Tavern Brawler: 'everything' improvised = 1d4?

[The Shadowdove]

Hey everyone,

I was wondering what the general interpretation of this is.

Has anyone asked someone like Mearls about it?

The feat says," You are proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes."

it then says, "Your unarmed strike uses a d4 for damage."


The feat doesn't actually seem to say what the damage for improvised weapons are.

Perhaps it's somewhere in the PHB or DMG?

Is there any reason why a 18-20 str raging barbarian couldnt lift a table and smash someone with it (now that he's proficient/has advantage on athletics checks), while also doing more than a d4 in damage? Of course, the table is probably smashed into timber/kindling upon impact in most cases...



Let me know what you've found/what your opinions/interpretations are!

I am in no way an expert, and have no clue what I'm talking about in most situations. So feel free to point out any misconceptions I may have had while writing this post.

I trust your superior book knowledge/experience internet people!

-Dove

[Malifice]

Its in the equipment section from memory.

DM's call, but yeah recommendation is 1d4.

[Gurka]

As far as I know, it's not really explicitly outlined, but it seems to be suggested that the default for improvised weapons is 1D4.

It definitely left me with the impression that it should be up to the DM, however, and it certainly doesn't make sense that hitting somebody with a beer mug does the same damage as hitting somebody with a wagon axle or that that should do the same as a 200 lbs boulder!

For small, hand-held objects, I'd say 1D4 is appropriate, but for larger items I'd give it about 1D6 per 50 lbs.

[GiantOctopodes]

Yep, as indicated, improvised weapons deal 1d4 damage, and have a range of 20/60 if thrown. This is true of any object that does not resemble a weapon that appears on the weapons list (a table, a bed, a flower pot, a teddy bear, a shoe, etc).
"An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object)."

Anything that does resemble a weapon (shard of glass with cloth wrapped around part as a "handle" = dagger, stick = club, mop = quarterstaff, etc) simply uses the weapon profile of the weapon in question, and is treated exactly as though it were the weapon in question in every way (proficiency bonus if proficient in that weapon, damage, special properties, etc).

The relevant rules are on page 146.

[WampDiesel]

Hey everyone,

I was wondering what the general interpretation of this is.

Has anyone asked someone like Mearls about it?

The feat says," You are proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes."

it then says, "Your unarmed strike uses a d4 for damage."


The feat doesn't actually seem to say what the damage for improvised weapons are.

Perhaps it's somewhere in the PHB or DMG?

Is there any reason why a 18-20 str raging barbarian couldnt lift a table and smash someone with it (now that he's proficient/has advantage on athletics checks), while also doing more than a d4 in damage? Of course, the table is probably smashed into timber/kindling upon impact in most cases...

-Dove

I also posted in your other similar thread about this topic asking for some advice. Some people would be annoyed at the repost but since I am interested myself I will indulge the question.

There is no reason why a raging barbarian cant smash a table over someone's head. If he does it without tavern brawler then he only get the STR mod but not the PB mod to the attack. Tavern brawler makes it so that no matter what you have in your hands you get to add the PB mod to the attack.

The damage for improvised weapons is mentioned on page 146 and 147.


In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.

Default damage seems to be 1d4+STR since it is an improvised melee weapon that doesn't resemble a "regular weapon." However one could argue that a table grabbed by two legs could be wielded like a greatclub therefore allowing 1d8+STR damage. This really seems to be a case of the DM making the appropriate call for the situation. I think that this is not explicitly outlined in the book because it really depends on how the DM and the group wants to run this kind of combat. If they wanted they can include all kinds of rider effects like automatic shoves for heavy objects or damage for throwing an enemy. They could make hilariously heavy things do more damage or they could say that you can only lift that object and not throw it very far because its too heavy. It all depends on the group.

RAW says only 1d4 no matter what but for some reason I feel like 1d8 is a good maximum damage for much heavier things that are not weapon-like if you somehow have the ability to lift them. However this gives me an idea a la Dark Souls of just tying an anvil to a sapling and calling it a greatmaul to get 2d6 damage. I guess it really depends on how crazy you want that sort of thing to be in your game. I am pretty sure the DM in the group that it matters to me will be all for those sort of shenanigans because he likes to run his combats like action movie sequences with great descriptions of what happens to the bad guys as we mow them down. YMMV.

[PoeticDwarf]

Its in the equipment section from memory.

DM's call, but yeah recommendation is 1d4.

Yes, and ther's that if you use a weapon that works the same as a real weapon, you do that amount of damage. Ask your DM or look it up there yourself.

[Whyrocknodie]

I would argue that the relative ineptness of wielding a heavy, awkward object makes it that much easier to block or otherwise avoid - and the hit points represent the ability to avoid actual harm.

