Arguments to Stacking Alter Self with Tavern Brawler

[aadder]

So, I have a character I want to run.

It's a muscle wizard.

So i started by taking a versatile human with Tavern Brawler, and at level 4, Improved Grapple. He has 8 intellect.

My question to the forum is, what is a bulletproof argument i can make to the DM that the D4 damage from Tavern Brawler should stack with the D6 damage from Alter Self? My opinon is that Tavern Brawler reflects how well you punch, and has nothing to do with what your fists actually are. Alter Self allows you to change your fists to be a lot nastier, now how you punch with them. Therefor, they should stack. My unarmed attacks (Alter Self specifically says Unarmed Strikes, Tavern Brawler specifically says Urnarmed Strikes), should deal D4 + D6 damage while both are in effect.

Thoughts on how to improve this argument?

[The Jack]

With logic like that, we'd all be wearing layers of armour over our natural armour, claiming ac bonuses for them all.

[Greywander]

I think the best concession you can hope for is to boost your unarmed damage die to 1d8, which is still the equivalent of a one-handed martial weapon.

On a certain level, it does make sense to me for a character that has natural weapons (racial or via Alter Self) to increase their damage die by one level if they get another bonus to unarmed damage, either via Tavern Brawler or monk levels. However, I'd do this by taking the monk/Tavern Brawler die and increasing that by one step, rather than increasing the natural weapons die one step. Otherwise you'd end up with lizardfolk monks that deal 1d14 damage on an unarmed attack.

In short, I wouldn't hold your breath. 1d6 is already plenty fine, most of your damage should be coming from your STR mod anyway.


With logic like that, we'd all be wearing layers of armour over our natural armour, claiming ac bonuses for them all.
Armor is meant to be layered. I think we're supposed to assume that a paladin in full plate is already also wearing chainmail and a gambeson ("padded armor") under their plate. The AC of that armor includes all the assumed layers. It wouldn't work anyway, since each set of armor would replace the AC of the other armor, much the same way you can't stack Unarmored Defense with Mage Armor (or with itself if you have both monk and barbarian levels).

But yes, the image of someone trying to wear three suits of plate armor while claiming they should have 34 AC (10 + 8 + 8 + 8) is quite ridiculous.

I've tried to create an armor system that allowed you to layer armor, but it got... messy.

[aadder]

In short, I wouldn't hold your breath. 1d6 is already plenty fine, most of your damage should be coming from your STR mod anyway.


Honestly as far as I can figure, this argument is the only way a muscle wizard is gonna fly in 5e so i'm trying to make it work.

[Greywander]

Honestly as far as I can figure, this argument is the only way a muscle wizard is gonna fly in 5e so i'm trying to make it work.
I think you'd be better off arguing that you can use Booming Blade with unarmed attacks. Or simply using a weapon (your wizard staff?).

A properly built wizard can still be effective as a melee fighter, and even a grappler. Make sure you pick up Enlarge/Reduce. Resilient (CON) and Warcaster will help keep you from losing concentration. Look into non-concentration buffs as well, like Mirror Image and Fire Shield.

If you don't mind not actually being a wizard, Eldritch Knight with Ritual Caster (wizard) can mimic a lot of what the wizard can do while still giving you great melee capability.

[The Jack]

I've tried to create an armor system that allowed you to layer armor, but it got... messy.

quite easy in systems that reduce damage by armour.

[JackPhoenix]

There's no way to make that argument bulletproof. One ability makes your unarmed strike 1d4, the other makes it 1d6. You choose one or the other. There's no stacking allowed by the wording.

If you go buy a car and the vendor tell you they have it in red or blue, that doesn't mean that you can get it in purple, because red + blue = purple.

[MThurston]

Bulletproof would be to make a new rule book that says they stack.

[No brains]

I can't do 'bulletproof' but if you want some insane troll logic/ improvised actions/ fiat rulings, you could claim that you are altering your shape to make maximum use of your improvised weapons. Like grafting weapons, but with bar stools.

[aadder]

I think you'd be better off arguing that you can use Booming Blade with unarmed attacks. Or simply using a weapon (your wizard staff?).

A properly built wizard can still be effective as a melee fighter, and even a grappler. Make sure you pick up Enlarge/Reduce. Resilient (CON) and Warcaster will help keep you from losing concentration. Look into non-concentration buffs as well, like Mirror Image and Fire Shield.


Well part of the problem is I want a build that works at low levels (5), and if possible requires no Intellect. It's basically a troll build based on my concept for a blue collar wizard that has no enthusiasm for actual magic.

