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

[Laurefindel]

It had..
Heroic shield, rallying cry
Inspire courage 1/day
Fear
Inspire courage 2/day, oath of wrath
Final stand

So mostly about inspiring others.

Concept is sound and worthwhile IMO (without being overtly magical at that!) but implementation was very meh.

It was part of the first set of new subclasses published after initial release and they were very timid about power creep back then (a valid sentiment). I’d like to see how they would redo it with the 10 years of experience they have now.

 

[teitan]

Nothing in any of the expansion, especially Tasha's since it is supposed to be forward thinking and the expansions will still be in print. I have a soapbox about WOTC's period of reprint madness leading up to Monsters of the Multiverse and I will die on that soapbox. They did a boatload of iterative changes between Xanathar and Tasha's, reprinting races and classes with small changes in each reprint and overwriting the old versions. Stop Reprint Madness!

I'd like to see a more thug type fighter class, like a brigand etc. A skulking fighter that partakes of some rogue style abilities but packs a wallop and doesn't overlap too much and NO magical powers.

 

[Yaarel]

Nothing in any of the expansion, especially Tasha's since it is supposed to be forward thinking and the expansions will still be in print. I have a soapbox about WOTC's period of reprint madness leading up to Monsters of the Multiverse and I will die on that soapbox. They did a boatload of iterative changes between Xanathar and Tasha's, reprinting races and classes with small changes in each reprint and overwriting the old versions. Stop Reprint Madness!

I'd like to see a more thug type fighter class, like a brigand etc. A skulking fighter that partakes of some rogue style abilities but packs a wallop and doesn't overlap too much and NO magical powers.

For me, it is important for the Core books to include Psionics.

For this reason, it is a good thing for the Core Fighter to list the Psi Warrior.

Possibly, the Warlock can merge Goo and Aberrant, making the Goo explicitly psionic.

Ideally, the Core Players Handbook includes a Psion class. But psionic subclasses help.


Astral creatures − including Celestial, Fiend, and Aberrant − are often innately psionic, since the Astral Plane is a mindscape of concepts, symbols, archetypes, paradigms, ethics, and ideals, and all of it made out of thoughtstuff.

 

[Kobold Stew]

For me, it is important for the Core books to include Psionics.

For this reason, it is a good thing for the Core Fighter to list the Psi Warrior.

Psi Warrior would be nice, but it would be odd, in my opinion, to have Psi Warrior but not Soulknife for the rogue.

If they were both there? It 'd be great. But given that I think a revised Soulknife won't appear until a later book, I expect Psi Warrior won't make the cut.

 

[Yaarel]

Psi Warrior would be nice, but it would be odd, in my opinion, to have Psi Warrior but not Soulknife for the rogue.

If they were both there? It 'd be great. But given that I think a revised Soulknife won't appear until a later book, I expect Psi Warrior won't make the cut.

Heh, it is even odder to lack a Psion class.

That said. The "Jedi" Knight concept has much popculture traction and recognition and appeal.

It is worth having the Psi Warrior in its own right in the Players Handbook. Meanwhile, its existence in the Core books is a nod that the Psionic power source exists and other psionic classes and subclasses can (and probably will) exist in future splatbooks.

Meanwhile, even the 2014 Monster Manual mentions Psionic monsters, and defines it as "innate spell casting". The player-facing Players Handbook needs to mention the Psionic class options too.

Also, the Glossary needs to detail exactly what "innate spells" and "innate spell casting" are, how they lack any spell component, and technically distinguishable, what "casting without a spell slot" means, exactly. The Glossary Entry that itemizes all of it can be "INNATE".

 

[Kobold Stew]

I understand your position; I just think it unlikely for one to appear without the other.