That wouldn't work, CC. Mostly because the conversation around the Brute always ends up going thusly:
"Man, you know what'd be cool? A fighter subclass that's all about being super strong, super tough, just shrugging off loads of damage and beating stuff down with SHEER MUSCLE! Just a big burly wall of badass meat nobody wants to mess with!" "Soooo...you mean, like...a barbarian?" "What?! No! Why the hell would I want to play a barbarian?! I just want a fighter with tons of damage resistance and extra damage from their sheer strength and power, who doesn't bother with all that fighting-technique crap and is just instead really good at hitting stuff really HARD!" "...soooooooooooooo....you mean, kinda like.......a barbarian?" "NOOO! I want the extra feats and the bajillion attacks and the cool fighting style and the heavy armor and all that good fighter shit, just...y'know, also with damage resistance and a big fat damage boost on melee Strength attacks and advantage on Strength-based everything because I wanna be the STRONG GUY!" "......soooooooo-" "Don't even freaking say it, jackass >_>" "What? You are LITERALLY DESCRIBING THE BARBARIAN. Why are you so pissed about this?"
So on and so forth. improvised weapon mastery wouldn't cut the mustard for folks who're basically looking to gestalt Fighter and Barbarian without the drawbacks of either class.
The only thing they shared was additional damage that scaled with class level.
Other than that the Brute and Barbarian had next nothing in common.
Babarian had B/P/S resistance, STR saves/ability checks at ADV, and a subclass based ability that key'd off rage. They got this at level 2.
Barbarians also got a unique feature Reckless Attack.
Brute had.....a d6 to saves.
I dont understand how everyone says :
"But its BARBARIAN!"
When it has literally one feature close to barbarian.
That wouldn't work, CC. Mostly because the conversation around the Brute always ends up going thusly:
"Man, you know what'd be cool? A fighter subclass that's all about being super strong, super tough, just shrugging off loads of damage and beating stuff down with SHEER MUSCLE! Just a big burly wall of badass meat nobody wants to mess with!" "Soooo...you mean, like...a barbarian?" "What?! No! Why the hell would I want to play a barbarian?! I just want a fighter with tons of damage resistance and extra damage from their sheer strength and power, who doesn't bother with all that fighting-technique crap and is just instead really good at hitting stuff really HARD!" "...soooooooooooooo....you mean, kinda like.......a barbarian?" "NOOO! I want the extra feats and the bajillion attacks and the cool fighting style and the heavy armor and all that good fighter shit, just...y'know, also with damage resistance and a big fat damage boost on melee Strength attacks and advantage on Strength-based everything because I wanna be the STRONG GUY!" "......soooooooo-" "Don't even freaking say it, jackass >_>" "What? You are LITERALLY DESCRIBING THE BARBARIAN. Why are you so pissed about this?"
So on and so forth. improvised weapon mastery wouldn't cut the mustard for folks who're basically looking to gestalt Fighter and Barbarian without the drawbacks of either class.
The only thing they shared was additional damage that scaled with class level.
Other than that the Brute and Barbarian had next nothing in common.
Babarian had B/P/S resistance, STR saves/ability checks at ADV, and a subclass based ability that key'd off rage. They got this at level 2.
Barbarians also got a unique feature Reckless Attack.
Brute had.....a d6 to saves.
I dont understand how everyone says :
"But its BARBARIAN!"
When it has literally one feature close to barbarian.
