Don't get me wrong, I really like the shamanistic overtones of much of the barbarian class. The Ancestral Guardian subclass is one of my favorites, even if it's universally despised amongst Pro Power Munchkins, and I think there's a lot of merit in the barbarian as a feral survivor rather than just a big dumb brute who likes hitting shit. Grog Strongjaw was, and is, an awesome character to watch and play, but he's far from the only viable interpretation of the barbarian concept.
I just also believe very strongly in that bit I mentioned earlier in the thread. 'Mastery of Power' vs. 'Power of Mastery'. The Brute felt so damn off because it evinced no mastery - it was just a big bag of Biggahnumbahs to throw at enemies, and that sucked and encroached heavily on the barbarian. The idea of an indomitable spirit, on the other hand, could be a 'Mastery' sort of deal, and fits right in with the fighter's general ethos. I don't know if I'd even call it a Brute, but keying off the original (highly shitty) subclass and the recent Psionic things, what about a Willpower die?
Possible uses of the Willpower die -Once per turn, add Willpower die to a missed attack roll, possibly turning that attack into a success. -Add Willpower die to saving throw as a reaction, or to a death save. -Add Willpower die to Second Wind healing rolls. -Add Willpower die to STR/DEX/CON checks, with whatever restriction makes it not a super busted always on bardic Inspiration.
So on and so forth. use that die to represent acts of extreme mental fortitude and endurance, things a regular fighter would struggle with. Make the class all about PLUS ULTRA, rather than "is barbarian except also is fighter because want gestalt class in 5e without letting anyone else have one".
Also LULZ 'Barbighter'. Yiss. Much better. Using that one instead.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the shamanistic overtones of much of the barbarian class. The Ancestral Guardian subclass is one of my favorites, even if it's universally despised amongst Pro Power Munchkins, and I think there's a lot of merit in the barbarian as a feral survivor rather than just a big dumb brute who likes hitting shit. Grog Strongjaw was, and is, an awesome character to watch and play, but he's far from the only viable interpretation of the barbarian concept.
I just also believe very strongly in that bit I mentioned earlier in the thread. 'Mastery of Power' vs. 'Power of Mastery'. The Brute felt so damn off because it evinced no mastery - it was just a big bag of Biggahnumbahs to throw at enemies, and that sucked and encroached heavily on the barbarian. The idea of an indomitable spirit, on the other hand, could be a 'Mastery' sort of deal, and fits right in with the fighter's general ethos. I don't know if I'd even call it a Brute, but keying off the original (highly shitty) subclass and the recent Psionic things, what about a Willpower die?
Possible uses of the Willpower die -Once per turn, add Willpower die to a missed attack roll, possibly turning that attack into a success. -Add Willpower die to saving throw as a reaction, or to a death save. -Add Willpower die to Second Wind healing rolls. -Add Willpower die to STR/DEX/CON checks, with whatever restriction makes it not a super busted always on bardic Inspiration.
So on and so forth. use that die to represent acts of extreme mental fortitude and endurance, things a regular fighter would struggle with. Make the class all about PLUS ULTRA, rather than "is barbarian except also is fighter because want gestalt class in 5e without letting anyone else have one".
Also LULZ 'Barbighter'. Yiss. Much better. Using that one instead.
its obvious you are just trying to be a pain at this point....Brute had literally nothing in common with barbarian and your insistence otherwise is just a juvenile attempt to make people angry.
But even still you manage to make a good point and the willpower die is a good idea for the subclass.
They tried to do die in different ways with other UA subclasses but they fell apart for one reason or another. I honestly think fighter would have been better with superiority die being a class feature instead of just one for the battlemaster.
I would like to try to run a subclass with willpower die though as this introduces new features that other subclasses dont have.
Heh. Or maybe I'm trying to drive home the point that saying "NO U DX" to everyone who says that there's too much overlap between the old Brute and the barbarian for the Brute to work as a subclass does not actually fix the problems people had with the subclass and will instead do nothing but plague your rebuild with the same problems.
Trust me. I get it. I've been there. I despise the Alchemist as it was released in Eberron Rising and I'm not sure I'll ever forgive The Community for forcing Wizards to change to the godawful potion chucking Doc Brown wild-eyed idiot (which completely destroyed my existing Alchemist characters from Wayfinder's Guide). I even tried to fix the Alchemist myself, before being told by DDB that "You're Not Allowed To Publish Copyrighted Material" despite my changes and alterations and them denying the class even for private home game use. I get it.
But if you want to fix this shit properly, you need to accept that a whole freaking mess of people hate the deep, deeply problematic thematic overlap between "big dumb fighter guy who's not good at anything but gets by with being super strong and tough" and "a savage warrior who's not smart or masterful but gets by on being too strong and tough to go down". if you can't see why people continually razz the Brute's shit for being a Barbighter, you will never manage to fix what's wrong with the subclass.
Should have copyrighted that Barbighter stuff when I had the chance.
