Well. Looks like Brawler got less than 70% so instead of revising it, it is being shelved. That’s sad. (Around the 23 minute mark)
What did they expect when they basically mashed the Grappler feat, Tavern Brawler feat and the Unarmed fighting style together and called it a subclass
It could have easily been cleaned up. So disappointed in the community. Was really looking forward to it.
Same here. It could have been an interesting subclass that didn’t step on monks toes, especially if they did something interesting with the monk revision. But they put very little effort into Brawler and the results reflected it.
Don't disagree. The idea it steps on the toes of monk is ridiculous. Following that logic ranger and paladin step on druid and cleric toes. They could have easily cleaned this up into a proper subclass. The bones were there.
I can see both sides of it; honestly, I was hoping it’d stick just to get rid of the complaints about not being able to have a Monk in plate with a shield.
Definitely saw that one coming, though it is disappointing. Many monk players took extreme offense to it simply existing at all. I did like the idea, but it needed work. As it existed, there was little incentive to use the features over simply using normal equipment like a +1 sword. The concept marked the first time I ever was interested in fighter though. Probably the last time too.
It’s an okay concept, but really difficult to execute properly. Now the question is what fighter will take its place? Unless they surprise us with a Fighter in the next UA it is likely to be something that is already rated highly. While I would love an Arcane Archer rework, it will probably Rune Knight since that subclass was well received.
Definitely saw that one coming, though it is disappointing. Many monk players took extreme offense to it simply existing at all. I did like the idea, but it needed work. As it existed, there was little incentive to use the features over simply using normal equipment like a +1 sword. The concept marked the first time I ever was interested in fighter though. Probably the last time too.
I'm a heavy monk guy, and realistically it was less of toe stepper than dancer. In fact its unarmed stuff was really only useful for punch and grab with the grappler feat. It definitely needed work, but i would rather have had a new subclass like brawler but tweaked than them importing some premade subclass from another book.
just lost a new decent subclass, and will instead get nothing new.
I don't think Brawler stepped on Monk's toes at all, quite the opposite. I saw it as worse in every way than an unarmed Battlemaster Fighter or unarmed Wildheart/Berserker Barb would have been.
Wildheart + Tavern Brawler + Grappler eats its lunch completely. Constant Advantage + Expertise in Athletics, can go naked, can attack and grapple with the same action, can move full speed while grappling, can use a shield, rage damage bonus overtakes the damage die increase... and it gets all of this by level 6.
I don't think Brawler stepped on Monk's toes at all, quite the opposite. I saw it as worse in every way than an unarmed Battlemaster Fighter or unarmed Wildheart/Berserker Barb would have been.
Wildheart + Tavern Brawler + Grappler eats its lunch completely. Constant Advantage + Expertise in Athletics, can go naked, can attack and grapple with the same action, can move full speed while grappling, can use a shield, rage damage bonus overtakes the damage die increase... and it gets all of this by level 6.
From what I saw here on the forums, it was less about it being a strong subclass (which was definitely the dancing bard complaint), and more about how dare they make a strength based, armored, unarmed fighter, something people have wanted for monk for ages, while monk was still a mess.
Definitely saw that one coming, though it is disappointing. Many monk players took extreme offense to it simply existing at all. I did like the idea, but it needed work. As it existed, there was little incentive to use the features over simply using normal equipment like a +1 sword. The concept marked the first time I ever was interested in fighter though. Probably the last time too.
I'm a heavy monk guy, and realistically it was less of toe stepper than dancer. In fact its unarmed stuff was really only useful for punch and grab with the grappler feat. It definitely needed work, but i would rather have had a new subclass like brawler but tweaked than them importing some premade subclass from another book.
just lost a new decent subclass, and will instead get nothing new.
Agreed, Fighter is already in bad shape when it comes to subclasses. Rune Knight is really the only star out of the whole lot of them, and some of them are just terrible.
It’s an okay concept, but really difficult to execute properly. Now the question is what fighter will take its place? Unless they surprise us with a Fighter in the next UA it is likely to be something that is already rated highly. While I would love an Arcane Archer rework, it will probably Rune Knight since that subclass was well received.
