I've been playing a Brute for a year and a half now, from levels 1 to 16. I think it's exactly what it should be. It is the Berserker equivalent of the fighter class, which is what the Champion was supposed to be.
Throughout this level range, damage-per-hit is within 1-2 points of a Berserker. The Berserker gets Frenzy and Retaliation earlier than the Brute gets extra attacks, but the Brute's extra attacks are more reliable when they get them and have Action Surge.
The Brute in general has better saves (+1d6 & Indomitable vs. advantage on DEX saves), but the Berserker has resistance and more HP. The additional use of Brutish Durability for Death Saves is more for fun/rp/ego than actual character strength. I've used it to advantage twice, and neither time has it been the difference between life or death: the party would have healed me anyway.
At level 20 I'll get that 4th attack, but the Berserker gets +2 to hit, damage, AC, STR and CON saves/ability checks, and 40 extra HP. The Brute's damage output is more reliable and can be spiked with Action Surge, while the Berserker most rounds will do equal damage with Frenzy and Retaliation. Toe-to-toe, the Berserker always wins because of the resistance. Side-by-side, the Brute will do a little more damage over his lifetime but is noticeably less durable.
You can only say the Brute is OP if you also think the Berserker is OP. These two subclasses couldn't be more the same while still being completely different, and as such I think it's perfectly balanced.
I love the brute, I'm saddened that it will likely never become official and make it out of play testing. Even worse, that that means it will be removed from this site.
I love the brute, I'm saddened that it will likely never become official and make it out of play testing. Even worse, that that means it will be removed from this site.
at least you could homebrew it on here and still use it.
I am just putting a brute together and I find the higher average damage and good durability of a brute fighter leaves me to make more thematic choices with my extra feats the fighter gets. Thus while a player might lean towards all combat feats and Max strength, the brute also makes some of those feat slots available to the skilled or similar feats since the average damage is already enhanced. Compared to other fighter archetypes that make me feel that if I do not optimize my every feat selection I will lag behind my fellow party members, the brute gives me a simple archetype that I can grant other odd abilities with feats to improve flavor.
This makes the brute a very valuable addition to the rules. As the champion falls short of the capable base class which would allow feats to be selected for variety and branching the character out in unique and interesting ways. The brute provides good saves, and good reliable damage without sinking all the feat selections into just buffing the character's damage quality.
I'm currently using brute fighter to make hitting people with chairs as a tavern brawler more viable. 1 Level rogue and 1 level barbarian, brute rest of the way.
I think that the brute should not favor dual-wielding, which it currently does. That is definitely a thematic design conflict. I realize that you could make it a two hand axe wielding viking type character, but that should in no way be better than a two handed great axe wielding hulk. If they want to make a better dual-wielding fighter, they should make a different archetype for it.
The brute force feature should be changed to only apply to strength based attacks that have the thrown or two-handed attribute.
Also, the additional fighting style implies more training and skill, this makes no sense thematically either. It should be removed and replaced with an out of combat RP supporting feature, like a bonus to intimidation checks, advantage on strength checks to break inanimate objects like locks and doors, or something like that.
Other than these few things the brute is a neat archetype, and should be published. They should have just taken better care when designing the champion since they can't very well patch it now.
I think that the brute should not favor dual-wielding, which it currently does. That is definitely a thematic design conflict. I realize that you could make it a two hand axe wielding viking type character, but that should in no way be better than a two handed great axe wielding hulk. If they want to make a better dual-wielding fighter, they should make a different archetype for it.
The brute force feature should be changed to only apply to strength based attacks that have the thrown or two-handed attribute.
Also, the additional fighting style implies more training and skill, this makes no sense thematically either. It should be removed and replaced with an out of combat RP supporting feature, like a bonus to intimidation checks, advantage on strength checks to break inanimate objects like locks and doors, or something like that.
Other than these few things the brute is a neat archetype, and should be published. They should have just taken better care when designing the champion since they can't very well patch it now.
Maybe instead of the additional fighting style at 10th level, you can make this a true Brute/Tank/Champion and make 19 or 20 a Critical hit.
I also feel the extra 1d6 to Saving Throws should be reduced to a 1d4.
"The brute force feature should be changed to only apply to strength based attacks that have the thrown or two-handed attribute": I totally agree 100% with that idea. Archers should not benefit from Brute Force.
One thing I will mention about the Fighter class in general that I don't agree with, and that is Action Surge at 2nd level. Action Surge is so OP in 5e, and to allow it at such a low level almost makes it a requirement for any character to multiclass at least two levels of Fighter. This is a 15th level feature in my opinion, but at 2nd level makes it way too accessible for any 5e class to take.
