I didn't miss your post, but the abilities you're arguing are a rip off of the barbarian are not meant to be a rip off of the barbarian. Also, the similarities end after 3rd level.
I did focus only on flavor in my last post, because even if at level 3 they accomplish very similar things, the flavor is what makes people like the early level Rune Knight so much more than the Brute. Brute just seemed too similar to the Champion and Barbarian for the community's liking (not saying I didn't like it, I did), so they abandoned it.
Rune Knight does function similarly at level 3 (even though it is more powerful) and does need some nerfing. As has been stated many times on many threads, they have said that they purposely make the UA's too powerful so that they can nerf them later. Whether or not this statement makes sense or is even true is up for debate, but that's what Jeremy Crawford said.
Yes, I agree that classes don't own their niche of D&D, but the community and Wizards tends to disagree with that. Scout Rogue exists, and is better at being a ranger than the ranger ever will be, but that doesn't mean that it's encroaching on the Ranger's territory just because it can accomplish similar things and is cooler.
Sure, at level 3, the Rune Knight can mechanically be a better Brute for awhile, but once you get to the later abilities, it becomes abundantly clear that it isn't a rip off of the Brute. Whether or not they took inspiration from the barbarian or Brute subclass is something we may never know. The fact is that they are similar at the base level, but end up very different.
Fair enough and good points made.
The only other major difference?
Rune Knight will likely see print.
Brute likely never will.
Both I think felt good enough to exist and both would be fun in their own ways. Too bad will we never find out what they would have changed with Brute.
You now get to decide exactly how the Brute will work in your games. You have the template, you can make your homebrew Brute any which way you like. The fact that it won't see print just means you can control how it works in your games, no issue.
Never cared for the Rune Knight myself. Doesn't fit the base fighter class well to me. I get what you're trying to do. You're angry, you're trying to scourge the folks who said the Brute was too close to the barbarian by putting their darling Rune Knight in the same boat. One, it doesn't hold up, and two, it doesn't matter. The majority of the playerbase said no. They did the same thing to me, and completely ruined the Alchemist artificer. They destroyed psionics. Trust me, I get it. I yelled and screamed too, told people how stupid they were when they did it to the Alchemist for reasons much less founded than the reasons behind the Brute dying.
It doesn't help. All you get is more anger. More hate. More suffering.
Just let it go, and spin up that homebrew editor. You can give your homebrew Brute all the barbarian class abilities you like, and it'll be better than whatever Wizards would've theoretically printed.
You now get to decide exactly how the Brute will work in your games. You have the template, you can make your homebrew Brute any which way you like. The fact that it won't see print just means you can control how it works in your games, no issue.
Never cared for the Rune Knight myself. Doesn't fit the base fighter class well to me. I get what you're trying to do. You're angry, you're trying to scourge the folks who said the Brute was too close to the barbarian by putting their darling Rune Knight in the same boat. One, it doesn't hold up, and two, it doesn't matter. The majority of the playerbase said no. They did the same thing to me, and completely ruined the Alchemist artificer. They destroyed psionics. Trust me, I get it. I yelled and screamed too, told people how stupid they were when they did it to the Alchemist for reasons much less founded than the reasons behind the Brute dying.
It doesn't help. All you get is more anger. More hate. More suffering.
Just let it go, and spin up that homebrew editor. You can give your homebrew Brute all the barbarian class abilities you like, and it'll be better than whatever Wizards would've theoretically printed.
Probably the best approach.
Community always strikes me as odd when the hive mind decides something is "broken" or "bad".
I agree with you on the original alchemist artificer. The old version was much much better.
However, I think you might be trying to make me upset with the "You can give your homebrew Brute all the barbarian class abilities" as I have literally stated I dont think they share many if any features. I have clearly stated and shown that Rune Knight actually has more features that straight up copy the Enlarge/Rage mechanics much more than Brute ever did.
If that wasn't your intent then fair enough and I understand. However, if you were intentionally trying to make me angry I am not sure what you have to gain from that?
Hey guys. I just paid for the hero tier subscription but im not seeing all of the variants for the races or all the subclasses for the classes. Does anyone know how to get them?
Hey guys. I just paid for the hero tier subscription but im not seeing all of the variants for the races or all the subclasses for the classes. Does anyone know how to get them?
