Quote from: Exploderwizard;816627I wouldn't like to use that. A guaranteed hit just due to numbers means that a characters defenses really don't matter. Why wear heavy armor if you are going to get hit as often as the guy without armor?  Why use the dodge action?

Defense should matter or else your players are going to all min/max into the most efficient whirling damage generators possible because that will be their only option.

I believe the way it works is that, depending on how high the player's AC is, it takes more enemies to guarantee that hit.

So if it's a lowish AC, then 2-on-1 works. If it's a little higher, it has to be 3-on-1 for that same one attack, and 4-on-1 if it's higher than that.

That way if you have 20 Stirges attacking people you don't need to roll 20 attacks and it just takes an average of the number of attacks likely to hit.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;816631I believe the way it works is that, depending on how high the player's AC is, it takes more enemies to guarantee that hit.

So if it's a lowish AC, then 2-on-1 works. If it's a little higher, it has to be 3-on-1 for that same one attack, and 4-on-1 if it's higher than that.

That way if you have 20 Stirges attacking people you don't need to roll 20 attacks and it just takes an average of the number of attacks likely to hit.

There is little excitement in just playing the averages. Do you want this to be your game?

" Oh...another combat. Lets do this."

" Ok umm, there are 25 of them so that is 5 of them on each of you.  John you take 17 damage from 2 hits, Frank you take 11 damage from 1 hit, Jill, you take 8 damage from one hit, Beth you take 10 damage from one hit, and Greg, you take 26 damage from 3 hits. "

Or you could skip the dice and run all the numbers through a probability calculator and tell the party if they won or lost and how much damage was sustained.

A great deal of the fun (for me anyway) are those times when bizarre stuff happens WAY out of line with the odds. A PC survives because ALL 6 attacks miss somehow. I roll my combat dice out in the open so everyone can see what happens at the same time. I love surprises the strange quirks of the dice can bring. I have many d20's so a whole bunch of attacks can be rolled in one motion. I wouldn't trade the look that comes over a player's face when seeing those dice come up for anything.

It is fun, but it can get tedious rolling for so many enemies and waiting for all of them.

Quote from: Opaopajr;816575Yeah, it's just One Free Interaction with the Environment. That said, it still gets used up. It's one of the challenges to dual draw and throw weapons, hence the need for Dual Wielder feat.

And besides, it makes for good fun, chasing and kicking it away, or standing atop it. Like Samurai Showdown when you get disarmed and people would camp atop the weapon. And that gives a reason to Shove, so it has cascading fun effects. It really doesn't need to be slowed down with consuming one's Action.

Free interaction with the environment shouldn't be free interaction with something your opponent is contesting; otherwise I should use my free interaction with the environment to take away my opponent's weapon (hey, it's in the environment), and my move to run away with it (and my action to disengage so I don't get punched doing this). In real life, I would not want to be scrambling around for something on the ground when someone is ready to whack me (or even just my hand) whenever I get close. My likely ruling would be contest of strength or dexterity (each character's choice), or use up an action to pick it up for sure; there's got to be some chance of being slowed down or inconvenienced in the fight or the dropped weapon is just color commentary. Using up the free interaction is too little for my taste; most rounds it doesn't get used in our game. (I suppose kicking it away and then taking the attack of opportunity when they chase it down would be a reasonable strategy without resolving the question of a dropped weapon in the same square.)

You are misreading. Disarm takes an Action (usually a Battle Master maneuver, though GM can rule for others). Things possessed/held are controlled and require contesting, hence Disarm, or Grapple, as an example. Readying a weapon takes an Interaction with the Environment.

When someone disarms you, your weapon goes somewhere, usually on the ground. Unless the hostile stands atop its 5' space, it is now part of the environment and thus available for interaction. That means anyone can pick it up, kick it away, etc.

No extra rules, no extra rolls, very straight forward and still as dynamic.

