Brute- Fighter Subclass the new Starter class

[Marvnmartian]

I know, I know the new subclass is op to some people but after looking it over again I started to get the idea that this might be the perfect class to drop a new player in to adding slight weapon damage increase considering most campaigns don't go past 10 the character would have an added d6 on his 2 attacks so not too bad.

and then he would have added survivability with the d6 on saving throws not as much as a totem barbarian but it would allow a new player to feel strong and stay in the fight longer and then getting an extra fighting style is nice but considering the options most classes would just grab the 1 to ac or if your slinging a bow maybe close quarters.

So personally I wont be to scared of this class since its in line from 1-10 and from 11-20 a martial class is trying to keep up with caster versatility so I wouldn't mind a new subclass for each martial class that tunes abilitys after 15 to make them a little stronger

[SharkForce]

just to be clear - the problem with brute is not that it is better than being a wizard (that is hard to measure, and may or may not be true depending on specific circumstance), but that it is very obviously superior to being pretty much any other kind of DPR build, which is a problem when basically all of fighter and barbarian revolve around that specific role, as well as a good 3/4 of ranger and somewhere around that much of paladin.

[Unoriginal]

Personally I think the problem is that they basically copy/pasted a lot of Champion features rather than trying to make Brute its own thing.

I've suggested that in another thread, but making so that the bonus damage only work for Simple weapons, improvised weapons and unarmed attacks would already do a lot to give the Brute its own identity (as the "fighter who sticks to the basics of brute force rather than training in fancy stuff"), and it would be another viable bare-handed combatant option.

[Finlam]

A ranger will still have spells.

A paladin will still have spells.

The Barbarian still be tankier.

The DPR difference between Brute and Battlemaster is neglibile in tier 1 and 2.


Having a comparable DPR, but less utility than the Battlemaster in tiers 1 and 2 is balanced.


If you want to talk about tier 3 and 4, the subclass could use some work, but most campaign play will be in the first two tiers, making it an ideal and balanced option for beginners.

[Wilb]

I like the Brute, but I feel that he is a one trick pony. He is the kind of guy that can only deal damage, and the party can play around him, boosting his performance. But I feel that a battlemaster can contribute much more, through control or by allowing a rogue or similar damage dealer to attack with the Commander's Strike maneuver.

Isolated, the Brute seems too powerful, but when you put him in a group, his contribution is not that big, as he could barely take advantage of others without hampering their own contributions. He is bad with skills and buffs that aid him significantly mostly use a caster's concentration, hindering other powerful spells.

I probably need a push to believe that he is overpowered, because I can't see him being any close to a Sorlock EB spammer.

[suplee215]

I like the Brute, but I feel that he is a one trick pony. He is the kind of guy that can only deal damage, and the party can play around him, boosting his performance. But I feel that a battlemaster can contribute much more, through control or by allowing a rogue or similar damage dealer to attack with the Commander's Strike maneuver.

Isolated, the Brute seems too powerful, but when you put him in a group, his contribution is not that big, as he could barely take advantage of others without hampering their own contributions. He is bad with skills and buffs that aid him significantly mostly use a caster's concentration, hindering other powerful spells.

I probably need a push to believe that he is overpowered, because I can't see him being any close to a Sorlock EB spammer.

The real problem is those niches of "dumb attacker" is already taken by 1 Fighter subclass (Champion) and arguably most of a barbarian. While a barbarian is tankier, I think it's role as up front damage dealer is more often used for it. Why play a champion when you can be a Brute? now the above suggestion of making it only simple, improvised and unarmed weapons really carve out a niche and I think will help mark the difference (especially for half orcs who might prefer a champion for bigger damage dice on top of improved critical).

[ZZTRaider]

The real problem is those niches of "dumb attacker" is already taken by 1 Fighter subclass (Champion) and arguably most of a barbarian.

First, I'd say it's more set up as a "simplistic attacker" than a "dumb attacker". That is, there aren't any moving parts; everything is always on. That already differentiates it from the Barbarian, who needs to choose whether or not to Rage and keep up with conditions that could prematurely end that Rage.

As far as the Champion... I actually get a rather distinct impression that this may be the first of a new set of "alternative class features", as we've been told to expect instead of a full release of the Revised Ranger. So, this may well be the "Revised Champion", as far as WotC is concerned.

