Tavern Brawler and "I'll beat a mf with another mf!"

[Jak]

Inspired to think about this after reading this thread.

I've been considering some mechanics based around Tavern Brawler. Namely, the ability to grapple an enemy, and then use that enemy as an improvised weapon against other enemies.

Obviously, this tactic would needs high strength score and considerable investment to make a viable character, but right now, I'm just interested in the mechanics part.

How much strength is needed?
How much damage does the weapon take on a hit?
Are there additional rolls that would be needed?

We know from certain martial arts that it is possible to throw someone to ground with considerable momentum, at least enough for them to take some bludgeoning damage, so we know this should at least be plausible in a game setting.

What are y'all's thoughts?



P.S. I feel like I remember there being an archetype in Pathfinder for this sort of thing as well, so ... I dunno... that, for what it's worth.

[BoutsofInsanity]

In terms of this I think the best way to go about it is the following.

Use strength score to see if they can lift. Strength determines lifting capacity, so I think using this as an approximation works pretty well.
Obviously the enemy needs to be grappled. So getting the enemy grabbed is next.
Lastly I think you need to make as part of the attack another athletics check because you are trying to do something extra.

It would read

Hit a MFER with a MFER
When you have grappled an opponent you can choose to may replace one or more of your attacks with your grappled opponent as your weapon so long as you can lift their weight. As part of this attack make an athletics check opposed by the enemies acrobatics/athletics. If successful you may make an improvised weapon attack with your grappled enemy. If you hit you may deal damage equal to 2d6+Str to both the grappled target and the attack target. If you are targeting a wall, make your improvised attack against the grappled opponents AC.

[strangebloke]

I allowed this. Use a person as an improvised greatclub, damage is dealt to both people. Obviously goes without saying that for use "as a greatclub" you have to actually lift them, though if you could only grapple them, not lift them, I would still let you use part of the enemy's body as a club. The classic "grab two heads and bonk them together" trick.

Ultimately it was strong, but only worked against some enemies and you had to set up the grapple first so whatever. It was fine. In spite of this and a few other generous rulings on my part the player ultimately found the character (an unarmed bearbarian back in 2016) too weak and retired the character.

[Chronos]

Personally, I would rule:

1: Yes, it's possible. After all, the improvised weapon rules include "dead goblin", and this isn't too different.
2: You have to be grappling the first dude first.
3: A person doesn't particularly resemble any weapon, so the damage die is just 1d4. Probably bludgeoning, unless you were fighting particularly spiky enemies.
4: Because the weapon is squirming around and resisting, the attack would be made at disadvantage. No specific rules to back this up, just an ad-hoc ruling.
5: Since it's a cool thing to do, and since you're accepting disadvantage on the attack when you could just punch, the benefit is that you get to damage both.

[SociopathFriend]

Bear in mind you don't necessarily need to be LIFTING the mf to use them to HURT another mf.

I'm sure there's better examples for what I'm thinking of (most likely involving Jackie Chan) but the only one that's choosing to manifest is this one. Take this specific timestamped moment from Tekken: Blood Vengeance. Should be 1:56 if the timestamp doesn't work.

Heihachi (old guy) was still absolutely used as a weapon/shield by Jin (dark suited youngest guy) against Kazuya (scarred guy). At no point during the specific exchange of, "Heihachi charges, Jin grapples and then shoves Heihachi's face into Kazuya's fist" does Jin actually need to lift his grandfather off the ground.

I wouldn't rule you need a particular Strength stat to pull it off. Just winning that initial Grapple Check would already factor in whether you're overpowering your opponent (Str) or perhaps just have a better grapple game (Dex) that you're choosing to use instead of relying on strikes.

It/he is still an Improvised Weapon and so you roll damage and to-hit accordingly but I personally wouldn't suggest you need to introduce a lot more work when going about it.



Lifting is the extreme end of these interactions but I wouldn't make it different unless you intend to KEEP lifting the person past that attack or want to force them to be prone.

[Joe the Rat]

relative size ought to be considered - Treat a same-sized creature needs be two-handed, possibly Heavy. The questions is if you can use creatures larger than yourself effectively - yes you might be able to lift it, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can swing it.

I'm going to suggest leaving that to preference. We could argue realism v. verisimilitude v. rule of cool, but that's beating someone with a dead horse.

[Talionis]

Personally, I would rule:

1: Yes, it's possible. After all, the improvised weapon rules include "dead goblin", and this isn't too different.
2: You have to be grappling the first dude first.
3: A person doesn't particularly resemble any weapon, so the damage die is just 1d4. Probably bludgeoning, unless you were fighting particularly spiky enemies.
4: Because the weapon is squirming around and resisting, the attack would be made at disadvantage. No specific rules to back this up, just an ad-hoc ruling.
5: Since it's a cool thing to do, and since you're accepting disadvantage on the attack when you could just punch, the benefit is that you get to damage both.

This is precisely how I would rule it, though I would be open to it being slightly more damage through modifiers.

