Disarm Action, is it worth it? Ever?! [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

hitchhike79

2020-09-22, 06:42 PM

Elbeyon

2020-09-22, 06:48 PM

Everyone gets a free item interaction per turn. It is really easy to pick up a weapon. As easy as drawing a weapon from a scabbard.

Mikal

2020-09-22, 07:01 PM

Everyone gets a free item interaction per turn. It is really easy to pick up a weapon. As easy as drawing a weapon from a scabbard.

Which is why if you disarm the opponent you use your free item interaction to kick the weapon away.

Elbeyon

2020-09-22, 07:03 PM

Which is why if you disarm the opponent you use your free item interaction to kick the weapon away.Certainly a good idea. It happens like that in movies all the time.

sophontteks

2020-09-22, 07:04 PM

Which is why if you disarm the opponent you use your free item interaction to kick the weapon away.
Lol, but then they'll pick it up again!
You want to pick it up! On your next turn you stash it away and it has effectively disappeared.

Mikal

2020-09-22, 07:05 PM

Lol, but then they'll pick it up again!
You want to pick it up! On your next turn you stash it away and it has effectively disappeared.

I was thinking that after I originally posted, but yeah, either way you as the attacker also gets a free item interaction and you’ll be default (unless you already used it) have it before the opponent.

I was thinking by kicking it away they either disengage or eat an OA to go retrieve the weapon, though.

MaxWilson

2020-09-22, 07:07 PM

The current campaign i am in is the Waterdeep - Dragon Heist. An absolute blast, lots of twists and turns for the plot and SOOO much to explore.
Just hitting lvl 13, we are very powerful and the DM has responded with some BEEF!
Nothing over the top but just what you expect, some beasts that if they hit all their attacks they may one shot the squishy guys.
Humanoids with 18+ AC and great skills and abilities and resistances.

We are about to have a major battle with one of the evil guilds in Waterdeep and we need to come up with some things the DM isnt expecting.

We are prepping the druid with heat metal and myself as the wizard ill be running the full gamut of control spells.
rogue took hypnotic pattern and pallylock has hold person as well. oh and ranger with counterspell for backup ;)
All that stuff hes seen or could be expecting.

What im wondering, could Disarm be the thing against humanoids swinging swords and axes? I mean a Battlemaster with disarming strike seems the best bet but we dont have that.
This is for sure going to be a slogfest so i am really trying to get out of the normal lanes of thought.
Ive got a ton of ideas for what could be good in unique circumstances but its hard to predict if it would be good.
Disarm though most everything that hits is using a weapon, so i just wonder if anyone has tried to make this work?

Thanks

Let's say you're fighting a Shadar Kai Gloom Weaver. Normally, the Gloom Weaver can Multiattack you with two Shadow Spear attacks for 1d8+4+4d12 (34.5) damage per hit, plus one spell (e.g. Eldritch Blast for another 3d10+12 (28.5)) damage. Would you rather:

(A) Attack it twice to inflict ~10 damage on each hit, then it hits you back for ~30-40 damage per hit?

(B) Attack it once to disarm it, then stab it with its own spear for ~30-40 damage, and laugh as it punches weakly at you for 1 damage per hit? Technically it doesn't even get a Multiattack if it doesn't have a spear, so now all it can do is cast spells at you--and if it tries to move away from you so it doesn't have disadvantage on its Eldritch Blast, now you get an opportunity attack.
Note: your DM may or may not rule that you can get full damage out of its Shadow Spear (probably not honestly because it's broken-strong), but either way at least you're depriving it of lots of damage.

There are lots of tool-using monsters whose damage output goes down by 50-90% if you take their weapons away: Githyanki Warriors/Gish/Kithraks/Supreme Commanders, Hill/Frost/Fire/Stone/Giants, Narzugons, Shadar Kai, Inspireds, the Demon Lord Orcus, etc.

sophontteks

2020-09-22, 07:22 PM

I was thinking that after I originally posted, but yeah, either way you as the attacker also gets a free item interaction and you’ll be default (unless you already used it) have it before the opponent.

I was thinking by kicking it away they either disengage or eat an OA to go retrieve the weapon, though.
No worries just picking on you. ;)

Look at it this way,
For all we know your kicking it into a trap.

sophontteks

2020-09-22, 07:24 PM

Let's say you're fighting a Shadar Kai Gloom Weaver. Normally, the Gloom Weaver can Multiattack you with two Shadow Spear attacks for 1d8+4+4d12 (34.5) damage per hit, plus one spell (e.g. Eldritch Blast for another 3d10+12 (28.5)) damage. Would you rather:

(A) Attack it twice to inflict ~10 damage on each hit, then it hits you back for ~30-40 damage per hit?

(B) Attack it once to disarm it, then stab it with its own spear for ~30-40 damage, and laugh as it punches weakly at you for 1 damage per hit? Technically it doesn't even get a Multiattack if it doesn't have a spear, so now all it can do is cast spells at you--and if it tries to move away from you so it doesn't have disadvantage on its Eldritch Blast, now you get an opportunity attack.
Note: your DM may or may not rule that you can get full damage out of its Shadow Spear (probably not honestly because it's broken-strong), but either way at least you're depriving it of lots of damage.

There are lots of tool-using monsters whose damage output goes down by 50-90% if you take their weapons away: Githyanki Warriors/Gish/Kithraks/Supreme Commanders, Hill/Frost/Fire/Stone/Giants, Narzugons, Shadar Kai, Inspireds, the Demon Lord Orcus, etc.
Here the depends catch.