[Damon_Tor]

So, I have a character I want to run.

It's a muscle wizard.

So i started by taking a versatile human with Tavern Brawler, and at level 4, Improved Grapple. He has 8 intellect.

My question to the forum is, what is a bulletproof argument i can make to the DM that the D4 damage from Tavern Brawler should stack with the D6 damage from Alter Self? My opinon is that Tavern Brawler reflects how well you punch, and has nothing to do with what your fists actually are. Alter Self allows you to change your fists to be a lot nastier, now how you punch with them. Therefor, they should stack. My unarmed attacks (Alter Self specifically says Unarmed Strikes, Tavern Brawler specifically says Urnarmed Strikes), should deal D4 + D6 damage while both are in effect.

Thoughts on how to improve this argument?

Here's my argument: Crawford says so. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/760330673194405888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E760330673194405888&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2016%2F0 8%2F26%2Fcan-a-monk-benefit-from-alter-self-and-martial-arts%2F)

But because he doesn't explain it, let me: Alter Self's unarmed damage dice is not a REPLACEMENT effect. Look at how it's worded and then look how martial arts or tavern brawler is worded. MA/TB explicitly replace the damage die of your unarmed attacks, while Alter Self just says "Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage" which does NOT imply they deal that damage INSTEAD of their normal damage. If there was a feature that said "Your spells deal 1d6 psychic damage to their targets" nobody would argue that damage should replace any other damage the spell might also do.

[lunaticfringe]

Here's my argument: Crawford says so. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/760330673194405888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E760330673194405888&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2016%2F0 8%2F26%2Fcan-a-monk-benefit-from-alter-self-and-martial-arts%2F)

But because he doesn't explain it, let me: Alter Self's unarmed damage dice is not a REPLACEMENT effect. Look at how it's worded and then look how martial arts or tavern brawler is worded. MA/TB explicitly replace the damage die of your unarmed attacks, while Alter Self just says "Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage" which does NOT imply they deal that damage INSTEAD of their normal damage. If there was a feature that said "Your spells deal 1d6 psychic damage to their targets" nobody would argue that damage should replace any other damage the spell might also do.

Martial Arts is a multifaceted ability one effect is your Unarmed Strike deals additional damage and can use Str or Dex. Another is if you attack with unarmed strike or monk weapon using your Action, you can make an unarmed strike as a bonus action. That tweet imo is clarifying that the Martial Arts bonus attack benefits from Alter Self.

And your spells deal 1d6 psychic damage means your spells deal 1d6 psychic damage, you need to add the word additional in there.

[JackPhoenix]

Here's my argument: Crawford says so. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/760330673194405888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E760330673194405888&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2016%2F0 8%2F26%2Fcan-a-monk-benefit-from-alter-self-and-martial-arts%2F)

But because he doesn't explain it, let me: Alter Self's unarmed damage dice is not a REPLACEMENT effect. Look at how it's worded and then look how martial arts or tavern brawler is worded. MA/TB explicitly replace the damage die of your unarmed attacks, while Alter Self just says "Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage" which does NOT imply they deal that damage INSTEAD of their normal damage. If there was a feature that said "Your spells deal 1d6 psychic damage to their targets" nobody would argue that damage should replace any other damage the spell might also do.

Alter Self absolutely is replacement effect. It's not "your unarmed strikes add 1d6 B/P/S damage". There are similar features, but they say you may ADD damage (generally ability modifier: see evoker wizard, Agonizing Blast, clerics with Potent Cantrip). If there was a feature that said just "Your spells deal 1d6 psychic damage to their target", it WOULD replace normal damage, and also work on non-damaging spells.

It stacks with martial arts, because both do different things: Martial arts allows you to use Dex instead of Str (AS doesn't), AS allows you to cause piercing or slashing damage (martial arts doesn't), and MA can do more or less damage, depending on level. Tavern Brawler, Martial Arts, Alter Self and racial natural weapons (the one that can be used for unarmed attacks) DO replace standard unarmed damage.

Edit: Shadowmonk'd. Dammit.

[Damon_Tor]

you need to add the word additional in there.

I would argue that it's a replacement effect that requires explicit wording more than added damage. Why wouldn't it use the same language as MA/TB if it was meant to replace?

Further, it can be argued that the reason the word "additional" was scrubbed was because additional damage doesn't apply to a damage of zero. Some who has a strength modifier of -1 (ie, many wizards and sorcerers) deal no damage on an unarmed attack and thus could not benefit from "additional" damage.

