The Brawler, as currently written and as a Fighter subclass, deserved to be dropped. It should be brought back as a Barbarian subclass (as that is the unskilled/untrained/non-professional type warrior class).
A mundane unarmed warrior as a Fighter subclass should still be done, just not like the Brawler (the improvised weapon aspect wasn't a fit for the skilled/professionally-trained warrior class), and not until after the Barbarian gets the Brawler. This Fighter subclass should be comparable to the Monk minus the mysticism.
Also, the Unarmed Fighting Style should be brought back. This Fighting Style should be a bonus Fighting Style that the Brawler and Unarmed Fighter both get as part of their 3rd level subclass benefits.
The Brawler, as currently written and as a Fighter subclass, deserved to be dropped. It should be brought back as a Barbarian subclass (as that is the unskilled/untrained/non-professional type warrior class).
A mundane unarmed warrior as a Fighter subclass should still be done, just not like the Brawler (the improvised weapon aspect wasn't a fit for the skilled/professionally-trained warrior class), and not until after the Barbarian gets the Brawler. This Fighter subclass should be comparable to the Monk minus the mysticism.
Also, the Unarmed Fighting Style should be brought back. This Fighting Style should be a bonus Fighting Style that the Brawler and Unarmed Fighter both get as part of their 3rd level subclass benefits.
improvised weapon master makes the most sense for a fighter. You are thinking improvised weapons as rocks, but the concept presents it as like James bond, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullseye_(character) The name was a poor choice, this sub class was supposed to be the martial attack expert who can use any and all forms of attack at any time, with anything. The big trick was they had more mastery, could add weapon properties to things that didnt have it, and use multiple masteries at once to great effect. The class should have been called like martial Master, or martial expert or something. It also suffered from people having questions about how improvised weapons rules actually even work. (outside of the class)
A barbarian version wouldn't have this concept of expertise and versatility at its core. It would just be designed to do and take a lot of damage with stuff. Might be cool, but its not really filling the same niche. Barbarian brawler is a hulk, or juggernaut, collosus archetype. fighter brawler is a Gambit, bullseye, taskmaster, Captain America archetype.
Also, dropping a class isnt about execution, its about concept. If you drop things that need work, you will never finish anything. UA6 monk and OH was a worse design than brawler. They didnt drop it, and now its better. (OH is still a worse sub than brawler imo) The first rogue was a poor concept, they didnt drop it, now its better.
Brawler should not have been dropped, it added an interesting unrealized unique playstyle/concept to fighter. (partially because weapons (versatility) never really mattered before) Imo this concept needs to happen.
The Brawler, as currently written and as a Fighter subclass, deserved to be dropped. It should be brought back as a Barbarian subclass (as that is the unskilled/untrained/non-professional type warrior class).
A mundane unarmed warrior as a Fighter subclass should still be done, just not like the Brawler (the improvised weapon aspect wasn't a fit for the skilled/professionally-trained warrior class), and not until after the Barbarian gets the Brawler. This Fighter subclass should be comparable to the Monk minus the mysticism.
Also, the Unarmed Fighting Style should be brought back. This Fighting Style should be a bonus Fighting Style that the Brawler and Unarmed Fighter both get as part of their 3rd level subclass benefits.
improvised weapon master makes the most sense for a fighter. You are thinking improvised weapons as rocks, but the concept presents it as like James bond, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullseye_(character) The name was a poor choice, this sub class was supposed to be the martial attack expert who can use any and all forms of attack at any time, with anything. The big trick was they had more mastery, could add weapon properties to things that didnt have it, and use multiple masteries at once to great effect. The class should have been called like martial Master, or martial expert or something. It also suffered from people having questions about how improvised weapons rules actually even work. (outside of the class)
A barbarian version wouldn't have this concept of expertise and versatility at its core. It would just be designed to do and take a lot of damage with stuff. Might be cool, but its not really filling the same niche. Barbarian brawler is a hulk, or juggernaut, collosus archetype. fighter brawler is a Gambit, bullseye, taskmaster, Captain America archetype.
Also, dropping a class isnt about execution, its about concept. If you drop things that need work, you will never finish anything. UA6 monk and OH was a worse design than brawler. They didnt drop it, and now its better. (OH is still a worse sub than brawler imo) The first rogue was a poor concept, they didnt drop it, now its better.
Brawler should not have been dropped, it added an interesting unrealized unique playstyle/concept to fighter. (partially because weapons (versatility) never really mattered before) Imo this concept needs to happen.
