I wanted to make a pugilist character, but whenever I search up guides on it they all just show me a homebrew class. I really just want the simple, run of the mill, non-expanded (except for MMoM and the stuff you get for free) pugilist. Any ideas?*
(Also, I already am aware there is a pugilist battle master combination but I don't have Tasha's so unfortunately that's a no-go)
*I would prefer you to keep the levels under 5, multiclassing is okay.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I thought that at first too but I just kind of want my character to be more of a rough and tumble brawler, but yeah I think I should probably take at least one level in monk.
The Tavern Brawler feat would let your unarmed strikes do 1d4. You could combine that with Barbarian or Fighter. There's also a Fighting Style that lets your unarmed strikes effectively be Versatile 1d6 (1d8) weapons, but I think it's in Tasha's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I thought that at first too but I just kind of want my character to be more of a rough and tumble brawler, but yeah I think I should probably take at least one level in monk.
Yeah, still sounds like monk. Tavern Brawler is a good start for the aesthetic. Warrior of the Open Hand subclass will give you more options with your unarmed strike. There's nothing that says they can't be a street brawler, in fact it works well that way.
The Tavern Brawler feat would let your unarmed strikes do 1d4. You could combine that with Barbarian or Fighter. There's also a Fighting Style that lets your unarmed strikes effectively be Versatile 1d6 (1d8) weapons, but I think it's in Tasha's.
This is it^^^ You want the unarmed fighting style. It’s also in the ‘24 PHB. You punch for a d6 — a d8 if you don’t use another weapon or a shield. And you do a d4 auto damage to anyone you’re grappling. The ‘24 Goliath which can grow to size large, or a rune knight, can really help with the grappling. And see about trying to get an Eldritch Claw tattoo which lets your attack count as magical. You won’t be as good at unarmed combat as a monk, but that’s to be expected. And you can roll around in full plate punching people.
I thought that at first too but I just kind of want my character to be more of a rough and tumble brawler, but yeah I think I should probably take at least one level in monk.
Yeah, still sounds like monk. Tavern Brawler is a good start for the aesthetic. Warrior of the Open Hand subclass will give you more options with your unarmed strike. There's nothing that says they can't be a street brawler, in fact it works well that way.
One of my biggest pet peeves with D&D is the title monk. It funnels everyone into thinking you have to have some degree of holy to your background or personality when actually you just wanted to play an unarmed fighter. I played exactly this sort of drunken bar brawling character recently and every time I did something in character my DM would tell me I wasn’t being very monk like. With all the other things they’ve renamed in 2024 I wish this class had been one of them
Given the classes that get Fighting styles are Fighter, Paladin and Ranger; Ranger is a bad choice to begin with as these feats are both strength based. Fighter is okay but with Fighter having a few things based around weapon masteries, feels like it's giving up more than Paladin, who can now smite on unarmed strikes and a few other spells have been adapted too allow it too.
Overall, Monk remains the king of Pugilism, that will always be the best choice for unarmed fighting/pugilism.
My pugilist is a bugbear artificer-fighter, using the armorer artificer and echoknight from wildemount. You could easily swap out the echo knight part though.
My focus was that the armourer gives access to thunder gauntlets, which are simple weapons but to my mind, they are armoured fists. So Lug (my character) has them imbued as +1 weapons using infusions and can deal a whole bunch of hurt out every turn. I seem to recall he was fairly mild-mannered and problem solvy in a game, until the final boss. My tactic was simple but incredibly effective - he (level 8) attacked, used a shove for his first attack and used Armour of Magical Strength to win, so pushed the BBEG over. He then made his second attack, then his echo attack, then he action surged to make another 2 attacks, then the echo attacked (not limited to once per turn, but once per attack action), then he used the dual-wielder feat or fighting style (can't remember which) to attack with his off-hand. At his peak, he can make 7 attacks on a turn, dealing 1d8+6 magical thunder damage per hit. This time, he opted for 6 attacks with advantage after the shove, got 2 crits, and generally pummeled the BBEG to paste in one round.
I thought that at first too but I just kind of want my character to be more of a rough and tumble brawler, but yeah I think I should probably take at least one level in monk.
Yeah, still sounds like monk. Tavern Brawler is a good start for the aesthetic. Warrior of the Open Hand subclass will give you more options with your unarmed strike. There's nothing that says they can't be a street brawler, in fact it works well that way.