I would love to see an improved arcane archer but I feel like people would say it’s stepping on the ranger.
Part of the problem with coming up with new fighter subclasses is that for most mundane concepts you have to look at them and ask "Can't I just do that with a battlemaster?" In some cases the answer is "No because that maneuver is terrible" (for example, you can do a 4e Warlord by taking Commander's Strike and Rally, but you probably don't want to) but, rather than a new subclass, they could just fix the maneuver.
I would say the most visible mundane holes in the 5e fighter are the leadership specialist (it exists for NPCs; see the knight) and actual tanking builds (beyond taking sentinel mastery).
From what I saw here on the forums, it was less about it being a strong subclass (which was definitely the dancing bard complaint), and more about how dare they make a strength based, armored, unarmed fighter, something people have wanted for monk for ages, while monk was still a mess.
Killing Brawler didn't kill Str-based armored unarmed fighter though, it just means that people will be using Champion or BM for that instead. Brawler wasn't just weak in execution, it was a weak concept from the outset; imo it was dead the moment they made Tavern Brawler available for everyone at level 1.
The one niche it could have had, magical unarmed strikes to keep up with Monk, will be rendered moot by magic fists in the DMG anyway (common or uncommon ones too, I bet.)
It definitely needed work, but i would rather have had a new subclass like brawler but tweaked than them importing some premade subclass from another book.
just lost a new decent subclass, and will instead get nothing new.
My bet is on either Arcane Archer or Psi Warrior; each is a thematic counterpart to Eldritch Knight in its own way.
I just didn't see the point in it being a sub-class when feats did the same thing but better, because you can combine them with other, better sub-classes to create a Fighter who can actually do more than just forego regular weapons. All they need to do is improve the feats slightly, because Fighters can pick them up pretty easily, especially if one or both of them are options for 1st-level feats.
While I guess they could have made something interesting if they really put some effort into it, and distinguished it from Monk by also making a good Monk update, they instead made really lacklustre versions of both. If one has to die so that the other can live, it's going to have to be the Brawler sub-class because was anyone even really asking for one when Fighters can already brawl pretty well in 5e?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I don't think Brawler stepped on Monk's toes at all, quite the opposite. I saw it as worse in every way than an unarmed Battlemaster Fighter or unarmed Wildheart/Berserker Barb would have been.
Wildheart + Tavern Brawler + Grappler eats its lunch completely. Constant Advantage + Expertise in Athletics, can go naked, can attack and grapple with the same action, can move full speed while grappling, can use a shield, rage damage bonus overtakes the damage die increase... and it gets all of this by level 6.
It was strong with improvised weapons, that was its actual shtick, and it had the most mastery, and mastery options per swing. the grappling and unarmed was just to make them capable with every type of martial attack in game. It would be weird to have an Improvised master who couldnt do ok unarmed damage. (if i pick up this chicken wing i can do d4, but my unarmed is d0?)
they executed it poorly because improvised weapon rules are not well understood.
From what I saw here on the forums, it was less about it being a strong subclass (which was definitely the dancing bard complaint), and more about how dare they make a strength based, armored, unarmed fighter, something people have wanted for monk for ages, while monk was still a mess.
Killing Brawler didn't kill Str-based armored unarmed fighter though, it just means that people will be using Champion or BM for that instead. Brawler wasn't just weak in execution, it was a weak concept from the outset; imo it was dead the moment they made Tavern Brawler available for everyone at level 1.
The one niche it could have had, magical unarmed strikes to keep up with Monk, will be rendered moot by magic fists in the DMG anyway (common or uncommon ones too, I bet.)
It definitely needed work, but i would rather have had a new subclass like brawler but tweaked than them importing some premade subclass from another book.
just lost a new decent subclass, and will instead get nothing new.
My bet is on either Arcane Archer or Psi Warrior; each is a thematic counterpart to Eldritch Knight in its own way.
i have zero excitement for an import to an already existing subclass. it already existed. i wasnt excited to see mercy monk on the class list, not because its a bad sub, but because i already have access to mercy monk.
