How Good is the Brute?

[Bjarkmundur]

I stumbled upon this a few weeks back, and it honestly looks like a subclass that only cares about having the fighter's damage scale as needed. Sorta like "if you only want to play fighter you pick this, and then you won't fall behind in damage". Can this be used as a reliable representation of "ideal damage scaling", since it is not add usefulness via utility?

Q: Is the brute subclass a viable representation of 5e's damage scaling?

[stoutstien]

It's a tad too strong but not by much. The all day 1d6 to all saves is probably the most powerful part of this class. Needs a limit maybe X times a day equal to con modifier.

[Nagog]

Agreed, it's a tad bit on the more powerful side. 5e's damage scaling sits comfortably in the margin between this scaling and the Monk's Martial Arts Die scaling. MA is a tad slow, Brute's is a tad too strong.

[Nhorianscum]

Brute is pretty middle of the road compared to EK/Monster Hunter fighters.

The main complaint with the sub seems to be that folks find it to be better-champion IE boring.

[ImproperJustice]

Are there people who think Fighter damage scales poorly?

Because their nova, action surge barrages are the highest source of damage output in most of our games at mid to high level.
It gets even worse if they have magic support via haste, or something granting advantage.

In regard to the topic:

Brute is strong.
It’s like an upgraded champion, and the Champion isn’t as bad as in play as most people say it is. It just takes time to build up steam, much like the Fighter class.
The saves thing is kinda balanced since it only applies to the brute, unlike the Paladin aura.

[TyGuy]

The main complaint with the sub seems to be that folks find it to be better-champion IE boring.

So the main complaint is literally its design goal, to be an upgrade of champion.

[TripleD]

I find the “upgrade to Champion” philosophy a bit odd, since in my experience the only people who find Champions boring are the ones who don’t play them.

I love playing Champions. I find their simplicity incredibly freeing from a role-playing point of view, and the base class is well designed enough that I never feel like I’m not contributing.

[Nhorianscum]

I find the “upgrade to Champion” philosophy a bit odd, since in my experience the only people who find Champions boring are the ones who don’t play them.

I love playing Champions. I find their simplicity incredibly freeing from a role-playing point of view, and the base class is well designed enough that I never feel like I’m not contributing.

Champion is a long way away from being the worst fighter and I've never had any issues with it.

Folks just like fancy buttons.

[Chalkarts]

Champion is a long way away from being the worst fighter and I've never had any issues with it.

Folks just like fancy buttons.

That's what feats are for.
DIversify, take skilled and do some rogue stuff, or magic initiate for E-blast.
Champion is pretty mean if not flashy.

[Damon_Tor]

Champion is a long way away from being the worst fighter and I've never had any issues with it.

Folks just like fancy buttons.

The game appears to be designed around an adventuring day of 3 encounters, short rest, 3 encounters, short rest, 3 encounters, long rest. That's what I aim for at my table but apparently that's not how most people actually run the game; a number of people take short rests after every single encounter. If that's what people consider normal gameplay, then that explains why the Battlemaster seems to be so much more powerful than the Champion, and if the DM is allowing long rests more frequently than expected that creates a benefit for the EK over the champion as well.

[Nhorianscum]

The game appears to be designed around an adventuring day of 3 encounters, short rest, 3 encounters, short rest, 3 encounters, long rest. That's what I aim for at my table but apparently that's not how most people actually run the game; a number of people take short rests after every single encounter. If that's what people consider normal gameplay, then that explains why the Battlemaster seems to be so much more powerful than the Champion, and if the DM is allowing long rests more frequently than expected that creates a benefit for the EK over the champion as well.

The stated number is 6-8 encounters per long rest. So 9 is a bit high.

[Damon_Tor]

The stated number is 6-8 encounters per long rest. So 9 is a bit high.

You're correct, but IIRC the exact assumption is "6-8 medium or hard encounters" which doesn't account for easy encounters. Giving the party a way to turn a hard encounter into an easy and a medium encounter by clever tactics, roleplay or skill use is almost always something I try to allow for.

[Mitsu]

The game appears to be designed around an adventuring day of 3 encounters, short rest, 3 encounters, short rest, 3 encounters, long rest. That's what I aim for at my table but apparently that's not how most people actually run the game; a number of people take short rests after every single encounter. If that's what people consider normal gameplay, then that explains why the Battlemaster seems to be so much more powerful than the Champion, and if the DM is allowing long rests more frequently than expected that creates a benefit for the EK over the champion as well.

It's just a chore mostly to have so many encounters. It's chore to run them, deisgn them, make them meaningful. After like 5th encounter same they it's pretty much more like "god, again???" then "ow, this is gonna be interesting". I get it shifts balance more towards long rest classes, however imo it's design flow, not DM. I prefer few good, well designed fights per day, then many that are just there to "meet requirement of draining players resources".

I honestly saw only one DM that was running 8 encounters per day sessions, but whole table was munchkins and they were just running pretty much battle-simulator to go all out with their optimized characters.

[Damon_Tor]

It's just a chore mostly to have so many encounters. It's chore to run them, deisgn them, make them meaningful. After like 5th encounter same they it's pretty much more like "god, again???" then "ow, this is gonna be interesting". I get it shifts balance more towards long rest classes, however imo it's design flow, not DM. I prefer few good, well designed fights per day, then many that are just there to "meet requirement of draining players resources".

