Mechanically there is no difference
You have quoted the entirety of the rules on this issue. Anything else is determined by the GM.
Disarm isn't "take item from person", it is "make person drop item". Once that step is complete, you may now pick up the item if you did this all without a weapon.
So, as written, the item hits the ground or falls into the lava or is lost in the hurricane-strength winds or disappears into the maw of the giant pit worm. But if it is still there after it is dropped, you can pick it up.
Alternatively: You snatch it from the air as it is dropped. The rules don't say anything about the item having to actually hit the ground between being dropped and being picked up automatically.
the fact that the enemy DROPPED his weapon does not mean that said weapon has HIT THE GOURND. you are jumping to what normaly happens when something is dropped = it hits the ground.
but the dropping part is mainly letting go(forcfuly in this case) of the item. so when the text read:"you may automatically pick up the item dropped." it is also fair stating that you grab it before it hits the ground. as you can pick up stuff from the ground ,but also from something else. (rogues are known for picking up items from others.they were never seen on the ground).
Pizza, I'll expand on your example.
If I ready an action to take an item when my ally drops it, does the item hit the ground before my readied action to pick it up goes of?
Its not defined in the rules specifically, but readied actions go off the moment their trigger is met, which would be on release of the item. The item is then picked up, before it ever hit the ground.
I would go the same way with the disarm, the item was "dropped" but was also picked up before it ever left the square.
Disarm says you may automatically pick up the item dropped. Not, "may automatically pick up the item dropped unless you were flying, in which case it falls faster than you can grab it."
Because they didn't limit the automatic pickup, you can do it, regardless of terrain or conditions around.
You seem fixated that because the language used is "pick up" that means the item hit the ground.
"Pick up an item" is a listed action and that is why the language is used. If a mage was using mage hand to float a key in front of your face, you would still use the "pick up an item" action to take possession of the key. Even though it is not on the ground.
Disarm says that if you are successful, you can automatically pick up the item. That is to say, you automatically get to gain possession of the item, by virtue of literally taking it from their hands. You cannot steal it, because steal is specifically for items not held. Disarm is the way to remove items which are held. If you are not holding anything, you can then take the item.
Pick an object up (off the ground): AoO
Pick an object up that is floating in the air (because it just always floats): AoO
Pick an object up that is floating in the air (because an ally is manipulating it magically with the express purpose of it being taken by you): AoO
Pick up an object from the hand of an ally (otherwise just two people passing an object between them): AoO
Pick up an object falling past them: AoO
Pick up an object flying/falling past them because it was thrown for the purpose of them catching it: AoO
Yes
YesYes
Yes
Yes
Yes
All of those provoke, those are all "pick up an item".
"Manipulate an Item
Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.
This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Actions in Combat."
You say they are all variations of Manipulate an Item. I agree. They are all "pick up an item" which provokes an AoO. The action says to see the table for abilities. All "manipulate an item" actions except for "open or close a door" provoke.
I agree that the disarm ability could have "without provoking" added onto the automatic pickup. As written it can be interpreted that you could disarm and make them drop it, and then would provoke for automatically picking it up. I think the "automatic" part is saying "as part of the same action and without provoking" but as I said, that is my interpretation because it makes sense in the context of disarming someone with your hands free.
@Tarantula: I am not fixated on an item landing on the ground. I am fixated on the fact that an action which was previously an incorporated action is now written as two separate actions.
Previously it was 'Disarm weapon bare-handed takes the weapon.' Now it's, 'Disarm weapon bare-handed makes target drop weapon. You pick it up (or grab it, or catch it.)' The picking it up part doesn't change the drop part.' Is that intended? I don't know, only that's how it's written and that how it's written was specifically changed to that way from a different way that didn't allow this interpretation
Did you consider that the way it was written previously forces a bare handed character to hold any weapon he disarms, and make a free action to then drop it?
It has been re-written as a choice to pick up instead of a choice to drop. It still functions the same.
I always thought the rules was basically implying when u disarmed an opponent barehanded, u had first dibs on picking up the weapon before the opponent did. Didnt think it costed a move action either because of the automatically but did think that picking it up did cause an attack of oppertunity still.
basically disarm an opponent, ur turn ends if ur outta actions and the opponent picks up the weapon when their turn begins while if u disarm barehanded, u pick up the weapon before the opponent has a chance to.
was i reading that wrong?
I would still enforce the AoO from picking up, as you are indeed "picking up an item" however it is happening.