[Wilb]

The real problem is those niches of "dumb attacker" is already taken by 1 Fighter subclass (Champion) and arguably most of a barbarian. While a barbarian is tankier, I think it's role as up front damage dealer is more often used for it. Why play a champion when you can be a Brute? now the above suggestion of making it only simple, improvised and unarmed weapons really carve out a niche and I think will help mark the difference (especially for half orcs who might prefer a champion for bigger damage dice on top of improved critical).

They could limit the brute to melee Str weapons only, leaving (Elven?) Dex Champions as a different option for the same "dumb attacker", both with rapier and bows. Limiting the extra d6 to Str and Con saves would help a lot as well.


First, I'd say it's more set up as a "simplistic attacker" than a "dumb attacker". That is, there aren't any moving parts; everything is always on. That already differentiates it from the Barbarian, who needs to choose whether or not to Rage and keep up with conditions that could prematurely end that Rage.

As far as the Champion... I actually get a rather distinct impression that this may be the first of a new set of "alternative class features", as we've been told to expect instead of a full release of the Revised Ranger. So, this may well be the "Revised Champion", as far as WotC is concerned.

I get this impression as well. They already said that the Revised Ranger will never substitute the PHB one, and people also had a lot of vitriol aimed at the Wild Magic Sorcerer. The Brute and the Invention School may be part of a set of alternative classes they may release as they did with the Elemental Evil player options.

[Daphne]

I don't like the extra Fighting Style, it doesn't fit the theme.

I would also change the capstone to something similar to Heavy Armor Master, like reducing damage taken by an amount equal to your Constitution modifier to make it different from the Champion.



A ranger will still have spells.

A paladin will still have spells.

The Barbarian still be tankier.

The DPR difference between Brute and Battlemaster is neglibile in tier 1 and 2.

Having a comparable DPR, but less utility than the Battlemaster in tiers 1 and 2 is balanced.

If you want to talk about tier 3 and 4, the subclass could use some work, but most campaign play will be in the first two tiers, making it an ideal and balanced option for beginners.

Agreed


The real problem is those niches of "dumb attacker" is already taken by 1 Fighter subclass (Champion)

Champion is bad though, this is mostly a "fix", like others have said:


I actually get a rather distinct impression that this may be the first of a new set of "alternative class features", as we've been told to expect instead of a full release of the Revised Ranger. So, this may well be the "Revised Champion", as far as WotC is concerned.

I got the same impression.

[Crgaston]

Limiting the extra d6 to Str and Con saves would help a lot as well.


Because a 20th level fighter should be super easy to frighten. Got it.

[Daphne]

Limiting the extra d6 to Str and Con saves would help a lot as well.

It would be almost useless then.

[suplee215]

Champion is bad though, this is mostly a "fix", like others have said:





Personally I like champion even if it does require an unusual game to outshine other subclasses. That said, if the Brute is meant to be a "fix" for it I will prefer Wizard to say it's a fix. I can only judge it as it is presented to me, and it is presented as a new subclass and not a fix for an old one. That said, I do like the angle Brute has as a two weapon fighter

[suplee215]

It would be almost useless then.

What if only Physical Saves (so Str, DEX, and Con)? While yes, mental stats can be the most dangerous of effects, the ability of a d6 to everything might be too strong (I am unsure, it is just an extra 3.5 on average but then it is good). Limiting it to the physical saves will make it still useful as dex saves happen way too often (Danger Sense is amazing for a reason)

[mephnick]

I kind of prefer the Champion. Remarkable Athlete sucks but at least it gives you the option of freeing up some proficiencies for non-physical skills. People always complain about "What does a Fighter do outside of combat?" and the Brute is..uh brutal in that regard. I also feel the expanded crit range is more interesting than just adding a die to every attack.

[Daphne]

What if only Physical Saves (so Str, DEX, and Con)? While yes, mental stats can be the most dangerous of effects, the ability of a d6 to everything might be too strong (I am unsure, it is just an extra 3.5 on average but then it is good). Limiting it to the physical saves will make it still useful as dex saves happen way too often (Danger Sense is amazing for a reason)

Better but still weak imo

Paladins have +CHA to saves for the whole group, Ancients even gets resistance to damage of spells
Barbarians have resistance to physical damage, Bear has resistance to all types but psychic
Rogues have Evasion and Wisdom save proficiency at high levels
Most casters have access to Absorb Elements

Fighters can.. reroll a save, which barely helps if you don't have positive modifiers.