It really depends on the DM. Maybe the DM will go strictly by it's sheet. Maybe the DM will improvise. It makes a huge difference here because practically it makes perfect sense for many creatures to have multiple weapons, on the other, its not mentioned specifically on their sheets.

MaxWilson

2020-09-22, 07:28 PM

Here the depends catch.

It really depends on the DM. Maybe the DM will go strictly by it's sheet. Maybe the DM will improvise. It makes a huge difference here because practically it makes perfect sense for many creatures to have multiple weapons, on the other, its not mentioned specifically on their sheets.

Well, yes. Some DMs will also add HP if you do lots of damage (or even ignore HP entirely and just make the monster die when they feel like it), making high-damage attacks as well. Everything depends on your DM.

You're not wrong, it does depend, but one answer to "why Disarm?" is "to deprive enemies of high-value weapons, and potentially use those weapons yourself."

sophontteks

2020-09-22, 07:34 PM

Well, yes. Some DMs will also add HP if you do lots of damage (or even ignore HP entirely and just make the monster die when they feel like it), making high-damage attacks as well. Everything depends on your DM.

You're not wrong, it does depend, but one answer to "why Disarm?" is "to deprive enemies of high-value weapons, and potentially use those weapons yourself."

It's worth mentioning because I wouldn't even consider this a houserule. A monster's inventory is just up to the DM.

Buuut a player would probably know how their own DM would play it.

MaxWilson

2020-09-22, 07:36 PM

It's worth mentioning because I wouldn't even consider this a houserule. A monster's inventory is just up to the DM.

Again, you're not wrong, but that doesn't mean the Gloom Weaver has two Shadow Spears! If it pulls out a regular dagger or something, it technically still can't Multiattack with it, and even if it does it's much weaker without that bonus 4d12 damage per hit.

If a Fire Giant is carrying two Fire Giant-sized Huge Greatswords, you're going to notice it. If you're not sure, ask the DM before you attempt the Disarm if you see any other weapons on it. If it pulls out a dagger doing 3d4 damage instead of a 6d6 greatsword, that's a win.

hitchhike79

2020-09-22, 07:39 PM

Let's say you're fighting a Shadar Kai Gloom Weaver. Normally, the Gloom Weaver can Multiattack you with two Shadow Spear attacks for 1d8+4+4d12 (34.5) damage per hit, plus one spell (e.g. Eldritch Blast for another 3d10+12 (28.5)) damage. Would you rather:

(A) Attack it twice to inflict ~10 damage on each hit, then it hits you back for ~30-40 damage per hit?

(B) Attack it once to disarm it, then stab it with its own spear for ~30-40 damage, and laugh as it punches weakly at you for 1 damage per hit? Technically it doesn't even get a Multiattack if it doesn't have a spear, so now all it can do is cast spells at you--and if it tries to move away from you so it doesn't have disadvantage on its Eldritch Blast, now you get an opportunity attack.
Note: your DM may or may not rule that you can get full damage out of its Shadow Spear (probably not honestly because it's broken-strong), but either way at least you're depriving it of lots of damage.

There are lots of tool-using monsters whose damage output goes down by 50-90% if you take their weapons away: Githyanki Warriors/Gish/Kithraks/Supreme Commanders, Hill/Frost/Fire/Stone/Giants, Narzugons, Shadar Kai, Inspireds, the Demon Lord Orcus, etc.

This is sort of where my mind was going, if we end up fighting a fighter or paladin with big two handers or a rogue with a wicked dagger or two.
It almost makes sense to spend a round to remove the weapon and try to at least give them a round to recover while everyone else burns them down or whatever the plan is.
If we get lucky enough to straight up remove weapon from the fight then we are doing even better.

Satori01

2020-09-22, 07:57 PM

[QUOTE=MaxWilson;24722210]Again, you're not wrong, but that doesn't mean the Gloom Weaver has two Shadow Spears! If it pulls out a regular dagger or something, it technically still can't Multiattack with it/QUOTE]

A Gloom Weaver is essentially a Warlock with Pact Blade with some EK action economy.

A DM ad-hoc ruling that the Gloom Weaver "Re-summons their Pact Blade"
seems a reasonable DM move.

As a player, even with this outcome, Disarm helps mitigate the action economy advantage the Gloom Weaver has.

At 5th level my Psi Knight disarmed an Ulitharid and grabbed the Extractor Staff it had. The DM made a ruling that a DC 20 INT check would allow me to use the staff .
Luckily, I made the ability check and promptly Action Surged. The DM ruled the staff did damage like the Extract Brain ability 10d10 damage per hit.
It died on round one.

Good thing too, as it was going to kill, At Least, one of the PCs per turn.

The above should at least illustrate, it never hurts to try to Disarm the creatures.

Lunali

2020-09-22, 08:01 PM

Everyone gets a free item interaction per turn. It is really easy to pick up a weapon. As easy as drawing a weapon from a scabbard.

The "free" item interaction requires that you be doing something else that involves the interaction, such as drawing a weapon to make an attack or opening a door while moving. Otherwise it requires the use an object action.

Elbeyon

2020-09-22, 08:34 PM

The "free" item interaction requires that you be doing something else that involves the interaction, such as drawing a weapon to make an attack or opening a door while moving. Otherwise it requires the use an object action.I very much disagree. The interaction has to take place during a move or action, but that is the only requirement. A person is free to pick a cigar off the floor and smoke it during an attack. If they grab their smoke as part of an attack, they do not have to attack a person with a cigar.

Your turn can include a variety of flourish es that require neither your action nor your move.

You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.

You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.

If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.

The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the DM could reason ably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.

