Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check in order to...?

[Unoriginal]

Hi folks.

I was thinking about those situations related to a Monkey-inspired martial art school, and was wondering how many people would authorize those actions at their tables.


1) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to steal a weapon or ammunitions on another character (provided the weapons/ammunitions are not in the character's hands and are visible/accessible), during combat?

2) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to unbuckle another character's belt, causing it (and anything else relying on it to stay up) to fall to the ground, during combat?

[Wraith]

Yes, but for no other reason than to make it cinematic I would have it be an opposed check; Sleight of Hand vs. Athletics/Acrobats as they tried to move out of the way, for example, or Sleight of Hand vs Perception/Insight to realise that they were being inconvenienced. That way it stops the player from buffing themselves to always hit an arbitrary DC - it's a risky action, so it should always be able to create tension with the possibility of failure.

Alternatively, I would offer it as an action to perform while grappling - It conjours up images of famous movie scenes where the hero grabs hold of/bumps into the opponent and picks their pocket during what looks like a desperate lunge. :smallsmile:

[Warder]

I'm a big fan of allowing creative combat, but also making it risky. Like trying to draw a weapon from your enemy's scabbard - I'd allow an attempt, but also tell them beforehand that reaching in like that provokes an opportunity attack (or something similar). I've found that adding the risk generally doesn't dissuade people from trying (which is good), but it cuts down on doing creative things every turn (which I think is good, YMMV!) and it makes the manuevers feel more rewarding when they succeed (which is great!).

[cookieface]

What Wraith said, or have it be a contested check against any of several things (either chosen by the target, a la grapple, or just choose one of these that you think is most fitting):
- Opposed by Athletics, to show them kinda pushing the hands of the Monk away
- Opposed by Acrobatics, to show them dodging the reach of the Monk
- Opposed by Perception, to show them being aware of the Monk's attempted grab
- Opposed by AC, to show that something like armor or general DEX plays a role in stopping the Monk from making an aggressive action like this

I almost think I'd prefer AC, because otherwise you'll get into scenarios where this is the best move to make against most humanoid enemies. Very rarely do they have proficiency in Athletics or Acrobatics, so those are easy checks to win (also that couples with Grapple and Shove, so building a Grappling, Shoving, Stealing Monk would be simple to do and usually really effective). AC would generally scale with CR, at least, making this tactic slightly harder (but rarely impossible) to pull off at higher levels.

[Darth Credence]

Hmm. I have never thought about these before, so this is purely my first instinct, and what I would do if a player at my table asked to do one of these. And to be clear on my style, I like to let my players do anything they can think of, although I try to not let things get too far away from RAW because I know that based on my players, that would end up favoring one or two players and putting others at a disadvantage. Basically, I have a really creative person, a fairly creative person, and a couple of people that are still learning and stick more to well defined actions.

1. I would allow this, but the DC would vary greatly depending on the situation. My initial instinct is that the DC for trying to steal a weapon they can see, such as a dagger on their belt, would be 20 + the opponents dexterity modifier. It might vary based on the size of what they are trying to take, and how they have it attached. This would be their action for the round.

2. I would also allow this, but it is going to be more difficult than snatching something, and dependent on more things. If the person was from the same culture so they would be familiar with the belt style, how many things are attached to it that can get in the way, and so on. First instinct would be more like 25 + dexterity modifier for the DC. That could easily go up to 30 if, say, the player was trying to undo the belt of someone wearing a belt from a completely different culture that has an unfamiliar method of buckling.

ETA - seeing other answers, I wonder what the goal of this actually is. Is the intention to steal something and flee, take a weapon to use in this combat, deny a weapon to the person being attacked, or hope that the person's pants fall down and they trip? When people are saying that they want to ensure this isn't an optimal move to do against almost everyone, I feel like I'm missing something. Even if it was incredibly easy to do so, I don't see this as being useful except in some very specific situations. I would not allow someone to be disarmed of their weapon in hand, and I don't find that very often someone has a better weapon on their belt that they will draw later in combat. I would not allow the belt being undone to cause any major problems - if the person without the belt rolled a 1 shortly after, I would probably describe something funny happening related to it, but for the most part it would just mean their money pouch is now on the ground. I assume that people drop their burdens, like a backpack, at the start of a fight, because otherwise it would have an impact on the fight in weird ways.

[stoutstien]

Hi folks.

I was thinking about those situations related to a Monkey-inspired martial art school, and was wondering how many people would authorize those actions at their tables.


1) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to steal a weapon or ammunitions on another character (provided the weapons/ammunitions are not in the character's hands and are visible/accessible), during combat?

2) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to unbuckle another character's belt, causing it (and anything else relying on it to stay up) to fall to the ground, during combat?