Wrong place to post, but you need to purchase the books. The subscription gives you access to more characters. I don't recall the other things that Hero Tier gives you versus what Master gives you.
but then again, it would not be all that tricky to come up with an rune knight homebrew that is far less mechanically similar to the barbarian, and at the same time make the class more fun, for instance instead of dealing an extra d6 with every attack, you get the following
your reach increases by 5 ft
you deal double damage to objects and structures
once per turn when you hit an creature at least one size smaller than yourself with an melee weapon attack, you may deal an additional 1d8 damage
when you take the attack action on your turn, you may attempt to just yeet comparatively small opponents. Make an grapple check against a creature within your reach that is at least two sizes smaller than you, and on a success you throw the creature up to 15 ft away from you. When the creature finally lands, they and whatever creature or object they collide with each take 1d6 + your strength modifier bludgeoning damage. You must have at least one hand free to do this, and you can only do this once per turn
that way the character feels more like an giant than what it would before, while in giant form it should therefore be no more powerful than what an hunter ranger or horizon walker is normally, but you get a bunch of features that make your fighter feel a lot bigger than they are
similarly instead of the hill giant rune giving you resistances to physcial damage, the rune instead lets you gain temporary hit points for a certain duration equal to your fighter level + int mod, and the frost giant rune can give you a bonus to strength (athletics) checks equal to your int mod and let you knock creatures prone when you hit them with melee attacks for a short duration
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
but then again, it would not be all that tricky to come up with an rune knight homebrew that is far less mechanically similar to the barbarian, and at the same time make the class more fun, for instance instead of dealing an extra d6 with every attack, you get the following
your reach increases by 5 ft
you deal double damage to objects and structures
once per turn when you hit an creature at least one size smaller than yourself with an melee weapon attack, you may deal an additional 1d8 damage
when you take the attack action on your turn, you may attempt to just yeet comparatively small opponents. Make an grapple check against a creature within your reach that is at least two sizes smaller than you, and on a success you throw the creature up to 15 ft away from you. When the creature finally lands, they and whatever creature or object they collide with each take 1d6 + your strength modifier bludgeoning damage. You must have at least one hand free to do this, and you can only do this once per turn
that way the character feels more like an giant than what it would before, while in giant form it should therefore be no more powerful than what an hunter ranger or horizon walker is normally, but you get a bunch of features that make your fighter feel a lot bigger than they are
similarly instead of the hill giant rune giving you resistances to physcial damage, the rune instead lets you gain temporary hit points for a certain duration equal to your fighter level + int mod, and the frost giant rune can give you a bonus to strength (athletics) checks equal to your int mod and let you knock creatures prone when you hit them with melee attacks for a short duration
Yeah I agree...the features are pretty clearly taken from other things and could use some unique changes. These fit the bill well!
Brute at least had some novel concepts in the first 7 level. The extra damage was on the bland side but the d6 to saves including death saves was new and exciting.
Its biggest sin was being too close to champion at later levels.
I would have given them a way to get THP at Level 10 instead of fighting style. (BA to get Fighter level + CON mod once per short rest?)
Then 15th level they could take a Reaction to attack a creature that hit you with an attack. Contemplating if they could get double brute die on this attack? (CON mod per long rest)
18th level when you go to 0 HP you can use a reaction to immediately take the Attack Action. Instead of rolling you can choose to take the max roll on Brute Force die on any attack made during this action and once you have made all your attacks you still suffer the effects of being at 0 HP.
Brute at least had some novel concepts in the first 7 level. The extra damage was on the bland side but the d6 to saves including death saves was new and exciting.
Its biggest sin was being too close to champion at later levels.
I would have given them a way to get THP at Level 10 instead of fighting style. (BA to get Fighter level + CON mod once per short rest?)
Then 15th level they could take a Reaction to attack a creature that hit you with an attack. Contemplating if they could get double brute die on this attack? (CON mod per long rest)
18th level when you go to 0 HP you can use a reaction to immediately take the Attack Action. Instead of rolling you can choose to take the max roll on Brute Force die on any attack made during this action and once you have made all your attacks you still suffer the effects of being at 0 HP.
i think if you are to change the brute subclass the first thing to edit is how the brute dice works. The thing that makes fighters unique compared to other classes is their enhanced number of attacks, letting you add your brute dice to every attack you make will add up really quickly, an 11th level brute using action surge will deal 6d6 more damage compared to an non brute fighter using action surge, fighter already has some of the best DPS in the game and there no real need to give it better DPS. Ether restricting it to once per round, or restricting it to being given when at low health or triggering after you use action surge or second wind or even reversing the mechanic and letting you reduce damage taken once per round from an attack or effect you can see would be better, even just making it so you are extremely good at exploiting when the enemy's guard is down, so when you have advantage you may forgo the advantage to deal the brute damage, or only when the enemy is at low health, or maybe when you hit an creature with an attack they must make an saving throw (DC 10 + your strength or dex modifier) or have an condition such as speed reduction or disadvantage on attacks jsut due to your bone breaking force
the 7th level feature was unique back then but it has already been recycled for the monster hunter ranger, where it is tied to the slayers prey feature and also applies to grapples as well, so it might need to be a little more distinguished from supernatural defense by only allowing you to use it on death, strength, con, charisma and wisdom saving throws, as well as to strength (athletics) checks made to initiate grapples
at 14th level battlerager barbarians get to attack creatures that hit them as a reaction more or less at will, so might be fine to just give it at will but not letting the attack deal extra damage
here is just a fun idea for an high level brute feature, whenever you take the attack action and roll a 20 on your attack roll, you may make an additional attack with the same weapon against the same target, with no upper limit to how many times this can trigger on a turn, but whenever you do this you do not get to roll crit damage. So if an player is particularly lucky, they might make like seven attacks with their one attack action by just continually rolling crits.