Pex

2020-09-22, 08:36 PM

The "free" item interaction requires that you be doing something else that involves the interaction, such as drawing a weapon to make an attack or opening a door while moving. Otherwise it requires the use an object action.

Even if unsure about this it's a good house rule, if it's a house rule, that when disarmed the victim has to take the Use An Object action to pick up the weapon. If you purposely drop your weapon, such as a bow to take out a sword when an enemy arrives, you can pick it up later as your free item interaction. Forcing the difference of having to take the Use An Object action gives disarming value.

Slayn82

2020-09-22, 10:28 PM

Lore Bards are pretty good at disarming, while not being Melee powerhouses, and if one of your allies lacks dexterity bonuses, you may as well have him stand his pretty feet over the enemy's weapon.

You want to disarm weapons with range, like bows or polearms, or powerful magic abilities, because even if they draw another, it probably isn't as good.

Luccan

2020-09-22, 10:53 PM

The "free" item interaction requires that you be doing something else that involves the interaction, such as drawing a weapon to make an attack or opening a door while moving. Otherwise it requires the use an object action.

While that may prevent picking up the item (and I could see the argument that there are flaws doing that as the attacker or the attacked on their turn, even if there's no rule on penalties for doing so) I'd argue it should still allow for kicking the item away, since the that's certainly related to the disarming action. If your DM lets you choose how you disarm and your table/game is sufficiently accepting of action movie antics, you could even say you launch their weapon into the air instead of it clattering on the ground and you catch it in your free hand.

Elbeyon

2020-09-22, 11:30 PM

NoxMiasma

2020-09-22, 11:39 PM

I am glad 5e simplified object interaction and gave players one free interaction a turn. It is nice to be able to interact with the environment at least a little every turn for free.

Look, I played in a Starfinder campaign where two characters died to a monster they were stuck in a room with... because it was a move action to open the door!

Back on thread topic, I can think of a bunch of circumstances where you would want to go for a disarm. Any opponent with a magic weapon gets a lot less scary once they're down to (pathetic) unarmed strike damage, or you could be really mean, and go for a spellcaster's casting focus - did they pack a spare? This kind of trick is a lot stronger in Adventurer's League, where the DM literally cannot change a statblock's items (this a big part of why aaracokra are banned), but it's still a good idea, because it's quite difficult to carry two greatswords.

Also, I think the most rules-compliant use of a free object interaction to get a disarmed weapon away from a foe is to kick it behind you.

MaxWilson

2020-09-23, 12:00 AM

Also, I think the most rules-compliant use of a free object interaction to get a disarmed weapon away from a foe is to kick it behind you.

Or pick it up and sheathe it (either immediately or on your next turn before you attack with your main weapon). This relies on you having a free hand, but that's not too unlikely for a melee fighter because two-handed melee weapons are popular, and yet you only need two hands while attacking. (Although having only one hand on your own weapon does make you momentarily more vulnerable to counter-disarms.)

tomjon

2020-09-23, 12:26 AM

You also might like to consider that almost all weapons are 10 lbs or less. An unattended object is subject to spells with no save or ability check. Off hand I can see your nice shiny sword floating off with a mage hand spell.

Mastikator

2020-09-23, 01:39 AM

The "free" item interaction requires that you be doing something else that involves the interaction, such as drawing a weapon to make an attack or opening a door while moving. Otherwise it requires the use an object action.

Does the Disarm Action count as that "something else"? As in "I disarm the giant's great sword and throw it away"

Chugger

2020-09-23, 03:31 AM

I think that if this mechanic becomes Dungeons and Disarming, it's obviously gone too far. If disarming makes things too easy, it's broken - something's obviously wrong.

Then, if it becomes a huge deal, why don't weapon users have chains or pieces of leather to connect their weapon to their wrist - so if disarmed it doesn't go to the floor - it dangles by their side, still mostly in their control. There are some issues with doing this, but this or something like it would happen if disarming really was such a big deal.

They could also just pull out a backup weapon.

elyktsorb

2020-09-23, 03:55 AM

The only time I ever found 'Disarming' useful was one very specific instance, and it involved a weapon that would cut off your head if the enemy rolled a 20 with it. That said the 'Disarming' action wasn't used, I believe the fight used an attack that made the enemy roll a str save or be disarmed, which it failed. Then I ran up on my turn, picked up the weapon, took like 12 damage because it was one of those weapons that hates people, and then as a druid I turned into an animal taking the weapon to the pocket dimension all my other stuff goes to making it so if this guy wanted his weapon back, he'd have to catch me and knock me out of my form just to do that. And that dude tried because he REALLY wanted that weapon back.

The second time it was useful was when I used Heat Metal, on a weapon after a Darkness had been cast (I had already used heat metal on the weapon, but I made the damage happen again during the darkness), which made the enemy drop the weapon in complete darkness and they couldn't pick it up immediately, but that was less significant because it was like an ordinary sword.

Amnestic

2020-09-23, 04:10 AM

Disarming players can be fun when deployed sparingly. It's a low stakes way to suddenly up the tension of a fight if you have someone nab a player's precious magical weapon and make a run for it. Chances are the runner will get caught and killed, but "if they escape, I lose it for good*" is a powerful motivator for a sudden shift in tactics and approach. Goblins are a good choice for this since they can BA disengage.

*they don't need to lose it for good, put it on a future enemy so they can fight to get it back, if they don't catch the runner.

N810

2020-09-23, 08:08 AM

We found it quite useful to disarm the big bad of their epic magic sword that controlled dragons and kick it over to a team mate who picks it up on their turn. :nale:

Willie the Duck

2020-09-23, 10:37 AM

Picking a weapon off the ground should really provoke an OA from an armed enemy.