Sure. Why wouldn't I? Might not be slight of hand depending on the circumstances in question but if it's possible they can attempt it is kinda the point of an open ended action resolution system.

Most likely it would be an ability contest of some sort.

[Amechra]

Hmm. I have never thought about these before, so this is purely my first instinct, and what I would do if a player at my table asked to do one of these. And to be clear on my style, I like to let my players do anything they can think of, although I try to not let things get too far away from RAW because I know that based on my players, that would end up favoring one or two players and putting others at a disadvantage. Basically, I have a really creative person, a fairly creative person, and a couple of people that are still learning and stick more to well defined actions.

1. I would allow this, but the DC would vary greatly depending on the situation. My initial instinct is that the DC for trying to steal a weapon they can see, such as a dagger on their belt, would be 20 + the opponents dexterity modifier. It might vary based on the size of what they are trying to take, and how they have it attached. This would be their action for the round.

2. I would also allow this, but it is going to be more difficult than snatching something, and dependent on more things. If the person was from the same culture so they would be familiar with the belt style, how many things are attached to it that can get in the way, and so on. First instinct would be more like 25 + dexterity modifier for the DC. That could easily go up to 30 if, say, the player was trying to undo the belt of someone wearing a belt from a completely different culture that has an unfamiliar method of buckling.

So you're basically saying that you don't want your players to do this kind of thing?

Because a DC 26 check to remove the belt on a CR 1/8 Guard would still be reasonably difficult for an 9th-level Rogue with Expertise in Sleight of Hand (+13 modifier) — and no, Reliable Talent doesn't help in this case. For anyone without Expertise, doing this is literally impossible until 5th level unless you lucked out and started with a Dex of 20. Even for the easier check (trying to steal a Guard's knife with a DC 21 check), you need Expertise to make it reasonable.

Looking at those kinds of odds, I'd go for just attacking any day of the week - at least I'd have a good chance of doing something.



Personally, I'd go with it being an opposed Sleight of Hand check against whatever seems appropriate at the time. The person you're working on gets Advantage if they aren't distracted by someone else when you do it (AKA, they need to be in melee with someone else or otherwise engaged).

[Darth Credence]

So you're basically saying that you don't want your players to do this kind of thing?

Because a DC 26 check to remove the belt on a CR 1/8 Guard would still be reasonably difficult for an 9th-level Rogue with Expertise in Sleight of Hand (+13 modifier) — and no, Reliable Talent doesn't help in this case. For anyone without Expertise, doing this is literally impossible until 5th level unless you lucked out and started with a Dex of 20. Even for the easier check (trying to steal a Guard's knife with a DC 21 check), you need Expertise to make it reasonable.

Looking at those kinds of odds, I'd go for just attacking any day of the week - at least I'd have a good chance of doing something.



Personally, I'd go with it being an opposed Sleight of Hand check against whatever seems appropriate at the time. The person you're working on gets Advantage if they aren't distracted by someone else when you do it (AKA, they need to be in melee with someone else or otherwise engaged).

I would absolutely not expect a low level player to be able to pull this off, no. I think a 9th level rogue being able to undo a belt being worn by someone actively opposing them in combat a little less than half the time seems about right. The DCs might be a bit high here, but that was initial instinct if I was asked this by players in the middle of a fight. You also point out that a low level guard is difficult to do this on, but it would be the same difficulty to do it to a 12 CR archdruid, slightly harder to do to a 12 CR archmage, and a bit harder than that to do it to a 12 CR warlord. Which makes sense to me, because I don't think it would be any more difficult to pull this off based on the CR of the creature you are trying to do it to. If you set it to AC, it would be harder to do it to the guard than the archmage, and that doesn't seem right.

I'm still not clear on exactly why someone is attempting this, and how it is going to be better than attacking in almost any case. Trying to grab the MacGuffin and run seems like the only truly worthwhile use. Maybe grabbing a weapon from your opponent to use after being disarmed yourself.

[Zhorn]

1) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to steal a weapon or ammunitions on another character (provided the weapons/ammunitions are not in the character's hands and are visible/accessible), during combat?

2) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to unbuckle another character's belt, causing it (and anything else relying on it to stay up) to fall to the ground, during combat?

If the PC was able to meet the standard conditions required to pick pockets, then be it in or out of combat I don't see any issue. Concealed/hidden attempt on Sleight of Hand vs Passive Perception.

If the target was aware of the PC (not concealed/hidden) but unaware of the attempt being made, then the PC is making the check with disadvantage.

If however their opponent in aware of the attempt it'd switch from Sleight of Hand to an opposed grapple as you are trying to wrest the item from them.

[Friv]

If the PC was able to meet the standard conditions required to pick pockets, then be it in or out of combat I don't see any issue. Concealed/hidden attempt on Sleight of Hand vs Passive Perception.