Most fighter subclasses try to get at least one out of combat at 3rd or 7th level, at least something that works in the other two pillars of the game, so perhaps as an ribbon at 7th level alongside that really useful save mechanic you also deal double damage to objects and structures and have advantage on strength checks made to break open objects
If people are honestly serious about rebuilding the Fightbarian, the thing to ask yourself is what you want out of the subclass. What is the seed idea, the theme statement for the subclass? If the theme statement is "the Brute is a fighter who specializes in raw strength, using their sheer physical prowess to deal more damage and to resist the blows of their enemies", then I will once again direct you to the Barbarian and say "JUST FREAKING PLAY THE BARBARIAN ALREADY!!!"
If the theme statement is something else? That will drive the decision of what the class should do. But without a theme statement, a goal the subclass is embodying, any attempt to rebuild it is basically throwing pasta at a wall in pitch blackness and hoping it sticks in an appealing way.
If people are honestly serious about rebuilding the Fightbarian, the thing to ask yourself is what you want out of the subclass. What is the seed idea, the theme statement for the subclass? If the theme statement is "the Brute is a fighter who specializes in raw strength, using their sheer physical prowess to deal more damage and to resist the blows of their enemies", then I will once again direct you to the Barbarian and say "JUST FREAKING PLAY THE BARBARIAN ALREADY!!!"
If the theme statement is something else? That will drive the decision of what the class should do. But without a theme statement, a goal the subclass is embodying, any attempt to rebuild it is basically throwing pasta at a wall in pitch blackness and hoping it sticks in an appealing way.
Lol Brute was no where near FighterBarb mechanically so I ignored most of what you said after that.
Brute at least had some novel concepts in the first 7 level. The extra damage was on the bland side but the d6 to saves including death saves was new and exciting.
Its biggest sin was being too close to champion at later levels.
I would have given them a way to get THP at Level 10 instead of fighting style. (BA to get Fighter level + CON mod once per short rest?)
Then 15th level they could take a Reaction to attack a creature that hit you with an attack. Contemplating if they could get double brute die on this attack? (CON mod per long rest)
18th level when you go to 0 HP you can use a reaction to immediately take the Attack Action. Instead of rolling you can choose to take the max roll on Brute Force die on any attack made during this action and once you have made all your attacks you still suffer the effects of being at 0 HP.
i think if you are to change the brute subclass the first thing to edit is how the brute dice works. The thing that makes fighters unique compared to other classes is their enhanced number of attacks, letting you add your brute dice to every attack you make will add up really quickly, an 11th level brute using action surge will deal 6d6 more damage compared to an non brute fighter using action surge, fighter already has some of the best DPS in the game and there no real need to give it better DPS. Ether restricting it to once per round, or restricting it to being given when at low health or triggering after you use action surge or second wind or even reversing the mechanic and letting you reduce damage taken once per round from an attack or effect you can see would be better, even just making it so you are extremely good at exploiting when the enemy's guard is down, so when you have advantage you may forgo the advantage to deal the brute damage, or only when the enemy is at low health, or maybe when you hit an creature with an attack they must make an saving throw (DC 10 + your strength or dex modifier) or have an condition such as speed reduction or disadvantage on attacks jsut due to your bone breaking force
the 7th level feature was unique back then but it has already been recycled for the monster hunter ranger, where it is tied to the slayers prey feature and also applies to grapples as well, so it might need to be a little more distinguished from supernatural defense by only allowing you to use it on death, strength, con, charisma and wisdom saving throws, as well as to strength (athletics) checks made to initiate grapples
at 14th level battlerager barbarians get to attack creatures that hit them as a reaction more or less at will, so might be fine to just give it at will but not letting the attack deal extra damage
here is just a fun idea for an high level brute feature, whenever you take the attack action and roll a 20 on your attack roll, you may make an additional attack with the same weapon against the same target, with no upper limit to how many times this can trigger on a turn, but whenever you do this you do not get to roll crit damage. So if an player is particularly lucky, they might make like seven attacks with their one attack action by just continually rolling crits.
