D&D 5E PH(B) Tavern Brawler Feat

[Kobold Stew]

If the feat doesn't come up almost every round of combat it is not a good investment.

I'll admit that this is a very different way of looking at feats than I am accustomed to. Nothing wrong with it of course, but with this as a benchmark, you're going to want the +2 to a stat almost always. Not everyone will use that benchmark, though.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Every time I read responses to a part of the game like this where people immediately dismiss it based solely on min/maxing and not on how it could apply in various in-game scenarios, I die a little inside.

I remember when the tagline to D&D was, "Products of Your Imagination"

I think there's a very important about game design concept that you're missing. The thing about balance is that it makes the "imagination" aspect better. I mean, if there was an option that was perfect for your character concept, but actually sucked mechanically (to the point where your character was useless compared to the others), it wouldn't be as fun to play that character.

 

[lkj]

That is exactly what they did. One of the recent articles mentioned that all feats are equal (or the goal is that they are close to) a +2 in a stat. Some feats are weaker, so they are +1 to a stat and whatever comes out to be about +1 in a stat. I believe we will be seeing many feats that are +1 to stat and something else. The interesting point here is that the bonus to the stat is more restricted as well, since you can only choose two stats instead of any.

Someone who starts with (or somehow ends up with) an odd primary stat could easily stand to pick something like this up, since the +2 isn't worth it to them and the bonus "stuff" is just gravy.

Recent twitter exchange from D&D twitter account:

Twitter person: "It's an awesome feat, but I'm just confused. Will most feats have ability score increases embedded?"

Dungeons & Dragons: "Most of them don't, but some feats may still buff stats a little."

AD

 

[Remathilis]

If the feat doesn't come up almost every round of combat it is not a good investment.

By that logic, Toughness is a better feat than Cleave!

Feats are situational. I'm extremely happy feats are moving away from mandatory bonus-stacking (or worse, feat taxes). I don't miss Improved Initiative, Dodge, Iron Will, or any any sort of "Focus" feats. (Or even the "Mother-may-I" feats: Two-weapon Fighting, Improved Bull Rush, or Weapon Finesse) Even a feat like tavern brawler (which isn't going to see constant use) creates a flavorful addition to my character.

I didn't think I was going to miss feats after playing Basic; but feats like this are making me reconsider.

 

[drjones]

Be sure to tell the Half Orc who is punching your teeth out down at the Green Dragon that his build is not perfectly optimal. I think it will really help him to rethink how wrong he has been about his entire career right before he slides your unconscious body down the bar.

I played and DMd 4e since it came out and enjoyed it but one failing it had was that when making build decisions they were almost always balanced very carefully. Which made the decision not a decision because whatever you did would work out about equally well. Having non-obvious non-perfect choices to make gives character building well.. character.

 

[lkj]

I think there's a very important about game design concept that you're missing. The thing about balance is that it makes the "imagination" aspect better. I mean, if there was an option that was perfect for your character concept, but actually sucked mechanically (to the point where your character was useless compared to the others), it wouldn't be as fun to play that character.

I believe I agree with you. But in the specific case of this feat, it seems to me that getting to grapple as a bonus action would be quite useful for certain character concepts. And given that you are only giving up half your stat boost to get it (assuming Str or Con is your thing), I doubt it would make your character suck, even if the choice isn't optimal for DPR.

The addition of being a bit more versatile in a bar fight-- even if some of it, like choosing to hit someone with a chair instead of your fist is purely stylistic-- is just a nice flavorful bonus. Though of course I'll agree with you that I wish there was at least a slight incentive to choose an object over your fists. Perhaps a houserule brewing . . . (pun intended) . . .

AD

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think there's a very important about game design concept that you're missing. The thing about balance is that it makes the "imagination" aspect better. I mean, if there was an option that was perfect for your character concept, but actually sucked mechanically (to the point where your character was useless compared to the others), it wouldn't be as fun to play that character.

No offense, but this is bullocks. According to this logic, the most mechanically beneficial features are the ones that drive imagination the most. And that's simply not true. Greater balance =/= better imagination. Personally, I'd argue that imagination is completely unrelated to how balanced a game is, but depends on the person. But if forced into a corner, I'd even argue that the less balanced something, the more it prompts an active imagination because then you're forced to start thinking harder about ways to make up for those imbalances.

Anecdotally, I've seen my son and his friends use greater imagination on less balanced versions of D&D (B/X) than with 3e or 4e, but that has nothing to do with how each was balanced, and more with B/X being barebones and not having a skill or ability for any task they wanted to do, so they just used their imagination to figure out a way to keep driving on.

 

[Mistwell]

I think there's a very important about game design concept that you're missing. The thing about balance is that it makes the "imagination" aspect better. I mean, if there was an option that was perfect for your character concept, but actually sucked mechanically (to the point where your character was useless compared to the others), it wouldn't be as fun to play that character.

Perfect balance can be achieved with a single class, a single race, and no feats or skills or backgrounds, and all ability scores and hit points and money being fixed numbers.

It's also the least interesting game, due to total mechanics homogenization. And homogenization is a HUGE issue for a significant number of people. It was probably the most cited issue some had with 4e ("all the powers felt the same to me after a while" was the frequent complaint of many), regardless of whether it was objectively true or not - too many people go that sense from 4e and didn't like it. And 4e wasn't even perfectly balanced - it was just more balanced than prior versions of the game.

Balance does not always make the imagination aspect better. It can make it significantly worse too. For me, it's true that in general it can make it better, but then you reach a point of diminishing returns, and it finally curves around to being worse as you get even close to perfect balance.

For this feat, we're talking about +2 to an ability score vs +1 to an ability score plus the grapple ability plus some other minor benefits. That's close enough to balanced against +2 to an ability score, AND it achieves the imagination goal. Amping up the power of the feat would likley make it cross over to being "clearly better" than +2 to an ability score, which goes against a basic principal of 5e.

 

[Agamon]

Though of course I'll agree with you that I wish there was at least a slight incentive to choose an object over your fists. Perhaps a houserule brewing . . . (pun intended) . . .

Okay, let's say the feat gives you 1d4 for unarmed and 1d6 for imp. weapons. What's nearly always the better choice now? Why not just increase versatility instead of make light weapons pointless?

 

[doctorhook]

If the feat doesn't come up almost every round of combat it is not a good investment.

Others have already called out this comment, but it deserves more calling out for its subjectivity, hyperbole, and fallaciousness. Do you honestly believe what you wrote?

Passive and always-useful feats are mechanically and tactically superior to corner-case abilities in the long run, no doubt about that. That's precisely what's wrong with them: their superiority turns them into feat taxes, which hamstring the system's ability to support a broad range of character concepts. (This was precisely the case in 3E and 4E.) 5E needs feats like this and only like this, so that players can make interesting, character-defining choices without worrying about picking wrongly.

I played and DMd 4e since it came out and enjoyed it but one failing it had was that when making build decisions they were almost always balanced very carefully. Which made the decision not a decision because whatever you did would work out about equally well. Having non-obvious non-perfect choices to make gives character building well.. character.

I disagree. The problem with 4E wasn't that the classes were balanced, it was that they were too structured (and structured too similarly) at the same time system-mastery mistakes were being carried over from 3.5E. 4E offered a lot of character options, but the end result was that it did not offer very many meaningful choices; too many classes played the same as others, and too many feats and powers were either traps or taxes.