Quote from: Opaopajr;816728You are misreading. Disarm takes an Action (usually a Battle Master maneuver, though GM can rule for others). Things possessed/held are controlled and require contesting, hence Disarm, or Grapple, as an example. Readying a weapon takes an Interaction with the Environment.

When someone disarms you, your weapon goes somewhere, usually on the ground. Unless the hostile stands atop its 5' space, it is now part of the environment and thus available for interaction. That means anyone can pick it up, kick it away, etc.

No extra rules, no extra rolls, very straight forward and still as dynamic.

I think he means that in real life, or in combat in general, you wouldn't just bend over to pick up a weapon when there's an enemy ready to skewer you the moment you let your guard down. So it shouldn't count as a free action.

Then with that same logic you shouldn't be able to draw a potion from your bag, open/close a door, throw a lever/switch, etc. when within someone's Reach for an Opportunity Attack. There is a reason why most of that AoO craziness was deliberately abandoned.

Well, I wasn't serious; but it seems to me that a weapon on the ground in between two people fighting is at least somewhat contested and therefore requires a slightly higher cost to grab. Reaching down to grab something off the ground is a different matter than pulling something off your own belt; and the lever should be somewhat riskier to operate if the enemy has chosen to stake it out ready to hit any limb that reaches for it.

It is also true that too high a cost tends to make for a very static combat, if the cost is enough to discourage doing anything interesting, even if the cost seems more realistic.

No, rawma you are correct, you should risk something when you are doing stuff close to a hostile and armed person. But that risk in 5e is remaining next to a hostile and armed person.

Also, you are always considered armed, as you do have Unarmed Strike. There's no special penalty for being unarmed v. armed. Doesn't affect your AC or your atk or initiative. So the threat is just not the same as with previous editions (for good and ill).

The challenge with 5e Disarm is no quick & dirty way to run the consequences. There's little in the way of "1d8 for direction, 1d6+4 feet away from the target enemy," mechanical detail. A lot of it is left to GM discretion, which ends up leaving creatively stuck GMs adrift: "it falls safely within 5' at your feet, free to pick up on you next turn."

There should be a cost, you're right, and having it fall safely at one's feet for easy pick up next turn is not much of a cost. It still prevents usage for OAs, but ideally it should be out of a target's 5' of control. I think my simple mechanics scribble above works, and the distance leaves it usually falling outside the target's square. Then if it falls out of a target's controlled space, fun interaction should happen. Very "less is more."

In my experience, the 5e maneuvers are pretty crappy for one on one duels on a flat plain.  They work excellent when environment matters (e.g. push off a cliff) or when working with teammates (e.g. trip opponent giving all other melee allies advantage).

Quote from: Opaopajr;816810No, rawma you are correct, you should risk something when you are doing stuff close to a hostile and armed person. But that risk in 5e is remaining next to a hostile and armed person.

Your knowledge of the rules is formidable, your suggestions are quite sensible, and I'm not sure exactly what I want the result to be. It just seems to defeat the point of a "dropped weapon" result if there is no consequence to it except in rare circumstances.

(Even where a weapon would normally drop at the wielder's feet, there could still be enough shifting around in the ebb and flow of battle that the dropped weapon may be out of reach before you get a chance to pick it up; dropping the weapon at a distance may be a suitable abstraction for this.)

Also, you don't necessarily risk remaining next to a hostile and armed person, if they've already taken an action or not yet reached their initiative. A character with 30' speed could do the following: move 15' from out of range of a guard to the dropped weapon or lever or whatever; pick up the weapon or throw the lever or whatever as a free interaction with the environment; take the Disengage action; move the remaining 15' away from the guard without being attacked.

The Ready action would make the guard meaningful (trigger being someone approaching within melee range; action being Attack) but uses up the guard's action AND reaction -- and ultimately the guard gets no more attacks than if they just waded in, and maybe doesn't get any attack because nobody approached, with the only benefit being the potential of discouraging several opponents from being the first to approach. Few potential attacks are so threatening as to make this a likely result.

