It really depends on their other features. If they're getting mediocre features each level, then getting ones consistently each level is fine. I'm not willing to spend the money to look at the class features though.
As for banning them, it would be nice if we could afford to give third party classes etc a chance to show what they're like in practice. It doesn't work like that though. To try it, you have to play it for several levels (ideally, a full campaign), which means significant investment...then it's really awkward when you have to turn around to the player and tell them they have to get a new character...plus all the damage that's been done that persuaded you to ban it. It's far better to nip it in the bud and just not allow it if it's going to get banned.
And yes, balance really does matter. Story time - when I was first DMing, I had a player complain that I was KO'ing him all the time. I paid attention to what I was doing, and realised I was buffing the statblocks. Why? Because every fight was going to be pathetic, finishing in Round or so. To prevent that, I was buffing the HP to keep them in the fight for longer, and buffing the attacks to make them more impactful while they were up. That meant the up close and personal Barbarian was getting creamed.
Why were the monsters folding too soon? I noticed on player was doing a ton of damage that far outstripped everyone else. So my RAW monsters were being smashed before the fight got interesting. Once I had a word (because I noticed they weren't exactly following the rules), damage output went down, I could rely on encounters as they were written more, and they Barbarian got to have more fun.
Balance matters a lot. As DM, my biggest responsibility revolves around balance.
Like I said, my way of circumventing all of this is to ban bringing metagamey builds.
& it's worked ever since.
But it’s not a “metagamey build” if you choose a class and play it exactly as written and it’s totally broken
I was referring to general behavior.
BTW, the designer of the subclass is having an AMA on R/onednd.
Maybe address him there. He has the math to show how not-broken this is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
BTW, the designer of the subclass is having an AMA on R/onednd.
Maybe address him there. He has the math to show how not-broken this is.
I am not sure you understand how balance between player-facing option works.
First, you stated Mizzium Apparatus was not broken - I have DMed for that item before, and feel very comfortable saying it is a Legendary item masquerading as an Uncommon. The only thing that “balances” it is lack of player skill - it is unbelievable broken when your player has a strong knowledge of the available spells. If the only check on an item’s potential is “I hope my players do not know how to fully use this item” that is not balance.
Second, you stated you ban “meta builds” - indicating you ban them based on their very status of being meta, not on understanding what makes them meta and thus not understanding how to evaluate and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
But this post is really what really shows your fundamental issue with balance. You cannot show a class is balanced by math alone.
Stepping back to the basis of balancing player facing options, there are three core elements to balance.
First, you have damage. Damage is the only element you can actually balance with math - you can look at how much something does on average and compare to other data points. But damage is only one pillar of a character’s ability, and, frankly, I think it is typically the least important (though it is where you are most likely to have “feels bad” moments if one player is vastly outperforming other strikers).
Second, you have your non damaging effects. Math cannot show how these are balanced because their utility exists outside the world of numbers. This is where the “but the math says it is fair” folks start to lose credibility. Even game designers fail on this point - the guy who made the Cthulhu spells tried to justify spells that do not require saves by saying “well, the damage is lower than comparable spells of the same spell level” while ignoring the power of a 100% chance to inflict debilitating status effects.
Pugilist’s is unbalanced due to its extreme number of effects and abilities, even beyond damage, with the base class having a utility set that rivals most of the advanced official martial subclasses - and that is before you add in its own subclasses. are what make it unbalanced on this point. Math will not show that, only a basic understanding of what other classes can do and how little they do in comparison.
Third is the one almost everyone ignores - maintaining player balance also means maintaining the roles of players. It is on this point Pugilist really, really fails - it shamefully steals from other classes, like Monk and Barbarian, and in many cases then improves on those stolen features. That kind of theft is not a power balance issue per se, but it is a game design balance issue. By stealing that which makes other classes unique, you are definitionally stepping on their toes. In a group game, where every player is trying to establish their unique identity and role through their mechanics, “oh, hey, I do that too!” is upsetting the core balance of the overall party dynamic.
I will read the AMA out of curiosity, and, who knows, maybe it will change my mind. But my past experience with AMAs like this tends to show that the developer of broken content only considered the first element of balance, and made a fundamental failing to consider the volume of abilities and other elements that make for a balanced final product.
