Improvised Weapon proficiency

[Skrum]

So, tavern brawler gives you proficiency with improvised weapons. My thought is though, if a character isn't proficient with a weapon, wouldn't tavern brawler let them use the weapon as an "improvised" weapon?

Particularly DMs, how permissive have you been with this feat.

[animorte]

That's exactly what I think of in alignment with Jackie Chan and his characters. Drunken master or not, he is able to pick up and use literally anything as a weapon, including actual weapons sometimes.

I'm looking up how the RAW views this technicality though.

[Zhorn]

So, tavern brawler gives you proficiency with improvised weapons. My thought is though, if a character isn't proficient with a weapon, wouldn't tavern brawler let them use the weapon as an "improvised" weapon?
For 1d4+STR damage? Sure, no issues from me.
You're not specifically proficient with how the weapon is meant to be used, so you don't get the weapon's normal damage dice, but your proficient in making accurate attacks with random objects, so you're at least good at landing those hits.

[Skrum]

For 1d4+STR damage? Sure, no issues from me.
You're not specifically proficient with how the weapon is meant to be used, so you don't get the weapon's normal damage dice, but your proficient in making accurate attacks with random objects, so you're at least good at landing those hits.

See, this is the position someone in my group took, and I just don't see it. For starters, the "1d4" figure is from the section describing what an improvised weapon does *when it has no resemblance to a weapon at all.* The previous paragraphs imply the DM should really be looking to compare the object to an actual weapon on the weapon table, and using those stats as a guideline.

IMO, if a character is using a weapon but isn't proficient, but is proficient with improvised weapons, I'd give them the benefit of the weapon's stats, but not give them special qualities (light, finesse, heavy, etc). I'm doing a fair amount of reading into the rules, but I would call this RAI.

- The imp weapon section *leads with* is the object similar to a weapon, if yes, can count it as that weapon
- There are no more similar things than an object to itself. A longsword is most similar to a longsword
- But it's still an improvised weapon. Ergo, it has no special qualities

[Zhorn]

See, this is the position someone in my group took, and I just don't see it. For starters, the "1d4" figure is from the section describing what an improvised weapon does *when it has no resemblance to a weapon at all.* The previous paragraphs imply the DM should really be looking to compare the object to an actual weapon on the weapon table, and using those stats as a guideline.
You've skipped over a sentence there;

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.
That rule is about using improvised weapons similar to weapons as though they were weapons you ARE proficient in.
The scenario from your opening posts as it has been worded is about using weapons you are NOT proficient in as improvised weapons.

[Skrum]

You've skipped over a sentence there;

That rule is about using improvised weapons similar to weapons as though they were weapons you ARE proficient in.
The scenario from your opening posts as it has been worded is about using weapons you are NOT proficient in as improvised weapons.


"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such."

What is more similar to something than itself? Definitionally, nothing. A longsword used as an improvised weapon is still *most similar* to a longsword.

"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."

This is a separate sentence and a different guideline; if an object is similar enough to a weapon a character is proficient with, they can treat it as that weapon.

[Rukelnikov]

"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such."

What is more similar to something than itself? Definitionally, nothing. A longsword used as an improvised weapon is still *most similar* to a longsword.

"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."

This is a separate sentence and a different guideline; if an object is similar enough to a weapon a character is proficient with, they can treat it as that weapon.

But the thing is, a longsword is similar to a longsword and thus can be used as such. Since you don't have proficiency in longsword you don't get to apply proficiency to your attack, but your weapon damage is 1d8.

If you decide not to use it as a longsword and instead use it as a random object, you can apply your proficiency to the attack but your weapon damage is 1d4.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

So, tavern brawler gives you proficiency with improvised weapons. My thought is though, if a character isn't proficient with a weapon, wouldn't tavern brawler let them use the weapon as an "improvised" weapon?

Particularly DMs, how permissive have you been with this feat.

Technically Tavern Brawler is there to cover improvised weapons that aren’t similar to actual weapons.

“Often, 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 GM'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 GM 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.”

You don’t actually need a feat to get proficiency in improvised weapons if that weapon closely resembles a weapon already. You need it for weird things. Yeah, you need DM approval but like, you need that for feats too.

Though at the end of the day 5e is a mess when it comes to the rules and Sage Advice is dubious at best (since the person who gives answers wasn’t actually the rules creator and feels misaligned with them)

Basically, just show your DM those rules and don’t take the feat unless they want you to. Unless you wanna throw tables I guess.

[Skrum]

But the thing is, a longsword is similar to a longsword and thus can be used as such. Since you don't have proficiency in longsword you don't get to apply proficiency to your attack, but your weapon damage is 1d8.

If you decide not to use it as a longsword and instead use it as a random object, you can apply your proficiency to the attack but your weapon damage is 1d4.

I just flatly don't agree with this. The d4 figure is there for items that *bear no resemblance to a weapon.* A weapon clearly doesn't fit into that category.

If a character grabbed a cleaver, or better yet, a farmer's scythe, how much damage would you have them do?

[Rukelnikov]

I just flatly don't agree with this. The d4 figure is there for items that *bear no resemblance to a weapon.* A weapon clearly doesn't fit into that category.

If a character grabbed a cleaver, or better yet, a farmer's scythe, how much damage would you have them do?

I'd likely treat it a 2-Handed, Heavy Sickle and have it do 1d8 damage.

[Mastikator]

If you want Tavern Brawler to also give proficiency in all weapons then houserule it that way. It's fine.

Edit- The PHB has some text about improvised weapons:
"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."

So actually it's not appropriate to use a d4 for using a longsword as an improvised weapon. Using the weapon's stats is probably the most logical option actually. Yeah I'd just let Tavern Brawlers just be proficient in all weapons and non-weapons.

[Osuniev]

You can use a improvised weapon that looks like a Lance as a Lance if you're not proficient and do 1d12 damage with it.
But you do not get to use your proficiency bonus unless you're proficient in Lance.