Rework could theoretically be entertaining, (though personally arcane archer does nothing for me) but they arent going to do a rework, they said that 9 classes are done in UA. and the final form will be some mix of 2014 and the UAs. The only classes they are possibly changing in new ways is barbarian, monk, and druid. This means whatever subclass they choose will have no material changes.
I just didn't see the point in it being a sub-class when feats did the same thing but better, because you can combine them with other, better sub-classes to creator a Fighter who can actually do more than just forego regular weapons. All they need to do is improve the feats slightly, because Fighters can pick them up pretty easily, especially if one or both of them are options for 1st-level feats.
While I guess they could have made something interesting if they really put some effort into it, and distinguished it from Monk by also making a good Monk update, they instead made really lacklustre versions of both. If one has to die so that the other can live, it's going to have to be the Brawler sub-class because was anyone even really asking for one when Fighters can already brawl pretty well in 5e?
Monk and brawler were never in any real competition for existence. Monk was bad because they decided monk needed virtually no changes, and some nerfs. Brawler is bad because they had good ideas for 3 features, and threw in weaker versions of existing feats(at least throw in the actual feats)
Good riddance. It was dead on arrival. That fighter could pick a regular weapon and ignore all its subclass features, and that would actually be the most effective way of playing it. That's how stupid the design was.
Good riddance. It was dead on arrival. That fighter could pick a regular weapon and ignore all its subclass features, and that would actually be the most effective way of playing it. That's how stupid the design was.
its gone because people didnt get it, and i was fairly certain it would be dropped.
but no, not really. They would be able to do +6 damage with improvised weapons, be able to apply two masteries at once, and were able to choose which mastery per hit out of 3. They also could add reach to 2 hand improvised, and light to 1 handers.
you would not be effective ignoring this. you would be doing -6 damage per hit, with less masteries.
they could also throw d12s and 2d6s at people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well. Looks like Brawler got less than 70% so instead of revising it, it is being shelved. That’s sad. (Around the 23 minute mark)
What did they expect when they basically mashed the Grappler feat, Tavern Brawler feat and the Unarmed fighting style together and called it a subclass
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Good. A Barbarian or Battle Master with Tavern Brawler did everything it did and better.
I made a thread for the survey video more generally if you want to keep this one about the Brawler
It could have easily been cleaned up. So disappointed in the community. Was really looking forward to it.
Same here. It could have been an interesting subclass that didn’t step on monks toes, especially if they did something interesting with the monk revision. But they put very little effort into Brawler and the results reflected it.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Don't disagree. The idea it steps on the toes of monk is ridiculous. Following that logic ranger and paladin step on druid and cleric toes. They could have easily cleaned this up into a proper subclass. The bones were there.
I can see both sides of it; honestly, I was hoping it’d stick just to get rid of the complaints about not being able to have a Monk in plate with a shield.
Definitely saw that one coming, though it is disappointing. Many monk players took extreme offense to it simply existing at all. I did like the idea, but it needed work. As it existed, there was little incentive to use the features over simply using normal equipment like a +1 sword. The concept marked the first time I ever was interested in fighter though. Probably the last time too.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
It’s an okay concept, but really difficult to execute properly. Now the question is what fighter will take its place? Unless they surprise us with a Fighter in the next UA it is likely to be something that is already rated highly. While I would love an Arcane Archer rework, it will probably Rune Knight since that subclass was well received.
I'm a heavy monk guy, and realistically it was less of toe stepper than dancer. In fact its unarmed stuff was really only useful for punch and grab with the grappler feat. It definitely needed work, but i would rather have had a new subclass like brawler but tweaked than them importing some premade subclass from another book.
just lost a new decent subclass, and will instead get nothing new.
I don't think Brawler stepped on Monk's toes at all, quite the opposite. I saw it as worse in every way than an unarmed Battlemaster Fighter or unarmed Wildheart/Berserker Barb would have been.
