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

[deganawida]

Take the Cavalier, remove all the Horse Stuff. Add Rallying Cry and Inspiring Surge from the Banneret.

Call it the Sergeant or Knight

I was gonna say that, but figured everyone would say it would need a UA.

It’s t he best way to do it, though, IMO.

 

[mellored]

I was gonna say that, but figured everyone would say it would need a UA.

It’s t he best way to do it, though, IMO.

There is still a chance to throw the fighter subclass into the next UA.

I mean, they could at least try. And if it fails, go back to Psi.

And yea. Cavalier + PDK would mix. A defender/support fighter would fill a niche that isn't filled.

 

[Remathilis]

There is still a chance to throw the fighter subclass into the next UA.

I mean, they could at least try. And if it fails, go back to Psi.

And yea. Cavalier + PDK would mix. A defender/support fighter would fill a niche that isn't filled.

There is no chance. They aren't going to send another idea out this late in the game. They have locked nine classes in and the rest is just math balancing. All they care about now is the three classes we know we're getting.

 

[Kurotowa]

IIRC Crawford explicitly called out the Brawler as part of a pair.

You do not recall correctly. I hunted down the right point in the right video, here's a timestamp link.

Crawford starts by talking about the subclasses as thematic quartets, segues into talking about how sometimes those quartets are broken into pairings, and then veers back into quartets and how the theming is sometimes aesthetic and somethings mechanical. Then he has this to say. "An example of a class where the hooks tend to be more mechanical than aesthetic is the Fighter. Where the quartet in the Fighter is actually about four very different ways of play."

People here and on reddit had already been speculating about the subclasses being broken into thematic pairs, so that's the bit that stuck in everyone's head, but it's not a hard or universal design rule.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You do not recall correctly. I hunted down the right point in the right video, here's a timestamp link.

Crawford starts by talking about the subclasses as thematic quartets, segues into talking about how sometimes those quartets are broken into pairings, and then veers back into quartets and how the theming is sometimes aesthetic and somethings mechanical. Then he has this to say. "An example of a class where the hooks tend to be more mechanical than aesthetic is the Fighter. Where the quartet in the Fighter is actually about four very different ways of play."

People here and on reddit had already been speculating about the subclasses being broken into thematic pairs, so that's the bit that stuck in everyone's head, but it's not a hard or universal design rule.

What? People only listening to things with half an ear and then making definitive declarations about said things as if they were actually paying full attention and not using faulty assumptions? Get outta town! You're KIDDING me! NO WAY that happens!

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Take the Cavalier, remove all the Horse Stuff. Add Rallying Cry and Inspiring Surge from the Banneret.

Call it the Sergeant or Knight

That would be nice. But yeah, they'll probably end up crapping out another Tasha's reprint

 

[Leatherhead]

Where the quartet in the Fighter is actually about four very different ways of play."

Well that rules out everything other than the Echo Knight, and I really doubt they are going to do the Echo knight.

 

[Parmandur]

There is still a chance to throw the fighter subclass into the next UA.

I mean, they could at least try. And if it fails, go back to Psi.

And yea. Cavalier + PDK would mix. A defender/support fighter would fill a niche that isn't filled.

No, there is no chance, Crawford already stated the Fighter is done with UA.

 

[Horwath]

It is not going to happen, but bring back the Brute.

do we really need 2 brain dead subclasses?

Also, both brute and champion are bad, maybe combine their features into one sub class?

 

[Kurotowa]

Well that rules out everything other than the Echo Knight, and I really doubt they are going to do the Echo knight.

Indeed, that was my original point. I agree that Echo Knight is rather unlikely, after having played one for a stretch. It's a deeply complex and unintuitive subclass. Fun, to be sure, but not good PHB material. And while some of the earlier subclasses like Arcane Archer are mechanically distinct, they're old enough they'd definitely need testing.

So either Crawford garbled what's going to be in UA 9 a little, or it's kind of got to be Psi Warrior or Rune Knight. And if I had to lay a bet, it'd be on Psi Warrior. But it's a narrow margin.