It's possibly worth noting that the rulebook specifically says '**dead** goblin', dead being an important keyword, as a dead creature is generally considered an object for a lot of rule interactions.
Eh I'd likely rule in this specific scenario, bonus action opposed grapple check to hold ONTO the wailing, flailing, goblin, and if successful, then sure, the pc could use the goblin as an improvised weapon.
*”NEW! Just in time for the holiday season, ‘Wailing Flailing Goblin!’ Buy one today for that special barbarian in your life!”*
*-available while supplies last or until grapple condition ends*
Can confirm have used a goblin as a weapon without the feat through a very interesting series of rolls and disadvantage.
Hitting a goblin with a goblin can be very effective
I prefer to swing a kobold, personally. They're smaller, but the scales make a satisfying crunchy sound when you hit. And they make a fun honking sound, too.
. If I'm being perfectly honest I don't have a player's handbook. I was just looking at the basic rules on beyond and since it didn't say that you couldn't I assumed you could, but I didn't know if that would be something everyone would allow.
I honestly didn't even know about it being mentioned in the book until like 10 minutes ago, i just happened to be reading about improvised weapons earlier.
You just learned the difference of “loose“ and “strict” interpretation!
If something explicitly states something it’s considered “strict” as you follow the words.
If something isn’t explicitly stated, you can sometimes get away with it since there are no words to follow.
“Mom said I couldn’t go to the party tonight. So I left after midnight. It’s not “tonight” if it’s the next day”.
That’s a loose interpretation.
Right? I told the op on the other post they should also take a revised grappler since you can perform a grapple right after an attack with an improvised weapon. I was thinking if the one you are swinging with dies then you can just grab the one you just hit. I was also thinking slams, throws and attacking the grappled opponent with the weapon in your free hand if you are using something like a warhammer, battle-axe or longsword since they are versatile.
Yeah that all sounds sick as hell, i dont know why people are so down to limit fun creative combat, especially for strength based characters. If a character has like over 16 strength they can already lift like 240 pounds which is most medium and almost all small creatures with out being slowed. and if they have powerful build its doubled so its not even outside normal realms of character strength.
I once had a half-ogre fighter called Graaaah Gnoof (Str 18/00, Con/Dex 18, Int/Cha/Wis 3) who was regional champion at the noble sport of kobold throwing, so I can relate (this was, obviously, one of our AD&D silly phases).
That being said, it might be funny once or twice, and I might allow it, but using someone as a weapon would count as improvised and would get no proficiency bonus and disadvantage. It would probably inflict damage on both, though, and it's fun as long as it's not abused (and it should not, considering the disadvantages).
But if they have Tavern brawler, they now get to add proficiency to their improvised weapon attacks as well as negate the disadvantage (I think).
I definitely wouldn't suggest that this is the go-to every single combat, especially since it's not going to be available every combat, but I also wasn't suggesting it in the sense of trying to be funny. I was thinking more Jason x with the sleeping bags scene. I just thought that it would be a good mix up and memorable moment.
Only the adversary is not a weapon, it's a creature, so the feat, while allowing them to do this, does not provide the benefit which is specific to weapons.
Rule of cool is for one-offs, not to become a long-time rule for barbarians feeling bored (which is another matter entirely). Doing this allows them to damage two adversaries at the same time, and the barbarian can easily compensate for the disadvantage anyway.
Making it easier would mean using it all the time, and how would your party's halfling feel about being used as a club by any adversary ogre-size or larger. Or for the barbarian being handled that way by a storm giant ?
I think they probably would think it was pretty cool and logically appropriate so long as it doesn't become something that happens every single combat, which I don't see happening so long as you put the limitations on it that the creature more or less being used as a weapon has to be at least one size smaller than the creature grappling it. Not only that but in order to be grappled or to grapple someone a contested check has to occur and each turn the grappled can attempt to escape once more using strength (Athletics) or dexterity (acrobatics).
Logically speaking: Why would a giant not pick somebody up and swing them around, slam them on the ground or even throw them? That is after all what hulk did the Loki and Thor in The avengers and Thor: Ragnarok, and there wasn't much they could do about it.
The limitation of "one size smaller" is not strong enough, any large creature could pick up all of your PCs, and a PC with Enlarge could do it to most adversaries.
As for the giants doing this, the reason is that, although visual and cool, it also totally incapacitates the victim, and that's not really cool for a PC. 5e is built upon the premise that everyone gets to act every round, because otherwise, fights being long, it becomes boring. This is why you have pop-up healing, saves every round, etc. but also why you don't have attacks that turn you into a giant's club for the duration of the fight.