One of my biggest pet peeves with D&D is the title monk. It funnels everyone into thinking you have to have some degree of holy to your background or personality when actually you just wanted to play an unarmed fighter. I played exactly this sort of drunken bar brawling character recently and every time I did something in character my DM would tell me I wasn’t being very monk like. With all the other things they’ve renamed in 2024 I wish this class had been one of them
This is an issue with your DM. You need to have a good conversation about what you're playing and what you want. If you're only allowed to play archetypes, that will seriously limit what you can do. You should work out with your DM how YOUR fantasy can work within their world. The Monk class does not only reflect the rigid Shaolin archetype. That's why monks aren't required to be of lawful alignment anymore. I would consider Wolverine a monk (with his blades being monk weapons).
I once played a Ranger of Dorunar (wood elf realm), but the class was Fighter with the Magic Initiate (Druid) feat. I took Champion as my subclass. I played it as a guardian of the forest, bringing her skills to help the neighboring peoples. Definitely not the archetype of the Champion!
I thought that at first too but I just kind of want my character to be more of a rough and tumble brawler, but yeah I think I should probably take at least one level in monk.
Yeah, still sounds like monk. Tavern Brawler is a good start for the aesthetic. Warrior of the Open Hand subclass will give you more options with your unarmed strike. There's nothing that says they can't be a street brawler, in fact it works well that way.
One of my biggest pet peeves with D&D is the title monk. It funnels everyone into thinking you have to have some degree of holy to your background or personality when actually you just wanted to play an unarmed fighter. I played exactly this sort of drunken bar brawling character recently and every time I did something in character my DM would tell me I wasn’t being very monk like. With all the other things they’ve renamed in 2024 I wish this class had been one of them
This is an issue with your DM. You need to have a good conversation about what you're playing and what you want. If you're only allowed to play archetypes, that will seriously limit what you can do. You should work out with your DM how YOUR fantasy can work within their world. The Monk class does not only reflect the rigid Shaolin archetype. That's why monks aren't required to be of lawful alignment anymore. I would consider Wolverine a monk (with his blades being monk weapons).
I once played a Ranger of Dorunar (wood elf realm), but the class was Fighter with the Magic Initiate (Druid) feat. I took Champion as my subclass. I played it as a guardian of the forest, bringing her skills to help the neighboring peoples. Definitely not the archetype of the Champion!
I did talk it out with him in the end and get it sorted but I still think the class name is a problem and creates a lot of assumptions and baggage that can be easily avoided by making it less specific
I thought that at first too but I just kind of want my character to be more of a rough and tumble brawler, but yeah I think I should probably take at least one level in monk.
Yeah, still sounds like monk. Tavern Brawler is a good start for the aesthetic. Warrior of the Open Hand subclass will give you more options with your unarmed strike. There's nothing that says they can't be a street brawler, in fact it works well that way.
One of my biggest pet peeves with D&D is the title monk. It funnels everyone into thinking you have to have some degree of holy to your background or personality when actually you just wanted to play an unarmed fighter. I played exactly this sort of drunken bar brawling character recently and every time I did something in character my DM would tell me I wasn’t being very monk like. With all the other things they’ve renamed in 2024 I wish this class had been one of them
I kinda disagree. Monks are inherently spiritual (although I wouldn't say holy). They aren't just basic unarmed combatants; they hone both their mind and their body, and they use their Wisdom and understanding to accomplish superhuman(oid) feats. Now, that doesn't disqualify a drunken bar-brawling Monk in my book, it just means that the drunken bar-brawling Monk should have some sort of deeper spiritual understanding of things despite (or maybe somehow because) being drunken and bar-brawling. Also, if you want to talk about the real world connotations, being a monk would certainly not disqualify you from being drunken.
If you ask me, Monk shouldn't be broadened to completely lose the spiritual aspect, there should just be more good ways of being an unarmed combatant without being a Monk. Someone who wants to play an unarmed fighter should be able to play an unarmed Fighter (without worrying about bad damage or never getting to use any cool magic items).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I thought that at first too but I just kind of want my character to be more of a rough and tumble brawler, but yeah I think I should probably take at least one level in monk.
Yeah, still sounds like monk. Tavern Brawler is a good start for the aesthetic. Warrior of the Open Hand subclass will give you more options with your unarmed strike. There's nothing that says they can't be a street brawler, in fact it works well that way.