As for the the thematics, the aforementioned Willpower dice and changing the theme to "I'm too stubborn to fail" would be a small shift that might allow for the Brute to live on in a different way. It might be similar to the Tunnel Fighter fighting style giving way to Cavalier (seriously, if you haven't looked at it, do so. They turned a fighting style into a subclass and added some other themes to it to flesh it out). The WillPower dice would have to be different enough from supremacy dice to not make people think, "I've seen this before, too". Something like HobGoblin's Saving Face but tied to the Willpower Dice, or just renaming it Stubborn and possibly scaling based on the number of enemies. Giving your self temporary HP through a roll of the dice, something like a wisdom modifier per short rest usage of guidance, temporarily giving yourself wisdom saving throw proficiency (say willpower die + Wisdom mod minutes)? A class feature like half orcs Relentless Endurance or the many other similar features would be appropriate. A ribbon ability to let you treat your exhaustion level as one less than it is as long as you've had a long rest within the last little bit could be an interesting starting point. Things that would make this the wisdom fighter that isn't worried about Ranger things generally. You could roll many of the existing features around with that thought, focusing on the stubborn willpower to succeed, and find something that is the spiritual successor to the aspects of a Brute that you enjoy while giving it the thematic that make it stand out from the other classes/subclasses even if it borrows some from them or has some overlap.
Incidentally some aspects of Tunnel Fighter would be nice, finding ways to make them subclass features that don't step on the toes of Cavalier. Wisdom modifier per long rest extra reactions to make OAs (and only OAs) while stubbornly holding a passage of no more than 15 ft wide? Given at like 11? 15?
Heh. Or maybe I'm trying to drive home the point that saying "NO U DX" to everyone who says that there's too much overlap between the old Brute and the barbarian for the Brute to work as a subclass does not actually fix the problems people had with the subclass and will instead do nothing but plague your rebuild with the same problems.
Trust me. I get it. I've been there. I despise the Alchemist as it was released in Eberron Rising and I'm not sure I'll ever forgive The Community for forcing Wizards to change to the godawful potion chucking Doc Brown wild-eyed idiot (which completely destroyed my existing Alchemist characters from Wayfinder's Guide). I even tried to fix the Alchemist myself, before being told by DDB that "You're Not Allowed To Publish Copyrighted Material" despite my changes and alterations and them denying the class even for private home game use. I get it.
But if you want to fix this shit properly, you need to accept that a whole freaking mess of people hate the deep, deeply problematic thematic overlap between "big dumb fighter guy who's not good at anything but gets by with being super strong and tough" and "a savage warrior who's not smart or masterful but gets by on being too strong and tough to go down". if you can't see why people continually razz the Brute's shit for being a Barbighter, you will never manage to fix what's wrong with the subclass.
The comparison is completely in the realm of flavor and theme though and even at that a "simple" fighter is not inherently the same as barbarian. Mechanically they had little to no similarities to even make the theme anywhere close to barbarian.
This is why its flawed to say they are "Barbighter" as it makes no sense when you apply the smallest amount of logic to it.
You could say champion is basically barbarian with the same level of evidence. Or basically any class that gives extra damage on an attack. Your logic is flawed and should not be the basis for the "fix" of the subclass.
You managed to hit on its major sin though: Originality when compared to Champion and other fighters.
The willpower die are a good idea and if utilized in a unique way could be interesting enough to pull it off. I think you even had a good grasp of how to make it work with the examples you provided for the die.
Theme being the pulling force for a subclass is fair I think in that the mechanics need to fit the theme. If you have a Psionic Monk and never use one ability that mentions mental ability or INT it would be the mechanics failing to adhere to the theme.
Brute's idea was that of a "Simple bumpkin fighter" who hits hard but really the only mechanic that held to that theme was the brute dice. Every ability after that failed this theme and thus the class itself being identified by a theme that it never truly invested in is pretty stupid.
Where productive thought comes in is how to modify the subclass into taking the mechanics and retrofiting it to another theme or going all in on the brute mechanics and leaning into "Dumb fighter".
I prefer the former and taking the aspects of the subclass I liked (The 7th level ability) and making it into something better.
Heh. Or maybe I'm trying to drive home the point that saying "NO U DX" to everyone who says that there's too much overlap between the old Brute and the barbarian for the Brute to work as a subclass does not actually fix the problems people had with the subclass and will instead do nothing but plague your rebuild with the same problems.
Trust me. I get it. I've been there. I despise the Alchemist as it was released in Eberron Rising and I'm not sure I'll ever forgive The Community for forcing Wizards to change to the godawful potion chucking Doc Brown wild-eyed idiot (which completely destroyed my existing Alchemist characters from Wayfinder's Guide). I even tried to fix the Alchemist myself, before being told by DDB that "You're Not Allowed To Publish Copyrighted Material" despite my changes and alterations and them denying the class even for private home game use. I get it.
But if you want to fix this shit properly, you need to accept that a whole freaking mess of people hate the deep, deeply problematic thematic overlap between "big dumb fighter guy who's not good at anything but gets by with being super strong and tough" and "a savage warrior who's not smart or masterful but gets by on being too strong and tough to go down". if you can't see why people continually razz the Brute's shit for being a Barbighter, you will never manage to fix what's wrong with the subclass.
well i would say that we have already debated the topic of what an fighter is and what it is not, and what an brute is and what an brute is not, but it needs not be overcomplicated. In the end what this thread has now started to do is more or less the same thing as the champion, same core ideas of resillience and hitting hard. This is not exactly rocket science, unlike paladins and druid the fighter class does not have much strong flavour in it, there is less of an need to distinguish it becuase it is trying to fill a niche that is already covered but poorly so
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
It truly started as a person asking for the brute subclass. Now it has evolved in the a forum discussing real ideas about the in and outs of subclasses. The only thing i can say is thank you to those who have contributed. Your inpit means everything to me. Thank you so much
The intention of "Unearthed Arcana" was basically; We created a big pool of ideas that we've gathered and made something presentable from it. They are mostly just design ideas and hold no accuracy yet in terms of balance or originality. Feel free to use these ideas to bring them to the table or homebrew something from them, but take their strengths or weaknesses with a grain of salt.