[danpit2991]

im going to be playing the brute in my alt game this weekend with the following changes i got with the dm and we "fixed" some of the copy paste feel and added a little bit of flavor

1. change weapon profs to simple, improvised, unarmed strikes thrown weapons have double range

2. level 1 get athletics and intimidation proficiency

3. brute force applies only to strength based attacks

3. brutish durability 2/ short rest (this might change)

4. instead of an additional fighting style, grant the weapon master feat here instead because after 10 levels im sure that someone would figure out how to use a sword

5. devestating crit and survivor are fine as is


so i am going to be a half orc (Because half orcs are my bag baby i mean for everything even casters)

rolled stats after racials are
STR 17

DEX 10

CON 12

WIS 10

INT 10

CHA 9
i know not the best but workable

soldier background
dueling fighting style

armed with a mace, spear, hand axes and shield wearing chain maille

im going to play any feats by ear and see who this guy becomes

[Potato_Priest]

1. change weapon profs to simple, improvised, unarmed strikes thrown weapons have double range

4. instead of an additional fighting style, grant the weapon master feat here instead because after 10 levels im sure that someone would figure out how to use a sword


This assumes that the character either starts at level 3 or declares their subclass at level 1, since all 1st level fighters have no subclass and are proficient in martial weapons. A better solution might be to have the brute's bonus damage only apply to the weapon types listed.

It's rather strange if you suddenly stop knowing how to swing a greatsword only a short ways into your career with no outside influence.

[danpit2991]

This assumes that the character either starts at level 3 or declares their subclass at level 1, since all 1st level fighters have no subclass and are proficient in martial weapons. A better solution might be to have the brute's bonus damage only apply to the weapon types listed.

It's rather strange if you suddenly stop knowing how to swing a greatsword only a short ways into your career with no outside influence.

honestly we didnt even think about that because we were making a brute and focused on that and didnt even think about the fact that he is going to be a fighter first and foremost nice catch now i have the egg on muh face lol


guess we will have to treat this like you choose the subclass at level 1 like a warlock patron smh i cant believe we missed that lol
but oh well it is playtest material anyways so there is bound to be hickups

[Specter]

Because a 20th level fighter should be super easy to frighten. Got it.

...Aren't all the others except Samurai?

[Sception]

They are, but they shouldn't be. Lack of tankiness in the fighter has been kind of a problem for a while. Their damage is alright, but their defenses are rather lacking. They really need something to shore up saves more, especially later on. The brute's later level damage boosts might be a bit high, but if anything the save bonus is something every fighter should have in some form.

[SharkForce]

They are, but they shouldn't be. Lack of tankiness in the fighter has been kind of a problem for a while. Their damage is alright, but their defenses are rather lacking. They really need something to shore up saves more, especially later on. The brute's later level damage boosts might be a bit high, but if anything the save bonus is something every fighter should have in some form.

if there is a problem with the fighter, the solution is to fix the fighter, not to introduce a new subclass that outperforms every other previous subclass.

[Potato_Priest]

if there is a problem with the fighter, the solution is to fix the fighter, not to introduce a new subclass that outperforms every other previous subclass.

I disagree that it outperforms every previous subclass (though it certainly outperforms its clear parallel the champion), but I agree with you in principle. The way that WOTC has taken to try to fix these things is rather strange... they can't admit they didn't quite get it right the first time and so now are pushing power creep in the weaker classes on us because of it.

[danpit2991]

I disagree that it outperforms every previous subclass (though it certainly outperforms its clear parallel the champion), but I agree with you in principle. The way that WOTC has taken to try to fix these things is rather strange... they can't admit they didn't quite get it right the first time and so now are pushing power creep in the weaker classes on us because of it.

power creep happens it is the nature of the beast, although in 5E it has been creeping much slower it unfortunately also true that it will continue until the bloat is untenable and then we will have 6E thus starting the cycle all over again and i dont think the brute is that much more powerful than the champion and like i said before it is playtest so any huge problems should be taken care of before it becomes official if it ever does . it seems to me that everyone is mostly upset that it is "better" than the champion well its like the first draft of home brew of course it will be strong ...until it gets played enough and folks figure out what needs to be done

oh i just took your points to my dm and we "fixed the fix" so to speak using DAPHNE postings from above as inspiration

1. change weapon profs to simple, improvised, unarmed strikes thrown weapons have double range

