I'm pretty sure the intent is clear with that line there. Making a disarm with your hand is going to be harder than with a weapon (unless you have improved unarmed strike).
Edit: The text for disarm to clarify
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
I think he is trying to use the line in the disarm maneuver about picking up the opponents weapon.
Unfortunately, this does not allow him to grab the opponents weapon. The weapon is knocked out of the opponents hand, and can be picked up by anyone who wants to pick it up.
|
You've been given some misinformation here.
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
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.
So to answer your question, no, you're reading it wrong. It doesn't say "if you have a free hand you may pick up the weapon." It says "if you disarm your opponent without using a weapon". So if you use your weapon in one hand to disarm your opponent you may not use your free other hand to freely pick it up because of the maneuver. To freely pick it up you'd have to use an unarmed strike (or some kind of natural attack) when you disarm.
|
Although I agree that RAI is as you say, the bit that reads incorrectly is this:
Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
If I have a one-handed weapon in one hand I can disarm using the other. I'm still armed, because of the weapon in my other hand, but I've disarmed using my free hand.
The text should probably read:
Attempting to disarm without a weapon imposes a -4 penalty on the attack unless you can use unarmed strikes without provoking an AoO.
(or something like it - to cover both Improved Natural Strike and natural weapons).
Richard
You've been given some misinformation here.So to answer your question, no, you're reading it wrong. It doesn't say "if you have a free hand you may pick up the weapon." It says "if you disarm your opponent without using a weapon". So if you use your weapon in one hand to disarm your opponent you may not use your free other hand to freely pick it up because of the maneuver. To freely pick it up you'd have to use an unarmed strike (or some kind of natural attack) when you disarm.You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
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.
That line, per RAW, makes no sense, since the only way you can perform a Disarm maneuver without a weapon is with a spell.
If you try to bring up the whole "Unarmed Strike isn't a weapon" argument, then you're obviously ignoring the factor that an Unarmed Strike is, for all intents and purposes, considered a Light Weapon. A Light Weapon is still a Weapon, so per RAW, even if you used an Unarmed Strike to execute the Disarm Maneuver, you wouldn't be able to pick up the weapon that you disarmed, because the Unarmed Strike is, for all intents and purposes, still a Weapon, which means you used a Weapon (the Unarmed Strike) to Disarm your opponent, which means no free weapon to pick up.
It needs errata if you want it to work with Unarmed Strikes, and it's quite clear that's what the intent is supposed to be. The sentence would need to be read as follows:
If you successfully disarm your opponent with your unarmed strike or without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item that was disarmed.
|
|
That line, per RAW, makes no sense, since the only way you can perform a Disarm maneuver without a weapon is with a spell.
That surprised me. Do you mind explaining to me why I can't disarm with an unarmed attack (at -4, presumably)?
Richard
P.S. Just as an addendum to this, wasn't looking to cheese anything, just wondering whether you could build a free-hand fighter that used his free hand to disarm - wouldn't mind using three feats for this if necessary (Improved Unarmed Strike, Combat Expertise and Improved Disarm).
P.P.S As a further addendum to this, I once GM's a PC who used a monk to do unarmed disarms all over the place, and never took the -4!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My explanation for such is the paragraph below that. I'll go ahead and rehash the important bit.
...An Unarmed Strike is, for all intents and purposes, considered a Light Weapon. A Light Weapon is still a Weapon, so per RAW, even if you used an Unarmed Strike to execute the Disarm Maneuver, you wouldn't be able to pick up the weapon that you disarmed, because the Unarmed Strike is, for all intents and purposes, still a Weapon, which means you used a Weapon (the Unarmed Strike) to Disarm your opponent, which means no free weapon to pick up.
It's not so much that you can't disarm while unarmed. It's that even if you disarm unarmed, by the written text of the rules, you couldn't pick up the item that was disarmed (and you still incur the -4 penalty), because an Unarmed Strike is still, by the written text of the rules, a weapon, and the text states if the disarm is made without the use of a weapon (such as a spell or similar ability which makes a Disarm maneuver for you), then you can pick it up. Which, ironically enough, makes little to no sense, but such is the case with RAW.
This means that regardless of what build you make for being unarmed, it's considered a weapon, and you suffer a -4 penalty because it's unarmed (even if you count as being armed).
This also means that the GM who handwaved the -4 penalty was technically houseruling. It wasn't unreasonable or overpowered to do so (if anything, I personally feel that would be the intent behind the -4), but by the written text of the rules, he would still be required to enforce the -4 penalty. (Thankfully, there's no non-proficiency penalty to stack on top of that.)