Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Revised Brawler Discussion


Class Discussion

51 to 100 of 501 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think there's a divide here between expectations. To me it looks like Paizo is granting a long-standing wish of endless monk threads that asks for a "give us a full-BAB unarmed monk!" - and the brawler is exactly that. And since she counts as a fighter for feats she can get Weapon Specialization and similar feats, the brawler can compete in DPR with other front-liners. The brawler will have better DPR against the same target than the monk (based on the brawler getting more feats and fighter feats). But the brawler has significantly poorer defenses and mobility in combat. It balances out.

However, many playtesters and people in this thread (me included) want more from this class. Not more damage (that is fine), but being more than a non-mystic monk. The brawler is the purest and most exemplary class of a real "hybrid". Most of the other playtest classes step considerably further away from the bounds of their parent classes. The brawler is a monk without the supernatural, and her one truly unique ability is a way to manipulate what feats you have right now (essentially a beefed up form of fighter bonus feats).

...

The brawler perfectly captures the demands for a full-BAB monk. Those that want that, get that, no complaints. I can only speak for myself in this regard, but my primary grief with the brawler in his current form is that he does not create new theory space. If you pick through the brawler playtest builds: they are essentially a variation of popular monk builds (with a slight adaptation for light armor and having a bonus feat or two).

Not many players in the grand scheme of things like to constantly think through things, but for me the brawler is dull as she is essentially a solved problem.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Play tested a brawler at level 8. It was a remake of a fighter/monk. The brawler had more HP and attack but less AC, a lower will save, and less feats. The martial maneuvers ability was very useful the player picked up blind fight to deal with an opponent in a deeper darkness spell, improved sunder to take out an item, and a weapon proficiency to make use of a ghost touch weapon after it's user had their wisdom completely drained. The uses quickly ran out however. The brawler had a bit of trouble hitting so they never made use of brawlers flurry. Brawler strike didn't prove to be useful because they had brawling armor already and the cold iron and silver properties hadn't kicked in yet, DR/10 cold iron greatly reduced the brawlers damage. An opportunity to grapple never presented itself the opponents being large sized or incorporeal for the most part, the human sized opponents weren't considered to be worth the effort having low AC and HP.

While the brawler contributed well enough the only character he outpaced in damage was the rogue who was unable to sneak attack for the majority of the fights, the battle oracle and sorcerer both managed to hit more often and deal more damage when they did (mind you the sorcerer was using spells so hitting wasn't to much of an issue).

The brawler also spent a short period dominated but the oracle also failed their will save. The player was disappointed they couldn't afford iron will to make up the lowered will save.


My Brawler is also a little bit jealous of the Warpriest's damage progression and the Swashbuckler's workaround for Combat Expertise, and challenged by the steep prereqs of the Combat Expertise and Improved Manuever feat chains.

I think, if you are playing a brawler, you just have to give up some of the flexibility Martial Manuevers promises you - it's a trap. You can go down the Expertise, Imp Trip, etc. path or the WIS, Stunning Fist path, but if you try to buy both INT and WIS 13 to be able to do both, you have to nerf STR/DEX/CON - stats you need to survive. So that in buying the full flexibility, you just aren't competitive.

What I still feel is missing are Bluff/Perform elements. The guy who is a streetfighter/boxer/brute should probably have some sort of facility with feints and performance combat. The STR, DEX, CON, and INT/WIS needs preclude this guy from having much of a charisma. Which means, despite the concept, you probably can't be all that good at intimidating people, feinting in combat, or wowing a crowd in a gladiatorial arena. When by rights, that should probably be your forte.

I guess you can always invest feats down those lines, but once you do that, you may be back to really struggling to hang in as a fighter. Which in turn, makes it hard to build a rep in the arena.

I can hope there will be an archetype for that.

On the positive side, I do agree with the inclusion of Knowledge (history) - the better fighters tend to have incredible knowledge of the history of their trade. Mike Tyson is a prime example.