well it is more that it is conceptually similar to both barbarians and the already existing champion subclass for the fighter, especially flavour wise. an simple warrior who cares little for strategy and simply rushes the enemy, yeah might work and the burte fluff even says some brutes are more than just idiots with swords, but the thing about fighters, the thing that makes them unique from an lore standpoint is strategy and skill. Getting an 1d6 to add to their saves is nothing like the barbarians rage mechanically, but it is similar conceptually of an melee combatant shrugging of grevious injuries, and devestating critical is´a feature that is also very mechanically similar to brutal critical from the barbarian class
also the passive buff to damage is not only boring, but also kind of an horrible idea to put in the hands of an fighter, since they derive their combat strength from making many attacks per turn and they are proficient in all weapons other than optional firearms, increasing the damage dealt by all attacks you are proficient in might be fine for an barbarian, but when an fighter makes potentially at 11th level up to three attacks per turn, one more if you use two weapon fighting, and all of them deal an extra 1d4, 1d6 or 1d8 damage that extra damage is going to to stack up pretty fast like please stop stealing the only thing that made rangers able to even slightly keep up damage wise, they need an better core feature and an better excuse for why they should even exist as an archetype
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The thematic difference between the fighter and the barbarian can be summed up thusly: Fighter: the power of Mastery. Barbarian: the mastery of Power.
That's why the Brute felt so wrong as a fighter subclass. It was trying to do the same damn thing the barbarian did. It set about doing so in different ways, but it's still 'Mastery of power' rather than 'power of mastery'. Those two may sound like a shitty semantic difference, but there's a fundamental difference there that's clear in the design of the fighter and the barbarian. It's why the Champion is weird and kinda sucky, and why one can't really make a 'simple, straightforward, non-thinking man's fighter" that feels right.
Because "the non-thinking man's fighter" IS THE FREAKING BARBARIAN.
One can absolutely make a smart barbarian. Or a charismatic one. Just like one can make a 'dumb' fighter. But their approach and methodology to combat is going to be different regardless, unless you introduce a fighter subclass that tries to do everything the barbarian does while still being a fighter.
The thematic difference between the fighter and the barbarian can be summed up thusly: Fighter: the power of Mastery. Barbarian: the mastery of Power.
That's why the Brute felt so wrong as a fighter subclass. It was trying to do the same damn thing the barbarian did. It set about doing so in different ways, but it's still 'Mastery of power' rather than 'power of mastery'. Those two may sound like a shitty semantic difference, but there's a fundamental difference there that's clear in the design of the fighter and the barbarian. It's why the Champion is weird and kinda sucky, and why one can't really make a 'simple, straightforward, non-thinking man's fighter" that feels right.
Because "the non-thinking man's fighter" IS THE FREAKING BARBARIAN.
One can absolutely make a smart barbarian. Or a charismatic one. Just like one can make a 'dumb' fighter. But their approach and methodology to combat is going to be different regardless, unless you introduce a fighter subclass that tries to do everything the barbarian does while still being a fighter.
Flavor could use some work I agree....I do think they were going with the one Radvinica group that was pretty much brutal fighters.
However the problem I have with this is.....Champion already does this but gets a pass? Why? Because its terrible in comparison to Battlemaster.
Fighter sits in a weird place and its why the best subclasses beyond Battlemaster are not focused on damage.
Eldritch Knight is defense/buff focused.
Cavalier is the closest thing we get to a tank.
Echo Knight fulfills a weird niche area of scouting and battlefield movement.
Samurai actually does the simple fighter better than Champion but its so boring....you get three turns per day to do something cool and then you are done. Pretty bland.
The part of brute I liked is the idea of a super tough fighter who takes a beating and gets back up. Plenty of action heroes ideals that fit thisbill but would not really fit the ideal behind barbarian as they are not super strong beasts of a man who shrugs off damage. They are more like Rocky"I didn't hear no bell" style survivor. Riggs in Leathal Weapon....John McClain in Die Hard....Daredevil....all these guys are just there to keep getting back up and fighting again and again.
They should lean into the survivor angle more and the damage a bit less. The idea behind a back alley fighter who isnt the strongest or resists damage or does Herculean feats of strength but just keeps on coming.
I guarantee a boxer works better as a Battle Master with the Unarmed Combat Style from CVF UA. Boxing is hugely technique-focused; all the power in the world won't let you get very far as a boxer if you have no technique. If all people are concerned with is wanting a STRONG GUY puncher instead of a DEX GUY puncher, then all you really need is Unarmed Fighting Style, not the Brute.
The thematic difference between the fighter and the barbarian can be summed up thusly: Fighter: the power of Mastery. Barbarian: the mastery of Power.
