Making Tavern Brawler Just a Little Better

[Sullivan]

So one of my players in a new champaign were starting picked tavern brawler for his variant human feat. I through out the idea that TB was a so so feat and that there are other feats he might want to consider. He was adamant about TB because it fit into his Character Concept, which I love. Also, something to note is that in this world there are laws against using weapons in the city, so 1d4+Str unarmed attacks is not really that bad given the situations they'll most likely run into.

So what do you all think about beefing up Tavern Brawler just a little? The first thing that came to mind is that you can now grabble as a bonus action instead of just after a hit w/improvised weapon.

[pwykersotz]

I'm AFB at the moment, so I have nothing of particular value to contribute, except to say that I would like to join your champaign. I assume it's a mix of game and alcohol, which is always fun. :smalltongue:

[MrStabby]

If he spends all his time in establishments with less than perfect reputations you could throw in poison resistance as a bonus?

Maybe when they use their action to grapple they get to throw in an elbow strike or something as a bonus action?

[MadGrady]

Im curious as to your reasons why you think TB is a so so feat. I would genuinely like to hear your thoughts.


Edit - This might also help us direct a quicker path to enhancements

[Demonic Spoon]

I think you're underselling the utility of free grapples. Instead of sacrificing all damage to drag an enemy around like a ragdoll, you sacrifice the difference in damage dice between your weapon and 1d4, which isn't so bad if your strength is good (and it is only a half-feat).

[ChubbyRain]

Some options for your wild west like world. Perhapsnone of these will work.

Active Idea 1: Duel wield unarmed attacks. So say the player doesn't think he can grapple the enemy, or has failed a few times already. Allow him to use the two weapon fighting rules with unarmed attacks. It would essentially be the same damage as dagger twf except bludgeoning damage. Unless he takes another option his off hand would only do 1d4 damage.

Active Idea 2: Allow TB to disarm with an improvised weapon as a bonus action. No damage but could make a good tactical option.

Passive Idea 1: Resistance to damage from improvised weapons. Might be a bit powerful in your setting but generally could be put into TB and not be a huge boost in power. Really it would come down to the DM

Passive Idea 2: Allow improvised weapons to bypass resistance to nonmagical weapons. This would emulate the Elemental Adept feat in a way.

[Person_Man]

With Tavern Brawler, I would allow Unarmed Strike to count as a Finesse, Light, and Versatile (1d8), weapon. In other words, you can use Str or Dex for your attack and damage rolls, you can use it for TWF (Bonus Action Attack, if you choose not to use your Bonus Action to Grapple instead), and if you don't use it for TWF and don't carry anything else (shield, weapon, etc) you can instead deal 1d8 damage (instead of 1d4).

I think that makes it a lot more useful without really making it more powerful. After all, most Finesse/Light weapons deal 1d6 damage (not 1d4) and most two handed weapons deal 2d6 (not 1d8).

[Sullivan]

Im curious as to your reasons why you think TB is a so so feat. I would genuinely like to hear your thoughts.

Edit - This might also help us direct a quicker path to enhancements

AFB too, but I'm thinking about it in terms of feats like resilience(I think) where you get +1 and proficiency in that save. I'm not trying to say TB is the worst half- feat in the game, but I would like it to be a little bit stronger in general. although, I have never played with a primary strength character so i've never really seen how good grabbling can be.

[Chronos]

Quoth Person_Man:

With Tavern Brawler, I would allow Unarmed Strike to count as a Finesse, Light, and Versatile (1d8), weapon.
All at once? It seems like it might disrupt something or another to allow a weapon to be used two-handed as finesse.

[Dark Tira]

So is there any reason you wouldn't be able to use an enemy you have grappled as an improvised weapon assuming you had enough carrying capacity?

[Sullivan]

i'd have to see your roll .

[Cap'n Kobold]

All at once? It seems like it might disrupt something or another to allow a weapon to be used two-handed as finesse.
Combining Finesse and Two-handed or Versatile is weapons is generally a bad idea. If nothing else it will have extreme repercussions when Rogues start using it.

[Strill]

Combining Finesse and Two-handed or Versatile is weapons is generally a bad idea. If nothing else it will have extreme repercussions when Rogues start using it.

No it won't. I've done the numbers and it comes out the same as dual-wielding.

[Person_Man]

All at once? It seems like it might disrupt something or another to allow a weapon to be used two-handed as finesse.

Nope. It would still be slightly inferior to using weapons.