To the first bolded quote: It was a one trick pony. That was the problem. They took Unarmed Fighting Style, Tavern Brawler, the Grappler feat, threw them together, added the mastery/weapon property stuff and said, "Here's a new subclass"
I also liked the concept and said so in the survey. But it was like they had 15 minutes to publishing the UA and they said, "Hey! Who was working on the Brawler subclass?" Everyone looks around at each other with blank stares. Then you hear someone say, "Shit!! Give me two minutes!" and the subclass was born.
To the second bolded quote: OH monk was a 2014 subclass so they couldn't drop it (same for your rogue example). They had no alternative but to fix it after community response came back from the survey. Brawler was completely new. If the OP should be disappointed in anyone it should be WotC and how they handled the survey. For example, I liked the concept for the first Druid UA templates for Wildshape. But they were a hot mess and were very poorly put together. So, I put that I was dissatisfied in the survey with my comment on how much I liked the idea of templates, but they needed work. What I should have done, which seems counterintuitive to me, is scored it Satisfied or Very Satisfied and then the same comment on how it needed improvements. But then, if I put satisfied, what if they published them that way? They would still be hot garbage and we'd be stuck with them for another 10 years.
The brawler concept is interesting. And some have been wanting a STR based monk, which the Brawler could have been designed for as well. Especially since WotC has been getting further away from the mysticism in the base class monk. Or if you were more interested in just the Improvised Weapons aspect, I can't help but think of all the Jackie Chan movies that an Improvised Weapon Master Monk Subclass could be inspired by.
The Brawler, as currently written and as a Fighter subclass, deserved to be dropped. It should be brought back as a Barbarian subclass (as that is the unskilled/untrained/non-professional type warrior class).
A mundane unarmed warrior as a Fighter subclass should still be done, just not like the Brawler (the improvised weapon aspect wasn't a fit for the skilled/professionally-trained warrior class), and not until after the Barbarian gets the Brawler. This Fighter subclass should be comparable to the Monk minus the mysticism.
Also, the Unarmed Fighting Style should be brought back. This Fighting Style should be a bonus Fighting Style that the Brawler and Unarmed Fighter both get as part of their 3rd level subclass benefits.
improvised weapon master makes the most sense for a fighter. You are thinking improvised weapons as rocks, but the concept presents it as like James bond, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullseye_(character) The name was a poor choice, this sub class was supposed to be the martial attack expert who can use any and all forms of attack at any time, with anything. The big trick was they had more mastery, could add weapon properties to things that didnt have it, and use multiple masteries at once to great effect. The class should have been called like martial Master, or martial expert or something. It also suffered from people having questions about how improvised weapons rules actually even work. (outside of the class)
A barbarian version wouldn't have this concept of expertise and versatility at its core. It would just be designed to do and take a lot of damage with stuff. Might be cool, but its not really filling the same niche. Barbarian brawler is a hulk, or juggernaut, collosus archetype. fighter brawler is a Gambit, bullseye, taskmaster, Captain America archetype.
Also, dropping a class isnt about execution, its about concept. If you drop things that need work, you will never finish anything. UA6 monk and OH was a worse design than brawler. They didnt drop it, and now its better. (OH is still a worse sub than brawler imo) The first rogue was a poor concept, they didnt drop it, now its better.
Brawler should not have been dropped, it added an interesting unrealized unique playstyle/concept to fighter. (partially because weapons (versatility) never really mattered before) Imo this concept needs to happen.
To the first bolded quote: It was a one trick pony. That was the problem. They took Unarmed Fighting Style, Tavern Brawler, the Grappler feat, threw them together, added the mastery/weapon property stuff and said, "Here's a new subclass"
I also liked the concept and said so in the survey. But it was like they had 15 minutes to publishing the UA and they said, "Hey! Who was working on the Brawler subclass?" Everyone looks around at each other with blank stares. Then you hear someone say, "Shit!! Give me two minutes!" and the subclass was born.
To the second bolded quote: OH monk was a 2014 subclass so they couldn't drop it (same for your rogue example). They had no alternative but to fix it after community response came back from the survey. Brawler was completely new. If the OP should be disappointed in anyone it should be WotC and how they handled the survey. For example, I liked the concept for the first Druid UA templates for Wildshape. But they were a hot mess and were very poorly put together. So, I put that I was dissatisfied in the survey with my comment on how much I liked the idea of templates, but they needed work. What I should have done, which seems counterintuitive to me, is scored it Satisfied or Very Satisfied and then the same comment on how it needed improvements. But then, if I put satisfied, what if they published them that way? They would still be hot garbage and we'd be stuck with them for another 10 years.