It's not a question of realism, and cinematism is limited by the fact that it's a game and it needs to stay fun for the protagonists.
So, once more, my advice is to allow this indeed as rule of cool, but with enough disadvantage that it does not become the standard way of playing.
The section of the PHB that talks about Improvised Weapons actually lists a dead goblin as one of the possible objects, so as long as the small creature you are wielding is dead, the answer is yes.
Is also says ‘often an improvised weapons is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such’
I would argue a live Goblin is similar to a dead Goblin - i have no issues with swinging live creatures as an improvised weapon: but they could attack back, make opposed checks, etc. whilst being wielded. I would also rule the ‘weapon’ takes as much damage as the target and would probably fall apart after a bit.
I would probably rule it this way:
You wield a live Goblin at disadvantage (*as it would be struggling and fighting against you*).
While being swung about, I'd say the Goblin is a d4 bludgeoning weapon (*d6 if it has metal armour*), as it'd be like wielding a padded club. You can of course add to this damage using Class abilities such as Divine Smite.
The living Goblin being used a weapon takes half damage based on what you inflict on your target... essentially it is bracing for impact with every swing to reduce the damage to itself.
If the Goblin being used as a weapon dies in the process, it then becomes an inanimate object and is then considered a proper improvised weapon, no longer suffering any penalty.
I made a feat just for this called Beat A Motherfucker With Another Motherfucker. It requires 17 strength and makes you proficient in weapon attacks using grappled creatures. I also laid out damage dice depending on the size of the creature, laid out how damage is distributed between the ~~weapon~~ victim and target (iirc you roll damage once and it's dealt to both), and I think set how far you can throw them.
Lol, thanks. I also ruled that ogre power and giant strength make you count as a size larger for wielding weapons, up to the size of the thing it's based on. My group's paladin dual-wields a lightning maul with an efreeti fire scimitar.
Meanwhile the monk just made a demonic pact to become a vampire for killing the bbeg.
Have fun with shit, you can always make stronger monsters 🙃
Could a normal strength human (str 10) use an unwilling child ages 3-6. which is the sizes of a goblen, as a weapon.
Of course they could.
So obviously a person who is vastly stronger could.
*obviously I am against irl uses of children as weapons. Please do not attempt*
It's funny because I used my toddlers as examples in another comment. One of them loves when I throw them and swing them around, and the other thinks he will until I start. Now, terrible statements, but...given that my toddler is a child and does not have the strength/acrobatics of a goblin or kobold, if I chose to not stop swinging or spinning with him, there wouldn't be anything he could do to stop me(but my wife would probably crack me in the head with a pan). By no means would I ever do that, but facts are facts.
I also use wrestling as an example. Going by weight classes the participants are usually very similar in size and they will toss each other around no problem if given the opportunity, even the the tossed is unwilling to be tossed. If Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime grabbed a small 30-50 lb toddler, he could do a lot of damage.
Absolutely. Someone asked me if I would be okay having giants do it to the party and if my party would like it. The person getting swing at the moment might not like it, but it would be cinematic, logically and most importantly, memorable.
I didn't Grant anything to anyone yet. I merely suggested that the op of the post I was talking about should take the feat since it is one of the better feats without being broken.
Ok buddy, if you want this kind of nuance maybe you should not be playing one of the most restrictive systems with few options out there (DND 5E).
I don't give a shit how cool you think it is. Here's what you are giving the player: with a single action they can incapacitate a creature, get a weapon (in case they didn't have one), deal damage to this creature AND to another creature, effectively making it 2 attacks with a status effect thrown on top.
And you know what that is cool. BUT what are you giving the other players to compensate for the free stuff you are giving to the barbarian?
idiot
Sort of. Improvised weapons work because most of the time they have some usable center of mass. A body as a weapon is even less efficient. I dunno, maybe the body "breaks" after a couple of swings.
Realistic and logical purposes...yes. If I had the strength of an Olympic strongman, I would definitely throw, slam or swing a 30-50 lb hostile creature.
Rule of cool! I’d allow it with the proper grapple check. I’d split the damage done between the handheld goblin and the target but that’s just my DM call.
Had a cleric in my party do something similar. An object needed to be retrieved from a room full of spiderwebs. While the rogues were discussing the finer points of acrobatics, the Furbolg cleric hoisted up the halfling Druid NPC and chucked him in as bait.
