Eh, but is is mastery-focused because thats what the archetype is, or just because that's what fighter has to offer?
What people have consistently wanted with their unarmed fighter and str-based monk homebrews is a big, usually not super-armored guy that fights with his fists and relies on high STR rather than the typical monk's quickness and insight. Improvised weapons are often incorporated as well, but they are not the focus of the niche.
I don't think I've ever seen a homebrew version of this archetype that leaned on its ability to cause different effects with different weapons. It's usually about being strong, tough, and physical, which are all things the barbarian exemplifies.
So you're right, a barbarian brawler would be different. What people are saying is that the difference would make it better. It would be more in-line with the class identity and lean more into the aspects that people picture when thinking about the archetye.
Eh, but is is mastery-focused because thats what the archetype is, or just because that's what fighter has to offer?
What people have consistently wanted with their unarmed fighter and str-based monk homebrews is a big, usually not super-armored guy that fights with his fists and relies on high STR rather than the typical monk's quickness and insight. Improvised weapons are often incorporated as well, but they are not the focus of the niche.
I don't think I've ever seen a homebrew version of this archetype that leaned on its ability to cause different effects with different weapons. It's usually about being strong, tough, and physical, which are all things the barbarian exemplifies.
So you're right, a barbarian brawler would be different. What people are saying is that the difference would make it better. It would be more in-line with the class identity and lean more into the aspects that people picture when thinking about the archetye.
It essentially already exists in the Battlerager Barbarian. You just need to remove the silly Dwarf restriction, and separate it from the spiked armour concept.
Eh, but is is mastery-focused because thats what the archetype is, or just because that's what fighter has to offer?
What people have consistently wanted with their unarmed fighter and str-based monk homebrews is a big, usually not super-armored guy that fights with his fists and relies on high STR rather than the typical monk's quickness and insight. Improvised weapons are often incorporated as well, but they are not the focus of the niche.
I don't think I've ever seen a homebrew version of this archetype that leaned on its ability to cause different effects with different weapons. It's usually about being strong, tough, and physical, which are all things the barbarian exemplifies.
So you're right, a barbarian brawler would be different. What people are saying is that the difference would make it better. It would be more in-line with the class identity and lean more into the aspects that people picture when thinking about the archetye.
I think The big issue, is the name. People are looking at this class, and thinking its supposed to represent the weaponless tough strong brute. And its actual focus is an improviser.
But its a solid concept on its own.
Also, people need to realize that feedback in ONEDND is not about what you want, its mostly would you rather have what we present, or would you rather have 5e.
no one is getting a barbarian brawler in exchange for this subclass. Maybe one day they build one, but it has nothing to do with this class existing. (eldritch knight didnt stop bladesinger for example)
You can have this subclass exist, possibly improve, or you can have it not exist, and they use some old existing subclass and copy paste it into the phb.
you can see this with;
ardling (removed)
flex (removed)
spell lists(removed)
etc.
they didnt remix or rework them, they just reveretd or dropped them. There is no ardling, there is no verstaile themed mastery.
The question they are really asking about fighter (brawler) is
A)Should it exist at all
B) how to improve it
you get nothing in exchange for its existence. and if improving it is too hard they get rid of it and you get nothing.
Eh, but is is mastery-focused because thats what the archetype is, or just because that's what fighter has to offer?
What people have consistently wanted with their unarmed fighter and str-based monk homebrews is a big, usually not super-armored guy that fights with his fists and relies on high STR rather than the typical monk's quickness and insight. Improvised weapons are often incorporated as well, but they are not the focus of the niche.
I don't think I've ever seen a homebrew version of this archetype that leaned on its ability to cause different effects with different weapons. It's usually about being strong, tough, and physical, which are all things the barbarian exemplifies.
So you're right, a barbarian brawler would be different. What people are saying is that the difference would make it better. It would be more in-line with the class identity and lean more into the aspects that people picture when thinking about the archetye.
I think The big issue, is the name. People are looking at this class, and thinking its supposed to represent the weaponless tough strong brute. And its actual focus is an improviser.
But its a solid concept on its own.
Also, people need to realize that feedback in ONEDND is not about what you want, its mostly would you rather have what we present, or would you rather have 5e.
no one is getting a barbarian brawler in exchange for this subclass. Maybe one day they build one, but it has nothing to do with this class existing. (eldritch knight didnt stop bladesinger for example)
You can have this subclass exist, possibly improve, or you can have it not exist, and they use some old existing subclass and copy paste it into the phb.
you can see this with;
ardling (removed)
flex (removed)
spell lists(removed)
etc.
they didnt remix or rework them, they just reveretd or dropped them. There is no ardling, there is no verstaile themed mastery.