Tavern Brawler is not supposed to make you an expert fencer/jouster/etc. That's what Weapon Master is.

[Mastikator]

You can use a improvised weapon that looks like a Lance as a Lance if you're not proficient and do 1d12 damage with it.
But you do not get to use your proficiency bonus unless you're proficient in Lance.

Tavern Brawler is not supposed to make you an expert fencer/jouster/etc. That's what Weapon Master is.

So an object that looks and feels like a lance can be used as a lance, but an actual lance can't be used like a lance?

[JackPhoenix]

So an object that looks and feels like a lance can be used as a lance, but an actual lance can't be used like a lance?

Both can be used as a lance. Including adding your proficiency bonus to attack if you're proficient with lances. Tavern Brawler don't give you the proficiency with lances, though. But if you're using either as a too-long stick to smack someone over the head instead of using it to stab people, like you would with a lance, it's used as improvised weapon with d4 damage and no proficiency without Tavern Brawler, because it does not resemble any other weapon when used like that.

[Mastikator]

Both can be used as a lance. Including adding your proficiency bonus to attack if you're proficient with lances. Tavern Brawler don't give you the proficiency with lances, though. But if you're using either as a too-long stick to smack someone over the head instead of using it to stab people, like you would with a lance, it's used as improvised weapon with d4 damage and no proficiency without Tavern Brawler, because it does not resemble any other weapon when used like that.

With that argument I'd say anyone with proficiency with clubs can use any weapon as a club (1d4 bludgeoning) and anyone proficient with greatclubs can use large weapons like lances, great axes, polearms, etc as greatclubs (1d8).

The player handbook says this about improvised weapons that resemble weapons.
"Often, 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."

A weapon qualifies as an "improvised weapon that resemble weapons". So a lance used as a big club is a greatclub in the hands of a tavern brawler. It definitely shouldn't be 1d4, it should be a 1d8.

Hell, I'd let a tavern brawler use a small table with the stats of a maul, 2d6 and heavy. It makes sense, follows the rules and is a good reward for taking an otherwise weak feat. Forcing every improvised weapon to be 1d4 no matter what seems unnecessarily stringent and punishing to players that want to do something fun and creative. Which is the opposite of what I want at my table.

[Rukelnikov]

With that argument I'd say anyone with proficiency with clubs can use any weapon as a club (1d4 bludgeoning) and anyone proficient with greatclubs can use large weapons like lances, great axes, polearms, etc as greatclubs (1d8).

The player handbook says this about improvised weapons that resemble weapons.
"Often, 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."

A weapon qualifies as an "improvised weapon that resemble weapons". So a lance used as a big club is a greatclub in the hands of a tavern brawler. It definitely shouldn't be 1d4, it should be a 1d8.

Hell, I'd let a tavern brawler use a small table with the stats of a maul, 2d6 and heavy. It makes sense, follows the rules and is a good reward for taking an otherwise weak feat. Forcing every improvised weapon to be 1d4 no matter what seems unnecessarily stringent and punishing to players that want to do something fun and creative. Which is the opposite of what I want at my table.

And if a raging barbarian without tavern brawler tried the same? How would you treat that attack?

[Psyren]

If a character grabbed a cleaver, or better yet, a farmer's scythe, how much damage would you have them do?

I'd find the closest weapon to those and see if they're proficient. If they are, they get that weapon's damage and proficiency to hit. If not, they'd either get the weapon's damage with no proficiency, or if they have TB, proficiency +1d4. TB represents a general scrappiness with whatever you come across, not being professionally trained with every weapon on the planet.

For the cleaver that would be a Handaxe (Simple), and for the Scythe that would be a Glaive (martial).

[Mastikator]

And if a raging barbarian without tavern brawler tried the same? How would you treat that attack?

I'd let them, but they can't add proficiency bonus to their attack roll. (I should also mention that in either case the table should break into pieces by the end of the combat). Players using the environment and thinking about the game world as if it was a real world is something I want to encourage. The rules are just a means to an end. The end product I want is roleplaying, roleplay social interactions, roleplay exploration, roleplay combat too.

I mean the image of a raging barbarian picking up a table and smashing an ogre with it is totally awesome, why wouldn't I want the barbarian to do that?

[Rukelnikov]

I'd let them, but they can't add proficiency bonus to their attack roll. (I should also mention that in either case the table should break into pieces by the end of the combat). Players using the environment and thinking about the game world as if it was a real world is something I want to encourage. The rules are just a means to an end. The end product I want is roleplaying, roleplay social interactions, roleplay exploration, roleplay combat too.

I mean the image of a raging barbarian picking up a table and smashing an ogre with it is totally awesome, why wouldn't I want the barbarian to do that?

I agree, and I think you do well to rule like that. However, I don't think that's what RAW says, I don't see how a 5 by 5 by 5 table resembles a Greatclub.

[Mastikator]

I agree, and I think you do well to rule like that. However, I don't think that's what RAW says, I don't see how a 5 by 5 by 5 table resembles a Greatclub.

I said small table, not 5x5. A 5x5 is big enough to be a maul or even bigger. I'd probably have it do 2d10 but always come with disadvantage unless the barbarian somehow is large.

[Rukelnikov]

I said small table, not 5x5. A 5x5 is big enough to be a maul or even bigger. I'd probably have it do 2d10 but always come with disadvantage unless the barbarian somehow is large.

I meant a Maul (2d6 damage), one has 4 legs and is relatively boxish the other is a large hammer with a 2 handed handle.

[Mastikator]

I meant a Maul (2d6 damage), one has 4 legs and is relatively boxish the other is a large hammer with a 2 handed handle.

My point about "resembles a weapon" was actual weapons. A lance resembles a greatclub and deals 1d8. A table doesn't resemble a weapon, it's just big enough to do 2d6 and heavy (heavy property), and breaks into pieces after a few hits. The legs become clubs (1d4), if the legs are sufficiently big or have screws/nails sticking out they can be maces (1d6).