2. level 1 get athletics and intimidation proficiency

3. brute force applies only to strength based attacks

3. brutish durability 2/ short rest (this might change)

4. instead of an additional fighting style, grant the weapon master feat here instead because after 10 levels im sure that someone would figure out how to use a sword

5. devestating crit and survivor are fine as is




1. add proficiency with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes also thrown weapons have double range

2. level 3 get intimidation proficiency

3. brute force applies only to strength based attacks

3. brutish durability 3/ short rest

4. instead of an additional fighting style, grant the heavy armor master feat

5. devastating crit and survivor are fine as is

i would appreciate any further input

[Mongobear]

Despite the phoned in, copy/paste Champion feel, I think the Brute has it's uses. I really like it's application for TWFing. Didn't do any actual math, but it feels like it makes it more competitive in damage output.

[Crgaston]

...Aren't all the others except Samurai?
Yes, they are. Sorry, that was sarcasm, and I dont know how to do the blue text thingy. I assumed it was obvious enough from the statement alone.

Fighters in 1e & 2e had some of (if not the) best saves against just about everything. That a 20th level fighter (who isn’t a samurai) has a worse save vs fear than a 1st level wizard is just horribly wrong, IMO. Fortunately they have enough ASIs to take resilient Wis and boost the stat a bit.

Indomitable helps, but advantage on one save per long rest (2 at 13th and 3 at 17th) seems like weak sauce compared to Danger Sense (2nd), Mindless Rage (6th), Evasion (7th), Stillness of Mind (7th), Aura of Courage (10th), or Diamond Soul (14th). Among others.

[Marvnmartian]

Going over the math i honestly don't see too much difference between the attacks you can choose with brute even with cbe cheese it comes out to 16 extra damage a turn at max... which is nothing at level 20.. math at bottom

But this i believe is the one instance where two weapon fighting is the best way to go two rapiers with dual wielder feat will allow you to do 13 more damage a round then CBE cheese. Meaning you are playing the mechanic as intended without having to lawyer your way into it working. which is i believe as a base damage output the most you can do as a martial class currently. maybe monk damage might go higher but i haven't mathed them out yet

otherwise i don't see too much of a problem with the class having half proficiency in saves is ok but nothing compared to monk and just lets them have the chance of saving.

Bonus crit damage is alright as if at max 20 damage happening 5% of the time just adds a small spike damage compared to other classes warlock/paladin rolling their crits and dropping 5th level spell slots to smite keeps the damage in perspective

10 points of passive healing at 18 is such a low amount yes this means out of combat this character doesn't require dropping hit dice but I have run hundreds of 5e games and i can say ive had 2 fights last longer than 10 rounds and so at a max of 100 points of passive healing at level 18 and as a gm im not going to drop a meteor swarm out of the gate to scare my players why? at level 17+ kiddy gloves are off and my players better use every skill and class feature to win or they just wont.

So honestly this class is as I said what i would drop a new character into as its easy to remember the class features as its just adding a dice to attacks and saves

Bonus here is the math for battlemaster archer vs brute archer with or without CBE cheese

Math caveat All attacks hit and roll max damage just to find the optimal max

-----20 Battlemaster---20 Battlemaster---------20 Brute------------20 Brute
-------------------------------- w CBE---------------------------------- w CBE
R1---8d8+40+80=184 ---9d6+45+90=189---8d8+8d10+40+80=264---9d6+9d10+45+90=279
R2---8d8+40+80=184---9d6+45+90=189---8d8+8d10+40+80=264----9d6+9d10+45+90=279
R3---4d8+20+40=92----5d6+25+50=105---4d8+4d10+20+40=132----5d6+5d10+25+50=150
R4---4d8+20+40=92----5d6+25+50=105---4d8+4d10+20+40=132----5d6+5d10+25+50=150
R5---4d8+20+40=92----5d6+25+50=105---4d8+4d10+20+40=132----5d6+5d10+25+50=150
--------Total= 644--------Total= 696-----------Total=924--------------Total=1008

Add a potential 48 damage to battlemaster for superiority dice which can also become more situationally

[SharkForce]

that extra damage every turn is quite substantial, because the base value isn't that large to begin with. seriously, look at the numbers you posted... the brute is doing as much damage as 1.5 non-brutes. a 50% damage boost over some of the highest DPR builds is not reasonable.

