The Pugilist, Revised (PEACH)

[GalacticAxekick]

Why play the Monk when the Pugilist (https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/246693) is a thing?

Bjarkmundur's question was actually the first time I had every heard of the Pugilist, and I was excited for it to solve a major problem in 5e. In theory, non-magical warriors are my favourite characters, and I always want to play one! But in practice, 5e's official rules force non-magical warriors into a a one-dimensional playstyle that is unfun for me.

I was disappointed to find that the Pugilist stripped every extraordinary ability away from the Monk besides the ability to take damage and dish it out. In it's effort to make the Monk less mystical, it also made the monk one-dimensional.

So I'm writing my own version of the Pugilist (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/FCA3HvEjGgv7), hoping it will satisfy me on thematic AND mechanical levels. Let me know if it looks balanced and fun!

[GalacticAxekick]

While I'm open to all comments and criticisms, here are a few issues that I've noticed with my version of this homebrew:
The first half of Unbreakable (the advantage on saves) is boring in my opinion, and causes the Pugilist to overshadow other martial classes. Should it be removed?
I could not come up with a new 20th level feature, but I believe Peak Physical Condition is painfully boring.
I could not come up with a new 17th level feature for the Gentle Art (the wrestler subclass)
The 11th and 17th level features of the Sweet Science (the boxer subclass) mostly enhance the actions it is already taking, instead of granting it new options. Is this too boring?

[Bjarkmundur]

I am SUPER HYPED for this!


Make sure you're using the most up-to-date version of the Pugilist for reference, and see if you can't find some of the feedback the creator had gotten since he published the first version in 2016.

I'll be back to check on this, for sure!

[GalacticAxekick]

Make sure you're using the most up-to-date version of the Pugilist for referenceI'm using the free preview that you linked for reference. I don't want to pay for an up-to-date version if I'm just going to scrap half of its features (which is what I had to do with the preview).


and see if you can't find some of the feedback the creator had gotten since he published the first version in 2016. The feedback the creator has gotten seems very positive! Many people like that the Pugilist hits harder than the Monk, and many people like the flavour of a streetwise ruffian.

But this feedback is irrelevant to me. Even if thousands of people love the original Pugilist for those reasons, I don't enjoy it. My goal isnt to satisfy the reviewers, but to make a class my friends and I would enjoy.

[Yakk]

Size Up

Starting at 2nd level, you learn the current hit points of every creature you can see.
Enough DMs do this for free, and it is very gamist, I wouldn't use it.

Fisticuffs
So the monk's damage output, at 1d8+1d4+6, is tuned to match other 1st level martial character offensive builds.

You just boosted it to 1d8+1d6+6.

Shake it Off
Many, many charmed and frightened abilities control your action choice.

"If you start your turn charmed or frightened, it ends. If this happens, the only action you can take on your turn is a single melee weapon attack."

Float like a Butterfly
What you could consider doing is doing a double-subclass structure.

Some of these abilities, like wall-running, don't fit every archetype under pugalist very well.

Size Up Improvement
I actively dislike this as well. Extremely metagamey.

Herculean
I think you should lean into push/grab. Like, a lower level feature that lets you push/grab once on a creature you hit.

Fight Club
A good 5e class needs to have narrative flavour in either its class or its subclass.

In this case, your class is "I fight gud with fists" and your subclass is "how I fight gud". This is a bad design.

My suggestion is a rotation.

Make the Pugilist "I fight gud with fists". Then the subclass (introduced at level 1) should be like:

"Mystic": You have trained in the self defence at a monastery.
"Street Rat": The mean streets have taught you how to fight.
"Gladiator": Beating people to a pulp as an entertainment profession.
"Detective": Law enforcement backed by left and right fists.

This has the benefit of being able to narratively justify non-combat mechanics attached to a class that is otherwise just fighting.

Not all of 5e follows this rule. Battlemaster is the worst violation of this: "I fight gud" class with "I fight mechanically fancy" subclass.

Classes whose narrative element is embedded in the subclass should show up at level 1; you don't spend 2 levels as a generic boxer before suddenly getting a "I was a monk" backstory at level 3.

Anyhow, that is just structural advice.

[GalacticAxekick]

First things first, thanks for your response!


Enough DMs do this for free, and it is very gamist, I wouldn't use it.I think mechanically speaking, it's important for the Pugilist (and by extension, the Monk) to know how many hit points an enemy has. Too important to leave it to DM fiat. Its frustrating to spend ki hitting an enemy (or if you practice the Gentle Art, strangling an enemy) that was about to slump over anyway.