Edit - Items like mugs, vases, sticks etc that need only one hand are light, those are appropriate to count as 1d4 damage. But bigger items like chairs that can be two handed should increase dice size when they do, so from 1d4 to 1d6. Items that require two hands should be 1d8, items that are very heavy like a table should count as oversized and do 2d6 (as if two handed by a large creature), but come with disadvantage due to oversize.

[JackPhoenix]

With that argument I'd say anyone with proficiency with clubs can use any weapon as a club (1d4 bludgeoning) and anyone proficient with greatclubs can use large weapons like lances, great axes, polearms, etc as greatclubs (1d8).

The player handbook says this about improvised weapons that resemble weapons.
"Often, 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."

A weapon qualifies as an "improvised weapon that resemble weapons". So a lance used as a big club is a greatclub in the hands of a tavern brawler. It definitely shouldn't be 1d4, it should be a 1d8.

I very much doubt greatclub is meant to be 10+' long. The weight and it's distribution, and the shape is very different too. Lance, even used the wrong way, is not similar to greatclub. Maybe quarterstaff (which is better than a greatclub, anyway), but even then it's too long.

[Psyren]

Even if a table is as big as a maul I'd still be fine with the 1d4+STR for that. Its weight isn't concentrated in the business end, it's unwieldy etc.

[Unoriginal]

"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such."

What is more similar to something than itself? Definitionally, nothing. A longsword used as an improvised weapon is still *most similar* to a longsword.

"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."

This is a separate sentence and a different guideline; if an object is similar enough to a weapon a character is proficient with, they can treat it as that weapon.

A longsword is not an improvised weapon, though, it is a purpose-built weapon.

In other words, if you use a longsword as a longsword, none of the improvised weapon rules apply.

[Skrum]

I'd find the closest weapon to those and see if they're proficient. If they are, they get that weapon's damage and proficiency to hit. If not, they'd either get the weapon's damage with no proficiency, or if they have TB, proficiency +1d4. TB represents a general scrappiness with whatever you come across, not being professionally trained with every weapon on the planet.

For the cleaver that would be a Handaxe (Simple), and for the Scythe that would be a Glaive (martial).

What you're saying then is the improvised weapon proficiency gives you no mechanical benefit whatsoever. The feat already gives you a d4 unarmed strike. If all improvised weapons deal d4, there's no reason to ever use one, beyond narrative. You'll have the same stats with a punch, kick, headbutt, etc.

[JackPhoenix]

What you're saying then is the improvised weapon proficiency gives you no mechanical benefit whatsoever. The feat already gives you a d4 unarmed strike. If all improvised weapons deal d4, there's no reason to ever use one, beyond narrative. You'll have the same stats with a punch, kick, headbutt, etc.

You can't throw an unarmed strike, but you can throw improvised weapons. Inclusing alchemist's fire and other stuff.

[Skrum]

You can't throw an unarmed strike, but you can throw improvised weapons. Inclusing alchemist's fire and other stuff.

Lol oh ok

It is seriously blowing my mind that people seem to be concerned that a character might pick up a random weapon or object (that's almost certainly nonmagical!!) and actually be able to use it to effect, after they spent a feat on the ability to do so.

[Psyren]

What you're saying then is the improvised weapon proficiency gives you no mechanical benefit whatsoever. The feat already gives you a d4 unarmed strike. If all improvised weapons deal d4, there's no reason to ever use one, beyond narrative. You'll have the same stats with a punch, kick, headbutt, etc.

1) There is a mechanical benefit. Unarmed is only bludgeoning, while those other items can still be slashing or piercing at the DM's option.

2) Your approach gives too much mechanical benefit - it lets you become de facto proficient with every weapon in the game for one feat, and has more benefits besides that. Compare that to Weapon Master.

[Kish]

Lol oh ok

It is seriously blowing my mind that people seem to be concerned that a character might pick up a random weapon or object (that's almost certainly nonmagical!!) and actually be able to use it to effect, after they spent a feat on the ability to do so.
Emotional appeals aside, let me ask you something.

Do you think Tavern Brawler is supposed to have proficiency with all weapons? It's a yes or no question.

[Unoriginal]

1) There is a mechanical benefit. Unarmed is only bludgeoning, while those other items can still be slashing or piercing at the DM's option.

2) Your approach gives too much mechanical benefit - it lets you become de facto proficient with every weapon in the game for one feat, and has more benefits besides that. Compare that to Weapon Master.

Yeah, I'm more than happy with having improvised weapons that deals more than 1d4+STR damage, but we don't need a feat that gives all weapon proficiencies (even if that was the feat's only benefit).

Hitting someone with an anchor deals 1d12+STR mod damage? All good. A character being able to use all the weapons they don't have proficiency for? Doesn't work for me.

[Skrum]

Emotional appeals aside, let me ask you something.

Do you think Tavern Brawler is supposed to have proficiency with all weapons? It's a yes or no question.

Yes.

Getting simple + martial proficiency is already "proficient with every weapon" in effectively all cases. The classes that give that are overwhelming likely the classes that would be taking tavern brawler. Ergo, giving them proficiency with whatever else *really* doesn't concern me.

But let's say a character isn't proficient with martial weapons, but they take tavern brawler. I am *incredibly* ok with them effectively getting proficiency with martial weapons. Like 4 classes get that at level 1, half the cleric domains give it; it's not some big thing. And spending a feat on it?? Absolutely, grab anything you want and swing away.

Edit: also, this doesn't grant proficiency. Most of time it won't matter, but even if the mechanical numbers are the same, you're still not proficient with the weapon. Monks in particular care about that, and there might be a few other edge cases.

[Kish]

Yes.
So...why isn't the feat text, "You are now proficient in all weapons, improvised or otherwise"?