If the target was aware of the PC (not concealed/hidden) but unaware of the attempt being made, then the PC is making the check with disadvantage.

If however their opponent in aware of the attempt it'd switch from Sleight of Hand to an opposed grapple as you are trying to wrest the item from them.

This would be mostly my ruling as well. If they're not aware of you slipping up on them in combat, Sleight of Hand vs Passive Perception. If they are aware, disadvantage. If you've tried and failed and now they're trying to stop you, I'd let you keep using Sleight of Hand, but they can use the higher of their Perception or Grapple modifier.

[Tanarii]

I'm still not clear on exactly why someone is attempting this, and how it is going to be better than attacking in almost any case. Trying to grab the MacGuffin and run seems like the only truly worthwhile use. Maybe grabbing a weapon from your opponent to use after being disarmed yourself.
If a Thief can do it as a bonus action, it'd be fairly powerful. In that case, making it too easy means it'll be a go-to move.

Which is fine if that's how you want a Thief to play.

[Mastikator]

I'd say no to both, reason being that battle masters can do it with a maneuver (disarming strike). If you have to pick a specific class and subclass and maneuver and spend a superiority dice to accomplish something other classes shouldn't get to do it for free. It's no more fair than allowing a fighter to cast a spell the right subclass or having a feat.

On the other hand I am tempted by the rule of cool, but IMO it should be objectively worse than when a battle master does it, it should cost more and be more difficult. Something like "they get to use a reaction to make an attack of opportunity". If everyone can do what essentially is another class's class feature then why even have that class?

[stoutstien]

I'd say no to both, reason being that battle masters can do it with a maneuver (disarming strike). If you have to pick a specific class and subclass and maneuver and spend a superiority dice to accomplish something other classes shouldn't get to do it for free. It's no more fair than allowing a fighter to cast a spell the right subclass or having a feat.

On the other hand I am tempted by the rule of cool, but IMO it should be objectively worse than when a battle master does it, it should cost more and be more difficult. Something like "they get to use a reaction to make an attack of opportunity". If everyone can do what essentially is another class's class feature then why even have that class?

It is objectively worse. The BM is adding an disarm attempt to a weapon attack that has already connected with an additional benefit of preforming it regardless of range. while the ability check/challenge would require an entire action and has much more limited implementations.

[JoeJ]

I'd say no to both, reason being that battle masters can do it with a maneuver (disarming strike). If you have to pick a specific class and subclass and maneuver and spend a superiority dice to accomplish something other classes shouldn't get to do it for free. It's no more fair than allowing a fighter to cast a spell the right subclass or having a feat.

Disarming Strike allows the fighter to make the target drop something it is holding. The OP's question specifically excluded things currently being held.

[Darth Credence]

If a Thief can do it as a bonus action, it'd be fairly powerful. In that case, making it too easy means it'll be a go-to move.

Which is fine if that's how you want a Thief to play.

I would definitely make it an action. Somebody with action surge could do it and then still get another action, but for the most part that would be the person's turn.


I'd say no to both, reason being that battle masters can do it with a maneuver (disarming strike). If you have to pick a specific class and subclass and maneuver and spend a superiority dice to accomplish something other classes shouldn't get to do it for free. It's no more fair than allowing a fighter to cast a spell the right subclass or having a feat.

On the other hand I am tempted by the rule of cool, but IMO it should be objectively worse than when a battle master does it, it should cost more and be more difficult. Something like "they get to use a reaction to make an attack of opportunity". If everyone can do what essentially is another class's class feature then why even have that class?

This would specifically not be the same as disarming strike, though, as the OP said that it would only apply to things that are not in the person's hands. It is noticeably worse than the battle master maneuver because it can only remove someone's backup weapon, and what almost everyone is suggesting would be harder to do than getting the enemy to fail a strength saving throw.

I'm still not entirely clear with the use of the whole thing other than stealing a MacGuffin mid fight, but for that purpose I think it's fine. Those who consider it something that would be a go to move if it doesn't cost much, what do you think the benefit is to the person doing it?

[JoeJ]

Following the example of disarming a weapon (DMG p. 270), I would definitely allow the attempt as a contested ability check. If the player wants to do it slyly, it would be opposed by the target's choice of Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Insight). If they're doing it openly, it would be opposed by the target's choice of Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics). In either case, I would grant Advantage or Disadvantage for things that IMO would be especially easy/difficult. And obviously, you have to either see or otherwise know where on the body the item you're trying to steal is located.

In general, making a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check is an action; thieves can use Fast Hands to do it as a bonus action. I don't see any reason this application would be an exception.

[stoutstien]

If a Thief can do it as a bonus action, it'd be fairly powerful. In that case, making it too easy means it'll be a go-to move.