That's why the Brute felt so wrong as a fighter subclass. It was trying to do the same damn thing the barbarian did. It set about doing so in different ways, but it's still 'Mastery of power' rather than 'power of mastery'. Those two may sound like a shitty semantic difference, but there's a fundamental difference there that's clear in the design of the fighter and the barbarian. It's why the Champion is weird and kinda sucky, and why one can't really make a 'simple, straightforward, non-thinking man's fighter" that feels right.
Because "the non-thinking man's fighter" IS THE FREAKING BARBARIAN.
One can absolutely make a smart barbarian. Or a charismatic one. Just like one can make a 'dumb' fighter. But their approach and methodology to combat is going to be different regardless, unless you introduce a fighter subclass that tries to do everything the barbarian does while still being a fighter.
Flavor could use some work I agree....I do think they were going with the one Radvinica group that was pretty much brutal fighters.
I'm guessing you mean "Ravnica", and I'm guessing the group you're referring to is the Gruul Clan.
radvinica sounds like a really rad place tho
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I guarantee a boxer works better as a Battle Master with the Unarmed Combat Style from CVF UA. Boxing is hugely technique-focused; all the power in the world won't let you get very far as a boxer if you have no technique. If all people are concerned with is wanting a STRONG GUY puncher instead of a DEX GUY puncher, then all you really need is Unarmed Fighting Style, not the Brute.
this thread actiually inspiered me to make an fighter archetype where at the start of each of your turn, you get a set of dice, two d4 at level 3, that you can spend to increase your AC against attacks, to add to attack rolls or to add to damage, and at later levels you unlock the abillity to sometimes use these dice on manuvers, i think that archetype might fit an type of boxer well
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The thematic difference between the fighter and the barbarian can be summed up thusly: Fighter: the power of Mastery. Barbarian: the mastery of Power.
That's why the Brute felt so wrong as a fighter subclass. It was trying to do the same damn thing the barbarian did. It set about doing so in different ways, but it's still 'Mastery of power' rather than 'power of mastery'. Those two may sound like a shitty semantic difference, but there's a fundamental difference there that's clear in the design of the fighter and the barbarian. It's why the Champion is weird and kinda sucky, and why one can't really make a 'simple, straightforward, non-thinking man's fighter" that feels right.
Because "the non-thinking man's fighter" IS THE FREAKING BARBARIAN.
One can absolutely make a smart barbarian. Or a charismatic one. Just like one can make a 'dumb' fighter. But their approach and methodology to combat is going to be different regardless, unless you introduce a fighter subclass that tries to do everything the barbarian does while still being a fighter.
Flavor could use some work I agree....I do think they were going with the one Radvinica group that was pretty much brutal fighters.
However the problem I have with this is.....Champion already does this but gets a pass? Why? Because its terrible in comparison to Battlemaster.
Fighter sits in a weird place and its why the best subclasses beyond Battlemaster are not focused on damage.
Eldritch Knight is defense/buff focused.
Cavalier is the closest thing we get to a tank.
Echo Knight fulfills a weird niche area of scouting and battlefield movement.
Samurai actually does the simple fighter better than Champion but its so boring....you get three turns per day to do something cool and then you are done. Pretty bland.
The part of brute I liked is the idea of a super tough fighter who takes a beating and gets back up. Plenty of action heroes ideals that fit thisbill but would not really fit the ideal behind barbarian as they are not super strong beasts of a man who shrugs off damage. They are more like Rocky"I didn't hear no bell" style survivor. Riggs in Leathal Weapon....John McClain in Die Hard....Daredevil....all these guys are just there to keep getting back up and fighting again and again.
They should lean into the survivor angle more and the damage a bit less. The idea behind a back alley fighter who isnt the strongest or resists damage or does Herculean feats of strength but just keeps on coming.
i mean the ideal of "never give up" and the fighter who "just keeps coming" if summed up pretty nicely by most of the base fighter subclass features such as indomidable and second wind as well as with the champion and especially the samurai, what summs up to "never surrender: the class". That being said if they removed the brutal critical, bonus fighting style and bonus damage, that could make for an really interesting subclass.
