D&D (2024) Brawler is out. What subclass should replace it?

[bedir than]

because a hostile action was taken and all PCs need the order in which they will react to it.

Players are trying to game the game, rather than have characters act as their characters.
You don't have to let people who despise playing with each other get away with rules exploits just because they hate playing the game

 

[Parmandur]

I disagree. It’s a well liked subclass, and just needs flavor rewrites, not any mechanical changes.

It was never tested in UA, though, so of theybwanted to go with that I think we would have seen it in a test. Unlike Psi Warrior and Rune Knight, which have the same history as several of the Tasha's classes going into the new PHB with no further testingm

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It was never tested in UA, though, so of theybwanted to go with that I think we would have seen it in a test. Unlike Psi Warrior and Rune Knight, which have the same history as several of the Tasha's classes going into the new PHB with no further testingm

I don’t think that actually matters. They know how popular it is.

 

[Parmandur]

I don’t think that actually matters. They know how popular it is.

Eh, we'll see soon enough.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Players are trying to game the game, rather than have characters act as their characters.
You don't have to let people who despise playing with each other get away with rules exploits just because they hate playing the game

That exploit is as easily shut down by DM's as the bag of rats* and leveling up by cooking up an ant hill.

If there is no meaningful theeat, the DM can always say: roll initiative to see who is faster, but don't even think about recharging your abilities for that.

Designing a game around every possible exploit is a futile efford and harms the game.

My favourite example always was divine challenge of 4e paladins, where someone at a convention pre release used it on a dragon and just ran away for permanent disadvantage on attacks.
That caused the designers to add a few if clauses to the ability making it very user unfriendly. Only the latest rules update a few years later removed all that clauses because those were never relevant in normal games.

Other exmples are the futile effords to make hiding fool proof in 3e and 4e which was solved by 5e with the simple sentence: the DM decides if you can or cannot, which is how most tables handle it anyway.

*and then I allowed our warlock to sacrifice rats early in the moring to get their higher level hex going and recharge it with a short rest afterwards. Because it was a party that probably had more than raised an eyebrow if they found out who he was and what he did each day.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It was never tested in UA, though, so of theybwanted to go with that I think we would have seen it in a test. Unlike Psi Warrior and Rune Knight, which have the same history as several of the Tasha's classes going into the new PHB with no further testingm

That does not necessarily mean they don't get some updates here and there. Sorcerer updates for example need to change their level 1 abilities to become level 3 ones.
And here I am actually a bit sad, because I couldn't easily have played my 2014 mutliclass character to 2024, because I could'd have been divine sould immediately when I multiclassed. Luckily I am level 3 sorc now, so no problem.
And I see more advantages over disadvantages here. Especially because becoming a sorcerer was an immediate power bump (shield spell, absorb elements mainly) anyway, gaining 2d4 to a save once per short (or long, is a bit since we played) was very good on top of it.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Other exmples are the futile effords to make hiding fool proof in 3e and 4e which was solved by 5e with the simple sentence: the DM decides if you can or cannot, which is how most tables handle it anyway.

5e has a lot of pages devoted to stealth, and they're spread out over multiple sections, and they are still unworkable.

I wish they'd just said 'ask your DM' and left it at that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

5e has a lot of pages devoted to stealth, and they're spread out over multiple sections, and they are still unworkable.

I wish they'd just said 'ask your DM' and left it at that.

The first sentence is: "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."
Then it is explained, that you make a check which you should note for later reference.

I agree that this would be enough, but this section has worked for 10years with no significiant alteration. Which is quite some achievement.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I disagree. It’s a well liked subclass, and just needs flavor rewrites, not any mechanical changes.

No. Echo Knight is probably the most poorly written official D&D 5e subclass. It's very strong mechanically, but it is worded confusingly and caused a lot of weird questions when it was released (is the echo an object or creature? Is it affected by gravity? Etc).

 

[bedir than]

No. Echo Knight is probably the most poorly written official D&D 5e subclass. It's very strong mechanically, but it is worded confusingly and caused a lot of weird questions when it was released (is the echo an object or creature? Is it affected by gravity? Etc).

we ran into one we couldn't answer today. If the PC is disguised does the echo keep that disguise?