[Finlam]

that extra damage every turn is quite substantial, because the base value isn't that large to begin with. seriously, look at the numbers you posted... the brute is doing as much damage as 1.5 non-brutes. a 50% damage boost over some of the highest DPR builds is not reasonable.

... at 20th level. Assuming max damage. If you average the damage (a better way to use statistics) the damage difference reduces substantially.

The Battlemaster can also trip, disarm, grants bonuses, etc... in order to provide tactical advantage and literal Advantage to other party members. That cannot be reflected in a straight DPR calculation. The party with a Battlemaster will have higher average damage output, if only because he can help allies gain advantage on attacks.

Calling the Brute's damage "not reasonable" is a bit much. It probably makes sense to tune down the extra crit damage a bit, but it's in the ballpark for balance even if it's in the outfield.

[alchahest]

Also when looking at ~Max damage~ we are also assuming no misses, which ignores one of the greatest strengths of the battlemaster, the ability to turn misses into hits.

[Talamare]

Correctly built Battlemaster deals more damage than a Brute

again

CORRECTLY BUILT Battlemaster deals more damage than a Brute

So yea. The Brute is pretty optimal for new players.
It's not even slightly overpowered, but it's power is easy to reach.

[SharkForce]

... at 20th level. Assuming max damage. If you average the damage (a better way to use statistics) the damage difference reduces substantially.

The Battlemaster can also trip, disarm, grants bonuses, etc... in order to provide tactical advantage and literal Advantage to other party members. That cannot be reflected in a straight DPR calculation. The party with a Battlemaster will have higher average damage output, if only because he can help allies gain advantage on attacks.

Calling the Brute's damage "not reasonable" is a bit much. It probably makes sense to tune down the extra crit damage a bit, but it's in the ballpark for balance even if it's in the outfield.

the brute can also trip targets (as can anyone really, and frankly far more reliably than the battlemaster's save-based trip ability most of the time), and all of the battlemaster's tricks ultimately boil down to "kill stuff faster" or "stay alive better", both of which the brute is doing better in the first place (not to mention the battlemaster has to split his one resource between both of those categories while the brute doesn't have to split resources at all).

and average damage mostly reduces the raw numerical increase, but not so much the ratio, which will stay fairly close (the flat damage numbers won't change, but the brute should also be critting a couple of times in there, so maybe we'll go to "only" a 40% increase or something, which is still a ridiculously large difference, not to mention that now we're down to only 5 rounds comparison, so we're not even at the already questionable assumption of 6 rounds of combat in between rests that we had before)

now, you can have that kind of difference in some cases and not have problems. for example, if the battlemaster had 2/3 of the damage of a brute (give or take a little) but was significantly better in the social pillar by virtue of being a battlemaster, that might be reasonable (it's hard to say, there isn't really a firm ratio of power there, but at least you would be able to see that the battlemaster is giving up some DPR to gain somewhere else, at which point it's a question of what you value more) but that isn't really the case. the battlemaster fills the exact same role, except worse. that is a problem.

likewise the nonsense about the regeneration meaning nothing. if the brute is getting 10 rounds of regeneration in a day, that's 100 more HP in a day, which is huge as well. a max con fighter will average 214 HP. our theoretical max con brute will instead average 314 HP, again, nearly a 50% increase, which is a big deal. yes, the DM can adjust the threat to a point where even the brute is in danger, but if the DM needs to do that for the brute but not for anything else, something screwy is going on, and it's entirely possible that the resulting increased threat will simply one-shot the rest of the party.

[alchahest]

if the brute trips someone, they lose one of their attacks to do so. The battlemaster also has this option, in addition to the ability to add a trip to an already successful attack.

[SharkForce]

if the brute trips someone, they lose one of their attacks to do so. The battlemaster also has this option, in addition to the ability to add a trip to an already successful attack.

sure, and if the battlemaster uses their trip maneuver, there is a far greater chance that it doesn't work and their opponent remains un-tripped, and it costs them a limited resource every time, which comes from the same pool they were supposedly using to boost their DPR by turning misses into hits.

[Sception]

if there is a problem with the fighter, the solution is to fix the fighter, not to introduce a new subclass that outperforms every other previous subclass.

The brute doesn't outperform every other previous subclass, just the champion, which was already widely considered a joke.