Most fighter subclasses try to get at least one out of combat at 3rd or 7th level, at least something that works in the other two pillars of the game, so perhaps as an ribbon at 7th level alongside that really useful save mechanic you also deal double damage to objects and structures and have advantage on strength checks made to break open objects
The damage from the brute dice is actually mathmatically pretty close the same as Battle-master, especially when you realize most parties do not follow the 6-8 encounters per adventuring day average. If you are allowing 2 short rests and doing 1-2 combats between said encounters the battlemaster comes out ahead with feats included.
I would not be opposed to changing it to be you can use brute force once per turn to force the creature to make a save or suffer a disadvantage like you stated though. That would be a bit more thematic I agree.
7th level feature is central to the "Survivor Type" thematic feel I was going for with the rework. Being able to get back up from being down easily via rolls is what I would love from the subclass and this would be the one thing I would not change at all.
The ribbon is a good idea and does follow fighter design so thats a good idea to add one at 7th.
The later features I am open to what is a good. The brute wouldn't need to be named brute but rather scrapper or some other kind of "Survivor Type" name.
If people are honestly serious about rebuilding the Fightbarian, the thing to ask yourself is what you want out of the subclass. What is the seed idea, the theme statement for the subclass? If the theme statement is "the Brute is a fighter who specializes in raw strength, using their sheer physical prowess to deal more damage and to resist the blows of their enemies", then I will once again direct you to the Barbarian and say "JUST FREAKING PLAY THE BARBARIAN ALREADY!!!"
If the theme statement is something else? That will drive the decision of what the class should do. But without a theme statement, a goal the subclass is embodying, any attempt to rebuild it is basically throwing pasta at a wall in pitch blackness and hoping it sticks in an appealing way.
well think less barbarian and more the champion "the archetypal champion focuses on the development of raw physical power honed to deadly perfection, those who model themselves on this archetype combine rigorous training with physical excellence to deal devastating blows" that, word for word is pretty much what the champion would be, plus the whole aspect of mental fortitude, of never giving up leading to greater physical fortitude. An brute has some kind of supernatural will to live, letting them avoid being charmed or frightened, defy death or just resist poison because no.
Furthermore the barbarian is so much more than just being stronk and hitting things, it has an significant mystical / magical element that such an fighter would lack entirely, an brute fighter would care only about the results, about where to strike the enemy and how hard, than on the spiritual, where your power is coming from, what you are fighting for, an brute is unlikely to be superstitious or act irrationally, and will most likely not champion any particular cause, fighting for the money and only the money. The local chad at the gym will be pretty strong but that does not mean he can access the spirit realm because of that, he is just a dude.
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
If people are honestly serious about rebuilding the Fightbarian, the thing to ask yourself is what you want out of the subclass. What is the seed idea, the theme statement for the subclass? If the theme statement is "the Brute is a fighter who specializes in raw strength, using their sheer physical prowess to deal more damage and to resist the blows of their enemies", then I will once again direct you to the Barbarian and say "JUST FREAKING PLAY THE BARBARIAN ALREADY!!!"
If the theme statement is something else? That will drive the decision of what the class should do. But without a theme statement, a goal the subclass is embodying, any attempt to rebuild it is basically throwing pasta at a wall in pitch blackness and hoping it sticks in an appealing way.
well think less barbarian and more the champion "the archetypal champion focuses on the development of raw physical power honed to deadly perfection, those who model themselves on this archetype combine rigorous training with physical excellence to deal devastating blows" that, word for word is pretty much what the champion would be, plus the whole aspect of mental fortitude, of never giving up leading to greater physical fortitude. An brute has some kind of supernatural will to live, letting them avoid being charmed or frightened, defy death or just resist poison because no.
Furthermore the barbarian is so much more than just being stronk and hitting things, it has an significant mystical / magical element that such an fighter would lack entirely, an brute fighter would care only about the results, about where to strike the enemy and how hard, than on the spiritual, where your power is coming from, what you are fighting for, an brute is unlikely to be superstitious or act irrationally, and will most likely not champion any particular cause, fighting for the money and only the money. The local chad at the gym will be pretty strong but that does not mean he can access the spirit realm because of that, he is just a dude.
Exactly...the people who say brute is just barbarian have no idea what they are talking about...
mechanically they are not even close and thematically the only thing they share is "hits hard" but the brute has a champion like focus on on simplicity. Samurai has almost the same level of likeness to barbarian as well with that logic.