Which is fine if that's how you want a Thief to play.

I wouldn't be to worried about it for the thief. It's still limited to something that can be pulled off in a very short time frame. I'm picturing rope belts being undone or a simple ring belt . if a thief wanted to use both their action and the fast hand action to undue more intricate clasps that's an option as well.

[Unoriginal]

I'm still not entirely clear with the use of the whole thing other than stealing a MacGuffin mid fight

The uses are multiple.

For the weapon thing:

-Steal someone's primary weapon if you do it before they got the chance to unsheathe/draw it.

-Steal someone's weapon when they had to put it away to cast a spell or manipulate something else (if they're two-weapon fighting or use a shield).

-Steal a ranged combatant's ammunitions/vials of alchemist's fire/vials of acid/etc, limiting what they can do.

-Steal a ranged combatant's backup melee weapon as your melee allies approach.

-Combo with a disarming attempt by an ally to leave the enemy without weapon.


For the belt thing:

-Ridicule/anger your opponent, making them focus on you if they fall for the bait.

-Force an opponent to use their free item interaction to pick up their belt rather than doing something else, if there's something important on it.

-(if you grab the belt once it's on the floor) deprive an opponent from their money purse, other weapons, etc which they likely want back, making them more likely to go after you.

-(if you grab the belt once it's on the floor) deprive an opponent from their magic belt.

-(if you grab the belt once it's on the floor) deprive a caster of their component pouch.

-(if you grab the belt once it's on the floor) as you said yourself, get the enemy's macguffin/ring of key for the cells/secret letter/etc.

[Dienekes]

Hi folks.

I was thinking about those situations related to a Monkey-inspired martial art school, and was wondering how many people would authorize those actions at their tables.


1) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to steal a weapon or ammunitions on another character (provided the weapons/ammunitions are not in the character's hands and are visible/accessible), during combat?

2) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to unbuckle another character's belt, causing it (and anything else relying on it to stay up) to fall to the ground, during combat?

I literally made this a feature of the Thief subclass to allow my player to do this kind of thing.

If I was suddenly not GMing with my list of homebrew and house rules and a player brought it up, then I’d still probably let them and just try to think of how to make such an action fair. Opposed check seems the easiest solution.

[Keravath]

Hi folks.

I was thinking about those situations related to a Monkey-inspired martial art school, and was wondering how many people would authorize those actions at their tables.


1) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to steal a weapon or ammunitions on another character (provided the weapons/ammunitions are not in the character's hands and are visible/accessible), during combat?

2) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to unbuckle another character's belt, causing it (and anything else relying on it to stay up) to fall to the ground, during combat?

Generally, no.

In my opinion, there is cinematic and there is stupid. If I was running an over the top, unrealistic, slap dash, comical, farce of combat I might allow it. :)

RAW, in combat, creatures are paying attention in every direction, they are alert, they are armed and they are ready.

Removing a weapon from a belt, removing ammo from a storage container, undoing some character's belt - getting close enough - not noticed for long enough to complete such a task, in a middle of a fight? Even for D&D it would break my suspension of disbelief and many other folks I have either played or DMed with.

On the other hand, if a player had a plan, worked with another character to distract the target then they might be able get in close enough to take something from the target but only in a situation where the target was distracted - otherwise the target would try to stick the character making the attempt with something sharp.

Or perhaps if a character wanted to try to use their magical blade to cut the belt of the target specifically then I might allow the attempt with a modified AC for the specific target ... but there is no way that a target would wait around while another character gets in close enough for long enough to undo or untie a belt.

Consider what a person needs to do to release their own belt - try undoing and threading the belt back through the buckle - try untying a double bow or similar knot holding up someone's pants in 6 seconds during combat against a moving opponent - it would be easier to slide a very sharp dagger behind the belt and try to slice it off.

Finally, most armor in D&D may not even have a belt ... an unarmored commoner might have a belt ... characters might have a belt with pouches for utility but there is a good chance it isn't holding anything up - suspenders under the armor might be more likely.

--

Just my two cents but there are some things characters might try that to me are just so unrealistic they just don't make sense even for epic high fantasy.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Page 195 of the Player's Handbook is very clear on how you should handle this.

It's going to be an opposed ability check that replaces one of your attacks. Any check will do. Here are some examples.


Barbarian replaces one attack to Jerk the weapon out of the hands of an opponent. (Opposed Athletics) potentially as a rider on a to-hit roll with no damage.
The Monk ducks under the swing of an opponent, get's in close and picks their spell pouch away from their target. (Sleight of Hand versus Acrobatics or Perception)
The Rogue slips behind an opponent and targets their belt with their dagger causing trouser's to drop: Potentially several ways (Targeted AC of an Item or Sleight of Hand versus Acrobatics or Athletics)


Again Page 195 of the PHB gives you lots of lee way in handling situations. Pretty much every single Battle Master maneuver can be handled with opposed skill checks. They either replace attacks or actions depending on what effect you are going for.