Wildheart + Tavern Brawler + Grappler eats its lunch completely. Constant Advantage + Expertise in Athletics, can go naked, can attack and grapple with the same action, can move full speed while grappling, can use a shield, rage damage bonus overtakes the damage die increase... and it gets all of this by level 6.
From what I saw here on the forums, it was less about it being a strong subclass (which was definitely the dancing bard complaint), and more about how dare they make a strength based, armored, unarmed fighter, something people have wanted for monk for ages, while monk was still a mess.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Agreed, Fighter is already in bad shape when it comes to subclasses. Rune Knight is really the only star out of the whole lot of them, and some of them are just terrible.
I would love to see an improved arcane archer but I feel like people would say it’s stepping on the ranger.
Part of the problem with coming up with new fighter subclasses is that for most mundane concepts you have to look at them and ask "Can't I just do that with a battlemaster?" In some cases the answer is "No because that maneuver is terrible" (for example, you can do a 4e Warlord by taking Commander's Strike and Rally, but you probably don't want to) but, rather than a new subclass, they could just fix the maneuver.
I would say the most visible mundane holes in the 5e fighter are the leadership specialist (it exists for NPCs; see the knight) and actual tanking builds (beyond taking sentinel mastery).
Killing Brawler didn't kill Str-based armored unarmed fighter though, it just means that people will be using Champion or BM for that instead. Brawler wasn't just weak in execution, it was a weak concept from the outset; imo it was dead the moment they made Tavern Brawler available for everyone at level 1.
The one niche it could have had, magical unarmed strikes to keep up with Monk, will be rendered moot by magic fists in the DMG anyway (common or uncommon ones too, I bet.)
My bet is on either Arcane Archer or Psi Warrior; each is a thematic counterpart to Eldritch Knight in its own way.
I just didn't see the point in it being a sub-class when feats did the same thing but better, because you can combine them with other, better sub-classes to create a Fighter who can actually do more than just forego regular weapons. All they need to do is improve the feats slightly, because Fighters can pick them up pretty easily, especially if one or both of them are options for 1st-level feats.
While I guess they could have made something interesting if they really put some effort into it, and distinguished it from Monk by also making a good Monk update, they instead made really lacklustre versions of both. If one has to die so that the other can live, it's going to have to be the Brawler sub-class because was anyone even really asking for one when Fighters can already brawl pretty well in 5e?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It was strong with improvised weapons, that was its actual shtick, and it had the most mastery, and mastery options per swing. the grappling and unarmed was just to make them capable with every type of martial attack in game. It would be weird to have an Improvised master who couldnt do ok unarmed damage. (if i pick up this chicken wing i can do d4, but my unarmed is d0?)
they executed it poorly because improvised weapon rules are not well understood.
i have zero excitement for an import to an already existing subclass. it already existed. i wasnt excited to see mercy monk on the class list, not because its a bad sub, but because i already have access to mercy monk.
Rework could theoretically be entertaining, (though personally arcane archer does nothing for me) but they arent going to do a rework, they said that 9 classes are done in UA. and the final form will be some mix of 2014 and the UAs. The only classes they are possibly changing in new ways is barbarian, monk, and druid. This means whatever subclass they choose will have no material changes.
Monk and brawler were never in any real competition for existence. Monk was bad because they decided monk needed virtually no changes, and some nerfs. Brawler is bad because they had good ideas for 3 features, and threw in weaker versions of existing feats(at least throw in the actual feats)
Good riddance. It was dead on arrival. That fighter could pick a regular weapon and ignore all its subclass features, and that would actually be the most effective way of playing it. That's how stupid the design was.
its gone because people didnt get it, and i was fairly certain it would be dropped.
but no, not really. They would be able to do +6 damage with improvised weapons, be able to apply two masteries at once, and were able to choose which mastery per hit out of 3. They also could add reach to 2 hand improvised, and light to 1 handers.
you would not be effective ignoring this. you would be doing -6 damage per hit, with less masteries.
they could also throw d12s and 2d6s at people.