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...
Which I think is the crux of the OP's post/question. I'm guessing he/she has newer players, and was reaching out to get advice on how to handle it. If the players are just given extra damage/extra feats without being taught the actual rules, it becomes problematic at later levels. To your point, I like letting players get creative in how they explain their combat actions, but they should be aware of what is actually doing the damage from a rules standpoint.
I think the simplest way to address this is just to be fairly liberal about handing out Inspiration. The characters get more rerolls for thematic and interesting combat actions. It helps to compensate for inefficiency and doesn't penalize them for being entertaining. It's also a mechanically simple rule. In my games I allow players to hold on to as many as five 'charges' of Inspiration.
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.
This is ok if the player knows what's going on and playing along deliberately. If the Barbarian knows he's mechanically swinging a sword for attack and damage but just narrating it as "feint with the sword and hit with a headbutt", then sure, fine.
But I wouldn't want the DM to just substitute the mechanics for the more effective action when the player thinks they're doing the less effective one. It feels like in that case, the DM is basically overruling the player as to what their character is doing - "you said you headbutt them... but I know you're REALLY attacking them with your sword." And what happens if, later, the player REALLY DOES have a reason to headbutt something, like if they've been disarmed or they're in a bar fight and don't really want to kill anyone or have enchanted fists or one of a million other things? Do you just switch out different mechanics based on what you think the player probably would prefer?
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.
it's not making the players win, but helping them get to the outcome they desire. keyword "help". it's the rule of cool. "Yes but..."
My response wasn't "no matter what they choose, you're gonna make them win. "
But lets say they're fighting tree blights or wights or whatever...it's reasonable to assume they won't like fire. If player wants to use a fire stick instead of a dagger...that makes sense and is kinda creative...kinda smart...also...perhaps you are proficient with a stick...ie. a torch might not be too different than a short sword...in fact this is in PHB
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. (PHB pg.147)
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). (PHB pg.148)
also
If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage. (PHB pg.153)
so as you can see...perhaps hitting with a torch is not a bad idea...esp. against a creature with vulnerability to fire.
also the game is what you make of it. if your players don't like a lot of combat...then don't combat that much. all that should have been ironed out in session 0.
Yeah, I could understand trying to fight twig blights with fire. That could makes sense...
The barbarian choosing to headbutt an enemy instead of hitting it with his weapon, though... that's just so out there that it makes no sense to me. Using "rule of cool" to make that work feels like it's promoting "rule of cool" to be so dominant over literally anything else in the game that all of the mechanics are kind of useless.
I agree that one possible explanation is that the group just isn't interested in the mechanics of combat, and if that's the case a solution is to stop having D&D combats.
“If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage. (PHB pg 158).
so as you can see...perhaps hitting with a torch is not a bad idea...esp. against a creature with vulnerability to fire.”
One point of fire damage, doubled because of the creature being vulnerable to fire, only makes for two points of damage. That is terrible compared to the damage a rogue can do with a dagger and sneak attack.
“If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage. (PHB pg 158).
so as you can see...perhaps hitting with a torch is not a bad idea...esp. against a creature with vulnerability to fire.”
One point of fire damage, doubled because of the creature being vulnerable to fire, only makes for two points of damage. That is terrible compared to the damage a rogue can do with a dagger and sneak attack.
at first level?
sneak attack is 1d6 =3.5 dmg on average
dagger= 1d4
we are talking about a scenario with new players at first level. it's not terrible dmg. also sneak attack is situational.
also DM's discretion...think on your feet.. a needle blight has an INT of 4...WIS of 8. maybe lighting it on fire is possible...maybe it runs from the fire...ie. fear condition...theatre of the mind.
“If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage. (PHB pg 158).
so as you can see...perhaps hitting with a torch is not a bad idea...esp. against a creature with vulnerability to fire.”