[Damon_Tor]

Hi folks.

I was thinking about those situations related to a Monkey-inspired martial art school, and was wondering how many people would authorize those actions at their tables.


1) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to steal a weapon or ammunitions on another character (provided the weapons/ammunitions are not in the character's hands and are visible/accessible), during combat?

2) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to unbuckle another character's belt, causing it (and anything else relying on it to stay up) to fall to the ground, during combat?

Yes. Both would require an action, unless said character was a thief, who could do either as a bonus action. I would contest both with a dex save as long as the defender was aware of the grabber. If the grabber is hidden when the attempt is made I would contest it with a wisdom (perception) check instead.

"Pants around the ankles" would be a restraining effect, resolved by a simple object interaction.

[Unoriginal]

RAW, in combat, creatures are paying attention in every direction, they are alert, they are armed and they are ready.

Removing a weapon from a belt, removing ammo from a storage container, undoing some character's belt - getting close enough - not noticed for long enough to complete such a task, in a middle of a fight? Even for D&D it would break my suspension of disbelief and many other folks I have either played or DMed with.

On the other hand, if a player had a plan, worked with another character to distract the target then they might be able get in close enough to take something from the target but only in a situation where the target was distracted - otherwise the target would try to stick the character making the attempt with something sharp.

Not sure if it changes anything for you, but the idea was to have a check to see if the character was quick enough to do it without retaliation, not attempting to be stealthy.



Just my two cents but there are some things characters might try that to me are just so unrealistic they just don't make sense even for epic high fantasy.

So teleporting or summoning demons is realistic, but stealing from someone mid-fight isn't?

[stoutstien]

So teleporting or summoning demons is realistic, but stealing from someone mid-fight isn't?

Not to mention grabbing the opponent's side arm was and still is a core tactic in CC altercations. Unsure about the private sector but military cage kickers take a literal class on how to recognize tactics that target keys and equipment.

[Tanarii]

I would definitely make it an action. Somebody with action surge could do it and then still get another action, but for the most part that would be the person's turn.
Fast hands specifically applied to Sleight of Hand checks though.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I'd say no to both, reason being that battle masters can do it with a maneuver (disarming strike). If you have to pick a specific class and subclass and maneuver and spend a superiority dice to accomplish something other classes shouldn't get to do it for free. It's no more fair than allowing a fighter to cast a spell the right subclass or having a feat.

On the other hand I am tempted by the rule of cool, but IMO it should be objectively worse than when a battle master does it, it should cost more and be more difficult. Something like "they get to use a reaction to make an attack of opportunity". If everyone can do what essentially is another class's class feature then why even have that class?

So page 195 of the PHB specifically tells us how to handle this. (Top right corner). You replace an attack with an opposed ability check. If you succeed you accomplish your task. The DM can adjudicate whatever bonuses and penalties they want.

For example - Disarming a creature mid combat would require replacing an attack with an opposed athletics or acrobatic check, depending on description for how the disarming attempt went. No damage would be dealt and on a failure nothing happens and the attack is wasted.

Addressing the Battle Master question. The Battle Master get's to Disarm as a rider on-top of doing a regular attack with a bonus from superiority dice. They are way more efficient and have better odds of succeeding. Further they target saving throws which is less likely to have bonuses attached to them. The Battle Master is, should I say, superior.

[Darth Credence]

Thanks for the clarification on what the idea behind it is. It does affect my initial response, specifically in regards to ammunition. (Removing quotes so I can answer in line.)


-Steal someone's primary weapon if you do it before they got the chance to unsheathe/draw it.I think it is going to be fairly rare that someone is going to get to an enemy before they pull a weapon. If this is the goal, I expect standard out of combat slight of hand would happen, because you would get close to someone not expecting a fight and just attempt to lift the weapon. Maybe it's just my table, but rarely does a combat happen where the opposing sides are in range to be close enough to get next to someone and still have an action to use.

-Steal someone's weapon when they had to put it away to cast a spell or manipulate something else (if they're two-weapon fighting or use a shield).Does this happen a lot in your games? I don't think I have seen a situation yet in mine where someone puts their weapon away mid fight, except for ranged weapons switching to melee when needed. Not saying that it doesn't, it's just not something I would have thought of. The players are by far the most likely for this, though, and I'm confident I'll never have an NPC attempt this.

-Steal a ranged combatant's ammunitions/vials of alchemist's fire/vials of acid/etc, limiting what they can do.One arrow at a time is going to take quite a while to drain an archer's supply, and to be sure, it would be one arrow at a time. I would not allow a full quivers worth to go. In addition, most of the time I would say that things like vials of acid are not "visible" as initially required. They are probably inside a pouch. I guess some could have a bandolier of extremely dangerous fluids strapped to their chest, but then I think the thing the character would want to do is break them on the enemy, not steal them.

