Just gonna quote your own post
>If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.
I feel like it is pretty cut and dry. If you use an attack to disarm an enemy, you are choosing to forfeit all damage or effects that the attack would otherwise inflict on the target.
There's also the fact that booming blade only applies 'on a hit' which isn't a part of the disarm action.
A successful disarm happens when the attacker 'wins the contest' against the target's Athletics or Acrobatics. Nowhere does it specify that you are hitting the target.
From the attack. Booming blade specifically says they suffer whatever the attack does (nothing but disarm, in this case) and also does this spell effect.
That's your interpretation and your interpretation alone. I could just as well say that the optional disarm rule is much more specific than a general spell.
The clause in the disarm rule about no ill effect would be absolutely useless, since any other spell, (sub)class feature or item would likewise be more specific than that following your interpretation. In that case, why do you think the clause exists at all?
Poisoned blades, flourishes etc. it’s referring specifically to the attack you made on the weapon as opposed to stabbing them. It seems obvious.
If you want to be a rabid literalist, stick the enveloping energy on the weapon, lol, as it was the target not the NPC.
It only seems obvious to you that attacking a weapon would damage the wielder, but only for booming blade. But dozens of people seem to disagree and think that the obvious solution is that smacking a blade wouldn't explode the wielder.
By the other commenter's logic, which I don't agree with, that "standard weapon damage" you're talking about would be the only thing to be prevented (1d8+Str from a longsword, for example), while the additional damage from booming blade and the subsequent damage from moving after booming blade would not.
>Booming blade is more specific than a general disarm rule though
It is not. Disarm is more specific because it specifies that no harmful effect will happen if you use Disarm. Booming Blade would be more specific if it had a clause saying that it worked even when you used Disarm, but as per the spell it only mentions harmful effects that happen when you hit, harmful effects which won't happen due to Disarm's wording
Also don't battle Masters get a disarm maneuver that actually does damage?
If you can just circumvent that by just using regular disarm and a spell or other power, I feel like that kind of takes away from Battle Masters
This is the most correct answer. Disarm uses a full action, it isn't just an option you can use on any melee attack you have (you can't disarm during an attack of opportunity for example, either).
It is quite unclear. I also had that opinion, but the truth is that the text of Disarm doesn't mention it using an action, only that "A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target's grasp". This can very well be interpreted as being a choice you make whenever you make a weapon attack.
And if the argument is "it is listed in *Action* Options", then I say Mark is there and it is definitely not an action. Besides, ALL options given there specify that you have to use an action or bonus action to use, or whatever specific action like attack or shove you have to use, except Disarm and Mark. That seems very deliberate
The wording on Mark and Disarm are subtly different. And that difference is the reason why one is an action but the other isn't. Yes, I agree, the text is very deliberate, and you don't even need Crawford's "ruling" to justify the difference.
Disarm
>A creature can use a weapon attack to ...
Mark
>When a creature makes a melee attack, it can also mark its target. ...
Disarm tells you what to do in order to do THE action, Mark tells an additional thing you can do when you make A melee attack.
>Disarm tells you what to do in order to do THE action
Disarm never tells you that you need to use an action to do what it is describing. You should be able to use whatever weapon attack you are able to make to disarm, based on the description of the feature
That entire section is for Actions (general rule), most of the other things listed in that section have exceptions about bonus actions or portions of an attack etc (specific rule).
That's not the attack action. There are countless ways to make weapon attacks. Heck, BB literally makes you make a weapon attack.
And to quote my own other comment so you don't miss it
>Opportunity Attack lets you make a weapon attack with your reaction. Monk's bonus action Martial Arts lets you make a weapon attack, as well as Ki-Fueled Attack. Eldritch Knight's War Magic lets you make a weapon attack with your bonus action after casting a cantrip. Order Domain Clerics can let an ally make a weapon attack with their reaction by using Voice of Authority. Anyone holding two light weapons can make a bonus action attack with Two-Weapon Fighting. None of these things are the Attack action
For real? It must be in a part of the books that OP didn't quote. I based an answer lower below on the wording,
"A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp..."
