Tavern Brawler Feat Preview

[Person_Man]

Official WotC preview:

http://community.wizards.com/sites/mtgcommunity/files/styles/large/public/10499423_10152544263436071_3802829063249818585_o.j pg?itok=ITy_X_7R
By default, Unarmed Strike is Strength based only (not a Finesse Weapon), cannot be used with Two Weapon Fighting (not a Light Weapon), and deals 1 point of damage (sucks). Mearls has said that this was an intentional design choice, so that other classes wouldn't be stepping on the Monk's niche.

Also, acid, holy water, and oil are all improvised weapon.

Discuss.

[Tholomyes]

I'm a bit underwhelmed. Not because I dislike the feat too terribly much, but, as I've mentioned on another thread, I feel like I wanted more envelope-pushing from feats, given that they're supposed to be so large impact, and given the example we were given of Lucky. I'd have liked to see them get rid of the +1 Str or Con for a more character defining bonus.

It honestly doesn't feel like the feat just does enough. d4 damage on an Unarmed strike is just barely enough to make it usable if it fits your concept. For half a feat, the difference between wielding a club and having the feat is being able to grapple with a bonus action (which, given that initiating a grapple costs not an action but a single attack, means that it grants limited TWF to an off-hand unarmed strike, which can't be used for damage).

Given that I've heard the TWF feat gets rid of the need for the weapons to be light, if the other abilities from the feat are worth more than a +1 to Con or Str, I'd actually argue that picking up that feat is probably preferable for the intended purpose of this feat. Reflavoring a mace (or flail, if you have proficiency) as an unarmed strike or improvised weapon gets you a better weapon die, and you can still use your bonus action to grapple (since, again, it costs a single attack, such as your unarmed off-hand attack), and you don't need proficiency with unarmed attacks to grapple effectively, so not having proficiency doesn't matter.

Edit: missed the fact that acid, ect are improvised weapons, but that's still only a small boon, in the grand scheme of things.

[rlc]

i wonder if it'll be worth it for monks to take for the bonus action grapple

[Oscredwin]

I would think that this is something you get to get your STR from 19 to 20 and picking up some extra utility on the side. But maybe I have it backwards.

[Pex]

I would think that this is something you get to get your STR from 19 to 20 and picking up some extra utility on the side. But maybe I have it backwards.

You'd have to really want the utility because you can just as well get +1 to both ST and CO. The topic was broached before. With feats competing against ability score increases, they need to be equivalent worth. Personal taste this feat is worth less than an ability score increase. It has to fit your character concept and campaign circumstances specifically.

[Prophet_of_Io]

It's not a terribly overwhelming feat, but sadly the brawler archetype rarely is.

It's nice. The Proficiency for IW and Unarmed and the grapple as a bonus action, but I'd have to really want to play an unarmed not-monk. I'm inclined to agree with people who wish that the +1 to str or con was replaced with another incentive to pick the feat. There's something to be said about the rough and tumble bar room brawler but this fear doesn't inspire me to want to role one up.

I still like their feat concept as a whole but ill admit I think they could've pushed this just a little bit more without leaving the monk with nothing to call their own.

[Wrenn]

The way I'm understanding it there are three types of choices you will be able to take; the ability increase, the +1 and some bonuses as this feat has, or no ability increase with a meatier feat.
I like the idea of three 'tiers' of feats as presented, although I would have liked to have seen at least Shove as an option with the bonus action.

[Tholomyes]

i wonder if it'll be worth it for monks to take for the bonus action grapple

Unless they've changed things, I think you can TWF with unarmed as a monk, meaning they can just use the bonus action to grapple, anyway.