The question they are really asking about fighter (brawler) is
A)Should it exist at all
B) how to improve it
you get nothing in exchange for its existence. and if improving it is too hard they get rid of it and you get nothing.
I don’t know, if enough people say Barbarian brawler then fighter brawler dies and eventually Barbarian brawler is born. This happened to scroll focused artificer that became order of scribes wizard, scout fighter become scout rogue, monster slayer fighter became a Ranger (which was a waste). personally I prefer brawler as a fighter
It feels like the Brawler requires some clarification of the Improvised Weapon rules. The 2014 rules have a flat 1d4 damage for all IWs, with no reference to size. The Brawler’s level 15 feature increases the damage die to 1d12 for 2-handed IW. However, there’s nothing that defines whether an IW counts as 1- or 2-handed (apart from how the PC chooses to wield it).
The UA1 Tavern Brawler feat includes a feature which enables the PC to use Tiny furniture as clubs and Small/Medium furniture as greatclubs. An extension of the IW rules that takes into account object size could help:
Object Size / Damage / Properties
Tiny 1d4 (nil)
Small 1d8 Two-Handed
Medium 1d8 Two-Handed, Heavy
That would match the Tavern Brawler feature (and add Heavy to allow it to work with PAM and GWM).
There also needs to be some clarification about whether an object which resembles a simple or martial weapon closely enough to be used as such still remains an Improvised Weapon or just switches category.
Addendum:
Just been pondering the damage dice for weapons and, because I like patterns, the following table came to mind:
Weapon: Improvised / Simple / Martial
Light: (nil) / d4* / d6
1-hand: d4 / d6 / d8
2-hand: d6 / d8 / d10
Great: d8 / d10* / d12/2d6
(* the hand axe and the great club are exceptions)
For improvised weapons, the size of the object would correspond to the weapon “weight” as Tiny = 1-hand, Small = 2-hand, Medium = “great” (2-handed and Heavy).
Hit the nail on the head. Talking with my group right now about this. I love this concept but it being tied so closely to a rule (improvised weapons) that is not well laid out is a big issue. They should just have this class have unarmed attacks and improvised weapons be the same damage. one handed punch and one handed improvised weapons do 1d6 for the brawler and 2handed unarmed and 2handed improvised weapons do 1d8.
Hit the nail on the head. Talking with my group right now about this. I love this concept but it being tied so closely to a rule (improvised weapons) that is not well laid out is a big issue. They should just have this class have unarmed attacks and improvised weapons be the same damage. one handed punch and one handed improvised weapons do 1d6 for the brawler and 2handed unarmed and 2handed improvised weapons do 1d8.
That would probably work well and has the virtue of simplicity. I wondered if they wanted Unarmed Strikes to do more damage than Improvised Weapons (similar to how the Monk’s simple weapons no longer use their Martial Arts dice, as the weapon masteries are supposed to balance them against their Unarmed Strikes), but I’m not sure that’s really needed.
Hit the nail on the head. Talking with my group right now about this. I love this concept but it being tied so closely to a rule (improvised weapons) that is not well laid out is a big issue. They should just have this class have unarmed attacks and improvised weapons be the same damage. one handed punch and one handed improvised weapons do 1d6 for the brawler and 2handed unarmed and 2handed improvised weapons do 1d8.
That would probably work well and has the virtue of simplicity. I wondered if they wanted Unarmed Strikes to do more damage than Improvised Weapons (similar to how the Monk’s simple weapons no longer use their Martial Arts dice, as the weapon masteries are supposed to balance them against their Unarmed Strikes), but I’m not sure that’s really needed.
They should make them equal in both cases - both use the same damage and both benefit from masteries. So that it is free choice of the player what they want for their character.
100% this subclass needs either more clear and precise Improvised Weapon rules or to define some damage dice in Improvised Expert. I'm hoping for at least the former as I feel that would be better for the game overall.
Dirty Fighting as it is now is much too situational not to mention it seems like it only focuses on the offensive side of dirty fighting when dirty fighting has a defensive side to it to. My first thought was that the Brawler should get advantage on their attacks when an enemy grapples them, not just when they grapple an enemy. We could maybe follow it up with ignoring the disadvantage on attacks imposed by having the Prone condition or attacking a Prone creature from more than 5 feet away.
