I already know that if a barbarian uses natural attacks in conjunction with iterative weapon attacks, the natural weapons become secondary attacks (resulting in a -5 to hit).
My question pertains to this scenario:
Barbarian pounces with natural attacks using Beast Totem (Greater)and does his first claw attack and then a successful disarm maneuver using his second claw attack. Since he is not using a weapon to perform this maneuver he can automatically pick up the weapon (free action implied?). Can the barbarian then continue by using that weapon against the target with his iterative attacks since he can do a full attack action on a charge? Are there any penalties to be applied?
The barbarian has already used his natural attacks and if he hadn't successfully disarmed he would not have been able to make the iterative attacks. This is why i am unsure how you would apply penalties, if at all.
Oh god, this is going to get ugly.
The text of disarm says you may pick up the weapon automatically, but picking up a weapon is a move action, and I am not sure the text changes that.
No for a couple reasons.
First you decide on your attack routine FIRST then you start making your attacks. If for instance you have unarmed combat and two weapon fighting, you dont get to full attack with a weapon, and then decide suddenly to two weapon fight with unarmed attacks after those first few attacks happened without the two weapon fighting penalty. You can make attacks in your choice of order, but the appropriate penalties have to apply to all attacks.
Second, you used that claw already. In order to make a natural attack, you cant use that same limb for a weapon attack and vice versa.
I guess that's the first part of the issue as well. I assume that the successful disarm when not weilding a weapon means that you manage to wrestle/swipe the weapon from the persons hand instead of just having it tossed to the ground.
What is the definition of "automatically"? ;)
I agree with your definition of automatically, you still cant attack with it after you started attacking without it in your routine and for the fact that you already attacked with that limb.
|
I agree with the above. Both hands have been used for claw attacks and thus are not eligable for manufactured weapon attacks this turn.
Also, once you start your full round action and get into the second action, you can no longer abort and change to different actions. The only abort/change on a full round action is if after making the first attack, you decide you wish to use a move action instead. That pounce in a full round charge action. There is no abort on that, you take you normal attack actions you have declared as part of that full round action.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also note that if you used your claws to perform the disarm, then you didn't "disarm without using a weapon" and therefore don't automatically grab the weapon. Remember that a natural weapon is still a weapon.
If you want to auto-grab the weapon, you need to truly make the attempt without a weapon, which means two key things:
1. You don't get any weapon-related bonuses on the maneuver (like magic fang or Weapon Focus:Claws or whatever), and
2. You take a -4 penalty on the disarm attempt as per the Disarm rules (the same place it says you get to auto-grab the weapon - amazing how many people notice the auto-grab but miss the cost that's printed an inch away).
If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped
I don't see how you could possibly interpret that as requiring your move action. It's automatic. You get the weapon in your hand instantly.
You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones...
...Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round.
I kind of think that's pretty conclusive evidence that you don't need to decide on your routine first.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword.
Ok, this is problematic. By the pure RAW here, you can't attack with the weapon you disarmed because you already used that limb for a claw attack.
However, there are two RAI arguments that can be made. One could claim the reason you can't make those attacks is because the claw would be otherwise occupied, and it quite obviously was not until you disarmed with it.
The other is that, because a Disarm is a maneuver, it is not an attack.
Plus, you could always disarm with your first attack and then use the sword in the other hand.
Also, what Jiggy said about the fact that your Claw isn't actually the "no weapon" disarm.
Oh, and there's one more problem that would have to be addressed that conclusively denies this as a possibility: the Beast Totem claws are Primary natural attacks, but all natural attacks become Secondary natural attacks when you use them in combination with a weapon's iterative attacks.
You can't retroactively take a -5 to hit and reduce the damage on those claw attacks, so you're out of luck.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I kind of think that's pretty conclusive evidence that you don't need to decide on your routine first.You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones...
...Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round.
I believe they were talking about needing to decide to mix attacks before you started, for the purposes of penalties. As you mention at the end of your post, you can't retroactively go back and take attack penalties. Thus, if you think you might use a routine that involves penalties (such as basic TWF), you have to take those penalties from the get-go, even if you decide afterwards not to use all your attacks. I think that's all they were trying to say.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword.Ok, this is problematic. By the pure RAW here, you can't attack with the weapon you disarmed because you already used that limb for a claw attack.