This is purely academic for me; I've never run a game of 5ed and am super unlikely to. But considering the speed with which you go to justifying the increase in power rather than arguing that it's actually the rules, I might suggest you'd be more likely to get somewhere you like if you ditch the "this logically insupportable interpretation of the text is the current rule" and go straight to "this is a house rule of mine which I think it would be good for you to implement."

[Skrum]

So...why isn't the feat text, "You are now proficient in all weapons, improvised or otherwise"?

Idk, there's a million weird wordings.

Also, I'll draw attention to my edit: being able to improvise using a longsword *doesn't* make you proficient with the longsword, it just lets you approximate it. My reading is you get the numbers, but not the qualities (a longsword is not a versatile weapon to someone who isn't proficient, for example). But they can still swing it for d8, and since they're proficient with improvised weapons, they can add their PB to the attack roll

[JackPhoenix]

Idk, there's a million weird wordings.

Also, I'll draw attention to my edit: being able to improvise using a longsword *doesn't* make you proficient with the longsword, it just lets you approximate it. My reading is you get the numbers, but not the qualities (a longsword is not a versatile weapon to someone who isn't proficient, for example). But they can still swing it for d8, and since they're proficient with improvised weapons, they can add their PB to the attack roll

Versatile (or any other) quality has nothing to do with proficiency. A longsword is a longsword for everyone, whether they are proficient or not. Does greatsword stop being heavy (it's a quality, after all) if you're not proficient in it, which means a halfling wizard with Tavern Brawler is better with a greatsword than a halfling fighter?

[Skrum]

Versatile (or any other) quality has nothing to do with proficiency. A longsword is a longsword for everyone, whether they are proficient or not. Does greatsword stop being heavy (it's a quality, after all) if you're not proficient in it, which means a halfling wizard with Tavern Brawler is better with a greatsword than a halfling fighter?

Yup, actually fine with that. Weird edge case, but sure. A greatsword isnt that heavy in absolute terms, so it's not like a halfling literally can't lift it. And a character that's got a feel for fighting and can effectively fight with anything they can pick up, sure, do your thing.

I like that a hell of a lot better than the greatsword somehow doing 1d4 damage.

Edit: I also want to draw attention to a *wizard* taking *tavern brawler,* a feat that brings absolutely zero benefit to the wizard's core features. If a player wants to do that, go forth.

[Psyren]

Yes.

I think that is a gross misinterpretation of the text and will leave it there.

[Dr.Samurai]

I just started playing a monk and am going to run this by my DM. Once I use Deflect Arrows against his entire library of D&D books, I hope he agrees with this interpretation :smallamused:.

[Skrum]

I just started playing a monk and am going to run this by my DM. Once I use Deflect Arrows against his entire library of D&D books, I hope he agrees with this interpretation :smallamused:.

Lol what is the actual concern. Can someone tell me? What is the game-breaking combo

[Dr.Samurai]

Lol what is the actual concern. Can someone tell me? What is the game-breaking combo
I don't know. I'm amenable to this interpretation, but I'd bet everything that it isn't the intent of the feat.

[Psyren]

Lol what is the actual concern. Can someone tell me? What is the game-breaking combo

Something doesn't have to be "gamebreaking" to be undesirable. If proficiency with every weapon in the game (even future weapons) for a single half-feat with no prerequisites was something they wanted, they would have printed it.

[Skrum]

Something doesn't have to be "gamebreaking" to be undesirable. If proficiency with every weapon in the game (even future weapons) for a single half-feat with no prerequisites was something they wanted, they would have printed it.

Ok I feel like you're reading what I said into a very unfavorable interpretation.

What I said is that a character with the tavern brawler feat, using an actual weapon with which they are not proficient, should get the weapon's normal damage dice. They should not gain the benefit of the qualities of the weapon, like light, thrown, etc. I think the improvised weapon rules, light as they are, are perfectly consistent with this idea, and is a far more defensible position than "all improvised weapons do 1d4 damage."

Edit: future weapons/guns I would agree to the opposite case; using a rifle as an improvised weapon is hitting someone with it, not shooting it. So in that case, it should probably be treated like a club or greatclub.

The point though is that improvised weapons specifically don't have a damage value, and they explicitly tell the DM to see if it compares to an existing weapon to use that value. How much damage does a giant hunk of sharpened metal do? Well, greatsword is 2d6.

[Slipjig]

That is... completely backwards? Weapons retain their characteristics (both positive AND negative) regardless of whether a character is proficient with them or not.

And an improvised weapon is almost always going to be inferior to something that was specifically created as a weapon. Sure, if you hit someone with a card-table it'll hurt, but it probably won't take them out of the fight. Getting someone with an anchor? Sure, it'll probably kill someone IF IT CONNECTS, but it's balanced so poorly that the odds of that happening are close to zero. Sure Jackie Chan can make anything look like a badass weapon, but that's because his stuntmen pretend to be COMPLETELY incompetent (and even then, he's usually just knocking them down).

Anything dealing 1d4 damage is just as dangerous as a dagger, and I can't think of too many improvised weapons that will kill you faster than a dagger in the ribs.

[Skrum]

That is... completely backwards? Weapons retain their characteristics (both positive AND negative) regardless of whether a character is proficient with them or not.

And an improvised weapon is almost always going to be inferior to something that was specifically created as a weapon. Sure, if you hit someone with a card-table it'll hurt, but it probably won't take them out of the fight. Getting someone with an anchor? Sure, it'll probably kill someone IF IT CONNECTS, but it's balanced so poorly that the odds of that happening are close to zero. Sure Jackie Chan can make anything look like a badass weapon, but that's because his stuntmen pretend to be COMPLETELY incompetent (and even then, he's usually just knocking them down).

Anything dealing 1d4 damage is just as dangerous as a dagger, and I can't think of too many improvised weapons that will kill you faster than a dagger in the ribs.

And if the "improvised weapon" is a longsword?

[JackPhoenix]

Ok I feel like you're reading what I said into a very unfavorable interpretation.