I honestly saw only one DM that was running 8 encounters per day sessions, but whole table was munchkins and they were just running pretty much battle-simulator to go all out with their optimized characters.

I guess you should be playing with gritty realism rules then. That way you can tell the story you want to tell, but sleeping for the night is your short rest, taking a vacation for a week is your long rest. Class balance preserved.

[alchahest]

the brute is a lot of fun to play - I think that the it represents a lot of heroes in folklore pretty well - master of martial combat and able to power through the attacks of wizards and dragons without being a spellcaster itself. I really like the saving throw bonus, it's potent, yes, but I don't feel it throws balance out the window, it's still random and adds an element of tough SOB that you don't see elsewhere.

[Damon_Tor]

I really like the saving throw bonus, it's potent, yes, but I don't feel it throws balance out the window, it's still random and adds an element of tough SOB that you don't see elsewhere.

It's really not that great: it compares poorly to the paladin's aura. Both classes fill a similar niche, so I don't see a real problem with a fighter subclass having a weaker, unreliable, self-only version of the ability.

[Willie the Duck]

Champion is a long way away from being the worst fighter and I've never had any issues with it.
Folks just like fancy buttons.

Well, there are plenty of people that don't want fancy buttons, do want a simple fighter, and disagree that Champion is the right implementation of that. Some simply do not agree that Champion is correctly balanced (the, 'I don't care about your fancy analysis, I've seen how they play at my table, and it doesn't live up to my standards' crowd), where I think maybe it is the gaming group and rest-frequency that is the big problem (although, if it is a problem in your group, it is a problem. Just maybe one where houseruling makes more sense than pushing for a new archetype). There's also the 'that's not a generic simple-fighter archetype, that's a crit-fisher archetype' crowd, who well, are kinda right.

It's just a chore mostly to have so many encounters. It's chore to run them, deisgn them, make them meaningful. After like 5th encounter same they it's pretty much more like "god, again???" then "ow, this is gonna be interesting". I get it shifts balance more towards long rest classes, however imo it's design flow, not DM. I prefer few good, well designed fights per day, then many that are just there to "meet requirement of draining players resources".

I honestly saw only one DM that was running 8 encounters per day sessions, but whole table was munchkins and they were just running pretty much battle-simulator to go all out with their optimized characters.

I guess you should be playing with gritty realism rules then. That way you can tell the story you want to tell, but sleeping for the night is your short rest, taking a vacation for a week is your long rest. Class balance preserved.

Agreed, Damon_Tor. Mitsu, there are explicit sections of the DMG that actively discuss this potential issue and offer multiple optional rules specifically to address this.

[Zalabim]

I don't know how this thread became about encounter frequency, but I want to say again that it's more like 4-6 medium to hard encounters per day. 3-7 if you must include the absolute outliers.

[Damon_Tor]

I don't know how this thread became about encounter frequency, but I want to say again that it's more like 4-6 medium to hard encounters per day. 3-7 if you must include the absolute outliers.

Because "how good is the brute?" depends heavily on how often you rest. The battlemaster will always outperform resource-free subclasses if your table takes a short rest after every encounter.

[Bigmouth]

So if the champion is a 'long way from being the worst fighter', I'm curious as to what is considered to be the worst? I was under the impression that it IS considered the worst fighter subclass.

I'm not worried or asking about boring. The brute looks like it is probably more 'boring' than the champion. Flat consistent damage without any crit fishing/gambling addiction 'fun'. I suppose it is important to note that Champion is my favorite fighter, but I'd ditch it in a heartbeat for Brute, even a slightly nerfed version. Maybe a heavily nerfed version. (I hate crit fishing. I hate gambling.)

[Frozenstep]

So if the champion is a 'long way from being the worst fighter', I'm curious as to what is considered to be the worst? I was under the impression that it IS considered the worst fighter subclass.

Arcane archer and Purple Banner Knight.

[TyGuy]

Arcane archer and Purple Banner Knight.

Am I the only one who's super unimpressed by samurai's 3 advantage a day? It gets better at level 10 but not enough to woo me.

Edit: although I have seen and heard all about 1 fight a day tables so I can see how amazing it is when people abuse the long rest.

[Frozenstep]

Am I the only one who's super unimpressed by samurai's 3 advantage a day? It gets better at level 10 but not enough to woo me.

Edit: although I have seen and heard all about 1 fight a day tables so I can see how amazing it is when people abuse the long rest.

In 1 fight a day tables, yes samurai is good, but even in long day games samurai is alright. Using fighting spirit alongside action surge lets you start multiple fights in a day with a decent nova (especially when combined with SS or GWM). The temp hp also adds up to make you that little bit more tanky to keep going until the end of the day.

At 7th level you get wisdom saving throw proficiency. That's huge, especially when you Indomitable.

15th level in a lot of parties will simply be like getting extra attack early. Compared to other level 15 features, that's insane.

Basically they start decent, but then every feature afterwards is a decent step forward, which is more then what can be said for a lot of fighter subclass features.

[Nhorianscum]

Am I the only one who's super unimpressed by samurai's 3 advantage a day? It gets better at level 10 but not enough to woo me.

Edit: although I have seen and heard all about 1 fight a day tables so I can see how amazing it is when people abuse the long rest.

The really good thing about Sam is its level 7 ability making it one of the best OOC fighters.

Also it gets good in combat at level 15.