One of my biggest pet peeves with D&D is the title monk. It funnels everyone into thinking you have to have some degree of holy to your background or personality when actually you just wanted to play an unarmed fighter. I played exactly this sort of drunken bar brawling character recently and every time I did something in character my DM would tell me I wasn’t being very monk like. With all the other things they’ve renamed in 2024 I wish this class had been one of them
I kinda disagree. Monks are inherently spiritual (although I wouldn't say holy). They aren't just basic unarmed combatants; they hone both their mind and their body, and they use their Wisdom and understanding to accomplish superhuman(oid) feats. Now, that doesn't disqualify a drunken bar-brawling Monk in my book, it just means that the drunken bar-brawling Monk should have some sort of deeper spiritual understanding of things despite (or maybe somehow because) being drunken and bar-brawling. Also, if you want to talk about the real world connotations, being a monk would certainly not disqualify you from being drunken.
If you ask me, Monk shouldn't be broadened to completely lose the spiritual aspect, there should just be more good ways of being an unarmed combatant without being a Monk. Someone who wants to play an unarmed fighter should be able to play an unarmed Fighter (without worrying about bad damage or never getting to use any cool magic items).
Maybe, but also how much of your opinion is being led by the name Monk? Which is exactly my point, there’s not really a decent choice for anyone wanting a straight martial artist character except the one that basically has religion built into its name
I kinda disagree. Monks are inherently spiritual (although I wouldn't say holy). They aren't just basic unarmed combatants; they hone both their mind and their body, and they use their Wisdom and understanding to accomplish superhuman(oid) feats. Now, that doesn't disqualify a drunken bar-brawling Monk in my book, it just means that the drunken bar-brawling Monk should have some sort of deeper spiritual understanding of things despite (or maybe somehow because) being drunken and bar-brawling. Also, if you want to talk about the real world connotations, being a monk would certainly not disqualify you from being drunken.
If you ask me, Monk shouldn't be broadened to completely lose the spiritual aspect, there should just be more good ways of being an unarmed combatant without being a Monk. Someone who wants to play an unarmed fighter should be able to play an unarmed Fighter (without worrying about bad damage or never getting to use any cool magic items).
Wisdom doesn't have to be connected to spirituality - it is also street-smarts, shrewdness, insight, and understanding. Tapping in to your inner strength and focus can be a product of discipline and practice. A kid growing up on the streets could learn this the hard way and become a hardened fighter, using his experience to anticipate the attacks of others and know how to use his body as a weapon. It may not fit the Monk archetype, but it certainly fits the Monk mechanics and functionality.
Archetypes exist, and that's fine. They can provide inspiration or ideas. Enforcing archetypes stifles creativity.
I kinda disagree. Monks are inherently spiritual (although I wouldn't say holy). They aren't just basic unarmed combatants; they hone both their mind and their body, and they use their Wisdom and understanding to accomplish superhuman(oid) feats. Now, that doesn't disqualify a drunken bar-brawling Monk in my book, it just means that the drunken bar-brawling Monk should have some sort of deeper spiritual understanding of things despite (or maybe somehow because) being drunken and bar-brawling. Also, if you want to talk about the real world connotations, being a monk would certainly not disqualify you from being drunken.
If you ask me, Monk shouldn't be broadened to completely lose the spiritual aspect, there should just be more good ways of being an unarmed combatant without being a Monk. Someone who wants to play an unarmed fighter should be able to play an unarmed Fighter (without worrying about bad damage or never getting to use any cool magic items).
Wisdom doesn't have to be connected to spirituality - it is also street-smarts, shrewdness, insight, and understanding. Tapping in to your inner strength and focus can be a product of discipline and practice. A kid growing up on the streets could learn this the hard way and become a hardened fighter, using his experience to anticipate the attacks of others and know how to use his body as a weapon. It may not fit the Monk archetype, but it certainly fits the Monk mechanics and functionality.
Archetypes exist, and that's fine. They can provide inspiration or ideas. Enforcing archetypes stifles creativity.
Absolutely. I probably didn't phrase it very well, but I consider enough of the right kind of street smarts to be a "deeper spiritual understanding of things."
I thought that at first too but I just kind of want my character to be more of a rough and tumble brawler, but yeah I think I should probably take at least one level in monk.
Yeah, still sounds like monk. Tavern Brawler is a good start for the aesthetic. Warrior of the Open Hand subclass will give you more options with your unarmed strike. There's nothing that says they can't be a street brawler, in fact it works well that way.