What I said is that a character with the tavern brawler feat, using an actual weapon with which they are not proficient, should get the weapon's normal damage dice. They should not gain the benefit of the qualities of the weapon, like light, thrown, etc. I think the improvised weapon rules, light as they are, are perfectly consistent with this idea, and is a far more defensible position than "all improvised weapons do 1d4 damage."

Character with the Tavern Brawler feat using an actual weapon with which they are not proficient DOES get the weapon's normal damage dice. They also get the benefits of any qualities of the weapon. What they don't get is proficiency bonus to attack. However, Tavern Brawler has nothing to do with that. There's no interaction between the lack of proficiency in a weapon and the rules for improvised weapon. Your interpretation leads to absurd results. Is a trident magically glued to the wielder's hand if the wielder isn't proficient with it, so it can't be thrown? Does a longbow suddenly shrink for a non-proficient small characters (and for non-proficient small characters only) so they don't have to deal with the fact it's too big for them, as represented by its heavy quality? For that matter, does the longbow gets unlimited range for the same character? Range is, after all, a quality listed in the weapon's description. Hell, longbow's got two-handed quality... that goes away too if you're not proficient with it... being proficient with it is downright a bad thing, if you're not proficient, you don't need to worry about ammunition, having two hands to use it, be big enough to draw it properly or worry about range!


And if the "improvised weapon" is a longsword?

Longsword is not an improvised weapon. You could use it in a wrong way as an improvised weapon, like if you throw it, but per the rules, it does 1d4 damage if used that way.

[Psyren]

And if the "improvised weapon" is a longsword?

Then either you're trained in using it (proficient), or you aren't. If you're not trained, either you try to swing it like a sword anyway (sword damage but no proficiency to hit), or you swing it like a piece of furniture.

Essentially, TB represents how you can be okay with anything you grab, but if that thing is an actual weapon, it's not a substitute for proper training.

[Skrum]

Your interpretation leads to absurd results.


A improvised thrown weapon does 1d4 damage. That's explicit. A trident can be thrown 20 ft for 1d4 damage.

A longbow as an improvised weapon would be very unsuitable; it should do *less,* like d3 or something.

My reasoning, with melee weapons, goes like this
1) the object, used an a weapon, is particular effective, warranting higher than d4 damage
2) the imp weapon guide says "is this comparable to a weapon on the table"
3) an object is most comparable to itself, so an appropriate damage value for a longsword is a longsword
4) thus a character using a longsword as an improvised weapon should deal d8 damage

[JackPhoenix]

A improvised thrown weapon does 1d4 damage. That's explicit. A trident can be thrown 20 ft for 1d4 damage.

A longbow as an improvised weapon would be very unsuitable; it should do *less,* like d3 or something.

That's contrary to your claim that using weapon you're not proficient in as an improvised weapon should use the weapon's damage dice, but not the weapon properties. Trident's damage dice is d6, longbow's damage dice is d8 (unless used to make melee attacks, then it's d4. D3 is not a thing in 5e).


My reasoning, with melee weapons, goes like this
1) the object, used an a weapon, is particular effective, warranting higher than d4 damage
2) the imp weapon guide says "is this comparable to a weapon on the table"
3) an object is most comparable to itself, so an appropriate damage value for a longsword is a longsword
4) thus a character using a longsword as an improvised weapon should deal d8 damage

1) has no backing in the rules. Improvised weapon's damage is d4, period. There's no "unless it's particularly effective".
2) The rules for improvised weapon doesn't say anything like that. It says "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." That means an improvised longsword (I'm not sure what that would be, beyond, you know, a longsword) is, for all intents and purposes, a longsword.
3) A longsword is a longsword, yes. That means it's got longsword's damage dice, weapon properties, and requires a proficiency with a longsword.
4) Longsword used as an improvised weapon is NOT being used as a longsword. It's used as a random piece of metal (mordschlag is apparently not a thing in D&D), but maybe you can convince your DM it's similar enough to a warhammer or a mace and thus be, for all purposes, considered a warhammer or a mace; or random thrown piece of junk doing d4 damage. If you're using a longsword as a longsword, you're not using it as an improvised weapon. The two are mutualy exclusive.

[MadMusketeer]

Firstly, to all the people using Weapon Master as a baseline - that feat sucks anyway, honestly probably should give proficiency with all simple and martial weapons, and doesn't have any bearing on the RAW of this interaction; this isn't a good argument.

Secondly, the rules for Improvised Weapons are a mess. If the DM allows, and you are proficient in a weapon, you may use an improvised weapons that are similar in nature to that weapon, and you may use your proficiency bonus with that weapon. Also, if a weapon is not similar in nature to any weapon, you can use a d4 damage dice with it. What if an improvised weapon is similar to a weapon you aren't proficient with? Being able to use an improvised weapon as a simple or martial weapon is predicated on proficiency with that simple or martial weapon - the d4 damage dice is predicated on the improvised weapon not being similar to any weapons. There's a clear gap here that the rules do not adequately fill.

Thirdly, based on that, I think its unclear whether the interaction works by RAW - I think you can use your proficiency bonus with a simple or martial weapon as an improvised weapon (although, according to Sage Advice, this definitely isn't RAI, I think the wording implies you can), but there's no actual indication as to what damage dice you use - both options require conditions that are not met in this case. In the case of a weapon that is similar to a weapon listed in the book you are not proficient in, it's simply never explained how to adjudicate damage. I think the d4 interpretation is likely to be taken as the default, but it really isn't - it's not the general rule you turn to if other options don't apply, it's a specific rule in itself with a specific condition (the improvised weapon must not be similar to any simple or martial weapons). A ruling in either direction makes sense, but it is a ruling, not the RAW, as this is a case not really covered by the RAW.

[Unoriginal]

an improvised longsword (I'm not sure what that would be, beyond, you know, a longsword)

Something like an ornemental-only sword?

Or maybe a theater/stunt sword?

[Skrum]

Something like an ornemental-only sword?

