D&D 5E An issue with the Tavern Brawler feat

[CapnZapp]

Improvised weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and
have to attack with whatever is close at hand. An
improvised weapon includes any object you can wield
in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a
frying pan, a w agon wheel, or a dead goblin.
In many cases, an improvised w eapon 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 w ere that weapon and use his or her
proficiency bonus.

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

The first paragraph (lines 1-5) define the concept of "improvised weapons".

The next two sentences tell DMs they can use existing weapon stats for some improvised weapons. The example given is "use the club stats when somebody swings a table leg".

The final sentence before the page break tells DMs they can allow characters to use their existing proficiencies to use otherwise improvised weaponry. The example would be "since you're proficient with clubs, you're good to go with this table leg".

Then stats are suggested for improvised weaponry: 1d4. This would also go for when Legolas stabs orcs in the eye with his arrows. Finally the damage and range of "improvised thrown objects" are discussed.

Nowhere can you arrive at the conclusion "now I'm proficient with everything".

Normally when you pick up a table leg (or dead goblin ) you would be considered not proficient, and do d4 damage.

The DM could rule the table leg acts like a club, meaning it's a light weapon dealing bludgeoning damage. Complete with properties and all (in this case "light"). Then again, he could choose not to.

The DM could also rule the table leg IS a club, meaning you get your proficiency bonus (as well as any rider feature of using weaponry you're proficient with). Then again, he could choose not to.

What the Tavern Brawler does is, it ensures you get your proficency bonus when you pick up any random object.

Also, many DMs will choose not to be lenient with the two rulings above in general, in order to be exactly that for Tavern Brawlers. That is, any time a Tavern Brawler picks up a vaguely club:ish item, bam, it really is a club. But for anyone else, it isn't.

But it doesn't end there. Perhaps the Tavern Brawler can use a rope as a whip, a dead goblin as a greatclub, and a broken mirror as a scimitar? Complete with their proficiency bonus and all weapon properties and special rules!

When at the same time everybody else will simply get the same bog-standard d4 improvised weapon out of these items?

TL;DR: Sure, you could be generous and hand out most if not all the benefits of Tavern Brawler to anyone picking up a table leg.

But then again, you could choose not to.

 

[Leugren]

No, my point is that the way the Tavern Brawler feat and the Improvised weapons rules are written, there is an unintended interaction that opens up the Tavern Brawler feat to being exploited in ways that were not intended.

I am absolutely happy with the Tavern Brawler feat doing its intended job, and I'm not labouring under any assumptions about its use (The most common improvised weapon in the games I run is "the bodies of the opposing force, dead or alive". My wife's barbarian is basically optimised to throw people, whether they like it or not).

I can solve this problem myself by simply saying "Don't take the piss", because I have a good group. But that does not mean that the rules do not interact in a way that is, by a reasonable reading, exploitable.

I don't quite follow what you consider as an unintended interaction. If the DM allows you to use a greatsword as a greatclub, and you happen to have proficiency with the greatclub, you will get your proficiency bonus when you attack with the greatsword, but it will have all of the specs of a greatclub when you use it in this fashion. This is the case whether or not you have the Tavern Brawler feat. In this case, the Tavern Brawler feat has no impact. So where is the exploitation? Your point is not coming across clearly to me.

EDIT: I just read your post about the wizard and the greatclub. I finally understand what you're trying to say, and I agree that it does seem problematic. I would suggest that you include that example in your first post, or you are apt to get a lot more non-sequitur responses than you already have.

 

[CapnZapp]

It goes like this. <snip>

Before you houserule things, please read my second post

 

[Rune]

Except that the rules say otherwise.
The rules explicitly say that if an object resembles an actual weapon, it can be treated as that weapon.
The rules also say that "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."

I believe I just said that. Where we differ is the conclusions drawn from there. To me, it seems that function is fundamental to that similarity. Form also, in as much as it dictates functionality.

As an added bonus, my interpretation doesn't invalidate the benefit of being proficient in improvised weapons that Tavern Brawler grants. Obviously, if you are of the opinion that anything resembles a weapon if you squint hard enough, the feature will be less appealing.

