I ran into this problem when testing out the fighting rules last spring and I do not believe I've ever seen this addressed:

So I've just disarmed my opponent, can he pick up his weapon? Is it automatic? Is he extra vulnerable when doing so? What about if my opponent picks up his weapon?

I would assume that he may draw a secondary weapon as a free action, but if he has only one weapon or his back up weapons is clearly inferior, it might make sense for him to try to get his weapon back.

Getting a called shot is not very easy, at least not with a new character... also the piercing blows and broken shields both seem to have a long term effect on the fight.... but it does make sense that the weapon is still around and possibly available.

I have a couple of ideas, both of these could be used:

1) roll a d6:

On a 1 or 2 - the weapon flies forward from the character's hands landing behind enemy lines. Here the character's side is outnumbered he would not be able to get his weapon back immediately (or it might require an extraordinary success on the battle roll). If the character's side outnumbers their foes he may get the weapon back by going into a forward stance and getting a great success on a battle roll TN 14. If only one foe is present a normal success is sufficient.

On a 3 or 4 - the weapon lands at the character's feet or close to him. The character may stoop over and retrieve the weapon by going into a forward stance (because this makes him vulnerable) and sacrificing his attack this round. No roll is required.

On a 5 or 6 - the weapon flies backwards and lands behind his allies, near the archers. The character must go into a rearward stance to get it. Depending on the numbers involved, this may cause a hole in the defensive line requiring someone already in a rearward stance to come forward to cover the weapon retrieval.

The above rules correspond to a PC wherever it discusses forward stances, since an adversary can't go into a forward stance. If it is an adversary, and they would need to go into a forward stance, just give anyone that attacks him a +3 to their attack to show that this adversary is vulnerable.

2) At the loremaster's option a disarm against a wooden hafted weapon such as a spear, axe, mattock, or bow the weapon may be damaged. This especially makes sense for long 2 handed weapons. These weapons would be more difficult to disarm, since they are used in 2 hands, but they have long hafts that are easier to hit. If a weapon is broken, it is not usable for the remainder of the combat, (the broken haft may be treated as a make shift weapon - treat it as a dagger). A successful craft roll TN 14 (along with a full day of work if in the wild) is required to fix this weapon's head onto a newly fashioned haft. Or use whatever rules would be required to fashion a new shield from the parts of a broken one. This may seem harsh however I have the feeling that the great axe and great spear are the most powerful weapons in the game, and this slightly offsets their advantage.

You don't need to make it so defined.
It doesn't really matter if it is left, right, behind or up front.

Simply let the character make maybe an Athletics test to get the weapon back as his action this round.
Maybe if he fails, one enemy may make an "attack of opportunity" (sorry to bring this terrible expression in here)

Keep it light and simple and fun.

Cheers!

Draco, That is exactly how I run disarms. The only addition I have is that I allow the PC to shift to a defensive stance since they are now in complete dodge mode

Assuming the disarmed character doesn't have (or want to use) a back-up weapon...

I use a Battle roll (using Wits as Favoured in this particular case) as the two opponents manoeuvre during the battle. If the unarmed opponent wins this test then they retrieve their weapon at the end of the combat round so their opponent will be able to make an attack against them beforehand. If the unarmed opponent is a Enemy (ie, not a PC) then the PC attacking them gets a +2 circumstantial modifier (due to them being unarmed). If the unarmed opponent is a PC then their opponent has a +2 modifier to hit them.

The above works for me as it does mean disarming someone is around the same level of usefulness as other Called Shot options.

Ok Rich, I like that a lot better, consider it borrowed!

Is this house rule in your collected rulings pdf?

Yah I thought about the athletics rolls at first too, but thought battle made more sense because I think it reflects a character's ability to understand the ebb and flow of battle and therefore to move safely or at least confidently on a battlefield.... Anyway I already use far too many athletics rolls, climbing, running, swimming, leaping, balancing, tumbling, catching, etc... etc... it's good to balance them out a little so the players feel no matter where they put their skill points they will have a chance to use them.

I too might use your idea Rich, it's simpler than mine but roughly has the same impact on the game. Of course I'll play it by ear as I usually do.... having a valued weapon land firmly at an adversaries feet creates drama.... but it's nice to have simple fall back options.