So we have a power that is worded unlike other additional damage effects AND unlike other dice-replacement effects. However, I can offer a plausible explanation for why it isn't worded like other additional damage effects. Can you offer a reason why it isn't worded like other replacement effects?

RAW is unclear. RAI seems clear based on Crawford's tweet, but you disagree. So it comes down to DM interpretation, which means the DM has to decide for themselves if it's somehow unbalanced for a 1d6 hitpoint-per-level, no armor proficiency class to deal 1d4+1d6 damage in melee at the cost of a feat, a second level spell slot every hour, and their concentration. Gee, that's tough one, real game breaking right there.

[bid]

I would argue that it's a replacement effect that requires explicit wording more than added damage. Why wouldn't it use the same language as MA/TB if it was meant to replace?
You mean doing the exact opposite of what they did with branding smite ("an extra d6") or booming blade ("an extra 1d8"), right?

[Mr.Spastic]

If you read the whole spell in context it is clear the the 1d6 damage is meant for whatever natural weapon you make. The weapon is also an unarmed strike but it is not your regular body, it is your new horns, claws, ect... The point of the spell is not that your unarmed strikes become 1d6, or get 1d6 added to your normal ones. You get a new type of unarmed strike appropiate to the new thing you create that deals 1d6.

[lunaticfringe]

Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit.

Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage.

Extra, Additional, semantics whatever.

You are asking for a bullet proof argument to get your way. It doesn't exist and you kinda suck at this, no offense. You need to ask for a DM's caveat and that ain't bulletproof. What I would do is use the Kensei Argument and cross my fingers.

A level 3+ kensei can use a bonus action every turn, all day long to add 1d4 to all ranged attacks while you are spending resources to accomplish something similar. It's hardly concrete but it's something.

[Damon_Tor]

You mean doing the exact opposite of what they did with branding smite ("an extra d6") or booming blade ("an extra 1d8"), right?

It's not written anything like MA or TB either though. You saying that it can't be additive because it isn't written like other additive effects is meaningless because it isn't written like a replacement effect either.

[bid]

It's not written anything like MA or TB either though. You saying that it can't be additive because it isn't written like other additive effects is meaningless because it isn't written like a replacement effect either.
Well, can you name me one additive effect that isn't explicit?

Because "your [natural weapons] deals 1d6 [...] damage, as appropriate" doesn't leave much to imagination.


Not to mention it sounds like the "stacking AC" argument.

[Damon_Tor]

Well, can you name me one additive effect that isn't explicit?

Can you name a replacement effect that isn't explicit? We're arguing in circles; it's not written like an additive effect OR like a replacement effect. Coming at me with "well why isn't it written like an additive effect then?" is pointless.

[bid]

Can you name a replacement effect that isn't explicit? We're arguing in circles; it's not written like an additive effect OR like a replacement effect. Coming at me with "well why isn't it written like an additive effect then?" is pointless.
As I said, this sounds like the "additive AC" argument.
I'll have to come up with a reason "uses a d4 for damage" and "deals 1d6 damage" isn't the same as trying to stack armor.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All you have a lack thereof.

[Greywander]

I think you'd be better off arguing that you can use Booming Blade with unarmed attacks. Or simply using a weapon (your wizard staff?).

A properly built wizard can still be effective as a melee fighter, and even a grappler. Make sure you pick up Enlarge/Reduce. Resilient (CON) and Warcaster will help keep you from losing concentration. Look into non-concentration buffs as well, like Mirror Image and Fire Shield.

Well part of the problem is I want a build that works at low levels (5), and if possible requires no Intellect. It's basically a troll build based on my concept for a blue collar wizard that has no enthusiasm for actual magic.
None of the spells I listed use your INT, so you're good on that front.

Booming Blade let's you make a melee weapon attack (not a spell attack, so it will use STR), and adds thunder damage on top of your weapon damage. It also either forces the enemy to stand still (which is great control) or take extra damage if they move. With Warcaster, you can even use Booming Blade for opportunity attacks. Because Booming Blade replaces the Attack action, it works best on classes (like wizard) that don't get Extra Attack. It's also a cantrip, so you can start with it at 1st level and spam it infinitely. You can also combine it with Tavern Brawler to still get that bonus action grapple in.

Enlarge/Reduce only cares about your INT when you cast it on an unwilling target. Situationally useful, but the overwhelming majority of the time you're going to be Enlarging yourself (or an ally). By Enlarging yourself, you (a) increase one size category (which doubles your carry capacity, unless your were Small), (b) have advantage on STR checks (including grapples) and saves, and (c) your enlarged weapon deals 1d4 extra damage. This is all from a 2nd level spell, the same level as Alter Self. It only lasts 1 minute, though.