Now, this relies on GM discretion - you might decide that a greatsword can't be used as a club.

My position is that, even if you can use it like a club, it is not sufficiently similar enough to grant proficiency.

My point in this thread is that this creates an interaction that could cause the Tavern Brawler to be used in an overly broad manner at the table, and thus spending a while thinking about it now and getting an interpretation of the feat that's good but not too good could save a lot of stress sometime later, when some player makes assumptions.

I don't understand your concerns, here. Proficiency in improvised weapons is intentionally a catch-all. A catch-all that (except for higher level monks) deals 1d4 damage. Treating a broad range of improvised weapons as other, proficient weapons does not strengthen this feat; it takes away from it.

Yeah, I love grappling and shoving in 5e. Pretty well balanced, extremely useful and they give martial characters stuff they can reliably do in combat that isn't just attacking.

Oh yeah. And don't get me wrong. Even though Tavern Brawler is lessened with your broad view of improvised weaponry, I don't think the utility of the feat suffers one bit from it.

 

[ccooke]

The first paragraph (lines 1-5) define the concept of "improvised weapons".

The next two sentences tell DMs they can use existing weapon stats for some improvised weapons. The example given is "use the club stats when somebody swings a table leg".

The final sentence before the page break tells DMs they can allow characters to use their existing proficiencies to use otherwise improvised weaponry. The example would be "since you're proficient with clubs, you're good to go with this table leg".

Then stats are suggested for improvised weaponry: 1d4. This would also go for when Legolas stabs orcs in the eye with his arrows. Finally the damage and range of "improvised thrown objects" are discussed.

Nowhere can you arrive at the conclusion "now I'm proficient with everything".

Normally when you pick up a table leg (or dead goblin ) you would be considered not proficient, and do d4 damage.

The DM could rule the table leg acts like a club, meaning it's a light weapon dealing bludgeoning damage. Complete with properties and all (in this case "light"). Then again, he could choose not to.

The DM could also rule the table leg IS a club, meaning you get your proficiency bonus (as well as any rider feature of using weaponry you're proficient with). Then again, he could choose not to.

What the Tavern Brawler does is, it ensures you get your proficency bonus when you pick up any random object.

Also, many DMs will choose not to be lenient with the two rulings above in general, in order to be exactly that for Tavern Brawlers. That is, any time a Tavern Brawler picks up a vaguely club:ish item, bam, it really is a club. But for anyone else, it isn't.

But it doesn't end there. Perhaps the Tavern Brawler can use a rope as a whip, a dead goblin as a greatclub, and a broken mirror as a scimitar? Complete with their proficiency bonus and all weapon properties and special rules!

When at the same time everybody else will simply get the same bog-standard d4 improvised weapon out of these items?

TL;DR: Sure, you could be generous and hand out most if not all the benefits of Tavern Brawler to anyone picking up a table leg.

But then again, you could choose not to.

Yes, this is absolutely true.
My point is that by a reasonable interpretation of the rules, it is possible to argue that the Tavern Brawler feat allows you proficiency with attacks made with any weapon (and that this is a bad thing which some small amount of thought is probably justified to come up with a decent ruling that mitigates exploitation)

The fact that GMs come in a wild variety of leniencies does not mean there is no problem here. Nor does it mean that my preferred way to interpret the improvised weapon rules (which is not particularly lenient; If someone picks up a weapon I'll allow them to use it as something that I decide it resembles (and by that I include things like "if the thing they're holding is two handed and they don't have proficiency with anything you hold in a similar manner, they're out of luck") that they have proficiency with, or as a 1d4 weapon without proficiency if I don't think it resembles anything.

(In terms of weapons resembling other weapons, I'd allow a spear to be used as a quarterstaff, and a greatsword as a greatclub, but I would not allow a greatsword to be used as a (non-great) club or a quarterstaff. In the first case, a greatsword is two-handed and a club isn't. In the other, where you put your hands on a quarterstaff is very different to where you would hold a greatsword (and while it seems that two handed use of a greatsword did include holding the blade sometimes, I'd consider that to be something that requires specific training)

 

[Rune]

The first paragraph (lines 1-5) define the concept of "improvised weapons".