Personally, if the reason they held this back was for monks, I think that was a bad decision. Monks should be defined by more than just fighting unarmed, to the point where, honestly, Ki and stuff like stunning fist and deflect arrows (and fingers crossed but potentially stances in the form of martial arts styles, such as for example crane stance letting you deflect enemy attacks, ect) should be more important to the class than just fighting unarmed, which is more flavor than mechanics (and given that, tavern brawler certainly has different base flavor than the monk's)

[Sartharina]

Unless they've changed things, I think you can TWF with unarmed as a monk, meaning they can just use the bonus action to grapple, anyway.Where are they getting the bonus action?

[TheOOB]

Ehh, I like the feat, but I don't see myself taking it. You're trading one ability score point for some interesting and potentially useful abilities, albiet situational. Depending on your character type and what type of campaign you're running, this might actually be a useful feat, and for characters who mostly want it for flavor you're not crippling your character to get it.

I have no problem with "flavor" feats, but I would have liked to see a more useful adventuring feat previewed.

[Tholomyes]

Where are they getting the bonus action?

I'm confused as to what you mean by that. The bonus action grapple is the same as using the bonus action in TWF, but giving up the attack to initiate a grapple (also of note, you don't need to hit with the first attack, in the monk case). The action economy is the same, just the monk doesn't need to spend a feat.


Ehh, I like the feat, but I don't see myself taking it. You're trading one ability score point for some interesting and potentially useful abilities, albiet situational. Depending on your character type and what type of campaign you're running, this might actually be a useful feat, and for characters who mostly want it for flavor you're not crippling your character to get it.

I have no problem with "flavor" feats, but I would have liked to see a more useful adventuring feat previewed.

Part of my issue with it is that I'm fine with flavor feats, but I want them to be at least relatively effective for the type of character or playstyle who would find it flavorful. I can't see much that this does that couldn't be done more effectively by other feats and reflavoring. In my mind, a flavor feat doesn't need to be the most effective feat, but it should be the most effective way of doing the thing it was taken for (assuming reflavoring, ect). Unless the Duel Wield feat isn't what I've heard it is (an AC boost and getting rid of the light requirement of TWF), It's, for the most part, superior to this feat, mechanically.

[akaddk]

A broken bottle in one hand, a clenched fist with the other hand, and you're stabbing people in the face then grabbing them and dragging them out the front door.

I would've called this feat "Tavern Bouncer".

[Breltar]

I'm confused as to what you mean by that. The bonus action grapple is the same as using the bonus action in TWF, but giving up the attack to initiate a grapple (also of note, you don't need to hit with the first attack, in the monk case). The action economy is the same, just the monk doesn't need to spend a feat.


TWF only allows a bonus action attack if both weapons are light weapons. The unarmed strike is not a light weapon so thus cannot be used during a bonus action, just a standard attack action.

Pg 74 of Basic Rules (printer friendly)
Grappling
When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it,
you can use the Attack action to make a special melee
attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks
with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.


You can't use grapple as a bonus action since unarmed attack isn't allowed in TWF. Fighter can use their normal extra attack(s).

[Madfellow]

I can see this feat being useful for two types of characters:

1) Monks; they make tons of unarmed attacks, and grappling is a good skill for them to have.

2) Anyone who likes carrying around vials of poisons and alchemist's fire and such. The bottle's they come in are considered improvised weapons, so adding proficiency to attack rolls with them can be very helpful.

It's not super powerful, but it's useful for some and it's there if you want it. I see no problem here.

[Joe the Rat]

I like the idea of the tiered feats (big feat & no stat, medium feat and +1 stat, or +2 stat). This gives you halfway options if you want a feat without giving up all of the stat improvement for the level. It then comes down to the "half feat" being worth the same as a +1.

Out of curiosity, what classes would benefit from getting unarmed strike proficiency here besides Wizard? (note to self: Wizard cannot throw a punch.)

If TWF and FoB can stack (I remember some natter about avoiding too many attack add-ons, but I don't remember if this was discussion, design intent, or as-yet-unrevealed rules), you may not be able to use Unarmed as your bonus attack, depending on Dual Wielding granting one or both weapons not having to be light. I expect a lot of monks to carry a single club or dagger for the bonus action off-hand attack (punch-kick-punch, stab!).