Also the campion is still an far cry from the barbarian, it does not get much flavour but what it does get suggest it is an mix of like an gym nerd and an normal talented combatant, they dont deal as much damage per crit as an barbarian does, but he or she lands critical hits more reliably due to being well more skilled at hitting weak spots than the barbarian, not the person who hits the hardest but certanly one who hits hard, not the most durable but defenetly durable, perhaps not as much theoretical knowledge as the battle master but defenetly some amount of theory and more than well tested, if a little unrefined. Or as the players handbook might put it, an well rounded combatant
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Champion is kind of a mess with flavor honestly and its one reason people like playing Samurai more. There is a better theme and the idea of the subclass is better defined.
Champion is a prime example of early game design not working out for what ultimately the game turned out to be. Honestly it almost feels a bit Ivory Tower-ish as Battlemaster is just straight better and Champion mostly feels like a way to figure out how to play DnD as a fighter in the first place. It's training wheels for the class and it shows in the data I think. I would love to see how many high level Champions there are vs. high level fighters of other subclasses.
I played a champion for some time and it was terribly boring in and out of combat. The DM was nice and gave me weapons with active features on it but overall it was rough.
I do like the idea of the brute being a master of unarmed/improvised combat. That is a good design and I think paired with the survival features it had at 7th level it would fill a nice niche in the game.
The higher level features for sure needed some attention...the damage boost at level 15 was crazy. I think they should lean into the survival aspect more and make you tougher to keep you down or maybe give you more damage if you are at low HP. The theme is there but just needs some work.
while embracing the survivor archetype and getting a damage boost while on half health whould be cool, i think that in general boosting the damage of every attack an fighter makes when an fighter has both action surge and at later levels three attacks per action, even just an tiny extra d4 or d6 will be a lot of extra damage. That being said an feature that completely relies on you taking damage, similar to the rebuke things battlerager barbarians get would be cool, in pokemon there is this move called bide that does aboslutely nothing for two turns and that then on turn 3 deals double the damage it has taken since using bide, maybe something similar, you can use an bonus action to "charge up" and so on the next turn you deal some extra damage on your next attack based on the damage you took with one attack. Again maybe a little barbarian heavy but might work, of course having a simple damage boost when you have low hit points fits best thematically, it just might get a little overpowered
perhaps also an new way to use hit dice, preferably in some kind of defensive manner.
also note: hit points are an measure of pysical and mental durabillity, the will to live and luck, so having an feature that lets you reduce damage taken slightly might be reflavoured as you simply being harder to kill overall, could be seen as an more psychological thing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
A lot of what I'm seeing about options for the Brute can be accomplished with current feats. Unarmed and improvised combat? Tavern Brawler. Want to throw in wrestling moves à l Fezzik? Grappler. A little extra toughness? Tough. That doesn't quite fit the bill? HAM. Thus, if you really want to do something in that vein, maybe give options at the 3, 7, 10, 15 or 18 that allow you to select from a certain number of feats pushing the Brute revised into the featmaster. You could possibly add some bonuses to certain ones so that they scale, such as the d4 from Tavern Brawler going to a d6, perhaps a few levels after the monk would get that upgrade. Or, when you make an attack with a two handed weapon, you may make an unarmed attack or improvised weapon attack as a bonus action. The flavor is that the Brute likes the carnage of being able to kick people, punch them in the face, make a pommel strike, or grab something off the table and swing at them just as much as they like swinging their great big weapon. The refinement of the fighter is still there, but having a touch of dirty fighting tossed in to make things interesting. Instead of the brutal critical option, you could give the increased critical bonus from Champion 3. It's not sexy, but it does give an option at least thematically similar to another fighter that isn't shared with the barbarian.
Of course, Fighters are already equipped to accomplish most of this because of their additional ASIs and you can take a "second" subclass by dipping into whatever other fighter subclass that you really want.
