[Homebrew] Should an Unarmed Fighter get Unarmored Defense?

[Legimus]

So I've been playing around with making an unarmed, strength-based character, and that's been leading me to a few homebrew ideas. I know the Barbarian is the natural choice, but I wanted to try making a martial archetype instead. I like the idea of bruiser who wins through strength, skill, and conditioning, rather than a berserker who wins by brute force.

In my mind, fighting unarmed just seems incompatible with heavy armor. So at first I thought about forcing them to give up all armor and rely on Unarmored Defense (CON), but it was pointed out to me that that works too much against the basic chassis of the Fighter class. In my current draft, you just can't wear heavy armor or use a shield. That seemed like a decent compromise between defense and mobility to me. But I still really like the image of this bare-knuckled boxer who fights without armor. With that in mind, would it be unfair to give the subclass the option of using Unarmored Defense?

My concern is that, because they get extra ASIs, a Fighter can realistically get a fairly high DEX and max out CON in the late game, enough to surpass medium armor and heavy armor (even with the Defense fighting style). For most of the game, though, it would be sub-optimal. So do you think it would be balanced to give it to the archetype as an option, so long as they're not forced into it?

Homebrewery link for those that want to see the current draft. (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rk-fFTwtem)

[JNAProductions]

I think it'd be fine. You need to invest (assuming you start with a 16 in Dex and Con) four ASIs to max your AC at 20, which can only be done by level twelve at the earliest.

If it allows shields, I'd probably say no, since then you can hit 22 at level twelve, while the Barb has to sacrifice a lot of hitting power for that and you don't, but if it's no armor AND no shields... Eh. Whatever. Should be fine.

Also, this should probably be in the homebrew subforum.

[GlenSmash!]

Granting Unarmored Defense as part of a subclass seems fine to me.

[Amdy_vill]

So I've been playing around with making an unarmed, strength-based character, and that's been leading me to a few homebrew ideas. I know the Barbarian is the natural choice, but I wanted to try making a martial archetype instead. I like the idea of bruiser who wins through strength, skill, and conditioning, rather than a berserker who wins by brute force.

In my mind, fighting unarmed just seems incompatible with heavy armor. So at first I thought about forcing them to give up all armor and rely on Unarmored Defense (CON), but it was pointed out to me that that works too much against the basic chassis of the Fighter class. In my current draft, you just can't wear heavy armor or use a shield. That seemed like a decent compromise between defense and mobility to me. But I still really like the image of this bare-knuckled boxer who fights without armor. With that in mind, would it be unfair to give the subclass the option of using Unarmored Defense?

My concern is that, because they get extra ASIs, a Fighter can realistically get a fairly high DEX and max out CON in the late game, enough to surpass medium armor and heavy armor (even with the Defense fighting style). For most of the game, though, it would be sub-optimal. So do you think it would be balanced to give it to the archetype as an option, so long as they're not forced into it?

Homebrewery link for those that want to see the current draft. (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rk-fFTwtem)

yes if you are building a monkish sub for fighter unarmored defense should be in there.