One point of fire damage, doubled because of the creature being vulnerable to fire, only makes for two points of damage. That is terrible compared to the damage a rogue can do with a dagger and sneak attack.
I was actually reading his post to mean that on the outside chance you think a Torch in no way resembles a small to medium sized club it deals 1d4 damage +1 Fire Damage when lit. So it would deal 2 Bludgeoning and 1 Fire damage per hit on average to a typical opponent and 4 Damage to those Twig Blights since they are vulnerable to Fire.
But I wouldn't want the DM to just substitute the mechanics for the more effective action when the player thinks they're doing the less effective one. It feels like in that case, the DM is basically overruling the player as to what their character is doing - "you said you headbutt them... but I know you're REALLY attacking them with your sword." And what happens if, later, the player REALLY DOES have a reason to headbutt something, like if they've been disarmed or they're in a bar fight and don't really want to kill anyone or have enchanted fists or one of a million other things? Do you just switch out different mechanics based on what you think the player probably would prefer?
It just doesn't feel right to do that, to me.
Oh I can see where you're at and I wouldn't make changes without saying "look, here's how the 'mechanics' of the game work and here's what you're trying to do so... this is what we call it".
Thinking about the Unarmed barbarian in a bar fight. He goes to "headbutt" his enemy but he's doing unarmed damage. Why is it different than before? Because before he had his club handy; he had another tool in the minicombat. But that would have to be communicated to the players.
A lot of it comes down to how you as the DM want to flavor your combats and make the game flow. Some groups prefer a more narrative style of game play and some are more literal. For ~my~ style of DM'ing, I'd happy to say "an attack with your sword" translates to "you're making aggressive actions and the most lethal thing you're bringing to the game is a sword". That includes things like kicking, punching, pulling environmental factors in etc. But I also dislike having to get really into the weeds with rules for "okay you said you flipped the table onto him, so that's an attack with an improvised weapon and according to the rules it only does 1D6 without mods... yadda yadda ...." However I know groups (one of my players for my starting up game) who are out and out "where's the battle board? Where do I put my mini? How do we know the range to the target? How many steps can I take before I make a swing? How is that attack possible; if you take three steps to the target your weight is on the wrong foot and you won't have leverage to attack."
If we all agree on the rules, it's really all about how we as a group want to have fun.
I want to echo those who have encouraged you to sit down and talk to your players out of game. What are they wanting from the game? What are their character concepts? The point them to mechanical options that support their goals and actions. For example, maybe the cleric didn’t think about their ranged attack options; or maybe they could have done things like cast bless.
With the barbarian player, it seems evident that they want to do unarmed fighting, although you should double check that. Maybe they are thinking of a Hulk-like character. If that is the case, brainstorm ways they could do that. Maybe the monk would work better for them. Maybe most of the barbarian works, but they don’t want to use weapons. The new Class features variants UA includes an unarmed fighting style. I know that barbarians don’t get fighting styles, but—especially if you leave the grappling part out—I don’t think allowing the fighting style to be applied makes any difference in the power of the character: the unarmed fighting damage is roughly equivalent to weapon damage; if anything, actually, it’s lower, which might argue for leaving the grappling part in. If you were still worried about balance, maybe swap the martial weapon proficiency for this fighting style. This suggestion assumes my guess that the player wants to do unarmed fighting primarily.
Two bits of advice/thoughts from a 35yr DM and in recent years (5+), my group size has been 10 players (so I've seen a lot).
1) Ignore the part about unarmed combat and turn your Barbarians headbutt/punch attack into his melee attack. At 5th level when he gets Extra Attack, allow him to do his crazy ass headbutt/punch combo 2x. Each time he does a head butt + punch, have him roll d12 + str effectively turning it into a Greataxe attack. Now, that gets wonky after a bit for a few reasons, but this is a big one off the top of my head:
You have to start disregarding all the rules on various weapon properties. What about the 2-handed and heavy property if you just allow a player to use their face in the same manner? Those properties add spice and variety to the various weapon types. Otherwise, you'll end up with players trying to work the system by saying, well, technically, my spear hand karate attack should function just like the Finesse property.