I like the 'feel' of Cynan's suggestions!

But my sense of the 'feel' of TOR overall is that the weapon ought to be pretty much written out of the fight, by whatever dramatic devices you can dream up. Only when there's no even halfway-viable alternative -- no backup weapon, no hope of succeeding in going in for a grapple, no option to withdraw behind comrades, etc. -- should you be trying to do something to defy the dramatic turn of events and reverse the disarm result.

Of course players can be implacable, but if they want to defy the dramatic turn of events instead of responding to it with a creative alternative, I think they would be heading into Hope-spending territory! Once they spent a Hope point, then I'd use a rule like Cynan or Rich H suggested.

Edit: I forgot to actually type the words of this other idea I had in response to the thread so far:
But even better than saying what the mechanic should be -- in the style of a Test -- the TOR way is to invite the players to engage by saying what they're trying to do to achieve their aims, and proposing a Task based on the skill of their choosing. If someone wants to do it with Battle, that's great; if they want to do it with Athletics, that's obviously an option too (but IMHO not quite as fitting, unless they come up with a really creative description of their feats). This has the added option of inviting/encouraging the use of inventive ways to spend a Combat Advantage die on the effort as well. /Edit

Cheers,
--Os.

P.S. Anyone else share that stated feeling that Great Axe and Great Spear might be verging on the unbalanced -- despite the fact that you have to forego a shield to wield them?

Did I say unbalanced? It seems like a strong statement, implying that they need to be rebalanced. I don't mean to say that.... But I do think they are pretty good :-) I personally think the great spear is the awesomest weapon of them all! and I'm glad that it is really good! Many RPGs seem to undervalue the spear which has been historically a very effective weapon that lasted from the stone age all the way to the Swiss pikemen of the late middle ages.....

In my view, if your character uses a great weapon you will do more damage to the enemy than with other two handed weapons (with a small increase to fatigue) ... comparing them to one handed and shields is trickier because while you will do more killing, you might run out of endurance more often..... though piercing wounds will be about as likely with either since the eye always hits.... and the shield does not add to your armor rating, if anything the added encumbrance of some of the larger shields encourage players to wear lighter armor!

I bet though that a group of assailants all armed with great axes would be more threatening to the players than the same group of assailants except that they use axes and shields. The injury ratings of the great axes would be a little higher and the endurance damage per hit would be 9 versus 5, (almost double). They will fall a little faster but I bet that they will do more damage overall and they may be more likely to cause wounds.

This is why on my characters I pay to have two weapons at a 2 rating disarm my mattock no problem the short sword is coming out.

It isn't, no... I class it as more of a 'ruling' rather than a rules 'addition'. I suppose a collection of rulings from us all would be nice - it'd help other LM's to adjudicate things and also as reminders if we forget.

I reckon that I am with Osric on this. I had taken it that the character or foe who was disarmed was unable to get the weapon back for the entirety of the present combat. At that point it falls to the back up weapon(normally a dagger) to provide the characters means of attack. Even if the character doesn't have a dagger, the Dagger skill is used for unarmed melee combat.

I wouldn't even allow the spending of hope in this circumstance(normally, although there are always exceptional circumstances). If the characters are forced to flee the fight and the character has been disarmed, then it is the LM's job to weave a narrative that allows said disarmed character to retrieve his weapon.

I'd be tempted to rule similarly to Halbarad and Osric. I'd consider making it a rearward task however, recover dropped weapon or something.

I think the idea of a disarm lasting a full combat, although an elegant solution, is unbalancing due to the great impact it would have on the disarmed foe/PC. Other Called Shots are not as high impact: piercing shots don't necessarily produce a Wound, shield smashes only work on someone with a shield although when it occurs it does impact the affected party's Parry rating, but that still is only a couple of points to their Parry rating. Disarming someone's weapon will affect their skill rating in combat AND also mean they fall back to an inferior weapon - a double hit to their capabilities. I therefore considered it but personally dismissed it for those significant reasons.