That said, I absolutely agree with you that fixes should be made directly to the thing that's broken. That if the ranger is bad, it should be fixed outright, not just get overtuned subclasses that then outshine all the core ranger subclasses. That if the bladelock is bad, that the fix should be made to bladelock itself, not arbitrarily stapled to a new patron such that the bladelock option might as well not even exist for all other patrons. That if fighter is painfully fragile for what is, at least on its face, supposed to be the iconic tank out of the four classic classes, then the fix should be made to fighter itself, not haphazardly applied only to a new subclass that was already too strong for some before that.

But our choices aren't 'real fix or half baked patch', rather it's 'half baked batch or nothing.'

The 5e development team have decided that they're just never going to fix anything, even things they've already openly acknowledged as problems, they're only going to apply patches. And while that's a dramatically worse answer than just fixing the problem, I'd still rather have the patch than just leave the problem there with nothing to address it at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

So personally I wont be to scared of this class since its in line from 1-10 and from 11-20 a martial class is trying to keep up with caster versatility so I wouldn't mind a new subclass for each martial class that tunes abilitys after 15 to make them a little stronger
Brute stands out to me as the Two Weapon fighter answer, due to the generic damage boost that goes up a bit by level and both weapons getting a damage boost without having to take the TWF fighting style.

I'd rather see the damage bonus explicitly limited to thrown/melee weapons -- thematic. I'd double (or at least increase somewhat) the ranges for all thrown weapons for a Brute.

At level 10, which appears to be a bone of contention for some, suggest adding strength bonus to cha bonus for intimidation. That said, Fighter is still a general fighter and I see no harm in getting another fighting style.

At level 18, add proficiency to armor class to make it different than the Champion feature. Talk about a capstone feature!
At those levels, monsters have some nice to hit bonuses, and often have other attacks, but getting hit less often is different from the gain HP that Champion has, with a similar effect.

About the saving throw idea at seven: I like it.
Revise the saving throw benefit to 1d4 maybe, if the 1d6 is too high.
I like the call back to the original game style of saving throws, rather than saves based on a stat. That's sort of what this feature does, and it restores the Fighter to having a lot more saves that are not stat bound. I like the idea of how a higher level fighter has less chance to be feared by a high CR dragon or demon.

At 15: I don't see the crit damage bonus = level to be a problem since CR 15 and higher foes tend to have big bags of HP.
Crits don't happen that often for this archetype, unlike the Champion, and it fits the theme.

On the other hand, what happens when you MC this Brute with a Barbarian?
Might be ubertank, but I have not run the numbers.

[SharkForce]

The brute doesn't outperform every other previous subclass, just the champion, which was already widely considered a joke.

it is definitively outperforming the battlemaster at killing stuff and staying alive. the only reason it isn't definitively better than eldritch knight is that the eldritch knight can theoretically do well in other areas (because spells may theoretically be able to contribute in ways beyond just straight up killing things, though the eldritch knight is definitely not as good at straight up killing things as even the battlemaster most of the time i'd say, who is generally doing worse).

so no, it isn't just the champion. it's all the fighter subclasses that aren't brute, and while we're add it, probably all the barbarian ones as well.

[Talamare]

it is definitively outperforming the battlemaster at killing stuff and staying alive. the only reason it isn't definitively better than eldritch knight is that the eldritch knight can theoretically do well in other areas (because spells may theoretically be able to contribute in ways beyond just straight up killing things, though the eldritch knight is definitely not as good at straight up killing things as even the battlemaster most of the time i'd say, who is generally doing worse).

so no, it isn't just the champion. it's all the fighter subclasses that aren't brute, and while we're add it, probably all the barbarian ones as well.

We proved it with Math that Battlemaster deals more damage than the Brute.

So it's not better at killing stuff.

[SharkForce]

We proved it with Math that Battlemaster deals more damage than the Brute.

So it's not better at killing stuff.

deals more damage in a perfectly planned short adventuring day where the battlemaster spends all of his dice perfectly and none are wasted or used on anything but killing stuff?

yeah, nice "proof".

in a scenario that heavily favours the battlemaster, the battlemaster can have slightly higher damage output. the testing is incredibly biased.

of course, if the battlemaster is blowing everything on that, it means they're not increasing their survivability in the slightest, which in turn means they're miles behind in that department. and the only way to even try to compete is to sacrifice their damage.