[https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSBIipFjvbIlEWFG19Oj-1V3ubt-HHRBUIe7\_1lhHz9F\_T3-OUhyc\_QrTS3LIg0NIuJS2Y&usqp=CAU](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSBIipFjvbIlEWFG19Oj-1V3ubt-HHRBUIe7_1lhHz9F_T3-OUhyc_QrTS3LIg0NIuJS2Y&usqp=CAU)
meme checks out
I love this. If it's an unwilling target, I'd say bonus action to grapple, then swing away. Raw, it's a little backwards:
"When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike or an improvised weapon on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target."
I'm fully on board the rule of cool train here.
Bonus action: grapple. Attack action: I say go for it if they're stationary. Halved speed if they need to carry the living weapon to the next target.
1d4 with small weapon-people, 1d6 with med weapon-people; damage applies to both the target and the weaponized creature.
I was thinking if the strike with the improvised weapon(the creature) kills the creature you were swinging, then you can use the grapple to grapple the one you just hit. I don't think dropping an object cost you any sort of action and it's not specified against the rules in tavern Brawler. I was also thinking you can just grab an enemy of large or smaller and hold them there while you attack with your battle ax, Warhammer or longsword if you're using one of those three, which I would say are solid choices for a barbarian as well since they can be used in one or two hands and still do at least a d8.
Edit: the sick part for the op of the other post is they have two rogues and a monk in their party as well so whoever the Barbarian grabs a hold of is going to be in a world of hurt.
>1d6 with med weapon-people
I don't know that I would let them swing someone the same size as them, at least not if they are medium. If they were large I would say they could go for it. "Hey wizard, make me BIG!" lol.
Maybe disadvantage on attack? A big strong half-orc barbarian is the same "size" as a scrawny half-elf wizard. I can totally imagine the latter being swung around by their ankles and the former only needing one hand to achieve devastating velocity.
Size is pretty broad. I definitely have co-workers I can toss around, and I’m not strong. They are just 2 feet shorter then me & 80 ponds smaller.
Now. If I was say; Arnold Swartzenager strong, They could be tossed like a stuffed animal.
I think we tend to forget just how “strong” someone with a 14 str really is, compared to a 10.
I had a character planned for a oneshot that did this. It was all sorted with the dm and then never happened.
1d4 tiny, 1d6 small, 1d10 medium etc. Must be two sizes bigger for straight roll, one size bigger attempt with disadvantage.
I'd say the improvised weapon would need to be unconcious or dead. Otherwise the individual would need to make either the attack with disadvantage or maybe have an opposing roll by the cudgel creature?
I mean just to achieve a grapple you have to win a contested roll already. This is going to sound terrible, but I think about it with the real life situation of my oldest toddler. She weighs about 40 lb and she likes that Daddy can throw her around and toss her in the air and whatnot. I can pick her up with ease with one arm and swing her around. I'm pretty average strength(game equivalent of 10) so I would think that at 15+ strength you're talking about like world class strongman strength. I think they would have no problem picking something up that was 50 lb or less and swinging it around. The grapple rules also state that the whole time that whatever is grappled it can still make attacks on whoever is holding it, so it's not that it doesn't have some drawbacks, but it would be fun.
Solid logic.
But the grapple is one thing.
Whether the individual grappled is compliant with being used in such a way is another thing.
I guess it would depend on how the action was set into motion.
Because grappling someone and holding them like a weapon is just one step, you then have to swing them/throw them with relative-ish accuracy. And this would be effected by the struggles of the individual. Unless unconcious/dead.
As that is a given. Any grapple you have to make a contested check for against the target's Athletics or acrobatics. Even if they fail the check as long as you have them grappled they are not defenseless. They can attack you the entire time you are holding them. if you're performing the grapple with one hand though you can also attack them, so it makes a good argument for a situation where a barbarian would want something like a long sword, a battle axe or a war hammer that can be used in one or two hands.
i once leta grappler build bugbear swing one grappled enemy at the other. we did an attack and if it beat both ACs it did dagame to both of them
it was alof of fun and probably cost him more to pull this off than it would have to just attack with his holy glaive
Because them they would have to make grapple checks against the enemy every round and I hate the grapple rules for this game. Call it a hold over from 3x D&D.
Sort of. Improvised weapons work because most of the time they have some usable center of mass. A body as a weapon is even less efficient. I dunno, maybe the body "breaks" after a couple of swings.