The next two sentences tell DMs they can use existing weapon stats for some improvised weapons. The example given is "use the club stats when somebody swings a table leg".

The final sentence before the page break tells DMs they can allow characters to use their existing proficiencies to use otherwise improvised weaponry. The example would be "since you're proficient with clubs, you're good to go with this table leg".

Then stats are suggested for improvised weaponry: 1d4. This would also go for when Legolas stabs orcs in the eye with his arrows. Finally the damage and range of "improvised thrown objects" are discussed.

Nowhere can you arrive at the conclusion "now I'm proficient with everything".

Normally when you pick up a table leg (or dead goblin ) you would be considered not proficient, and do d4 damage.

The DM could rule the table leg acts like a club, meaning it's a light weapon dealing bludgeoning damage. Complete with properties and all (in this case "light"). Then again, he could choose not to.

The DM could also rule the table leg IS a club, meaning you get your proficiency bonus (as well as any rider feature of using weaponry you're proficient with). Then again, he could choose not to.

What the Tavern Brawler does is, it ensures you get your proficency bonus when you pick up any random object.

Also, many DMs will choose not to be lenient with the two rulings above in general, in order to be exactly that for Tavern Brawlers. That is, any time a Tavern Brawler picks up a vaguely club:ish item, bam, it really is a club. But for anyone else, it isn't.

But it doesn't end there. Perhaps the Tavern Brawler can use a rope as a whip, a dead goblin as a greatclub, and a broken mirror as a scimitar? Complete with their proficiency bonus and all weapon properties and special rules!

When at the same time everybody else will simply get the same bog-standard d4 improvised weapon out of these items?

TL;DR: Sure, you could be generous and hand out most if not all the benefits of Tavern Brawler to anyone picking up a table leg.

But then again, you could choose not to.

All right, I see where you're coming from. Because the language of the rule specifies that, if the DM rules an object sufficiently similar to a weapon to be used as such, you add your proficiency modifier, but does not explicitly add "if you are proficient with that weapon," you take that to mean that it provides the bonus regardless.

To me, it is clearly intended not to, but I can see why you would rule otherwise.

What I can't see is why you would do so even when you see the exploit that it creates. If you are really concerned about it, all you have to do is rule the other way.

 

[ccooke]

I believe I just said that. Where we differ is the conclusions drawn from there. To me, it seems that function is fundamental to that similarity. Form also, in as much as it dictates functionality.

As an added bonus, my interpretation doesn't invalidate the benefit of being proficient in improvised weapons that Tavern Brawler grants. Obviously, if you are of the opinion that anything resembles a weapon if you squint hard enough, the feature will be less appealing.

But that's not what I'm saying - you're making some assumptions that are incorrect, here.
I am completely happy with improvised use of random objects that don't resemble weapons, and I fully expect that most uses of the Tavern Brawler feat will apply to them.

I'm pointing out that a reasonable interpretation of the rules allows an exploit in the specific case where an improvised weapon strongly resembles or is an actual weapon.

My position is that, even if you can use it like a club, it is not sufficiently similar enough to grant proficiency.

This is a completely viable ruling, but it is a ruling nonetheless. I don't rule things that way, others don't rule things that way and the rules as they exist don't favour your interpretation over any other.

You would have to make another ruling to cut off the exploitable condition in the TB feat, though, since it's the preceding sentence which causes the issue: "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." - sure, your ruling says that normal people would not get proficiency with this table leg club. Someone with the TB feat does get proficiency, but only if they don't later take some sandpaper to the chair leg and make a real club out of it (unless, of course, they have proficiency with clubs)

I don't understand your concerns, here. Proficiency in improvised weapons is intentionally a catch-all. A catch-all that (except for higher level monks) deals 1d4 damage. Treating a broad range of improvised weapons as other, proficient weapons does not strengthen this feat; it takes away from it.

Then your issue is with the basic improvised weapon rules, which specifically say that "in many cases", this will be the case. Applying proficiency is left at the GM's discretion, and I would prefer to rule in a different direction to you. That's fine, and your answer to this is easier - just please accept that when the PHB and Basic rules say "The DM may do this thing", there is clear support for the DM to, if they want, do that thing

Oh yeah. And don't get me wrong. Even though Tavern Brawler is lessened with your broad view of improvised weaponry, I don't think the utility of the feat suffers one bit from it.