Or maybe a theater/stunt sword?

IMO, an improvised weapon is relative to the wielder. If they aren't specifically proficient with it (by name or category of weapon), then it's improvised.

[Chronos]

That leads to a paradox, then, because if the character has Tavern Brawler, then they are proficient in it... so for them, it's no longer an improvised weapon, and because it's no longer an improvised weapon, proficiency doesn't apply, so it is improvised after all, so...

[PhoenixPhyre]

IMO, an improvised weapon is relative to the wielder. If they aren't specifically proficient with it (by name or category of weapon), then it's improvised.

I disagree with this. An improvised weapon, for me, is anything not on the weapon table being used as a weapon. Or a melee weapon (something on the table but without the thrown property) being thrown. Or a ranged weapon being used as a melee weapon. In the latter two of those cases, they do a d4 because while they're similar to a weapon, they're being used in inappropriate ways.

TB only gives you proficiency in those three cases, imo, and the "similar enough" rule has no interaction, because if it triggers, it is that weapon as far as the game is concerned and thus not an improved weapon. So melee with a longsword and TB but no real proficiency: swing without proficiency for weapon damage or throw it for a d4 with proficiency. No melee option where TB triggers.

If that makes TB weak, I'd rather fix the feat itself rather than make convoluted rulings to try to shadow buff it. transparent rules are better, imo.

[Skrum]

I disagree with this. An improvised weapon, for me, is anything not on the weapon table being used as a weapon. Or a melee weapon (something on the table but without the thrown property) being thrown. Or a ranged weapon being used as a melee weapon. In the latter two of those cases, they do a d4 because while they're similar to a weapon, they're being used in inappropriate ways.

TB only gives you proficiency in those three cases, imo, and the "similar enough" rule has no interaction, because if it triggers, it is that weapon as far as the game is concerned and thus not an improved weapon. So melee with a longsword and TB but no real proficiency: swing without proficiency for weapon damage or throw it for a d4 with proficiency. No melee option where TB triggers.

If that makes TB weak, I'd rather fix the feat itself rather than make convoluted rulings to try to shadow buff it. transparent rules are better, imo.

Sure, I guess? Like of course transparent, clear rules are better than vague, ambiguous ones, but 5e is full of vague guides and a "make your own decision DM!!" It mostly works, but particularly when it comes to one rule interacting with another, it's lacking.

I think MadMusketeer has the correct position. There's flatly not enough information to say what the "right" answer is, given the text in the improvised weapon section. As this whole thread can attest to, I think the RAW is enough to suggest a more permissive interpretation of Tavern Brawler. But I generally favor permissive interpretations (particularly when it comes to things, like feats, that have a high opportunity cost to get at all).

[Psyren]

I'm fine with permissive interpretations when they don't allow for an end run around intended rules limitations. And one such limitation in 5e is that gaining proficiency with every weapon in the game is not intended to be doable with a single half-feat, never mind one that does other things on top of that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm fine with permissive interpretations when they don't allow for an end run around intended rules limitations. And one such limitation in 5e is that gaining proficiency with every weapon in the game is not intended to be doable with a single half-feat, never mind one that does other things on top of that.

Yeah. One of my internal rules for interpreting rules is that if an interpretation completely replaced another similar cost element and the element doesn't say it does exactly that, that interpretation should be disfavored unless there are no other interpretations available.

[Slipjig]

OK, I will grant that the RAW says that an "improvised weapon" is "anything you can pick up and swing with one or two hands", a category that clearly includes actual weapons. However, a literal reading of that paragraph would mean that every weapon in the game does 1d4 damage, which is clearly contravention by every other part of the surrounding pages.

So if a Tavern Brawler picks up a real weapon with which they are not proficient they can EITHER a) treat it as an improvised weapon and add their PB and do 1d4 damage, or b) not add their PB, but have the weapon do it's normal damage. Note that option b is open to any character, with or without Tavern Brawler.

[Skrum]

I'm fine with permissive interpretations when they don't allow for an end run around intended rules limitations. And one such limitation in 5e is that gaining proficiency with every weapon in the game is not intended to be doable with a single half-feat, never mind one that does other things on top of that.

Well, TBC, I don't think TB gives effective proficiency. What I think is that when a character is using an actual weapon as an improvised weapon (because they aren't proficient with it), the most appropriate damage dice is the weapon's actual damage dice, assuming they're using it in a way that's approximately like it should be used.

I don't think they should get the benefit of any qualities the weapon has (as it's still an improvised weapon and improvised weapons don't have qualities, unless it is comparable to a weapon you are proficient with).

[Skrum]

OK, I will grant that the RAW says that an "improvised weapon" is "anything you can pick up and swing with one or two hands", a category that clearly includes actual weapons. However, a literal reading of that paragraph would mean that every weapon in the game does 1d4 damage, which is clearly contravention by every other part of the surrounding pages.

So if a Tavern Brawler picks up a real weapon with which they are not proficient they can EITHER a) treat it as an improvised weapon and add their PB and do 1d4 damage, or b) not add their PB, but have the weapon do it's normal damage. Note that option b is open to any character, with or without Tavern Brawler.

The d4 clause is *specifically* for objects that have no resemblance to weapons. I know it's the only hard guidance given for improvised weapon damage, but I strongly disagree that it is supposed to be generalized for all improvised weapons, and cannot understand why several of you are hung up on that.

[Chronos]

A longsword used like a longsword does d8 damage. If you're using it as an improvised weapon, then you're not using it like a longsword.

[JackPhoenix]

Well, TBC, I don't think TB gives effective proficiency. What I think is that when a character is using an actual weapon as an improvised weapon (because they aren't proficient with it), the most appropriate damage dice is the weapon's actual damage dice, assuming they're using it in a way that's approximately like it should be used.

I don't think they should get the benefit of any qualities the weapon has (as it's still an improvised weapon and improvised weapons don't have qualities, unless it is comparable to a weapon you are proficient with).