One of my biggest pet peeves with D&D is the title monk. It funnels everyone into thinking you have to have some degree of holy to your background or personality when actually you just wanted to play an unarmed fighter. I played exactly this sort of drunken bar brawling character recently and every time I did something in character my DM would tell me I wasn’t being very monk like. With all the other things they’ve renamed in 2024 I wish this class had been one of them
I kinda disagree. Monks are inherently spiritual (although I wouldn't say holy). They aren't just basic unarmed combatants; they hone both their mind and their body, and they use their Wisdom and understanding to accomplish superhuman(oid) feats. Now, that doesn't disqualify a drunken bar-brawling Monk in my book, it just means that the drunken bar-brawling Monk should have some sort of deeper spiritual understanding of things despite (or maybe somehow because) being drunken and bar-brawling. Also, if you want to talk about the real world connotations, being a monk would certainly not disqualify you from being drunken.
If you ask me, Monk shouldn't be broadened to completely lose the spiritual aspect, there should just be more good ways of being an unarmed combatant without being a Monk. Someone who wants to play an unarmed fighter should be able to play an unarmed Fighter (without worrying about bad damage or never getting to use any cool magic items).
Maybe, but also how much of your opinion is being led by the name Monk? Which is exactly my point, there’s not really a decent choice for anyone wanting a straight martial artist character except the one that basically has religion built into its name
Very little of my opinion is based on the name of the class. It's based on the name of the class, the flavor of the class, and the mechanics of the class. So, y'know, the whole class.
Yeah, better and less religiously/spiritually connotative martial artist characters should be possible, I'd just make it possible somewhere other than Monk. Monk has its own thing going on, and stripping that away from it would be stripping away the class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I kinda disagree. Monks are inherently spiritual (although I wouldn't say holy). They aren't just basic unarmed combatants; they hone both their mind and their body, and they use their Wisdom and understanding to accomplish superhuman(oid) feats. Now, that doesn't disqualify a drunken bar-brawling Monk in my book, it just means that the drunken bar-brawling Monk should have some sort of deeper spiritual understanding of things despite (or maybe somehow because) being drunken and bar-brawling. Also, if you want to talk about the real world connotations, being a monk would certainly not disqualify you from being drunken.
If you ask me, Monk shouldn't be broadened to completely lose the spiritual aspect, there should just be more good ways of being an unarmed combatant without being a Monk. Someone who wants to play an unarmed fighter should be able to play an unarmed Fighter (without worrying about bad damage or never getting to use any cool magic items).
Wisdom doesn't have to be connected to spirituality - it is also street-smarts, shrewdness, insight, and understanding. Tapping in to your inner strength and focus can be a product of discipline and practice. A kid growing up on the streets could learn this the hard way and become a hardened fighter, using his experience to anticipate the attacks of others and know how to use his body as a weapon. It may not fit the Monk archetype, but it certainly fits the Monk mechanics and functionality.
Archetypes exist, and that's fine. They can provide inspiration or ideas. Enforcing archetypes stifles creativity.
Absolutely. I probably didn't phrase it very well, but I consider enough of the right kind of street smarts to be a "deeper spiritual understanding of things."
I thought that at first too but I just kind of want my character to be more of a rough and tumble brawler, but yeah I think I should probably take at least one level in monk.
Yeah, still sounds like monk. Tavern Brawler is a good start for the aesthetic. Warrior of the Open Hand subclass will give you more options with your unarmed strike. There's nothing that says they can't be a street brawler, in fact it works well that way.
One of my biggest pet peeves with D&D is the title monk. It funnels everyone into thinking you have to have some degree of holy to your background or personality when actually you just wanted to play an unarmed fighter. I played exactly this sort of drunken bar brawling character recently and every time I did something in character my DM would tell me I wasn’t being very monk like. With all the other things they’ve renamed in 2024 I wish this class had been one of them
I kinda disagree. Monks are inherently spiritual (although I wouldn't say holy). They aren't just basic unarmed combatants; they hone both their mind and their body, and they use their Wisdom and understanding to accomplish superhuman(oid) feats. Now, that doesn't disqualify a drunken bar-brawling Monk in my book, it just means that the drunken bar-brawling Monk should have some sort of deeper spiritual understanding of things despite (or maybe somehow because) being drunken and bar-brawling. Also, if you want to talk about the real world connotations, being a monk would certainly not disqualify you from being drunken.
