Mike Brost |
It is an athletics trained action to disarm someone. Under its rules it says you can knock an item out of someone's hands (into their space) with a critical success, a success loosen's their grip on the item, a critical failure makes you flat-footed.
The disarm weapon description says you can use it with the athletics skill even if you don't have a free hand. The question here comes in that it says on a critical success you still need a free hand if you want to take the item.
Is this missing a step in the book, or is it a change that got made one place and not the other? The normal disarm doesn't let you suddenly hold onto the item, but instead of it drop in the enemies square.
Alchemical Wonder |
I see what you mean. There is no mention of being able to take the weapon in a disarm action, so I’d say the mention of doing so in the description of the Disarm weapon trait is likely a holdover from a previous instance of the rules where you could do so that was removed in the final release. Just ignore that bit, I guess.
Edit: After thinking about it for a bit, this struck me as an instance where the trait may be referencing a feat that alters the disarm action. Turns out Disarming Twist for fighters fits the bill. It allows you to strike and make a disarm attempt with the same action but requires you to have a free hand to grab your opponents weapon. May be others, still looking.
Alchemical Wonder |
After thinking even more, I thought maybe this is an instance where the common usage of a word caused a misunderstanding of the words intended meaning. The word “take” can mean “remove from its place” rather than “gain possession of”. Interpreting the trait that way, it’s saying that you can make the disarm check with the weapon but can only apply the critical effect if you have a free hand.
Mike Brost |
After thinking even more, I thought maybe this is an instance where the common usage of a word caused a misunderstanding of the words intended meaning. The word “take” can mean “remove from its place” rather than “gain possession of”. Interpreting the trait that way, it’s saying that you can make the disarm check with the weapon but can only apply the critical effect if you have a free hand.
I'm at an utter loss then how having a free hand when wielding a whip would help you remove the item from their hand at a 10' reach. I'd entirely understand an intention to have a free hand to end up with the item in your hand.
CyberMephit |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After thinking even more, I thought maybe this is an instance where the common usage of a word caused a misunderstanding of the words intended meaning. The word “take” can mean “remove from its place” rather than “gain possession of”. Interpreting the trait that way, it’s saying that you can make the disarm check with the weapon but can only apply the critical effect if you have a free hand.
I think you may be overthinking it... I would say disarm weapon allows you to knock the item out of enemy grasp without a free hand - but if you want to take that item for yourself you still need a free hand, it doesn't automatically come into your possession. I don't see a contradiction with the rules text.
The reference to "taking the item" might be a holdover from an earlier disarm draft, but also could be future-proofing.
FlorianF |
Turns out Disarming Twist for fighters fits the bill. It allows you to strike and make a disarm attempt with the same action but requires you to have a free hand to grab your opponents weapon.
Good catch, but it doesn't say quite that. It says you get the crit effect of disarm, but it doesn't say you can grab the weapon!
So the mystery behind the disarm property's comment on taking the item remains...thenobledrake |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "mystery" here is that part of the text implies that the ol' movie sword fight trick of disarming a weapon up into the air and catching it in your hand, or the disarm being physically grabbing at the weapon and wrestling it away into your own hands - and not taking an extra action that happens to provoke potential reactions - is supported, but the full text results in it being unclear if the implication is how the rules were intended to work or are an accidental inclusion.