On Grapple: It reads like grapple is replacing the attack action, not the attack. That sounds like the fighter's multiple attacks do not come into play when they try to grapple, nor does the monk's flurry.(edit: literacy is hard, man) Tavern Brawler keeps it relevant by giving you a bonus action to grapple after an unarmed or improvised weapon strike. This will likely be a must-have for grapple-focused characters. Also note that it doesn't say it must be a one-handed improvised weapon. Great Weapon Style Tavern Brawler: Brutal Dice Ladder Grapple!

[ImperiousLeader]

Also, taking this feat is a message to the DM. Since feats are bigger in scale and fewer in number, I'd say that they should feel almost like Aspects from Fate games. A PC with the Tavern Brawler feat walks into a tavern, and you're going to get that moment of silence like in those Westerns. Feats should be more noticeable in the game.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Also, taking this feat is a message to the DM. Since feats are bigger in scale and fewer in number, I'd say that they should feel almost like Aspects from Fate games. A PC with the Tavern Brawler feat walks into a tavern, and you're going to get that moment of silence like in those Westerns. Feats should be more noticeable in the game.

Well Mearles have been quoted to saying that you should be able to tell that a character has the feat each game. Maybe at least 1/session or something like that?


To bad in one of my friend's game there isn't any taverns, just bars :smalltongue:

Anyways, this won't have to compete all that much with lucky, humans can just take the alternate racial trait to pick up lucky at first level and pick this or another feat at level 4 like normal.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Also note that it doesn't say it must be a one-handed improvised weapon. Great Weapon Style Tavern Brawler: Brutal Dice Ladder Grapple!


Great weapon style Double Fist Punch!

Captain Kirk style :smallbiggrin:

[Person_Man]

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that I hate the Bonus Action.

At this point, its clear that every player is going to be using their Bonus Action every round to do something. No doubt the Reaction will also be consumed every round for some other Feat or spell or class ability as well. This will lead to the same slowdown in gameplay that 4E suffered.

Its a shame that they didn't just limit the Action Economy to one Move, one Action, and one Reaction (that requires a specific trigger to use), which was how it was setup in the initial play tests.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that I hate the Bonus Action.

At this point, its clear that every player is going to be using their Bonus Action every round to do something. No doubt the Reaction will also be consumed every round for some other Feat or spell or class ability as well. This will lead to the same slowdown in gameplay that 4E suffered.

Its a shame that they didn't just limit the Action Economy to one Move, one Action, and one Reaction (that requires a specific trigger to use), which was how it was setup in the initial play tests.

What I would like to see, and this is a total rip off from FF Tactics more or less.

Each player gets to choose which bonus action or reaction they have ready. Anytime you have downtime you can say "my reaction is X" or "my bonus action is X".

This cuts down on how many options abplayer has to keep track of and represents their character's focus.

So a Rogue could have the following

Actions
Move

Bonus Action: Choice between 3 items (say from cunning action)
Reaction: Choice between 2.

So my rogue decided to focus on defense...

Action: Normal
Move: Normal
Bonus Action: Disengage
Reaction: Uncanny Dodge

While another rogue may be

Action: Normal
Move: Normal
Bonus Action: Dash
Reaction: TWF

You can switch it up outside of battle (or 5 min rest) by switching where your equipment is located or putting on a different set of boots, getting weapons ready etc...

This can work for casters too,bonus action or reaction spells can be limited in some way? May only prepare 1 of each every day.

[Sartharina]

I can see this feat being useful for two types of characters:

1) Monks; they make tons of unarmed attacks, and grappling is a good skill for them to have.

2) Anyone who likes carrying around vials of poisons and alchemist's fire and such. The bottle's they come in are considered improvised weapons, so adding proficiency to attack rolls with them can be very helpful.