Unearthed Arcana was never an official thing, just a big bundle of playtest material. Some parts of them have found a place - after design tweaking - in a new book, but not everything is guaranteed to come out, let alone 'as presented' in UA. For as far as UA's origin goes, it was completely up to DM and Organization discretion whether they want to embrace or accept UA, or not. But in official instances of D&D (such as Adventurer's League), it's not allowed.
To come back to the Brute in specific, Brute fell under the "it's not original" category of why it's not being released yet. When a subclass is made, it always takes a certain "Design Standoint" in mind. Eldritch Knight is "Hit combined with spells", Battlemaster is "Hit tactically", Gunslinger (ref. Matt Mercer, yes I know not official, but still a good example); "Hit with Guns". Brute's design standpoint contradicted a lot with the Champion's design standpoint, both of which being "Hit Harder". Thus, Brute overlapped an already existing angle that the fighter already had, and if a new form of Brute subclass would come, it would likely not be as it is now.
Also, the argument of "it's a pseudo barbarian" is a moot point. Plenty of subclasses are intentionally designed to work a little into the direction of a different class, while having its own flavor. While the extra damage is very much comparable to Rage, a Barbarian is a lot more than just doing a little more wham.
Hunter ranger and Monster Slayer Ranger share a lot of thematic design space as well. Mechanically they different.
Samurai and Champion are both "Simple" fighters with a small core element that makes them hit better...one is just all the time the other is nova burst damage. Both are exceedingly simple in their design but are different in theme enough to warrant it.
I understand your sentiment but if theme was an issue they could work on that....its not hard to make the Brute similar to what they had but make changes from UA to make it more unique.
It did share a lot with champion after 10th level as it bascially mirrored its progress. They could have changed its features after that to make it more unique.
My major issue is....champion is terrible. Objectively and thematically. Its design space is so vague and bland that basically no simple fighter subclass can be made ever again because it steps on it? Its like a bad penny that you can't get rid of but you can't spend either.
My hope was they were going to add some options for it in Tasha's and allow it to have some different subclass options but alas they decided that fixing old subclasses is not a thing they want to do (Unless its the ranger for some reason?)
Brute was at least interesting as it provided a mechanic that did not exist before at 7th level and actually did better damage than most fighter subclasses....but it was literally all it did.
I hate when people look at it and say "thats too much damage" when the math actually suggests that battlemaster STILL does better given the common encounter schedule of groups and now the BM is inherently much much much more versatile as they can use their die for a wide range of things and not just combat thanks to Tasha's.
Brute just had damage....so it SHOULD do more.
Overall it was a much better champion than champion (Still is...champion is hot ******* garbage). Alas we will never see it again.
Hunter ranger and Monster Slayer Ranger share a lot of thematic design space as well. Mechanically they different.
Samurai and Champion are both "Simple" fighters with a small core element that makes them hit better...one is just all the time the other is nova burst damage. Both are exceedingly simple in their design but are different in theme enough to warrant it.
I understand your sentiment but if theme was an issue they could work on that....its not hard to make the Brute similar to what they had but make changes from UA to make it more unique.
It did share a lot with champion after 10th level as it bascially mirrored its progress. They could have changed its features after that to make it more unique.
My major issue is....champion is terrible. Objectively and thematically. Its design space is so vague and bland that basically no simple fighter subclass can be made ever again because it steps on it? Its like a bad penny that you can't get rid of but you can't spend either.
My hope was they were going to add some options for it in Tasha's and allow it to have some different subclass options but alas they decided that fixing old subclasses is not a thing they want to do (Unless its the ranger for some reason?)
Brute was at least interesting as it provided a mechanic that did not exist before at 7th level and actually did better damage than most fighter subclasses....but it was literally all it did.
I hate when people look at it and say "thats too much damage" when the math actually suggests that battlemaster STILL does better given the common encounter schedule of groups and now the BM is inherently much much much more versatile as they can use their die for a wide range of things and not just combat thanks to Tasha's.
Brute just had damage....so it SHOULD do more.
Overall it was a much better champion than champion (Still is...champion is hot ****ing garbage). Alas we will never see it again.
Falling back on the Princess Bride: "'I'm on the Brute Squad.' 'You are the Brute Squad!'" Then earlier. "You use different moves when fighting a (half dozen, I forget the number) men than when you're only fighting one." This leads me to two trains of related thought. A) have it be a fighting style that increases melee damage by +2 and AC by +1 when there are more than 3 enemies within 10 ft. You'd have 4 toggles that you could play with, the damage, the AC, the number of enemies and the distance. You could also add a fifth toggle of having an ally with 10 ft if it helped balance the mechanics. As it is, you'd have dueling without the 1 hand requirement and defensive without the armor requirement, but it would have the spacing requirement. Alternately, you could flesh it out a touch more and make it a feat. B) bring back the more unique aspects of the Brute subclass and play with the idea presented above. Alternatively you could form specialized brute fighting styles: group fighting, brawling, grapple master/wrestling, perhaps a few more and have them add on to each other in a similar vein to totem barbarian where you can get 3 different aspects for each one that you can mix and match.
There are some existing feats and fighting styles that can give you some of that flavor when added to existing fighter subclasses, but having the subclass chassis cover some of it would give people more options moving forward. Additionally, allowing something like unarmed fighting style and tavern brawler to stack a little, perhaps by converting the d4 unarmed from Tavern Brawler to a flat +2 when used with unarmed fighting style, or bumping the damage die up one for an average of 1 damage increase could be interesting.