Thematically speaking, hit points represent how long a creature can avoid a deadly injury. It makes sense that a pugilist can tell the clumsy brutes from the slick heavyweights (identical in build, but unique in alertness, grit and skill), and that the pugilist can sense an enemy's stamina depleting.


So the monk's damage output, at 1d8+1d4+6, is tuned to match other 1st level martial character offensive builds.

You just boosted it to 1d8+1d6+6.I agree completely. The original Pugilost boosted it and I just left it boosted, but I'd happily remove the boost.


Many, many charmed and frightened abilities control your action choice.

"If you start your turn charmed or frightened, it ends. If this happens, the only action you can take on your turn is a single melee weapon attack."I think that was taken into consideration when this feature (Stillmess of Mind) was originally written. It's a free but imperfect counter, and you're suggesting that it become free AND perfect, trivializing those conditions completely.


Some of these abilities, like wall-running, don't fit every archetype under pugalist very well.Running on walls is a staple in martial arts movies, and staple with "powerless" superheroes like Batman and Black Panther. I think its totally appropriate for the martial artist class.


I actively dislike this as well. Extremely metagamey.Again, I think this is thematically justified in terms of "analyzing technique" and "judging how tired the other guy is getting". This is stuff a warrior would be good at.


I think you should lean into push/grab. Like, a lower level feature that lets you push/grab once on a creature you hit.I already wrote that feature. Fisticuffs at 1st level let's you grapple and shove whenever you wouldve made an unarmed strike. And the two subclasses learn to shove when they hit or end a grapple respectively at 3rd level.


A good 5e class needs to have narrative flavour in either its class or its subclass. [...]I disagree really fundamentally. I think classes should represent a "power source" and subclass should represent what specific skills that power is used to cultivate, but NEVER personality or lifestyle. That's the domain of background and roleplay.

So the pugilist is "a guy who trains his body into a weapon". One subclass says "a striking weapon" and the other says "a grappling weapon".

I think it's good to have subclasses for non-combat skills. Most of my homebrew has double subclasses (one for combat, one for non-combat). But neither presupposes anything about the characters lifestyle or personality.

So I would set aside the lifestyle and personality assumptions behind your "Mystic", "Street Rat", "Gladiator" and "Detective", and ask what SKILLS define them. I'd be happy to build subclasses around those skills!

[GalacticAxekick]

So for example, I could have a second set of subclasses called Secret Weapons, representing a non-combat skill the Pugilist uses to get an edge in and out of battle.

Guts is a Charisma-based secret weapon. A Pugilist with Guts can resist being charmed, frightened or knocked out. He radiates such confidence in his dangerousness that he intimidates his enemies and rallies his allies. He can frighten or charm targets into telling the truth, doing his bidding, and turning a blind eye to his misdeads. Crowdpleasing ringfighters, brutal interrogators, and stick-up robbers all have Guts.

Brains is an Intelligence-based secret weapon. A Pugilist with Brains can sense an enemies strengths, weaknesses and abilities, and can strategize around them. He can practically read minds and instantly process clues, because that's how he stays ahead of the enemy in the ring. Cool, calculating prizefighters, streetwise sleuths, and back alley muggers all have Brains.

[eunwoler]

A good 5e class needs to have narrative flavour in either its class or its subclass.

In this case, your class is "I fight gud with fists" and your subclass is "how I fight gud". This is a bad design.

My suggestion is a rotation.

Make the Pugilist "I fight gud with fists". Then the subclass (introduced at level 1) should be like:

"Mystic": You have trained in the self defence at a monastery.
"Street Rat": The mean streets have taught you how to fight.
"Gladiator": Beating people to a pulp as an entertainment profession.
"Detective": Law enforcement backed by left and right fists.

This has the benefit of being able to narratively justify non-combat mechanics attached to a class that is otherwise just fighting.


I totally disagree. This is the opposite of good subclass design and invalidates the existence of those other character building choices that exist for that exact purpose.

By your definition all . The current system doesn't adhere to what you have stated at all. None of the 8 standard Wizard schools are hyperfocused, no Ranger school has one particular upbringing that can rationalise the genesis of the subclass/subclass abilities. And by your subclass examples it appears that the common denominator for narrative flavor is an explanation of the origin of how X subclass obtained their respective powers.