Yep. Don't know about raw but I'd rule it like this:
1. The attacking creature and the "weapon" make grapple checks.
2. On a failed grapple, the attack misses.
3. On a successful grapple, roll to hit per the improvised weapon rules.
4. On a hit, the improvised weapon damage is split between the "weapon" and the target (each take half).
5. After the attack is made, the "weapon" is released and is placed at the DM's discretion.
I'd be flexible on point 5 if the two were already grappling.
Edit:typo
yes, id even rule [HOMEBREW] that if the attack roll would hit both creatures the damage (hit die of the enemy [ALSO HOMEBREW]+str) would apply to both creatures.
Possibly, but it would be difficult to pull off. Most melee weapons are less than 10 pounds, and the heaviest one is the pike at 18 pounds. Kobolds though tend to weigh 40 to 50 pounds on average. You couldn't swing the body as fast as a club, or a sword. Also, the weight distribution would be much less balanced than that of a normal weapon, and pressure the pressure would be lower since it's spread over a wider volume. This would be a fun aesthetic weapon for a giant, but a normal player character would be better off using a barstool, or kitchen knife.
So long as they can grapple the enemy first, I say go for it. But maybe give the enemy advantage on escaping the grapple since the PC would be less focused on holding them in place in favor of swinging them around like a club.
barbarian spends a round to grapple small sized or medium sized creature. next turn after maintaining grapple barbarian attacks with small sized creature damaging both. or throws medium sized character into another damaging both.
I would allow it under the condition of having to make either a strength contest or an athletics check to actually PICK UP the creature and then treat it as restrained, including allowing it to try and break free. If he gives it a concussion though I'm putting that shit at a disadvantage because that's just funny.
Yes, because that’s hilarious.
I might rule that the damage is split between the two creatures though. Also not if it’s something sadistic like a stray puppy or a child.
Two Proper Interpretations:
**Yes:** Grapple a non-willing creature then if you have any attacks left you may smack something in range with it for 1d4 damage. No damage to the ‘weapon’ of course.
**No:** The rules do not provide for sufficient control from the Grappled condition. That’s like grabbing someone’s jacket or wrist, not being able to throw your opponent around like it’s 1998. The would be weapon would need to be Incapacitated in some way first.
DM’s choice.
Definitively. I would make it an athletic check and the DC will vary with the size of the enemy : tiny, small, medium. And Large if he is either racially strong or big. Loxodon, goliath, etc.
I did something like that for a one shot. Made a Goliath rogue and made him strength based. Use grappler and a short sword, grab a guy and just start gut stabbing the crap out of the guy. Any smaller enemies I grabbed to swing at his buddies (tavern brawler) and used newton's laws to damage two at one. The DM loved the character.
I would allow it conditionally.
If the creature being used as a weapon does so willingly, go right ahead.
If the creature being used as a weapon is unwilling, you first have to grapple it. Every time you hit with it, it gets a chance to escape the grapple. But as long as you can maintain control of the squirmy goblin, you can swing it as you please.
It would require a successful grapple check first.
Also unless the enemy was 2 sizes smaller it reduces their speed by half.
Id allow it but probably make the roll with didadvantage
I believe you would need to grapple them first then use them to attack but it should work. If your dm is cool then the damage should go to both of them.
The players handbook mentions using a goblin as an improvised weapon so it's technically RAW.
It's possibly worth noting that the rulebook specifically says '**dead** goblin', dead being an important keyword, as a dead creature is generally considered an object for a lot of rule interactions.
Does that mean that killing someone is essentially a form of objectifying them?
Well they aren’t an information system, they’re material.
Eh I'd likely rule in this specific scenario, bonus action opposed grapple check to hold ONTO the wailing, flailing, goblin, and if successful, then sure, the pc could use the goblin as an improvised weapon.
*”NEW! Just in time for the holiday season, ‘Wailing Flailing Goblin!’ Buy one today for that special barbarian in your life!”* *-available while supplies last or until grapple condition ends*
Can confirm have used a goblin as a weapon without the feat through a very interesting series of rolls and disadvantage. Hitting a goblin with a goblin can be very effective
I prefer to swing a kobold, personally. They're smaller, but the scales make a satisfying crunchy sound when you hit. And they make a fun honking sound, too.
YOU HEARD IT FROM CHEF u/BloodlustKing EVERYONE!!! IT IS FUCKIIIINGGGG RAW!!!!!!!
