D&D (2024) Brawler is out. What subclass should replace it?

[CreamCloud0]

I would want a thrown weapon fighter or a dual weapon fighter subclass.

i've always thought it lacking that there's not like, a 'death of a thousand cuts' small weapons subclass, that'd probably be closest to dual weilder, but the idea of being able to end up making like eight dagger attacks in a turn rather than four longsword attacks

edit: but in terms of the actual thread topic, i think a proper defender subclass would make sense, with 'complex' attacker, simple attacker, magical warrior being the other existing three

 

[mellored]

i've always thought it lacking that there's not like, a 'death of a thousand cuts' small weapons subclass, that'd probably be closest to dual weilder, but the idea of being able to end up making like eight dagger attacks in a turn rather than four longsword attacks

IMO, I don't want to watch someone roll 1000 times to kill something.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

IMO, I don't want to watch someone roll 1000 times to kill something.

I hear you. High-level Fighters can already reliably get 9 or 10 attacks in a round with Action Surge, whether they use a dagger or a greatsword. That's already Death by 1/100th of a Thousand Cuts. It shouldn't be easy to have your dagger deal as much damage per hit as a greatsword, otherwise what is the point of them being different?

Even if we went the way of the Monk for a "Quickblade" dagger-using subclass, Monks only get 4 or 5 attacks in a round, even with Flurry. But those attacks will likely go back to dealing scaling Monk Weapon damage, which is more than the 1d4 a fighter would get.

I think a "Quickblade" subclass would need to focus on other technical enhancements and abilities that thematically fit light weapons, rather than just get more attacks. But that can already be created by a player invests in the feats and fighting styles that enhance Two-Weapon Fighting and Thrown Weapons. The designers wouldn't really want to grant or recreate those feats and features as class abilities, would they? What else is left?

 

[Scott Christian]

That sounds like a Dread Pirate situation. Where if you're in a campaign where those come up it's great, but if you don't the class is kind of useless. Really, if those are going to be campaign elements than everyone should be able to participate, and if they're not you don't want to waste class features on them.

I agree. It is specific. Built for a specific type of table play. But, on the other hand, I know many tables that gravitate towards that specific playstyle.

 

[Kurotowa]

I agree. It is specific. Built for a specific type of table play. But, on the other hand, I know many tables that gravitate towards that specific playstyle.

Which is what makes it a potential trap option. Sorry, let me expand on the "Dread Pirate" bit.

Back in 3e there was a Prestige Class for Rogues called Dread Pirate that was heavily focused on captaining a ship. Not exclusively, but that's where a decent amount of its investment was. I was in a campaign where one player decided they wanted to be a Dread Pirate. And Prestige Classes being what they were, that was something you had to build towards from 1st Level, and you weren't likely to qualify for anything else if you changed your mind. The campaign went for a couple years, and they did indeed become a Dread Pirate, and not once in the entire campaign did we come within sight of the ocean.

So for me, "Dread Pirate" is my go-to example for over specialized character options that look cool on paper but are trap picks if the campaign isn't exactly right for them. Which might be okay if your group always plays the same sort of campaigns, or if the player and the DM have really good communication skills. But a lot of times it can sucker players into picking something that will leave them frustrated that their character never gets to do the things they're best at.

 

[mellored]

I agree. It is specific. Built for a specific type of table play. But, on the other hand, I know many tables that gravitate towards that specific playstyle.

That's probably not a good choice for the PHB. You want something more general for the base.

 

[bedir than]

IMO, I don't want to watch someone roll 1000 times to kill something.

You've met my monk?

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

IMO, I don't want to watch someone roll 1000 times to kill something.

Isn't that the truth. I wish we could actually have a 'one move, one action, done' combat, not one move split into multiple steps, and one action spawning off into multiple attacks, then your bonus action gets triggered, and maybe your reaction too, and then the rest of the party jumps in with their reactions.

Oh look, up next, it's the turn of the Druid who summoned 32 wolves, all with their individual actions.

 

[mellored]

Isn't that the truth. I wish we could actually have a 'one move, one action, done' combat, not one move split into multiple steps, and one action spawning off into multiple attacks, then your bonus action gets triggered, and maybe your reaction too, and then the rest of the party jumps in with their reactions.

Oh look, up next, it's the turn of the Druid who summoned 32 wolves, all with their individual actions.

Well... there are ways to reduce dice rolls. Fireball for instance, you roll damage once.

So maybe something like.
1000 cuts.
You must be wielding 2 daggers. When you take the attack action, you can make twice the number of attacks, but each attack deals minimum damage.

Instead of (attack roll +damage roll) * 4 = 8 rolls
You get attack roll * 8 = 8 rolls.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm normally of a mind that each mechanical attack or attack sequence can be as many or as few actual swings as the players wants. In fact, I'm pretty sure the game usually says it represents an exchange of blows.

So the death by a thousand cuts fighters makes one attack, but it's really a flurry of strikes, meanwhile the great weapon fighter might be full attacking and action surging, but it's one big heavy swing.