It's not super powerful, but it's useful for some and it's there if you want it. I see no problem here.It's also useful for most of my characters that like to get in a bunch of brawls, especially Tavern Brawls.

[Human Paragon 3]

It'd be much better as a grapple OR a shove, but I could see taking this for a character who likes to throw down bare-handed.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It'd be much better as a grapple OR a shove, but I could see taking this for a character who likes to throw down bare-handed.

Rogue + Double Proficiency Athletics + Tavern Brawler + dagger (or glass bottle I guess) = grapple shiver of death.

Sneak attack works when there is an enemy of the target within 5' of the target... During a tavern brawl I think that will be easy to accomplish.

Rogue Dwarf (+2 Con/+2Str)
Level 4: +4 Prof + 4 Str (easy to get) + advantage (inspiration: I love tavern brawls)... 1d20 + 8 w/advantage. Bonus Action to grapple. Then stab the hell out of them with a dagger... 1d4+4+2d6 (average 13.5) and the target should be stuck to you...

Hmm I'm sure there is a flaw there and I'm sure someone can optimize better but... Yeah that would be nice.

Level 5 you would get +6 to you athletics...

I'm sure there will be a better way to do this. Hey to add insult to injury you could sleight of hand (have that be your other expertise) and grapple/stab/steal/stab the target to death.

[Tholomyes]

TWF only allows a bonus action attack if both weapons are light weapons. The unarmed strike is not a light weapon so thus cannot be used during a bonus action, just a standard attack action.

Pg 74 of Basic Rules (printer friendly)
Grappling
When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it,
you can use the Attack action to make a special melee
attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks
with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.


You can't use grapple as a bonus action since unarmed attack isn't allowed in TWF. Fighter can use their normal extra attack(s).The post I was responding to was referring to monks. For monks, unless they changed things, unarmed strikes are light and finesse, meaning there's no reason for a monk to take the feat for bonus-action grappling.


Also, taking this feat is a message to the DM. Since feats are bigger in scale and fewer in number, I'd say that they should feel almost like Aspects from Fate games. A PC with the Tavern Brawler feat walks into a tavern, and you're going to get that moment of silence like in those Westerns. Feats should be more noticeable in the game.

Not a big fan of this. Just because it's name is Tavern Brawler doesn't mean much. True, it defines its base flavor, but only its base flavor. If a PC wanted it for a brawler style character, great. If they wanted it to add monk-esque flavor to their fighter, great. If they wanted it to make their character into an acid-throwing rogue, great. It's name is only relevant for one of those three.


I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that I hate the Bonus Action.

At this point, its clear that every player is going to be using their Bonus Action every round to do something. No doubt the Reaction will also be consumed every round for some other Feat or spell or class ability as well. This will lead to the same slowdown in gameplay that 4E suffered.

Its a shame that they didn't just limit the Action Economy to one Move, one Action, and one Reaction (that requires a specific trigger to use), which was how it was setup in the initial play tests.I dislike the bonus action and reaction, but for entirely different reasons. The issue I have with them isn't that they'll be used each round, but that there are a lot of things that I honestly feel shouldn't be bonus actions or reactions. Opportunity attacks, for example, are more useful as a threat of activation, than actually being used, but since they cover the same action economy as all the other reactions, they're significantly worse as a threat of activation, since you also need to not use your reaction for other things. Similarly, TWF had never been an action economy expendature in previous editions (with certain exceptions in 4e powers, but it wasn't a requirement). Presumably this was because they learned just how much of an increase to damage it was (at lower levels, mind you, because Mearls doesn't seem to understand how scaling by level works), but instead of decreasing the damage that TWF could provide, they decided to make it compete with all the other things they made into a bonus action, which all that did is make those cool bonus action options into, largely, a non-factor.

[MeeposFire]

The post I was responding to was referring to monks. For monks, unless they changed things, unarmed strikes are light and finesse, meaning there's no reason for a monk to take the feat for bonus-action grappling.