As far as fighter goes - eldritch knight, battlemaster, champion - none of these have an inflexible origin story for how power came to be - instead it's, as the OP has mentioned, a subclass encompassing merely the power itself. THIS is good subclass design - because ultimately power = mechanics of what a class can do and therefore this is the only obligation of a subclass. Even swarmkeeper and it's blurb, a very niche flavor, only crystallises the passive element, the power (a bond with a swarm of nature spirits, an already open notion) without crystallising any active element, a narrative, like heading into the wilderness to find a swarm bond etcetera.

Subclasses introducing compulsory narrative flavor doesn't color the game further, it actively restricts it. Imagine applying this restriction to say, eldritch knight - you 'discovered your eldritch connection at a monastery'. This is worse game design, not what the OP has opted for.

[Yakk]

I totally disagree. This is the opposite of good subclass design and invalidates the existence of those other character building choices that exist for that exact purpose.

By your definition all . The current system doesn't adhere to what you have stated at all. None of the 8 standard Wizard schools are hyperfocused, no Ranger school has one particular upbringing that can rationalise the genesis of the subclass/subclass abilities. And by your subclass examples it appears that the common denominator for narrative flavor is an explanation of the origin of how X subclass obtained their respective powers.
Wizards themselves have a story built in; they are collectors of magic spells. They have a mechanical hook to look for spells and add them to their spellbook.

Some Wizard subclasses are light on story; but if you take the Schools as literal learning traditions, even they have some story on them.

The Ranger itself is a class that tells something of a story. The Gloomstalker and Beastmaster tell more story about the character.

The Purple Dragon Knight, the Samurai, and the Cavalier all have a story attached to them. Which is why they have sensible non-combat abilities attached to them. The BM's non-combat abilities are storyless, and just a mechanical subsystem. The champion is the vanilla fighter; its non-combat mechanics are about as generic as they come.

The various Monk subclasses almost always have great stories attached to them. They aren't just a "I am better at punching" or "I am better at wrestling". Same for most Barbarian subclasses; Totem Warrior, Ancestral Guardian, Berzerker. Bard subclasses, Druid subclasses, almost all have hooks to attach the character to the world.

And because they have hooks into the world and a story attached to them, the abilities they have can be hung off the story, instead of being "I am a member of class X who is focused on subskill Y; so my abilities are all improvements of Y".

I mean, that still happens to a certain degree, but the ability to take the subclass pick and have it have more meaning than "I use this set of mechanical features" is good.

I'll even say that the same thing is true of good feats. 5e doesn't have "power attack; you excel at dealing damage and can take a -5 penalty to hit for +10 damage". It does have that feature, but they are attached to "you are specialized in weapon X", and the feat has more than just that on it.

This design doesn't fix all problems, but it does prevent subclasses being flavourless bundles of mechanics.

In any case, feel free to make whatever you want.

And the story element of a subclass need not be its origin.

[GalacticAxekick]

Wizards themselves have a story built in; they are collectors of magic spells. They have a mechanical hook to look for spells and add them to their spellbook.Right! But the wizard's story only extends so far as its skillset. "A wizard is someone who acquires magic power through study". The class doesnt constrain the personality and lifestyle of any particular wizard.


Some Wizard subclasses are light on story; but if you take the Schools as literal learning traditions, even they have some story on them.And I would never take them as literal traditions for exactly that reason. I don't want to force players to take X backstory just to acquire abilities they could acquire through Y or Z means.


The Ranger itself is a class that tells something of a story.The ranger is "someone trained to overcome particular enemies and terrains". Again, a description of skills with no constraints on personality or lifestyle.


The Gloomstalker and Beastmaster tell more story about the character.The Gloomstalker and Beastmaster merely specify the Ranger's methods. Gloomstalkers are trained to navigate the dark and hunt creatures of the dark. Beastmaster lean on the senses and powers of animal companions to explore and fight.

I could play a Gloomstalker detective, stalking back alleys à la Batman. Or I could play a Gloomstalker vampire hunter, infiltrating crypts deep underground and behind castle walls.

I could play a Beastmaster bounty hunter, tracking criminals by scent and shredding them by tooth and claw. Or I could play a Beastmaster explorer, who tames creatures of the local wilds to assist him.