The precedent being casting a spell and making a ranged attack. Both actions provoke attacks normally, despite the attack bring part of casting the spell.
|
That is an incredibly rude way to treat someone. First off, I am not making up any rules. I am having a discussion about a rule and how it is written and how it can be interpreted. If you don't want to hear it, don't read it. I am very appreciative to Tarantula and others who take the time to share their thoughts. Also, who are you to grief on anyone? You feel the need to warn people away from playing with a DM because they spend their time researching rules and discussing the merits of how they're written and implemented so as to proactively bring a potential problem to light? Even if it turns out ultimately to not be a problem for you specifically? Have you heard me trying to recruit anyone or even state that this is the way I think the rule as written is intended? No. I view the forums as a place to discuss and share thoughts on the rules. You apparently view such discussions as being pointless if you can't get everyone to agree with your point of view rather than appreciate the merits of such exercise.
So kindly take yourself to someone else's post where they feel they have something to share and you can contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion other than seeing your name in the thread and having a post you apparently want nothing to do with now specifically dotted in your forum listing.
I had nothing more to add other than my agreement that everyone agrees how it works other than you. Four people had already given you the same answer and you responded to each with a giant wall of text. If you're willing to be swayed then congratulations. To me it looks like you're stubbornly stuck on what you interpret as seen by the simple responses stating how it works and you responding with a lot of text. There's nothing more to contribute as you've already been told how it works. And it's not "my" point of view, it's everyone's but yours point of view. If I seem to be overly harsh forgive me, if you knew me you'd know that I have absolutely no vested interest in this one way or the other and couldn't care less how you play your games. I'll tell you how it is then promptly move on. You're more than welcome to try and sway me, but so far (as just stated) it, to me, appears you're stuck on your interpretation even though it's widely (widely as in by everyone else I've ever heard talk about it) accepted that it works in the way described by everyone telling you how it works and not how you say it works.
For what it's worth, I see it as the object immediately goes into your hand. There's not enough language there to say that doing so provokes an AoO. And because Pathfinder isn't a legalistic system and the developers have decided (for some asinine reason) that they don't want comprehensive rules where like-things are defined likely, all we have to go on is what they intended. And because it's pretty obvious they intended that if you "disarm someone while you have a free hand that you can take their weapon" that's what we should be going with. If you want to be legalistic about it, it doesn't say any amount of time passes or that you "pick the item up off the ground"--therefor it simply ends up in your hand.
See? My point of view has already been stated so I merely posted my agreement.
I would still enforce the AoO from picking up, as you are indeed "picking up an item" however it is happening.
The precedent being casting a spell and making a ranged attack. Both actions provoke attacks normally, despite the attack bring part of casting the spell.
I see that as overly penalizing of a bare-handed disarm. Why even bother then?
I see that as overly penalizing of a bare-handed disarm. Why even bother then?I would still enforce the AoO from picking up, as you are indeed "picking up an item" however it is happening.
The precedent being casting a spell and making a ranged attack. Both actions provoke attacks normally, despite the attack bring part of casting the spell.
No more so than any other action that would provoke attacks. You are choosing to do something, you know the risks for doing it. Weigh the consequences vs reward, then decide on the course of action.
As has been mentioned up thread, if you just disarmed someone they probably have no weapon in hand. Unless they took improved unarmed strike they don't threaten and so are unable to make an AoO. Is grabbing the weapon and gaining possession of it worth the possibility of taking an attack? You still gain possession of the weapon regardless, the AoO doesn't keep you from getting it (unless the attack disables or prevents your further action).
If you are doing an unarmed disarm you have probably specialized in such attacks and have gear, feats, and appropriate bonuses to be successful. Taking an action to pick it up and deny the opponent of their probable main attack form? Is it worth taking the attack (which might no even be possible after the disarm)?
No matter who was picking up the weapon, the rules state you'd provoke. If you made an unarmed disarm you are allowed the extra free action of picking the weapon up as part of the combat maneuver. How is that an "over penalization" for disarming while bare handed? Seems to me like it is a bonus... Something above and beyond the norm, that you wouldn't be able to do normally. Not a penalty in any way.
|
Skylancer's post proves that PizzaLord isn't fighting some universal consensus on how this should work, and thus, deserves an FAQ.
Points that need clarifying, or at least are worth considering, are:
Does the disarmed item have to fall any distance? Or does the exchange of ownership happen in midair?