If you ask me, Monk shouldn't be broadened to completely lose the spiritual aspect, there should just be more good ways of being an unarmed combatant without being a Monk. Someone who wants to play an unarmed fighter should be able to play an unarmed Fighter (without worrying about bad damage or never getting to use any cool magic items).
Maybe, but also how much of your opinion is being led by the name Monk? Which is exactly my point, there’s not really a decent choice for anyone wanting a straight martial artist character except the one that basically has religion built into its name
Very little of my opinion is based on the name of the class. It's based on the name of the class, the flavor of the class, and the mechanics of the class. So, y'know, the whole class.
Yeah, better and less religiously/spiritually connotative martial artist characters should be possible, I'd just make it possible somewhere other than Monk. Monk has its own thing going on, and stripping that away from it would be stripping away the class.
I definitely agree, but certain subclasses are more fit for some characters than others. I was thinking of homebrewing the Drunken Master Monk and Multiclassing with Barbarian to get a completely different flavor of character. So I think if you want a specific type of character, it depends on the subclass/multiclass you choose.
Classes need to be different enough from other classes to justify their existence. If you take the mysticism out of the monk, it's just a fighter with Martial Arts. It's not different enough to be its own class.
Between a Fighter with unarmed strike support and a monk with generous reflavoring, you can generally make any unarmed combatant work. I think people greatly underestimate the power of describing your actions and mechanics at the table.
I wanted to make a pugilist character, but whenever I search up guides on it they all just show me a homebrew class. I really just want the simple, run of the mill, non-expanded (except for MMoM and the stuff you get for free) pugilist. Any ideas?*
(Also, I already am aware there is a pugilist battle master combination but I don't have Tasha's so unfortunately that's a no-go)
*I would prefer you to keep the levels under 5, multiclassing is okay.
Roll for Initiative: [roll]1d20+7[/roll]
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
Monk?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I thought that at first too but I just kind of want my character to be more of a rough and tumble brawler, but yeah I think I should probably take at least one level in monk.
Roll for Initiative: [roll]1d20+7[/roll]
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
The Tavern Brawler feat would let your unarmed strikes do 1d4. You could combine that with Barbarian or Fighter. There's also a Fighting Style that lets your unarmed strikes effectively be Versatile 1d6 (1d8) weapons, but I think it's in Tasha's.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Yeah, still sounds like monk. Tavern Brawler is a good start for the aesthetic. Warrior of the Open Hand subclass will give you more options with your unarmed strike. There's nothing that says they can't be a street brawler, in fact it works well that way.
This is it^^^
You want the unarmed fighting style. It’s also in the ‘24 PHB. You punch for a d6 — a d8 if you don’t use another weapon or a shield. And you do a d4 auto damage to anyone you’re grappling.
The ‘24 Goliath which can grow to size large, or a rune knight, can really help with the grappling.
And see about trying to get an Eldritch Claw tattoo which lets your attack count as magical.
You won’t be as good at unarmed combat as a monk, but that’s to be expected. And you can roll around in full plate punching people.
One of my biggest pet peeves with D&D is the title monk. It funnels everyone into thinking you have to have some degree of holy to your background or personality when actually you just wanted to play an unarmed fighter. I played exactly this sort of drunken bar brawling character recently and every time I did something in character my DM would tell me I wasn’t being very monk like. With all the other things they’ve renamed in 2024 I wish this class had been one of them
There is a new fighting style, Unarmed Fighting, mix that with Tavern Brawler as an origin feat then you might do okay.
Given the classes that get Fighting styles are Fighter, Paladin and Ranger; Ranger is a bad choice to begin with as these feats are both strength based. Fighter is okay but with Fighter having a few things based around weapon masteries, feels like it's giving up more than Paladin, who can now smite on unarmed strikes and a few other spells have been adapted too allow it too.
Overall, Monk remains the king of Pugilism, that will always be the best choice for unarmed fighting/pugilism.
My pugilist is a bugbear artificer-fighter, using the armorer artificer and echoknight from wildemount. You could easily swap out the echo knight part though.