OTOH so should attacking an armed enemy with an unarmed attack or a bow. And pop up healing shouldn't be a thing. So I just talked myself out of a "realism" house rule lol :smallamused:
The 'but realism...' argument lead to 3E's combat rules, which made 1) fighting with actual weapons a bad strategy (as everything you tried to do would be met with an AoO, plus see #3), 2) the best way to be a fighting character was simply to get a spiked chain and be a tripping/disarming/sundering/movement-inhibiting lockdown artist, and 3) let the DM bring in an ogre with an adamantine heavy mace and the sunder feat, and just destroy any precious magic weapon the martial was carrying, again making the best martial one who could grow claws or make a weapon out of eldritch energy or the like (because of course magic is not so constrained).

I'm not saying striving for realism is a bad thing, you just have to make sure that it doesn't interact with the rest of the game rules to create a situation where the best way to play a weapon-using combatant is to not.

I think that if this mechanic becomes Dungeons and Disarming, it's obviously gone too far. If disarming makes things too easy, it's broken - something's obviously wrong.
To be fair, it takes an attack, requires a contested check, and then requires an object-interaction to get rid of it in a way that has serious consequences (kicking it away so they provoke an OA to go get it, or picking it up yourself which requires a free hand but then requires them to do a disarm and object interaction to get it back). Reasonableness should prevail. I certainly agree to the overall sentiment. If people sometimes end up fighting with disarm checks, caltrops, marbles, bags of flour/ash/dust, it makes combat more interesting and enhances that game, if they do so constantly, one should look at the rules and see if you have made a too-good subsystem.

Then, if it becomes a huge deal, why don't weapon users have chains or pieces of leather to connect their weapon to their wrist - so if disarmed it doesn't go to the floor - it dangles by their side, still mostly in their control. There are some issues with doing this, but this or something like it would happen if disarming really was such a big deal.
Historically/realistically, disarming was a thing that happened. Chains or thongs weren't used because then instead of being disarmed, the opponent could just get you entangled, and then (ex.) push the weapon to the ground, causing you to follow, and basically be at their mercy.

They could also just pull out a backup weapon.
That would be what they would do. And I think it pretty reasonable that even weapon-using (certainly anything portrayed as a professional soldier or the like) monster manual entries that don't list them still ought to have some form of backup. Again, reasonableness ought to prevail, and the DM shouldn't insta-counter the PCs being crafty, but at the same time reducing any armed enemy to 1 dmg/hit (there assuming they can punch, even though I don't know that's RAW) is also not great.

J-H

2020-09-23, 10:54 AM

Disarm is best used on a bridge over a perilous drop...with a time limit for the players.
The PC made his save but ALMOST lost his main weapon.

zinycor

2020-09-23, 11:13 AM

I have found that disarming isn't as good against martials, who can just equip a backup weapon. Bit very effective against casters, who for some reason don't always have focuses at hand.

Also, disarming is cool if the enemy has an obviously magical weapon at hand.

Deepbluediver

2020-09-23, 11:22 AM

Based on my historical experience, no. I think in all the time I've spent playing D&D I've only seen Disarm (and it's counterpart, Sunder) used twice, and one of those times was me.
It may be very impressive in cinema, but in D&D games, players just don't seem to think it's worth it to spend an action to make an enemy less effective at dealing damage to them, when you could instead spend that action simply making the enemy dead.

There are a couple of reasons for this- first is that it's often not efficient in terms of actions. Lots of systems have rules that basically boil down to allowing players to scoop up an item with a free-action (or some short equivalent), while disarming usually requires an attack. This often means that the enemy can retrieve their weapon in less time than it takes for you to get it out of their hands.
Compare this to games where you do see a lot of disarm-type mechanics, like WoW (in PvP) and DotA (or other MOBAs). In these games the fights are based around reflexes instead of resource-management, and several seconds of your character being unable to attack could be a huge portion of the fight. In D&D this would probably be equivalent to reliably disarming someone for several rounds with only a single action.

Second, it's a pretty niche move. The percentage of enemies that will be humanoid(ish) and that are attacking you with weapons that can be disarmed is probably pretty small. Even if you expanded the mechanics to allow sundering of Natural weapons (claws, horns, teeth, etc) with same set of mechanics, its still a situational moveset. By contrast, if you simply put your resources (feats, gold, levels, etc) into boosting your HP, AC, and spell-resistance, those things tend to be much more broadly applicable, in addition to just being flat-out easier (less optimization required).

Finally, and this point probably depends somewhat on the game and version, but my experience with D&D 5E has been that it's very rocket-tag heavy. The enemy is almost always hitting our tanks for 50%+ of their HP and threatening to 1-shot our casters and rogues, so trying to hang back and play rope-a-dope with them just means we'll have to burn more healing spells later to get people back on their feet. It's better to just have everyone unload with their biggest damaging whatevers and hope we can down the enemy before they get off another round of attacks.

There are ways you could try and improve Disarming or any of the other combat maneuvers that didn't get as much support after 3.5 (Sundering, Feinting,Tripping, etc), but I feel like it would be a very finicky balance point. Like, it's not the kind of thing a random player will ever really try; instead it's the kind of thing someone will optimize for until they always succeed and then they never use anything else and it feels OP.

MaxWilson

2020-09-23, 11:42 AM

It may be very impressive in cinema, but in D&D games, (A) players just don't seem to think it's worth it to spend an action to make an enemy less effective at dealing damage to them, when you could instead spend that action simply making the enemy dead.