-Steal a ranged combatant's backup melee weapon as your melee allies approach.So the enemy keeps their ranged weapon out as you approach, but would be switching it when others approach? That sounds like the player trying to make the steal is assumed to be hidden as they approach. That seems likely, although not the angle I approached it from.

-Combo with a disarming attempt by an ally to leave the enemy without weapon.OK.


For the belt thing:

-Ridicule/anger your opponent, making them focus on you if they fall for the bait.Would have absolutely no mechanical effect on the game. That can be done with a battle master's tactic, so it can't be done for free otherwise.

-Force an opponent to use their free item interaction to pick up their belt rather than doing something else, if there's something important on it.If there's something important on it is a huge if.

-(if you grab the belt once it's on the floor) deprive an opponent from their money purse, other weapons, etc which they likely want back, making them more likely to go after you.Yeah, that will all be resolved at the end of combat. If you are taking it and running, we have collapsed this back to getting the MacGuffin.

-(if you grab the belt once it's on the floor) deprive an opponent from their magic belt.I would not allow this to remove a magical belt.

-(if you grab the belt once it's on the floor) deprive a caster of their component pouch.A caster is going to have their component pouch in hand to cast spells, generally.

-(if you grab the belt once it's on the floor) as you said yourself, get the enemy's macguffin/ring of key for the cells/secret letter/etc.

Again, thanks for the clarification.

[JoeJ]

Page 195 of the Player's Handbook is very clear on how you should handle this.

It's going to be an opposed ability check that replaces one of your attacks.

Good catch. Yes, it should replace one of your attacks. Unless you're a thief using Fast Hands, then you could also do it as a bonus action.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Hi folks.

I was thinking about those situations related to a Monkey-inspired martial art school, and was wondering how many people would authorize those actions at their tables.


1) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to steal a weapon or ammunitions on another character (provided the weapons/ammunitions are not in the character's hands and are visible/accessible), during combat?

2) Would you let a character do a DEX (Sleight of Hand) check to unbuckle another character's belt, causing it (and anything else relying on it to stay up) to fall to the ground, during combat?

I would let the former as an opposed check, I would not let the latter.

It's really straightforward, pulling arrows out of a quiver or a sword out of a scabbard is a significantly less complex action that it is to unbuckle a belt and unthread it from all their belt loops and such.
On top of that, most people pants don't comically fall down as soon as their belt comes undone, and the belt itself would be held up by beltloops and such, so they might have to re-buckle it after the fight but unless the game were expressly focused on slapstick cartoon comedy [where it would be expected and appropriate], their pants would largely stay up.

I general I want to encourage my players to adopt tactical doctrines more complex than moving into base contact and reducing the enemy HP to zero faster than the enemy can reduce theirs to zero, so attempts to suppress the enemy by stealing munitions or weapons or spell components or other such important things would definitely be permitted so long as accomplishing them is within reason.

[Unoriginal]

Just adding some precisions:



-Steal a ranged combatant's backup melee weapon as your melee allies approach.So the enemy keeps their ranged weapon out as you approach, but would be switching it when others approach? That sounds like the player trying to make the steal is assumed to be hidden as they approach. That seems likely, although not the angle I approached it from.

The idea is to do that as you approach, before the enemy has the time to switch.



-Ridicule/anger your opponent, making them focus on you if they fall for the bait.Would have absolutely no mechanical effect on the game.

NPCs don't require mechanical effects to react to something. Bandits don't need a Fear effect to be afraid of and reluctant to approach the Goliath who broke their leader's head bare-handed, and neither does a hungry tiger need a game effect to be more interested in eating a dead animal the party has thrown away to distract it than in attacking a Warforged.



A caster is going to have their component pouch in hand to cast spells, generally.

The point of a component pouch is that it leaves your hands free and let you get the specific components you need when you need them, though.


So page 195 of the PHB specifically tells us how to handle this. (Top right corner).

Thanks for pointing that out. It's a good point.

I was curious how people handled that kinds of things, as what the books say isn't always how it's handled at people's tables.

[Keravath]

Not sure if it changes anything for you, but the idea was to have a check to see if the character was quick enough to do it without retaliation, not attempting to be stealthy.



So teleporting or summoning demons is realistic, but stealing from someone mid-fight isn't?

Lol. Yes. It is D&D. I would think most people would understand the difference between magic and manual dexterity.

If a character wanted to use a mage hand (especially an invisible one) to try the same trick - I would likely give it a chance to work but walking up to someone and trying to undo a belt or take something off their person in the middle of combat? Nope - not without a distraction.