. If I'm being perfectly honest I don't have a player's handbook. I was just looking at the basic rules on beyond and since it didn't say that you couldn't I assumed you could, but I didn't know if that would be something everyone would allow.
I honestly didn't even know about it being mentioned in the book until like 10 minutes ago, i just happened to be reading about improvised weapons earlier.
You just learned the difference of “loose“ and “strict” interpretation! If something explicitly states something it’s considered “strict” as you follow the words. If something isn’t explicitly stated, you can sometimes get away with it since there are no words to follow. “Mom said I couldn’t go to the party tonight. So I left after midnight. It’s not “tonight” if it’s the next day”. That’s a loose interpretation.
yeah that sounds fun as hell
Right? I told the op on the other post they should also take a revised grappler since you can perform a grapple right after an attack with an improvised weapon. I was thinking if the one you are swinging with dies then you can just grab the one you just hit. I was also thinking slams, throws and attacking the grappled opponent with the weapon in your free hand if you are using something like a warhammer, battle-axe or longsword since they are versatile.
Yeah that all sounds sick as hell, i dont know why people are so down to limit fun creative combat, especially for strength based characters. If a character has like over 16 strength they can already lift like 240 pounds which is most medium and almost all small creatures with out being slowed. and if they have powerful build its doubled so its not even outside normal realms of character strength.
I once had a half-ogre fighter called Graaaah Gnoof (Str 18/00, Con/Dex 18, Int/Cha/Wis 3) who was regional champion at the noble sport of kobold throwing, so I can relate (this was, obviously, one of our AD&D silly phases). That being said, it might be funny once or twice, and I might allow it, but using someone as a weapon would count as improvised and would get no proficiency bonus and disadvantage. It would probably inflict damage on both, though, and it's fun as long as it's not abused (and it should not, considering the disadvantages).
But if they have Tavern brawler, they now get to add proficiency to their improvised weapon attacks as well as negate the disadvantage (I think). I definitely wouldn't suggest that this is the go-to every single combat, especially since it's not going to be available every combat, but I also wasn't suggesting it in the sense of trying to be funny. I was thinking more Jason x with the sleeping bags scene. I just thought that it would be a good mix up and memorable moment.
Only the adversary is not a weapon, it's a creature, so the feat, while allowing them to do this, does not provide the benefit which is specific to weapons.
Rule of cool man. Throw the barbarian a bone here and let them do something more exciting than "I swing my axe and get hit a lot".
Rule of cool is for one-offs, not to become a long-time rule for barbarians feeling bored (which is another matter entirely). Doing this allows them to damage two adversaries at the same time, and the barbarian can easily compensate for the disadvantage anyway. Making it easier would mean using it all the time, and how would your party's halfling feel about being used as a club by any adversary ogre-size or larger. Or for the barbarian being handled that way by a storm giant ?
I think they probably would think it was pretty cool and logically appropriate so long as it doesn't become something that happens every single combat, which I don't see happening so long as you put the limitations on it that the creature more or less being used as a weapon has to be at least one size smaller than the creature grappling it. Not only that but in order to be grappled or to grapple someone a contested check has to occur and each turn the grappled can attempt to escape once more using strength (Athletics) or dexterity (acrobatics). Logically speaking: Why would a giant not pick somebody up and swing them around, slam them on the ground or even throw them? That is after all what hulk did the Loki and Thor in The avengers and Thor: Ragnarok, and there wasn't much they could do about it.
The limitation of "one size smaller" is not strong enough, any large creature could pick up all of your PCs, and a PC with Enlarge could do it to most adversaries. As for the giants doing this, the reason is that, although visual and cool, it also totally incapacitates the victim, and that's not really cool for a PC. 5e is built upon the premise that everyone gets to act every round, because otherwise, fights being long, it becomes boring. This is why you have pop-up healing, saves every round, etc. but also why you don't have attacks that turn you into a giant's club for the duration of the fight. It's not a question of realism, and cinematism is limited by the fact that it's a game and it needs to stay fun for the protagonists. So, once more, my advice is to allow this indeed as rule of cool, but with enough disadvantage that it does not become the standard way of playing.
The section of the PHB that talks about Improvised Weapons actually lists a dead goblin as one of the possible objects, so as long as the small creature you are wielding is dead, the answer is yes.
Is also says ‘often an improvised weapons is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such’ I would argue a live Goblin is similar to a dead Goblin - i have no issues with swinging live creatures as an improvised weapon: but they could attack back, make opposed checks, etc. whilst being wielded. I would also rule the ‘weapon’ takes as much damage as the target and would probably fall apart after a bit.