As for the Fezzik thing, how about another fighting style? When you are fighting within 10 ft of 2 or more hostile creatures, your unarmed strikes and improvised weapon attacks gain a +2 to hit (or could be to damage, but I like the idea of to hit better since he was having trouble hitting Westley).
A lot of what I'm seeing about options for the Brute can be accomplished with current feats. Unarmed and improvised combat? Tavern Brawler. Want to throw in wrestling moves à l Fezzik? Grappler. A little extra toughness? Tough. That doesn't quite fit the bill? HAM. Thus, if you really want to do something in that vein, maybe give options at the 3, 7, 10, 15 or 18 that allow you to select from a certain number of feats pushing the Brute revised into the featmaster. You could possibly add some bonuses to certain ones so that they scale, such as the d4 from Tavern Brawler going to a d6, perhaps a few levels after the monk would get that upgrade. Or, when you make an attack with a two handed weapon, you may make an unarmed attack or improvised weapon attack as a bonus action. The flavor is that the Brute likes the carnage of being able to kick people, punch them in the face, make a pommel strike, or grab something off the table and swing at them just as much as they like swinging their great big weapon. The refinement of the fighter is still there, but having a touch of dirty fighting tossed in to make things interesting. Instead of the brutal critical option, you could give the increased critical bonus from Champion 3. It's not sexy, but it does give an option at least thematically similar to another fighter that isn't shared with the barbarian.
Of course, Fighters are already equipped to accomplish most of this because of their additional ASIs and you can take a "second" subclass by dipping into whatever other fighter subclass that you really want.
As for the Fezzik thing, how about another fighting style? When you are fighting within 10 ft of 2 or more hostile creatures, your unarmed strikes and improvised weapon attacks gain a +2 to hit (or could be to damage, but I like the idea of to hit better since he was having trouble hitting Westley).
Because you can do it with feats doesnt make it a good option overall. You are talking about like 5 feats there...where is the ASI improvements?
You can make a really good ranger with scout rogue so should we remove the ranger altogether? Some wizards can mimic meta magic (Evocation) should we do away with Sorcerer?
Things can coexist without being a complete replacement for one another. And you are right when you say "its not sexy"....the build you suggest would have like no ASI improvements for like the first 8 levels to accommodate for the feats you mention. If you have to sacrifice that just to make something in line with the idea then its not really a solution...its a band-aid.
Also I would say that a more elegant suggestion would be:
Fighter 1 (UA unarmed fighting style)/ Barbarian X
at least that doesnt rely on a bunch of feats to do what you want it to do.
A lot of what I'm seeing about options for the Brute can be accomplished with current feats. Unarmed and improvised combat? Tavern Brawler. Want to throw in wrestling moves à l Fezzik? Grappler. A little extra toughness? Tough. That doesn't quite fit the bill? HAM. Thus, if you really want to do something in that vein, maybe give options at the 3, 7, 10, 15 or 18 that allow you to select from a certain number of feats pushing the Brute revised into the featmaster. You could possibly add some bonuses to certain ones so that they scale, such as the d4 from Tavern Brawler going to a d6, perhaps a few levels after the monk would get that upgrade. Or, when you make an attack with a two handed weapon, you may make an unarmed attack or improvised weapon attack as a bonus action. The flavor is that the Brute likes the carnage of being able to kick people, punch them in the face, make a pommel strike, or grab something off the table and swing at them just as much as they like swinging their great big weapon. The refinement of the fighter is still there, but having a touch of dirty fighting tossed in to make things interesting. Instead of the brutal critical option, you could give the increased critical bonus from Champion 3. It's not sexy, but it does give an option at least thematically similar to another fighter that isn't shared with the barbarian.
Of course, Fighters are already equipped to accomplish most of this because of their additional ASIs and you can take a "second" subclass by dipping into whatever other fighter subclass that you really want.
As for the Fezzik thing, how about another fighting style? When you are fighting within 10 ft of 2 or more hostile creatures, your unarmed strikes and improvised weapon attacks gain a +2 to hit (or could be to damage, but I like the idea of to hit better since he was having trouble hitting Westley).