Hunter ranger and Monster Slayer Ranger share a lot of thematic design space as well. Mechanically they different.
Samurai and Champion are both "Simple" fighters with a small core element that makes them hit better...one is just all the time the other is nova burst damage. Both are exceedingly simple in their design but are different in theme enough to warrant it.
I understand your sentiment but if theme was an issue they could work on that....its not hard to make the Brute similar to what they had but make changes from UA to make it more unique.
It did share a lot with champion after 10th level as it bascially mirrored its progress. They could have changed its features after that to make it more unique.
My major issue is....champion is terrible. Objectively and thematically. Its design space is so vague and bland that basically no simple fighter subclass can be made ever again because it steps on it? Its like a bad penny that you can't get rid of but you can't spend either.
My hope was they were going to add some options for it in Tasha's and allow it to have some different subclass options but alas they decided that fixing old subclasses is not a thing they want to do (Unless its the ranger for some reason?)
Brute was at least interesting as it provided a mechanic that did not exist before at 7th level and actually did better damage than most fighter subclasses....but it was literally all it did.
I hate when people look at it and say "thats too much damage" when the math actually suggests that battlemaster STILL does better given the common encounter schedule of groups and now the BM is inherently much much much more versatile as they can use their die for a wide range of things and not just combat thanks to Tasha's.
Brute just had damage....so it SHOULD do more.
Overall it was a much better champion than champion (Still is...champion is hot ****ing garbage). Alas we will never see it again.
Falling back on the Princess Bride: "'I'm on the Brute Squad.' 'You are the Brute Squad!'" Then earlier. "You use different moves when fighting a (half dozen, I forget the number) men than when you're only fighting one." This leads me to two trains of related thought. A) have it be a fighting style that increases melee damage by +2 and AC by +1 when there are more than 3 enemies within 10 ft. You'd have 4 toggles that you could play with, the damage, the AC, the number of enemies and the distance. You could also add a fifth toggle of having an ally with 10 ft if it helped balance the mechanics. As it is, you'd have dueling without the 1 hand requirement and defensive without the armor requirement, but it would have the spacing requirement. Alternately, you could flesh it out a touch more and make it a feat. B) bring back the more unique aspects of the Brute subclass and play with the idea presented above. Alternatively you could form specialized brute fighting styles: group fighting, brawling, grapple master/wrestling, perhaps a few more and have them add on to each other in a similar vein to totem barbarian where you can get 3 different aspects for each one that you can mix and match.
There are some existing feats and fighting styles that can give you some of that flavor when added to existing fighter subclasses, but having the subclass chassis cover some of it would give people more options moving forward. Additionally, allowing something like unarmed fighting style and tavern brawler to stack a little, perhaps by converting the d4 unarmed from Tavern Brawler to a flat +2 when used with unarmed fighting style, or bumping the damage die up one for an average of 1 damage increase could be interesting.
Love this idea.
Works around a theme that does not exist and gives it flavour.
Hunter ranger and Monster Slayer Ranger share a lot of thematic design space as well. Mechanically they different.
not that much design space tho, i mean monster slayer is very specifically about dealing with magical and supernatural threats like dragons and mages whereas the hunter is rather vague about specializing in general
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
Yeah they don't really a lot of thematic design space at all. Hunter is a master of weapons and arms versed in versatile methods of dealing with varying targets. Monster Slayer is a master of supernatural counters to supernatural threads (making it supernaturally niche- somewhat joking).
Champion and Samurai are also different thematically. Champion perfects the use of devastating power to brute force targets (devastating power being I guess being crits). Samurai are about never giving up and knowing when to make one last stand (which- let's be real isn't really a last stand).
This is not to say that these are good mechanically, I did say Monster Slayer is niche and Champion mastering devastating power is a lot less devastating then it should be.
Edit: For reference Brute is all about making devastating attacks to brute force targets (in this case devastating power being mini-crits on all attacks).
Yeah they don't really a lot of thematic design space at all. Hunter is a master of weapons and arms versed in versatile methods of dealing with varying targets. Monster Slayer is a master of supernatural counters to supernatural threads (making it supernaturally niche- somewhat joking).
Champion and Samurai are also different thematically. Champion perfects the use of devastating power to brute force targets (devastating power being I guess being crits). Samurai are about never giving up and knowing when to make one last stand (which- let's be real isn't really a last stand).
This is not to say that these are good mechanically, I did say Monster Slayer is niche and Champion mastering devastating power is a lot less devastating then it should be.
Hunter shares a lot with Monster Slayer at early levels.
Colossus Slayer and Slayer's Prey are like literally the same thing except one is worse (Slayer's prey)
Later on Hunter gets more options but the theme behind the two is: You are fighting monsters.
They say its suppose to be about hunting vampires and what not but its not really but really nothing gives you advantage on fighting them until 11th level....and even then the premise is thin.
Until then its pretty much you do the same damage to any creature. The language in the description is different but the mechanics are not really there to support the theme until much later.
Samurai and Champion are both "Simple" in the fact they have very little resource management. Champion has none and Samurai has 1. You get a passive bonus to something at level 7 in both. This is why I think they are similar Thematically they are different I will agree. Mechanically they will mostly be the same.....about 5% of the time you are doing something cool then just swinging for 95% of the time.