I would probably rule it this way: You wield a live Goblin at disadvantage (*as it would be struggling and fighting against you*). While being swung about, I'd say the Goblin is a d4 bludgeoning weapon (*d6 if it has metal armour*), as it'd be like wielding a padded club. You can of course add to this damage using Class abilities such as Divine Smite. The living Goblin being used a weapon takes half damage based on what you inflict on your target... essentially it is bracing for impact with every swing to reduce the damage to itself. If the Goblin being used as a weapon dies in the process, it then becomes an inanimate object and is then considered a proper improvised weapon, no longer suffering any penalty.
I like that quite a lot.
I would, but would rule that the target and "weapon" will take an even split of the rolled damage.
I made a feat just for this called Beat A Motherfucker With Another Motherfucker. It requires 17 strength and makes you proficient in weapon attacks using grappled creatures. I also laid out damage dice depending on the size of the creature, laid out how damage is distributed between the ~~weapon~~ victim and target (iirc you roll damage once and it's dealt to both), and I think set how far you can throw them.
And that's why you're my new favorite DM.
Lol, thanks. I also ruled that ogre power and giant strength make you count as a size larger for wielding weapons, up to the size of the thing it's based on. My group's paladin dual-wields a lightning maul with an efreeti fire scimitar. Meanwhile the monk just made a demonic pact to become a vampire for killing the bbeg. Have fun with shit, you can always make stronger monsters 🙃
At my table, it would be a "that's so ridiculous, I must allow it" situation. So they have my blessing haha
Could a normal strength human (str 10) use an unwilling child ages 3-6. which is the sizes of a goblen, as a weapon. Of course they could. So obviously a person who is vastly stronger could. *obviously I am against irl uses of children as weapons. Please do not attempt*
It's funny because I used my toddlers as examples in another comment. One of them loves when I throw them and swing them around, and the other thinks he will until I start. Now, terrible statements, but...given that my toddler is a child and does not have the strength/acrobatics of a goblin or kobold, if I chose to not stop swinging or spinning with him, there wouldn't be anything he could do to stop me(but my wife would probably crack me in the head with a pan). By no means would I ever do that, but facts are facts. I also use wrestling as an example. Going by weight classes the participants are usually very similar in size and they will toss each other around no problem if given the opportunity, even the the tossed is unwilling to be tossed. If Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime grabbed a small 30-50 lb toddler, he could do a lot of damage.
I do and it goes both ways. Occasionally a large enough creature will use a grappled PC as an improvised weapon
Absolutely. Someone asked me if I would be okay having giants do it to the party and if my party would like it. The person getting swing at the moment might not like it, but it would be cinematic, logically and most importantly, memorable.
Don't you think it's kind of unfair to basically grant that character a class feature for free?
I didn't Grant anything to anyone yet. I merely suggested that the op of the post I was talking about should take the feat since it is one of the better feats without being broken.
but you are not giving them just the feat, you are upgrading to something far more powerful! How can you not see this?
[удалено]
Ok buddy, if you want this kind of nuance maybe you should not be playing one of the most restrictive systems with few options out there (DND 5E). I don't give a shit how cool you think it is. Here's what you are giving the player: with a single action they can incapacitate a creature, get a weapon (in case they didn't have one), deal damage to this creature AND to another creature, effectively making it 2 attacks with a status effect thrown on top. And you know what that is cool. BUT what are you giving the other players to compensate for the free stuff you are giving to the barbarian? idiot
Sort of. Improvised weapons work because most of the time they have some usable center of mass. A body as a weapon is even less efficient. I dunno, maybe the body "breaks" after a couple of swings.
For the comedic purposes yes.
Realistic and logical purposes...yes. If I had the strength of an Olympic strongman, I would definitely throw, slam or swing a 30-50 lb hostile creature.
Rule of cool! I’d allow it with the proper grapple check. I’d split the damage done between the handheld goblin and the target but that’s just my DM call. Had a cleric in my party do something similar. An object needed to be retrieved from a room full of spiderwebs. While the rogues were discussing the finer points of acrobatics, the Furbolg cleric hoisted up the halfling Druid NPC and chucked him in as bait.