Shortsword deals 1d6 and is Finesse and Light.
Rapier deals 1d8 and is Finesse and one handed (so you could still use a Shield or Crossbow with the other hand)

Someone relying on my modified Tavern Brawler could deal 1d4 Finesse and Light (less damage then a Shortsword), OR 1d8 if using it as a two handed weapon (but you can't gain the benefit of a Shield or Crossbow or Polearm/Heavy/etc Feats).

The only down side is that it makes a non-Monk unarmed build viable, which is something that WotC specifically did not want to do, because they wanted to protect the Monk's thematic niche.

[Joe the Rat]

The only down side is that it makes a non-Monk unarmed build viable, which is something that WotC specifically did not want to do, because they wanted to protect the Monk's thematic niche. I wonder why Monk is the only class with such deeply woven niche protection? I mean, one feat buys you into about half of being a 1st level caster (Magic Initiate), but we don't hear panic over that. Any human can have magic, but only the bald guy with the broom can throw a one-two combo at 1st level?

My thoughts: Have Tavern Brawler make unarmed strikes 1d4, light. Or standardize US as light.
I think I've mentioned this here before, but with RAW, it takes two feats (TB, Dual Wielding) for a character to get the unarmed strike options of a 1st level monk (and a fighting style to match damage). As is, TB seems to be intended for "action to strike, bonus action grapple" every time. throwing in that option for bonus second attack shouldn't break anything. If niche protection is a concern, leaving it without finesse emphasizes the "Brawler" part while protecting the "dextrous ninja kick" as well as "punches like a club->mace->warhammer" aspects of the monk's style.

Yes, this also makes it harder for rogues to sneak-attack unarmed. Monk-fists-aren't-finesse is an angle on this (though if you want to patch that issue, you probably ought to tweak it here as well), but to me this is more about how a rogue ought to brawl. Is he throwing a sucker-punch, or is he smashing a (finesseable) bottle over someone's head?

Versatile punches? So we're talking about the Kirk-style double fist strike? I guess that works for a Western... by the standard progression, it ought to go 1d4 (1d6 versatile), which is, admittedly, terrible. My next thought is 2d4, but technically that is better than the 1d8, particularly if you factor in two-handed fighting style. Hmmm... Tavern Brawler and Duelist style. 1d4+2+Str damage, and you are still allowed your bonus grapple.

Resistance to improvised weapon damage is an interesting idea. It should also protect some against defenestration (though a closed/glass window) and the bar slide.

[Sullivan]

one idea i was playing with is making US crits stun the opponent 50% of the time (or a Con save against strength maybe), for just one round. I like the idea of upping the damage, but is seems a little to much for a half feat. That said, I may give the player extra damage if they decide that they want to go without a weapon most of the time, which he won't, but it may come up in the future. so if i did the damage thing I think I would build a sliding scale based on level and creature size.
+1 huge, 1d4 medium, and 1d6 for small for levels 1-4 then up the dice size for levels 5-8 1d4 huge, 1d6 medium, 1d8 small, etc..

[Erasmas]

The timing on this thread is pretty serendipitous!

I had a class that I had made for 3rd edition called a Brawler. One of my players expressed an interest in wanting to play one in my upcoming game, even though it will be in 5th edition. So, I thought long and hard about making it into a new archetype, but ultimately decided to make it its own class. About halfway through creating it, after I had already decided on my two archetypes, I found the Feats section and realized that there were feats that basically encompassed both of the archetypes that I had created. So, I just incorporated them as one of the archetype abilities that you get.

Now, I'm am still pretty new to 5th edition (I've only played in about half a dozen sessions), but I am really happy with how the class came out! And, since it seems like it fits this conversation pretty well... I was going to offer it for perusal, if anyone was interested. Let me know and I will post it up!

[pwykersotz]

making US crits stun the opponent 50% of the time

US crits, roll DEMOCRACY. :smallcool:

[Jamesps]

The best way to make Tavern Brawler better is to put in hazardous terrain features. If these are common, Tavern Brawler is one of the best feats in the game.

Let him throw opponents off bridges, hold them in fires, Hop spiked pits and release them as they go over, etc...

[Sullivan]

The best way to make Tavern Brawler better is to put in hazardous terrain features. If these are common, Tavern Brawler is one of the best feats in the game.
Let him throw opponents off bridges, hold them in fires, Hop spiked pits and release them as they go over, etc...

I'm already big on the improvised actions in my games, but I like the idea of the feat giving the player more incentive to think outside the box. What were you thinking in terms of mechanically changing the game?