Just goes to show the bias the majority of the community has. They will support something that is obviously overpowered (Rune Knight) but claim something is broken without even bothering to do the math to figure it out (Brute vs. Battlemaster).
Lastly if you do more damage than battlemaster with brute....is that really a bad thing if its close? Like battlemaster gives you a lot more options for battlefield manipulation and debuffs where brute has just damage. Like people dont even consider this at all and just think that slightly higher damage = OP because they dont understand game balance beyond perceived DPR. Its frustrating.
To be honest, while there are clear differences between Brutes and Barbarians, I personally don't share the love of Brutes. Barbarians having a mystical element to them is a fair point in not comparing the two, but if I want to play a highly resilient tank that can do more harm with a critical hit, my first choice is a Barbarian especially because of the added supernatural factor and the fact that they can tank while not wearing any armor at all (the latter has a certain appeal to me). That said, if people want to play a mundane fighter that tanks more and hits harder than most other mundane fighters, then they should be allowed the choice.
To be honest, while there are clear differences between Brutes and Barbarians, I personally don't share the love of Brutes. Barbarians having a mystical element to them is a fair point in not comparing the two, but if I want to play a highly resilient tank that can do more harm with a critical hit, my first choice is a Barbarian especially because of the added supernatural factor and the fact that they can tank while not wearing any armor at all (the latter has a certain appeal to me). That said, if people want to play a mundane fighter that tanks more and hits harder than most other mundane fighters, then they should be allowed the choice.
Very much this....
This is a fair criticism of the subclass. Its biggest sins are getting too close to champion and being on the boring side of mechanics. It shares very little with barbarian with any sort of thought involved.
To be fair, barbarians having "supernatural elements" is entirely the player's choice. The berserker has no supernatural or mystic abilities whatsoever - it is an angry guy that hits stuff really hard. The battlerager, while mechanically awful, is similar. Yes, the Storm Herald and the Ancestral Guardian have explicitly superhuman abilities, but they're not the only options. And again - if all you want out of your Fightbarian is "super strong, hits stuff really hard, takes less damage because FREAKING BUFF", play a Berserker or a Battlerager.
But ArtificeMeal hit something that may be a theme statement worth using. "The Brute subclass is a fighter driven to survive and succeed where any other would fail. They possess a ferocious and unconquerable will to live that cannot be broken by normal foes. With nothing but training, dedication, and drive, Brutes thrive in the harshest battlefields and carry the day no matter how wounded they may be."
Now, this still has more overlap with the barbarian than anybody should like, but since folks are so freaking convinced that a fighter whose schtick is "is really strong, takes less damage, does more damage because strong angry dude" is not in any way a barbarian...perhaps reorient. Key a revised Brute's abilities more off of the Will to Live than the Fightbarian idea. Eliminate the bonus damage, it's not necessary. Focus more on defeating obstacles and overcoming save-or-suck situations. Perhaps allow the fighter to overcome difficult terrain, or other means of slowing/impeding its actions. Focus on that unconquerable drive, rather than on making it a barbarian with two fighting styles and heavy armor.
And no - the original Brute was not a critter with unconquerable drive. It was a barbarian wannabe that dealt more damage and took less damage because it was buff before deciding to basically just be the Champion for the back half of the leveling process. That's why it failed. So if you don't want yours to fail, I recommend deviating from the Fightbarian concept.
To be fair, barbarians having "supernatural elements" is entirely the player's choice. The berserker has no supernatural or mystic abilities whatsoever - it is an angry guy that hits stuff really hard. The battlerager, while mechanically awful, is similar. Yes, the Storm Herald and the Ancestral Guardian have explicitly superhuman abilities, but they're not the only options. And again - if all you want out of your Fightbarian is "super strong, hits stuff really hard, takes less damage because FREAKING BUFF", play a Berserker or a Battlerager.
But ArtificeMeal hit something that may be a theme statement worth using. "The Brute subclass is a fighter driven to survive and succeed where any other would fail. They possess a ferocious and unconquerable will to live that cannot be broken by normal foes. With nothing but training, dedication, and drive, Brutes thrive in the harshest battlefields and carry the day no matter how wounded they may be."
Now, this still has more overlap with the barbarian than anybody should like, but since folks are so freaking convinced that a fighter whose schtick is "is really strong, takes less damage, does more damage because strong angry dude" is not in any way a barbarian...perhaps reorient. Key a revised Brute's abilities more off of the Will to Live than the Fightbarian idea. Eliminate the bonus damage, it's not necessary. Focus more on defeating obstacles and overcoming save-or-suck situations. Perhaps allow the fighter to overcome difficult terrain, or other means of slowing/impeding its actions. Focus on that unconquerable drive, rather than on making it a barbarian with two fighting styles and heavy armor.