Frankly, I am skeptical the "math" works out even just on damage
Pugilist gets a better damage die than monk with the same number of attacks. They get fewer max moxie pts than a monk gets focus pts, but can replenish them more easily and thus effectively gets more pts per combat -- monk gets a 1/long rest replenish when they roll initiative, while pugilist gets a 1/short rest replenish whenever they take damage
AC is lower than either monk or barb, but pugilist gets Sap mastery on improvised weapons, so the first attack against them in most scenarios will have disadvantage
That's just the basic stuff, before you even get into features like Dig Deep at 4th level (barb damage resistance for 10 minutes without even needing to spend a moxie pt) or Haymaker at 5th level (max damage on a hit, and it again doesn't cost a moxie pt -- or rather, it only costs a point on a miss, which is just bafflingly bad design), or any of the other features that pile up damage or make your attacks more effective (all your attacks do Force damage at level 6, better than Rage bonus damage for a minute when Bloodied at level 7, another way to get max damage on a hit at level 9...) -- or any subclass features, for that matter
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
BTW, the designer of the subclass is having an AMA on R/onednd.
Maybe address him there. He has the math to show how not-broken this is.
I am not sure you understand how balance between player-facing option works.
First, you stated Mizzium Apparatus was not broken - I have DMed for that item before, and feel very comfortable saying it is a Legendary item masquerading as an Uncommon. The only thing that “balances” it is lack of player skill - it is unbelievable broken when your player has a strong knowledge of the available spells. If the only check on an item’s potential is “I hope my players do not know how to fully use this item” that is not balance.
Second, you stated you ban “meta builds” - indicating you ban them based on their very status of being meta, not on understanding what makes them meta and thus not understanding how to evaluate and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
But this post is really what really shows your fundamental issue with balance. You cannot show a class is balanced by math alone.
Stepping back to the basis of balancing player facing options, there are three core elements to balance.
First, you have damage. Damage is the only element you can actually balance with math - you can look at how much something does on average and compare to other data points. But damage is only one pillar of a character’s ability, and, frankly, I think it is typically the least important (though it is where you are most likely to have “feels bad” moments if one player is vastly outperforming other strikers).
Second, you have your non damaging effects. Math cannot show how these are balanced because their utility exists outside the world of numbers. This is where the “but the math says it is fair” folks start to lose credibility. Even game designers fail on this point - the guy who made the Cthulhu spells tried to justify spells that do not require saves by saying “well, the damage is lower than comparable spells of the same spell level” while ignoring the power of a 100% chance to inflict debilitating status effects.
Pugilist’s is unbalanced due to its extreme number of effects and abilities, even beyond damage, with the base class having a utility set that rivals most of the advanced official martial subclasses - and that is before you add in its own subclasses. are what make it unbalanced on this point. Math will not show that, only a basic understanding of what other classes can do and how little they do in comparison.
Third is the one almost everyone ignores - maintaining player balance also means maintaining the roles of players. It is on this point Pugilist really, really fails - it shamefully steals from other classes, like Monk and Barbarian, and in many cases then improves on those stolen features. That kind of theft is not a power balance issue per se, but it is a game design balance issue. By stealing that which makes other classes unique, you are definitionally stepping on their toes. In a group game, where every player is trying to establish their unique identity and role through their mechanics, “oh, hey, I do that too!” is upsetting the core balance of the overall party dynamic.
I will read the AMA out of curiosity, and, who knows, maybe it will change my mind. But my past experience with AMAs like this tends to show that the developer of broken content only considered the first element of balance, and made a fundamental failing to consider the volume of abilities and other elements that make for a balanced final product.
Let's just say that the Mizzmage takes forever to come online for most players & campaigns, requires perfect dice rolls, & knowledge of spells that the player has, but the character may not, creating the metagamey element I don't like a character to have in my games. Honestly, he's got the amount of average damage output downpact. It's not as high as you'd think if you play the whole game RAW. But since very few do, & those who don't have no consistency on how to do so, that results in a LOT of confusion on how the RAW math works. Likewise, a lot of the dice & attacks get eclipsed by other classes later on because the Pugilist doesn't have many features that directly improve upon leveling up compared to 2024 Monk.