If the exchange is so fast as to count as a free or non-action part of the disarm, should it be too fast to incur AoO from the owner? Improved Disarm removes the danger of AoO from disarm attempts, but is silent on AoO from resulting item pickups. If you believe that it should also prevent these AoO, wouldn't it be better to explicitly say so?
Even if Improved Disarm prevents AoO from the owner, what about AoO from the owner's friends, surrounding the disarmer? Just because he was too surprised (ie lost the CMD contest), doesn't necessarily mean others are.
If the exchange of ownership is subsumed as part of the disarm attack, does sufficient time pass, to allow a third party (on either side) to use a readied action to grab the suddenly ownerless item?
If more than one person has a readied action to catch the ownerless object, what happens? (I think there should be a possibility of everyone lunging forward and clonking their heads together, Three Stooges-style.)
No more so than any other action that would provoke attacks. You are choosing to do something, you know the risks for doing it. Weigh the consequences vs reward, then decide on the course of action.
As has been mentioned up thread, if you just disarmed someone they probably have no weapon in hand. Unless they took improved unarmed strike they don't threaten and so are unable to make an AoO. Is grabbing the weapon and gaining possession of it worth the possibility of taking an attack? You still gain possession of the weapon regardless, the AoO doesn't keep you from getting it (unless the attack disables or prevents your further action).
If you are doing an unarmed disarm you have probably specialized in such attacks and have gear, feats, and appropriate bonuses to be successful. Taking an action to pick it up and deny the opponent of their probable main attack form? Is it worth taking the attack (which might no even be possible after the disarm)?
No matter who was picking up the weapon, the rules state you'd provoke. If you made an unarmed disarm you are allowed the extra free action of picking the weapon up as part of the combat maneuver. How is that an "over penalization" for disarming while bare handed? Seems to me like it is a bonus... Something above and beyond the norm, that you wouldn't be able to do normally. Not a penalty in any way.
Disarming already provokes. Disarming empty handed takes a penalty. If you already succeed at both of those, you now want to still tag on an additional AoO provocation due to successfully disarming? You are picking up the item as part of the disarm action, not as its own separate action.
Yes, there are ways to mitigate those penalties, but my point is that Disarming the action provokes (without a feat), and disarming unarmed provides a penalty (without a feat IUS). So at the point of 2 (really 3 feats in due to prereqs) they still are wanting to tag on an AoO which does not have a way to avoid it. Its overly penalizing for no reason, and doesn't match with previous versions of disarm.
If you have improved unarmed strike you are not considered unarmed. It says "attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a -4 penalty." If it was worded empty handed then a monk would take the -4, but by my reading at least if you have the feat "Improved Unarmed Combat" you are considered armed and do not that that -4.Interesting. While not strictly the focus of the original post, I had actually never considered the rules wording regarding unarmed. I guess I was still in 3.5 mode where an unarmed strike would be synonymous with light weapon, which would be a -4 whether considered considered armed or unarmed. Obviously Disarm works differently now and I hadn't considered that the wording 'unarmed' in the ruling could be circumvented with an 'armed' unarmed attack. Like you said, if it pointed out empty-handed or barehanded attempts, that would be different. Not sure if everyone else was aware of such a possibility, but I'll admit you pointed something interesting out to me.
Theoretically it would also work if you had some kind of natural attack instead. Such as a toothy half-orc.
My point is an empty handed disarm from a toothy half-orc qualifies as armed to avoid the -4 unarmed penalty, and qualifies as not using a weapon so you can automatically pick up the item.
If the rules said you gained possession or pretty much anything besides "pick up" the weapon I'd see argument against the AoO. Picking up an item provokes if you are threatened.
Just because the act is part of another action doesn't remove the AoO for such an action unless specified. There is no exemption listed, it is an option. You don't have to do it, you can do it.
I agree clarification could be useful for what would happen if you were flying and this occurred. I don't see an argument on the AoO for picking up an item when threatened.
The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space.
The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space.
Just to emphasize. That means, "not always". So there are times that picking up/manipulating does not provoke. Taking an item from someone as part of a disarm should be one of those.
If you do that though, than the weapon falls to the ground, and retrieving it DOES become a separate action. If your opponent tries to do it before you do.. he will provoke.Theoretically it would also work if you had some kind of natural attack instead. Such as a toothy half-orc.Even I don't have the fortitude to try and bring that kind of discussion up. I'd accept a disarm being 'barehanded' for purposes of 'picking up the dropped weapon automatically' in regards to cestii or gauntlets or improved unarmed strike... maybe a tentacle attack... maybe. I'd draw the line at even letting a claw or slam attack count and definitely not a mouth.