So while there would be more trauma caused by a table than a tankard, it's much easier to clout someone round the head with the tankard. The reasons swords and so forth have higher hit point damage is that they are comparatively more threatening and easier to hurt someone with and thus expend more hit point resources in avoiding.

When you are out of hit points, there is no difference* in the system between a thrown rock and a dragon claw to your character.

* Excepting instant death by enormously damaging attacks, should you really take way too much in one go.

[WampDiesel]

I would argue that the relative ineptness of wielding a heavy, awkward object makes it that much easier to block or otherwise avoid - and the hit points represent the ability to avoid actual harm.

So while there would be more trauma caused by a table than a tankard, it's much easier to clout someone round the head with the tankard. The reasons swords and so forth have higher hit point damage is that they are comparatively more threatening and easier to hurt someone with and thus expend more hit point resources in avoiding.

I had never thought about it in that manner. The unwieldiness of the object makes it harder to use as a weapon effectively. Therefore 1d4+STR applies to most cases unless a valid exception is made for something weapon-like.

The one thing I am still mulling over is objects than can be considered weaponlike but are much heavier. Like shotputting a cannonball. It certainly should do more damage than a sling pebble, but how much more?

[ad_hoc]

I would argue that the relative ineptness of wielding a heavy, awkward object makes it that much easier to block or otherwise avoid - and the hit points represent the ability to avoid actual harm.

But a Tavern Brawler is not inept at wielding a table. It is not awkward for them. That is the point of the feat.

If absolutely everything did 1d4 there would be no reason to not just use your fists.

I think the key is to ensure that you aren't surpassing weapons. I have a Tavern Brawler, sometimes I pick up objects in the vicinity and use them. The DM comes up with a special ruling.

For example, I picked up a cauldron full of soup and doused a bunch of goblins with it. I then clobbered one of them with the cauldron. I think the soup did 1d4 damage but as an AoE and the cauldron itself did more. I don't carry the cauldron around though. It is not efficient as a weapon because it is huge and heavy. That's why there are mauls and such.

[WampDiesel]

I think the key is to ensure that you aren't surpassing weapons. I have a Tavern Brawler, sometimes I pick up objects in the vicinity and use them. The DM comes up with a special ruling.


Yeah I am seeing the DM tonight. The whole group can't be there tonight so we are doing a one-off. I will be definitely be discussing this with him based on the forum conversations from the last two days. That's really what I've learned over from these discussions, it is entirely DM / group dependent how you want to run it.

[Malifice]

But a Tavern Brawler is not inept at wielding a table. It is not awkward for them. That is the point of the feat.

If absolutely everything did 1d4 there would be no reason to not just use your fists.

You misread him.

He was making the point that most improvised weapons should deal 1d4 barring a pretty good justification.

Also - sometimes you want to deal slashing or piercing damage instead of bludgeoning, so it's still useful.

Finally, most peeps do 1 damage unarmed, so picking up a 1d4 slashing damage broken bottle is well worth it.

[GutterFace]

so side question. you take the feat and all of a sudden anything you can pick up and swing and be a weapon. chain, crowbar, chair, basketball size rock. and pow 1d4 and you are proficient.
pick up a weapon you couldn't use before, which is intended to be a weapon, and pow; still not proficient.
would you allow someone with the Tavern Brawler feat to use a non proficient weapon, as an improvised according to the feat guidelines?

[Malifice]

would you allow someone with the Tavern Brawler feat to use a non proficient weapon, as an improvised according to the feat guidelines?

Only if he used it in a way it wasnt meant to be used.

Dealing a d4 damage of course.

It's one of the few ways to become proficient in shield bash by the way.

[djreynolds]

Hey everyone,

I was wondering what the general interpretation of this is.

Has anyone asked someone like Mearls about it?

The feat says," You are proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes."

it then says, "Your unarmed strike uses a d4 for damage."


The feat doesn't actually seem to say what the damage for improvised weapons are.

Perhaps it's somewhere in the PHB or DMG?

Is there any reason why a 18-20 str raging barbarian couldnt lift a table and smash someone with it (now that he's proficient/has advantage on athletics checks), while also doing more than a d4 in damage? Of course, the table is probably smashed into timber/kindling upon impact in most cases...



Let me know what you've found/what your opinions/interpretations are!

I am in no way an expert, and have no clue what I'm talking about in most situations. So feel free to point out any misconceptions I may have had while writing this post.

I trust your superior book knowledge/experience internet people!

-Dove

From other posts, the "errata" states everyone is proficient now with unarmed strikes and it is a strength bonus. Monks are excluded, but for a rogue or archer who has a low strength/ high dexterity score who has his bow disarmed I think it may be worth it for 1d4. Especially for a rogue or bard in disguise, or a disarmed wizard it may save your life. It may be situational, but you could get caught and made prisoner.

As for chair to the head, I leave to the DM. And good examples for the need for piercing or slashing damage.