[ChubbyRain]

US crits, roll DEMOCRACY. :smallcool:
Commie, like the Bald Eagle, Democracy doesn't roll.

:smalltongue:

[Sullivan]

http://www.blogcdn.com/wow.joystiq.com/media/2008/03/colbertcard.jpg

[ChubbyRain]

http://www.blogcdn.com/wow.joystiq.com/media/2008/03/colbertcard.jpg

He needs to have the skin markings of a Goliath, but the markings are red and blue...

http://mephitjames.wdfiles.com/local--files/template:goliath-guide/goliath-tribes.jpg

Or

http://images.askmen.com/1200x600/video/entertainment-and-celebrities/movie-mistakes-9-braveheart-1091439-TwoByOne.jpg

But red and blue

[MadBear]

http://www.blogcdn.com/wow.joystiq.com/media/2008/03/colbertcard.jpg

That isn't nearly nuff Murica for my taste.

http://i.imgur.com/Sfu7aKX.jpg

[ChubbyRain]

That isn't nearly nuff Murica for my taste.

http://i.imgur.com/Sfu7aKX.jpg

Eh, the Bald Eagle has a harness thing in it's mouth. That clearly shows that the President is stifling the Bald Eagle's freedom of speach. It loses Murica points for that.

[Person_Man]

My next Pro-democracy Aarakocra PC:


http://www.collector-actionfigures.com/static/media/uploads/ScreamingEagle3.jpg


Back on topic, I think we all agree that if a player wants to use unarmed attacks for fluff reasons, but does not want to play a Monk, they should not be severely punished.

[ChubbyRain]

My next Pro-democracy Aarakocra PC:


http://www.collector-actionfigures.com/static/media/uploads/ScreamingEagle3.jpg


Back on topic, I think we all agree that if a player wants to use unarmed attacks for fluff reasons, but does not want to play a Monk, they should not be severely punished.

See I don't understand how having a good unarmed attack as a bonus action even starts to step on the toes of the Monk. And if that alone hurts the monk then obviously the monk needs help.

However this isn't 3e. They fixed the monk in 4e (holy crap are they fun) and continued to make sure it didn't suck in 5e. The monk is so much more than "I attack again with my foot/hand/head/hip" and allowing anyone else to have a decent or good "I attack with my foot/hand/head/hip" doesn't come close to being a monk at all.

Having a fighter or rogue become good at unarmed attacks would make them be more like a boxer or MMA type than the classical Kung Fu/Karate master type.

They didn't even give the fighter a niche/role to begin with so I'm not sure why they are so defensive about the monk's.

[Person_Man]

See I don't understand how having a good unarmed attack as a bonus action even starts to step on the toes of the Monk.

My understanding is that the designers wanted the Bonus Action to be a BONUS that you get for paying some specific cost (using a weaker weapon with TWF, investing a Feat, casting a spell with limited uses), and not just an assumed second Action that everyone gets every pretty much every turn.

In this particular case, being able to make unarmed at-will Bonus Action attacks is supposed to be the Monk's special thing. More specifically, its how he keeps up in the at-will damage output, since his unarmed strike damage scales, and he can always make at least one Bonus Action attack (or two when he flurries).

Having said that, I agree with you. I'm just saying what I think the desingers intended.

[Strill]

My understanding is that the designers wanted the Bonus Action to be a BONUS that you get for paying some specific cost (using a weaker weapon with TWF, investing a Feat, casting a spell with limited uses), and not just an assumed second Action that everyone gets every pretty much every turn.

Well they certainly screwed that up.

[LordVonDerp]

That isn't nearly nuff Murica for my taste.

http://i.imgur.com/Sfu7aKX.jpg


http://th06.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2011/053/1/7/teddy_roosevelt_vs__bigfoot_by_sharpwriter-d3a72w4.jpg

[SaibenLocke]

The way I have ran it is that with the feat seeing how you are prof in Improvised weapon. You can grapple someone and use them as a weapon. They get to try and escape the grapple of course but if you win you can use them to hit someone else or just smash them into the ground. The Hulk VS Loki in the Avengers lol. also if you throw them the full 60 feet they take 6d6 damage.

[HoarsHalberd]

No it won't. I've done the numbers and it comes out the same as dual-wielding.

Dual wielding rogue: 2d8+10+9d6 =52 with a feat and a 2 level fighter dip.
Two handed rogue: 1d8+5+9d6+GWF(5.85) =47.85 with a 2 level fighter dip. (GWM is essentially worthless for the build, risking your one chance to sneak attack a round isn't worth +10 damage.)