Unarmed Specialist at level 18 is... really underwhelming but I don't have any ideas right now on how to improve it. Maybe if Unarmed Strikes had more options than just Damage, Grapple, or Shove but that'd be something better to introduce at earlier levels.
Broken chair leg/Table leg: They also have the capability of doing piercing damage. Usually the broken thing has a blunt end and a kinda pointy or sharp end.
A serving tray can be hurled across a room (frisbee like) and effectively be an edged weapon and thrown.
A Picture in a Frame can be a one use shield and then a net and then a couple of daggers from the broken frame.
I mean, have any of you watched pretty much any early Jason Statham film? Been a while, but I seem to recall the transporter movies basically being all about him using improvised weapons at least during one fight scene.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I mean, have any of you watched pretty much any early Jason Statham film? Been a while, but I seem to recall the transporter movies basically being all about him using improvised weapons at least during one fight scene.
Have you watched pretty much any Jackie Chan film? He uses the entire room in every fight, it's his thing, acrobatics and kung fu with improvised weapons. It would be a perfect monk subclass.
I mean, have any of you watched pretty much any early Jason Statham film? Been a while, but I seem to recall the transporter movies basically being all about him using improvised weapons at least during one fight scene.
Have you watched pretty much any Jackie Chan film? He uses the entire room in every fight, it's his thing, acrobatics and kung fu with improvised weapons. It would be a perfect monk subclass.
I have and agreed.
I am still not on board with the idea of making this a subclass as opposed to just stuff anyone from any class could really get into, but I ain’t on the design team, so meh.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I mean, have any of you watched pretty much any early Jason Statham film? Been a while, but I seem to recall the transporter movies basically being all about him using improvised weapons at least during one fight scene.
Have you watched pretty much any Jackie Chan film? He uses the entire room in every fight, it's his thing, acrobatics and kung fu with improvised weapons. It would be a perfect monk subclass.
That was already covered under the existing setup, as Monks can use their Martial Arts damage die in place of a weapon's damage die if they're proficient. There's a certain degree of "mother may I", but considering there's little difference between the weapon and an unarmed attack, it's not really an issue mechanically to allow.
I mean, have any of you watched pretty much any early Jason Statham film? Been a while, but I seem to recall the transporter movies basically being all about him using improvised weapons at least during one fight scene.
Have you watched pretty much any Jackie Chan film? He uses the entire room in every fight, it's his thing, acrobatics and kung fu with improvised weapons. It would be a perfect monk subclass.
In many probably most Jackie Chan movies he isn’t a monk. He is closer to a fighter with unarmed fighting style and tavern brawler. There is no ki, Magic or mysticism in most of his movies.
I mean, have any of you watched pretty much any early Jason Statham film? Been a while, but I seem to recall the transporter movies basically being all about him using improvised weapons at least during one fight scene.
Have you watched pretty much any Jackie Chan film? He uses the entire room in every fight, it's his thing, acrobatics and kung fu with improvised weapons. It would be a perfect monk subclass.
In many probably most Jackie Chan movies he isn’t a monk. He is closer to a fighter with unarmed fighting style and tavern brawler. There is no ki, Magic or mysticism in most of his movies.
I mean, have any of you watched pretty much any early Jason Statham film? Been a while, but I seem to recall the transporter movies basically being all about him using improvised weapons at least during one fight scene.
Have you watched pretty much any Jackie Chan film? He uses the entire room in every fight, it's his thing, acrobatics and kung fu with improvised weapons. It would be a perfect monk subclass.
That was already covered under the existing setup, as Monks can use their Martial Arts damage die in place of a weapon's damage die if they're proficient. There's a certain degree of "mother may I", but considering there's little difference between the weapon and an unarmed attack, it's not really an issue mechanically to allow.
Gwar1. Check out the monk thread. I have a question for you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That was already covered under the existing setup, as Monks can use their Martial Arts damage die in place of a weapon's damage die if they're proficient. There's a certain degree of "mother may I", but considering there's little difference between the weapon and an unarmed attack, it's not really an issue mechanically to allow.
It wasn't stated anywhere explicitly that monks were proficient with improvised weapons, or could use them as monk weapons, with Dex. This however could be used as a way for monk to gain access to different weapon properties like reach, thrown, and various masteries. Martial arts scaling dice resolve the problem with improvised weapon damage.
In many probably most Jackie Chan movies he isn’t a monk. He is closer to a fighter with unarmed fighting style and tavern brawler. There is no ki, Magic or mysticism in most of his movies.