[Talamare]

deals more damage in a perfectly planned short adventuring day where the battlemaster spends all of his dice perfectly and none are wasted or used on anything but killing stuff?

yeah, nice "proof".

in a scenario that heavily favours the battlemaster, the battlemaster can have slightly higher damage output. the testing is incredibly biased.

of course, if the battlemaster is blowing everything on that, it means they're not increasing their survivability in the slightest, which in turn means they're miles behind in that department. and the only way to even try to compete is to sacrifice their damage.

On a 'Standard' Adventuring Day
6 Encounters, 2 Short Rest - or 2 Battles per Short Rest

Battlemaster outperforms Brute by about 10-15%

The 'Standard' Adventuring Day is considered excess by most and few follow it.
Most people consider that to be an incredibly LONG day, which means that the shorter it becomes the better and better Battlemaster becomes

Now if you want to say that the Brute outperforms that Battlemaster in an essentially unrealistic scenario in which people go 4-5 Battles and never Short Rest. Okay, sure?

[SharkForce]

On a 'Standard' Adventuring Day
6 Encounters, 2 Short Rest - or 2 Battles per Short Rest

Battlemaster outperforms Brute by about 10-15%

The 'Standard' Adventuring Day is considered excess by most and few follow it.
Most people consider that to be an incredibly LONG day, which means that the shorter it becomes the better and better Battlemaster becomes

Now if you want to say that the Brute outperforms that Battlemaster in an essentially unrealistic scenario in which people go 4-5 Battles and never Short Rest. Okay, sure?

the standard adventuring day is 6 to 8 encounters, with 2[B to 3[/B] per short rest, and not a single one of those battles are guaranteed to be limited to 3 rounds only.

and it doesn't take 4-5 battles with no short rests. it takes one battle going longer, or a third battle in a short rest, for the brute to do better. and also that the battlemaster has absolutely perfect management of their superiority dice and not a single one is held in reserve for a potential battle that never materializes, and never spends so much as a single one on anything other than killing stuff (in which case they fall massively behind on the second half of what fighters do, survival). all it takes is that it is not a perfect best case scenario for the battlemaster, and the brute goes flying ahead. i don't know what your games are like, but i've never played D&D where i could be perfectly certain of any of those sorts of things. in any edition.

when you need to make a bunch of sketchy assumptions for your conclusion to be good, you've got problems.

[bid]

when you need to make a bunch of sketchy assumptions for your conclusion to be good, you've got problems.
One riposte is 2d6+3+1d8 ~ +2 damage for 7 attacks ~ 6d4.
Assuming you have extra attack, that's 14 rounds of combat.
Even 2 5-rounds encounters is a long time between short rest.

The BM can outplay the brute at damage, and can do smarter things if need be.

I'm not sure I agree with the numbers, but I agree with the conclusion.

[Finlam]

One riposte is 2d6+3+1d8 ~ +2 damage for 7 attacks ~ 6d4.
Assuming you have extra attack, that's 14 rounds of combat.
Even 2 5-rounds encounters is a long time between short rest.

The BM can outplay the brute at damage, and can do smarter things if need be.

I'm not sure I agree with the numbers, but I agree with the conclusion.
Everyone's who's looked at the numbers agrees. Then there are people who really have to stretch (you should always stretch before mental gymnastics) to find numbers to support a different conclusion.

[Talamare]

the standard adventuring day is 6 to 8 encounters, with 2[B to 3[/B] per short rest, and not a single one of those battles are guaranteed to be limited to 3 rounds only.

and it doesn't take 4-5 battles with no short rests. it takes one battle going longer, or a third battle in a short rest, for the brute to do better. and also that the battlemaster has absolutely perfect management of their superiority dice and not a single one is held in reserve for a potential battle that never materializes, and never spends so much as a single one on anything other than killing stuff (in which case they fall massively behind on the second half of what fighters do, survival). all it takes is that it is not a perfect best case scenario for the battlemaster, and the brute goes flying ahead. i don't know what your games are like, but i've never played D&D where i could be perfectly certain of any of those sorts of things. in any edition.

when you need to make a bunch of sketchy assumptions for your conclusion to be good, you've got problems.
I'm not sure why you also bolded 3 Short Rests? Your point is that Battlemasters need Short Rests, and more Short Rests only make them more powerful.
So having 3 Short Rests and only 6 Combats, means they would have an advantage over the Brute. 3 Short Rests and 8 Combats is equal to 2 Short Rests and 6 Combats.

Either way, Let's say 3 Combats, 5 Rounds per Combat before your next Short Rest. This is quite the grueling day for ANY Short Rest reliant class. Even the Monk and Warlock are complaining, but cest la vie.