Because you can do it with feats doesnt make it a good option overall. You are talking about like 5 feats there...where is the ASI improvements?
You can make a really good ranger with scout rogue so should we remove the ranger altogether? Some wizards can mimic meta magic (Evocation) should we do away with Sorcerer?
Things can coexist without being a complete replacement for one another. And you are right when you say "its not sexy"....the build you suggest would have like no ASI improvements for like the first 8 levels to accommodate for the feats you mention. If you have to sacrifice that just to make something in line with the idea then its not really a solution...its a band-aid.
Also I would say that a more elegant suggestion would be:
Fighter 1 (UA unarmed fighting style)/ Barbarian X
at least that doesnt rely on a bunch of feats to do what you want it to do.
That's part of the reason that I said that you could use a selection of feats to choose from at some of the levels that fighters get subclass abilities. Then you can get some of those "extra feats" as a homebrewed version if your not just trying to do the fighter 1/ barbarian X. Or if you have rolled stats that are pretty sweet, you "double down" on fighter subclasses by choosing Battlemaster or another subclass and use your ASIs to get the feats.
I'm not trying to say that the idea of Brute doesn't have merit, I'm trying to offer work arounds to get the flavor that Brute had in some form for those that don't want to tinker with the homebrew system and want to be a fighter not a barbarian with fighter levels (especially since some of the key features of barbarian turn off with heavy armor).
The only thing they shared was additional damage that scaled with class level.
Other than that the Brute and Barbarian had next nothing in common.
Babarian had B/P/S resistance, STR saves/ability checks at ADV, and a subclass based ability that key'd off rage. They got this at level 2.
Barbarians also got a unique feature Reckless Attack.
Brute had.....a d6 to saves.
I dont understand how everyone says :
"But its BARBARIAN!"
When it has literally one feature close to barbarian.
well it is more that it is conceptually similar to both barbarians and the already existing champion subclass for the fighter, especially flavour wise. an simple warrior who cares little for strategy and simply rushes the enemy, yeah might work and the burte fluff even says some brutes are more than just idiots with swords, but the thing about fighters, the thing that makes them unique from an lore standpoint is strategy and skill. Getting an 1d6 to add to their saves is nothing like the barbarians rage mechanically, but it is similar conceptually of an melee combatant shrugging of grevious injuries, and devestating critical is´a feature that is also very mechanically similar to brutal critical from the barbarian class
also the passive buff to damage is not only boring, but also kind of an horrible idea to put in the hands of an fighter, since they derive their combat strength from making many attacks per turn and they are proficient in all weapons other than optional firearms, increasing the damage dealt by all attacks you are proficient in might be fine for an barbarian, but when an fighter makes potentially at 11th level up to three attacks per turn, one more if you use two weapon fighting, and all of them deal an extra 1d4, 1d6 or 1d8 damage that extra damage is going to to stack up pretty fast like please stop stealing the only thing that made rangers able to even slightly keep up damage wise, they need an better core feature and an better excuse for why they should even exist as an archetype
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The thematic difference between the fighter and the barbarian can be summed up thusly:
Fighter: the power of Mastery.
Barbarian: the mastery of Power.
That's why the Brute felt so wrong as a fighter subclass. It was trying to do the same damn thing the barbarian did. It set about doing so in different ways, but it's still 'Mastery of power' rather than 'power of mastery'. Those two may sound like a shitty semantic difference, but there's a fundamental difference there that's clear in the design of the fighter and the barbarian. It's why the Champion is weird and kinda sucky, and why one can't really make a 'simple, straightforward, non-thinking man's fighter" that feels right.
Because "the non-thinking man's fighter" IS THE FREAKING BARBARIAN.
One can absolutely make a smart barbarian. Or a charismatic one. Just like one can make a 'dumb' fighter. But their approach and methodology to combat is going to be different regardless, unless you introduce a fighter subclass that tries to do everything the barbarian does while still being a fighter.
Please do not contact or message me.
Flavor could use some work I agree....I do think they were going with the one Radvinica group that was pretty much brutal fighters.