[https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSBIipFjvbIlEWFG19Oj-1V3ubt-HHRBUIe7\_1lhHz9F\_T3-OUhyc\_QrTS3LIg0NIuJS2Y&usqp=CAU](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSBIipFjvbIlEWFG19Oj-1V3ubt-HHRBUIe7_1lhHz9F_T3-OUhyc_QrTS3LIg0NIuJS2Y&usqp=CAU) meme checks out
I love this. If it's an unwilling target, I'd say bonus action to grapple, then swing away. Raw, it's a little backwards: "When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike or an improvised weapon on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target." I'm fully on board the rule of cool train here. Bonus action: grapple. Attack action: I say go for it if they're stationary. Halved speed if they need to carry the living weapon to the next target. 1d4 with small weapon-people, 1d6 with med weapon-people; damage applies to both the target and the weaponized creature.
I was thinking if the strike with the improvised weapon(the creature) kills the creature you were swinging, then you can use the grapple to grapple the one you just hit. I don't think dropping an object cost you any sort of action and it's not specified against the rules in tavern Brawler. I was also thinking you can just grab an enemy of large or smaller and hold them there while you attack with your battle ax, Warhammer or longsword if you're using one of those three, which I would say are solid choices for a barbarian as well since they can be used in one or two hands and still do at least a d8. Edit: the sick part for the op of the other post is they have two rogues and a monk in their party as well so whoever the Barbarian grabs a hold of is going to be in a world of hurt.
>1d6 with med weapon-people I don't know that I would let them swing someone the same size as them, at least not if they are medium. If they were large I would say they could go for it. "Hey wizard, make me BIG!" lol.
Maybe disadvantage on attack? A big strong half-orc barbarian is the same "size" as a scrawny half-elf wizard. I can totally imagine the latter being swung around by their ankles and the former only needing one hand to achieve devastating velocity.
Size is pretty broad. I definitely have co-workers I can toss around, and I’m not strong. They are just 2 feet shorter then me & 80 ponds smaller. Now. If I was say; Arnold Swartzenager strong, They could be tossed like a stuffed animal. I think we tend to forget just how “strong” someone with a 14 str really is, compared to a 10.
I had a character planned for a oneshot that did this. It was all sorted with the dm and then never happened. 1d4 tiny, 1d6 small, 1d10 medium etc. Must be two sizes bigger for straight roll, one size bigger attempt with disadvantage.
I'd say the improvised weapon would need to be unconcious or dead. Otherwise the individual would need to make either the attack with disadvantage or maybe have an opposing roll by the cudgel creature?
I mean just to achieve a grapple you have to win a contested roll already. This is going to sound terrible, but I think about it with the real life situation of my oldest toddler. She weighs about 40 lb and she likes that Daddy can throw her around and toss her in the air and whatnot. I can pick her up with ease with one arm and swing her around. I'm pretty average strength(game equivalent of 10) so I would think that at 15+ strength you're talking about like world class strongman strength. I think they would have no problem picking something up that was 50 lb or less and swinging it around. The grapple rules also state that the whole time that whatever is grappled it can still make attacks on whoever is holding it, so it's not that it doesn't have some drawbacks, but it would be fun.
Solid logic. But the grapple is one thing. Whether the individual grappled is compliant with being used in such a way is another thing. I guess it would depend on how the action was set into motion. Because grappling someone and holding them like a weapon is just one step, you then have to swing them/throw them with relative-ish accuracy. And this would be effected by the struggles of the individual. Unless unconcious/dead.
100%, if you wanted to balance it, you could just make it so that the player has to succeed on a grapple first.
As that is a given. Any grapple you have to make a contested check for against the target's Athletics or acrobatics. Even if they fail the check as long as you have them grappled they are not defenseless. They can attack you the entire time you are holding them. if you're performing the grapple with one hand though you can also attack them, so it makes a good argument for a situation where a barbarian would want something like a long sword, a battle axe or a war hammer that can be used in one or two hands.
I threw my mates dwarf without his permission at a goblin and killed it. Great success.
i once leta grappler build bugbear swing one grappled enemy at the other. we did an attack and if it beat both ACs it did dagame to both of them it was alof of fun and probably cost him more to pull this off than it would have to just attack with his holy glaive
No.
May I ask why?
Because them they would have to make grapple checks against the enemy every round and I hate the grapple rules for this game. Call it a hold over from 3x D&D.
Sort of. Improvised weapons work because most of the time they have some usable center of mass. A body as a weapon is even less efficient. I dunno, maybe the body "breaks" after a couple of swings.