LoreKeeper wrote:

I think there's a divide here between expectations. To me it looks like Paizo is granting a long-standing wish of endless monk threads that asks for a "give us a full-BAB unarmed monk!" - and the brawler is exactly that. And since she counts as a fighter for feats she can get Weapon Specialization and similar feats, the brawler can compete in DPR with other front-liners. The brawler will have better DPR against the same target than the monk (based on the brawler getting more feats and fighter feats). But the brawler has significantly poorer defenses and mobility in combat. It balances out.

You know, I DID want a full BaB Monk class.

However, the Brawler is NOT that, not by a long shot. The Brawler is, well, the Brawler Fighter archetype with a couple of added things. It's less a Full BaB Monk, and more an Unarmed Focused Fighter.

Which is fine...but it needs to be more interesting (as you acknowledge as being one of your wishes later).

Just wanted to dispute the statement that "This is what you asked for!"

Star Voter 2013

I would also like to add that I've never wanted a full BAB Monk.

Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

hehehe - okay okay Rynjin and Tels. I'm just echoing that there have been endless demands for a full-BAB monk.

From Paizo's perspective, the brawler is exactly that. In order to go d10 hitdie and full-BAB you have to give up some things. Also the alignment restriction on the monk was criticized, so that got dropped too. What you get is what the developers consider a balanced change to the monk to get more HP and BAB.

Sure... the monk-player's wet dream is getting the exact monk, but with full BAB and d10. And honestly, it is not like that would be broken strong in my opinion - but that isn't what Paizo is doing. They start from the premise that the monk is balanced, so to get from the monk to a full BAB d10 class, you need to balance away other things. And then you end up with the brawler.

I don't know that this is the rationale that the developers take - but I can very much imagine that this is what is happening. From a theoretical standpoint the changes balance against each other nicely. Good job there. But the end-result is just dull.

Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To add my actual input on the revised brawler:


  • I think the action economy on Martial Maneuvers is great now
  • I still think there are not enough uses per day of Martial Maneuvers. By level 10 I would expect it to be a staple presence in the brawlers combat (e.g. paladin smites 4 times per day, cavalier challenges 4 times per day, etc). Currently the brawler can get 5 feats per day at level 10. Considering that "going alpha" like a smite would be the equivalent of using all three feats, the brawler would need 12 uses a day to replicate the challenge-or-smite. Even if you're happy with just 2 feats in a "power-use", that would still only be 2 times a day at level 10
  • Alternatively, using Martial Maneuvers only to acquire the one random feat that is handy in a given situation (blind-fight, appropriate weapon proficiency) is an okay trick - but delegates Martial Maneuvers to a second-tier ability on the brawler
  • Knockout is viable, potent and worth it at the time it arrives on the scene
  • Awesome Blow at level 16 is an okay addition; not something to use all the time, but every once in a while it may be useful
  • Improved Awesome Blow as the capstone is a really neat ability at level 20. Very powerful, but that is not unusual for a capstone


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd have preferred a non-armor class (rather than a light armor class). I find that if I wanted to add a martial-arts fighter, I'd put more priority on removing armor than removing weapons. The idea of fighting unarmed but in armor is a little silly to me.

Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

+1 to Starfox

That slipped my mind. But I too would like the brawler to be non-armor viable.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

LoreKeeper was that bit about one random feat referencing my post? I would also like to restate I agree that currently the number of times martial maneuvers can be used seems to low, for what seems to be the defining feature of the class it is quickly depleted.

Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
redliska wrote:
LoreKeeper was that bit about one random feat referencing my post? I would also like to restate I agree that currently the number of times martial maneuvers can be used seems to low, for what seems to be the defining feature of the class it is quickly depleted.

Yes and no :)

I've previously (original brawler discussion) posted at length about the various possibilities (including builds) that can be designed around the Martial Maneuvers. In the post above I've used words to subtly reference your post to keep in the stream of consciousness.


I had tested a 4th-level brawler, and there's a few concerns I wanted to bring to the designer.

