Huh. Great question. Is it a miscopy, or an intentional holdover to balance free twf?
Interesting.
Just for the record though, Brawlers are considered to have TWF, so you can pick up TW Feint no problem.
|
They did the same freaking thing with the Samurai and everyone hated it then, here we are a decade later and no progress...
The samurai got it far later than the brawler. They didn't get improved until 11. And greater at 16.
It was a balance factor vs the ranger. At the time rangers could only get their TWF bonus feats when wearing light armor, while the samurai could wear heavy.
I'm not saying that they were a great class - but there was a valid reason for the delay.
If you want to take the levels as a brawler you wont need the feint stuff as you loose sneek attack. Or am i missing somthing.
Edit: there the snake somthing AT of cause.
|
|
Where did the Samurai get TWF? I was looking over the class and couldn't see anything that gives it, is it one of the orders?They did the same freaking thing with the Samurai and everyone hated it then, here we are a decade later and no progress...The samurai got it far later than the brawler. They didn't get improved until 11. And greater at 16.
It was a balance factor vs the ranger. At the time rangers could only get their TWF bonus feats when wearing light armor, while the samurai could wear heavy.
I'm not saying that they were a great class - but there was a valid reason for the delay.
The 3.5 version did, which is what LoneKnave was referring to. Hence my reference to rangers wearing light armor only.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it interesting that some people evaluate classes on the "is this class good enough" scale instead of "would this make it too good?" when making changes.he will probably house rule in agreement with me that they get Imp TWF and Greater TWF at 6 and 11 respectively.He often house-rules to make classes better when you ask him to? Brawler is a solid class as is.
Well - my default is to not make changes to the game to prevent bringing in new issues. I'd only make changes if there's a problem which I'm trying to fix.
Yeah, the original build is Rogue(knifemaster) 6 and Fighter(brawler) 4. The change will be turning into Rogue(knifemaster) 1, Fighter(brawler) 3, Brawler(snakebite specialist) 6.If you want to take the levels as a brawler you wont need the feint stuff as you loose sneek attack. Or am i missing somthing.
Edit: there the snake somthing AT of cause.
I Think i would just go brawler all the Way. Unless you really want te class skills from rogue.
I find it interesting that some people evaluate classes on the "is this class good enough" scale instead of "would this make it too good?" when making changes.he will probably house rule in agreement with me that they get Imp TWF and Greater TWF at 6 and 11 respectively.He often house-rules to make classes better when you ask him to? Brawler is a solid class as is.
I tend to do both. On the one hand, if it makes the class/feature/whatever crap, then no one will ever take it and my work will have been for naught. On the other, if it's too good, then, well, everyone'll flock to it and it'll be amazing and rad and break the game. Gotta strike a balance.
Of course, with my players, I have a lot of leeway. One of them pretty much plays barbarians. Only. And all of'em are Timmy at heart.
|
|
Yeah, gotta be careful with putting the brawler's free TWF feats on the same progression as the ranger...
Except that it's better than the ranger's, because it only uses a single weapon (enchantment effectiveness & cost) plus it's with full strength bonus (ranger can get at the cost of a feat), and potentially with 1.5x strength depending upon your weapon choice (ranger can't get).
I'm not saying that it'd break your game. But I still think that one's default should be to avoid house-rules unless necessary for balance. Especially in a case where it's purely a mechanical boost. If player A can boost their character some - why can't player B? What if what player B wants to do is (debatably) marginally more powerful than what player A got. Then what about what player C wants? Where do you draw the line?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that it's better than the ranger's, because it only uses a single weapon (enchantment effectiveness & cost) plus it's with full strength bonus (ranger can get at the cost of a feat), and potentially with 1.5x strength depending upon your weapon choice (ranger can't get).These are all properties of flurry, not the free feats. Once you got brawler's flurry at lvl 2 you could leave brawler and pick up ITWF at BAB6 with whatever, and you'd have the same benefit. So no, it's not better than the ranger.
What makes you think that you can flurry with ITWF by just taking the feat after 2 levels of brawler? That's a feature of the brawler's version of the feats. Nothing says that you can by taking it some other way. If you were to try - you'd get 3 swings with your main hand, and 1 swing with your off-hand.
At 8th level, the brawler gains use of the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using brawler's flurry.
If you were to take it seperately, you'd just have ITWF, not ITWF when using brawler's flurry. It's the brawler's flurry which lets you use a single weapon.
I think there's no reason to not do low effort, low risk changes, that improve the enjoyment of the game for the player.
The touchstone for a player's enjoyment is how powerful his character is?
PS. look out for the slope, it's very slippery I hear.
There is a reason that metaphor has lasted so long. It is true - though admittedly overused.
|
|
I think the issue is with the ITWF feat -
You are skilled at fighting with two weapons.Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
The brawler's flurry differences are specifically when the feats are gained as a brawler. If you take it seperately, then you'd be forced to use the normal feat limitations, which include the attack being made with an off-hand weapon.
Though if you're house-ruling, you could go ahead and not worry about that either.
|
|
There's nothing stopping you with making off hand attacks in the brawlers flurry; in fact, it specifically goes out of its way to say that it doesn't matter if you are making them.
Correct - but if it wasn't gained from the brawler class, that extra attack from ITWF isn't part of the brawler's flurry.
|
|
So if you make an extra attack from haste you get 1.5xSTR on it for a two handed weapon instead of 1xSTR?
I'd say no - due to the wording of haste.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation.
They did the same freaking thing with the Samurai and everyone hated it then, here we are a decade later and no progress...The samurai got it far later than the brawler. They didn't get improved until 11. And greater at 16.
It was a balance factor vs the ranger. At the time rangers could only get their TWF bonus feats when wearing light armor, while the samurai could wear heavy.
I'm not saying that they were a great class - but there was a valid reason for the delay.
The reasoning might've seemed sound at the time - but the fact that we're pointing to the CW samurai as an example (and one that isn't here's how NOT to do it) for anything suggests that what we're looking at has a problem.
I think the language between FoB and BF is different enough that the brawler doesn't get 1:2 power attack trade on his off hand attacks, while the monk does.
But yes, a designer did say something like "Brawler's flurry isn't TWF for the purpose of prereqs" somewhere. Which sucks.