Mechanically there's nothing wrong with the DW and archers benefitting from brute force. People get too caught up on the names and flavor text. DW arguably need the help more than other types of fighters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think that the brute should not favor dual-wielding, which it currently does. That is definitely a thematic design conflict. I realize that you could make it a two hand axe wielding viking type character, but that should in no way be better than a two handed great axe wielding hulk. If they want to make a better dual-wielding fighter, they should make a different archetype for it.
The brute force feature should be changed to only apply to strength based attacks that have the thrown or two-handed attribute.
Also, the additional fighting style implies more training and skill, this makes no sense thematically either. It should be removed and replaced with an out of combat RP supporting feature, like a bonus to intimidation checks, advantage on strength checks to break inanimate objects like locks and doors, or something like that.
Other than these few things the brute is a neat archetype, and should be published. They should have just taken better care when designing the champion since they can't very well patch it now.
Maybe instead of the additional fighting style at 10th level, you can make this a true Brute/Tank/Champion and make 19 or 20 a Critical hit.
I also feel the extra 1d6 to Saving Throws should be reduced to a 1d4.
"The brute force feature should be changed to only apply to strength based attacks that have the thrown or two-handed attribute": I totally agree 100% with that idea. Archers should not benefit from Brute Force.
One thing I will mention about the Fighter class in general that I don't agree with, and that is Action Surge at 2nd level. Action Surge is so OP in 5e, and to allow it at such a low level almost makes it a requirement for any character to multiclass at least two levels of Fighter. This is a 15th level feature in my opinion, but at 2nd level makes it way too accessible for any 5e class to take.
actually funny enough real life archery is more about strength and stamina then anything to do with dexterity. this is because depending on the bows draw weight which could be up to 60ish -185ish and you needed to be strength to pull those. kinda reminds me of the test from the Odyssey
"Penelope maneuvers the Suitors into competing for her hand with an archery competition using Odysseus' bow. The man who can string the bow and shoot an arrow through a dozen axe heads would win. Odysseus takes part in the competition himself: he alone is strong enough to string the bow and shoot the arrow through the dozen axe heads, making him the winner. "
his bow was most likely had a high draw weight probably around 150 or higher among other things; this is one of the reasons why crossbows were popular they were easy to use and very accurate even for a novice. bow require years of training with a bow to build up the muscle ect.
So from a realism point of view it make sense a brute fighter is simply using a more powerful bow then what you average hunter or rogue may be using possibly simply because using that bow while still possible would exhaust them within a few shots if they could pull it at all. good opportunity for a bit of role play maybe between him and his fellow bowmen in the party.
And now think about someone pulling back that string dozens of times in a row, jeebus what a workout.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
To be honest, my main issue with the Brute is that it encroaches too much on the Champion, which I think is an excellent archetype.
Yeah I think that is a lot of the complaints around it. I think it does champion better than champion IMO. Its what champion should have been. Its ultimately a fairly selfish subclass as the vast majority of the class is about your DPR and ability to survive. Which a gladiator champion would be about.
I like the subclass due to the simplicity and the idea of getting back up a lot from getting beat down is flavorful very enticing to me.
A lot of folks dislike the champion though. Also, this makes DW look much more efficient. Of course PAM benefits very much as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
The issue with the Brute - beyond it basically being a 5.5e rejigger of the Champion - is that it's encroaching way too heavily on the territory of the barbarian. The fighter is supposed to be a skilled, disciplined master-at-arms; the barbarian is the primal fury-driven fighter than relies on power over finesse. This Brute thing offers more bonus damage than barbaric rage, an absolutely gobshyte turbo-bonus to saving throws that makes death saves a snap, and Wolverine regen. It discards the fighter's ideals of skill and martial master in exchange for raw force and fortitude - which is the barbarian's schtick.
The Champion was supposed to be a peerless athlete, as skilled in noncombat physicality as they were in combat physicality. That...didn't go through as much as they'd hoped, but it's still a worthwhile niche. The Brute simply feels like "I want to play a barbarian, but I'd like all the cool shit fighters get in addition to being a barbarian, please."
i personally dont get the whole class encroachment argument im just happy to have an option that doesn't involve the whole rage thing. and imo the true hallmark of the barbarian is its dmg absorption anyway.
i personally dont get the whole class encroachment argument im just happy to have an option that doesn't involve the whole rage thing. and imo the true hallmark of the barbarian is its dmg absorption anyway.
I agree. See post #5 for my points on why I think this is not really barbarian territory but it is "simiple" which I think barbarian gets lumped into a bit too much. They may not have as complicated mechanics as some classes but they have their depth when needed.