SNIP

Finally, and this point probably depends somewhat on the game and version, but my experience with D&D 5E has been that it's (B) very rocket-tag heavy. The enemy is almost always hitting our tanks for 50%+ of their HP and threatening to 1-shot our casters and rogues, so trying to hang back and play rope-a-dope with them just means we'll have to burn more healing spells later to get people back on their feet. It's better to just have everyone unload with their biggest damaging whatevers and hope we can down the enemy before they get off another round of attacks.

Do you think it's possible that there's a causal link between A and B? The whole point of Disarm is to mostly-neuter the enemy up front with one or two attacks, without going through all of his HP first, to make it less rocket-taggy. Reduce those big enemies from hitting for 50%+ of your HP to 8-15%, THEN kill them.

It was good enough for Inigo and it's good enough for me, where applicable. :)

Unoriginal

2020-09-23, 12:11 PM

As pointed out by many, Disarming can be quite good. The more the enemy is reliant on their weapon, the better.

Like MaxWilson said, Githyanki are highly affected by the technique, due to having pretty fancy swords. Elves (both Drow and Shadar-Kai) also tend to be highly impacted by the loss of their weapons (due to the additional effects that getting hit by said weapons inflict), as does anyone who use magically or technologically powerful instruments of death, but most humanoids who rely on weapons will be severely diminished both in damage and in number of attack if you take away their weapon of choice.

Interestingly enough the adventure Storm King's Thunder make Hill Giants (and maybe Frost Giants too, but I'm not sure) pretty proficient at unarmed combat in case they lose their tools. It's true it doesn't compare to a Huge Greatsword but unarmed Multiattacks for 3d4+the Giant's great strength is still not bad, and quite awesome cinematically speaking.

Deepbluediver

2020-09-23, 12:30 PM

Do you think it's possible that there's a causal link between A and B? The whole point of Disarm is to mostly-neuter the enemy up front with one or two attacks, without going through all of his HP first, to make it less rocket-taggy. Reduce those big enemies from hitting for 50%+ of your HP to 8-15%, THEN kill them.
Yeah, in theory that would be a great strategy, but in practice it never seems to work out that way.

Optimizing for disarming sometimes works, but optimizing for making the enemy's HP go down faster ALWAYS works. And that's assuming the enemy doesn't just have a backup weapon they can draw, or spells they can resort to. And then furthermore, like I said my experience that with 5E is that a lot of the enemies go down pretty quick anyway, so you really just delay the end of the fight for a round where neither you nor your target dealt significant damage.

From the meta-perspective, if you're not fully up to speed on the disarm-rules, stopping to check them might discourage people from even trying, whereas "I make a standard attack" is the most basic thing everyone learns in D&D 101.
Plus (and I realize this varies from person-to-person) but trying something non-standard and failing at it somehow feels worse to me than just missing several attacks in a row. Like if I Full-attack the enemy and roll critical fumbles 3 times in a row, everyone chuckles a bit and thinks of how it will make a funny story later. But if I attempt a disarm and fail, I feel like everyone else at the table is rolling their eyes and going "ugh, why didn't you just attack him again; we could be done with this already". It's not so much about the effectiveness as it is about the PERCEPTION of how certain actions will be looked upon that may discourage people.

It's like Homer Simpson says: "You tried a non-standard tactic and it failed, therefor your should never-ever try any non-standard tactics again." Or something like that.

MaxWilson

2020-09-23, 12:48 PM

Yeah, in theory that would be a great strategy, but in practice it never seems to work out that way.

(A) Optimizing for disarming sometimes works, but optimizing for making the enemy's HP go down faster ALWAYS works. And that's assuming the enemy doesn't just have a backup weapon they can draw, or spells they can resort to. And then furthermore, (B) like I said my experience that with 5E is that a lot of the enemies go down pretty quick anyway, so you really just delay the end of the fight for a round where neither you nor your target dealt significant damage.

From the meta-perspective, if you're not fully up to speed on the disarm-rules, stopping to check them might discourage people from even trying, whereas "I make a standard attack" is the most basic thing everyone learns in D&D 101.
(C) Plus (and I realize this varies from person-to-person) but trying something non-standard and failing at it somehow feels worse to me than just missing several attacks in a row. Like if I Full-attack the enemy and roll critical fumbles 3 times in a row, everyone chuckles a bit and thinks of how it will make a funny story later. But if I attempt a disarm and fail, I feel like everyone else at the table is rolling their eyes and going "ugh, why didn't you just attack him again; we could be done with this already". It's not so much about the effectiveness as it is about the PERCEPTION of how certain actions will be looked upon that may discourage people.

It's like Homer Simpson says: "You tried a non-standard tactic and it failed, therefor your should never-ever try any non-standard tactics again." Or something like that.

(A) I feel like we're talking about different things. I'm talking tactics, not builds. If you're using DMG Disarm, there's no build optimization required; if you're using Battlemaster Disarm, it's just one maneuver that you have to pick up. (If you're using Fear spell disarm, or Command spell disarm, well, use it if you've already got the spell for other reasons.)

(B) It's hard for me to reconcile "enemies go down quick" with "enemies do 50%+ of your HP each round" except under the assumption that you tend to fight one or two enemies at a time. Surely you're not fighting a dozen 10 HP mooks who each hit for 50+ HP of damage apiece. Out of curiosity, what do fights at your table tend to look like? Right now I'm imagining stuff like one Fire Giant and a Giant Crocodile against an 8th level party, is that accurate?