Not a big fan of this. Just because it's name is Tavern Brawler doesn't mean much. True, it defines its base flavor, but only its base flavor. If a PC wanted it for a brawler style character, great. If they wanted it to add monk-esque flavor to their fighter, great. If they wanted it to make their character into an acid-throwing rogue, great. It's name is only relevant for one of those three.

I dislike the bonus action and reaction, but for entirely different reasons. The issue I have with them isn't that they'll be used each round, but that there are a lot of things that I honestly feel shouldn't be bonus actions or reactions. Opportunity attacks, for example, are more useful as a threat of activation, than actually being used, but since they cover the same action economy as all the other reactions, they're significantly worse as a threat of activation, since you also need to not use your reaction for other things. Similarly, TWF had never been an action economy expendature in previous editions (with certain exceptions in 4e powers, but it wasn't a requirement). Presumably this was because they learned just how much of an increase to damage it was (at lower levels, mind you, because Mearls doesn't seem to understand how scaling by level works), but instead of decreasing the damage that TWF could provide, they decided to make it compete with all the other things they made into a bonus action, which all that did is make those cool bonus action options into, largely, a non-factor.

Well in 3e it did require a full attack action which is definitely an action limiting choice. Of course making the damage work is hard unless you want to do what some 4e powers did. At the start of 4e power like twin strike were used to dual wield and unlike most attack powers you did not get your attribute bonus to damage. The idea was that it would help balance the power. It did not really as twin strike was among the best at wills in the game for dealing damage due to how many other bonuses to damage you get in 4e that you do not miss the loss of str to damage. Later in order to trim down the damage they made powers that did not have a damage roll on the second attack which cut down on the damage a lot but then it may lose the feal of being an actual second attack.

[Tholomyes]

Well in 3e it did require a full attack action which is definitely an action limiting choice. Of course making the damage work is hard unless you want to do what some 4e powers did. At the start of 4e power like twin strike were used to dual wield and unlike most attack powers you did not get your attribute bonus to damage. The idea was that it would help balance the power. It did not really as twin strike was among the best at wills in the game for dealing damage due to how many other bonuses to damage you get in 4e that you do not miss the loss of str to damage. Later in order to trim down the damage they made powers that did not have a damage roll on the second attack which cut down on the damage a lot but then it may lose the feal of being an actual second attack.3e I discount, because the game was built on the assumption of Full-attacking, TWF or not. The action economy of TWF vs non TWF was identical, and moreover 5e removed the Full-attack notion, largely in order to broaden the action economy beyond the stand still and attack notion of 3e, as well as to simplify the action costs in general. 4e, I know less on, due to the way powers worked, and there not being a single unified TWF, but most 4e powers of TWF were in the Twin-strike camp of make two attacks as a single standard action, and occasionally do an additional thing if both hit.

I feel that 5e could have easily found a way to reign in TWF without making it be an action economy eater.

[Human Paragon 3]

I feel that 5e could have easily found a way to reign in TWF without making it be an action economy eater.

I bet the TWF feats alleviate this problem. As it stands, anyone can TWF perfectly just by spending a bonus action. Characters who specialize in it will probably go far beyond that.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I bet the TWF feats alleviate this problem. As it stands, anyone can TWF perfectly just by spending a bonus action. Characters who specialize in it will probably go far beyond that.

One would hope, though I suspect this may also be a Ranger class feature (:smallfurious:). I hate how rangers get shoehorned into specific weapons and not specific tactics.

I really loved some of the ideas during the playtest when it came to the ranger but I might be dissapointed :/

Although I really hope there is a spell-less ranger option.

[Human Paragon 3]

I get that Rangers have been TWF specialists since AD&D, but frankly, I never got it. I think any character should be able to TWF and do it well.