The bolded part is your problem. If your character is not proficient with a weapon, they don't add proficiency bonus to attacks with it. That's RAW. They don't treat the weapon as improvised weapon. That's utter nonsense with no basis in the rules.

[Skrum]

A longsword used like a longsword does d8 damage. If you're using it as an improvised weapon, then you're not using it like a longsword.

Lol what are you imagining here? "What do you call this thing? A long sword? Grab the sharp end, right?" Is it so hard to imagine that a character than can grab a crowbar, harpoon, or scythe and fight effectively with it can grab a longsword and do more than dagger damage?


The bolded part is your problem. If your character is not proficient with a weapon, they don't add proficiency bonus to attacks with it. That's RAW. They don't treat the weapon as improvised weapon. That's utter nonsense with no basis in the rules.

I guess that's one interpretation. But the improvised weapon rules say "An Improvised Weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands," so I think that'd include a weapon with which you are not proficient. Is a weapon not an object? I find it a **far** more consistent reading of the rules to say that a weapon with which you are not proficient is an improvised weapon (most characters won't have their proficiency bonus when using it), and it deals the damage it say it does on the weapon table (since it's "similar" to a listed weapon).

[JackPhoenix]

I guess that's one interpretation. But the improvised weapon rules say "An Improvised Weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands," so I think that'd include a weapon with which you are not proficient. Is a weapon not an object? I find it a **far** more consistent reading of the rules to say that a weapon with which you are not proficient is an improvised weapon (most characters won't have their proficiency bonus when using it), and it deals the damage it say it does on the weapon table (since it's "similar" to a listed weapon).

Sure, and rules for weapon proficiency say "If you make an attack roll using a weapon with which you lack proficiency, you do not add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll." That's as explicit as it can get.
Improvised weapons also say "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such." If it's treated as an actual weapon, it's not treated as improvised weapon... which include proficiencies, damage and weapon properties. You don't get to pick whatever you want.
The only RAW way to use an actual weapon as improvised weapon is to throw a weapon without thrown property, or to make a melee attack with ranged weapon.
Your "interpretation" has not only has no basis in the rules, it directly goes against what the rules say.

[Skrum]

Improvised weapons also say "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such."

It also says "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." Left out that part, which to me means a character can grab certain objects that are similar enough to a weapon that they are proficient with, and be proficient with that object. That's not the same thing as not being proficient with the weapon that the object is most similar to.



The only RAW way to use an actual weapon as improvised weapon is to throw a weapon without thrown property, or to make a melee attack with ranged weapon.
Your "interpretation" has not only has no basis in the rules, it directly goes against what the rules say.

No. You are choosing to interpret the rules very narrowly. Which is fine. But acting like that's the only possible way to interpret, let's be real, incomplete rules is silly.

[JackPhoenix]

It also says "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." Left out that part, which to me means a character can grab certain objects that are similar enough to a weapon that they are proficient with, and be proficient with that object. That's not the same thing as not being proficient with the weapon that the object is most similar to.

Left out that part because it's irrelevant. A weapon isn't "similar object", a weapon is a weapon.


No. You are choosing to interpret the rules very narrowly. Which is fine. But acting like that's the only possible way to interpret, let's be real, incomplete rules is silly.

It really is, any other "interpretation" relies on selective reading and really convulted logic.

[greenstone]

A longsword is not an improvised weapon, though, it is a purpose-built weapon.

In other words, if you use a longsword as a longsword, none of the improvised weapon rules apply.

That's my ruling as well. A longsword is not an "improvised weapon"; it's a "weapon".

The feat makes you more effective at using things that aren't weapons - unwieldy, strangely-shaped, unbalanced things. The feat does not do anything to make you more effective with actual weapons (hat-tip Chronos).

It hasn't come up in my games, however, because the few times I've seen this feat taken it has been by characters who already had martial weapon proficiency.

[Chronos]

Quoth Skrum:


Lol what are you imagining here? "What do you call this thing? A long sword? Grab the sharp end, right?" Is it so hard to imagine that a character than can grab a crowbar, harpoon, or scythe and fight effectively with it can grab a longsword and do more than dagger damage?

Of course you can. That's how swords work. And if you do that and you aren't proficient with swords, then you don't add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll.

If you happen to have the knack for picking up random lumps of metal and swinging effectively with them, then you can also treat a sword as a random lump of metal, and do the same with it. But using a sword as a random hunk of metal is not the same as using it as it was intended, so in that case you get your proficiency bonus, but not the weapon damage die.

[MadMusketeer]

It also says "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." Left out that part, which to me means a character can grab certain objects that are similar enough to a weapon that they are proficient with, and be proficient with that object. That's not the same thing as not being proficient with the weapon that the object is most similar to.

The problem here is, what's the point? If you're already proficient, what do you gain from this? If you aren't proficient, it's unclear what damage dice you use, but that's not because both options apply, its because neither do - you don't get to use the clause.

I can only think of one situation in which this makes sense - something like taking using a shortsword (or similar improvised weapon) and saying it's similar to a longsword, or vice versa, if you're proficient in one but not the other, and even then I don't know if I'd allow it.

[Skrum]

If you're already proficient, what do you gain from this?

This is absolutely true; it's hard to imagine a character that doesn't have martial weapon proficiency taking TB. So this is all very theoretical




If you aren't proficient, it's unclear what damage dice you use, but that's not because both options apply, its because neither do - you don't get to use the clause.

I can only think of one situation in which this makes sense - something like taking using a shortsword (or similar improvised weapon) and saying it's similar to a longsword, or vice versa, if you're proficient in one but not the other, and even then I don't know if I'd allow it.

It's lost upthread, but I'll explain my reasoning.

