Quote from HenriBecquerel >>

I agree with the homebrew idea. If they have a weapon and don't want to use it but instead headbutt, give them some sort of pointy helmet that conveniently does the same amount of damage as that weapon. Keeps the game and the fun going, because if the players aren't having fun then why would they bother to keep playing. Let them be creative and change things around to suit the while still keeping true to dice rolls. Maybe you can even cause dialogue between the PCs to get that cleric to be more open to do stuff by having an NPC that was tailing them call the cleric a coward. 

 Love the NPC calling the cleric a coward idea 

also think about action economy. sometimes doing a move to knock someone prone in order to give advantage to your friends or give them an escape is better than just attacking. or if you grapple an enemy so he's has burn his action and can't move. 

I'd just implement an improvised weapon rule, and if you can reasonably say some sort of object is similar enough to a weapon, just use the weapon stats.

Like the attacking with a torch? A torch is basically a club that's on fire. For a rogue? Call it a "finesse club" - let them use their DEX+proficiency to-hit, and let them do 1d4+DEX damage. Blights are weak to fire? add 1d4 fire damage per hit.

For the barbarian? Do the same but if he, say, decides to smash someone with a chair, call it basically greatclub damage. Give him a "dirty fighting" feat that lets him use monk damage dice for his headbutts and punches, but only when raging (or maybe only frenzied rage if he goes that path.)

I am all for players taking actions that they feel are flavorful, but I am also for letting those same players deal with the consequences of said actions. If a player wants to forego attacking with a sword in favor of using a spoon, go for it, but don't cry to me because you got killed by an enemy using a proper weapon.  Character choices should be rewarded with reasonable consequences (which can be good or bad) and nothing more.

Thank you everyone for your feedback, there are a lot of good ideas here.

I do wonder if my main concern is being described well though.  Imagine this scenario.  Five rounds into combat, your party (consisting of all level one, rogue, mage, ranger, barbarian, and warlock) has three unconscious members (one who is one failed save away from death), none of the enemies have been defeated, and the barbarian tries to headbutt their opponent.  Am I wrong for thinking that a player in that circumstance, maybe should be thinking about what will be the most effective action to take?  Do we really do our players any favors, by rewarding poor strategy?  Three party members are about to die.  

To be clear, I tried to facilitate all of it.  There were several attacks missed, by one or two points on the die.  The proficiency bonus would have made all the difference in that fight.  If you don't hit, you don't hit.

In my opinion, you are correct in your thinking.

Many players, usually due to inexperience, may not know the best strategies. In those cases, a quick side chat between sessions to go over what is good and what isn't, should probably be enough (and if they are indecisive during a session, just point out what some possible good choices are)

If they are persistent in sub-optimal fighting, then that puts you in a much tougher spot. You can tweak the encounters to be easier, assuming that they will make bad choices, but for the players that do make good choices this can feel bad. Or perhaps this player would be better served by playing a monk instead and barbarian isn't a good fit for how they want to fight.

Edit: and as golaryn says, let them know that you might not be pulling punches if they choose to be idiots.

My frame of reference for this is one of my players is playing a Bard (6th level), and they have done 5e with our group before (sorcerer and paladin) but they still do not have the best grasp on everything they can do and when, but do want to feel like they are making good decisions. So I ended up sending them this email (and occasionally give a few options when they are still stuck).

For me, it would depend entirely on what kind of game you would like to play and DM.

Because I'm lazy, I probably wouldn't create a whole new improvised weapon system because there's already one in place.

As mentioned, there are feats to make improvised weapon and unarmed attacks more effective. Inform/remind your players of this, maybe?

Maybe your players need you to walk them through it? Explain that (as an example) "if you attack with your weapon, you get +5 to hit rather than +3. And then you get to do 1d6+5 damage rather than 1+3." You  might even need to go so far as to say "encounters are built in such a way as to be reasonable and beatable given that you use weapons that you're proficient in.". Maybe they don't know?