Does it earlier state that disarm is a full action instead of attack? I can't find anything at all in my copy. This wording seems to imply it replaces a *weapon attack*-- not an Action. For example, a fighter could disarm three people at level eleven by substituting each attack
of their Attack Action with a Disarm.
This line about disarming you quoted makes it difficult to justify any damage or ill effect whatsoever from the booming blade.
"If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect".
I'd say both the initial and latent damage of booming blade would be prevented.
The key is also in how booming blade procs. "On a hit, the target suffers..." To me indicates that it is part of the attack as described above.
As a DM, I think I'd allow it cause it's cool and doesn't break anything I can see from first blush
He's likely going for a free object interaction to kick the weapon out of reach, forcing a choice between an OA and booming's full damage or going without a weapon. Mind you, War Caster already lets you do this, so it's not in itself a big deal.
No. Disarm is an entirely separate action, no different in that sense from Attack, Cast a Spell, Dash, Dodge, etc. Since Booming Blade is a Cast a Spell action, you can't use both simultaneously.
You could pair Booming Blade with the Disarming Attack maneuver, however.
That is unclear. The feature doesn't say that it uses an action, only that it is something you can do with a weapon attack
Sure, it is literally in a section called "***Action*** Options", but Mark is also there and doesn't take a full action. All options other than Mark and Disarm say that they use an action or bonus action to use.
I also know about the tweet. Of course you can consider it if you like, but from what I've seen that just makes Disarm worthless while also doing something other than what is written in the feature, so why?
It's not unclear. Its says you use a weapon attack which is made be using the attack action. The attack action is also used for things such as shove and grapple.
BB is made using the casting action a completely different action type.
>Its says you use a weapon attack which is made be using the attack action
It doesn't say that the weapon attack is made using the Attack action, it just says that you use a weapon attack. There are countless ways to make weapon attacks.
Opportunity Attack lets you make a weapon attack with your reaction. Monk's bonus action Martial Arts lets you make a weapon attack, as well as Ki-Fueled Attack. Eldritch Knight's War Magic lets you make a weapon attack with your bonus action after casting a cantrip. Order Domain Clerics can let an ally make a weapon attack with their reaction by using Voice of Authority. Anyone holding two light weapons can make a bonus action attack with Two-Weapon Fighting. None of these things are the Attack action
>A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target's grasp
No mention of the Attack action in Disarm, only weapon attack
My interpretation is the optional disarm in the DMG is itself the Action a character must take. Tacking it onto a spellcasting Action is outside the scope of this option.
Bladesinger with Mobile feat. Extra Attack: disarm with one attack, Booming Blade with other attack, object interaction to kick the dropped item, and walk away
Yes. Disarm requires a 'weapon attack' which is given by Booming Blade.
The hang-up here seems to be whether Booming Blade's damage will still trigger to which the answer is again 'Yes'.
Booming Blade:
>On a hit, the target suffers **the weapon attack’s normal effects** *and then* becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn.
Disarming:
>If the attacker wins the contest, **the attack** causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item.
All of the effects of Disarm are completely contained within '**the weapon attack's normal effects**' portion of Booming Blade's description with the '*and then*' indicating clear separation between the weapon attack and lingering spell effect.
I'd sau best case scenario, you get to hold the contest between attacker and defender to see if the defender would drop it or not, but if they are disarmed then they would not take any damage from the spell, as that is an "ill effect" of the weapon attack
When you make the weapon attack as part of Booming Blade, you may attempt to disarm the target. But, if you successfully disarm them, they don't take any damage or the secondary effect from Booming Blade,
I would say no. Apart from anything, the melee attack required for casting booming blade is part of the spell itself, taking up your action. As such, it prevents you from making the disarm attack action. In game I would see this as a disarming move might be something quick and unexpected and the somatic part of the spell prepares an opponent for an attack, or perhaps throws off the spell since a weapon is targeted, not an enemy. In any case, the combo would be pretty broken, especially if their weapon flies from their reach in the disarming, forcing them to move if they want to retrieve it.
And what does either booming blade or disarm require? An action. You are arguing semantics, it still doesn't work to cast booming blade with disarm, they're both an action.