Also yeah barb (outside of zealot which is DPR machine) is more designed as a tank.
Saying "barbarians are the resistance guys, they don't need anything else" is kinda like saying "fighters are the multiattack guys, they don't need anything else". There's more to the barbarian class than its rage resistance, especially when one remembers that no, not every barbarian in the world is a Bear Totem cheesepillar. Barbarians are supposed to be the go-to class for players wanting to play a powerful, primal Strong Man whose muscles do their talking and prize power and ferocity over technique and training.
This 'Brute' stomps all over that archetype and says "HEY! Wouldn't you rather be a fighter instead, get better class features and a ton of bonus ASIs as well as doing more damage, having better AC, and being stupid good at making all those saving throws that always make barbarian players cry?"
If they want to do a 5.5e redux of the Champion, they should release 5.5e already. The Brute should not be getting better bonus Rage damage, better Danger Sense, and Wolverine Super Regen. I'd look more at the sort of things they did with Oath of Heroism instead, if they wanted to push the Champion as "the peerless master of physical training and athleticism."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been playing a Brute for a year and a half now, from levels 1 to 16. I think it's exactly what it should be. It is the Berserker equivalent of the fighter class, which is what the Champion was supposed to be.
Throughout this level range, damage-per-hit is within 1-2 points of a Berserker. The Berserker gets Frenzy and Retaliation earlier than the Brute gets extra attacks, but the Brute's extra attacks are more reliable when they get them and have Action Surge.
The Brute in general has better saves (+1d6 & Indomitable vs. advantage on DEX saves), but the Berserker has resistance and more HP. The additional use of Brutish Durability for Death Saves is more for fun/rp/ego than actual character strength. I've used it to advantage twice, and neither time has it been the difference between life or death: the party would have healed me anyway.
At level 20 I'll get that 4th attack, but the Berserker gets +2 to hit, damage, AC, STR and CON saves/ability checks, and 40 extra HP. The Brute's damage output is more reliable and can be spiked with Action Surge, while the Berserker most rounds will do equal damage with Frenzy and Retaliation. Toe-to-toe, the Berserker always wins because of the resistance. Side-by-side, the Brute will do a little more damage over his lifetime but is noticeably less durable.
You can only say the Brute is OP if you also think the Berserker is OP. These two subclasses couldn't be more the same while still being completely different, and as such I think it's perfectly balanced.
I love the brute, I'm saddened that it will likely never become official and make it out of play testing. Even worse, that that means it will be removed from this site.
at least you could homebrew it on here and still use it.
Did I miss something? Are they taking UA off the site? I use them all the time in my character builds
I am just putting a brute together and I find the higher average damage and good durability of a brute fighter leaves me to make more thematic choices with my extra feats the fighter gets. Thus while a player might lean towards all combat feats and Max strength, the brute also makes some of those feat slots available to the skilled or similar feats since the average damage is already enhanced. Compared to other fighter archetypes that make me feel that if I do not optimize my every feat selection I will lag behind my fellow party members, the brute gives me a simple archetype that I can grant other odd abilities with feats to improve flavor.
This makes the brute a very valuable addition to the rules. As the champion falls short of the capable base class which would allow feats to be selected for variety and branching the character out in unique and interesting ways. The brute provides good saves, and good reliable damage without sinking all the feat selections into just buffing the character's damage quality.
I'm currently using brute fighter to make hitting people with chairs as a tavern brawler more viable. 1 Level rogue and 1 level barbarian, brute rest of the way.
I think that the brute should not favor dual-wielding, which it currently does. That is definitely a thematic design conflict. I realize that you could make it a two hand axe wielding viking type character, but that should in no way be better than a two handed great axe wielding hulk. If they want to make a better dual-wielding fighter, they should make a different archetype for it.
The brute force feature should be changed to only apply to strength based attacks that have the thrown or two-handed attribute.
Also, the additional fighting style implies more training and skill, this makes no sense thematically either. It should be removed and replaced with an out of combat RP supporting feature, like a bonus to intimidation checks, advantage on strength checks to break inanimate objects like locks and doors, or something like that.
Other than these few things the brute is a neat archetype, and should be published. They should have just taken better care when designing the champion since they can't very well patch it now.
I like your alteration ideas.
Maybe instead of the additional fighting style at 10th level, you can make this a true Brute/Tank/Champion and make 19 or 20 a Critical hit.
I also feel the extra 1d6 to Saving Throws should be reduced to a 1d4.
"The brute force feature should be changed to only apply to strength based attacks that have the thrown or two-handed attribute": I totally agree 100% with that idea. Archers should not benefit from Brute Force.