The brawler concept is interesting. And some have been wanting a STR based monk, which the Brawler could have been designed for as well. Especially since WotC has been getting further away from the mysticism in the base class monk. Or if you were more interested in just the Improvised Weapons aspect, I can't help but think of all the Jackie Chan movies that an Improvised Weapon Master Monk Subclass could be inspired by.
i mostly agree with you, and i dont really blame the people, they just gave their feedback, but i dont think they should drop first run concepts that easily. I'm not really excited about them copying one of the other subs and throwing in the book. most other classes got at least one thing that is almost completely new.
i liked the concept, and think it was worth iterating on is all. I kinda knew they would drop it though, based on how they handled other content, and the amount of time they seemed to have left. I just dont think its a great idea to do so. And i hope it returns a lot more smoothed out. But ehhh, i hear many concepts dropped in UA never return, so i guess its dunzo
I think the “James Bond” (gadgeteer spy) spin on Improvised Weapons makes more sense as a Rogue or Artificer subclass than a Fighter subclass. I mean, the way the worded the Artifcer pretty much IS a gadgeteer.
And also: that is not at all what the name “Brawler” implies. Brawler implies brutish unarmed warrior. Like a Barbarian. Not a Boxer nor practically minded Martial Artist, nor a more mystically minded Martial Artist. The Brawler should be a Barbarian. The mystically minded Martial Artist is the Monk. The practically minded Martial Artist is yet to be addressed and should be a Fighter subclass. (and all three of these leave out the less single-minded Martial Artist, which is where the Fighting Style, or a comparable Feat, should be brought in).
I agree that revisions make more sense than absolute dropping of the idea. But what they really said (from what I recall) is not that it’s dead forever, but that it’s going to require so much revision and thought that it won’t make the 2024 PHB. It will be in a later document in the same way that the Artificer will be in a later document. That seems appropriate to me.
I think the “James Bond” (gadgeteer spy) spin on Improvised Weapons makes more sense as a Rogue or Artificer subclass than a Fighter subclass. I mean, the way the worded the Artifcer pretty much IS a gadgeteer.
And also: that is not at all what the name “Brawler” implies. Brawler implies brutish unarmed warrior. Like a Barbarian. Not a Boxer nor practically minded Martial Artist, nor a more mystically minded Martial Artist. The Brawler should be a Barbarian. The mystically minded Martial Artist is the Monk. The practically minded Martial Artist is yet to be addressed and should be a Fighter subclass. (and all three of these leave out the less single-minded Martial Artist, which is where the Fighting Style, or a comparable Feat, should be brought in).
I agree that revisions make more sense than absolute dropping of the idea. But what they really said (from what I recall) is not that it’s dead forever, but that it’s going to require so much revision and thought that it won’t make the 2024 PHB. It will be in a later document in the same way that the Artificer will be in a later document. That seems appropriate to me.
‘it’s not a gadgeteer spy concept, it’s the I broke out a max security facility with a pencil, a brick, and a shovel. It’s anything in my hands is a deadly weapon.
‘Brawlers focus their training and study not on swordplay and battle tactics, but on the skills needed to turn a punch or kick into a brutal strike and any innocuous object into a deadly weapon. Some Brawlers thrive in tavern scuffles and street rumbles, while others excel in espionage, wielding ordinary objects with the deadliness of an assassin’s knife.’
UA7 description
quote from the subclass description, I agree that it’s not what people thought of when they hear brawler, but by the blurb the intention wasn’t big strong brute, but expertise, skill, technique. Yeah, they use it in brawls, but it’s all about skill not power.
As far as them continuing it, they didn’t say it like artificer, which is definite, they said who knows, one day maybe we’ll see it. So, I have my doubts
At the end of the day I suspect the interest in a dedicated STR unarmed subclass just proved to be too niche for the PHB. Monk fills the general unarmed combatant segment and is already incorporating most of the major pillars of martial arts that the system is able to accommodate; about half the Brawler features are things Monks already do. Improvised Weapon use was cosmetically interesting but in practical terms it was essentially just a ribbon, and Grapple still has little practical use for a player; these are arguably design failures, as mentioned, but what else exactly is there for an unarmed Fighter to do? And it really boils down to the fact that these are not areas the core game system is designed to support in detail, and asking them to rework core systems at this juncture solely to make one narrow playstyle supported by a single subclass viable is a bit much.