*Brawlers still can't flurry until 2nd-level. A first-level brawler isn't a brawler.
*A 4th-level brawler qualifies for but cannot gain Weapon Specialization without expending martial maneuvers. This is just a matter of timing, as the brawler will get 2 feats the next level.
*The brawler gains Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting for brawling later than it should based on its BAB. Furthermore it might not be able to gain these as maneuvers because it might not meet the Dex requirements.
*The martial maneuvers on the chart at level 6 is mislabeled. It says "move action" but should say "two feats" instead. (It's a move action at level 1.)
*Awesome Blow doesn't do much. You can't use it with a charge, so you only use it if you move up to an opponent and then can only hit them once. You actually push the opponent too far away. If they don't move back next to you, you can't flurry them. You are usually better off just using flurry. By contrast, Improved Awesome Blow works. Do a full-round attack, and if you don't want them to be next to you then shove them... or do a devastating flying kick (since you can use this as part of a charge).

I wouldn't mind paying a feat for +4 AC when not wearing armor. It's basically paying a feat to avoid Armor Check Penalty and max Dex, and now you buy Bracers of Armor instead of chain shirts or mithral breastplates. Problem is, what is preventing the monk or any non-martial class (wizard, druid, etc) from taking the same feat? And if it was a 1st-level class feature, many classes would dip it.

Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Jake the Brawler:

The problem is not just limited to a feat that adds AC when not in armor: there is also the (severe) temptation of having brawling armor. Getting a +1 brawling chainshirt (4000ish gp) is not just decent AC, it is an incredible +2 to attack and damage as well (that stacks with actual enhancement bonuses).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I for one am glad they get armor. I didn't want a high bab monk, I wanted a class that feels like a gritty thug, not some skilled martial artist. While there's room for polishing, I'm definitely happy with the feel of the class. If you want a monk, play a monk. If you want a guy who knocks someone's teeth out because he won't stop asking the party's bard to play Freebird, that's where the brawler comes in.

Scarab Sages

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:

But, I just simply do not understand the idea that a trained boxer can hit you with his bare knuckles and then put on a pair of brass knuckles and have it hurt less. I'm simply confounded by it.

I hope someone can tell me that I've simply missed it, and it's in there. Right?
Let me ask you this: what is it that you want?

Well, the first thing that I want, Sean, is to offer you my sincere thanks and gratitude for asking! I've never been asked personally for my input. It means a lot, and really makes me feel like Paizo, and you specifically as a Designer, are listening to m ideas - and to the ideas of all of your fans.

Despite what some might've said, I'm not really interested in Close Weapon damage scaling with his unarmed strike. You've explained why brass knuckles work the way they do in game-mechanics. And I get that. I really do. And for the majority of classes/characters, it makes perfect sense.

But, for me, it's about Fist weapons. I don't think the difference between a punch with Unarmed Strike and a punch with brass knuckles is the same as, say, a shortsword and longsword. It's about the thematic similarity of punching with one's fist. The damages (and other benefits) absolutely should not stack ... but, rather, as with bonus types, you use the highest bonus the character has.
Thus, I think that the Brawler should have a class ability like what has been given to the Warpriest - scaling damage that is based on level, and not on weapon. I'm a little confused as to why this was given to the Warpriest. I think that a class ability that gives the ability to use unarmed damage (scaling by level) with a fist weapon is appropriate for the Brawler.

I want to thank you again, Sean, for asking. I hope I haven't been too long-winded in my reply, and I hope that my input offers a little insight into what we're looking for with this class. If you have any thoughts or questions, I'd be happy to discuss them with you, on-thread or off. Thanks again for designing a great game!

Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Less Lawful, More Good wrote:
I for one am glad they get armor. I didn't want a high bab monk, I wanted a class that feels like a gritty thug, not some skilled martial artist. While there's room for polishing, I'm definitely happy with the feel of the class. If you want a monk, play a monk. If you want a guy who knocks someone's teeth out because he won't stop asking the party's bard to play Freebird, that's where the brawler comes in.

It's not about playing a monk though; it's playing a naked thug! Think Hulk, or in fact most of the superheroes - armor is rare for them. I am glad for the light armor proficiency too - I don't think it should be removed - but it should be viable to play a non-armored brawler.

Its not about having just A, or just B. It is about the freedom to take A or B and not having to suffer unduly for your decision.