Mirror Image is another 2nd level spell that doesn't care about INT. It's concentration-free, so you can have it up and running at the same time as Enlarge/Reduce. It creates 3 illusory copies, and when you get targeted with an attack, you roll a die with the result potentially deflecting that attack toward a duplicate. Once a duplicate takes a hit, it disappears. Anything requiring a save has no interaction with Mirror Image, so Fireball can't be absorbed by your duplicated, nor does it destroy them.

Everything listed so far can be obtained as early as 3rd level, so you can easily get this up and running early on. The next spell, Fire Shield, is 4th level, so you don't get it until 7th level.

Fire Shield is another concentration-free spell that you can have running at the same time as Enlarge/Reduce and Mirror Image. It gives you resistance to either fire or cold damage, and if a creature within 5 feet hits you with a melee attack, they take 2d8 fire or cold damage. This damage is automatic, no save, no attack roll.

Like I said, this is completely doable. In general, look for spells that don't require attack rolls or saving throws (Booming Blade is an exception, since you attack with your weapon rather than with the spell). Buff spells are usually pretty good, but many require concentration and thus can't be used together. Mage Armor and Longstrider are 1st level buff spells that don't require concentration, so use those liberally as well. A lot of control spells, like Fog Cloud, Darkness, or Wall of Fire/Force/Stone also don't care about your INT (Wall spells can care about INT, but are still serviceable without it if you use them right). Misty Step is a 2nd level bonus action teleport, allowing you to attack (Booming Blade) in the same round. Silence is a 2nd level (concentration, unfortunately) spell that can shut down a mage, especially if you grapple and hold them within the effect. Finally, Shield and Absorb Elements are 1st level spells that give you something to do with your reaction, and also don't care about INT.

Really, while druid is probably the best class for a character with terrible ability scores (mostly due to Wild Shape), any caster can get by reasonably well without a good spellcasting ability score. It hampers your offensive spellcasting, but leaves you with plenty of support and control options. You have so many options available to you that you could make a terrifying melee combatant with a wizard if you really wanted to. Granted, it might not be as optimized as using a dedicated martial class, but you make up for it with insane flexibility and sheer unconventionality. You can also make a terrific mage killer; the scariest thing for a mage is another mage that knows Counterspell and can kick their butt without using any (or just a few) of their spell slots. Counterspell everything while you pummel them into the ground.

[JackPhoenix]

Further, it can be argued that the reason the word "additional" was scrubbed was because additional damage doesn't apply to a damage of zero. Some who has a strength modifier of -1 (ie, many wizards and sorcerers) deal no damage on an unarmed attack and thus could not benefit from "additional" damage.

That's... what? Elementary school math? You can add numbers to zero just fine. 1-1+1d6 give you the range from 1 to 6. With replacement, you still do 1d6-1 damage, range from 0 to 5.

The only way that argument could be made is if you've missed basic math class.

[Raynor007]

With logic like that, we'd all be wearing layers of armour over our natural armour, claiming ac bonuses for them all.

I know that it's not how the rules work, but I think that's how AC ought to be calculated in some cases. It comes down to what factors are really in play, and how they affect armor and movement.

Unarmored Defense works on top of a base AC of 10 by factoring how fast/how hard to hit you are (DEX) with either how well you anticipate the direction of a blow (WIS) or how well you can take a hit (CON). Neither version of Unarmored Defense takes actual skin (let's call it natural armor) into account. I see no reason why AC increases to armor-less situations (such as a use of Mage Armor, Draconic Resilience, etc) would not apply, then, to Unarmored Defense (again, in theory).

Take it a little further, and you could conceivably apply those things to characters wearing armor for the same effect. For example, chainmail is AC 16 and a character's "skin" with Draconic Resilience is 13, thus giving him/her a "realistic" AC of 19. Armor comes with a built-in DEX component, taking mobility into account just like Unarmored Defense does, so why would a character's natural "skin" not contribute to overall AC in the same way?

Obviously I know that the rules were written the way they were for a reason, nor is the game truly "realistic," but this is one area where I think it could make sense to change, as long as the whole group was on board. Thoughts?

[Unoriginal]

It's basically a troll build based on my concept for a blue collar wizard that has no enthusiasm for actual magic.

Don't expect troll builds to be effective.

There are ways to make a competent punchy wizard, but not by stacking those two things.