Ultimately, I think you might want to have a sort of session zero to determine what kind of game the players are interested in playing. If they all want to play a somewhat silly game, using unorthodox methods and such, then, as mentioned previously, you can build encounters keeping that in mind.

I'm dying over here imagining this novice barbarian viciously headbutting an evil vine over and over.

Quote from Epipactis >>

Thank you everyone for your feedback, there are a lot of good ideas here.

I do wonder if my main concern is being described well though.  Imagine this scenario.  Five rounds into combat, your party (consisting of all level one, rogue, mage, ranger, barbarian, and warlock) has three unconscious members (one who is one failed save away from death), none of the enemies have been defeated, and the barbarian tries to headbutt their opponent.  Am I wrong for thinking that a player in that circumstance, maybe should be thinking about what will be the most effective action to take?  Do we really do our players any favors, by rewarding poor strategy?  Three party members are about to die.  

To be clear, I tried to facilitate all of it.  There were several attacks missed, by one or two points on the die.  The proficiency bonus would have made all the difference in that fight.  If you don't hit, you don't hit.

My thoughts are that you don't actually know your players very well.  If you did, you would understand the Barbarian Player's desire for unorthodox methods, that the Rogue's Player was actually quite crafty and using good world knowledge against the opposition, and finally that the Cleric's Player was either legitimately afraid of losing the PC or was simply role playing fear.  Regardless, the fact that you did not deal with the situation appropriately in your role as curator of the Player experience speaks volumes. 

You comment that the lack of proficiency bonus meant that the players were not hitting. 

EVERYONE is proficient in unarmed attacks, so that doesn't apply.  The issue with the Barbarian was that you should have just granted the Barbarian's Unarmed attacks a d4 or more damage die instead of just the base 1pt+STR Modifier of damage.  Why?  Because WoTC is not going to take your books away if you run off of RAW.  This player wants fun and wants to describe combat actions that are more than "Hit with Axe, repeat!"  You failed to recognize this and worse punished the Player at the table and are planning on continuing to punish them for unconventional tactics.

The Rogue is proficient in clubs and in earlier editions saps (which are all simple weapons).  A lit torch could be considered a club at the most and a sap at the least in regards to weight and operational use.  You could easily make a case they would be proficient. The Rogue should have simply gotten to add DEX to hit with the torch, and likely gotten Sneak Attack because they were most likely fighting near the Barb.  Next, the Twig blights probably should have had either their HP totals reduced as the TPK loomed, or simply fled shrieking dropping embers as they disengaged the fire-wielding Rogue.  You focused too much on the RAW and the write ups in the book to realize that things were not only going south for the party but it was in your power to alter the outcome without fudging die rolls.  You just needed to become a fan of the Players and want them to succeed more than you wanted the world to be real and have consequences.

Regarding Strategy, there are myriad, no countless ways to play D&D and every one of them is valid and rewarding.  Some players and DMs still find the Gygaxian Player against the Dungeon tactical crawl to be the one true way to play.  Other troupes find the very concept of having to roll dice more than once every three months in combat to be too onerous, they just want to RP up  an storm with each other and the NPCs.   If you regard your player's tactics as sub-optimal, I suggest that you are simply not aware of what way they want to play.  Figure it  out and start providing challenges geared for that type and level of play.

Well as a player if I choose to headbutt it’s probably seems cool and something my character should do. But as a DM you should have HELPED them in some way being the expert and the controller of the narrative. Ie. player says he wants to headbutt instead of hitting with a weapon...let him know if he does XX then maybe you’ll let him headbutt with advantage...ie helps with the attack roll and isn’t creating a new weapon system. 

I just don’t think you should discourage that sort of creative playing in order to make players hit things with their swords over and over...DnD should be fun and Entertaining battles are great moments to have, this can come from the DM or players trying to improvise 

but mybe you you do give the items or feats that allow them to do the things they wanted. It doesn’t Have to be immediate but over the course of the game.