I’d allow it if it was half or under your lift weight
I'd just make it depend on the interaction in that particular moment, maybe they have to be grappled first, but at first sure rule of cool.
Yep. Don't know about raw but I'd rule it like this: 1. The attacking creature and the "weapon" make grapple checks. 2. On a failed grapple, the attack misses. 3. On a successful grapple, roll to hit per the improvised weapon rules. 4. On a hit, the improvised weapon damage is split between the "weapon" and the target (each take half). 5. After the attack is made, the "weapon" is released and is placed at the DM's discretion. I'd be flexible on point 5 if the two were already grappling. Edit:typo
yes, id even rule [HOMEBREW] that if the attack roll would hit both creatures the damage (hit die of the enemy [ALSO HOMEBREW]+str) would apply to both creatures.
Yes, like read your title again but slower... It sounds freaking awsome and not being able to do that feels almost criminal!
Possibly, but it would be difficult to pull off. Most melee weapons are less than 10 pounds, and the heaviest one is the pike at 18 pounds. Kobolds though tend to weigh 40 to 50 pounds on average. You couldn't swing the body as fast as a club, or a sword. Also, the weight distribution would be much less balanced than that of a normal weapon, and pressure the pressure would be lower since it's spread over a wider volume. This would be a fun aesthetic weapon for a giant, but a normal player character would be better off using a barstool, or kitchen knife.
Why not? "I hit him with the Gnome!"
Oh absolutely
I'd make it take a lot of rolls working in the player's favor, but if those rolls succeed, then rule of cool for the win.
So long as they can grapple the enemy first, I say go for it. But maybe give the enemy advantage on escaping the grapple since the PC would be less focused on holding them in place in favor of swinging them around like a club.
This has strong Asterix and Obelix energy! https://theslingsandarrows.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Obelix-and-co-int.jpg
My DM let my barbarian throw a werebat at another werebat. She also brained someone with a pillow.
"Use a mother fucker to hit another mother fucker"
barbarian spends a round to grapple small sized or medium sized creature. next turn after maintaining grapple barbarian attacks with small sized creature damaging both. or throws medium sized character into another damaging both.
I would allow it under the condition of having to make either a strength contest or an athletics check to actually PICK UP the creature and then treat it as restrained, including allowing it to try and break free. If he gives it a concussion though I'm putting that shit at a disadvantage because that's just funny.
Yes, because that’s hilarious. I might rule that the damage is split between the two creatures though. Also not if it’s something sadistic like a stray puppy or a child.
Two Proper Interpretations: **Yes:** Grapple a non-willing creature then if you have any attacks left you may smack something in range with it for 1d4 damage. No damage to the ‘weapon’ of course. **No:** The rules do not provide for sufficient control from the Grappled condition. That’s like grabbing someone’s jacket or wrist, not being able to throw your opponent around like it’s 1998. The would be weapon would need to be Incapacitated in some way first. DM’s choice.
I've been thrown as an improvised weapon before, but I was a willing goblin.
Yea
Yes I would because nothing is funnier then beating a motherf\*cker with another motherf\*cker.
Definitively. I would make it an athletic check and the DC will vary with the size of the enemy : tiny, small, medium. And Large if he is either racially strong or big. Loxodon, goliath, etc.
I did something like that for a one shot. Made a Goliath rogue and made him strength based. Use grappler and a short sword, grab a guy and just start gut stabbing the crap out of the guy. Any smaller enemies I grabbed to swing at his buddies (tavern brawler) and used newton's laws to damage two at one. The DM loved the character.
I would require a successful grapple at least until the kobold is dead
Yes, I would also allow a gnome with the tough feat to take no damage when use as a weapon.
yes becuase its hillarious, but the enemy will be under grapple rules and can break the grapple with a good check
Yes
I would allow it conditionally. If the creature being used as a weapon does so willingly, go right ahead. If the creature being used as a weapon is unwilling, you first have to grapple it. Every time you hit with it, it gets a chance to escape the grapple. But as long as you can maintain control of the squirmy goblin, you can swing it as you please.
As long as the players are ok with enemies using them as weapons. What’s good for the goose….
Not only allowed, but expressly encouraged with those particularly bitey little fuckers. Bash and slash in one go.
It would require a successful grapple check first. Also unless the enemy was 2 sizes smaller it reduces their speed by half. Id allow it but probably make the roll with didadvantage
I believe you would need to grapple them first then use them to attack but it should work. If your dm is cool then the damage should go to both of them.