Here's my argument: Crawford says so. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/760330673194405888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E760330673194405888&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2016%2F0 8%2F26%2Fcan-a-monk-benefit-from-alter-self-and-martial-arts%2F)

But because he doesn't explain it, let me: Alter Self's unarmed damage dice is not a REPLACEMENT effect.

You are incorrect. All what Crawford's tweet says is that if you dip a single level of Monk, you can have the bonus action attack and the Dex-mod-to-unarmed-strike feature even if you're using the Alter Self to have 1d6 dmg unarmed strikes.

Which is still a major benefit.



Obviously I know that the rules were written the way they were for a reason, nor is the game truly "realistic," but this is one area where I think it could make sense to change, as long as the whole group was on board. Thoughts?

If you solder a short sword's blade to the head of a greataxe, do you get a 1d6+1d12 weapon?

Obviously not. You could argue that it does either 1d6 or 1d12 damages depending on what hits the target.


If you wanted to differentiate the layers of armor rather than counting it as one, armor would do the same thing, in reverse. You'd have areas where your tough draconic skin is exposed and so protects you for 13 AC, and others where your chain mail protects for 16 AC.

Same for plate armor: in some areas the only thing that'd protect the body would be the padding underneath the metal, so those areas would have 11 AC.

Thankfully, D&D 5e AC represent how hard it is to affect your HPs as a whole, not areas by areas. Thus only the highest AC value is taken into account.

[Ganymede]

My question to the forum is, what is a bulletproof argument i can make to the DM that the D4 damage from Tavern Brawler should stack with the D6 damage from Alter Self?

"If you don't let me do this, I'm going to stop letting you host the game at my house," is the best I can imagine.

[PhantomSoul]

"If you don't let me do this, I'm going to stop letting you host the game at my house," is the best I can imagine.

...Of course, maybe the party's looking for a good reason or excuse to relocate anyhow or will thereafter!

[Arkhios]

As others have said, your argument isn't bulletproof. It's not even waterproof.

As for the claim that this DM-dependent caveat would be the only way to make a muscle wizard even vaguely possible: Pardon me, but that made me snicker.

Tenser's Transformation makes it work. Sure, it's a 6th level wizard (only?) spell, and it gives you proficiency with all simple and martial weapons as well, but an unarmed strike is 'a weapon attack' (it doesn't matter that it isn't 'an attack with a weapon'), and as such, Tenser's Transformation gives you 2d12 extra force damage with each hit with your unarmed strikes.
Plus, you get extra attack for the duration.

1d4+2d12+ability, twice per turn, is already quite something.

[AHF]

The best argument I’ve got for you is less rules based and more practical. By doing this you effectively do 2-10 damage with your attack (plus modifier). That is less damage than a first level fighter with a great sword and it requires use of your concentration and a second level spell. So that seems like something a DM might make a special case to approve.

[aadder]

None of the spells I listed use your INT, so you're good on that front.

Booming Blade let's you make a melee weapon attack (not a spell attack, so it will use STR), and adds thunder damage on top of your weapon damage. It also either forces the enemy to stand still (which is great control) or take extra damage if they move. With Warcaster, you can even use Booming Blade for opportunity attacks. Because Booming Blade replaces the Attack action, it works best on classes (like wizard) that don't get Extra Attack. It's also a cantrip, so you can start with it at 1st level and spam it infinitely. You can also combine it with Tavern Brawler to still get that bonus action grapple in.

where is booming blade? I can't find that in the 5e player's handbook.

[Greywander]

where is booming blade? I can't find that in the 5e player's handbook.
Booming Blade is only in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.

As part of casting the spell, you make an attack with your weapon. On a hit, the target becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn, and will take 1d8 thunder damage if they willingly move before then. The scaling adds 1d8 thunder damage, both on the initial hit and if they move, so at 17th level it deals 3d8 extra damage on a hit, and 4d8 damage if they move.

I've noticed a lot of people seem to think that it's a bad thing if the target stands still to avoid the additional damage, but personally I like this as a control spell. You're forcing an enemy to stand still, which can be greatly beneficial (it prevents them from running to attack the squishies, for example), especially on enemies that have no ranged options (rogues especially can tag an enemy and then move out of melee range). But if they move anyway, eh, at least you get that extra 4d8 damage. The extra 3d8 damage on the initial hit is also a straight damage boost to any class without extra attack.

There's also Green-Flame Blade as an option, if that appeals to you more, although it would use your INT (just a bit, not much) and it's not eligible for use with Warcaster for opportunity attacks because it targets multiple creatures.