I don't see it as lessened, since I am simply reading the rules and applying them. That I make a choice to do an optional thing in a different direction to you does not mean I'm houseruling the game; both interpretations are explicitly supported.

And again, the problem that I'm pointing out in the Tavern Brawler feat has nothing to do with whether someone without the feat gets proficiency because they're fighting with something that looks like a greatclub or not. It has to do with what happens when someone with the feat uses an actual weapon as the actual weapon it is and argues that they get proficiency, because a reasonable interpretation of the rules says that they do. Not everyone's interpretation. Certainly not, I believe, a good or intended interpretation. But a reasonable one nonetheless.

 

[Pickles JG]

(and while it seems that two handed use of a greatsword did include holding the blade sometimes, I'd consider that to be something that requires specific training)

Say the tavern brawler feat ?

I think you misinterpreting are the treat as other weapon part. You can treat an improvised weapon as either an improvised weapon or as a "real" weapin it resembles. So a chair leg is either, a club simple weapon d6, or an improvised weapon d4 only tavern brawlers are proficient.

Aa real weapon like a greatsword could b e used as intended, as an improvised great club (say by reversing it and bashing with the cross guard) or as an improvised weapon, like a quarterstaff maybe that it very unsuited.

There a Fafhrd story in which he does something like this when he is forced into a duel using unfamiliar weapon.

Even if you are not its a prety minor case. The half feat gives you plenty of bonues somthe argument one part of it has to be better than the default rules is pretty much undermined.

 

[ccooke]

All right, I see where you're coming from. Because the language of the rule specifies that, if the DM rules an object sufficiently similar to a weapon to be used as such, you add your proficiency modifier, but does not explicitly add "if you are proficient with that weapon," you take that to mean that it provides the bonus regardless.

To me, it is clearly intended not to, but I can see why you would rule otherwise.

What I can't see is why you would do so even when you see the exploit that it creates. If you are really concerned about it, all you have to do is rule the other way.

I must be completely failing to communicate here.

I specifically do not want the Tavern Brawler feat to effectively grant proficiency with all weapons, because that is overpowered and (I am certain) entirely unintended.

However, the rules explicitly state that:
1) Any object that strongly resembles an actual weapon can, if wielded as an improvised weapon, be treated as the actual weapon
2) Tavern Brawlers are proficient with improvised weapons.

Therefore, if a Tavern Brawler picks up something that (the DM decides) resembles a greatsword and wields it as an improvised weapon, they get proficiency with it and treat it as a greatsword to do 2d6 damage. If this is accepted, then it is absurd to say that something that looks like a greatsword can be used with proficiency but an actual greatsword can not. That is the problem.

I prefer to rule point 1) above the way it reads, because that makes more sense to me. Because I prefer that ruling, point 2) above catches me out and opens the door to a side effect where the TB feat is too broad.

My solution to this (which I came to after starting this thread) is to rule that the TB feat allows you to use the simplest melee or thrown use of any weapon you are not proficient with. You can't use the finesse or reach properties of a weapon (if you do, you lose your proficiency bonus because you are not trained with that weapon) and if it's a versatile weapon you can only use it two handed (because grabbing something in two hands and waving it at people seems (to me) to be less of a trained thing that successfully fighting with shield and boathook long-term)

 

[Rune]

Sure, I get that we've been talking about rulings and not houserules. That's been clear. No one's throwing around accusations of badwrongfun around here.

And again, the problem that I'm pointing out in the Tavern Brawler feat has nothing to do with whether someone without the feat gets proficiency because they're fighting with something that looks like a greatclub or not. It has to do with what happens when someone with the feat uses an actual weapon as the actual weapon it is and argues that they get proficiency, because a reasonable interpretation of the rules says that they do. Not everyone's interpretation. Certainly not, I believe, a good or intended interpretation. But a reasonable one nonetheless.

I would counter that in the sentence, "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such," the phrase, "can be treated as such" actually implies that automatic proficiency is not granted, since actual weapons do not grant it.