Keep in mind that characters are often faced with enemies with similar capabilities. I wouldn't let an opponent steal something from the player without a special ability or a plan so why should the players be able to steal from an NPC without the same thing.

[Unoriginal]

Lol. Yes. It is D&D. I would think most people would understand the difference between magic and manual dexterity.

If a character wanted to use a mage hand (especially an invisible one) to try the same trick - I would likely give it a chance to work but walking up to someone and trying to undo a belt or take something off their person in the middle of combat? Nope - not without a distraction.

Keep in mind that characters are often faced with enemies with similar capabilities. I wouldn't let an opponent steal something from the player without a special ability or a plan so why should the players be able to steal from an NPC without the same thing.

So the lvl 20 Rogue, best pickpocket in the fantastical world of D&D, who is more agile than a spider-monkey and has skills beyond any real-life stage magician the way a mountain is beyond a pebble, can't do it.

But any lvl 1 Wizard one week out of wizard school can do it with a cantrip.

The Guy at the Gym fallacy sure is alive and well.

Yes. It is D&D. Which means that people can do incredible, impossible-in-real-life things without magic. Not that taking something off your opponent while fighting them is impossible in real life.

[Tanarii]

If a character wanted to use a mage hand (especially an invisible one) to try the same trick - I would likely give it a chance to work but walking up to someone and trying to undo a belt or take something off their person in the middle of combat? Nope - not without a distraction.
Mage Hand can't affect objects under control of another creature unless you're an Arcane Trickster.

[Keravath]

So the lvl 20 Rogue, best pickpocket in the fantastical world of D&D, who is more agile than a spider-monkey and has skills beyond any real-life stage magician the way a mountain is beyond a pebble, can't do it.

But any lvl 1 Wizard one week out of wizard school can do it with a cantrip.

The Guy at the Gym fallacy sure is alive and well.

Yes. It is D&D. Which means that people can do incredible, impossible-in-real-life things without magic. Not that taking something off your opponent while fighting them is impossible in real life.

Clearly we have a difference of opinion :) ... which is perfectly ok.

Also, keep in mind that a level 20 rogue facing a level 20 opponent is (in my opinion) unlikely to succeed at the task because the opponent is also as skilled and experienced as the rogue.

However, as I said originally, although I would generally not allow it, it would depend on circumstances. A level 20 rogue might well be able to succeed against a level 5 equivalent NPC where their chances, without help, against a level appropriate opponent might be small or non-existent.

In addition, a creature who perceives an opponent getting close enough to take something from them and then attempting to do so could also possibly block or deflect the attempt ... most likely by sticking the creature making the attempt with something sharp.

On the other hand, with a cantrip like mage hand, the choices are to dodge out of the way since blocking or deflecting the mage hand may not be an option AND the mage hand doesn't need to worry about being hit or damaged. So, yes, there are circumstances where a cantrip might stand a better chance at succeeding at a task than a 20th level rogue - that is just the nature of magic and the nature of the game.

[Keravath]

Mage Hand can't affect objects under control of another creature unless you're an Arcane Trickster.

Is there a general rule on that? The Mage Hand spell itself doesn't say anything about it.

"You can use your action to control the hand. You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the contents out of a vial. You can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it. The hand can't attack, activate magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds."

All the spell says is that you can use it to manipulate an object and doesn't say anything about this not being an object held, worn or carried by another creature. You could even stow or retrieve items in a backpack or other container carried by someone else as long as it is open.

At least that is how I read the spell as worded.

[Tanarii]

Is there a general rule on that? The Mage Hand spell itself doesn't say anything about it. Nope, it's like 3e feats. When compared to the context of an AT's MHL, it becomes clear that MH isn't intended to apply to containers/objects on another creature.

Not the best way to write the rule, I agree. It should have been a specific exclusion, as opposed to an implicit one by omission in MH, and comparison to the inclusion in MHL. But it's clear when you put the two side by side.

[Keravath]

Nope, it's like 3e feats. When compared to the context of an AT's MHL, it becomes clear that MH isn't intended to apply to containers/objects on another creature.

Not the best way to write the rule, I agree. It should have been a specific exclusion, as opposed to an implicit one by omission in MH, and comparison to the inclusion in MHL. But it's clear when you put the two side by side.

The relevant additions with Mage Hand Legerdemain are the following:

"You can stow one object the hand is holding in a container worn or carried by another creature.
You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature."

This allows you to stow or retrieve items from containers worn or carried by others and these rules specifically do not state that the containers need to be open.

These rules do NOT mention objects that are themselves worn or carried by a creature. They only discuss accessing objects in containers. The general mage hand spell only mentioned objects and does not mention held, worn or otherwise equipped by a creature.