"EVERYONE is proficient in unarmed attacks, so that doesn't apply.  The issue with the Barbarian was that you should have just granted the Barbarian's Unarmed attacks a d4 or more damage die instead of just the base 1pt+STR Modifier of damage.  Why?  Because WoTC is not going to take your books away if you run off of RAW.  This player wants fun and wants to describe combat actions that are more than "Hit with Axe, repeat!"  You failed to recognize this and worse punished the Player at the table and are planning on continuing to punish them for unconventional tactics."

I disagree with this.  There is absolutely no reason to grant the character a bonus of this nature just because they want to do it.  If they want this benefit, take the Tavern Brawler Feat or play a Monk and call it a Barbarian.  Secondly it is not punishing the players in any way by following the rules.  

"The Rogue is proficient in clubs and in earlier editions saps (which are all simple weapons).  A lit torch could be considered a club at the most and a sap at the least in regards to weight and operational use.  You could easily make a case they would be proficient. The Rogue should have simply gotten to add DEX to hit with the torch, and likely gotten Sneak Attack because they were most likely fighting near the Barb.  Next, the Twig blights probably should have had either their HP totals reduced as the TPK loomed, or simply fled shrieking dropping embers as they disengaged the fire-wielding Rogue.  You focused too much on the RAW and the write ups in the book to realize that things were not only going south for the party but it was in your power to alter the outcome without fudging die rolls.  You just needed to become a fan of the Players and want them to succeed more than you wanted the world to be real and have consequences."

Torches are improvised weapons and even if it were a club, clubs do not have the finesse property.

"Regarding Strategy, there are myriad, no countless ways to play D&D and every one of them is valid and rewarding.  Some players and DMs still find the Gygaxian Player against the Dungeon tactical crawl to be the one true way to play.  Other troupes find the very concept of having to roll dice more than once every three months in combat to be too onerous, they just want to RP up  an storm with each other and the NPCs.   If you regard your player's tactics as sub-optimal, I suggest that you are simply not aware of what way they want to play.  Figure it  out and start providing challenges geared for that type and level of play."

This I agree with

"but mybe you you do give the items or feats that allow them to do the things they wanted. It doesn’t Have to be immediate but over the course of the game."

Why shouldn't they just take the feats that they want to make their character work the way they want, when they level up?  Wouldn't handing out free feats, run the risk unbalancing the game?

I agree. I would suggest they take the feats at the appropriate levels, and not just give them out for free.

Quote from Epipactis >>

"but mybe you you do give the items or feats that allow them to do the things they wanted. It doesn’t Have to be immediate but over the course of the game."

Why shouldn't they just take the feats that they want to make their character work the way they want, when they level up?  Wouldn't handing out free feats, run the risk unbalancing the game?

 sure, over the course of the game it makes sense when they level, but you have to guide them to those feats esp. if they're new players.

but also the balance of the game is in the DM's hands

And you could homebrew a feat if you wanted. perhaps a weaker version of an existing feat. 

Hm. I have a few things to say here.

First, a question - what do the players think of the situation? I think the OP hasn't mentioned that. Are they feeling frustrated because they're being inefficient? Are they bored because they don't really care about the combat, and so they're just messing around until the combat is done and they can move on to parts of the game they care about? Are they experimenting with different actions to see how the game works? Are they thinking of it as a railroaded videogame where no matter what they do they'll move on to the next scene, so they're not focusing on being effective? Are they having fun role-playing out a combat and would much rather do that than roll dice? Or have they just never actually learned the rules for how actions in combat correspond to damage, so  for example the rogue has no idea that they're less effective with a torch than their rapier?

Talk to the players. If you tell them "Hey guys, I don't know if you noticed, but you almost all died in what was supposed to be a really easy fight. You only survived because I fudged the rules in your favor, and I don't feel good about that. What's up?"

Overall, I'm a bit confused at the players' actions. If they're still first level, it's not like they've been around long enough to get bored of the basic combat flow. D&D usually does a decent job of matching what the characters LOOK like they should do well to what they actually do well - e.g. I would have expected that someone who picks a barbarian would immediately think to rage and hit things with their big weapon, which would work fine. A warlock has eldritch blast. If a rogue hides and sneak attacks with their finesse or ranged weapon, they're gonna pull their weight. It's NOT HARD to be reasonably effective in D&D 5e, so if the players are being so ineffective, I keep thinking that it's not because they CAN'T, it's because they are choosing not to.