(C) I understand how you feel, and in a thread titled "why doesn't anyone Disarm?" that would be the end of it. People don't do it because it feels bad to them, end of story. But this thread is about how effective it is, so if people don't do it merely because it feels bad, in the context of this thread that could mean they're missing an opportunity to do something more effectively.

If I were at a table where I attempted to Disarm the Fire Giant via DMG Disarm and failed, and someone was like, "Why don't you just attack him already?", I'd say, "I'm trying to make sure he can't cut you in half this round. It's no different from attacking the Fire Giant and failing to kill him because he has too much AC and many HP--sometimes it takes multiple attempts to succeed, but in this case I think you'll be hurt more if I let him keep his weapon because he has SO MANY HP."

Deepbluediver

2020-09-23, 01:22 PM

(A) I feel like we're talking about different things. I'm talking tactics, not builds. If you're using DMG Disarm, there's no build optimization required; if you're using Battlemaster Disarm, it's just one maneuver that you have to pick up. (If you're using Fear spell disarm, or Command spell disarm, well, use it if you've already got the spell for other reasons.)
Yeah, optimization in this aspect is more for a system like 3.5 than 5E, but I've never seen it be popular in ANY addition so I was making more generalized comments.

(B) It's hard for me to reconcile "enemies go down quick" with "enemies do 50%+ of your HP each round" except under the assumption that you tend to fight one or two enemies at a time. Surely you're not fighting a dozen 10 HP mooks who each hit for 50+ HP of damage apiece. Out of curiosity, what do fights at your table tend to look like? Right now I'm imagining stuff like one Fire Giant and a Giant Crocodile against an 8th level party, is that accurate?
Some of the monsters we fight are homebrew-modified, but just looking at stuff in MM you see creatures like the Black Pudding, CR 4 (we fought a few oozes at some point), and it can do 1d6+3 bludgeoning PLUS 4d8 Acid damage, which averages out to 24.5 damage every round. A tanky (d12 and +3 Con) character would have around 43-44 HP at level 4, a middling character would probably be about 30, and a squishy character could easily be in 1-shot range.
And if you accidentally split it then you now have 2 creatures each dealing that much damage each round (because being smaller doesn't decrease it's damage, apparently). In my experience (again, could be different for other players) it's not that hard for a standard 4th level party to do ~40 damage a round, so by trying to disarm, you just might be dragging the fight out for 3rd round's worth of damage to someone (the Black Pudding has about 85 HP).

Then you have plenty of spells that can deal damage with a number of dice equal to a player's level (or higher), such as Fireball or Inflict Wounds, i.e. ~50%+ of your HP every round.

(C) I understand how you feel, and in a thread titled "why doesn't anyone Disarm?" that would be the end of it. People don't do it because it feels bad to them, end of story. But this thread is about how effective it is, so if people don't do it merely because it feels bad, in the context of this thread that could mean they're missing an opportunity to do something more effectively.
Fair enough, but even if the answer the original question is "Yes, sometimes", this might explain why people don't TRY IT OUT more, even if it COULD be worth it.

Willie the Duck

2020-09-23, 01:22 PM

Yeah, in theory that would be a great strategy, but in practice it never seems to work out that way.
Optimizing for disarming sometimes works, but optimizing for making the enemy's HP go down faster ALWAYS works. And that's assuming the enemy doesn't just have a backup weapon they can draw, or spells they can resort to. And then furthermore, like I said my experience that with 5E is that a lot of the enemies go down pretty quick anyway, so you really just delay the end of the fight for a round where neither you nor your target dealt significant damage.

EDIT: As others have already pointed out, I spaced the mechanics on disarm, instead using the mechanics for grapple/push. The following argument is invalid, but I am leaving it unmodified so the posts of others in response make sense.

Honestly, I think the underlined issue is the underlying issue. In WotC-era D&D, you really need to build a character towards a combat strategy. In 5e, it is not that hard. Optimal would be maxed Strength, Expertise in Athletics, perhaps advantage with Strength checks, wielding a weapon/weapons/weapon&shield combo where you can readily have a free hand, and (edge case issue) be able to still attack your opponent even if you can't actually use their weapon in the one hand you used to pick theirs up (super-optimal case might be guy who normally wields a longsword two-handed, but can still deliver an OA with it one-handed while holding the enemy's greatsword in one hand). It's a lot better than 3e with requiring multiple feats to be good enough at it to bother. Still, you have to plan for it, and are best when you build towards the concept. In 2e AD&D, for example, the best way to optimize for disarming was the same way you optimized for attacking (weapon specialization, and maxing out your Strength and level). May other systems, from GURPS to Savage World to the White Wolf games (I think, some of these are remembrances from a long time ago), if there is a disarm technique, the best way to be good at it is to be good at your basic weapon ability. Obviously with HERO SYSTEM you can build a specialty disarmer, but that's part and parcel of the game design ethos. Given that there are going to be so many non-disarm-able enemies, there won't be a lot of people making that build, but because the build exists, the designers couldn't make default combatant too good at it, so it rarely becomes a situationally good choice for them.