The Purple Dragon Knight, the Samurai, and the Cavalier all have a story attached to them. Which is why they have sensible non-combat abilities attached to them.True! But I consider this a serious flaw. For example, I'd like the area control aspects of the Cavalier without the horseback riding or court politics (in order to play a guardsman or pikeman).

I think it would be best if the Fighter used a two-subclass system for combat and non-combat skills, so that I'm never forced to take the baby with the bathwater.


The various Monk subclasses almost always have great stories attached to them. They aren't just a "I am better at punching" or "I am better at wrestling". The Open Hand IS "better at punching". Shadows is "better at sneaking". The Monk subclasses explicitly describe themselves as skillsets that could come from various backstories. For example:

Monks of the Way of Shadow follow a tradition that values stealth and subterfuge. These monks might be called ninjas or shadowdancers, and they serve as spies and assassins. Sometimes the members of a ninja monastery are family members, forming a clan sworn to secrecy about their arts and missions. Other monasteries are more like thieves' guilds, hiring out their services to nobles, rich merchants, or anyone else who can pay their fees.

The same pattern exists with Bards and Druids.


Same for most Barbarian subclasses; Totem Warrior, Ancestral Guardian, Berzerker.I concede the Totem Warrior and Ancestral Guardian, but note that they draw power direct from backstory elements they mention.

But the Berserker doesnt mention anything beyond the reckless passion that fuels the Barbarian's rage, making it equally suited to represent many kinds of character. A drunken belligerent, a viking chasing glorious death, and a savage raised by wolves could all be represented by it


And because they have hooks into the world and a story attached to them, the abilities they have can be hung off the story, instead of being "I am a member of class X who is focused on subskill Y; so my abilities are all improvements of Y".

I mean, that still happens to a certain degree, but the ability to take the subclass pick and have it have more meaning than "I use this set of mechanical features" is good.Forcing players to take bundles of unrelated features (e.g. the Cavalier) just because they want some of them is not good.

And trying to write a subclass for every combination of features is futile.

Instead of baking the story into features, why not let players mix and match features to tell the story of their choice?

"I am a revolutionary. My goal is to disable the system from the inside, spreading confusion and carrying out assassinations. I'm a Rogue (a master of leveraging unfair circumstances), and for my combat and noncombat subclasses I chose Assassin and Hustler respectively."

"I'm a secret policeman. My goal is detect, kidnap and interrogate anyone who threatens the powers that be. I'm also a Rogue, and also an Assassin, but instead of the social subclass of a Hustler, I chose the perceptive Snoop subclass to represent my story role"


I'll even say that the same thing is true of good feats. 5e doesn't have "power attack; you excel at dealing damage and can take a -5 penalty to hit for +10 damage". It does have that feature, but they are attached to "you are specialized in weapon X", and the feat has more than just that on it.But that's a feature representing a skill! Thata very different from a feature representing a lifestyle or personality trait!

I would be very frustrated if the only way to get GWM is if I chose a certain backstory, complete with unrelated features like "proficiency in brewers tools" and "treating alcohol as healing potions" because they fit some baked-in theme.


This design doesn't fix all problems, but it does prevent subclasses being flavourless bundles of mechanics.Flavourless bundles of mechanics would be if your subclass gave you bonuses and did not say what they represent.

A subclasses that says "you get X bonus for using ranged weapons, and Y action which relies on ranged weapons, and Z bonus to your eyesight" would be a VERY FLAVORFUL bundle if mechanics, because it would be giving you all the tools to represent a sharpshooter. Importantly, none if these tools pigeonhole you into being "a pirate lookout" or "a wandering pistolero". You can construct either if those characters with roleplay, background, feats, etc

All this said, I think I'll add a second set of subclasses representing non-combat skills: Brains and Guts.

While I work on those, do you have any comments on the class's current subclass features? Is the Gentle Art a balanced and interesting representation of a grappler? Is the Sweet Science a balanced and interesting representation of a striker?

[GalacticAxekick]

I've updated the Pugilist with Guts and Brains subclasses based on the Herald and Scout subclasses of my Fighter homebrew (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/gLzQ17TY7JoL).

I'd like to update these in the future to keep the Pugilist unique, but I think they're good placeholders given that the Pugilist is (thematically) just an unarmed Fighter. There the social skills of the gladiator (a Fighter) are the same as the social skills of the ringfighter (a Pugilist). The perceptual skills of the palace guard (a Fighter) are the same as the perceptual skills of the bouncer (a Pugilist). Etc.