So, how to mitigate this and encourage the roleplaying flavor while not breaking shit? Tell him that his headbutt/punch combo deals one die type less (d10 + str) or perhaps d12 + 1/2 str mod or simply keep it as written (unarmed attack which is 1 + str mod) unless he goes out and finds some metal spiked helm and medieval brass knuckles. Now you have some storyline to run with as they seek out the items necessary to turn their flashy attacks into standard weapon damage..
Another option is to change things on your end. As suggested by others, you don't have to adhere to the CR. Throw away hit points. Do a bit of math behind the scenes and calculate a monster with 84 hit points attacked by 3 players, each doing 3 weird things on their turn. Barbarian has what? A Greatclub? That's 1d8 bludgeoning right? What's his/her strength? 17? That's +3 right? Assuming your Barbarian hits, he will deal, on average, 7 damage each round. Calculate the same for your other party members - again, assuming they hit. So each round, your group deals 21 points of damage. They will kill your 84 HP Monster in about 4 rounds right? I know it's more involved based on status effects and the fact that a PC must be alive on any given round to deal damage, etc. but it's a way of thinking I'm trying to illustrate -
My take is, just throw away the hit points and disregard the CR. You need 12 hits to kill this thing right? Now it doesn't matter if they hit it with a greatclub or a headbutt/punch combo, it's still 12 hits. At 12 hits, the monster falls. It still keeps a bit of interest and variety in combat because whether they do their RP version or "by the book" version, they still need to consciously attack it and hit it 12x. If the dice fail, the dice fail. If they have to spend a round moving or healing, it still calculates effectively into the 12 hits thing.
The beauty here is, you can make some adjustments up or down depending on how much the players adhere to game mechanics. Maybe the monster takes 13 hits to kill using their way but 11 hits to kill if they had used their actual weapons. I can tell you from experience, that extra round or extra 2 hits required could mean the difference between my monster getting off a player killing attack or not, but by using this system, they aren't as overtly punished for being clever.
Finally, I will say this and it isn't something that you can settle on quickly. As I said, I've been at this for 35 years. Make it about them. 15 years later folks won't often remember every monster they killed or were slain by but they will remember the monster they've slain with a final round flurry of eye poke followed by sidekick to the knee. They'll remember when the Barbarian F-ed up the fight because instead of going HAM with Greataxe, he instead choose to charge in and headbutt the monster, resulting in an eventual grapple check followed by a Cyclops flurry that turned the Wizard into Arcane Paste.
Which I think is the crux of the OP's post/question. I'm guessing he/she has newer players, and was reaching out to get advice on how to handle it. If the players are just given extra damage/extra feats without being taught the actual rules, it becomes problematic at later levels. To your point, I like letting players get creative in how they explain their combat actions, but they should be aware of what is actually doing the damage from a rules standpoint.
I think the simplest way to address this is just to be fairly liberal about handing out Inspiration. The characters get more rerolls for thematic and interesting combat actions. It helps to compensate for inefficiency and doesn't penalize them for being entertaining. It's also a mechanically simple rule. In my games I allow players to hold on to as many as five 'charges' of Inspiration.
This is ok if the player knows what's going on and playing along deliberately. If the Barbarian knows he's mechanically swinging a sword for attack and damage but just narrating it as "feint with the sword and hit with a headbutt", then sure, fine.
But I wouldn't want the DM to just substitute the mechanics for the more effective action when the player thinks they're doing the less effective one. It feels like in that case, the DM is basically overruling the player as to what their character is doing - "you said you headbutt them... but I know you're REALLY attacking them with your sword." And what happens if, later, the player REALLY DOES have a reason to headbutt something, like if they've been disarmed or they're in a bar fight and don't really want to kill anyone or have enchanted fists or one of a million other things? Do you just switch out different mechanics based on what you think the player probably would prefer?
