than afterwards, as there is no advantage to waiting for them to attack first; however, you could do it with a readied action if you really wanted to for some reason.

[Drelua]

I'd probably just call it a disarm to take the weapon and a grapple to hold on to it so they can't use it. Being grappled does prevent you from using a two-handed weapon after all.

I did have something similar to this happen in PFS once; somebody threw an axe and did a bit of damage to my barbarian, so when I asked the DM, she let me pull the axe out of myself and throw it back, which would have been metal as hell if I hadn't missed. :smallfrown:

[Death_Lord12]

I'd probably just call it a disarm to take the weapon and a grapple to hold on to it so they can't use it. Being grappled does prevent you from using a two-handed weapon after all.

This looks like what I was imagining, thanks, I'll keep the other answers in mind as well.

[Bronk]

This looks like what I was imagining, thanks, I'll keep the other answers in mind as well.

Aside from disarming, the only weapons I know of that stick into someone for any length of time during battle are the harpoon and a magic weapon with the fleshgrinding property...

[Drelua]

Aside from disarming, the only weapons I know of that stick into someone for any length of time during battle are the harpoon and a magic weapon with the fleshgrinding property...

There's also the Impaling Critical feats from Pathfinder, which are a bit hard to qualify for but pretty cool. They pretty much just let you stick your (piercing) weapon in somebody so they take continuous damage and can't leave. I kind of want to make a character sometime that uses Snake Style so he can do that with unarmed strikes, because it would be seriously metal, plus it comes with the advantage that I'd still be able to use unarmed strikes. Normally, you can't use the weapon while it's stuck in somebody, for obvious reasons.

[Willie the Duck]

If this is possible by either Core or 3rd party methods, what is the way to do it, and if the rules make no mention of it, what would be the best way to go about it? Would they make a Fortitude save or a concentration check to see if they can focus through the pain to make the grab? Would it be a grapple check or a disarm check? What kind of penalties would be given?

There are not rules for piercing weapons having an impaling effect, therefore we are in make-it-up-as-you-desire territory. It's a pretty hefty vulnerability to piercing weapons, so I hope they have some compensatory effect.

Otherwise, I agree with others, this is a unarmed disarm attempt (being hit with spear first being optional).


I had in mind an undead NPC trying this, so would that make a difference? If it does what would the difference be?

What was your thinking here? I don't see why it would matter. Because they are immune to pain? or a skeleton, perhaps?

[Death_Lord12]

What was your thinking here? I don't see why it would matter. Because they are immune to pain? or a skeleton, perhaps?
The pain part.

[Willie the Duck]

Well, realistically, some form of roll should be required for someone to willingly do something that is horribly painful (letting oneself get gored by a spear, in real life likely fatal). Also, getting wounded should require a roll or penalty for continuing to act. Neither of these, however, are effects that are otherwise part of the D&D ruleset (I'm sure they exist in for instance GURPS), so suddenly giving an undead a bonus for not feeling pain in this one instance would be a randomly selective benefit.

[FocusWolf413]

There are three rules that let you do this.

The first, foremost, and most important rule is "Have fun." Remember, this is a game and you are supposed to have fun. Anything that enhances everyone's fun should be added to the game.

The second is Rule Zero. Rule Zero gets a bad rep around here, but a good DM can use Rule Zero to make games really fun. If something sounds fun but there aren't any clear rules for it, Rule Zero lets the DM say "that sounds fun. I'll let you roll for it."

Thirdly, Disarm. The disarm rules kind of suck, but this is definitely a spin on it. If I were DM, I'd say it takes a move action, you get a +4, don't take an AoO, but you take additional damage equal to somewhere between a quarter and half of what was dealt to you.

[Death_Lord12]

There are three rules that let you do this.

The first, foremost, and most important rule is "Have fun." Remember, this is a game and you are supposed to have fun. Anything that enhances everyone's fun should be added to the game.

The second is Rule Zero. Rule Zero gets a bad rep around here, but a good DM can use Rule Zero to make games really fun. If something sounds fun but there aren't any clear rules for it, Rule Zero lets the DM say "that sounds fun. I'll let you roll for it."

Thirdly, Disarm. The disarm rules kind of suck, but this is definitely a spin on it. If I were DM, I'd say it takes a move action, you get a +4, don't take an AoO, but you take additional damage equal to somewhere between a quarter and half of what was dealt to you.
To rule 1.: very true, to rule 2.: I often let my Players do whatever they want for fun, assuming it's not impossible, to rule 3.: this is something I was thinking, additional damage for a disarm.