At the end of the day I suspect the interest in a dedicated STR unarmed subclass just proved to be too niche for the PHB. Monk fills the general unarmed combatant segment and is already incorporating most of the major pillars of martial arts that the system is able to accommodate; about half the Brawler features are things Monks already do. Improvised Weapon use was cosmetically interesting but in practical terms it was essentially just a ribbon, and Grapple still has little practical use for a player; these are arguably design failures, as mentioned, but what else exactly is there for an unarmed Fighter to do? And it really boils down to the fact that these are not areas the core game system is designed to support in detail, and asking them to rework core systems at this juncture solely to make one narrow playstyle supported by a single subclass viable is a bit much.
improvised weapons wasn't a ribbon, it was the core. the big deal is extra masteries, masteries that don't need specific weapons just handyness, twf with a shield, thrown greatswords, Pam greatswords, every 1hander light or thrown. Two masteries with one attack. and +5 damage per hit. Sometimes two features defines a sub class. You probably didnt playtest this class, or most other UA martials, or you would have realized its a big difference to just have access to 6 masteries per attack without needing to preplan them, compared to the usual 2-3 that are tied to a specific weapon you decided that morning, with limited swaps. And fighter can't normally do 2 at once ever.
Only 1.5 features did things the monk does, which is normal for subclasses. eldritch got 1.5 wizard knock off features, arcane thief, bladesinger etc. but really, unarmed was the ribbon feature, it was just there for grappler/tavern brawler, and when you need to unarmed attack between weapon swaps. And the flavor, an expert of all forms of attack
but, you are not alone, most people assumed it was about being a unarmed fighter, and thats why they found it lacking.
At the end of the day I suspect the interest in a dedicated STR unarmed subclass just proved to be too niche for the PHB. Monk fills the general unarmed combatant segment and is already incorporating most of the major pillars of martial arts that the system is able to accommodate; about half the Brawler features are things Monks already do. Improvised Weapon use was cosmetically interesting but in practical terms it was essentially just a ribbon, and Grapple still has little practical use for a player; these are arguably design failures, as mentioned, but what else exactly is there for an unarmed Fighter to do? And it really boils down to the fact that these are not areas the core game system is designed to support in detail, and asking them to rework core systems at this juncture solely to make one narrow playstyle supported by a single subclass viable is a bit much.
improvised weapons wasn't a ribbon, it was the core.
Improvised weapons gave exactly 0 benefits you couldn't get with regular weapons before level 15 outside of the extremely niche situation where the player is unable to access their regular weapon. And on top of that they won't be able to get any magic weapon benefits if they're using improvised weapons. I stand by what I said, that aspect was essentially a ribbon.
There are multiples sides of Brawler (and related characters) that have to be unpacked. All need work independently.
D&D has a lot of improvisation. Improvised Weapons should be creative, fun, and unique. With the appropriate Feat, Improvised Weapons should feel like they are keeping up with rest of the party (without being the obvious top of the meta game). 5E basic rules (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#ImprovisedWeapons) are simple and open ended with a 1d4 Weapon dice and Range 20/60. Oddly, using your body as an Improvised Weapon deals more damage (1d4) than an Unarmed Strike (1), which I would like to see fixed. Are there any other rule changes necessary to clean up Improvised Weapons?
There are a lot of opinions about what class a Brawler should be: Barbarian, Fighter, or Monk. All those opinions are correct. So Brawler (aka Tavern Brawler) should be a Feat, not a subclass. As a Feat, Paladins or Rangers or Rogues might also be a Brawler, though unlikely. Historically, the Tavern Brawler Feat brings Improvised Weapons up to par of typical weapons. In 1DND, that means accuracy, damage, and Weapon Mastery. After Improvised Weapons are on par with regular Weapons, Tavern Brawler needs a benefit to using Improvised Weapons.
For accuracy, the Tavern Brawler feat will almost certainly grant proficiency with Improvised Weapons. Next, a +3 Weapon provides a 15% accuracy boost over an Improvised Weapon. That adds up over multiple attacks. A solution was announced (but never appeared in a UA) of Magic Items that boost the accuracy of Unarmed Strikes and Improvised Weapons. An item of "+1/+2/+3 Cloth: Gives a bonus to Attack and Damage rolls of Unarmed Strikes and Improvised Weapons" would suffice to fix accuracy for Tavern Brawler, Improvised Weapons, Dance Bard, and Monk.
For damage, an Improvised Weapon starts with a d4. The Tavern Brawler feat must bring this damage up to match regular weapons. The most likely option is for Tavern Brawler to get a d6 or d8 with Improvised Weapons and Unarmed Strikes. But that does not work for Tavern Brawler Monks. An unlikely option I like is "Add both your STR and DEX modifiers to damage rolls for Improvised Weapons and Unarmed Strikes." This would fit well with a Barbarian (high STR and DEX), a fighter (lots of ASI), or a STR monk that some people have longed for. Of course, Magic Items that set STR scores would have to be changed, either by setting a lower score (eg Gauntlets of Ogre Strength setting the score to 15 instead if 19) or adding to the score (eg Gauntlets of Ogre Strength adding +2 to the Strength score). As a 1st level feat, I imagine characters either being built with Tavern Brawler or not built with it. I doubt a valuable ASI will be used on acquiring Tavern Brawler at a later level.