1) a weapon is an object
2) any object that can be wielded one or two handed can be used as an improvised weapon
3) if an object is similar to one of the weapons on the table, the DM can use that as a reference to determine the damage of an improvised weapon
4) definitionally, something can't be more similar to something than it is to itself, so the most appropriate damage value for a, e.g., longsword object is a longsword
5) since the character has TB, they get their proficiency bonus when attacking with an improvised weapon

The counter-case is that every improvised weapon either
1) counts as a weapon and thus isn't an improvised weapon, or
2) does d4 damage

The fact that the d4 suggestion is made in a sentence that begins "if the object has no resemblance to a weapon" makes me incredibly unconvinced it should be applied to a weapon-like object, but hey, other people feel different. Such is life.

[Rukelnikov]

This is absolutely true; it's hard to imagine a character that doesn't have martial weapon proficiency taking TB. So this is all very theoretical




It's lost upthread, but I'll explain my reasoning.

1) a weapon is an object
2) any object that can be wielded one or two handed can be used as an improvised weapon
3) if an object is similar to one of the weapons on the table, the DM can use that as a reference to determine the damage of an improvised weapon
4) definitionally, something can't be more similar to something than it is to itself, so the most appropriate damage value for a, e.g., longsword object is a longsword
5) since the character has TB, they get their proficiency bonus when attacking with an improvised weapon

The counter-case is that every improvised weapon either
1) counts as a weapon and thus isn't an improvised weapon, or
2) does d4 damage

The fact that the d4 suggestion is made in a sentence that begins "if the object has no resemblance to a weapon" makes me incredibly unconvinced it should be applied to a weapon-like object, but hey, other people feel different. Such is life.

I think the general contention point is your point number 3, being similar to a weapon does not mean using the damage die of that weapon, being similar to a weapon means it can count as that weapon:


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 dub. 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.
Use as if it were that weapon, means the table leg is not considered an improvised weapon in this scenario but a club.

In this case TB does nothing, if its an object similar to a club (lets include clubs since they are very similar to clubs), and you somehow don't have proficiency in clubs, you can't benefit from that rule, and if you have proficiency, then TB gives you nothing.


An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals ld4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a characler uses a ranged weapon to make a melee atlack, 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.

This is the part which TB improves, since no one normally has proficiency in improvised weapons, TB allows you to apply you proficiency bonus when attacking with a no weapon resemblance improvised weapon.

The problem is that the rules for improvised weapon are stupid, when throwing an ashtray or hitting someone with a safe's door does the same damage.

[Skrum]

Use as if it were that weapon, means the table leg is not considered an improvised weapon in this scenario but a club.

Fair enough. But to me it still comes back to, do you want to interpret the given rules very narrowly, or more permissively. I think you make a perfectly cogent case for the narrow interpretation, but I don't think it makes the permissive one less believable.

In my view,
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 dub. 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.

pretty clearly applies to a character that is proficient with a similar weapon. This would NOT apply to a character who is NOT proficient with a similar weapon. But if that character CAN apply their PB to attacks with improvised weapons thanks to TB, well what then. Well, the looking at the weapon table for guidance on damage is what the improvised weapon section says to do first, so....



The problem is that the rules for improvised weapon are stupid, when throwing an ashtray or hitting someone with a safe's door does the same damage.

It is! Especially if you take the last section about d4 damage applying to objects that aren't weapon-like and apply it to all improvised weapons, regardless of their shape, function, etc. I think the silliness of improvised weapons is at least partially caused by people applying this rule far too broadly.

[Rukelnikov]

Fair enough. But to me it still comes back to, do you want to interpret the given rules very narrowly, or more permissively. I think you make a perfectly cogent case for the narrow interpretation, but I don't think it makes the permissive one less believable.

In my view,
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 dub. 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.

pretty clearly applies to a character that is proficient with a similar weapon. This would NOT apply to a character who is NOT proficient with a similar weapon. But if that character CAN apply their PB to attacks with improvised weapons thanks to TB, well what then.

Then, if they are not proficient with clubs they can't make use of the "similar to a club" clause, since that requires the character being proficient, and thus must use it as a table leg, which means 1d4 damage, but apply proficiency to attacks.


Well, the looking at the weapon table for guidance on damage is what the improvised weapon section says to do first, so....

Where does the PHB section on Improvised Weapons say that?


It is! Especially if you take the last section about d4 damage applying to objects that aren't weapon-like and apply it to all improvised weapons, regardless of their shape, function, etc. I think the silliness of improvised weapons is at least partially caused by people applying this rule far too broadly.

Its the only reading possible, I think its stupid and don't run it like that, but that's what RAW says.

[Skrum]

Where does the PHB section on Improvised Weapons say that?


I think
Often, an Improvised Weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such.

And
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.

Are two separate points. The first one means the imp weapon can get the damage dice of the similar weapon.

The second sentence says that IF the character is proficient with a weapon that is similar to the improvised weapon, then they can wield the imp weapon proficiently. Our point of disagreement is I don't think you need to satisfy sentence two to get the benefit of sentence one.

Basically, if a character isn't proficient with the weapon, it counts as an improvised weapon for them. That's my view. Them being proficient with it or not doesn't change the damage dice. And tavern brawler lets a character apply their proficiency bonus to attacks with improvised weapons.

[Osuniev]

In terms of what the RAW says, if you haven't been convinced yet nothing will.
In terms of RAI, Tavern Brawler is not supposed to be a strictly superior Weapon Master (as bad as that feat may be).
In terms of balance, Tavern Brawler is already a really good feat :



1- Increase your Strength or Consititution score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
2- You are proficient with improvised weapons.
3- Your unarmed strike uses a d4 for damage.
4- When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike or an improvised weapon on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target.

You're fixating on 2, which (I agree with you here), if it were the only benefit of the feat, would be really weak, RAW.

However, people select Tavern Brawler for benefits 1. and 4. It's a must-have feat for any Grappling build (which are not just Fighters or Barbarian : Wizards, Bards, Druids, and Rogues can be really good grapplers if they don't dump STR and build accordingly).
The benefits 2 and 3 are mostly useful because they make the benefit 4 more interesting.