It just doesn't feel right to do that, to me.
it's not making the players win, but helping them get to the outcome they desire. keyword "help". it's the rule of cool. "Yes but..."
My response wasn't "no matter what they choose, you're gonna make them win. "
But lets say they're fighting tree blights or wights or whatever...it's reasonable to assume they won't like fire. If player wants to use a fire stick instead of a dagger...that makes sense and is kinda creative...kinda smart...also...perhaps you are proficient with a stick...ie. a torch might not be too different than a short sword...in fact this is in PHB
also
so as you can see...perhaps hitting with a torch is not a bad idea...esp. against a creature with vulnerability to fire.
also the game is what you make of it. if your players don't like a lot of combat...then don't combat that much. all that should have been ironed out in session 0.
Yeah, I could understand trying to fight twig blights with fire. That could makes sense...
The barbarian choosing to headbutt an enemy instead of hitting it with his weapon, though... that's just so out there that it makes no sense to me. Using "rule of cool" to make that work feels like it's promoting "rule of cool" to be so dominant over literally anything else in the game that all of the mechanics are kind of useless.
I agree that one possible explanation is that the group just isn't interested in the mechanics of combat, and if that's the case a solution is to stop having D&D combats.
“If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage. (PHB pg 158).
so as you can see...perhaps hitting with a torch is not a bad idea...esp. against a creature with vulnerability to fire.”
One point of fire damage, doubled because of the creature being vulnerable to fire, only makes for two points of damage. That is terrible compared to the damage a rogue can do with a dagger and sneak attack.
at first level?
sneak attack is 1d6 =3.5 dmg on average
dagger= 1d4
we are talking about a scenario with new players at first level. it's not terrible dmg. also sneak attack is situational.
also DM's discretion...think on your feet.. a needle blight has an INT of 4...WIS of 8. maybe lighting it on fire is possible...maybe it runs from the fire...ie. fear condition...theatre of the mind.
I was actually reading his post to mean that on the outside chance you think a Torch in no way resembles a small to medium sized club it deals 1d4 damage +1 Fire Damage when lit. So it would deal 2 Bludgeoning and 1 Fire damage per hit on average to a typical opponent and 4 Damage to those Twig Blights since they are vulnerable to Fire.
Oh I can see where you're at and I wouldn't make changes without saying "look, here's how the 'mechanics' of the game work and here's what you're trying to do so... this is what we call it".
Thinking about the Unarmed barbarian in a bar fight. He goes to "headbutt" his enemy but he's doing unarmed damage. Why is it different than before? Because before he had his club handy; he had another tool in the minicombat. But that would have to be communicated to the players.
A lot of it comes down to how you as the DM want to flavor your combats and make the game flow. Some groups prefer a more narrative style of game play and some are more literal. For ~my~ style of DM'ing, I'd happy to say "an attack with your sword" translates to "you're making aggressive actions and the most lethal thing you're bringing to the game is a sword". That includes things like kicking, punching, pulling environmental factors in etc. But I also dislike having to get really into the weeds with rules for "okay you said you flipped the table onto him, so that's an attack with an improvised weapon and according to the rules it only does 1D6 without mods... yadda yadda ...." However I know groups (one of my players for my starting up game) who are out and out "where's the battle board? Where do I put my mini? How do we know the range to the target? How many steps can I take before I make a swing? How is that attack possible; if you take three steps to the target your weight is on the wrong foot and you won't have leverage to attack."
If we all agree on the rules, it's really all about how we as a group want to have fun.
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
I want to echo those who have encouraged you to sit down and talk to your players out of game. What are they wanting from the game? What are their character concepts? The point them to mechanical options that support their goals and actions. For example, maybe the cleric didn’t think about their ranged attack options; or maybe they could have done things like cast bless.