Looking through Weapon Masteries, which would work for Improvised Weapons? Cleave, Graze, and arguably Topple seem more for Heavy Weapons, unlike a Tavern Brawler using a toothpick. Nick fits Light Weapons, which would not work for a Tavern Brawler wielding a Bear. That leaves Push, Sap, Slow, and Vex. I can imagine most of those working for Tavern Brawler, except for a thrown toothpick triggering Push. All that remains would be determining the wording of how and when Tavern Brawler applies Masteries to Improvised Weapons (and possibly Unarmed Strikes).
Should Tavern Brawler be compatible with Monk? Should Tavern Brawler benefits apply to Unarmed Strikes? I vote yes, as it satisfies a trope. But it should not affect the meta game to the point where all optimal Monks are Tavern Brawlers.
Next is Grappling, which should be plausible for Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Monk. In 5E the Tavern Brawler feat was better at grappling than the Grappler feat, which was terrible. In 1DND, the Grappling rules have settled on Saving Throws instead of Ability checks. Thus players have low odds of successfully grappling. The Grappler feat should improve the odds of grappling and provide a benefit to grappling. As a half-feat, the Grappler feat provides +1 to an ability score and other benefits.
There are a variety of options to improved the odds of grappling/shoving for a character with the Grappler feat.
Option 1: Increase the save DC. This could be done by adding the Proficiency Bonus twice or the Strength modifier twice. But such changes would drastically differ from how other save DCs are computed.
Option 2: The player could choose (instead of the target) whether a STR or DEX save is rolled. This would significantly improve odds.
Option 3: The Saving Throw could be made with Disadvantage. The issue is that Disadvantage on Saving Throws is rare.
Option 4: A successful Unarmed Strike could cause a Grapple (either an auto-grapple or forcing a Saving Throw).
In addition to a Player Character Grappling a monster and Shoving it Prone, the Grappler Feat should provide an offensive or defensive benefit to grappling.
Option 1: "You have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling." was done by 5E, UA2, and UA7 Brawler. I'm of the opinion that Advantage is easy enough to get by shoving the enemy prone. But this is the most likely option to be printed.
Option 2: While Grappling a creature, your AC is increased. This could be done similar to half cover (+2) or a shield (+2).
Option 3: A Reaction option to cause an attack aimed at you to hit the creature you are grappling. This could be dependent on the attack roll, similar to Parry.
Option 4: Damage done to someone you are grappling. This was done by UA7 Brawler and 5E Battlerager. I personally find this bland.
Option 5: You aren’t Slowed when you move a creature Grappled by you, provided the creature is your Size or smaller. (UA2)
[Edit] Option 6: You may make a Grapple/Shove as a Bonus Action (UA7 Brawler & 5E Tavern Brawler). Good for Fighter, ok for Barbarian, and terrible for Monk.
Of the listed options for the Grappler feat, which combination do you think would be most fun and fair?
Brawler was a fun concept with poor design execution. Fighters can already make such a build with feats but I think that subclass should have been a monk with proficiency in improvised weapons and the option to use strength mod in place of dex mod for AC.
At the end of the day I suspect the interest in a dedicated STR unarmed subclass just proved to be too niche for the PHB. Monk fills the general unarmed combatant segment and is already incorporating most of the major pillars of martial arts that the system is able to accommodate; about half the Brawler features are things Monks already do. Improvised Weapon use was cosmetically interesting but in practical terms it was essentially just a ribbon, and Grapple still has little practical use for a player; these are arguably design failures, as mentioned, but what else exactly is there for an unarmed Fighter to do? And it really boils down to the fact that these are not areas the core game system is designed to support in detail, and asking them to rework core systems at this juncture solely to make one narrow playstyle supported by a single subclass viable is a bit much.
improvised weapons wasn't a ribbon, it was the core.
Improvised weapons gave exactly 0 benefits you couldn't get with regular weapons before level 15 outside of the extremely niche situation where the player is unable to access their regular weapon. And on top of that they won't be able to get any magic weapon benefits if they're using improvised weapons. I stand by what I said, that aspect was essentially a ribbon.
1) thing you can do with improvised weapon at 3 you can't do otherwise. Shield sword two weapon fighting with AC bonus
2) thing you can do, sap and slow thrown weapons.
3) thing you can do, different mastery with every attack. You can select which mastery you use as the attack hits. (regular can only switch weapons every two hits)
4) thing you can do, change masteries by simply using two hands. (swing a flail with two hands? now it can push, topple or cleave)
5)At level 3 have access to all masteries (reg fighter only has 3)
6)use enemies as improvised weapons, with masteries, and weapon properties.