Real life shaolin monks also don't use magic. And neither did actual real life paladins, in DnD terms they were just fighters with knight background. Your point?
How do people interpret the current rules for throwing improvised weapons? The PHB has “If a character…throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon had a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.”
The Brawler’s Improvised Expert feature allows you to add the light or thrown (range 20/60 ft) properties to 1-handed improvised weapons and reach (10 ft) or thrown (10/30) to 2-handed. As far as I can tell, choosing the thrown property only has a benefit at level 15 when your 2H IWs gain a d12 damage die.
I've been going over this a lot with my group. I think they either accidently left out new base rules for Improvised Weapons or they haven't finished them. Because is we keep with the 2104 rules its very muddy. I think there are new rules because the keep capitalizing Improvised Weapons in the Brawler text. I also think the Tavern Brawler feat is from the early playtest will also undergo a rework it mentions rules for furniture which are oddly similar to what they are talking about under Improvised Expert at lvl 3.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Eh, but is is mastery-focused because thats what the archetype is, or just because that's what fighter has to offer?
What people have consistently wanted with their unarmed fighter and str-based monk homebrews is a big, usually not super-armored guy that fights with his fists and relies on high STR rather than the typical monk's quickness and insight. Improvised weapons are often incorporated as well, but they are not the focus of the niche.
I don't think I've ever seen a homebrew version of this archetype that leaned on its ability to cause different effects with different weapons. It's usually about being strong, tough, and physical, which are all things the barbarian exemplifies.
So you're right, a barbarian brawler would be different. What people are saying is that the difference would make it better. It would be more in-line with the class identity and lean more into the aspects that people picture when thinking about the archetye.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It essentially already exists in the Battlerager Barbarian. You just need to remove the silly Dwarf restriction, and separate it from the spiked armour concept.
I think The big issue, is the name. People are looking at this class, and thinking its supposed to represent the weaponless tough strong brute. And its actual focus is an improviser.
But its a solid concept on its own.
Also, people need to realize that feedback in ONEDND is not about what you want, its mostly would you rather have what we present, or would you rather have 5e.
no one is getting a barbarian brawler in exchange for this subclass. Maybe one day they build one, but it has nothing to do with this class existing. (eldritch knight didnt stop bladesinger for example)
You can have this subclass exist, possibly improve, or you can have it not exist, and they use some old existing subclass and copy paste it into the phb.
you can see this with;
ardling (removed)
flex (removed)
spell lists(removed)
etc.
they didnt remix or rework them, they just reveretd or dropped them. There is no ardling, there is no verstaile themed mastery.
The question they are really asking about fighter (brawler) is
A)Should it exist at all
B) how to improve it
you get nothing in exchange for its existence. and if improving it is too hard they get rid of it and you get nothing.
I don’t know, if enough people say Barbarian brawler then fighter brawler dies and eventually Barbarian brawler is born. This happened to scroll focused artificer that became order of scribes wizard, scout fighter become scout rogue, monster slayer fighter became a Ranger (which was a waste).
personally I prefer brawler as a fighter
It feels like the Brawler requires some clarification of the Improvised Weapon rules. The 2014 rules have a flat 1d4 damage for all IWs, with no reference to size. The Brawler’s level 15 feature increases the damage die to 1d12 for 2-handed IW. However, there’s nothing that defines whether an IW counts as 1- or 2-handed (apart from how the PC chooses to wield it).
The UA1 Tavern Brawler feat includes a feature which enables the PC to use Tiny furniture as clubs and Small/Medium furniture as greatclubs. An extension of the IW rules that takes into account object size could help:
Object Size / Damage / Properties
Tiny 1d4 (nil)
Small 1d8 Two-Handed
Medium 1d8 Two-Handed, Heavy
That would match the Tavern Brawler feature (and add Heavy to allow it to work with PAM and GWM).
There also needs to be some clarification about whether an object which resembles a simple or martial weapon closely enough to be used as such still remains an Improvised Weapon or just switches category.
Addendum:
Just been pondering the damage dice for weapons and, because I like patterns, the following table came to mind:
Weapon: Improvised / Simple / Martial
Light: (nil) / d4* / d6
1-hand: d4 / d6 / d8
2-hand: d6 / d8 / d10
Great: d8 / d10* / d12/2d6
(* the hand axe and the great club are exceptions)
For improvised weapons, the size of the object would correspond to the weapon “weight” as Tiny = 1-hand, Small = 2-hand, Medium = “great” (2-handed and Heavy).