And no - the original Brute was not a critter with unconquerable drive. It was a barbarian wannabe that dealt more damage and took less damage because it was buff before deciding to basically just be the Champion for the back half of the leveling process. That's why it failed. So if you don't want yours to fail, I recommend deviating from the Fightbarian concept.
I think you need to stop with the fightbarian thing. You're own description has it clearly as a barbighter. ;)
Maybe I'll have to dig out the old brute and give it a try after giving champion a run. It's been interesting seeing both sides hash this out, since I don't have a bone in either side of the discussion. Saves me from getting all frustrated that I can't make the other side at least acknowledge that there is some merit to the idea.
well the brute had like bonus damage, dealt more damage on a crit, and had bonuses to saving throws at 7th level. It lacks any kind of damage reduction to speak of, it was just saves and damage
and even when we have just an berserker barbarian, features like dangeer sense, feral instinct, and primal champion kinda imply an supernatural origin of your powers, as does mindless rage and intimidating presnece
other than that, just focusing on that never gives up option is probably a good idea, even if i think it is fine to just make the brute into an champion fighter 2.0, just an fighter that does not rely on magic or some kind of gimmic but that is still viable and fun
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
To be fair, barbarians having "supernatural elements" is entirely the player's choice. The berserker has no supernatural or mystic abilities whatsoever - it is an angry guy that hits stuff really hard. The battlerager, while mechanically awful, is similar. Yes, the Storm Herald and the Ancestral Guardian have explicitly superhuman abilities, but they're not the only options. And again - if all you want out of your Fightbarian is "super strong, hits stuff really hard, takes less damage because FREAKING BUFF", play a Berserker or a Battlerager.
The Zealot (my favourite subclass) is also explicitly supernatural in theme.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fair enough and good points made.
The only other major difference?
Rune Knight will likely see print.
Brute likely never will.
Both I think felt good enough to exist and both would be fun in their own ways. Too bad will we never find out what they would have changed with Brute.
That's the saddest part to me.
Yes. RIP Brute. RIP Mystic. RIP my dreams.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Think of it this way, Optimus.
You now get to decide exactly how the Brute will work in your games. You have the template, you can make your homebrew Brute any which way you like. The fact that it won't see print just means you can control how it works in your games, no issue.
Never cared for the Rune Knight myself. Doesn't fit the base fighter class well to me. I get what you're trying to do. You're angry, you're trying to scourge the folks who said the Brute was too close to the barbarian by putting their darling Rune Knight in the same boat. One, it doesn't hold up, and two, it doesn't matter. The majority of the playerbase said no. They did the same thing to me, and completely ruined the Alchemist artificer. They destroyed psionics. Trust me, I get it. I yelled and screamed too, told people how stupid they were when they did it to the Alchemist for reasons much less founded than the reasons behind the Brute dying.
It doesn't help. All you get is more anger. More hate. More suffering.
Just let it go, and spin up that homebrew editor. You can give your homebrew Brute all the barbarian class abilities you like, and it'll be better than whatever Wizards would've theoretically printed.
Please do not contact or message me.
Probably the best approach.
Community always strikes me as odd when the hive mind decides something is "broken" or "bad".
I agree with you on the original alchemist artificer. The old version was much much better.
However, I think you might be trying to make me upset with the "You can give your homebrew Brute all the barbarian class abilities" as I have literally stated I dont think they share many if any features. I have clearly stated and shown that Rune Knight actually has more features that straight up copy the Enlarge/Rage mechanics much more than Brute ever did.
If that wasn't your intent then fair enough and I understand. However, if you were intentionally trying to make me angry I am not sure what you have to gain from that?
Hey guys. I just paid for the hero tier subscription but im not seeing all of the variants for the races or all the subclasses for the classes. Does anyone know how to get them?
Wrong place to post, but you need to purchase the books. The subscription gives you access to more characters. I don't recall the other things that Hero Tier gives you versus what Master gives you.
but then again, it would not be all that tricky to come up with an rune knight homebrew that is far less mechanically similar to the barbarian, and at the same time make the class more fun, for instance instead of dealing an extra d6 with every attack, you get the following
that way the character feels more like an giant than what it would before, while in giant form it should therefore be no more powerful than what an hunter ranger or horizon walker is normally, but you get a bunch of features that make your fighter feel a lot bigger than they are
similarly instead of the hill giant rune giving you resistances to physcial damage, the rune instead lets you gain temporary hit points for a certain duration equal to your fighter level + int mod, and the frost giant rune can give you a bonus to strength (athletics) checks equal to your int mod and let you knock creatures prone when you hit them with melee attacks for a short duration
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 I agree...the features are pretty clearly taken from other things and could use some unique changes. These fit the bill well!