Okay, maybe a prehensile tail strike too.
Edit: Rereading your reply, maybe you weren't implying a 'barehanded' disarm with toothy half-orc. In which case, yes, you could tusk a weapon from someone's hand.
Why? You are performing a disarm.
If you do not have Improved Disarm then you provoke. We'll assume the half-orc has it.If you are unarmed you take a -4. The half-orc has a bite attack, so he is not unarmed. This does not mean he performed the disarm with his bite attack. It only says "if you are unarmed" not "if you do not use a weapon."
If you succeed without using a weapon, you can pick up the item dropped. No weapon was used, so half-orc can pick up the item automatically.
Just tossing in that I'm in agreement with Tarantula here. Retrieving the weapon is part of the disarm and causing an additional AoO is just a GM being jerky.
The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space.Just to emphasize. That means, "not always". So there are times that picking up/manipulating does not provoke. Taking an item from someone as part of a disarm should be one of those.
Agreed that it doesn't mean always.
PFRPG is a rules exception based game. General rules countered or exceptions made via other rules. Exceptions are stated as such. The rules say you can make this "bonus" action in certain circumstances. They don't say you are exempt from the normal rules. Just like making a ranged attack while threaten as part of the casting of a spell doesn't make you exempt from the AoO for that action. The action of casting the spell provokes "normally" barring exceptions, the free action made as part of that casting to make the ranged attack provokes "normally" barring exceptions. Or are you saying that the disarm and free action is some how different even though there are no rules stating it is?
We have a precedent showing free actions provided by another action still provoke. This is the same situation; action, circumstance, bonus action. RAW, as no exception is made, you would provoke if threatened when "picking up" the weapon.
If you don't like it, house ruling otherwise is always an option obviously.
Just tossing in that I'm in agreement with Tarantula here. Retrieving the weapon is part of the disarm and causing an additional AoO is just a GM being jerky.
Does provoking 2 AoO for casting a spell and making a ranged attack make me a jerky DM as well?
Cause well that is how the game works... So apparently everyone who runs PFS is a jerk, as well as anyone who rules the game as "intended"?
Just tossing in that I'm in agreement with Tarantula here. Retrieving the weapon is part of the disarm and causing an additional AoO is just a GM being jerky.Does provoking 2 AoO for casting a spell and making a ranged attack make me a jerky DM as well?
Cause well that is how the game works... So apparently everyone who runs PFS is a jerk, as well as anyone who rules the game as "intended"?
If you are casting a ranged spell, then yes it is jerkish. It's all one standard action. You wiggle your fingers, talk your magic words and pop off your magic missile or fireball or lightning bolt. You don't provoke when you cast and again when your effect takes place
Getting attacked twice for what amounts to one action is bad. In the case of disarm, the defender gets an AoO when the disarm attempt is made unless the attacker has the Improved Disarm feat. When they retrieve the weapon as part of the disarm attempt, hitting them with another AoO is jerkish because retrieving the weapon is part of the disarm attempt.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but you do indeed provoke twice for casting a ranged touch spell while threatened; once for the casting, followed by another for the ranged attack with the spell.
See FAQ
Just tossing in that I'm in agreement with Tarantula here. Retrieving the weapon is part of the disarm and causing an additional AoO is just a GM being jerky.Does provoking 2 AoO for casting a spell and making a ranged attack make me a jerky DM as well?
Cause well that is how the game works... So apparently everyone who runs PFS is a jerk, as well as anyone who rules the game as "intended"?
No, it doesn't, that is the rule.
Disarm previous did not use the magic words "pick up" and so no AoO was caused. They edited the ability to show that you are not forced to take the weapon, and instead have the option, and used those key words "pick up" in the new wording. Now you believe that was an intentional change to disarm to make picking up the weapon provoke an AoO. I think it was oversight that those words were the name of an action which provoked, and they would have used other words or exempted the pickup from provoking had they realized it.
Sorry, but you do indeed provoke twice for casting a ranged touch spell while threatened; once for the casting, followed by another for the ranged attack with the spell.
See FAQ
Eh, it's official I guess, but still doesn't make sense. I could see it working that way if the caster held the spell and fired it off in a round after he cast it.
At any rate hopefully if I ever play a caster in a group that runs that way, the foe doesn't have combat reflexes.