Moreso I think that the Brute should have replaced champion all together as champion is utter dogshit. If nothing else they have actively changed other subclasses features to be better (Beastmaster) so why not just dump the worst offender in the game.
"Yeah they don't really a lot of thematic design space at all."
"This is not to say that these are good mechanically"
As for Monster Slayer, it's about slaying supernatural creatures and they get (sorta? kind arguable) good at that at level 3 with Protection from Evil and Good (which is okay I guess), and Hunter's Sense (would be fantastic if most monsters had vulnerabilities). They also get a 1d6 to saving throws of their target later- so that's cool I guess?
Yeah I did mostly say thematically for a reason, Samurai is most of time just a basic fighter who sometimes uses a bonus action.
I do agree I feel like Champion should of just been changed for Brute or something along those lines. Just that I can see why WoTC didn't want to add brute as a completely new subclass, and brute (/champion being bad as a whole) was probably long forgotten when they were making Tasha's which is a shame.
Edit: brute is a subclass not a class, very small edit.
They say its suppose to be about hunting vampires and what not but its not really but really nothing gives you advantage on fighting them until 11th level....and even then the premise is thin.
their save bonus will help a lot more against a dragon with a breath weapon, spellcasters and vampires who will charm you than it will help against mundane bears, bandits and owlbears, protection from evil and good and magic circle only applies against those threats and generally the more mundane your opponent is the less likely they are to have any resistances you need to worry about, plus the more magical and fantastical an opponent will be the more likely it is that you are facing it alone rather than a group of them, an hunter ranger with horde slayer will work just as well against a horde of skeletons as they will against a horde of orcs or a mob of peasants, as good at stabbig a bear or owlbear a lot with giant killer as they are at stabbing a hill giant or red dragon, so on and so fourth
They say its suppose to be about hunting vampires and what not but its not really but really nothing gives you advantage on fighting them until 11th level....and even then the premise is thin.
their save bonus will help a lot more against a dragon with a breath weapon, spellcasters and vampires who will charm you than it will help against mundane bears, bandits and owlbears, protection from evil and good and magic circle only applies against those threats and generally the more mundane your opponent is the less likely they are to have any resistances you need to worry about, plus the more magical and fantastical an opponent will be the more likely it is that you are facing it alone rather than a group of them, an hunter ranger with horde slayer will work just as well against a horde of skeletons as they will against a horde of orcs or a mob of peasants, as good at stabbig a bear or owlbear a lot with giant killer as they are at stabbing a hill giant or red dragon, so on and so fourth
And a Hunter Ranger with Steel Will new able to hopefully shrug off the fear effect that most undead, dragons, etc.. have.
The abilities are so generic it's hard to say it has a definite theme.
The stopping teleport one is also very odd... Those creatures (sans enemy spellcasting) don't have teleport.
My main thing is that Brute could have simply replaced Champion as Champion is god awful.
The stopping teleport one is also very odd... Those creatures (sans enemy spellcasting) don't have teleport.
a lot of fey like the meenlock, eladrin NPC stat blocks, blink dogs etc have an non-spell at-will (or slightly more limited) teleport, as do every single yugoloth and all archdevils, and also the marilith, all of whom fall under the category of "evil fey and fiends", so it will be useful eventiually, i mean having the abillity to teleport is one of the more common magical effects that can be accomplished without spells
My main thing is that Brute could have simply replaced Champion as Champion is god awful.
while champion is awful, it still feels like the brute is a bit uncreative since all it does is let you deal more damage, also feels like it is stepping on the ranger's toes with how most of its subclasses gain spammable pure damage increases but then again everyone does that nowadays, and
The abilities are so generic it's hard to say it has a definite theme.
their theme is fighting any creature that is in some way magical or supernatural in nature and when honing their focus on a single creature, they will do fantastic when they are fighting a single dragon ((getting a bonus to saves against its fear effect, breath weapon, wing attack if the dragon is ancient, any hostile lair actions they have and any spells it might have if it uses the spellcasting variant, and also if the ranger is sufficiently high-level it can use a reaction to attack the dragon whenever it is subjected to any of those things i listed)) but will do terribly when fighting 20 or so mundane thugs as their bonuses only apply to a single target they designate and there is no need to make any saving throws when they all just attack normally and also they probably will not have any damage vunerabillities or resistances, plus protection from evil and good and magic circle applies only against aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead, and banishment only against anything not from the material plane
the hunter specialises their choice of abilities to deal with whatever enemies they want to face, their abillities will vary in effecitiveness based on the general nature and stats of your opponent, and will generally have no issue dealing with crowds, and will generally have no such fixation on magical/ supernatural threats
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
Honestly I care less about the ranger discussion TBH....Its fine I guess.
The main topic here is how the Brute was the better Champion and should have replaced it.
Extra damage is literally built into almost every martial class at some point...it has to be to keep up with caster progression.
Its not even optional at this point as its expected progression on top of the fighter's extra attacks. Every single fighter subclass adds extra damage at some point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the shamanistic overtones of much of the barbarian class. The Ancestral Guardian subclass is one of my favorites, even if it's universally despised amongst Pro Power Munchkins, and I think there's a lot of merit in the barbarian as a feral survivor rather than just a big dumb brute who likes hitting shit. Grog Strongjaw was, and is, an awesome character to watch and play, but he's far from the only viable interpretation of the barbarian concept.