Silver Crusade

LoreKeeper wrote:
Less Lawful, More Good wrote:
I for one am glad they get armor. I didn't want a high bab monk, I wanted a class that feels like a gritty thug, not some skilled martial artist. While there's room for polishing, I'm definitely happy with the feel of the class. If you want a monk, play a monk. If you want a guy who knocks someone's teeth out because he won't stop asking the party's bard to play Freebird, that's where the brawler comes in.

It's not about playing a monk though; it's playing a naked thug! Think Hulk, or in fact most of the superheroes - armor is rare for them. I am glad for the light armor proficiency too - I don't think it should be removed - but it should be viable to play a non-armored brawler.

Its not about having just A, or just B. It is about the freedom to take A or B and not having to suffer unduly for your decision.

If they made an archetype or variant that went armorless, you'd have to give them a stat to armor instead of a straight bonus. Like con to armor.

That said I still don't like the idea.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Less Lawful, More Good wrote:

If they made an archetype or variant that went armorless, you'd have to give them a stat to armor instead of a straight bonus. Like con to armor.

That said I still don't like the idea.

Con as a bonus to natural armor would be really cool.

"I block your attack. WITH MY CHEST!"


I would talk about the revised version but...where is it?

Scarab Sages

Sauce ... They revised the PDF, so if you re-download the playtest document, you'll be able to find the changes.


Assuming you dump Charisma, isn't it possible to just go full MAD, focus on one ability, and still be viable, even in 15 points? Like, what if I were a human, and I took Strength 15, Dexterity 13, Constitution 13, Intelligence 13, Wisdom 13, and Charisma 10? I qualify for basically everything, and with a +2 strength bonus and full BAB, and movable feats, my offense should be okay. I boost my Strength at 4th, my Constitution at 8th, and I sail off into the sunset. Someone tell me how this isn't going to work. A human would have a total of 6 skill ranks/level, and if I take Iron Will, my Will save could be +3 at 1st level.


I like the Brawler, but like others have stated; I still have some issues:
1. I would rather lose the Light Armor proficiency in favor of adding Int or Wis to AC. My preference for this would be Int since the class seems to want to steer you into the Combat Expertise tree. I think that for efficiency though, this bonus should act in all other ways like the Monk's AC bonus where it applies even when flat-footed. I think that the AC bonus as you level should change from a Dodge bonus to fit this as well.
2. Why not give Martial Maneuvers a pool of minutes/day like the Barbarian's rounds of Rage per day and each use requires a minimum of 1 minute of usage, but at the levels when you can receive multiple feats, the activation still only eats 1 minute. I would be good with say 3+Int to start and then +1 per Brawler level after first. I do not really mint the action cost, it can stay as is or go away and I would be o-kay with it either way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LoreKeeper wrote:


It's not about playing a monk though; it's playing a naked thug! Think Hulk, or in fact most of the superheroes - armor is rare for them. I am glad for the light armor proficiency too - I don't think it should be removed - but it should be viable to play a non-armored brawler.

Its not about having just A, or just B. It is about the freedom to take A or B and not having to suffer unduly for your decision.

But Hulk is a barbarian.

Captian America (Brawler) wears armor.

Iron Fist(Monk) does not.

That said I am all for a Unarmored brawler with Natural Armor Archtype...Luke Cage.


D_GENNEXT wrote:

I like the Brawler, but like others have stated; I still have some issues:

1. I would rather lose the Light Armor proficiency in favor of adding Int or Wis to AC. My preference for this would be Int since the class seems to want to steer you into the Combat Expertise tree. I think that for efficiency though, this bonus should act in all other ways like the Monk's AC bonus where it applies even when flat-footed. I think that the AC bonus as you level should change from a Dodge bonus to fit this as well.

IMO that's a horrible idea. A brawler is far less MAD than a monk, and I'd like to keep it that way. I'd rather see a flat class bonus (there's already one, so a larger one).

Quote:
2. Why not give Martial Maneuvers a pool of minutes/day like the Barbarian's rounds of Rage per day and each use requires a minimum of 1 minute of usage, but at the levels when you can receive multiple feats, the activation still only eats 1 minute. I would be good with say 3+Int to start and then +1 per Brawler level after first. I do not really mint the action cost, it can stay as is or go away and I would be o-kay with it either way.