With the barbarian player, it seems evident that they want to do unarmed fighting, although you should double check that. Maybe they are thinking of a Hulk-like character. If that is the case, brainstorm ways they could do that. Maybe the monk would work better for them. Maybe most of the barbarian works, but they don’t want to use weapons. The new Class features variants UA includes an unarmed fighting style. I know that barbarians don’t get fighting styles, but—especially if you leave the grappling part out—I don’t think allowing the fighting style to be applied makes any difference in the power of the character: the unarmed fighting damage is roughly equivalent to weapon damage; if anything, actually, it’s lower, which might argue for leaving the grappling part in. If you were still worried about balance, maybe swap the martial weapon proficiency for this fighting style. This suggestion assumes my guess that the player wants to do unarmed fighting primarily.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
I'm super-curious to hear a followup on this!
What on earth was going on with these players? Did the DM ever figure it out?
Two bits of advice/thoughts from a 35yr DM and in recent years (5+), my group size has been 10 players (so I've seen a lot).
1) Ignore the part about unarmed combat and turn your Barbarians headbutt/punch attack into his melee attack. At 5th level when he gets Extra Attack, allow him to do his crazy ass headbutt/punch combo 2x. Each time he does a head butt + punch, have him roll d12 + str effectively turning it into a Greataxe attack. Now, that gets wonky after a bit for a few reasons, but this is a big one off the top of my head:
So, how to mitigate this and encourage the roleplaying flavor while not breaking shit? Tell him that his headbutt/punch combo deals one die type less (d10 + str) or perhaps d12 + 1/2 str mod or simply keep it as written (unarmed attack which is 1 + str mod) unless he goes out and finds some metal spiked helm and medieval brass knuckles. Now you have some storyline to run with as they seek out the items necessary to turn their flashy attacks into standard weapon damage..
Another option is to change things on your end. As suggested by others, you don't have to adhere to the CR. Throw away hit points. Do a bit of math behind the scenes and calculate a monster with 84 hit points attacked by 3 players, each doing 3 weird things on their turn. Barbarian has what? A Greatclub? That's 1d8 bludgeoning right? What's his/her strength? 17? That's +3 right? Assuming your Barbarian hits, he will deal, on average, 7 damage each round. Calculate the same for your other party members - again, assuming they hit. So each round, your group deals 21 points of damage. They will kill your 84 HP Monster in about 4 rounds right? I know it's more involved based on status effects and the fact that a PC must be alive on any given round to deal damage, etc. but it's a way of thinking I'm trying to illustrate -
My take is, just throw away the hit points and disregard the CR. You need 12 hits to kill this thing right? Now it doesn't matter if they hit it with a greatclub or a headbutt/punch combo, it's still 12 hits. At 12 hits, the monster falls. It still keeps a bit of interest and variety in combat because whether they do their RP version or "by the book" version, they still need to consciously attack it and hit it 12x. If the dice fail, the dice fail. If they have to spend a round moving or healing, it still calculates effectively into the 12 hits thing.
The beauty here is, you can make some adjustments up or down depending on how much the players adhere to game mechanics. Maybe the monster takes 13 hits to kill using their way but 11 hits to kill if they had used their actual weapons. I can tell you from experience, that extra round or extra 2 hits required could mean the difference between my monster getting off a player killing attack or not, but by using this system, they aren't as overtly punished for being clever.
Finally, I will say this and it isn't something that you can settle on quickly. As I said, I've been at this for 35 years. Make it about them. 15 years later folks won't often remember every monster they killed or were slain by but they will remember the monster they've slain with a final round flurry of eye poke followed by sidekick to the knee. They'll remember when the Barbarian F-ed up the fight because instead of going HAM with Greataxe, he instead choose to charge in and headbutt the monster, resulting in an eventual grapple check followed by a Cyclops flurry that turned the Wizard into Arcane Paste.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans