|
Personally one change I'd like to see is clean up the flurry mechanic to where you simply get the two weapon fighting feats as bonus feats, possibly with the addendum that they only work with unarmed strike or close weapons. With brawler having high bab there's really no need to differentiate a flurry from a full attack action and it would simplify the crunch text when it comes to whether or not brawlers can use feats with 2WF as a prereq.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally one change I'd like to see is clean up the flurry mechanic to where you simply get the two weapon fighting feats as bonus feats, possibly with the addendum that they only work with unarmed strike or close weapons. With brawler having high bab there's really no need to differentiate a flurry from a full attack action and it would simplify the crunch text when it comes to whether or not brawlers can use feats with 2WF as a prereq.
I'm down with the Brawler simply getting the TWF feats instead of flurry.
This has nothing to do with me wanting to keep as many Monk abilities unique to the Monk. Nope not at all! >:P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep rynjin and dabbler are my monk people.
I'll throw in a suggestion for the brawler capstone.
I don't have a name for the ability.
An attack that does double the maximum damage, stuns, sends the target back several feet prone. If used on an object, it destroys a 5-ft or maybe more square of material if it's hardness is less than 20 (such as a stone wall). if the attacks hits regardless of its target, it would create difficult terrain in a 20-ft or more radius that doesn't affect the user, but sends other everything else in the radius back several feet and prone. I guess something along those lines would be cool if you're going for a single strong attack capstone.
The brawler just seems like a very, very bad redesign of the monk's martial artist archetype of the Ultimate Combat with feats. Maybe also a bad redesign of the fighter brawler and/or unarmed fighter archetypes.
Is this class really need?!?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The brawler just seems like a very, very bad redesign of the monk's martial artist archetype of the Ultimate Combat with feats. Maybe also a bad redesign of the fighter brawler and/or unarmed fighter archetypes.
Is this class really need?!?
Looking at the thread, common opinion is that it's a very, very good redesign of the brawler fighter and martial artist monk. And maybe not needed, but plenty of people seem to WANT it.
|
That lovely little moment with Lamonius and Rynjin is why I like this thread the most(or at least over the Warpriest one. I really want to like that class but every time I go to that thread it's just them insulting one another).
I really like how this class is moving so far. I've always wanted a non-oriental fisticuffs fighter, and so far this class is working. Granted, Brawler Fighter and MM Monk are there as well, but I do enjoy this class as a third option if I want to do something like that.
Looking at the thread, common opinion is that it's a very, very good redesign of the brawler fighter and martial artist monk. And maybe not needed, but plenty of people seem to WANT it.The brawler just seems like a very, very bad redesign of the monk's martial artist archetype of the Ultimate Combat with feats. Maybe also a bad redesign of the fighter brawler and/or unarmed fighter archetypes.
Is this class really need?!?
Still not needed. Could be created another more interesting class.
Well, none of the new classes are needed , as PF is already an awesome game. It's nice to have new options, though. As for another class being more interesting, well, thats a matterof opinion. Many people, myself included, think this class could be very fun if done well. There's no way every person will like every class that's created, but if you don't like the Brawler hopefully you will enjoy one of the other many new classes. Saying this class shouldn't exist doesn't really help any and probably shouldn't be in this thread.
I have two questions on the brawler's flurry:
A brawler applies her full Strength bonus to her damage rolls for all successful attacks made with brawler’s flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
1) Does the brawler apply 1.5 times the Strength bonus on two-handed weapons? I read this as "no", but I can imagine people making the argument ("But my full Strength bonus on two handed weapons is 1.5 times!"). Adding "only" in front of "full Strength bonus" might help clarify that, if you don't have room for an extra sentence.
2) How does this affect feats like Power Attack and Piranha Strike, which have different damage bonuses on primary hand and off-hand attacks?
I'm loving this class so far.
|
I'd just like to point out that unlike in the case of a Monk's bonus feats, the Brawler needs to make all his prerequisites of all of his bonus feats.
Such as the Combat Expertise speedbump. Is this the design team's intention, to essentially assume that Brawlers will have 13+ Int?
-Matt
This has been a longrunning problem, for the last 13 years, that the fault is with the feat, that Expertise should never have had an Int requirement.
But since it does, and it looks like we're stuck with it, I have to say that if ever there was a class, which deserved to be able to ignore the Int prerequisite for Combat Expertise, it should be this one. (And the Monk. And the Fighter. And...)
Either give the Brawler/Monk/Fighter Combat Expertise for free, OR
Allow the Brawler/Monk/Fighter to purchase the feat, ignoring the Int requirement, OR
Create an ability, which allows a character to count as having higher ability scores than they actually have. You could make it scale (like Weapon Training), so that it wasn't a front-loaded dip level class, they could qualify for better feats as they levelled, and those Brawlers who were only 1 or 2 points off target would qualify earlier than one with a lower stat.
I'm rather sick of hearing people accusing martial PCs with 12 Int of having 'dumped' the stat.
"Your knuckle-dragging, drooling Fighter only has 12 Int, so you don't get to perform martial maneuvers. Serves you right!"
|
I'm rather sick of hearing people accusing martial PCs with 12 Int of having 'dumped' the stat.
Couldn't agree more with this. And with INT being such a tax for those of us who like different options in combat (Dirty Tricking when there is DR, bull rushing when you need control of the field, tripping when you need AoO's, etc.), it takes away from the need of getting a +2 Wisdom headband so your will save stays competitive, because you need a +2 Intelligence, or you can't perform maneuvers. I think that Brawlers should get an ability to treat them as having an Int13 for the purposes of qualifying for improved/greater combat maneuver feats and combat expertise, because I think pathfinder really needs a non-magical master of maneuvers.
Well, there is even a precedent for this: the Lore Warden fighter archetype. So i can see the brawler being able to get bonus feats without need of the prerequisites, just like the monk.
I think the problem with Combat Expertise is that, on its own, the 13 Int requirement makes sense. You're a smarter combatant and you know how to read your opponents and fight defensively to keep yourself alive. That makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is that Combat Expertise is a prerequisite to Improved Trip, Dirty Trick, etc. You shouldn't have to be smart to trip someone or poke them in the eye. I think the simplest fix (though I probably shouldn't discuss this in this thread) would be to keep Combat Expertise as it is as a stand alone feat. Then make a new feat (we'll call it Combat Maneuvers for lack of a better term) that has a prerequisite of BAB 1 (or perhaps higher)whose benefit is that it gives you a +2 to CMB. Make Combat Maneuvers the prereq to gain access to the improved maneuver feats.
I think the problem with Combat Expertise is that, on its own, the 13 Int requirement makes sense. You're a smarter combatant and you know how to read your opponents and fight defensively to keep yourself alive. That makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is that Combat Expertise is a prerequisite to Improved Trip, Dirty Trick, etc. You shouldn't have to be smart to trip someone or poke them in the eye. I think the simplest fix (though I probably shouldn't discuss this in this thread) would be to keep Combat Expertise as it is as a stand alone feat. Then make a new feat (we'll call it Combat Maneuvers for lack of a better term) that has a prerequisite of BAB 1 (or perhaps higher)whose benefit is that it gives you a +2 to CMB. Make Combat Maneuvers the prereq to gain access to the improved maneuver feats.
A fix like this could only take place in a new edition. It would require re-writing TONS of monster entries to account for the feat changes, and it would open up a new line of possibilities that weren't available before. Like a wolf with Improved Trip. Wolves can't ever qualify for Improved Trip because animals are limited to Int 2 and therefore can never qualify for Combat Expertise, despite Improved Trip being a good feat choice for wolves.
For me the brawler is what/how the monk should always have been like.
Good point. What if either Combat Expertise or Combat Maneuvers could qualify as the prereqs for the maneuver feats? Could help some...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A fix like this could only take place in a new edition. It would require re-writing TONS of monster entries to account for the feat changes, and it would open up a new line of possibilities that weren't available before. Like a wolf with Improved Trip. Wolves can't ever qualify for Improved Trip because animals are limited to Int 2 and therefore can never qualify for Combat Expertise, despite Improved Trip being a good feat choice for wolves.I think the problem with Combat Expertise is that, on its own, the 13 Int requirement makes sense. You're a smarter combatant and you know how to read your opponents and fight defensively to keep yourself alive. That makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is that Combat Expertise is a prerequisite to Improved Trip, Dirty Trick, etc. You shouldn't have to be smart to trip someone or poke them in the eye. I think the simplest fix (though I probably shouldn't discuss this in this thread) would be to keep Combat Expertise as it is as a stand alone feat. Then make a new feat (we'll call it Combat Maneuvers for lack of a better term) that has a prerequisite of BAB 1 (or perhaps higher)whose benefit is that it gives you a +2 to CMB. Make Combat Maneuvers the prereq to gain access to the improved maneuver feats.
Not exactly. They could have a variety of feats that could grant access to Combat Expertise feats, e.g.
You have a sense of picking just the right moment to act.
Prerequisites: Wis 13
Benefit: You gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity provoked from combat maneuvers. This includes both maneuvers initiated by yourself, as well as maneuvers inflicted on you.
Special: Combat Intuition counts as Combat Expertise for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites of feats and you may substitute your Wisdom score for your Intelligence score for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites of feats.
You have a sense of picking just the right moment to act.
Prerequisites: BAB 4
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus to CMB and CMD.
Special: Combat Veteran counts as Combat Expertise for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites of feats and you may treat your Intelligence score as 10 + your BAB for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites of feats that have Combat Expertise as a prerequisite.
A fix like this could only take place in a new edition. It would require re-writing TONS of monster entries to account for the feat changes, and it would open up a new line of possibilities that weren't available before. Like a wolf with Improved Trip. Wolves can't ever qualify for Improved Trip because animals are limited to Int 2 and therefore can never qualify for Combat Expertise, despite Improved Trip being a good feat choice for wolves.I think the problem with Combat Expertise is that, on its own, the 13 Int requirement makes sense. You're a smarter combatant and you know how to read your opponents and fight defensively to keep yourself alive. That makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is that Combat Expertise is a prerequisite to Improved Trip, Dirty Trick, etc. You shouldn't have to be smart to trip someone or poke them in the eye. I think the simplest fix (though I probably shouldn't discuss this in this thread) would be to keep Combat Expertise as it is as a stand alone feat. Then make a new feat (we'll call it Combat Maneuvers for lack of a better term) that has a prerequisite of BAB 1 (or perhaps higher)whose benefit is that it gives you a +2 to CMB. Make Combat Maneuvers the prereq to gain access to the improved maneuver feats.
Not exactly. They could have a variety of feats that could grant access to Combat Expertise feats, e.g.
You have a sense of picking just the right moment to act.
Prerequisites: Wis 13
Benefit: You gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity provoked from combat maneuvers. This includes both maneuvers initiated by yourself, as well as maneuvers inflicted on you.
Special: Combat Intuition counts as Combat Expertise for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites of feats and you may substitute your Wisdom score for your Intelligence score for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites of feats....
Keep in mind, Paizo has a policy of not invalidating anything from the Core Rule Book. Why do you think we never say a better method of enhancing unarmed strikes than the Amulet of Druid Attacks?
Those two feats would all but invalidate Combat Expertise, so they would never get released.
I would like to state I am in complete agreement that I think Combat Expertise is nothing more than a tax and shouldn't be required to take so many maneuver feats. I would love to see it removed, or other feats, like the two above, to be released as work-a-rounds. However, I also understand Paizo won't be releasing such things because it basically invalidates Combat Expertise.
Perhaps yes. But instead of seeing it as a reason to deny work-around feats; I think there is cause to allow the work-around feats as well as adding additional feats that make Combat Expertise itself more attractive. In other words, feats that grant additional advantages while using Combat Expertise.
Your defense is a natural extension of your fighting style.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise
Benefit: When using Combat Expertise, you do not take the penalty to attacks for lower iterative attacks.
Something like that would make Combat Expertise attractive for some builds, and allow for work-around feats that don't entirely invalidate Combat Expertise itself.
I think Improved Combat Expertise would be better off as doubling the bonuses and/or halving the penalties. My group let me play with combat expertise AC being the same as power attack damage (2:1 not 3:1) and it totally made the feat worth it.
Well yes, there is room for additional feats that make the use of Combat Expertise more attractive. Personally I think a 2:1 bonus is far too much though. At level 8 a fighter already gets +3 to AC from Combat Expertise. At 2-to-1 that would be +6! That is huge.
Additionally, keep in mind that a big disincentive for many is the reduced attack. If you don't take a penalty for using Combat Expertise (except for your first attack(s)), then it suddenly leaps forward in sexiness. Consider a level 8 fighter (with Improved Combat Expertise and Threatening Defender (trait)) could take a -2 penalty (only on the full-BAB attacks) and get +3 to AC. That could be +14/+9 normally, and +12/+9 with combat expertise (and gain +3 dodge AC). The +12 is still likely to hit, and +9 still has good odds of hitting.
Anyway... the key point is still that Combat Expertise - the action - should have upgrades, rather than just acting as a gateway drug. I mean gateway feat.
Just a thought... It wouldn't be better if Combat Expertise reduced your attacks' damage instead of your to-hit chance?
I think the problem with Combat Expertise is that, on its own, the 13 Int requirement makes sense. You're a smarter combatant and you know how to read your opponents and fight defensively to keep yourself alive. That makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is that Combat Expertise is a prerequisite to Improved Trip, Dirty Trick, etc. You shouldn't have to be smart to trip someone or poke them in the eye. I think the simplest fix (though I probably shouldn't discuss this in this thread) would be to keep Combat Expertise as it is as a stand alone feat. Then make a new feat (we'll call it Combat Maneuvers for lack of a better term) that has a prerequisite of BAB 1 (or perhaps higher)whose benefit is that it gives you a +2 to CMB. Make Combat Maneuvers the prereq to gain access to the improved maneuver feats.
Most of the Improved X maneuver feats also have a 13 Int requirement, so this alone wouldn't help.
I appreciate the sentiment behind giving Combat Expertise an Int requirement - it gives the stat some function for a lot of characters for which it'd otherwise be an absolute dump stat - but 13 is pretty high for something that's being used to gate so much interesting stuff. (Also, note that they don't do things like making most of the metamagic feats require a mostly pointless dump feat and 13 Strength, so clearly the goal of stat diversification is only so important). The totally binary nature of 13/not 13 makes it so that instead of making the stat generally something worth considering at different levels, it's just "Am I using a sufficiently crazysauce point buy/rolling scheme that this works, or am I just dumping this anyway?"
I guess you could work around the fact that the feats that rely on it also require 13 Int by making the alt-feats say "This feat counts as Combat Expertise and as having an Int score of at least 13 for the purposes of selecting feats that require Combat Expertise", but that's kind of kludgy.
If a Brawler cobblestomping is wrong
then I do not want to be right
I weirdly want a brawler archetype for elves that combines this with Perform (riverdance).
Death Clogging!
Actually I made a Two Weapon Warrior/MoMS that basically did just that. One trip equated to FOUR face stomps.
Incidentally the Two Weapon Warrior archetype makes an excellent unarmed fighter that remorselessly abuses attacks of opportunity.
here is another ability suggestion for good flavor, could also be turned into a feat instead
Curbstomp (EX) when using a standard action to attack a prone enemy you automaticly roll to confirm crit if you hit (regardless of critical range) and automaticly deal maximum damage on that attack
|
|
I appreciate the sentiment behind giving Combat Expertise an Int requirement - it gives the stat some function for a lot of characters for which it'd otherwise be an absolute dump stat - but 13 is pretty high for something that's being used to gate so much interesting stuff. (Also, note that they don't do things like making most of the metamagic feats require a mostly pointless dump feat and 13 Strength, so clearly the goal of stat diversification is only so important).
Second Edition set stat prerequisites for all the wizard specialist schools, I believe Evoker needed 15 Con, Illusionist needed 15 Dex, I forget the others, but Diviner was probably Wis and Enchanter would have been Cha.
I remember this, as a GM at the time allowed some human multi-classing, where thematically appropriate, but that often required a stat prerequisite.
I had a gestalt Priest of Zeus/Evoker, whose highest stats had to be Str and Con, with Wis and Int third and fourth priority, but still ended up fun to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a completely serious question, and I hope it doesn't cause an aneurysm for Jason:
Shouldn't the brawler be proficient in armor spikes...?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a completely serious question, and I hope it doesn't cause an aneurysm for Jason:
Shouldn't the brawler be proficient in armor spikes...?
As I understoof it the brawler will, most likely, become proficient in all weapons in the close weapon group.
Close: bayonet, brass knuckles, cestus, dan bong, emei piercer, fighting fan, gauntlet, heavy shield, iron brush, katar, light shield, madu, mere club, punching dagger, rope gauntlet, sap, scizore, spiked armor, spiked gauntlet, spiked shield, tekko-kagi, tonfa, unarmed strike, wooden stake, and wushu dart.
and there is the spiked armor. Which, I guess, means armor with armor spikes on it.
Edit: Just to be sure: This is meant as a serious answer, too. I sometimes seem to "sound" offensive without wanting to. non-native language problem I guess.
But another question: Can the brawler use his unarmed flurry while using a shield? this reminds me of the two-handed weapon + armor spikes problem. If you are using your offhand for a shield can you still make offhand attacks, even if you do no need a hand to do it?
He doesn't need an offhand to Flurry, so there's no issue.
You're right. I forgot that.
But another question: Can the brawler use his unarmed flurry while using a shield? this reminds me of the two-handed weapon + armor spikes problem. If you are using your offhand for a shield can you still make offhand attacks, even if you do no need a hand to do it?
Wait.
This was considered a problem? And the phrasing implies that it was 'fixed' too.
...Can aaaaanyone link me to this?
Design Manager
|
But another question: Can the brawler use his unarmed flurry while using a shield? this reminds me of the two-handed weapon + armor spikes problem. If you are using your offhand for a shield can you still make offhand attacks, even if you do no need a hand to do it?Wait.
This was considered a problem? And the phrasing implies that it was 'fixed' too.
...Can aaaaanyone link me to this?
There's actually a FAQ. You can't do it anymore. There were a couple 1000+ post threads talking about it, it ended up boiling down to an explanation from the designers that the game has an assumption that player characters, regardless of limbs, have two combat capable "hands" which may or may not actually be hands.
Fortunately, the issue is relatively limited in impact and shouldn't touch the Brawler at all (though it occurs to me that there's actually a lot of material in your Path of War line that could potentially be impacted....... Sorry :( )
I can't give a link but if I remember right it was ruled that you can't use an off-hand attack after attacking with a two-handed weapon because you already used up your off hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I just read that. I...
Let's just diplomatically state that I don't understand why they dedicated man-hours to 'fixing' that 'problem' and leave it at that. It's not directly relevant to Brawler.
He doesn't need an offhand to Flurry, so there's no issue.
Is that right? Man. Shield and temple sword half-elf builds 4 lyfe then.
I, for one, am surprised nobody suggests a brawler dual-wielding two klars.
I, for one, am surprised nobody suggests a brawler dual-wielding two klars.
You mean if they get flurry with the close weapon group?
I, for one, am surprised nobody suggests a brawler dual-wielding two klars.Shield Master Klar Wielder with one klar for AC and one for attacks. Hmmm, I can't decide whether this is cheesy or brilliant.
If you have Shield Master, you have Improved Shield Bash which lets you keep your Shield bonus to AC when Shield Bashing. So you can go right on ahead and TWF with Klar.
A Klar is a shield, and thus you will not get your class AC bonus while wielding one.
Eh. It'll even out to about the same AC in the end, since the AC bonus maxes out at +5 at 19th.