However, there are two RAI arguments that can be made. One could claim the reason you can't make those attacks is because the claw would be otherwise occupied, and it quite obviously was not until you disarmed with it.
Except that claw/longsword is just an example; a slam attack also often uses an arm, and could arguably be used while holding a weapon - but using a slam and a weapon with the same arm is still prohibited. Thus, you can't really claim that the restriction is based on your hand being occupied.
The other is that, because a Disarm is a maneuver, it is not an attack.
Except that the Combat chapter of the CRB specifically says that combat maneuver checks are attack rolls and are therefore affected by applicable bonuses/penalties.
@Jiggy
Interesting, i didn't realize that unarmed strikes and natural attacks would be considered actual weapons. I'm trying to find the actual wording for that because the only reference i saw was under the spell Magic Weapon. That seems to muddy the waters a bit because then i could cast lead blades on natural attacks.
I would like to point out that the first hit of a traditional full attack is a standard action (attack action) at the Full-BAB. In this scenario, the attack in question was from a natural weapon, which may not be a part of an iterative attack sequence. From this standpoint, I would say that you cannot continue an iterative sequence that you never started. You would need another standard action to do that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Jiggy
Interesting, i didn't realize that unarmed strikes and natural attacks would be considered actual weapons. I'm trying to find the actual wording for that because the only reference i saw was under the spell Magic Weapon. That seems to muddy the waters a bit because then i could cast lead blades on natural attacks.
Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.
@mplindustries
Ah, i see now the natural attack section restricting those limbs for being used with a weapon. I was looking under the monster rules at first for natural attacks, thus confusing some of it. Thanks for the clarification.
@Jiggy, So how do you make a non-weapon combat maneuver when everything is considered a weapon?
Sorry, you're losing me on this. If I make a CMB check, to do a disarm, I am using a weapon as per Sean's post. That unarmed strike is now a weapon (even if i don't have improved unarmed strike). I can't do a CMB with a touch attack, so i'm not sure how else it can work.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Sorry, you're losing me on this. If I make a CMB check, to do a disarm, I am using a weapon as per Sean's post.
The general rule (as stated in the blog) is that the Big Three maneuvers use weapons. The specific rule is that Disarm has the option of being done weaponlessly.
Since specific trumps general, a Disarm maneuver will use a weapon by default unless you elect to do it unarmed - in which case you forfeit weapon-specific bonuses, take a -4, and get to steal their crap if you succeed.
Example:
Mr. Monk is 4th level and has 16 STR, Improved Disarm, a +2 Amulet of Mighty Fists, and his buddy Bardy doing Inspire Courage +1.
If he wants to punch me in the face, he makes an attack roll using his unarmed strike: +3 BAB, +3 STR, +2 AoMF, +1 InspCrg, for a total of +9 to hit (obviously the +2 from Improved Disarm doesn't apply).
If he wants to knock my sword to the ground with his fist (he's just that manly), he can deliver the disarm attempt via his unarmed strike: +3 BAB, +3 STR, +2 AoMF, +2 ImpDsrm, +1 InspCrg, for a total of +11 on his Disarm check. If he succeeds, I drop my weapon at my feet.
However, he has a third option: per the Disarm rules, he can try it weaponlessly. In this case, he's NOT using unarmed strike, so his Disarm bonus is +3 BAB, +3 STR, +2 ImpDsrm, +1 InspCrg, -4 weaponlessness for a total of +5 on his Disarm check. Note that, since unarmed strike is a weapon for purposes of maneuvers and he's not using a weapon for this, he doesn't get his +2 AoMF (and of course there's that nasty -4 penalty). On the bright side, success means he disarmed me without using a weapon and therefore gets to nab my sword for himself.
Got all that? :)
Oh I got it all. By RAW it's accurate and it just makes me think it's dumb. Reason is, now there's a special case on top of a special case in order to make all of this work. A new form of attacking was made specifically for disarming without a "weapon".
Oh I got it all. By RAW it's accurate and it just makes me think it's dumb. Reason is, now there's a special case on top of a special case in order to make all of this work. A new form of attacking was made specifically for disarming without a "weapon".
It still doesnt work because of the above two reasons, you still used the limb to disarm even if its unarmed and you still cant retroactively change the attack routine you choose when you started.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A new form of attacking was made specifically for disarming without a "weapon".
No, because that same "weaponlessness" applies to most maneuvers already. You've never been able to apply your Amulet of Mighty Fists, your Weapon Focus(Rapier), your +5 longsword's enhancement bonus, etc to things like bull rush, reposition, grapple, drag, dirty trick, etc.
The only "special case" is that Disarm can be done either way, with different results. But the weaponless CMB check has always existed in Pathfinder.
I would like to point out that the first hit of a traditional full attack is a standard action (attack action) at the Full-BAB.
A full attack is a full-round action. While you can stop after the first attack and give up the remaining attacks to use a Move action, that doesn't make the first attack into the attack action. Otherwise you could use Vital Strike on the first attack of a full-attack.
I don't see how it's relevant anyway. Say he's got a sword in one hand, and the other is a claw. He uses a full attack, starts with the claw, uses it to disarm, catch the enemy weapon, he can still attack with his sword as part of his full attack. (The only question is if he can grasp the disarmed weapon with his claw-hand)
I find it hard to imagine that the intent behind 'unarmed disarm' was anything but using a hand that isn't holding a manufactured weapon. Meaning monks, folks with claws, and people with held touch spells can all grasp the disarmed weapon since their hand is essentially empty.
For RAW, though, it says the -4 is for attempting to disarm while unarmed. A monk or someone with IUS is never unarmed, so they never take the -4 penalty. To pick up the weapon, you must disarm "without using a weapon" which is not the same as doing so while unarmed. You can hold a dagger in one hand (thus, you are armed) and still not use a weapon to disarm. In which case you don't take the -4 penalty (since you're armed) but you do get to grab the weapon (since you didn't use a weapon to disarm with).
Oh I got it all. By RAW it's accurate and it just makes me think it's dumb. Reason is, now there's a special case on top of a special case in order to make all of this work. A new form of attacking was made specifically for disarming without a "weapon".It still doesnt work because of the above two reasons, you still used the limb to disarm even if its unarmed and you still cant retroactively change the attack routine you choose when you started.
I'm not saying that my original idea for natural attacks and weapon attacks works. I'm saying that I understand what Jiggy is saying about the weaponless attack.
Ahh I see what you mean now Jiggy. Thanks!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Say he's got a sword in one hand, and the other is a claw. He uses a full attack, starts with the claw, uses it to disarm, catch the enemy weapon, he can still attack with his sword as part of his full attack. (The only question is if he can grasp the disarmed weapon with his claw-hand)
As referenced earlier, if the weapon (in this case, the claw) is involved, then you didn't disarm without using a weapon, and don't get to grab the item for free. If you didn't forfeit weapon-specific bonuses and take the -4, then you don't get the benefit that those penalties pay for.
I find it hard to imagine that the intent behind 'unarmed disarm' was anything but using a hand that isn't holding a manufactured weapon. Meaning monks, folks with claws, and people with held touch spells can all grasp the disarmed weapon since their hand is essentially empty.
The blog post I linked earlier has a lengthy discussion thread, during which Sean made it clear that "weapons" always included unarmed strikes/natural weapons unless otherwise specified.
Auto-grabbing the disarmed item is not contingent upon having an available hand (otherwise my flail-and-buckler fighter would be completely ridiculous), it's contingent upon not employing a weapon in the Disarm itself.
So basically, you have two options for disarming:
1) Use your weapon (which gets you your extra bonuses, such as Weapon Focus) but the disarmed item falls to the ground, or
2) Don't use your weapon (costing you those bonuses and also giving you a -4 penalty) but success lets you grab the item.
Doesn't matter what's available (claws on that hand, ability to use an unarmed strike, weapon in your other hand, etc), it only matters whether or not you actually employed any of those options for the attempt.