7) improvised weapons that look similar to weapons use their stats, but are still improvised weapons.
8) proficiency with special items, caltrops, oils, acid, alchemical fire, light property
they specifically said in the packet they were adding improvised weapon magic itemization.
you may not like the class, but you are literally wrong about 0 new use cases.
They killed Brawler fighter because of your feedback. I'm not mad. Just disappointed.
Meh, the Brawler was a waste of development resources that should have been used to fix that sad excuse for a Monk they gave us.
Was that a One D&D playtest?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The concept felt like it would work better as a feat or a couple of feats taken by a Fighter or Monk, rather than an entire subclass of its own.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/unearthed-arcana/180077-brawler-fighter-what-the-hell-am-i-looking-at
exactly.
The Brawler, as currently written and as a Fighter subclass, deserved to be dropped. It should be brought back as a Barbarian subclass (as that is the unskilled/untrained/non-professional type warrior class).
A mundane unarmed warrior as a Fighter subclass should still be done, just not like the Brawler (the improvised weapon aspect wasn't a fit for the skilled/professionally-trained warrior class), and not until after the Barbarian gets the Brawler. This Fighter subclass should be comparable to the Monk minus the mysticism.
Also, the Unarmed Fighting Style should be brought back. This Fighting Style should be a bonus Fighting Style that the Brawler and Unarmed Fighter both get as part of their 3rd level subclass benefits.
they love to that they destroyed the brawler, they won't shed tears here.
I think it was a good concept that needed some changes. I had fun with it in playtests
improvised weapon master makes the most sense for a fighter. You are thinking improvised weapons as rocks, but the concept presents it as like James bond, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullseye_(character) The name was a poor choice, this sub class was supposed to be the martial attack expert who can use any and all forms of attack at any time, with anything. The big trick was they had more mastery, could add weapon properties to things that didnt have it, and use multiple masteries at once to great effect. The class should have been called like martial Master, or martial expert or something. It also suffered from people having questions about how improvised weapons rules actually even work. (outside of the class)
A barbarian version wouldn't have this concept of expertise and versatility at its core. It would just be designed to do and take a lot of damage with stuff. Might be cool, but its not really filling the same niche. Barbarian brawler is a hulk, or juggernaut, collosus archetype. fighter brawler is a Gambit, bullseye, taskmaster, Captain America archetype.
Also, dropping a class isnt about execution, its about concept. If you drop things that need work, you will never finish anything. UA6 monk and OH was a worse design than brawler. They didnt drop it, and now its better. (OH is still a worse sub than brawler imo) The first rogue was a poor concept, they didnt drop it, now its better.
Brawler should not have been dropped, it added an interesting unrealized unique playstyle/concept to fighter. (partially because weapons (versatility) never really mattered before) Imo this concept needs to happen.
To the first bolded quote: It was a one trick pony. That was the problem. They took Unarmed Fighting Style, Tavern Brawler, the Grappler feat, threw them together, added the mastery/weapon property stuff and said, "Here's a new subclass"
I also liked the concept and said so in the survey. But it was like they had 15 minutes to publishing the UA and they said, "Hey! Who was working on the Brawler subclass?" Everyone looks around at each other with blank stares. Then you hear someone say, "Shit!! Give me two minutes!" and the subclass was born.
To the second bolded quote: OH monk was a 2014 subclass so they couldn't drop it (same for your rogue example). They had no alternative but to fix it after community response came back from the survey. Brawler was completely new. If the OP should be disappointed in anyone it should be WotC and how they handled the survey. For example, I liked the concept for the first Druid UA templates for Wildshape. But they were a hot mess and were very poorly put together. So, I put that I was dissatisfied in the survey with my comment on how much I liked the idea of templates, but they needed work. What I should have done, which seems counterintuitive to me, is scored it Satisfied or Very Satisfied and then the same comment on how it needed improvements. But then, if I put satisfied, what if they published them that way? They would still be hot garbage and we'd be stuck with them for another 10 years.
The brawler concept is interesting. And some have been wanting a STR based monk, which the Brawler could have been designed for as well. Especially since WotC has been getting further away from the mysticism in the base class monk. Or if you were more interested in just the Improvised Weapons aspect, I can't help but think of all the Jackie Chan movies that an Improvised Weapon Master Monk Subclass could be inspired by.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
We have defeated the cannibal, and we got a better monk now as a direct result.