GWM + PAM + 5 Strength + Lv12

Brute
3x 40%, 1d10+1d6+15
1x 40%, 1d4+1d6+15
* 5 * 3

45 x .40 x 1d10+1d6+15 = 162+270 || Multiply the dice by 1.05 for Crits, then add them together = 440.1
15 x .40 x 1d4+1d6+15 = 36+90 || = 127.8
= 567.9 Damage, 37.86 DPR

Battlemaster
45 x .40 x 1d10+15 = 99+270 || = 373.95
15 x .40 x 1d4+15 = 15+90 || = 105.75

60 x .6 = 36 Misses
roll of 12 = Miss, We have 36/12 = 3
So each number between 1-12 have a equal chance of appearing upto 3x each. So we can be safe and correct only 12s and 11s which will have a 95% success rate
5 * 0.95 = 4.75 Extra Hits
1d10 * 3 + 1d4 = 19 / 4 = 4.75 dice damage on each of those hits.
4.75 * 4.75 + 4.75 * 15 = 22.56 + 71.25 || 23.69 + 71.25 = 94.94
= 574.64, 38.30 DPR

So even with 3 Combats, and those Combats lasting 5 Rounds each...

BATTLEMASTER IS STILL AHEAD

[Cranny]

I'd honestly just rather see this as reflavored completely to a strength based rogue subclass, maybe rename it thug or something to that effect. Give it expertise in athletics, proficiency in heavy weapons, and the ability to sneak attack with them at level 3, give them extra attack at level 9 so they can knock a target prone giving them advantage for their second attack. Not entirely sure what to do for 13 and 17, but I think it's a better design space for the idea they were going for.

[danpit2991]

did the first session with the brute in my alt game played 1-4 in a homebrew setting honestly i saw and felt absolutly no difference between brute and my main character a half orc champion warlock (5c/1w) i was hitting about the same amount of the time, honestly the damage boost was insignificant but according to all of the much more math inclined folk around here it wont be a big deal until level 15 or so. i enjoyed playing the brute but honestly rolling an extra damage die for damage wasnt as much fun as all of the crits with the champion so its pretty much a wash between them oh and the saving throw bonus remained unused the one thing i did notice was the sustained output was better than the first few levels of my champion but that could easily be because of fickle dice

for those of you who have read my other posts on the subject we, meaning the dm and i decided to play test it as is instead of using the "fixes" we came up with just to see if the hub bub about it being op was factual and so far it is about even with champion as far as that goes i gues it comes down to if you want steady slightly higher damage output or if you want steady damage with a higher chance of sudden spikes

i doubt that we will get up to high levels with the brute because like i said this is an alt game for when the regular dm is out of town


now that i have made a text wall here is my final opinion, in play brute as a class does not seem to be op compared to champion
but it isnt quite unique enough to warrant a separate class with out some tweaking to give it a niche. as a set of alternate champion class features it rocks giving just enough difference in abilities that it "feels " like a different type of fighter. thank you for your time

[djreynolds]

So a 3rd level brute gets to add 1d4 extra damage to every hit... if they hit

So a 5th level PAM brute hits for 1d10 (+1d4), 1d10 (+1d4), 1d4 (+1d4)... if they hit

At 7th level they add 1d6 to every saving throw roll... even when standing next to the paladin

at 10th, extra fighting style, now its worth grabbing archery style here because every long bow is shooting 1d8 (+1d6)

At 15th they basically start adding +15 to every crit

And at 18th they get Survivor

Now imagine grab magic initiate (warlock) and stacking hex on this

Now imagine brutish durability coupled with the lucky feat or mage slayer or resilient wisdom or dex..... pretty strong

This is a class that needs no planning.... just grab any weapon and fight

This looks like a very good archetype

The brute really shines, its not that the battlemaster is better or worse... its just how powerful GWM is.

[9Reeds]

I really like the archtype but I would make one change. I would turn brute dice into their own dice pool based on Constitution bonus (minimum 1). The pool refreshes at the start of each turn and no more than one dice can be used per roll. You spend these dice on brute force or brutish durability (which now uses the scaled dice not just d6). That gives you choices to make between upping strength, dexterity or constitution first as you level and means if you go full TWF you likely will not have dice left for saves that turn.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff:Please don't post in threads that haven't been posted to within the last 45 days. Please review the Forum Rules.