For RAW, though, it says the -4 is for attempting to disarm while unarmed. A monk or someone with IUS is never unarmed, so they never take the -4 penalty. To pick up the weapon, you must disarm "without using a weapon" which is not the same as doing so while unarmed. You can hold a dagger in one hand (thus, you are armed) and still not use a weapon to disarm. In which case you don't take the -4 penalty (since you're armed) but you do get to grab the weapon (since you didn't use a weapon to disarm with).
Differentiating between the "while unarmed" condition of the -4 penalty and the "without using a weapon" condition of the auto-grab is (no offense) rather nitpicky and kind of ignores context/grammar (and grammar is an inherent part of the "W" in "RAW" - thus, if you misinterpret grammar, then you're not talking about "RAW" anymore).
Remember that (as SKR has pointed out on multiple occasions, including the aforementioned blog discussion thread) most Core rules are phrased with an assumption of normality - not accounting for special race/feat/class abilities, just telling you how things work at the most basic level.
I think it's pretty clear that the -4 for an "unarmed disarm" and the "without a weapon" auto-grab are not to be separated.
stuff
Indeed, it appears my understanding of the rules was woefully mis-informed. Also, the initial question was pertaining to two claws and not a claw and sword. Also also, I am of the mindset that the mechanics are set up to apply the -4 penalty if you want to get their weapon after the disarm, and use you "free" hand to do it.
|
So, Jiggy, if you do a disarm while using the unarmed strike "weapon", what happens if you fail by 10 or more?
If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands). If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands). If your attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm. If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
"Armed" unarmed strikes are still with out a weapon, they are just considered light weapons (which is different from making them light weapons). This means that, while they are not weapons, they act as weapons for many things (bonuses, etc). This makes the following two sentences important:
A) Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
B) If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
For A) a character with improved unarmed strike is "armed". That is what the feat does.
For B) a character with improved unarmed strike is still not using a weapon.
If they had meant for your reading, then they would have made the first sentence state something like this:
"Attempting to disarm a foe while without a weapon imposes a –4 penalty on the attack."
You are correct, reading the grammar is important for RAW. Also, the choice of words that they use is also important.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If they had meant for your reading, then they would have made the first sentence state something like this:
"Attempting to disarm a foe while without a weapon imposes a –4 penalty on the attack."
Perhaps you didn't read my post very carefully/didn't understand what I was saying here:
Remember that (as SKR has pointed out on multiple occasions, including the aforementioned blog discussion thread) most Core rules are phrased with an assumption of normality - not accounting for special race/feat/class abilities, just telling you how things work at the most basic level.
The Core rules are generally phrased with the generic in mind. I believe the phrases "while unarmed" and "without using a weapon" in the Disarm text are meant to be interchangeable, because under normal circumstances they typically would be. The fact that certain feats or situations could potentially make it different does not change that.
Now you have two choices:
• You can believe the simpler, cleaner reading that makes your Disarm options into an on/off switch that matches the armed/unarmed difference of the rest of the maneuvers and doesn't lead to anything weird, or...
• You can believe the reading which breaks with other maneuver conventions and also suddenly makes it easier to grab someone's blade if you happen to have a dagger in your other hand.
No for a couple reasons.
First you decide on your attack routine FIRST then you start making your attacks.
Not always the case. You can use your first attack as a standard action at your full base attack bonus and then decide weather to move or continue attacking.
But in this case I would go with your claws are on your fingers so you can definitely just grab at the sword and yank it out of their hands and arm yourself with it as a free action. THEN as GM I would allow iterative attacks at -5 a piece because the image of a barbarian charging pouncing slashing disarming and then spiraling with the stolen weapon is just too awesome to not let happen.
I know its not really supported in the rules but sometimes you have to let your players do awesome things for fun's sake. But then I'll admit it depends who they are fighting, if its supposed to be a major battle I wouldn't let the boss get destroyed just to have a little fun. Locked Gauntlets!
Differentiating between the "while unarmed" condition of the -4 penalty and the "without using a weapon" condition of the auto-grab is (no offense) rather nitpicky and kind of ignores context/grammar (and grammar is an inherent part of the "W" in "RAW" - thus, if you misinterpret grammar, then you're not talking about "RAW" anymore).
Pitpicky, perhaps. But still relevant.
Do you use a weapon when you bull rush? No. So, when you bull rush, you are unarmed? No.