However the problem I have with this is.....Champion already does this but gets a pass? Why? Because its terrible in comparison to Battlemaster.
Fighter sits in a weird place and its why the best subclasses beyond Battlemaster are not focused on damage.
Eldritch Knight is defense/buff focused.
Cavalier is the closest thing we get to a tank.
Echo Knight fulfills a weird niche area of scouting and battlefield movement.
Samurai actually does the simple fighter better than Champion but its so boring....you get three turns per day to do something cool and then you are done. Pretty bland.
The part of brute I liked is the idea of a super tough fighter who takes a beating and gets back up. Plenty of action heroes ideals that fit thisbill but would not really fit the ideal behind barbarian as they are not super strong beasts of a man who shrugs off damage. They are more like Rocky"I didn't hear no bell" style survivor. Riggs in Leathal Weapon....John McClain in Die Hard....Daredevil....all these guys are just there to keep getting back up and fighting again and again.
They should lean into the survivor angle more and the damage a bit less. The idea behind a back alley fighter who isnt the strongest or resists damage or does Herculean feats of strength but just keeps on coming.
When I think of a brute fighter, I think about a boxer and not about a barbarian.
I guarantee a boxer works better as a Battle Master with the Unarmed Combat Style from CVF UA. Boxing is hugely technique-focused; all the power in the world won't let you get very far as a boxer if you have no technique. If all people are concerned with is wanting a STRONG GUY puncher instead of a DEX GUY puncher, then all you really need is Unarmed Fighting Style, not the Brute.
Please do not contact or message me.
radvinica sounds like a really rad place tho
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
this thread actiually inspiered me to make an fighter archetype where at the start of each of your turn, you get a set of dice, two d4 at level 3, that you can spend to increase your AC against attacks, to add to attack rolls or to add to damage, and at later levels you unlock the abillity to sometimes use these dice on manuvers, i think that archetype might fit an type of boxer well
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
i mean the ideal of "never give up" and the fighter who "just keeps coming" if summed up pretty nicely by most of the base fighter subclass features such as indomidable and second wind as well as with the champion and especially the samurai, what summs up to "never surrender: the class". That being said if they removed the brutal critical, bonus fighting style and bonus damage, that could make for an really interesting subclass.
Also the campion is still an far cry from the barbarian, it does not get much flavour but what it does get suggest it is an mix of like an gym nerd and an normal talented combatant, they dont deal as much damage per crit as an barbarian does, but he or she lands critical hits more reliably due to being well more skilled at hitting weak spots than the barbarian, not the person who hits the hardest but certanly one who hits hard, not the most durable but defenetly durable, perhaps not as much theoretical knowledge as the battle master but defenetly some amount of theory and more than well tested, if a little unrefined. Or as the players handbook might put it, an well rounded combatant
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Fair points made.
Champion is kind of a mess with flavor honestly and its one reason people like playing Samurai more. There is a better theme and the idea of the subclass is better defined.
Champion is a prime example of early game design not working out for what ultimately the game turned out to be. Honestly it almost feels a bit Ivory Tower-ish as Battlemaster is just straight better and Champion mostly feels like a way to figure out how to play DnD as a fighter in the first place. It's training wheels for the class and it shows in the data I think. I would love to see how many high level Champions there are vs. high level fighters of other subclasses.
I played a champion for some time and it was terribly boring in and out of combat. The DM was nice and gave me weapons with active features on it but overall it was rough.
I do like the idea of the brute being a master of unarmed/improvised combat. That is a good design and I think paired with the survival features it had at 7th level it would fill a nice niche in the game.