That's a pretty neat idea, but just basing it on level is fine too.

Dark Archive

I normally only play spellcasters but the flavour of the Brawler has drawn me in - playing Mike Tyson appeals to me more than some unsmiling zen Monk.

However, because I am not experienced in martial and style manouvres, can anyone answer me a question?

The Brawler gets Close Weapons. These include Armour Spikes and the Spiked Gauntlet. Together, these obviously would look super cool and I'd like to know whether one could make a decent build out of that. A sort of spikey punching hedgehog, with maybe enemies' skulls on his spikes.

Does that work? Or is his unarmed ability so much better than wearing spikes?

Scarab Sages Star Voter 2015

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Captain K. wrote:

I normally only play spellcasters but the flavour of the Brawler has drawn me in - playing Mike Tyson appeals to me more than some unsmiling zen Monk.

However, because I am not experienced in martial and style manouvres, can anyone answer me a question?

The Brawler gets Close Weapons. These include Armour Spikes and the Spiked Gauntlet. Together, these obviously would look super cool and I'd like to know whether one could make a decent build out of that. A sort of spikey punching hedgehog, with maybe enemies' skulls on his spikes.

Does that work? Or is his unarmed ability so much better than wearing spikes?

Punching around at the speed of sound~

Got people to smack~
Gonna go on the attack~


I am fine with the brawler revision, I think it does need a bit of clarification on improved awesome blow. That actual seems useful. Awesome blow, just blows no matter what level you get it. The only time it would be useful is below level 6-8. I say just remove it all together, the biggest problem with awesom blow is time it takes to do it, and you can't add anything to it to increase the cmb check. like you can with trip, or even grapple. There is nothing that adds to it. I guess you could take Martial meanuvers with it, but that not going to be much.

I think people really want to see weapons do at least same damage as the unarrmed strike scale as unarrmed strike. Let the weapon do unarrmed strike damage or the weapons damage what ever is greater. If you feel it steps on the toe of getting DR through dr easier, compaired to cost of amulet of might fist, scale the damage down by 5 levels.


Beyond the E6 levels, the Brawler still lacks any significant capability to contribute effectively to the game or take the spotlight outside of combat.


I don't like that the Brawler gets access to heavy shield, spike shield and light shields as a weapon proficiency but not as a shield proficiency. I believe it will be confusing to some players who will think they automatically get both.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Derek Boobyer wrote:
I don't like that the Brawler gets access to heavy shield, spike shield and light shields as a weapon proficiency but not as a shield proficiency. I believe it will be confusing to some players who will think they automatically get both.

I will probably table rule it that they get it. I don't see the harm in letting them use a shield for defense.

Out of curiosity did I miss it or is the dagger not in the close weapon category?

I have started to understand that these classes are "Advanced" classes and if your letting someone takes them, they should have a pretty good idea of what is going on in the game before they are allowed to play.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want to derail this into discussion about brass knuckles, but W. Kristoph Nolen also replied on my fan page, so I thought I'd repost my answer from there to here. In any case, if you want to continue discussing brass knuckles, make another thread about it (outside of the playtest boards), I don't want it here.

My reply about brass knuckles is:

Normal human unarmed strikes are weak (nonlethal damage, –4 on the attack roll if you want to deal lethal damage instead).

Brass knucks let an untrained combatant deal lethal damage without the –4 penalty.
Improved Unarmed Strike feat (or the equivalent class ability) lets a combatant deal lethal damage without the –4 penalty.

So the brawler (and monk) are already getting the benefits of brass knuckles, for free. So brass knuckles don't "stack" with the benefits of IUS. And when the brawler's or monk's unarmed damage scales up, the brass knuckles don't add to that because they already match brass knuckles at the baseline.