My focus was that the armourer gives access to thunder gauntlets, which are simple weapons but to my mind, they are armoured fists. So Lug (my character) has them imbued as +1 weapons using infusions and can deal a whole bunch of hurt out every turn. I seem to recall he was fairly mild-mannered and problem solvy in a game, until the final boss. My tactic was simple but incredibly effective - he (level 8) attacked, used a shove for his first attack and used Armour of Magical Strength to win, so pushed the BBEG over. He then made his second attack, then his echo attack, then he action surged to make another 2 attacks, then the echo attacked (not limited to once per turn, but once per attack action), then he used the dual-wielder feat or fighting style (can't remember which) to attack with his off-hand. At his peak, he can make 7 attacks on a turn, dealing 1d8+6 magical thunder damage per hit. This time, he opted for 6 attacks with advantage after the shove, got 2 crits, and generally pummeled the BBEG to paste in one round.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
This is an issue with your DM. You need to have a good conversation about what you're playing and what you want. If you're only allowed to play archetypes, that will seriously limit what you can do. You should work out with your DM how YOUR fantasy can work within their world. The Monk class does not only reflect the rigid Shaolin archetype. That's why monks aren't required to be of lawful alignment anymore. I would consider Wolverine a monk (with his blades being monk weapons).
I once played a Ranger of Dorunar (wood elf realm), but the class was Fighter with the Magic Initiate (Druid) feat. I took Champion as my subclass. I played it as a guardian of the forest, bringing her skills to help the neighboring peoples. Definitely not the archetype of the Champion!
I did talk it out with him in the end and get it sorted but I still think the class name is a problem and creates a lot of assumptions and baggage that can be easily avoided by making it less specific
I kinda disagree. Monks are inherently spiritual (although I wouldn't say holy). They aren't just basic unarmed combatants; they hone both their mind and their body, and they use their Wisdom and understanding to accomplish superhuman(oid) feats. Now, that doesn't disqualify a drunken bar-brawling Monk in my book, it just means that the drunken bar-brawling Monk should have some sort of deeper spiritual understanding of things despite (or maybe somehow because) being drunken and bar-brawling. Also, if you want to talk about the real world connotations, being a monk would certainly not disqualify you from being drunken.
If you ask me, Monk shouldn't be broadened to completely lose the spiritual aspect, there should just be more good ways of being an unarmed combatant without being a Monk. Someone who wants to play an unarmed fighter should be able to play an unarmed Fighter (without worrying about bad damage or never getting to use any cool magic items).
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Maybe, but also how much of your opinion is being led by the name Monk? Which is exactly my point, there’s not really a decent choice for anyone wanting a straight martial artist character except the one that basically has religion built into its name
Wisdom doesn't have to be connected to spirituality - it is also street-smarts, shrewdness, insight, and understanding. Tapping in to your inner strength and focus can be a product of discipline and practice. A kid growing up on the streets could learn this the hard way and become a hardened fighter, using his experience to anticipate the attacks of others and know how to use his body as a weapon. It may not fit the Monk archetype, but it certainly fits the Monk mechanics and functionality.
Archetypes exist, and that's fine. They can provide inspiration or ideas. Enforcing archetypes stifles creativity.
Absolutely. I probably didn't phrase it very well, but I consider enough of the right kind of street smarts to be a "deeper spiritual understanding of things."
Very little of my opinion is based on the name of the class. It's based on the name of the class, the flavor of the class, and the mechanics of the class. So, y'know, the whole class.
Yeah, better and less religiously/spiritually connotative martial artist characters should be possible, I'd just make it possible somewhere other than Monk. Monk has its own thing going on, and stripping that away from it would be stripping away the class.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I definitely agree, but certain subclasses are more fit for some characters than others. I was thinking of homebrewing the Drunken Master Monk and Multiclassing with Barbarian to get a completely different flavor of character. So I think if you want a specific type of character, it depends on the subclass/multiclass you choose.
Roll for Initiative: [roll]1d20+7[/roll]
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
Monk would be a good subclass of brawler (renamed monk), in my opinion.
That’s a you and your table issue. My table goes straight to David Carradine and Shaolin monks. A name change accomplishes nothing imo.
Classes need to be different enough from other classes to justify their existence. If you take the mysticism out of the monk, it's just a fighter with Martial Arts. It's not different enough to be its own class.
Between a Fighter with unarmed strike support and a monk with generous reflavoring, you can generally make any unarmed combatant work. I think people greatly underestimate the power of describing your actions and mechanics at the table.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
monk/fighter?
Monk/rogue?
monk/barbarian?
or perhaps even......
monk/rogue/barbarian?
grappler feat as well in any case?
Dungeon Master: Killing your charcters since 1974
Timeless, Boundless, Ruler of The Spire of Creation