I just also believe very strongly in that bit I mentioned earlier in the thread. 'Mastery of Power' vs. 'Power of Mastery'. The Brute felt so damn off because it evinced no mastery - it was just a big bag of Biggahnumbahs to throw at enemies, and that sucked and encroached heavily on the barbarian. The idea of an indomitable spirit, on the other hand, could be a 'Mastery' sort of deal, and fits right in with the fighter's general ethos. I don't know if I'd even call it a Brute, but keying off the original (highly shitty) subclass and the recent Psionic things, what about a Willpower die?
Possible uses of the Willpower die
-Once per turn, add Willpower die to a missed attack roll, possibly turning that attack into a success.
-Add Willpower die to saving throw as a reaction, or to a death save.
-Add Willpower die to Second Wind healing rolls.
-Add Willpower die to STR/DEX/CON checks, with whatever restriction makes it not a super busted always on bardic Inspiration.
So on and so forth. use that die to represent acts of extreme mental fortitude and endurance, things a regular fighter would struggle with. Make the class all about PLUS ULTRA, rather than "is barbarian except also is fighter because want gestalt class in 5e without letting anyone else have one".
Also LULZ 'Barbighter'. Yiss. Much better. Using that one instead.
Please do not contact or message me.
its obvious you are just trying to be a pain at this point....Brute had literally nothing in common with barbarian and your insistence otherwise is just a juvenile attempt to make people angry.
But even still you manage to make a good point and the willpower die is a good idea for the subclass.
They tried to do die in different ways with other UA subclasses but they fell apart for one reason or another. I honestly think fighter would have been better with superiority die being a class feature instead of just one for the battlemaster.
I would like to try to run a subclass with willpower die though as this introduces new features that other subclasses dont have.
Heh. Or maybe I'm trying to drive home the point that saying "NO U DX" to everyone who says that there's too much overlap between the old Brute and the barbarian for the Brute to work as a subclass does not actually fix the problems people had with the subclass and will instead do nothing but plague your rebuild with the same problems.
Trust me. I get it. I've been there. I despise the Alchemist as it was released in Eberron Rising and I'm not sure I'll ever forgive The Community for forcing Wizards to change to the godawful potion chucking Doc Brown wild-eyed idiot (which completely destroyed my existing Alchemist characters from Wayfinder's Guide). I even tried to fix the Alchemist myself, before being told by DDB that "You're Not Allowed To Publish Copyrighted Material" despite my changes and alterations and them denying the class even for private home game use. I get it.
But if you want to fix this shit properly, you need to accept that a whole freaking mess of people hate the deep, deeply problematic thematic overlap between "big dumb fighter guy who's not good at anything but gets by with being super strong and tough" and "a savage warrior who's not smart or masterful but gets by on being too strong and tough to go down". if you can't see why people continually razz the Brute's shit for being a Barbighter, you will never manage to fix what's wrong with the subclass.
Please do not contact or message me.
Should have copyrighted that Barbighter stuff when I had the chance.
As for the the thematics, the aforementioned Willpower dice and changing the theme to "I'm too stubborn to fail" would be a small shift that might allow for the Brute to live on in a different way. It might be similar to the Tunnel Fighter fighting style giving way to Cavalier (seriously, if you haven't looked at it, do so. They turned a fighting style into a subclass and added some other themes to it to flesh it out). The WillPower dice would have to be different enough from supremacy dice to not make people think, "I've seen this before, too". Something like HobGoblin's Saving Face but tied to the Willpower Dice, or just renaming it Stubborn and possibly scaling based on the number of enemies. Giving your self temporary HP through a roll of the dice, something like a wisdom modifier per short rest usage of guidance, temporarily giving yourself wisdom saving throw proficiency (say willpower die + Wisdom mod minutes)? A class feature like half orcs Relentless Endurance or the many other similar features would be appropriate. A ribbon ability to let you treat your exhaustion level as one less than it is as long as you've had a long rest within the last little bit could be an interesting starting point. Things that would make this the wisdom fighter that isn't worried about Ranger things generally. You could roll many of the existing features around with that thought, focusing on the stubborn willpower to succeed, and find something that is the spiritual successor to the aspects of a Brute that you enjoy while giving it the thematic that make it stand out from the other classes/subclasses even if it borrows some from them or has some overlap.
Incidentally some aspects of Tunnel Fighter would be nice, finding ways to make them subclass features that don't step on the toes of Cavalier. Wisdom modifier per long rest extra reactions to make OAs (and only OAs) while stubbornly holding a passage of no more than 15 ft wide? Given at like 11? 15?
The comparison is completely in the realm of flavor and theme though and even at that a "simple" fighter is not inherently the same as barbarian. Mechanically they had little to no similarities to even make the theme anywhere close to barbarian.
This is why its flawed to say they are "Barbighter" as it makes no sense when you apply the smallest amount of logic to it.
You could say champion is basically barbarian with the same level of evidence. Or basically any class that gives extra damage on an attack. Your logic is flawed and should not be the basis for the "fix" of the subclass.
You managed to hit on its major sin though: Originality when compared to Champion and other fighters.
The willpower die are a good idea and if utilized in a unique way could be interesting enough to pull it off. I think you even had a good grasp of how to make it work with the examples you provided for the die.
Theme being the pulling force for a subclass is fair I think in that the mechanics need to fit the theme. If you have a Psionic Monk and never use one ability that mentions mental ability or INT it would be the mechanics failing to adhere to the theme.
Brute's idea was that of a "Simple bumpkin fighter" who hits hard but really the only mechanic that held to that theme was the brute dice. Every ability after that failed this theme and thus the class itself being identified by a theme that it never truly invested in is pretty stupid.
