D&D (2024) Fighter (Playtest 7)

[The Myopic Sniper]

I would rather have a leader/warlord/banneret subclass in the core book rather than an unarmed subclass that encroaches on the Monk which desperately needs help and is already having its lunch t taken by the new drancer subclass in the Bard. A proper Warlord style subclass fills a niche that never really got filled in 5e since the Purple Dragon Knight is so ineffective, in a deprecated book and never got a rework in Tasha's or Xanathar's.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing forgot is

You can draw a weapon as part of the attack action.

Attacks with improved weapons which aren't alternative uses of weapons, shields, and armor while on adventures would be very rare.

This is why I keep saying that the 5e designers play a different style than most fans.

A fighter in the dungeon has a weapon in his hand and 1-3 weapons in sheathes. I would take 3-4 disarm attempts to bring the average level 5+ fighter down to a chair.

 

[Neonchameleon]

... I'm pretty sure that the optimal weapon for the brawler is the shield bash

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

... I'm pretty sure that the optimal weapon for the brawler is the shield bash

Your shield counts as Light, and Saps/Vexes as a bonus action... I do like those as a shield effect.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You are not understanding what I mean.

It's not that the brawler isn't a peach be level archetype. The issue is that the WOTC version of the brawler is not a version of a brawler that people see as iconic.

Sometimes chair Brawlers are iconic. All the time chair Brawlers aren't iconic.

I’m not sure what is confusing you about “we will see how it goes over”.

 

[see]

Would you like to bet on that in some way? Because I wonder if you're very certain it will not be, or merely arguing that it won't for the sake of arguing?

Right now, I'm going on the basic grammar of the text box, which refers to "items" rather than "an item". If their intention or action changes from that in the future, I will be mildly surprised, though not more than mildly. For evaluating the subclass-as-presented in this playtest, I'm going to assume that everything presented in the subclass's section is, in fact, true, and that claims to the contrary actually need evidence; anything else leads to madness.

My underlying position is that if the magic items chapter of the revised DMG does not properly serve Brawlers, College of Dance bards, and monks, that's not a problem with the design of those (sub)classes, that's a problem to be corrected in the playtest of the DMG. Declaring that those (sub)classes need to be balanced on the assumption that the designers will fail to revise the DMG properly is premature at best.

My guess is It'll be either one item, or a short line of items. It won't be some broad thing.

That's you backing off from your previous assertion of "a singular, specific item", then? In that case, no, I'm not willing to bet on the vague, judgment call difference between "a short line of items" and "some broad thing".

Nope.

Definition of EQUIVOCATION

deliberate evasiveness in wording : the use of ambiguous or equivocal language : an ambiguous or deliberately evasive statement… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Equivocation does not mean lying. It means ambiguous statements, whether intentional or inadvertent.

No, "equivocation" doesn't include inadvertent ambiguous statements. Merriam-Webster didn't include "deliberate" and "deliberately" for no reason, even if they didn't repeat in in every single clause of the definition, and you can compare Cambridge ("a way of speaking that is intentionally not clear and is confusing to other people, especially to hide the truth, or something said in this way") or the one of the two senses that Oxford English Dictionary doesn't mark as "obsolete" ("The use of words or expressions that are susceptible of a double signification, with a view to mislead").

Seriously, it's a really bad idea to accuse someone of equivocation unless you're intending to accuse them of intentionally trying to mislead.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Right now, I'm going on the basic grammar of the text box, which refers to "items" rather than "an item". If their intention or action changes from that in the future, I will be mildly surprised, though not more than mildly. For evaluating the subclass-as-presented in this playtest, I'm going to assume that everything presented in the subclass's section is, in fact, true, and that claims to the contrary actually need evidence; anything else leads to madness.

Items because there will be ones with different values, probably, and possibly different ones for unarmed and improvised.

But that's not "items" in a meaningful sense than glaive +1, glaive +2, and glaive +3 are "items". And most DMs are likely to threat the items that way because there's no guidance on giving out items in 5E. We have to hope that drastically changes with the 2024 DMG.

Also, I disagree strongly re: equivocation, and I feel like you know what I meant, given I clarified already, so at this point you're not actually on-topic.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Items because there will be ones with different values, probably, and possibly different ones for unarmed and improvised.

But that's not "items" in a meaningful sense than glaive +1, glaive +2, and glaive +3 are "items". And most DMs are likely to threat the items that way because there's no guidance on giving out items in 5E. We have to hope that drastically changes with the 2024 DMG.

It's worse than that. If I'm running e.g. The Curse of Strahd I'm probably going to be using the items straight out of the book and not re-write it. Which means that the new items will short-change the brawler - and I suspect that even adventures produced after 2024 are going to do the same thing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's worse than that. If I'm running e.g. The Curse of Strahd I'm probably going to be using the items straight out of the book and not re-write it. Which means that the new items will short-change the brawler - and I suspect that even adventures produced after 2024 are going to do the same thing.

Yup that's other issue here.

And this is a classic issue from videogames.

Whenever an ongoing videogame gets a new class that uses a new weapon or item, if the developers don't go back and place that item into old content, then that old content does not serve those classes well.

The cheap and easy answer, without real consideration, I would suggest, is to just fliply say "Well, the DM needs to modify it!", and sure but will the DMG say that? Will the DMG have words in it that say, if you're using older adventures, and you have an unarmed or improvised character, please consider modifying the adventure to include [improvised or unarmed improvement item]. Because I would bet money that not only will the DMG - even if well-written - fail to say that, it'll fail to say anything remotely of the sort. I'd go as far as to guess WotC's own official adventures made AFTER 2024 will also continue to miss out these items.

The only way the situation improves is if the DMG has profoundly different guidance on how to hand out magic items, guidance which isn't, essentially "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", but that actually says "You probably give X items at Y level - you don't have to but you probably should". Now that will offend a minority of my fellow grogs and an even smaller minority of younger players who are, despite having used decades of random item tables that de facto do stuff like this, find the DMG giving any kind of advice to them to be reprehensible. But that's like 4% of players and honest it's not worth worrying about. Unfortunately I think WotC will worry about it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

True story- in a Pathfinder1e game I played a Fighter with a Lucerne Hammer. A fight breaks out in town and I immediately move to act.

GM: "Wait, you don't have your weapon ready, you have to unsheathe it."

Me: "Uh, GM, this here is a polearm. What sheath?"

GM: "You can't be carrying a melee weapon openly in town! You have to have it peace tied or something."

ME: "Peace tied? To what? And how?"

This ended with me using a Move action for no other reason than the DM didn't want me to have it for some reason.

The moral of this story: never underestimate the ability of people who play and run TTRPG's to have no idea how real world things actually work.

To be fair, there are sort of mitten-things that go on polearms, albeit they're usually so guards beat people senseless with them without accidentally killing them.

But your general point stands, and I suspect your DM didn't know about the mitten-things or he'd have described them.

Some very sword-like ones did have actual sheaths but I think I've only seen those for Japanese polearms:

(The mitten-things I've seen in a museum and on YouTube video but couldn't find an image of)