In the same way that a fighter could say, "how come I don't have a 1st-level ability that lets me deal more damage with a dagger?" The answer is "because you have martial weapon proficiency, which means you can use short swords, longswords, and bastard swords without a penalty, which are better than daggers." In other words, the fighter is asking "why can't I use an inferior weapon (dagger) to do as much damage as a better weapon I have access to (longsword)?" And for the monk and brawler, it's "why can't I use an inferior weapon (brass knuckles) to do as much damage as a better weapon I have access to (unarmed strike)?"

(Basically, monks and brawlers already have a built-in ability of "treat my unarmed strikes as if I were using brass knuckles, so I don't provoke AOOs and don't get the –4 penalty for dealing lethal damage.")

Also, because real world badass martial artists don't use brass knuckles, they use their fists; brass knuckles are for thugs who don't really know how to fight.

I'm moving on to other questions and comments in this thread. Again, if you want to discuss brass knuckles, start another thread (outside of the playtest boards).

Grand Lodge

Broken wrote:
Derek Boobyer wrote:
I don't like that the Brawler gets access to heavy shield, spike shield and light shields as a weapon proficiency but not as a shield proficiency. I believe it will be confusing to some players who will think they automatically get both.

I will probably table rule it that they get it. I don't see the harm in letting them use a shield for defense.

Out of curiosity did I miss it or is the dagger not in the close weapon category?

I have started to understand that these classes are "Advanced" classes and if your letting someone takes them, they should have a pretty good idea of what is going on in the game before they are allowed to play.

No dagger proficiency. I agree with Sean about dagger being inferior and have never been a fan of brass knuckles on monks, or now brawlers. I get that these are advanced classes, but that won't stop new players from playing them. I'll just have to see how it works out.

Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Sean K Reynolds:

I'm not sure what the policy is for developers and what you may (or want) to talk about; but can you tell us what points of interest you are pursuing on the brawler? We (that is the public) could give some focused responses for those questions.

As a summary, I think the most prominent things to take from the thread up to now is that the new Knockout and Improved Awesome Blow are generally well received. And people generally still think there are not enough Martial Maneuver uses a day. (If possible, I'd really like to hear the reasoning for the very limited number of uses currently.)

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
VargrBoartusk wrote:
I still see two problems with the class. One its Martial maneuvers is the meat and potatos of the class and it stops improving at level 12. I actually think its number of uses is fine <If i get a more maneuvers feat at least> and its duration isn't awful.. What i would like for it to do is continue to improve its action economy as it levels up ...

This is a good point.

=====

Jake the Brawler wrote:
*Brawlers still can't flurry until 2nd-level. A first-level brawler isn't a brawler.

If a level 1 brawler really wants to make two attacks per round, she can either take the feat at 1st level, or use martial maneuvers to gain the TWF feat for one minute.

Jake the Brawler wrote:
*A 4th-level brawler qualifies for but cannot gain Weapon Specialization without expending martial maneuvers. This is just a matter of timing, as the brawler will get 2 feats the next level.

If you mean "the brawler doesn't have a class-granted feat at level 4, and therefore can't take WS right away," that's true, and I'm fine with that—fine with the fighter getting to enjoy a shiny new toy for one level before the hybrid-fighter can select it.

Jake the Brawler wrote:
*The brawler gains Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting for brawling later than it should based on its BAB.

It gets them at the same level the monk does, and it's fine that the monk-hybrid class isn't better at flurrying than the actual monk class.

Jake the Brawler wrote:
Furthermore it might not be able to gain these as maneuvers because it might not meet the Dex requirements.

Yep.

Jake the Brawler wrote:
*The martial maneuvers on the chart at level 6 is mislabeled. It says "move action" but should say "two feats" instead. (It's a move action at level 1.)

Will fix, thanks. :)

Jake the Brawler wrote:
*Awesome Blow doesn't do much.

There are circumstances where it is very handy, like knocking a bunch of opponents out of the way.

=====

Derek Boobyer wrote:
I don't like that the Brawler gets access to heavy shield, spike shield and light shields as a weapon proficiency but not as a shield proficiency. I believe it will be confusing to some players who will think they automatically get both.

If someone using the Advanced Class Guide is confused that armor proficiencies and weapon proficiencies are different things, I don't know what to tell them. (BTW, the same thing happens any time someone would take Martial Weapon Proficiency [shield] and not get armor prof with it, or vice versa.)

