Oofta
Legend
There's not really that much of an archetype for a brawler outside of monks. In addition we already have the tavern brawler feat.
D&D 5E Really concerned about class design
There's not really that much of an archetype for a brawler outside of monks. In addition we already have the tavern brawler feat.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
You've missed the boat. The argument is that you could make it a class. Full stop. That's sufficient to complain that there aren't more classes -- you can do it, so you should.
At least, that's the best I've been able to pull out of this whole thread.
For me, there's already too many classes. To add another, you'd need to identify a strong archetype that supports a number of sub-archetypes and needs a unique mechanic to support that central archetype. Psionist seems like a reasonable candidate (although power points and unique powers aren't coming back, guys, sorry), if you needed one. I think most of the psionics stuff fits in well as an archetype, though, and I'm not drooling over psionics to begin with, so it's not my argument. But I can see it and understand it. I have no idea what "brawler" is as a central archetype. It seems it's "guy/gal that uses their fists to hit things" with maybe a side of "wrassling," but that's already supported. It's not new, it doesn't have a lot of sub-archetypes, and it doesn't need new core mechanics.
Einlanzer0
Explorer
You can't see it because you haven't spent any time thinking about it and so therefore you aren't seeing it. That's literally it. I could send you a few different versions of a homebrew brawler class if you're actually interested. Here's the rub - any argument you could make to denounce a well-designed homebrew brawler class could also be used against the monk class or several of the other classes in the PHB.
So just because you can't see it doesn't mean it can't be justified. Can you make a brawler class using the PHB options? Sure, just take tavern brawler as a fighter. Is that a full exploration of what you could potentially do with a brawler concept? Nope. Not by a long shot.
Oofta
Legend
By that logic we should have a clown class. Give them proficiency in throwing pies, a fear attack and so on. It would be awesome.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.
Einlanzer0
Explorer
This doesn't make much sense, because "clown" is not a style of combat or exploration, which means it is not in any way analogous to "brawler" as a concept.
Even so, if a concept fits well within your established lore for someone who would go adventuring, then there's no reason not develop it. For a clown class, it might make sense if you develop a setting or DM style that leans heavily on the social pillar.
I'm not trying to be rude, but this really shouldn't be that hard to grasp.
the Jester
Legend
First of all, that's a little insulting. I actually have thought about it. And there is literally nothing so iconic about it that I can think of that isn't covered by fighter/monk/Tavern Brawler that it deserves a full class, as far as I can see.
I mean, if your criteria is "I can think of some stuff you could do with it", you can justify literally anything as a base class. I think that the criteria should be much stricter than that. I'm open to the idea that a brawler (for instance) might meet those criteria, but I have seen literally nothing to back that up, despite asking several times in this thread.
Except that those classes are already in the PH. Sure, you could design a brawler that fills the same design space as the monk. But why? It's redundant; it doesn't fill a design space that needs to be filled. I mean, you could design a swordsman, axeman, hammerer, mace-man, and flailer class, but none of them are likely to come out as anything more than variant versions of the fighter.
Again- what's missing?
To justify a base class, I think you need to be filling an archetype that isn't already served. Brawler doesn't, as far as I can see. Arguing that the monk is similarly unjustified misses the point that the monk is already in the PH; that the monk (and other unarmed options) are the reason that the brawler isn't necessary. Take the monk out, and sure, there's room for a brawler... but the monk is already there. It's the existing work that fills the slot that a brawler might otherwise fill.
Again, I am open to the notion that there's something there the monk isn't doing. But I'd need to see some kind of evidence to back that up. So far, the argument seems to be, "But I can think of stuff it could do," which isn't nearly enough to rise to the standard I would use to evaluate whether a base class is justified.
Einlanzer0
Explorer
Except the monk comes bundled with a lot of fluff & crunch that don't fit a brawler very well. In fact, if anything, it should have been done the other way around, with Brawler being a class and Monk being a subclass. So your emphasis on "the monk already fits the archetype of the brawler" shows that you're imposing arbitrary limits on how a brawler could be designed because you haven't sufficiently explored it.
Also, I've directed you to do some research on available brawler homebrew classes if you're genuinely curious. You really shouldn't need me to hold your hand, but if you want to send me your email or something I can send you the version I'm using and refining (which isn't my personal creation.)
Oofta
Legend
It was a joke. I'm sure I could think of some other archetype, but my point is that we don't need a class for every possible style. There's nothing particularly iconic about a brawler that can't already be replicated by the rules.
Einlanzer0
Explorer
Of course you don't need it! You don't need literally anything but the PHB to play D&D! That clearly is not the point. If you're satisfied with no new options ever, that's fine and that's your prerogative, but you have no basis whatsoever for fighting expansion of content for players who want it.
the Jester
Legend
I could get behind that, if there weren't already a monk class. But I can't see that we need two base classes focused on unarmed fighting, especially if we have ways for other types of characters to dabble in it (e.g. Tavern Brawler and a fighting style).
No offense, but I don't want to wade through pages of homebrew. I just want a bottom line here. I don't need a list of mechanics, even, just a few ideas on what would set a brawler apart from a monk.
Now, I do agree that the monk carries a lot of weight in its fluff that makes certain other types of unarmed fighters seem a bit weird when done as a monk, but this is a perfect example of when I think reflavoring stuff can really do the heavy lifting. It's like a warrior who enters a focused battle trance in combat- it's a barbarian with the serial numbers filed off.
Similar Threads