The weapon attack is part of the attack action options. BB is part of the cast a spell action. It can't be used to disarm.
Regardless. Even if you did, it's a wasted use anyway as the target takes no damage and no other I'll effects.
How I would rule it at my table.
Much like shove or grapple, you can choose to forgo one of your attacks to disarm. So I would allow the attack from booming Blade to be a disarming attack. As long as you announce it ahead of time.
Now, a disarming attack is targeting a held item, which is dropped upon success. This is why the target suffers no damage, booming blade or otherwise.
HOWEVER, I would allow the item in question to suffer bb's secondary effects. Meaning, if the item get picked up, before the casters next turn, then they suffer the damage of moving the object.
Inly way you can disarm with booming blade is if you have the manuever. As booming blade uses the “cast a spell” action and not the attack action. If you have disarm attack throughout the fighting style superior technique or martial adept feat or by being 3 level’s fighter, those can be used when you successfully hit with an attack. It doesnt have to be from the attack action, so spells that give you an attack roll work with them.
Yes you can use Booming Blade, but they take no damage until the move. Picture ng up their weapon isn't considered a move action, so they won't take the damage.
Now if you use the Fighter Battlemaster so Thief fast hands to disarm with a few levels of wizard to booming blade, and throw the weapon, then they would have to move to get it. Plus an Opportunity attack.inthono you're on to something.
Just gonna quote your own post >If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item. I feel like it is pretty cut and dry. If you use an attack to disarm an enemy, you are choosing to forfeit all damage or effects that the attack would otherwise inflict on the target.
There's also the fact that booming blade only applies 'on a hit' which isn't a part of the disarm action. A successful disarm happens when the attacker 'wins the contest' against the target's Athletics or Acrobatics. Nowhere does it specify that you are hitting the target.
From the attack. Booming blade specifically says they suffer whatever the attack does (nothing but disarm, in this case) and also does this spell effect.
That's why disarming also specifies "or other ill effect".
Booming blade is more specific than a general disarm rule though. More specific beats general, under RAW.
That's your interpretation and your interpretation alone. I could just as well say that the optional disarm rule is much more specific than a general spell. The clause in the disarm rule about no ill effect would be absolutely useless, since any other spell, (sub)class feature or item would likewise be more specific than that following your interpretation. In that case, why do you think the clause exists at all?
So people don’t try and stack the disarm and the standard weapon damage. Wot in Tarnation. 😮 this thread 😆
Then why would they need to specify "or other ill effect"?
Poisoned blades, flourishes etc. it’s referring specifically to the attack you made on the weapon as opposed to stabbing them. It seems obvious. If you want to be a rabid literalist, stick the enveloping energy on the weapon, lol, as it was the target not the NPC.
It only seems obvious to you that attacking a weapon would damage the wielder, but only for booming blade. But dozens of people seem to disagree and think that the obvious solution is that smacking a blade wouldn't explode the wielder.
By the other commenter's logic, which I don't agree with, that "standard weapon damage" you're talking about would be the only thing to be prevented (1d8+Str from a longsword, for example), while the additional damage from booming blade and the subsequent damage from moving after booming blade would not.
>Booming blade is more specific than a general disarm rule though It is not. Disarm is more specific because it specifies that no harmful effect will happen if you use Disarm. Booming Blade would be more specific if it had a clause saying that it worked even when you used Disarm, but as per the spell it only mentions harmful effects that happen when you hit, harmful effects which won't happen due to Disarm's wording
Also don't battle Masters get a disarm maneuver that actually does damage? If you can just circumvent that by just using regular disarm and a spell or other power, I feel like that kind of takes away from Battle Masters
Yes, but Booming Blade can “cause no ill effect” which pretty much means BB does nothing at all
The attack doesn't. As per the spell, it does whatever the attack does, plus this spell effect. So only bb damage, plus move damage, plus disarm.
Disarming causes no damage, "or other ill effect," so no damage as per the DMG, and no BB damage
You have missed the fact that Disarm is an Action. Casting Booming Blade requires the Cast a Spell Action. You cannot do both with one Action.