[Psyren]

Good timing OP as there is a new UA out that contains a barbarian designed to throw enemies and allies around.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Personally, I would rule:

1: Yes, it's possible. After all, the improvised weapon rules include "dead goblin", and this isn't too different.
2: You have to be grappling the first dude first.
3: A person doesn't particularly resemble any weapon, so the damage die is just 1d4. Probably bludgeoning, unless you were fighting particularly spiky enemies.
4: Because the weapon is squirming around and resisting, the attack would be made at disadvantage. No specific rules to back this up, just an ad-hoc ruling.
5: Since it's a cool thing to do, and since you're accepting disadvantage on the attack when you could just punch, the benefit is that you get to damage both.

The problem with this entire design space is you remove the want to even attempt the attack. You have put so many conditions on the action that the payoff isn't worth the uncertainty to do said action. What you have done with this ruling is made it boring by making it "fair." There is no incentive for me to attempt anything cool because it's not optimal in any scenario.

Up the damage to 1d10 or 2d6 the equivalent of a great club and now we are talking about something interesting. Your design here basically says "Don't try anything cool because its gated behind a bunch of rolls and disadvantages, and you only get the equivalent of a d4 damage anyway. Better off just swinging with your sword and doing more damage that way."

[Chronos]

Swinging with your sword against one person isn't necessarily better than doing 1d4+str to two people.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Swinging with your sword against one person isn't necessarily better than doing 1d4+str to two people.

All I'm saying, is that when you design mechanics for a cool thing, keep in mind that in the pursuit of "balance" or "Makes Sense" that you don't make it so cumbersome or unrewarding that players immediately default back into

"Ok, that's too much, I just attack normally. 23 to hit."

"Hit."

"12 damage. Is he still up?"

"Yes. Ok mage your turn..."

I would argue, that for disadvantage on the attack, grapple required, for such a low damage payoff doesn't entice me to try and do the fun thing.

[Jak]

That's really neat about the unearthed arcana. The timing is cool, though it looks like it covers throwing, but no melee attacks.

I thought the maneuver would include a grapple attempt, a shove (to push prone), and then the weapon attack. The cost for all of this would of course be the tavern brawler feat, and the strength score.

With tavern brawler, at level 5, a character with extra attack could accomplish this in one turn.

Barbarians would naturally be able to pull all of this off easier, due to the advantage on strength checks whilst raging.

Edit:
I would also treat as a greatclub at minimum, unless it was a particularly small enemy.

[Chronos]

Quoth BoutsofInsanity:

I would argue, that for disadvantage on the attack, grapple required, for such a low damage payoff doesn't entice me to try and do the fun thing.

Eh, if you're taking Tavern Brawler, then your character is probably such that grappling is something you'd be trying to do anyway. And speaking of Tavern Brawler, don't forget that, after you do this, you'll have the opportunity to grapple the second dude, too. That's another advantage over just swinging a sword.

The only additional restriction I'm adding at all is the disadvantage on the attack, and if you take that away, then this tactic becomes always superior to a normal attack.

[Jak]

Maybe instead of disadvantage on the attack, give an attack of opportunity to the creature being used as a weapon?

[Azuresun]

All I'm saying, is that when you design mechanics for a cool thing, keep in mind that in the pursuit of "balance" or "Makes Sense" that you don't make it so cumbersome or unrewarding that players immediately default back into

"Ok, that's too much, I just attack normally. 23 to hit."

"Hit."

"12 damage. Is he still up?"

"Yes. Ok mage your turn..."

I would argue, that for disadvantage on the attack, grapple required, for such a low damage payoff doesn't entice me to try and do the fun thing.

The opposite problem is that if the "fun" thing is too good, it becomes a go-to in every fight, which makes things a bit ridiculous.

[Chronos]

Quoth Jak:

Maybe instead of disadvantage on the attack, give an attack of opportunity to the creature being used as a weapon?

Eh, I suppose that could work, too. But in the 5e design space, attacks of opportunity are a very limited thing, with only one general case and one uncommon special case where it also applies. Disadvantage, meanwhile, is a mechanic that's used all over the place. So it seems more in keeping with that design to use disadvantage.

[Jak]

Eh, I suppose that could work, too. But in the 5e design space, attacks of opportunity are a very limited thing, with only one general case and one uncommon special case where it also applies. Disadvantage, meanwhile, is a mechanic that's used all over the place. So it seems more in keeping with that design to use disadvantage.

I suggested such, because it makes more sense to me that a mook wouldn't just let you pick them up without trying to get a decent shot in. I also feel that disadvantage is a little discouraging to the move/play style, but maybe I just haven't played enough. (After all, I am just theory crafting in case this ever comes up in actual play.)

In any case, it feels barbaric, and eating an attack of opportunity for this is the kind of thing barbarians are either good at, or crazy enough to try.

[RazorChain]

Pick a race with extra carrying and lifting capacity like a Goliath.

Play Fighter Runeknight and use your ability to be large. Now you have the lifting and carrying capacity like you are huge, in addition you get advantage on Strength checks.

Now you are considered a giant and you can just grab people with one arm and swing them or hurl them or whatever.