Ws all around.
i mostly agree with you, and i dont really blame the people, they just gave their feedback, but i dont think they should drop first run concepts that easily. I'm not really excited about them copying one of the other subs and throwing in the book. most other classes got at least one thing that is almost completely new.
i liked the concept, and think it was worth iterating on is all. I kinda knew they would drop it though, based on how they handled other content, and the amount of time they seemed to have left. I just dont think its a great idea to do so. And i hope it returns a lot more smoothed out. But ehhh, i hear many concepts dropped in UA never return, so i guess its dunzo
I think the “James Bond” (gadgeteer spy) spin on Improvised Weapons makes more sense as a Rogue or Artificer subclass than a Fighter subclass. I mean, the way the worded the Artifcer pretty much IS a gadgeteer.
And also: that is not at all what the name “Brawler” implies. Brawler implies brutish unarmed warrior. Like a Barbarian. Not a Boxer nor practically minded Martial Artist, nor a more mystically minded Martial Artist. The Brawler should be a Barbarian. The mystically minded Martial Artist is the Monk. The practically minded Martial Artist is yet to be addressed and should be a Fighter subclass. (and all three of these leave out the less single-minded Martial Artist, which is where the Fighting Style, or a comparable Feat, should be brought in).
I agree that revisions make more sense than absolute dropping of the idea. But what they really said (from what I recall) is not that it’s dead forever, but that it’s going to require so much revision and thought that it won’t make the 2024 PHB. It will be in a later document in the same way that the Artificer will be in a later document. That seems appropriate to me.
‘it’s not a gadgeteer spy concept, it’s the I broke out a max security facility with a pencil, a brick, and a shovel. It’s anything in my hands is a deadly weapon.
‘Brawlers focus their training and study not on swordplay and battle tactics, but on the skills needed to turn a punch or kick into a brutal strike and any innocuous object into a deadly weapon. Some Brawlers thrive in tavern scuffles and street rumbles, while others excel in espionage, wielding ordinary objects with the deadliness of an assassin’s knife.’
UA7 description
quote from the subclass description, I agree that it’s not what people thought of when they hear brawler, but by the blurb the intention wasn’t big strong brute, but expertise, skill, technique. Yeah, they use it in brawls, but it’s all about skill not power.
As far as them continuing it, they didn’t say it like artificer, which is definite, they said who knows, one day maybe we’ll see it. So, I have my doubts
At the end of the day I suspect the interest in a dedicated STR unarmed subclass just proved to be too niche for the PHB. Monk fills the general unarmed combatant segment and is already incorporating most of the major pillars of martial arts that the system is able to accommodate; about half the Brawler features are things Monks already do. Improvised Weapon use was cosmetically interesting but in practical terms it was essentially just a ribbon, and Grapple still has little practical use for a player; these are arguably design failures, as mentioned, but what else exactly is there for an unarmed Fighter to do? And it really boils down to the fact that these are not areas the core game system is designed to support in detail, and asking them to rework core systems at this juncture solely to make one narrow playstyle supported by a single subclass viable is a bit much.
improvised weapons wasn't a ribbon, it was the core. the big deal is extra masteries, masteries that don't need specific weapons just handyness, twf with a shield, thrown greatswords, Pam greatswords, every 1hander light or thrown. Two masteries with one attack. and +5 damage per hit. Sometimes two features defines a sub class. You probably didnt playtest this class, or most other UA martials, or you would have realized its a big difference to just have access to 6 masteries per attack without needing to preplan them, compared to the usual 2-3 that are tied to a specific weapon you decided that morning, with limited swaps. And fighter can't normally do 2 at once ever.
Only 1.5 features did things the monk does, which is normal for subclasses. eldritch got 1.5 wizard knock off features, arcane thief, bladesinger etc. but really, unarmed was the ribbon feature, it was just there for grappler/tavern brawler, and when you need to unarmed attack between weapon swaps. And the flavor, an expert of all forms of attack
but, you are not alone, most people assumed it was about being a unarmed fighter, and thats why they found it lacking.
Improvised weapons gave exactly 0 benefits you couldn't get with regular weapons before level 15 outside of the extremely niche situation where the player is unable to access their regular weapon. And on top of that they won't be able to get any magic weapon benefits if they're using improvised weapons. I stand by what I said, that aspect was essentially a ribbon.
There are multiples sides of Brawler (and related characters) that have to be unpacked. All need work independently.
D&D has a lot of improvisation. Improvised Weapons should be creative, fun, and unique. With the appropriate Feat, Improvised Weapons should feel like they are keeping up with rest of the party (without being the obvious top of the meta game). 5E basic rules (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#ImprovisedWeapons) are simple and open ended with a 1d4 Weapon dice and Range 20/60. Oddly, using your body as an Improvised Weapon deals more damage (1d4) than an Unarmed Strike (1), which I would like to see fixed. Are there any other rule changes necessary to clean up Improvised Weapons?