Armed and unarmed are game mechanic terms. You can be armed and choose to not use a weapon.
Unarmed, as a condition, means you don't threaten any squares, you take a -4 penalty on disarm checks, and you provoke if you try to attack someone.
Not using a weapon just means not using a weapon.
"Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a -4 penalty on the attack."
If you are not unarmed, you do not take a -4 penalty.
"If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped."
Did you use a weapon? If so, you can't pick up the item.
If the intent was to inflict a penalty when not using a weapon to disarm, they should have written that, instead of writing something similar, but different.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Do you use a weapon when you bull rush? No. So, when you bull rush, you are unarmed? No.
Yet the bull rush was executed unarmed - sort of like how I can make an unarmed attack while armed. So you have to ask yourself: when it says "disarm a foe while unarmed", does it mean that you are unarmed in every way, or that the disarm attempt was performed in an unarmed fashion?
Here's a reason to think the latter:
What's that? You mean if I'm holding a longsword in one hand, a mace in the other, have a bite attack, and wear armor spikes, but then kick someone without the IUS feat, I'm considered unarmed?
So if I'm dripping with weapons but make an attack that doesn't use any of them, I'm considered unarmed. So why wouldn't the same logic apply to when I don't use a weapon in my disarm attempt?
Do you use a weapon when you bull rush? No. So, when you bull rush, you are unarmed? No.Yet the bull rush was executed unarmed
No, the bull rush was executed without using a weapon.
sort of like how I can make an unarmed attack while armed.
An “Armed” Unarmed Attack counts as an armed attack. Otherwise, it's back to the assumption of normality, an armed character wouldn't normally be making an unarmed unarmed attack, they would be attacking with whatever they are armed with. Otherwise a character with a Bite attack for instance could use full iterative untrained unarmed strikes without provoking.
when it says "disarm a foe while unarmed", does it mean that you are unarmed in every way, or that the disarm attempt was performed in an unarmed fashion?
It says "while unarmed" so it probably means when while unarmed. And if it really secretly means "performed in an unarmed fashion" then an improved unarmed strike would still apply. It would have to mean "unarmed but not 'armed' unarmed" fashion, which doesn't make any sense.
You mean if I'm holding a longsword in one hand, a mace in the other, have a bite attack, and wear armor spikes, but then kick someone without the IUS feat, I'm considered unarmed?
Considered so, yes, when attacking with an unarmed strike. Which means, for that attack, you provoke an AoO from the opponent. But you're still armed, so you still threaten. It's a bit of a loophole since you're armed, so you're not really attacking unarmed, but you're using an unarmed strike. If they renamed "unarmed strike" to "punch" there would be fewer issues. ("Punching while unarmed..." vs "Punching untrained...")
So if I'm dripping with weapons but make an attack that doesn't use any of them, I'm considered unarmed.
Only if you're making an unarmed attack, and only for the purposes of making that attack. If you're making a bull rush, you're not unarmed, even though you're not using a weapon.
If you're "unarmed" by not using a weapon in your bull rush, you don't threaten, so you can't attack someone who provokes part way through your bull rush, since you're unarmed.
So why wouldn't the same logic apply to when I don't use a weapon in my disarm attempt?
Using a magic +5 sword to slap the flask out of someone's hand is easier than doing so with your empty hand.
Using your empty hand to slap the flask out of someone's hand is easier when you have a weapon to threaten them with.
Trying to slap the flask out of someone's hand when you're completely unarmed and don't threaten them at all, is pretty darn hard.
Amazingly, it never mentions having a hand free. So you can hold a Tower Shield in one hand, a Battleaxe in the other, and make an 'unarmed' disarm attempt without using a weapon and somehow automatically pick up the item. 'Tis a silly place.
I think that the difference in wording, and that they're in 2 different paragraphs, as well as the logic of not penalizing someone who's doing the exact same thing in a more competent manner, all lead to my conclusion. Arguing otherwise, that the words don't really mean what they say, is arguing the intent, which I think is far more likely to mean "If you make the disarm with an empty appendage, that appendage can grab the item instead of it falling to the ground."