MaxWilson

2020-09-23, 02:41 PM

Honestly, I think the underlined issue is the underlying issue. (A) In WotC-era D&D, you really need to build a character towards a combat strategy. In 5e, it is not that hard. Optimal would be maxed Strength, (B) Expertise in Athletics, perhaps advantage with Strength checks, wielding a weapon/weapons/weapon&shield combo where you can readily have a free hand, and (edge case issue) be able to still attack your opponent even if you can't actually use their weapon in the one hand you used to pick theirs up (super-optimal case might be guy who normally wields a longsword two-handed, but can still deliver an OA with it one-handed while holding the enemy's greatsword in one hand). It's a lot better than 3e with requiring multiple feats to be good enough at it to bother. (C) Still, you have to plan for it, and are best when you build towards the concept. In 2e AD&D, for example, the best way to optimize for disarming was the same way you optimized for attacking (weapon specialization, and maxing out your Strength and level). May other systems, from GURPS to Savage World to the White Wolf games (I think, some of these are remembrances from a long time ago), if there is a disarm technique, the best way to be good at it is to be good at your basic weapon ability. Obviously with HERO SYSTEM you can build a specialty disarmer, but that's part and parcel of the game design ethos. Given that there are going to be so many non-disarm-able enemies, there won't be a lot of people making that build, but because the build exists, the designers couldn't make default combatant too good at it, so it rarely becomes a situationally good choice for them.

(A) Yes, WotC has this tendency, but DMG Disarm is one case where this isn't even true. Disarm is a contest of your attack roll vs. the enemy's Str (Athletics) or Dex (Acrobatics). Since optimizing for damage includes optimizing for a good to-hit bonus (among other things), that means that if you're damage-optimized, you're already pretty decent at disarming!

A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target's grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.

The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller.

In fact, even if you're not optimized for damage, you may still be pretty good at disarming. A bog-standard sword-and-shield Defense style Purple Dragon Knight 6 has pretty crummy damage, but he's probably decent at grappling/proning/disarming. Even a mere Tiny Servant with +5 to hit has an 8% chance (https://anydice.com/program/1df4b) of Disarming a Githyanki Supreme Commander, 16% in heavy obscurement; against an enemy with a one-handed weapon you're looking at 14% (Narzugon) or 19% (Soul Monger), rising to 22% and 28% respectively in heavy obscurement. Those aren't bad odds for a cheap minion!

See https://anydice.com/program/1df4b for details.

(B) Athletics helps you grapple/prone or defend against disarming attempts. It doesn't help you DMG Disarm other people. Ditto advantage on strength checks--doesn't help.

(C) I really don't think you do have to plan for it. Having a good attack roll and lots of attacks is something you're trying to do anyway, whether you're a GWM/PAM Fighter or an Enchanter with a swarm of Tiny Minions or a Moon Druid with conjured Quicklings. The only ones who are moderately un-good at disarming are single-attack specialists like Arcane Tricksters with Booming Blade, and even they aren't bad per se because they have fairly easy ways to get advantage on their attack roll. (Hide behind something, then pop out and shoot an arrow with advantage, aiming for a Disarm.) They just have a high opportunity cost.

Satori01

2020-09-23, 05:18 PM

Optimizing for disarming sometimes works, but optimizing for making the enemy's HP go down faster ALWAYS works. [/COLOR]

Roleplaying or Rollplaying?

Either style is fun, but sometimes you can't just whack someone to death.
If Mad King Aerys has had your sister enchanted to attack you, the holiday times are going to be rather dour if you elect to kill her and have your sister Raised from the Dead, rather than just disarming and restraining her.

Max covered the fact that disarm is easy to use, no optimization required.

Fear is an awesome spell because of the fact you drop what is in your hands.

Mikal

2020-09-23, 06:57 PM

Roleplaying or Rollplaying?

Either style is fun, but sometimes you can't just whack someone to death.
If Mad King Aerys has had your sister enchanted to attack you, the holiday times are going to be rather dour if you elect to kill her and have your sister Raised from the Dead, rather than just disarming and restraining her.

Max covered the fact that disarm is easy to use, no optimization required.

Fear is an awesome spell because of the fact you drop what is in your hands.

Bad example as melee fighting can allow you to knock someone out no matter how much damage is done.

You just knock her out, easy peasy rules as written.
That being said, I’m for tactics in battle, especially beyond “I whack him with my sword”.

I’ll ignore the “Role-playing vs Roll-playing” false equivalency you threw out there, though. It doesn’t bring anything into the discussion and only divides people for petty reasons.

Willie the Duck

2020-09-23, 09:23 PM

(A) Yes, WotC has this tendency, but DMG Disarm is one case where this isn't even true. Disarm is a contest of your attack roll vs. the enemy's Str (Athletics) or Dex (Acrobatics). Since optimizing for damage includes optimizing for a good to-hit bonus (among other things), that means that if you're damage-optimized, you're already pretty decent at disarming!

A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target's grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) check or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.

The attacker has disadvantage on its attack roll if the target is holding the item with two or more hands. The target has advantage on its ability check if it is larger than the attacking creature, or disadvantage if it is smaller.

Wow, I completely misremembered that. For whatever reason I remembered disarms as being the same check as grapple/prone.

Lord Vukodlak

2020-09-24, 04:48 AM

The 'but realism...' argument lead to 3E's combat rules, which made 1) fighting with actual weapons a bad strategy (as everything you tried to do would be met with an AoO, plus see #3), 2) the best way to be a fighting character was simply to get a spiked chain and be a tripping/disarming/sundering/movement-inhibiting lockdown artist, and 3) let the DM bring in an ogre with an adamantine heavy mace and the sunder feat, and just destroy any precious magic weapon the martial was carrying, again making the best martial one who could grow claws or make a weapon out of eldritch energy or the like (because of course magic is not so constrained).

I'm not saying striving for realism is a bad thing, you just have to make sure that it doesn't interact with the rest of the game rules to create a situation where the best way to play a weapon-using combatant is to not.

Yeah the spiked chain was OP in 3.5.
In one 3.5 campaign I had a weretiger who used a adamantine spiked chain.