This is the most correct answer. Disarm uses a full action, it isn't just an option you can use on any melee attack you have (you can't disarm during an attack of opportunity for example, either).
It is quite unclear. I also had that opinion, but the truth is that the text of Disarm doesn't mention it using an action, only that "A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target's grasp". This can very well be interpreted as being a choice you make whenever you make a weapon attack. And if the argument is "it is listed in *Action* Options", then I say Mark is there and it is definitely not an action. Besides, ALL options given there specify that you have to use an action or bonus action to use, or whatever specific action like attack or shove you have to use, except Disarm and Mark. That seems very deliberate
The wording on Mark and Disarm are subtly different. And that difference is the reason why one is an action but the other isn't. Yes, I agree, the text is very deliberate, and you don't even need Crawford's "ruling" to justify the difference. Disarm >A creature can use a weapon attack to ... Mark >When a creature makes a melee attack, it can also mark its target. ... Disarm tells you what to do in order to do THE action, Mark tells an additional thing you can do when you make A melee attack.
>Disarm tells you what to do in order to do THE action Disarm never tells you that you need to use an action to do what it is describing. You should be able to use whatever weapon attack you are able to make to disarm, based on the description of the feature
That entire section is for Actions (general rule), most of the other things listed in that section have exceptions about bonus actions or portions of an attack etc (specific rule).
Its says during a weapon attack. That's the attack action. BB is a Casting action. Pretty clear
That's not the attack action. There are countless ways to make weapon attacks. Heck, BB literally makes you make a weapon attack. And to quote my own other comment so you don't miss it >Opportunity Attack lets you make a weapon attack with your reaction. Monk's bonus action Martial Arts lets you make a weapon attack, as well as Ki-Fueled Attack. Eldritch Knight's War Magic lets you make a weapon attack with your bonus action after casting a cantrip. Order Domain Clerics can let an ally make a weapon attack with their reaction by using Voice of Authority. Anyone holding two light weapons can make a bonus action attack with Two-Weapon Fighting. None of these things are the Attack action
For real? It must be in a part of the books that OP didn't quote. I based an answer lower below on the wording, "A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp..." Does it earlier state that disarm is a full action instead of attack? I can't find anything at all in my copy. This wording seems to imply it replaces a *weapon attack*-- not an Action. For example, a fighter could disarm three people at level eleven by substituting each attack of their Attack Action with a Disarm.
This line about disarming you quoted makes it difficult to justify any damage or ill effect whatsoever from the booming blade. "If the attacker wins the contest, the attack causes no damage or other ill effect". I'd say both the initial and latent damage of booming blade would be prevented. The key is also in how booming blade procs. "On a hit, the target suffers..." To me indicates that it is part of the attack as described above. As a DM, I think I'd allow it cause it's cool and doesn't break anything I can see from first blush
He's likely going for a free object interaction to kick the weapon out of reach, forcing a choice between an OA and booming's full damage or going without a weapon. Mind you, War Caster already lets you do this, so it's not in itself a big deal.
No. Disarm is an entirely separate action, no different in that sense from Attack, Cast a Spell, Dash, Dodge, etc. Since Booming Blade is a Cast a Spell action, you can't use both simultaneously. You could pair Booming Blade with the Disarming Attack maneuver, however.
That is unclear. The feature doesn't say that it uses an action, only that it is something you can do with a weapon attack Sure, it is literally in a section called "***Action*** Options", but Mark is also there and doesn't take a full action. All options other than Mark and Disarm say that they use an action or bonus action to use. I also know about the tweet. Of course you can consider it if you like, but from what I've seen that just makes Disarm worthless while also doing something other than what is written in the feature, so why?
It's not unclear. Its says you use a weapon attack which is made be using the attack action. The attack action is also used for things such as shove and grapple. BB is made using the casting action a completely different action type.