There are a lot of opinions about what class a Brawler should be: Barbarian, Fighter, or Monk. All those opinions are correct. So Brawler (aka Tavern Brawler) should be a Feat, not a subclass. As a Feat, Paladins or Rangers or Rogues might also be a Brawler, though unlikely. Historically, the Tavern Brawler Feat brings Improvised Weapons up to par of typical weapons. In 1DND, that means accuracy, damage, and Weapon Mastery. After Improvised Weapons are on par with regular Weapons, Tavern Brawler needs a benefit to using Improvised Weapons.
For accuracy, the Tavern Brawler feat will almost certainly grant proficiency with Improvised Weapons. Next, a +3 Weapon provides a 15% accuracy boost over an Improvised Weapon. That adds up over multiple attacks. A solution was announced (but never appeared in a UA) of Magic Items that boost the accuracy of Unarmed Strikes and Improvised Weapons. An item of "+1/+2/+3 Cloth: Gives a bonus to Attack and Damage rolls of Unarmed Strikes and Improvised Weapons" would suffice to fix accuracy for Tavern Brawler, Improvised Weapons, Dance Bard, and Monk.
For damage, an Improvised Weapon starts with a d4. The Tavern Brawler feat must bring this damage up to match regular weapons. The most likely option is for Tavern Brawler to get a d6 or d8 with Improvised Weapons and Unarmed Strikes. But that does not work for Tavern Brawler Monks. An unlikely option I like is "Add both your STR and DEX modifiers to damage rolls for Improvised Weapons and Unarmed Strikes." This would fit well with a Barbarian (high STR and DEX), a fighter (lots of ASI), or a STR monk that some people have longed for. Of course, Magic Items that set STR scores would have to be changed, either by setting a lower score (eg Gauntlets of Ogre Strength setting the score to 15 instead if 19) or adding to the score (eg Gauntlets of Ogre Strength adding +2 to the Strength score). As a 1st level feat, I imagine characters either being built with Tavern Brawler or not built with it. I doubt a valuable ASI will be used on acquiring Tavern Brawler at a later level.
Looking through Weapon Masteries, which would work for Improvised Weapons? Cleave, Graze, and arguably Topple seem more for Heavy Weapons, unlike a Tavern Brawler using a toothpick. Nick fits Light Weapons, which would not work for a Tavern Brawler wielding a Bear. That leaves Push, Sap, Slow, and Vex. I can imagine most of those working for Tavern Brawler, except for a thrown toothpick triggering Push. All that remains would be determining the wording of how and when Tavern Brawler applies Masteries to Improvised Weapons (and possibly Unarmed Strikes).
Should Tavern Brawler be compatible with Monk? Should Tavern Brawler benefits apply to Unarmed Strikes? I vote yes, as it satisfies a trope. But it should not affect the meta game to the point where all optimal Monks are Tavern Brawlers.
Next is Grappling, which should be plausible for Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Monk. In 5E the Tavern Brawler feat was better at grappling than the Grappler feat, which was terrible. In 1DND, the Grappling rules have settled on Saving Throws instead of Ability checks. Thus players have low odds of successfully grappling. The Grappler feat should improve the odds of grappling and provide a benefit to grappling. As a half-feat, the Grappler feat provides +1 to an ability score and other benefits.
There are a variety of options to improved the odds of grappling/shoving for a character with the Grappler feat.
In addition to a Player Character Grappling a monster and Shoving it Prone, the Grappler Feat should provide an offensive or defensive benefit to grappling.
Of the listed options for the Grappler feat, which combination do you think would be most fun and fair?
Brawler was a fun concept with poor design execution. Fighters can already make such a build with feats but I think that subclass should have been a monk with proficiency in improvised weapons and the option to use strength mod in place of dex mod for AC.
1) thing you can do with improvised weapon at 3 you can't do otherwise. Shield sword two weapon fighting with AC bonus
2) thing you can do, sap and slow thrown weapons.
3) thing you can do, different mastery with every attack. You can select which mastery you use as the attack hits. (regular can only switch weapons every two hits)
4) thing you can do, change masteries by simply using two hands. (swing a flail with two hands? now it can push, topple or cleave)
5)At level 3 have access to all masteries (reg fighter only has 3)
6)use enemies as improvised weapons, with masteries, and weapon properties.
7) improvised weapons that look similar to weapons use their stats, but are still improvised weapons.
8) proficiency with special items, caltrops, oils, acid, alchemical fire, light property
they specifically said in the packet they were adding improvised weapon magic itemization.
you may not like the class, but you are literally wrong about 0 new use cases.