Where productive thought comes in is how to modify the subclass into taking the mechanics and retrofiting it to another theme or going all in on the brute mechanics and leaning into "Dumb fighter".
I prefer the former and taking the aspects of the subclass I liked (The 7th level ability) and making it into something better.
well i would say that we have already debated the topic of what an fighter is and what it is not, and what an brute is and what an brute is not, but it needs not be overcomplicated. In the end what this thread has now started to do is more or less the same thing as the champion, same core ideas of resillience and hitting hard. This is not exactly rocket science, unlike paladins and druid the fighter class does not have much strong flavour in it, there is less of an need to distinguish it becuase it is trying to fill a niche that is already covered but poorly so
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
It truly started as a person asking for the brute subclass. Now it has evolved in the a forum discussing real ideas about the in and outs of subclasses. The only thing i can say is thank you to those who have contributed. Your inpit means everything to me. Thank you so much
I was just looking for a copy of the UA Brute template and ended up reading 5 pages of a very interesting discussion. Nice.
Dropping in super late, apologies.
The intention of "Unearthed Arcana" was basically; We created a big pool of ideas that we've gathered and made something presentable from it. They are mostly just design ideas and hold no accuracy yet in terms of balance or originality. Feel free to use these ideas to bring them to the table or homebrew something from them, but take their strengths or weaknesses with a grain of salt.
Unearthed Arcana was never an official thing, just a big bundle of playtest material. Some parts of them have found a place - after design tweaking - in a new book, but not everything is guaranteed to come out, let alone 'as presented' in UA. For as far as UA's origin goes, it was completely up to DM and Organization discretion whether they want to embrace or accept UA, or not. But in official instances of D&D (such as Adventurer's League), it's not allowed.
To come back to the Brute in specific, Brute fell under the "it's not original" category of why it's not being released yet. When a subclass is made, it always takes a certain "Design Standoint" in mind. Eldritch Knight is "Hit combined with spells", Battlemaster is "Hit tactically", Gunslinger (ref. Matt Mercer, yes I know not official, but still a good example); "Hit with Guns". Brute's design standpoint contradicted a lot with the Champion's design standpoint, both of which being "Hit Harder". Thus, Brute overlapped an already existing angle that the fighter already had, and if a new form of Brute subclass would come, it would likely not be as it is now.
Also, the argument of "it's a pseudo barbarian" is a moot point. Plenty of subclasses are intentionally designed to work a little into the direction of a different class, while having its own flavor. While the extra damage is very much comparable to Rage, a Barbarian is a lot more than just doing a little more wham.
Hunter ranger and Monster Slayer Ranger share a lot of thematic design space as well. Mechanically they different.
Samurai and Champion are both "Simple" fighters with a small core element that makes them hit better...one is just all the time the other is nova burst damage. Both are exceedingly simple in their design but are different in theme enough to warrant it.
I understand your sentiment but if theme was an issue they could work on that....its not hard to make the Brute similar to what they had but make changes from UA to make it more unique.
It did share a lot with champion after 10th level as it bascially mirrored its progress. They could have changed its features after that to make it more unique.
My major issue is....champion is terrible. Objectively and thematically. Its design space is so vague and bland that basically no simple fighter subclass can be made ever again because it steps on it? Its like a bad penny that you can't get rid of but you can't spend either.
My hope was they were going to add some options for it in Tasha's and allow it to have some different subclass options but alas they decided that fixing old subclasses is not a thing they want to do (Unless its the ranger for some reason?)
Brute was at least interesting as it provided a mechanic that did not exist before at 7th level and actually did better damage than most fighter subclasses....but it was literally all it did.
I hate when people look at it and say "thats too much damage" when the math actually suggests that battlemaster STILL does better given the common encounter schedule of groups and now the BM is inherently much much much more versatile as they can use their die for a wide range of things and not just combat thanks to Tasha's.
Brute just had damage....so it SHOULD do more.
Overall it was a much better champion than champion (Still is...champion is hot ******* garbage). Alas we will never see it again.
Falling back on the Princess Bride: "'I'm on the Brute Squad.' 'You are the Brute Squad!'" Then earlier. "You use different moves when fighting a (half dozen, I forget the number) men than when you're only fighting one." This leads me to two trains of related thought. A) have it be a fighting style that increases melee damage by +2 and AC by +1 when there are more than 3 enemies within 10 ft. You'd have 4 toggles that you could play with, the damage, the AC, the number of enemies and the distance. You could also add a fifth toggle of having an ally with 10 ft if it helped balance the mechanics. As it is, you'd have dueling without the 1 hand requirement and defensive without the armor requirement, but it would have the spacing requirement. Alternately, you could flesh it out a touch more and make it a feat. B) bring back the more unique aspects of the Brute subclass and play with the idea presented above. Alternatively you could form specialized brute fighting styles: group fighting, brawling, grapple master/wrestling, perhaps a few more and have them add on to each other in a similar vein to totem barbarian where you can get 3 different aspects for each one that you can mix and match.
There are some existing feats and fighting styles that can give you some of that flavor when added to existing fighter subclasses, but having the subclass chassis cover some of it would give people more options moving forward. Additionally, allowing something like unarmed fighting style and tavern brawler to stack a little, perhaps by converting the d4 unarmed from Tavern Brawler to a flat +2 when used with unarmed fighting style, or bumping the damage die up one for an average of 1 damage increase could be interesting.
Love this idea.