Brute at least had some novel concepts in the first 7 level. The extra damage was on the bland side but the d6 to saves including death saves was new and exciting.
Its biggest sin was being too close to champion at later levels.
I would have given them a way to get THP at Level 10 instead of fighting style. (BA to get Fighter level + CON mod once per short rest?)
Then 15th level they could take a Reaction to attack a creature that hit you with an attack. Contemplating if they could get double brute die on this attack? (CON mod per long rest)
18th level when you go to 0 HP you can use a reaction to immediately take the Attack Action. Instead of rolling you can choose to take the max roll on Brute Force die on any attack made during this action and once you have made all your attacks you still suffer the effects of being at 0 HP.
i think if you are to change the brute subclass the first thing to edit is how the brute dice works. The thing that makes fighters unique compared to other classes is their enhanced number of attacks, letting you add your brute dice to every attack you make will add up really quickly, an 11th level brute using action surge will deal 6d6 more damage compared to an non brute fighter using action surge, fighter already has some of the best DPS in the game and there no real need to give it better DPS. Ether restricting it to once per round, or restricting it to being given when at low health or triggering after you use action surge or second wind or even reversing the mechanic and letting you reduce damage taken once per round from an attack or effect you can see would be better, even just making it so you are extremely good at exploiting when the enemy's guard is down, so when you have advantage you may forgo the advantage to deal the brute damage, or only when the enemy is at low health, or maybe when you hit an creature with an attack they must make an saving throw (DC 10 + your strength or dex modifier) or have an condition such as speed reduction or disadvantage on attacks jsut due to your bone breaking force
the 7th level feature was unique back then but it has already been recycled for the monster hunter ranger, where it is tied to the slayers prey feature and also applies to grapples as well, so it might need to be a little more distinguished from supernatural defense by only allowing you to use it on death, strength, con, charisma and wisdom saving throws, as well as to strength (athletics) checks made to initiate grapples
at 14th level battlerager barbarians get to attack creatures that hit them as a reaction more or less at will, so might be fine to just give it at will but not letting the attack deal extra damage
here is just a fun idea for an high level brute feature, whenever you take the attack action and roll a 20 on your attack roll, you may make an additional attack with the same weapon against the same target, with no upper limit to how many times this can trigger on a turn, but whenever you do this you do not get to roll crit damage. So if an player is particularly lucky, they might make like seven attacks with their one attack action by just continually rolling crits.
Most fighter subclasses try to get at least one out of combat at 3rd or 7th level, at least something that works in the other two pillars of the game, so perhaps as an ribbon at 7th level alongside that really useful save mechanic you also deal double damage to objects and structures and have advantage on strength checks made to break open objects
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
If people are honestly serious about rebuilding the Fightbarian, the thing to ask yourself is what you want out of the subclass. What is the seed idea, the theme statement for the subclass? If the theme statement is "the Brute is a fighter who specializes in raw strength, using their sheer physical prowess to deal more damage and to resist the blows of their enemies", then I will once again direct you to the Barbarian and say "JUST FREAKING PLAY THE BARBARIAN ALREADY!!!"
If the theme statement is something else? That will drive the decision of what the class should do. But without a theme statement, a goal the subclass is embodying, any attempt to rebuild it is basically throwing pasta at a wall in pitch blackness and hoping it sticks in an appealing way.
Please do not contact or message me.
Lol Brute was no where near FighterBarb mechanically so I ignored most of what you said after that.
The damage from the brute dice is actually mathmatically pretty close the same as Battle-master, especially when you realize most parties do not follow the 6-8 encounters per adventuring day average. If you are allowing 2 short rests and doing 1-2 combats between said encounters the battlemaster comes out ahead with feats included.
I would not be opposed to changing it to be you can use brute force once per turn to force the creature to make a save or suffer a disadvantage like you stated though. That would be a bit more thematic I agree.
7th level feature is central to the "Survivor Type" thematic feel I was going for with the rework. Being able to get back up from being down easily via rolls is what I would love from the subclass and this would be the one thing I would not change at all.
The ribbon is a good idea and does follow fighter design so thats a good idea to add one at 7th.
The later features I am open to what is a good. The brute wouldn't need to be named brute but rather scrapper or some other kind of "Survivor Type" name.
well think less barbarian and more the champion "the archetypal champion focuses on the development of raw physical power honed to deadly perfection, those who model themselves on this archetype combine rigorous training with physical excellence to deal devastating blows" that, word for word is pretty much what the champion would be, plus the whole aspect of mental fortitude, of never giving up leading to greater physical fortitude. An brute has some kind of supernatural will to live, letting them avoid being charmed or frightened, defy death or just resist poison because no.