You have made your opinion of Cthulhu by Torchlight quite obvious by this point, and your refusal to sincerely engage the content via using the rule(That's only optional because Partnered Content cannot make an official rule) provided regarding casting spells contained within of level 1 or higher that balances those out by having a severe risk to them is well-known by this point. It's also not DM-focused & milquetoast enough for you to allow it. That doesn't make you the vox populi. Likewise, you've indicated that you haven't experienced it except as numbers in a vacuum, especially since you & others have quoted a YouTuber named Insight Check who made a very cancelcore take. & they're not the only media that does this that people cite w/o testing. I am not allowed to state how things can be easily tested due to site policy, &, for legal purposes, do not endorse such means.
Everything is a Fighter or Wizard w/this reductionist logic. Barb? Rage Fighter. Monk? Point Fighter. Ranger? Nature Fighter. Paladin? Holy Fighter. Druid? Nature Wizard. Cleric? Holy Wizard. Sorcerer? Point Wizard. Bard? Inspiration Wizard. Warlock? Pact Wizard. Artificer? Builder Wizard. This has been addressed numerous times.
The creator has answered quite a few, more difficult questions. & he's quite familiar w/these stock criticisms.
Everything is a Fighter or Wizard w/this reductionist logic. Barb? Rage Fighter. Monk? Point Fighter. Ranger? Nature Fighter. Paladin? Holy Fighter. Druid? Nature Wizard. Cleric? Holy Wizard. Sorcerer? Point Wizard. Bard? Inspiration Wizard. Warlock? Pact Wizard. Artificer? Builder Wizard. This has been addressed numerous times.
Considering you accused me of doing something I didn’t - quote YouTube - it is clear you are not engaging in good faith in this conversation. Nor did I ever claim to be the voice of the people - I don’t care what the people think; if they like it then power to them, but that does not make this class well designed.
This will be my last post responding to you an and really it is more about responding to the very common argument posted above rather than you directly. There is a big difference between “all martial classes are fighters” and what is happening here. Here, the elements Pugilist pulls from other classes are not just the basic concept of “it hits things” but the core elements that make the other classes stand out.
Monk’s core defining element is its ability to land a whole lot of attacks that it can sometimes boost with an ability point system. Pugilist takes both of those and makes them better - better damage dice, same number of attacks, and a point system that is much easier to regain and use (see AntonSirius’ post above for a more detailed breakdown).
Barbarian’s defining feature is their ability to take hits, with their most powerful feature being the ability to half incoming damage from the most common attack types. Pugilist gets a better version of this core Barbarian feature.
The problem is not that Pugilist punches things like a monk or shrugs off damage like a Barbarian - the problem is it does those things via almost the exact same mechanisms as both classes, albeit in a better way. That is bad game design both because it attacks the very things that keep other classes from being “just another fighter” and because it makes players who play those other classes feel bad when they see “oh, you can do my thing that I choose this class to do… you can just do it objectively better.”
Everything is a Fighter or Wizard w/this reductionist logic. Barb? Rage Fighter. Monk? Point Fighter. Ranger? Nature Fighter. Paladin? Holy Fighter. Druid? Nature Wizard. Cleric? Holy Wizard. Sorcerer? Point Wizard. Bard? Inspiration Wizard. Warlock? Pact Wizard. Artificer? Builder Wizard. This has been addressed numerous times.
Considering you accused me of doing something I didn’t - quote YouTube - it is clear you are not engaging in good faith in this conversation. Nor did I ever claim to be the voice of the people - I don’t care what the people think; if they like it then power to them, but that does not make this class well designed.
This will be my last post responding to you an and really it is more about responding to the very common argument posted above rather than you directly. There is a big difference between “all martial classes are fighters” and what is happening here. Here, the elements Pugilist pulls from other classes are not just the basic concept of “it hits things” but the core elements that make the other classes stand out.