Unoriginal

2020-09-24, 07:11 AM

Honestly, I think the underlined issue is the underlying issue. In WotC-era D&D, you really need to build a character towards a combat strategy. In 5e, it is not that hard. Optimal would be maxed Strength, Expertise in Athletics, perhaps advantage with Strength checks, wielding a weapon/weapons/weapon&shield combo where you can readily have a free hand, and (edge case issue) be able to still attack your opponent even if you can't actually use their weapon in the one hand you used to pick theirs up (super-optimal case might be guy who normally wields a longsword two-handed, but can still deliver an OA with it one-handed while holding the enemy's greatsword in one hand). It's a lot better than 3e with requiring multiple feats to be good enough at it to bother. Still, you have to plan for it, and are best when you build towards the concept. In 2e AD&D, for example, the best way to optimize for disarming was the same way you optimized for attacking (weapon specialization, and maxing out your Strength and level). May other systems, from GURPS to Savage World to the White Wolf games (I think, some of these are remembrances from a long time ago), if there is a disarm technique, the best way to be good at it is to be good at your basic weapon ability. Obviously with HERO SYSTEM you can build a specialty disarmer, but that's part and parcel of the game design ethos. Given that there are going to be so many non-disarm-able enemies, there won't be a lot of people making that build, but because the build exists, the designers couldn't make default combatant too good at it, so it rarely becomes a situationally good choice for them.

If you want to Disarm, you are just doing a normal attack with your normal attack mod. If you want to grab the weapon once the enemy is disarmed, you need a free hand.

So literally all you need to do for "optimizing"/"building" a disarm master in 5e is maxing out your attacking stat, not using a shield, and *maybe* if you want to really, really do it have extra attacks and/or a way to get advantage on attack rolls.

So I guess if you wanted to build the Disarm Master you need like, a Greatsword-wielding or a Duelist-fighting-style Samurai.

EDIT: I read the rest of the thread afterward, sorry.

Willie the Duck

2020-09-24, 07:19 AM

That's not how Disarm work, though.
Yes, Max already pointed that out. I will add a disclaimer to my post noting it as mistaken.

Yeah the spiked chain was OP in 3.5.
In one 3.5 campaign I had a weretiger who used a adamantine spiked chain.
Ah yes, to be able to trip/disarm/punish-for-moving on your opponents, while resisting them turning around and using sunder on your weapon. Plus, if you were disarmed, instead of drawing your own AoO, you could just use claws. Quite clever.

Unoriginal

2020-09-24, 07:22 AM

Yes, Max already pointed that out. I will add a disclaimer to my post noting it as mistaken.

Sorry, I've read the rest of the thread too late.

Willie the Duck

2020-09-24, 07:28 AM

Sorry, I've read the rest of the thread too late.

'sawright. :smallbiggrin:

Unoriginal

2020-09-24, 07:39 AM

Another great-at-disarm class is the Monk, whose mechanics basically make them having a free hand guaranteed and whose attack number is only surpassed by Action Surge.

MaxWilson

2020-09-24, 10:27 AM

Another great-at-disarm class is the Monk, whose mechanics basically make them having a free hand guaranteed and whose attack number is only surpassed by Action Surge.

I don't think Monks can disarm with their third and optional fourth attack though, only with the first two attacks. Disarming, like grappling, is something that happens as part of the Attack action, not just any old attack.

So yeah, they're good, but not better than anyone else except for having more free hands to pick stuff up with.

Unoriginal

2020-09-24, 11:27 AM

I don't think Monks can disarm with their third and optional fourth attack though, only with the first two attacks. Disarming, like grappling, is something that happens as part of the Attack action, not just any old attack.

So yeah, they're good, but not better than anyone else except for having more free hands to pick stuff up with.

Oh right, my bad.

Mr Adventurer

2020-09-24, 11:42 AM

Let's say you're fighting a Shadar Kai Gloom Weaver. Normally, the Gloom Weaver can Multiattack you with two Shadow Spear attacks for 1d8+4+4d12 (34.5) damage per hit, plus one spell (e.g. Eldritch Blast for another 3d10+12 (28.5)) damage.

The bonus 4d12 on the Gloom Spear is necrotic damage, to which the Gloom Weaver is immune. I agree that disarming can be useful - and fun! - but just wanted to point that out.

MaxWilson

2020-09-24, 11:55 AM

The bonus 4d12 on the Gloom Spear is necrotic damage, to which the Gloom Weaver is immune. I agree that disarming can be useful - and fun! - but just wanted to point that out.

Yeah, good point. Appreciate the correction.

Willie the Duck

2020-09-24, 12:33 PM

MaxWilson

2020-09-24, 12:40 PM

It's the thread of corrections! :smalltongue:
One more point on Monks -- because they are MAD, and perhaps are not using weapons* and thus not getting that plus to-hit if the weapon is magic, they might not be the the best. Is it possible that the best disarmers are archer fighters**? I am AFB, is there any limitation on ranged weapons?
*yes, yes, except for all the times they are.
**based on archery fighting style and semi-common magical bows/crossbows

There are no limitations on ranged disarms (although maybe there should be), so yes, Archery + lots of attacks makes quite a good disarmer, but a bad weapon-denier because you're often not there to pick up the weapons***.

Disarming someone without disposing of the weapon isn't useless (it temporarily weakens the creature's opportunity attack, which can also make it easier for a different ally to snake in there and grab the weapon), but it adds enough inconvenience to be awkward.

I think the best disarmers-by-proxy are summoners.

*** yes, yes, except for all the times you are. :) Especially Crossbow Experts.