Furthermore the barbarian is so much more than just being stronk and hitting things, it has an significant mystical / magical element that such an fighter would lack entirely, an brute fighter would care only about the results, about where to strike the enemy and how hard, than on the spiritual, where your power is coming from, what you are fighting for, an brute is unlikely to be superstitious or act irrationally, and will most likely not champion any particular cause, fighting for the money and only the money. The local chad at the gym will be pretty strong but that does not mean he can access the spirit realm because of that, he is just a dude.
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
Exactly...the people who say brute is just barbarian have no idea what they are talking about...
mechanically they are not even close and thematically the only thing they share is "hits hard" but the brute has a champion like focus on on simplicity. Samurai has almost the same level of likeness to barbarian as well with that logic.
Just goes to show the bias the majority of the community has. They will support something that is obviously overpowered (Rune Knight) but claim something is broken without even bothering to do the math to figure it out (Brute vs. Battlemaster).
Lastly if you do more damage than battlemaster with brute....is that really a bad thing if its close? Like battlemaster gives you a lot more options for battlefield manipulation and debuffs where brute has just damage. Like people dont even consider this at all and just think that slightly higher damage = OP because they dont understand game balance beyond perceived DPR. Its frustrating.
To be honest, while there are clear differences between Brutes and Barbarians, I personally don't share the love of Brutes. Barbarians having a mystical element to them is a fair point in not comparing the two, but if I want to play a highly resilient tank that can do more harm with a critical hit, my first choice is a Barbarian especially because of the added supernatural factor and the fact that they can tank while not wearing any armor at all (the latter has a certain appeal to me). That said, if people want to play a mundane fighter that tanks more and hits harder than most other mundane fighters, then they should be allowed the choice.
Very much this....
This is a fair criticism of the subclass. Its biggest sins are getting too close to champion and being on the boring side of mechanics. It shares very little with barbarian with any sort of thought involved.
To be fair, barbarians having "supernatural elements" is entirely the player's choice. The berserker has no supernatural or mystic abilities whatsoever - it is an angry guy that hits stuff really hard. The battlerager, while mechanically awful, is similar. Yes, the Storm Herald and the Ancestral Guardian have explicitly superhuman abilities, but they're not the only options. And again - if all you want out of your Fightbarian is "super strong, hits stuff really hard, takes less damage because FREAKING BUFF", play a Berserker or a Battlerager.
But ArtificeMeal hit something that may be a theme statement worth using.
"The Brute subclass is a fighter driven to survive and succeed where any other would fail. They possess a ferocious and unconquerable will to live that cannot be broken by normal foes. With nothing but training, dedication, and drive, Brutes thrive in the harshest battlefields and carry the day no matter how wounded they may be."
Now, this still has more overlap with the barbarian than anybody should like, but since folks are so freaking convinced that a fighter whose schtick is "is really strong, takes less damage, does more damage because strong angry dude" is not in any way a barbarian...perhaps reorient. Key a revised Brute's abilities more off of the Will to Live than the Fightbarian idea. Eliminate the bonus damage, it's not necessary. Focus more on defeating obstacles and overcoming save-or-suck situations. Perhaps allow the fighter to overcome difficult terrain, or other means of slowing/impeding its actions. Focus on that unconquerable drive, rather than on making it a barbarian with two fighting styles and heavy armor.
And no - the original Brute was not a critter with unconquerable drive. It was a barbarian wannabe that dealt more damage and took less damage because it was buff before deciding to basically just be the Champion for the back half of the leveling process. That's why it failed. So if you don't want yours to fail, I recommend deviating from the Fightbarian concept.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think you need to stop with the fightbarian thing. You're own description has it clearly as a barbighter. ;)
Maybe I'll have to dig out the old brute and give it a try after giving champion a run. It's been interesting seeing both sides hash this out, since I don't have a bone in either side of the discussion. Saves me from getting all frustrated that I can't make the other side at least acknowledge that there is some merit to the idea.
well the brute had like bonus damage, dealt more damage on a crit, and had bonuses to saving throws at 7th level. It lacks any kind of damage reduction to speak of, it was just saves and damage
and even when we have just an berserker barbarian, features like dangeer sense, feral instinct, and primal champion kinda imply an supernatural origin of your powers, as does mindless rage and intimidating presnece
other than that, just focusing on that never gives up option is probably a good idea, even if i think it is fine to just make the brute into an champion fighter 2.0, just an fighter that does not rely on magic or some kind of gimmic but that is still viable and fun
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 Zealot (my favourite subclass) is also explicitly supernatural in theme.