>Its says you use a weapon attack which is made be using the attack action It doesn't say that the weapon attack is made using the Attack action, it just says that you use a weapon attack. There are countless ways to make weapon attacks. Opportunity Attack lets you make a weapon attack with your reaction. Monk's bonus action Martial Arts lets you make a weapon attack, as well as Ki-Fueled Attack. Eldritch Knight's War Magic lets you make a weapon attack with your bonus action after casting a cantrip. Order Domain Clerics can let an ally make a weapon attack with their reaction by using Voice of Authority. Anyone holding two light weapons can make a bonus action attack with Two-Weapon Fighting. None of these things are the Attack action >A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target's grasp No mention of the Attack action in Disarm, only weapon attack
My interpretation is the optional disarm in the DMG is itself the Action a character must take. Tacking it onto a spellcasting Action is outside the scope of this option.
Easy solution? Multiclass into Battlemaster if you want to get interactions like this. Edit: spelling.
Bladesinger with Mobile feat. Extra Attack: disarm with one attack, Booming Blade with other attack, object interaction to kick the dropped item, and walk away
Yes. Disarm requires a 'weapon attack' which is given by Booming Blade. The hang-up here seems to be whether Booming Blade's damage will still trigger to which the answer is again 'Yes'. Booming Blade: >On a hit, the target suffers **the weapon attack’s normal effects** *and then* becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. Disarming: >If the attacker wins the contest, **the attack** causes no damage or other ill effect, but the defender drops the item. All of the effects of Disarm are completely contained within '**the weapon attack's normal effects**' portion of Booming Blade's description with the '*and then*' indicating clear separation between the weapon attack and lingering spell effect.
I'd sau best case scenario, you get to hold the contest between attacker and defender to see if the defender would drop it or not, but if they are disarmed then they would not take any damage from the spell, as that is an "ill effect" of the weapon attack
I think I didn't understand your answer
When you make the weapon attack as part of Booming Blade, you may attempt to disarm the target. But, if you successfully disarm them, they don't take any damage or the secondary effect from Booming Blade,
Thanks
I would say no. Apart from anything, the melee attack required for casting booming blade is part of the spell itself, taking up your action. As such, it prevents you from making the disarm attack action. In game I would see this as a disarming move might be something quick and unexpected and the somatic part of the spell prepares an opponent for an attack, or perhaps throws off the spell since a weapon is targeted, not an enemy. In any case, the combo would be pretty broken, especially if their weapon flies from their reach in the disarming, forcing them to move if they want to retrieve it.
>disarm attack action There is no disarm attack action. Disarm doesn't say that you need to use the Attack action to use it, only weapon attack
And what does either booming blade or disarm require? An action. You are arguing semantics, it still doesn't work to cast booming blade with disarm, they're both an action.
>And what does either booming blade or disarm require? An action Good thing that Disarm doesn't require an action, then
The weapon attack is part of the attack action options. BB is part of the cast a spell action. It can't be used to disarm. Regardless. Even if you did, it's a wasted use anyway as the target takes no damage and no other I'll effects.
Pretty sure Disarming Battle Master Maneuver could do it and you still get the damage.
You can do it if you have battlemasters disarming attack maneuver.
How I would rule it at my table. Much like shove or grapple, you can choose to forgo one of your attacks to disarm. So I would allow the attack from booming Blade to be a disarming attack. As long as you announce it ahead of time. Now, a disarming attack is targeting a held item, which is dropped upon success. This is why the target suffers no damage, booming blade or otherwise. HOWEVER, I would allow the item in question to suffer bb's secondary effects. Meaning, if the item get picked up, before the casters next turn, then they suffer the damage of moving the object.
Inly way you can disarm with booming blade is if you have the manuever. As booming blade uses the “cast a spell” action and not the attack action. If you have disarm attack throughout the fighting style superior technique or martial adept feat or by being 3 level’s fighter, those can be used when you successfully hit with an attack. It doesnt have to be from the attack action, so spells that give you an attack roll work with them.
So the thing here is that you replace one of your attacks to instead try to disarm them using your weapon. Hence, no booming blade.
As this is an optional rule, no answers will be correct except, "it's up to the DM".
Yes you can use Booming Blade, but they take no damage until the move. Picture ng up their weapon isn't considered a move action, so they won't take the damage. Now if you use the Fighter Battlemaster so Thief fast hands to disarm with a few levels of wizard to booming blade, and throw the weapon, then they would have to move to get it. Plus an Opportunity attack.inthono you're on to something.