One thing I will mention about the Fighter class in general that I don't agree with, and that is Action Surge at 2nd level. Action Surge is so OP in 5e, and to allow it at such a low level almost makes it a requirement for any character to multiclass at least two levels of Fighter. This is a 15th level feature in my opinion, but at 2nd level makes it way too accessible for any 5e class to take.
If you want sugar coating, go buy a dessert....
Mechanically there's nothing wrong with the DW and archers benefitting from brute force. People get too caught up on the names and flavor text. DW arguably need the help more than other types of fighters.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
actually funny enough real life archery is more about strength and stamina then anything to do with dexterity. this is because depending on the bows draw weight which could be up to 60ish -185ish and you needed to be strength to pull those. kinda reminds me of the test from the Odyssey
"Penelope maneuvers the Suitors into competing for her hand with an archery competition using Odysseus' bow. The man who can string the bow and shoot an arrow through a dozen axe heads would win. Odysseus takes part in the competition himself: he alone is strong enough to string the bow and shoot the arrow through the dozen axe heads, making him the winner. "
his bow was most likely had a high draw weight probably around 150 or higher among other things; this is one of the reasons why crossbows were popular they were easy to use and very accurate even for a novice. bow require years of training with a bow to build up the muscle ect.
So from a realism point of view it make sense a brute fighter is simply using a more powerful bow then what you average hunter or rogue may be using possibly simply because using that bow while still possible would exhaust them within a few shots if they could pull it at all. good opportunity for a bit of role play maybe between him and his fellow bowmen in the party.
And now think about someone pulling back that string dozens of times in a row, jeebus what a workout.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
To be honest, my main issue with the Brute is that it encroaches too much on the Champion, which I think is an excellent archetype.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Yeah I think that is a lot of the complaints around it. I think it does champion better than champion IMO. Its what champion should have been. Its ultimately a fairly selfish subclass as the vast majority of the class is about your DPR and ability to survive. Which a gladiator champion would be about.
I like the subclass due to the simplicity and the idea of getting back up a lot from getting beat down is flavorful very enticing to me.
Like Rocky getting up "I didnt hear no bell"
A lot of folks dislike the champion though. Also, this makes DW look much more efficient. Of course PAM benefits very much as well.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Very much agree.
Honestly I would love to see this come out officially but its looking doubtful.
The issue with the Brute - beyond it basically being a 5.5e rejigger of the Champion - is that it's encroaching way too heavily on the territory of the barbarian. The fighter is supposed to be a skilled, disciplined master-at-arms; the barbarian is the primal fury-driven fighter than relies on power over finesse. This Brute thing offers more bonus damage than barbaric rage, an absolutely gobshyte turbo-bonus to saving throws that makes death saves a snap, and Wolverine regen. It discards the fighter's ideals of skill and martial master in exchange for raw force and fortitude - which is the barbarian's schtick.
The Champion was supposed to be a peerless athlete, as skilled in noncombat physicality as they were in combat physicality. That...didn't go through as much as they'd hoped, but it's still a worthwhile niche. The Brute simply feels like "I want to play a barbarian, but I'd like all the cool shit fighters get in addition to being a barbarian, please."
Please do not contact or message me.
i personally dont get the whole class encroachment argument im just happy to have an option that doesn't involve the whole rage thing. and imo the true hallmark of the barbarian is its dmg absorption anyway.
I agree. See post #5 for my points on why I think this is not really barbarian territory but it is "simiple" which I think barbarian gets lumped into a bit too much. They may not have as complicated mechanics as some classes but they have their depth when needed.
Also yeah barb (outside of zealot which is DPR machine) is more designed as a tank.
Saying "barbarians are the resistance guys, they don't need anything else" is kinda like saying "fighters are the multiattack guys, they don't need anything else". There's more to the barbarian class than its rage resistance, especially when one remembers that no, not every barbarian in the world is a Bear Totem cheesepillar. Barbarians are supposed to be the go-to class for players wanting to play a powerful, primal Strong Man whose muscles do their talking and prize power and ferocity over technique and training.
This 'Brute' stomps all over that archetype and says "HEY! Wouldn't you rather be a fighter instead, get better class features and a ton of bonus ASIs as well as doing more damage, having better AC, and being stupid good at making all those saving throws that always make barbarian players cry?"
If they want to do a 5.5e redux of the Champion, they should release 5.5e already. The Brute should not be getting better bonus Rage damage, better Danger Sense, and Wolverine Super Regen. I'd look more at the sort of things they did with Oath of Heroism instead, if they wanted to push the Champion as "the peerless master of physical training and athleticism."
Please do not contact or message me.