The way I read it ... mage hand can access any object including stowing or retrieving from open containers. MHL allows the rogue to stow and retrieve from containers worn or carried by others (open or not).

But I agree it is not well written. However, the MHL rules do not say anything about what the base Mage Hand spell can do, it only addresses the additional capabilities of MHL.

In any case, the MHL feature only addresses containers worn or carried by others, not objects worn or carried by others, which should be covered by the any object wording of the base mage hand spell.

[JNAProductions]

Clearly we have a difference of opinion :) ... which is perfectly ok.

Also, keep in mind that a level 20 rogue facing a level 20 opponent is (in my opinion) unlikely to succeed at the task because the opponent is also as skilled and experienced as the rogue.

However, as I said originally, although I would generally not allow it, it would depend on circumstances. A level 20 rogue might well be able to succeed against a level 5 equivalent NPC where their chances, without help, against a level appropriate opponent might be small or non-existent.

In addition, a creature who perceives an opponent getting close enough to take something from them and then attempting to do so could also possibly block or deflect the attempt ... most likely by sticking the creature making the attempt with something sharp.

On the other hand, with a cantrip like mage hand, the choices are to dodge out of the way since blocking or deflecting the mage hand may not be an option AND the mage hand doesn't need to worry about being hit or damaged. So, yes, there are circumstances where a cantrip might stand a better chance at succeeding at a task than a 20th level rogue - that is just the nature of magic and the nature of the game.

You know Mage Hand isn't invisible, right? And it has both Verbal and Somatic components?

And that a 20th level Rogue, with Expertise in the relevant skill and 20 in the relevant stat, has +17 (min 27) on their checks? And that Sleight of Hand can be boosted by +5 with Gloves of Thievery?

Now, I do think it's reasonable to say, in a normal (as-in, not a slapstick comedy) campaign that you can't just unbuckle someone's pants mid-fight. But I'd restrict it by making the action economy bad on it-say, three actions worth of Sleight of Hand checks to undo the belt properly. Even with a Bonus Action from Fast Hands, that's two turns minimum to do it, and therefore not a good idea in a fight. But outside a fight, when you're not as pressed for time, if your skills are good, you can certainly do it.

[Zhorn]

You know Mage Hand isn't invisible, right?
Not invested enough to take sides on the rest, but for an Arcane Trickter, Mage Hand can be invisible with Mage Hand Legerdemain.

[JNAProductions]

Not invested enough to take sides on the rest, but for an Arcane Trickter, Mage Hand can be invisible with Mage Hand Legerdemain.

Also for Gith.

But I believe that the person I'm responding to was talking Wizards.

[Zhorn]

quote response to a quote response to a quote, things get lost along the way.
I was just looking at the sole nested quote in your post, which that person was talking rogues at that moment, but i get your point.

[JackPhoenix]

One arrow at a time is going to take quite a while to drain an archer's supply, and to be sure, it would be one arrow at a time. I would not allow a full quivers worth to go.

So, you think it's easier to pick out one arrow out of a bunch than to grab the whole thing?

[Keravath]

You know Mage Hand isn't invisible, right? And it has both Verbal and Somatic components?

And that a 20th level Rogue, with Expertise in the relevant skill and 20 in the relevant stat, has +17 (min 27) on their checks? And that Sleight of Hand can be boosted by +5 with Gloves of Thievery?

Now, I do think it's reasonable to say, in a normal (as-in, not a slapstick comedy) campaign that you can't just unbuckle someone's pants mid-fight. But I'd restrict it by making the action economy bad on it-say, three actions worth of Sleight of Hand checks to undo the belt properly. Even with a Bonus Action from Fast Hands, that's two turns minimum to do it, and therefore not a good idea in a fight. But outside a fight, when you're not as pressed for time, if your skills are good, you can certainly do it.

Outside a fight is a completely different situation and a rogue or other character with a very high skill is quite likely to succeed in such a task.

However, it is up to the DM to set the DC and no matter how high a skill, it doesn't make the impossible possible.

A rogue could have +30 to stealth but they can't hide if they are seen.

A rogue could have +30 to sleight of hand but that doesn't mean an alert opponent that sees them coming is going to give them the time they need to manipulate the belt to undo it in the middle of combat.

On the other hand, that level of skill might enable the character to take an easily accessible item from the target (like pulling a secondary weapon) but it would depend on the circumstances. However, as I've said a bunch of times, this is entirely a DM call and it is how I would run it.

Mage hand might have a chance to succeed but the speed of the mage hand is limited and if the target sees it coming they will likely be able to avoid it. However, you can't block, stab, deflect or damage the mage hand .. so the caster isn't really at risk when using it in combat and the target has much more limited responses to prevent it so a mage hand may succeed where a sleight of hand attempt in combat might fail.