Monk’s core defining element is its ability to land a whole lot of attacks that it can sometimes boost with an ability point system. Pugilist takes both of those and makes them better - better damage dice, same number of attacks, and a point system that is much easier to regain and use (see AntonSirius’ post above for a more detailed breakdown).
Barbarian’s defining feature is their ability to take hits, with their most powerful feature being the ability to half incoming damage from the most common attack types. Pugilist gets a better version of this core Barbarian feature.
The problem is not that Pugilist punches things like a monk or shrugs off damage like a Barbarian - the problem is it does those things via almost the exact same mechanisms as both classes, albeit in a better way. That is bad game design both because it attacks the very things that keep other classes from being “just another fighter” and because it makes players who play those other classes feel bad when they see “oh, you can do my thing that I choose this class to do… you can just do it objectively better.”
Using one mistake to accuse me of bad faith is a heck of a stretch.
In general, tho...From Healing Word in early 2014 to Pugilist now, this whole shebang gets real tired.
I'm allowing Pugilist in my games. Because this doesn't fit my banlist criteria.
If a player w/skin in the martial game comes to me w/any of the concerns raised when a pugilist is in the party after I ask for feedback, then I'll eat my words.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was referring to general behavior.
BTW, the designer of the subclass is having an AMA on R/onednd.
Maybe address him there. He has the math to show how not-broken this is.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I am not sure you understand how balance between player-facing option works.
First, you stated Mizzium Apparatus was not broken - I have DMed for that item before, and feel very comfortable saying it is a Legendary item masquerading as an Uncommon. The only thing that “balances” it is lack of player skill - it is unbelievable broken when your player has a strong knowledge of the available spells. If the only check on an item’s potential is “I hope my players do not know how to fully use this item” that is not balance.
Second, you stated you ban “meta builds” - indicating you ban them based on their very status of being meta, not on understanding what makes them meta and thus not understanding how to evaluate and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
But this post is really what really shows your fundamental issue with balance. You cannot show a class is balanced by math alone.
Stepping back to the basis of balancing player facing options, there are three core elements to balance.
First, you have damage. Damage is the only element you can actually balance with math - you can look at how much something does on average and compare to other data points. But damage is only one pillar of a character’s ability, and, frankly, I think it is typically the least important (though it is where you are most likely to have “feels bad” moments if one player is vastly outperforming other strikers).
Second, you have your non damaging effects. Math cannot show how these are balanced because their utility exists outside the world of numbers. This is where the “but the math says it is fair” folks start to lose credibility. Even game designers fail on this point - the guy who made the Cthulhu spells tried to justify spells that do not require saves by saying “well, the damage is lower than comparable spells of the same spell level” while ignoring the power of a 100% chance to inflict debilitating status effects.
Pugilist’s is unbalanced due to its extreme number of effects and abilities, even beyond damage, with the base class having a utility set that rivals most of the advanced official martial subclasses - and that is before you add in its own subclasses. are what make it unbalanced on this point. Math will not show that, only a basic understanding of what other classes can do and how little they do in comparison.
Third is the one almost everyone ignores - maintaining player balance also means maintaining the roles of players. It is on this point Pugilist really, really fails - it shamefully steals from other classes, like Monk and Barbarian, and in many cases then improves on those stolen features. That kind of theft is not a power balance issue per se, but it is a game design balance issue. By stealing that which makes other classes unique, you are definitionally stepping on their toes. In a group game, where every player is trying to establish their unique identity and role through their mechanics, “oh, hey, I do that too!” is upsetting the core balance of the overall party dynamic.
I will read the AMA out of curiosity, and, who knows, maybe it will change my mind. But my past experience with AMAs like this tends to show that the developer of broken content only considered the first element of balance, and made a fundamental failing to consider the volume of abilities and other elements that make for a balanced final product.