Hit the nail on the head. Talking with my group right now about this. I love this concept but it being tied so closely to a rule (improvised weapons) that is not well laid out is a big issue. They should just have this class have unarmed attacks and improvised weapons be the same damage. one handed punch and one handed improvised weapons do 1d6 for the brawler and 2handed unarmed and 2handed improvised weapons do 1d8.
That would probably work well and has the virtue of simplicity. I wondered if they wanted Unarmed Strikes to do more damage than Improvised Weapons (similar to how the Monk’s simple weapons no longer use their Martial Arts dice, as the weapon masteries are supposed to balance them against their Unarmed Strikes), but I’m not sure that’s really needed.
They should make them equal in both cases - both use the same damage and both benefit from masteries. So that it is free choice of the player what they want for their character.
100% this subclass needs either more clear and precise Improvised Weapon rules or to define some damage dice in Improvised Expert. I'm hoping for at least the former as I feel that would be better for the game overall.
Dirty Fighting as it is now is much too situational not to mention it seems like it only focuses on the offensive side of dirty fighting when dirty fighting has a defensive side to it to. My first thought was that the Brawler should get advantage on their attacks when an enemy grapples them, not just when they grapple an enemy. We could maybe follow it up with ignoring the disadvantage on attacks imposed by having the Prone condition or attacking a Prone creature from more than 5 feet away.
Unarmed Specialist at level 18 is... really underwhelming but I don't have any ideas right now on how to improve it. Maybe if Unarmed Strikes had more options than just Damage, Grapple, or Shove but that'd be something better to introduce at earlier levels.
Additional notes to the list from AgileMind:
Broken chair leg/Table leg: They also have the capability of doing piercing damage. Usually the broken thing has a blunt end and a kinda pointy or sharp end.
A serving tray can be hurled across a room (frisbee like) and effectively be an edged weapon and thrown.
A Picture in a Frame can be a one use shield and then a net and then a couple of daggers from the broken frame.
I mean, have any of you watched pretty much any early Jason Statham film? Been a while, but I seem to recall the transporter movies basically being all about him using improvised weapons at least during one fight scene.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Have you watched pretty much any Jackie Chan film? He uses the entire room in every fight, it's his thing, acrobatics and kung fu with improvised weapons. It would be a perfect monk subclass.
I have and agreed.
I am still not on board with the idea of making this a subclass as opposed to just stuff anyone from any class could really get into, but I ain’t on the design team, so meh.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That was already covered under the existing setup, as Monks can use their Martial Arts damage die in place of a weapon's damage die if they're proficient. There's a certain degree of "mother may I", but considering there's little difference between the weapon and an unarmed attack, it's not really an issue mechanically to allow.
In many probably most Jackie Chan movies he isn’t a monk. He is closer to a fighter with unarmed fighting style and tavern brawler. There is no ki, Magic or mysticism in most of his movies.
but thats gone now...
Gwar1. Check out the monk thread. I have a question for you.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The problem with relying on an improvised weapon being similar to x-weapon for a new damage dice is it still make it a dm dependent feature.
Removing dm dependent features has been a design goal of this new system. I tend to agree.
It wasn't stated anywhere explicitly that monks were proficient with improvised weapons, or could use them as monk weapons, with Dex. This however could be used as a way for monk to gain access to different weapon properties like reach, thrown, and various masteries. Martial arts scaling dice resolve the problem with improvised weapon damage.
Real life shaolin monks also don't use magic. And neither did actual real life paladins, in DnD terms they were just fighters with knight background. Your point?
How do people interpret the current rules for throwing improvised weapons? The PHB has “If a character…throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon had a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.”
The Brawler’s Improvised Expert feature allows you to add the light or thrown (range 20/60 ft) properties to 1-handed improvised weapons and reach (10 ft) or thrown (10/30) to 2-handed. As far as I can tell, choosing the thrown property only has a benefit at level 15 when your 2H IWs gain a d12 damage die.
Am I missing something here?
I've been going over this a lot with my group. I think they either accidently left out new base rules for Improvised Weapons or they haven't finished them. Because is we keep with the 2104 rules its very muddy. I think there are new rules because the keep capitalizing Improvised Weapons in the Brawler text. I also think the Tavern Brawler feat is from the early playtest will also undergo a rework it mentions rules for furniture which are oddly similar to what they are talking about under Improvised Expert at lvl 3.