Moving on, an attacker disarming while unarmed already prompts an AoO unless you have the Improved Disarm feat and the disarm attempt is done at a -4 penalty. It says that if you successfully disarm the foe, that you can automatically take the weapon. It seems the intent is that the attacker automatically snatches the weapon straight from the defender without excess issues, not that he stoops down to pick it up and prompt AoO's after the fact.
|
Yes, there are ways to mitigate those penalties, but my point is that Disarming the action provokes (without a feat), and disarming unarmed provides a penalty (without a feat IUS). So at the point of 2 (really 3 feats in due to prereqs) they still are wanting to tag on an AoO which does not have a way to avoid it. Its overly penalizing for no reason, and doesn't match with previous versions of disarm.
It does sound overly penalizing. Maybe they should have thought of that before they changed the wording. Maybe they did think of that.
As you pointed out in the OP, the disarm rules allow you to pick up the weapon. Unless you can point out a rule saying this action doesn't provoke, it seem it provokes as normal.
Just tossing in that I'm in agreement with Tarantula here. Retrieving the weapon is part of the disarm and causing an additional AoO is just a GM being jerky.Does provoking 2 AoO for casting a spell and making a ranged attack make me a jerky DM as well?
Cause well that is how the game works... So apparently everyone who runs PFS is a jerk, as well as anyone who rules the game as "intended"?
No, it doesn't, that is the rule.
Disarm previous did not use the magic words "pick up" and so no AoO was caused. They edited the ability to show that you are not forced to take the weapon, and instead have the option, and used those key words "pick up" in the new wording. Now you believe that was an intentional change to disarm to make picking up the weapon provoke an AoO. I think it was oversight that those words were the name of an action which provoked, and they would have used other words or exempted the pickup from provoking had they realized it.
Well we are all entitled to our opinion. I'm of the opinion the words on the page mean what they say, "pick up" means the action it states. I'm not going to second guess the RAW when it is printed using specific language.
Feel free to FAQ as always, I don't see the need. We have a precedent for the the exact same situation and a FAQ indicating that it works that way as is the intention. You think it shouldn't work that way, that is fine. Show us some rules or FAQ to challenge what we already have instead of stating your opinion as fact. There really isn't much reason to go in circles at this point about it.
If the rules said you gained possession or pretty much anything besides "pick up" the weapon I'd see argument against the AoO. Picking up an item provokes if you are threatened.
Just because the act is part of another action doesn't remove the AoO for such an action unless specified. There is no exemption listed, it is an option. You don't have to do it, you can do it.
I agree clarification could be useful for what would happen if you were flying and this occurred. I don't see an argument on the AoO for picking up an item when threatened.
The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space.The rule specificlaly says there is an Attack of Opportunity for a Move Action of picking up an item. You are not using a move action to pick up the item.
Now I CAN see how you would interpret it that any picking up of an item provokes an attack of opportunity regardless of the type of action, I just read the rules differently and do not agree with that interpretation.
Perhaps it is a candidate for a FAQ?
There is no "free action - ranged attack" on the table either. Yet when you make a ranged attack for free after casting a spell you still provoke. There is no exception stated, so you still provoke for the action whatever the action cost ends up being is what our precedent is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but you do indeed provoke twice for casting a ranged touch spell while threatened; once for the casting, followed by another for the ranged attack with the spell.
See FAQ
Eh, it's official I guess, but still doesn't make sense. I could see it working that way if the caster held the spell and fired it off in a round after he cast it.
At any rate hopefully if I ever play a caster in a group that runs that way, the foe doesn't have combat reflexes.
Moving on, an attacker disarming while unarmed already prompts an AoO unless you have the Improved Disarm feat and the disarm attempt is done at a -4 penalty. It says that if you successfully disarm the foe, that you can automatically take the weapon. It seems the intent is that the attacker automatically snatches the weapon straight from the defender without excess issues, not that he stoops down to pick it up and prompt AoO's after the fact.
It's been "official" for almost two years now... And it sometimes surprises me how many people arguing rules questions aren't very well versed in what the rules actually are. Not to say we don't all make mistakes, but I would like to think that people are trying to be helpful instead of just argue what they think it should be in the Rules forum. This isn't an attack, I'm just trying to point out a good portion of this thread was unnecessary back and forth due to erroneous information.
No we don't know what the intent is, you would LIKE the intent to be that. None of us having this discussion helped hash out the rules when they implemented changes from 3.5. Intent is completely lost to any of us, what we do have are the written words in the rules book and FAQs on same type situations. You may not like the rules we have but that doesn't change what they say.