Frankly, I am skeptical the "math" works out even just on damage
Pugilist gets a better damage die than monk with the same number of attacks. They get fewer max moxie pts than a monk gets focus pts, but can replenish them more easily and thus effectively gets more pts per combat -- monk gets a 1/long rest replenish when they roll initiative, while pugilist gets a 1/short rest replenish whenever they take damage
AC is lower than either monk or barb, but pugilist gets Sap mastery on improvised weapons, so the first attack against them in most scenarios will have disadvantage
That's just the basic stuff, before you even get into features like Dig Deep at 4th level (barb damage resistance for 10 minutes without even needing to spend a moxie pt) or Haymaker at 5th level (max damage on a hit, and it again doesn't cost a moxie pt -- or rather, it only costs a point on a miss, which is just bafflingly bad design), or any of the other features that pile up damage or make your attacks more effective (all your attacks do Force damage at level 6, better than Rage bonus damage for a minute when Bloodied at level 7, another way to get max damage on a hit at level 9...) -- or any subclass features, for that matter
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Let's just say that the Mizzmage takes forever to come online for most players & campaigns, requires perfect dice rolls, & knowledge of spells that the player has, but the character may not, creating the metagamey element I don't like a character to have in my games.
Honestly, he's got the amount of average damage output downpact. It's not as high as you'd think if you play the whole game RAW. But since very few do, & those who don't have no consistency on how to do so, that results in a LOT of confusion on how the RAW math works. Likewise, a lot of the dice & attacks get eclipsed by other classes later on because the Pugilist doesn't have many features that directly improve upon leveling up compared to 2024 Monk.
You have made your opinion of Cthulhu by Torchlight quite obvious by this point, and your refusal to sincerely engage the content via using the rule(That's only optional because Partnered Content cannot make an official rule) provided regarding casting spells contained within of level 1 or higher that balances those out by having a severe risk to them is well-known by this point. It's also not DM-focused & milquetoast enough for you to allow it. That doesn't make you the vox populi. Likewise, you've indicated that you haven't experienced it except as numbers in a vacuum, especially since you & others have quoted a YouTuber named Insight Check who made a very cancelcore take. & they're not the only media that does this that people cite w/o testing. I am not allowed to state how things can be easily tested due to site policy, &, for legal purposes, do not endorse such means.
Everything is a Fighter or Wizard w/this reductionist logic. Barb? Rage Fighter. Monk? Point Fighter. Ranger? Nature Fighter. Paladin? Holy Fighter. Druid? Nature Wizard. Cleric? Holy Wizard. Sorcerer? Point Wizard. Bard? Inspiration Wizard. Warlock? Pact Wizard. Artificer? Builder Wizard. This has been addressed numerous times.
The creator has answered quite a few, more difficult questions. & he's quite familiar w/these stock criticisms.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Considering you accused me of doing something I didn’t - quote YouTube - it is clear you are not engaging in good faith in this conversation. Nor did I ever claim to be the voice of the people - I don’t care what the people think; if they like it then power to them, but that does not make this class well designed.
This will be my last post responding to you an and really it is more about responding to the very common argument posted above rather than you directly. There is a big difference between “all martial classes are fighters” and what is happening here. Here, the elements Pugilist pulls from other classes are not just the basic concept of “it hits things” but the core elements that make the other classes stand out.
Monk’s core defining element is its ability to land a whole lot of attacks that it can sometimes boost with an ability point system. Pugilist takes both of those and makes them better - better damage dice, same number of attacks, and a point system that is much easier to regain and use (see AntonSirius’ post above for a more detailed breakdown).
Barbarian’s defining feature is their ability to take hits, with their most powerful feature being the ability to half incoming damage from the most common attack types. Pugilist gets a better version of this core Barbarian feature.
The problem is not that Pugilist punches things like a monk or shrugs off damage like a Barbarian - the problem is it does those things via almost the exact same mechanisms as both classes, albeit in a better way. That is bad game design both because it attacks the very things that keep other classes from being “just another fighter” and because it makes players who play those other classes feel bad when they see “oh, you can do my thing that I choose this class to do… you can just do it objectively better.”
Using one mistake to accuse me of bad faith is a heck of a stretch.
In general, tho...From Healing Word in early 2014 to Pugilist now, this whole shebang gets real tired.
I'm allowing Pugilist in my games. Because this doesn't fit my banlist criteria.
If a player w/skin in the martial game comes to me w/any of the concerns raised when a pugilist is in the party after I ask for feedback, then I'll eat my words.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.