|
In the Advanced Class Guide, the Brawler recieves proficiency with all simple weapons, close fighter weapons...and the handaxe and short sword.
Yet in Brawler's Flurry, it states that only unarmed strikes, close fighter weapons and monk weapons qualify to be used during it, none of which include the handaxe and short sword.
Long story short, why even have these proficiencies in there if they don't work with the other class features at all? This was something I asked about back during the playtest and it looks like the problem still hasn't been fixed.
And how does that make them useless? I mean, the monk has proficiency with a lot of weapons they can't flurry with by default.
That's pretty dumb too. Why learn a weapon if your class features don't work with it?
|
|
And how does that make them useless? I mean, the monk has proficiency with a lot of weapons they can't flurry with by default.
Really? I thought monks were only proficient with "monk" weapons.
Would anyone PLAY a brawler with a short sword if this problem wasn't fixed? It just seems like handicapping yourself if you do at this point. Why would you deliberately ignore a core class feature like that?
And how does that make them useless? I mean, the monk has proficiency with a lot of weapons they can't flurry with by default.That's pretty dumb too. Why learn a weapon if your class features don't work with it?
Not seeing how simple weapons work with wizards or sorcerors. Just saying.
Not every class feature synergises with every other class feature, but may allow the player to explore different avenues of expression for their character concept.
Simply put, it's not about the weapon itself, but the weapon's qualities. The character might be better at punching the bejeebers out of someone, but wouldn't be as effective against an iron golem, for example. In that case, the brawler would be wise to carry around an adamantine weapon.
And how does that make them useless? I mean, the monk has proficiency with a lot of weapons they can't flurry with by default.That's pretty dumb too. Why learn a weapon if your class features don't work with it?Not seeing how simple weapons work with wizards or sorcerors. Just saying.
Not every class feature synergises with every other class feature, but may allow the player to explore different avenues of expression for their character concept.
Considering classes are the avenue with which to explore their concept, ignoring the iconic features of the class seems counter intuitive to choosing that class in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put, it's not about the weapon itself, but the weapon's qualities. The character might be better at punching the bejeebers out of someone, but wouldn't be as effective against an iron golem, for example. In that case, the brawler would be wise to carry around an adamantine weapon.
Doesn't Close Weapons include knuckles? Using Adamantine knuckles to punch a golem to fragments sounds just fine to me. Kind of cool even. :P
Ninja'd Jeff for the win!
And yes Scythia, that is an excellent point. Though sometimes the brawler might not have the proper knuckles available, and has to do with whatever weapon is at hand. Perils of random treasure, I suppose.
If you have the ability to choose ahead of time, yes, you should always get a weapon that matches your class abilities. But given that it's not uncommon for adventures to hand you a weapon you wouldn't normally use as the only reliable way of fighting something, I'd rather have a better chance of being proficient with it than no.Simply put, it's not about the weapon itself, but the weapon's qualities. The character might be better at punching the bejeebers out of someone, but wouldn't be as effective against an iron golem, for example. In that case, the brawler would be wise to carry around an adamantine weapon.Doesn't Close Weapons include knuckles? Using Adamantine knuckles to punch a golem to fragments sounds just fine to me. Kind of cool even. :P
If that's the case, then shouldn't Brawlers be proficient with every martial weapon then?
Jeff Merola kind of hit it on the head- you don't have to use them, so what does it hurt?
With the short sword, it is kind of a grandfathered in thing since just about everyone that mainly hits things gets it as a proficiency (bards, rogues, and monks get it, for example). This gets a bit iffy with the more castery types like cleric, alchemists, and druids, but the point is- brawlers are pure melee, so they get short swords.
I suspect that the hand axe is more related to the fact that it is the one proficiency monks get that you don't other than the javelin.
Admittedly, I kind of agree that battleaxes would have been more useful, since brawlers have a serious problem with slashing weapons (specifically because their proficiencies are built around mainly simple weapons, and those have a weird grandfathered balance thing that makes it so you have no simple slashing weapons that can be 2 handed). Having something you could 2 hand when facing DR/slashing would be nice. As is, you might as well just grab a knife.
Also with their picking feats whenever they can always pick to be proficient with any weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also with their picking feats whenever they can always pick to be proficient with any weapon.
I disarmed someone and beat them to death with their own greataxe the other night. Sure, I couldn't flurry with it, but it was incredibly satisfying nevertheless.
I disarmed someone and beat them to death with their own greataxe the other night. Sure, I couldn't flurry with it, but it was incredibly satisfying nevertheless.
Isn't this a famous Patrick Bateman quote?
Because sometimes the magic item that needs to be used on the baddie is a weapon that does not function with your class abilities?
Example: In one of the AP's there is a shortsword which dimensional anchors opponents several times per day.When faced with a teleport capable devil would you rather:
A)Run up to it and brawlers flurry only to have that teleporting devil teleport away and heal or...
B)Run up and dimensional anchor it with that cool shortsword
Limiting yourself to just the optimal choices is still limiting yourself.