=====

Tels wrote:
When it says you can use it [improved awesome blow] as an attack, does that mean it operates similar to a wolf getting a free trip attempt on bites? Or that the Brawler has to declare his attacks to be awesome blows, potentially making a 'flurry of blows'? (see what I did there?)

It means... it's an attack. Just like how disarm, sunder, and trip are attacks (instead of a standard action, like grapple or overrun).

When you first get it at 16th, it's a standard action. And when you reach 20th level, it becomes an attack (i.e., you're doing it faster than as a standard action), so you can do it multiple times per round (replacing any number of your attacks with improved awesome blows, or disarms, or sunders, or trips).

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Broken wrote:
Out of curiosity did I miss it or is the dagger not in the close weapon category?

Daggers are simple weapons, and brawlers are also proficient in simple weapons.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Broken wrote:
Out of curiosity did I miss it or is the dagger not in the close weapon category?
Daggers are simple weapons, and brawlers are also proficient in simple weapons.

*FACEPALM


Sean, I previously posted something earlier about Brawlers getting their unarmed strike damage on weapons from the close weapon group and was wondering if you could give your opinion on whether you would feel that this would be too strong of an ability. Personally I, think it would be fine considering that they do not get any great options for ranged combat and it would fit well for the theme of the class in that it is the king of up close and personal.

Oops! I accidentally put your name as Steven in my post, fixed that.

Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I just, quietly, enjoyed reading the warpriest - and I must say, I think it is shaping up to be a great class. What bothers me in comparison to the brawler though (both being fighter-hybrids) is that the warpriest is more interesting. It inspires more ideas and has more (mechanical) toys to play with. I'm jealous of the warpriest, on the brawler's behalf. I really would like to see the "advanced" part of advanced class guide be added to the brawler.

Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadkitten wrote:
Sean, I previously posted something earlier about Brawlers getting their unarmed strike damage on weapons from the close weapon group and was wondering if you could give your opinion on whether you would feel that this would be too strong of an ability. Personally I, think it would be fine considering that they do not get any great options for ranged combat and it would fit well for the theme of the class in that it is the king of up close and personal.

I have a simple suggestion in this regard: why not allow the brawler to use her unarmed progression on weapons of the close weapon group equal to a brawler of half her level? In other words a level 10 brawler could use the unarmed dice of a level 5 brawler on weapons in the close weapon group.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Broken wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Broken wrote:
Out of curiosity did I miss it or is the dagger not in the close weapon category?
Daggers are simple weapons, and brawlers are also proficient in simple weapons.
*FACEPALM

OK, I think I figured out why I was confused. Brawler's Flurry is limited to unarmed, close, and monk. So you couldn't Flurry with the dagger.

Visions of epic knife fights from the 80's just keep popping into my head, even if it's not optimal.


Quick question for Sean?

Can I magically enchant my fists?

You may respond with "amulet of mighty fists" and my response is then I cant take an amulet of natural armor.

The reason people ask for brass knuckles to use improved unarmed damage is so that they can enjoy the benefits of an amulet of natural armor.

Possibly add something in the upcoming book to allow fists to be enchanted? This would really help a lot of unarmed classes that trail behind.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Quick question for Sean?

Can I magically enchant my fists?

You may respond with "amulet of mighty fists" and my response is then I cant take an amulet of natural armor.

The reason people ask for brass knuckles to use improved unarmed damage is so that they can enjoy the benefits of an amulet of natural armor.

Possibly add something in the upcoming book to allow fists to be enchanted? This would really help a lot of unarmed classes that trail behind.

I dropped a line in as well for some kind of magical weapon that uses your Unarmed Strike for your attacks but is enchantable.

It'd be a buff to monks as well.


What does everyone think about expanding the choices for Martial Maneuvers to include style and/or performance feats?

Also, about the "badass martial artist" vs "thug"... I get the impression that most folks were viewing the brawler to be closer to "thug" than "martial artist".

-j

51 to 100 of 501 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / Class Discussion / Revised Brawler Discussion All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.