Works around a theme that does not exist and gives it flavour.
not that much design space tho, i mean monster slayer is very specifically about dealing with magical and supernatural threats like dragons and mages whereas the hunter is rather vague about specializing in general
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
Yeah they don't really a lot of thematic design space at all.
Hunter is a master of weapons and arms versed in versatile methods of dealing with varying targets.
Monster Slayer is a master of supernatural counters to supernatural threads (making it supernaturally niche- somewhat joking).
Champion and Samurai are also different thematically.
Champion perfects the use of devastating power to brute force targets (devastating power being I guess being crits).
Samurai are about never giving up and knowing when to make one last stand (which- let's be real isn't really a last stand).
This is not to say that these are good mechanically, I did say Monster Slayer is niche and Champion mastering devastating power is a lot less devastating then it should be.
Edit: For reference Brute is all about making devastating attacks to brute force targets (in this case devastating power being mini-crits on all attacks).
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Hunter shares a lot with Monster Slayer at early levels.
Colossus Slayer and Slayer's Prey are like literally the same thing except one is worse (Slayer's prey)
Later on Hunter gets more options but the theme behind the two is: You are fighting monsters.
They say its suppose to be about hunting vampires and what not but its not really but really nothing gives you advantage on fighting them until 11th level....and even then the premise is thin.
Until then its pretty much you do the same damage to any creature. The language in the description is different but the mechanics are not really there to support the theme until much later.
Samurai and Champion are both "Simple" in the fact they have very little resource management. Champion has none and Samurai has 1. You get a passive bonus to something at level 7 in both. This is why I think they are similar Thematically they are different I will agree. Mechanically they will mostly be the same.....about 5% of the time you are doing something cool then just swinging for 95% of the time.
Moreso I think that the Brute should have replaced champion all together as champion is utter dogshit. If nothing else they have actively changed other subclasses features to be better (Beastmaster) so why not just dump the worst offender in the game.
As for Monster Slayer, it's about slaying supernatural creatures and they get (sorta? kind arguable) good at that at level 3 with Protection from Evil and Good (which is okay I guess), and Hunter's Sense (would be fantastic if most monsters had vulnerabilities). They also get a 1d6 to saving throws of their target later- so that's cool I guess?
Yeah I did mostly say thematically for a reason, Samurai is most of time just a basic fighter who sometimes uses a bonus action.
I do agree I feel like Champion should of just been changed for Brute or something along those lines. Just that I can see why WoTC didn't want to add brute as a completely new subclass, and brute (/champion being bad as a whole) was probably long forgotten when they were making Tasha's which is a shame.
Edit: brute is a subclass not a class, very small edit.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
their save bonus will help a lot more against a dragon with a breath weapon, spellcasters and vampires who will charm you than it will help against mundane bears, bandits and owlbears, protection from evil and good and magic circle only applies against those threats and generally the more mundane your opponent is the less likely they are to have any resistances you need to worry about, plus the more magical and fantastical an opponent will be the more likely it is that you are facing it alone rather than a group of them, an hunter ranger with horde slayer will work just as well against a horde of skeletons as they will against a horde of orcs or a mob of peasants, as good at stabbig a bear or owlbear a lot with giant killer as they are at stabbing a hill giant or red dragon, so on and so fourth
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
And a Hunter Ranger with Steel Will new able to hopefully shrug off the fear effect that most undead, dragons, etc.. have.
The abilities are so generic it's hard to say it has a definite theme.
The stopping teleport one is also very odd... Those creatures (sans enemy spellcasting) don't have teleport.
My main thing is that Brute could have simply replaced Champion as Champion is god awful.
a lot of fey like the meenlock, eladrin NPC stat blocks, blink dogs etc have an non-spell at-will (or slightly more limited) teleport, as do every single yugoloth and all archdevils, and also the marilith, all of whom fall under the category of "evil fey and fiends", so it will be useful eventiually, i mean having the abillity to teleport is one of the more common magical effects that can be accomplished without spells
while champion is awful, it still feels like the brute is a bit uncreative since all it does is let you deal more damage, also feels like it is stepping on the ranger's toes with how most of its subclasses gain spammable pure damage increases but then again everyone does that nowadays, and
their theme is fighting any creature that is in some way magical or supernatural in nature and when honing their focus on a single creature, they will do fantastic when they are fighting a single dragon ((getting a bonus to saves against its fear effect, breath weapon, wing attack if the dragon is ancient, any hostile lair actions they have and any spells it might have if it uses the spellcasting variant, and also if the ranger is sufficiently high-level it can use a reaction to attack the dragon whenever it is subjected to any of those things i listed)) but will do terribly when fighting 20 or so mundane thugs as their bonuses only apply to a single target they designate and there is no need to make any saving throws when they all just attack normally and also they probably will not have any damage vunerabillities or resistances, plus protection from evil and good and magic circle applies only against aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead, and banishment only against anything not from the material plane
the hunter specialises their choice of abilities to deal with whatever enemies they want to face, their abillities will vary in effecitiveness based on the general nature and stats of your opponent, and will generally have no issue dealing with crowds, and will generally have no such fixation on magical/ supernatural threats
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
Honestly I care less about the ranger discussion TBH....Its fine I guess.
The main topic here is how the Brute was the better Champion and should have replaced it.
Extra damage is literally built into almost every martial class at some point...it has to be to keep up with caster progression.
Its not even optional at this point as its expected progression on top of the fighter's extra attacks. Every single fighter subclass adds extra damage at some point.