The higher level features for sure needed some attention...the damage boost at level 15 was crazy. I think they should lean into the survival aspect more and make you tougher to keep you down or maybe give you more damage if you are at low HP. The theme is there but just needs some work.
while embracing the survivor archetype and getting a damage boost while on half health whould be cool, i think that in general boosting the damage of every attack an fighter makes when an fighter has both action surge and at later levels three attacks per action, even just an tiny extra d4 or d6 will be a lot of extra damage. That being said an feature that completely relies on you taking damage, similar to the rebuke things battlerager barbarians get would be cool, in pokemon there is this move called bide that does aboslutely nothing for two turns and that then on turn 3 deals double the damage it has taken since using bide, maybe something similar, you can use an bonus action to "charge up" and so on the next turn you deal some extra damage on your next attack based on the damage you took with one attack. Again maybe a little barbarian heavy but might work, of course having a simple damage boost when you have low hit points fits best thematically, it just might get a little overpowered
perhaps also an new way to use hit dice, preferably in some kind of defensive manner.
also note: hit points are an measure of pysical and mental durabillity, the will to live and luck, so having an feature that lets you reduce damage taken slightly might be reflavoured as you simply being harder to kill overall, could be seen as an more psychological thing
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
A lot of what I'm seeing about options for the Brute can be accomplished with current feats. Unarmed and improvised combat? Tavern Brawler. Want to throw in wrestling moves à l Fezzik? Grappler. A little extra toughness? Tough. That doesn't quite fit the bill? HAM. Thus, if you really want to do something in that vein, maybe give options at the 3, 7, 10, 15 or 18 that allow you to select from a certain number of feats pushing the Brute revised into the featmaster. You could possibly add some bonuses to certain ones so that they scale, such as the d4 from Tavern Brawler going to a d6, perhaps a few levels after the monk would get that upgrade. Or, when you make an attack with a two handed weapon, you may make an unarmed attack or improvised weapon attack as a bonus action. The flavor is that the Brute likes the carnage of being able to kick people, punch them in the face, make a pommel strike, or grab something off the table and swing at them just as much as they like swinging their great big weapon. The refinement of the fighter is still there, but having a touch of dirty fighting tossed in to make things interesting. Instead of the brutal critical option, you could give the increased critical bonus from Champion 3. It's not sexy, but it does give an option at least thematically similar to another fighter that isn't shared with the barbarian.
Of course, Fighters are already equipped to accomplish most of this because of their additional ASIs and you can take a "second" subclass by dipping into whatever other fighter subclass that you really want.
As for the Fezzik thing, how about another fighting style? When you are fighting within 10 ft of 2 or more hostile creatures, your unarmed strikes and improvised weapon attacks gain a +2 to hit (or could be to damage, but I like the idea of to hit better since he was having trouble hitting Westley).
Because you can do it with feats doesnt make it a good option overall. You are talking about like 5 feats there...where is the ASI improvements?
You can make a really good ranger with scout rogue so should we remove the ranger altogether?
Some wizards can mimic meta magic (Evocation) should we do away with Sorcerer?
Things can coexist without being a complete replacement for one another. And you are right when you say "its not sexy"....the build you suggest would have like no ASI improvements for like the first 8 levels to accommodate for the feats you mention. If you have to sacrifice that just to make something in line with the idea then its not really a solution...its a band-aid.
Also I would say that a more elegant suggestion would be:
Fighter 1 (UA unarmed fighting style)/ Barbarian X
at least that doesnt rely on a bunch of feats to do what you want it to do.
That's part of the reason that I said that you could use a selection of feats to choose from at some of the levels that fighters get subclass abilities. Then you can get some of those "extra feats" as a homebrewed version if your not just trying to do the fighter 1/ barbarian X. Or if you have rolled stats that are pretty sweet, you "double down" on fighter subclasses by choosing Battlemaster or another subclass and use your ASIs to get the feats.
I'm not trying to say that the idea of Brute doesn't have merit, I'm trying to offer work arounds to get the flavor that Brute had in some form for those that don't want to tinker with the homebrew system and want to be a fighter not a barbarian with fighter levels (especially since some of the key features of barbarian turn off with heavy armor).
Fair enough.
Good solutions for now. I think they should revist the idea.
I'm just going to throw this out there:
Monks can use strength for their unarmed strikes.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
But they can't wear armor and get the martial arts bonus.
This is correct.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Strength Monk just don't work... Unless you roll for stats and get lucky or have a race with an AC calculation.
Loxodon Monk! Wait... what?