And Rangers should be able to fight in more ways than just archery and two-weapon fighting. What if I want a cross-bow wielding ranger? Or an great axe-wielding ranger?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I get that Rangers have been TWF specialists since AD&D, but frankly, I never got it. I think any character should be able to TWF and do it well.

And Rangers should be able to fight in more ways than just archery and two-weapon fighting. What if I want a cross-bow wielding ranger? Or an great axe-wielding ranger?

I've always thought the hand-axe/hatchet/tomahawk should get special love with the ranger, or at least a certain style of ranger.

If they make tactical choices for us to choose from instead of weapon choices then I may be a handaxes wielding hippy murderhobo like I always wanted.

[BRC]

"Step on the Monk's Niche"
I don't think anybody's problem with the Monk was that other classes could do decent unarmed damage.

That said, A lot of this will depend on the improvised weapon rules. Brawler archetypes are always going to be flavor over functionality (People use things like swords and armor for a reason), maybe if improvised weapons are good enough somebody could take this feat and have fun smashing goblins over the head with chairs, dealing enough damage in the process to feel like they're contributing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

"Step on the Monk's Niche"
I don't think anybody's problem with the Monk was that other classes could do decent unarmed damage.

That said, A lot of this will depend on the improvised weapon rules. Brawler archetypes are always going to be flavor over functionality (People use things like swords and armor for a reason), maybe if improvised weapons are good enough somebody could take this feat and have fun smashing goblins over the head with chairs, dealing enough damage in the process to feel like they're contributing.

See, I never liked the monk's niche being unarmed combat", actually I hated it.

The monk should be about combos, like in martial arts, and be very mobile. Using unarmed or monk weapons they should be able to mix things up. At least for the normal D&D monk.

Sai used to disarm, second sai used to pin the target to the wall or floor, then kick the enemy in the chest and launch yourself backwards (jump) and get ready to for the next round.

Edit: Autocorrect thinks Monk = more no ... ???

[Tholomyes]

See, I never liked the monk's niche being unarmed combat", actually I hated it.

The monk should be about combos, like in martial arts, and be very mobile. Using unarmed or monk weapons they should be able to mix things up. At least for the normal D&D monk.

Sai used to disarm, second sai used to pin the target to the wall or floor, then kick the enemy in the chest and launch yourself backwards (jump) and get ready to for the next round.

Edit: Autocorrect thinks Monk = more no ... ???Yeah, I'm largely in this camp too. Though perhaps less about combos (to me that's more describing how you make your attacks), but definitely mobility and combat maneuvers, like your mentioned disarming, and pinning stuff. Were it me, I'd also work in a stance-based mechanic, to replicate certain fighting styles.

[Sartharina]

Yeah, I'm largely in this camp too. Though perhaps less about combos (to me that's more describing how you make your attacks), but definitely mobility and combat maneuvers, like your mentioned disarming, and pinning stuff. Were it me, I'd also work in a stance-based mechanic, to replicate certain fighting styles.

This is my idea as well... Monks should be about special maneuvers than merely 'hits with fists' - though the versatility of unarmed strikes should be expanded and elaborated on (Kicks, headbutts, punches, grabs). When I play a monk, I want to play a character similar to Turner from Lugaru and Overgrowth. Or anyone from Kung Fu Panda (Yes, I have small reference pools)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

This is my idea as well... Monks should be about special maneuvers than merely 'hits with fists' - though the versatility of unarmed strikes should be expanded and elaborated on (Kicks, headbutts, punches, grabs). When I play a monk, I want to play a character similar to Turner from Lugaru and Overgrowth. Or anyone from Kung Fu Panda (Yes, I have small reference pools)

Watch Legend of the Drunken Master by Jackie Chan, it is slow to start but my god does he have some crazy moves.... That he is actually doing haha.

Iron Monkey is another great kung Fu movie (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Monkey_(1993_film))

While the iron monkey may be more of a ninja, I see Wong Kei-ying as more of a monk *shrug* pretty much the same thing though haha.

[rlc]

the last dragon.