I have two guesses. My best guess is that the players just aren't interested in the mechanical combat section of D&D, and maybe would be better off playing a different RPG that's more heavy on narrative and less on attack and damage rolls, or at least playing a D&D where you fudge basically all the combat rules in favor of narrative. Alternatively, my second guess is that the players don't realize that they actually have to be effective in combat to win, and are treating the sessions as scenes where no matter what they do they'll move on to the next scene afterwards, so they're just having fun with each of them without worrying about effectiveness. But I don't know for sure.

I suppose I can comment on the mechanical options you have.

You could just play it straight. If the players die, they die, and that's fine as long as they have fun with it!

You could just lower the encounter difficulty. Throw half as many monsters at them, and then they don't need to be as effective to win.

You could fudge the rules to make whatever they're doing effective. Give out feats, make up new rules for how a headbutt is as effective as a greatsword and how a torch is a finesse club, etc. I'm actually much more negative on this option than a lot of people who have posted in this thread, it seems. I like rewarding players for clever solutions to problems that aren't just "I attack"... but in this case, that's not what would be happening. Instead of saying that you're rewarding clever thinking, this would instead communicate that it doesn't matter what the players do at all - no matter what they choose, you're gonna make them win. It's the reverse of encouraging clever thinking, it's *discouraging* thinking at all.

Quote from ftl >>

You could fudge the rules to make whatever they're doing effective. Give out feats, make up new rules for how a headbutt is as effective as a greatsword and how a torch is a finesse club, etc. I'm actually much more negative on this option than a lot of people who have posted in this thread, it seems. I like rewarding players for clever solutions to problems that aren't just "I attack"... but in this case, that's not what would be happening. Instead of saying that you're rewarding clever thinking, this would instead communicate that it doesn't matter what the players do at all - no matter what they choose, you're gonna make them win. It's the reverse of encouraging clever thinking, it's *discouraging* thinking at all.

 This is exactly what I think, just said much better

Okay okay okay...

Here's another take (I think) that splits the difference:

An attack is not a swing with a weapon.  It's a series of advances and retreats, attacks and parries, dodges and thrusts.  There is NO reason that a barbarian can't attack "with" his club and at the end of several steps and swings ends up doing a head butt as the actual contact with the enemy.  Narrative-wise, this would be something like Swing, Swing, Duck, Swing HEADBUTT!.  If you present it as part of the attack narrative then you don't need to modify any rules at all because the attack as stated for "full damage" only happens when he also has a club in hand that the enemy has to contend with.  If he was TRULY unarmed he wouldn't be such a threat and thus would do unarmed attack damage (which is less).

That's another narrative/ thematic choice you can emphasize.  HP doesn't have to be "wounds" and "life points".  HP, for me, has always been (since the days of the blue book) a measure of how well you're holding up in a fight.  It represents minor nicks and scraps as well as general battle fatigue and focus.  You can never Get Hit and still lose HP because you're just getting exhausted by dodging and parrying so much that you make a fatal mistake later.  I also think about a classic duel between two high level fighters.  Yes they will "widdle down" each other's HP but realistically they only need one good opening to kill the other.  That's the HP being reduced until there is room for a mortal blow.

So if you use this angle, you can keep letting them come up with creative narratives (and reward them accordingly) while not feeling like you're hampering the game by making them roll less damage dice.

Which might work for a few levels... until they fight something with resistances. Just holding a silvered weapon doesn't make a headbutt silvered. Same with a magical weapon.

Quote from Sigvard_Vigrid >>

Which might work for a few levels... until they fight something with resistances. Just holding a silvered weapon doesn't make a headbutt silvered. Same with a magical weapon.

 Well yeah, but at that point you should be able to make it clear "you need to make contact with your silvered weapon now".  

And ideally the barbarian is on board.  That or he just knows he's not going to do what he's always done...