D&D 5E (2014) PH(B) Tavern Brawler Feat

[Tush Hog]

Excellent! I have a player that will snatch this up immediately

 

[Evenglare]

Unless they change unarmed strikes to be light weapons this is a pointless feat, it gives you no real advantage over using a weapon, it is only for fluff not for any type of mechanical effectiveness or optimization. I would always choose another feat or a +2 to strength or +1 strength +1 other ability score over this feat.

Now if you could use your unarmed strike as a light weapon so that you could make an offhand attack that could provoke a grapple that would be useful.

As I understand it you couldn't do that even if what you wanted was true. You only get one bonus action per turn so you would use it to make your second attack you couldn't grapple because that would be another action. Unless you want a change of the fundamental rule of bonus actions which will not change at this point.

 

[TerraDave]

Unless they change unarmed strikes to be light weapons this is a pointless feat, it gives you no real advantage over using a weapon, it is only for fluff not for any type of mechanical effectiveness or optimization. I would always choose another feat or a +2 to strength or +1 strength +1 other ability score over this feat.

Now if you could use your unarmed strike as a light weapon so that you could make an offhand attack that could provoke a grapple that would be useful.

I agree it should be light...but you cannot combine grab with it as described here, as you only get the one bonus action.

Basically this gives you a power grab (pun only sort of intended) that can do some damage. Plus use of unarmed or improvised weapons in games where they might be desired (and that will vary greatly across tables)

 

[Thaumaturge]

This thread is about D&D?

Point.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Salamandyr]

Most classes are already proficient with unarmed strikes and improvised weapons. They're simple weapons after all. It seems to me that's just to make the feat usable for corner cases that aren't automatically proficient with simple weapons.

The real meat and potatoes is the bonus grapple attempt when using an improvised weapon or unarmed strike.

The extra unarmed damage die is okay, but neither here nor there.

EDIT: just a note to say I'm personally glad that unarmed strikes are not by default light weapons. Because if they were, that would create the situation of "dual wielding" fists. And the unarmed strike isn't intended to be any particular part of the body, but a generic action, of making an unarmed attack, whether with the fists, or a kick, or a head butt.

Same goes for any weapon strike. We don't need separate damage dice for pommel strikes, murder strokes, or thrusts. A longsword attack is an attack in which the longsword is a major component. The actual damage might come from point, edge, pommel, or fist to the throat. We shouldn't try to turn all those into discrete moves

 

[skotothalamos]

Unless they change unarmed strikes to be light weapons this is a pointless feat, it gives you no real advantage over using a weapon, it is only for fluff not for any type of mechanical effectiveness or optimization. I would always choose another feat or a +2 to strength or +1 strength +1 other ability score over this feat.

Now if you could use your unarmed strike as a light weapon so that you could make an offhand attack that could provoke a grapple that would be useful.

I can think of plenty of advantages of not using a weapon, including, say, a tavern where you're just trying to rough up a guy and drag him outside for questioning, not pulling out a sword in the middle of a bar and convincing everyone in the room that you're a murderer, unnecessarily escalating the situation.

But, yeah, if your only goal is to kill everyone you meet, this is not the feat for you.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Basically this gives you a power grab (pun only sort of intended) that can do some damage. Plus use of unarmed or improvised weapons in games where they might be desired (and that will vary greatly across tables)

I think it does a bit more than that.

Looking at the description of Improvised weapons in 5b (p. 46), you get your proficiency bonus if the improvised weapon looks like a weapon, but not if it doesn't (wagon wheel, dead goblin).

So the feat is giving the player:

* stat bonus to Str or Con (good for odd numbers)
* proficiency in unarmed strikes for Rogues and Wizards (so sneak attack with fists now possible, which frankly by itself makes taking the feat worthwhile!), and damage ~ dagger.
* proficiency bonus to ANY improvised weapon (which in turn should authorize the DM to be less forgiving with creative justifications, etc.)
* bonus grapple action.

Is it mechanically optimal? Probably not, but the idea of a brawling rogue half-orc is pretty appealing to me.

EDIT: strikeout; see post 31 below.

 

[Ichneumon]

Probably the most physical of the interaction-based feats.

 

[skotothalamos]

Most classes are already proficient with unarmed strikes and improvised weapons.

that's clearly not the case:

Basic Rules, page 46 (Improvised Weapons)
"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." Unless you're proficient with Chair or Lamp, you might want this feat.

Also, it takes your Unarmed Strike from 1 damage to 1d4 damage.

 

[lkj]

that's clearly not the case:

Basic Rules, page 46 (Improvised Weapons)
"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." Unless you're proficient with Chair or Lamp, you might want this feat.

Also, it takes your Unarmed Strike from 1 damage to 1d4 damage.

Agreed. Unarmed strikes are listed in the table as simple weapons. Improvised one's aren't. I don't know about optimization, but the feat is good enough to justify taking it for entertainment value. And if you are creative about it, you might find numerous situations in which it would be very useful.

AD