You're free to rule otherwise, and apply the -4 penalty if someone wants to grab the dropped item. I don't see either of us changing our minds without significant input, though.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Lest our mutual thoroughness drown us both in quote-chain bloat, I'll try to boil it down to the important parts. ;)
sort of like how I can make an unarmed attack while armed.An “Armed” Unarmed Attack counts as an armed attack. Otherwise, it's back to the assumption of normality, an armed character wouldn't normally be making an unarmed unarmed attack, they would be attacking with whatever they are armed with. Otherwise a character with a Bite attack for instance could use full iterative untrained unarmed strikes without provoking.
I think you misunderstood me here: I wasn't talking about "an 'Armed' Unarmed Attack". I meant being armed (i.e., carrying a dagger or somesuch) and performing an unarmed attack (i.e., kicking you in the shin without ImpUnrmdStrk).
Thus, making an unarmed attack while armed. The point of my statement, then, was that the armed/unarmed status of a character and the armed/unarmed status of an action do not necessarily match. This is a premise upon which I base later discussion. Let's call this "Point #1".
So if I'm dripping with weapons but make an attack that doesn't use any of them, I'm considered unarmed.Only if you're making an unarmed attack, and only for the purposes of making that attack.
Here's another key point: I agree that the text in the IUS feat doesn't mean you're completely unarmed (cease to threaten, etc) but rather that your status of being "unarmed" only applies in reference to the action of kicking me.
However, that's not what the text says. It says you're considered unarmed, but does not say "for the purposes of this attack" (like so many other abilities do).
What you and I have both chosen to believe, then, is that text can say "unarmed" and mean "unarmed for the purposes of this action". In the case of the disarm text, you referred to this as "really secretly mean[ing]" something other than what's written, while in the case of the IUS text, you seem to accept it without question.
My contention is merely that both texts (the disarm rules and the IUS feat) use the term "unarmed" in the same way ("for the purposes of this action") rather than one meaning "only in this way" and the other meaning "in every way".
Let's call this Point #2.
...as well as the logic of not penalizing someone who's doing the exact same thing in a more competent manner,
Here's Point #3: if I'm trying to disarm you, and having a dagger in my other hand makes it easier (removes the -4 for an unarmed disarm), then how can I argue that I didn't use the dagger (and can therefore grab the item)?
If I didn't use it, how did it add a 20% success rate to my check? Can you find any other examples of something giving you a numerical bonus/removing a numerical penalty without using it?
My contention here is that if I want to be considered "not using" my weapon when I disarm you, then I can't claim any benefit it might grant to my disarm check - including the removal of the -4 penalty. By accepting any such benefit, I have elected to use the weapon and can therefore not apply the free grab from not using a weapon.
You're free to rule otherwise, and apply the -4 penalty if someone wants to grab the dropped item. I don't see either of us changing our minds without significant input, though.
Aw, come on! You're one of the few people I can actually have an intelligent discussion with here! Don't run off on me now! :)
Also, here's Point #4: Why does the -4 penalty even exist? What circumstances was it meant to cover? Under nearly any circumstances, the disarmer either (A) has a weapon out/could draw one first (and therefore, under your interpretation, would not take the penalty), or (B) has IUS and therefore would never take the penalty under your interpretation. So the only time that -4 penalty applies is in a prison break/shipwrecked scenario where a bunch of people without IUS find themselves gearless?
My contention is that the -4 penalty is meant to be a "cost" that "pays for" the extra advantage of the free pick-up. If you don't elect to make the riskier move, you don't get to reap its benefits.
So anyway, Points #1, 2, 3 and 4 (that the unarmed/armed status of a character and that character's action don't have to match; that the disarm text and the IUS text's references to being unarmed should be read the same way rather than opposite ways; that gaining a numerical assistance to a check via an item should count as using said item; and that the "cost" of the -4 penalty must be paid to gain the extra boon) lead me to believe that disarm checks have two "modes":
(1) unarmed/not using a weapon (take a -4, get to grab), or (2) armed/using a weapon (skip the -4, skip the related boon).
This bi-modal interpretation leaves fewer odd quirks, allows more consistent readings of similar rules, and is the cleanest/most easily applied reading.
I look forward to your rebuttal. :)