I like the idea of spending a point of Hope to allow the recovery or moving to Rearward (I'd suggest Defensive though) stance in order to access a 'Retrieve Weapon' combat option.

I think a Defensive Task is probably the best of the proposed solutions for those who are not as nasty as me.

How would it be worded though?

I'd say just as simply as it sounds.

The way I see it, "Rearward" does not mean "far"; it means "not engaged in melee". The trick is to get in rearward stance in the first place as the rules are specific about how many companions can fight in rearward simultaneously. Chances are that the company's archer will have to engage in melee to back you up, but once you're in rearward stance, you've pretty much open field to do whatever you want (as others are effectively protecting you).

There's always the complication that an enemy might be guarding your weapon specifically but otherwise, I wouldn't even call for a test.

Considering the description of Rearward Stance in the table on page 158 of the AB I wouldn't agree:

Staying away from the press, to attack your foes from a distance.

That to me quite clearly means Rearward characters are a distance from the melee, so if they have been disarmed while in Forward, Open, or Defensive stances then moving to Rearward would take them a distance from their dropped weapon (unless the whole melee has 'moved on' which is possible but more likely to not be the case).

Personally, I'd used Defensive stance as the option to retrieve.

How about this...

Defensive Stance: Retrieve Weapon
A character fighting in Defensive Stance may, instead of attacking an opponent, retrieve a weapon that they have dropped (for instance, when they have been disarmed with a Called Shot). If an opponent is actively attempting to impede the retrieval of the weapon in question then the character must succeed at a Battle roll. The TN of which is 10 plus the Attribute level of the opponent in question.

That looks pretty good Rich.

Given the armours available, no, the Great Axe is just about right.

I'm on record for questioning if the 9 damage for the Great Spear was a bit too much. But if a Great Spear could be considered an early polearm (as I decided to do), then 9 works for me.

A great spear could resemble a langue de boeuf (ox tongue) or couteau de breche , essentially a thrusting/cutting weapon. Search google images for an idea of what they look like.

This is/was countered by langets. Langets are strips of metal that reinforce the head to prevent it from breaking off or being lopped off. In the case of the axe, langets could extend half the haft, but with "Great Spears" they would extend the entire length of the haft (hence the encumbrance).

... Think I'll add to the Additional Rules supplement then. Seems like a nice option so should be there.

... I actually found this in the LM book:

Thick Hide
When the creature succeeds in a Protection test against a close-combat weapon, obtaining a great or extraordinary success, the attacker drops his weapon (under normal circumstances, the dropped weapon may be recovered spending an entire action).

... Bolded emphasis mine.

Not the exactly the same as the Disarm query we've been discussing but further information/point of interest nonetheless. Personally going to stick with the "Defensive Stance: Retrieve Weapon" option, but then I'm biased!

Rich I think you are golden:

I see a dropped weapon as not the same as a disarmed weapon. In strict game rules terms they are not called the same thing. If you want to justify it rationally.... if you drop a weapon one could reason that it is at your feet. If your weapon is disarmed by an opponent it may fly some distance from you and likely land at your opponent's feet or even behind him, (for example if my arm was cut as I was snapping by weapon forward I might inadvertently "throw" my sword forward),also a disarm could be a TAKING of the weapon in the style of some medieval manuscripts on fighting, the opponent takes possession of the weapon, effectively using disarms as a way of ending the duel without killing one's opponent. A great use for disarms if a target is unable to retrieve their weapon.

As far as Langets, correct me if I'm wrong but i believe that these are a later period development, and do not fit with the weapons technology of middle earth.... which seem to be centered on viking age technology, mail armor being the best etc.... the axes in the players book do not have langets and I'm pretty sure that a great spear with langets down the entire length would be more clumsy and encumbering than a great shield :-) anyway it doesn't matter, I'm not pushing people to use my barbaric suggestion of having weapons break, but I do think it's a dramatic story telling tool or interesting curve ball to throw at the right group of players. For that matter even swords have been known to beak in battle!

Why thankyou sir!

Yeah, they are similar but not exact so I think the slight differences of (i) having to adopt a defensive stance to retrieve it and (ii) succeed at a Battle roll if your opponent is actively trying to stop you retrieve it, feels like a balanced approach.