It also seems strange to me that an Attack of Opportunity is not triggered when moving IN to an enemy's range. At least in cases of somebody having a longer ranged weapon than you.

That and just the fact that the enemy has a longer ranged weapon gives you MORE freedom of movement doesn't make sense, if they're threatening a greater area. If anything it should mean that you are more limited in your options confronting them.

Suppose you had an enemy with just a scimitar, who threatens a range of five feet. He knocks your weapona side a few feet away. If you wanted to go pick it up, you'd be moving out of his range and have to take an AO.

But if the same situation repeated itself with someone using a lance with a threat range of 10 feet, you could go pick it up while still being inside their range and not suffer an AO.

Quote from: rawma;816881It just seems to defeat the point of a "dropped weapon" result if there is no consequence to it except in rare circumstances.

(Even where a weapon would normally drop at the wielder's feet, there could still be enough shifting around in the ebb and flow of battle that the dropped weapon may be out of reach before you get a chance to pick it up; dropping the weapon at a distance may be a suitable abstraction for this.)

Well the lack of weapon damage for OAs is a penalty. I see where WotC is coming from, though. Their new paradigm is not stepping on GM prerogative. So why scribble up distance rules which may turn into de facto canon?

But yes, if the Disarm has the weapon fall away from 5' control, it is freely exposed to be messed with. Or... you can have another player Shove the target off their weapon and then pick it up! There's lots of mobility and tricks one can do now, it reminds me of TSR D&D dynamics.

Quote from: rawma;816881A character with 30' speed could do the following: move 15' from out of range of a guard to the dropped weapon or lever or whatever; pick up the weapon or throw the lever or whatever as a free interaction with the environment; take the Disengage action; move the remaining 15' away from the guard without being attacked.

The Ready action would make the guard meaningful (trigger being someone approaching within melee range; action being Attack) but uses up the guard's action AND reaction -- and ultimately the guard gets no more attacks than if they just waded in, and maybe doesn't get any attack because nobody approached, with the only benefit being the potential of discouraging several opponents from being the first to approach. Few potential attacks are so threatening as to make this a likely result.

Yes, correct. (I was confused initially by the example, but I realize you are talking about someone "moving 15' into the guard's range.")

However the Sentinel feat changes all that. Also Readying an action against approach alone is a good use of Ready, especially if you got a strong attack. Several large weapons and spells definitely fill that category.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;816902It also seems strange to me that an Attack of Opportunity is not triggered when moving IN to an enemy's range. At least in cases of somebody having a longer ranged weapon than you.

That and just the fact that the enemy has a longer ranged weapon gives you MORE freedom of movement doesn't make sense, if they're threatening a greater area. If anything it should mean that you are more limited in your options confronting them.

Suppose you had an enemy with just a scimitar, who threatens a range of five feet. He knocks your weapona side a few feet away. If you wanted to go pick it up, you'd be moving out of his range and have to take an AO.

But if the same situation repeated itself with someone using a lance with a threat range of 10 feet, you could go pick it up while still being inside their range and not suffer an AO.

Yup! We had this discussion before in the Reach topic. Except for Sentinel feat, OAs are significantly toned down from AoOs. And from 3e experience, with 5' step bullshit and fighters being big glue balls stuck to each other and wizards dancing along the edge casting without a care, this is a wonderful change.

The field is more dynamic now, IME of play. And OAs now require clever party formation or environment exploitation. Yes, a lone polearm on an open plain is exposed. You should see a party of multiple polearms in coordination or in tight corridors!

i dont know about 5e but in 3e one of the biggest problems with such things was lack of detail in the mechanics one of the first problems i encountered as a dm was that there are no rules for bull rushing somebody into a wall to damage them in later supplements there were spells for throwing people into walls so you would think it would cross there mind to make something for pushing people into walls.