So basically, I want to make a kobold fighter that uses the Unarmed fighting style with a background of being a pit fighter or something. Mechanically, I know it won't be very efficient but D&D isn't just about rolling damage for me. I just want to know what people think about it and if as a DM you'd allow it. I've played with a DM before that said he wouldn't allow stuff like that, where the character is the exact opposite of what the race normally can do. Like a wizard orc or a barb gnome.
Edit: For the issue of being small I plan on being the Rune Knight fighter to be able to grow to large size and eventually even bigger.
It would be allowed, but with a lot of drawbacks. Small size would limit your grappling ability, which is about the ONLY benefit to Unarmed style. I am a big "anti-unarmed fighting" guy, as it holds the character back so severely, unless the character is going for the whole "wrestler/grappler/controller" role. Large races (Goliath, Firbolg, Orc) can often pull it off by stacking feats in, but outside of the grappler build, it's not much use to the rest of the team. If you don't mind being almost dead weight to your party, it should be ok.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I see no reason why the character shouldn't be allowed. Kobolds are small so they would only be able to grapple medium creatures or smaller and you'd be giving up at least one ability point from the racial bonus over other races. However, the kobold does have pack tactics to at least offset the sunlight sensitivity and otherwise be attacking with advantage.
On a class that can make a lot of attacks like a fighter or a monk, that can help offset some of the disadvantage of having the smaller damage die. It can help a barbarian to avoid reckless attacks some and taking more damage.
With a sword and board character, you'd only be dropping a die size from longsword to the armed version of unarmed fighting style and the 1d4 per round on grappled creatures can help with that.
The idea of having this crazed little dragon-like creature that everyone expects to perhaps run away that runs up and jumps on someone, screaming in their face keeping the creature from properly seeing what is going on while raining down punches, kicks, elbows, headbutts, and whatever other blows makes for an entertaining story for me. Once the creature gets focused on the kobold and is either focusing on the kobold to try to get free or pummeling the kobold back, the kobold can grovel beg and cower to give its allies advantage on their attacks on creatures within 10 ft of the kobold that can see it. Seems like a decent way for a sturdier class to provide a lot of support particularly if they can tank the most dangerous creature this way.
It could be an instance where a fighter takes fighting initiate or goes champion to pick up and additional fighting style or grabs 2 levels of paladin or Ranger. This would allow the kobold to have a fall back for when they can grapple or to pick up something like blind fighting and have some drop darkness on them while they are tanking the creature that they can't grapple. Going with something like Rune Knight could help you overcome the size disadvantage (or a well timed enlarge/reduce from someone else). This is before getting into any of the feats that were mentioned before.
So basically, I want to make a kobold fighter that uses the Unarmed fighting style with a background of being a pit fighter or something. Mechanically, I know it won't be very efficient but D&D isn't just about rolling damage for me. I just want to know what people think about it and if as a DM you'd allow it. I've played with a DM before that said he wouldn't allow stuff like that, where the character is the exact opposite of what the race normally can do. Like a wizard orc or a barb gnome.
As Falwith said, there are some mechanical drawbacks you'll want to avoid with this concept, but there are ways to do it. I'm not a big optimization guy either, but there's a wide range between "perfectly tuned DPS machine" and "struggles to contribute in combat" that you can aim for. If I were your DM, I'd suggest one of these two options:
Solution 1: Rune Knight. Small-sized grappling stops being an option at all the moment you run into a Large creature (which would have put a definite ceiling on your pit fighting career, unless it was a league for pixies and other Tiny fey and you were basically their Andre the Giant, which now that it's popped into my head would be a pretty great backstory and I'll probably use it myself at some point) but if your kobold can suddenly get Large too when necessary, there isn't much you can't put in a headlock
Solution 2: Forget fighter with Unarmed style and go monk. Sure, you still won't be a great grappler, but you can be a very effective unarmed combatant regardless of size. Ascendant Dragon is maybe the obvious subclass choice for a kobold, but if this is more of a fun build, stuff like Drunken Master or Astral Self (all kinds of ways to reflavor those extra arms) could be a blast
Of course, if I were your DM I'd also be using the updated MMM version or a homebrewed version of kobold, since I think that Groveling feature from Volo's is just white hot garbage
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It would be allowed, but with a lot of drawbacks. Small size would limit your grappling ability, which is about the ONLY benefit to Unarmed style. I am a big "anti-unarmed fighting" guy, as it holds the character back so severely, unless the character is going for the whole "wrestler/grappler/controller" role. Large races (Goliath, Firbolg, Orc) can often pull it off by stacking feats in, but outside of the grappler build, it's not much use to the rest of the team. If you don't mind being almost dead weight to your party, it should be ok.
It should be mentioned that the Goliath, Firbolg, Orc, Bugbear, and other similar races aren't large in size, but still medium. They have powerful build, which can be interpreted as being a large creature for grappling purposes depending on how your DM looks at the following sentence: You count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push, drag, or lift. That doesn't actually make the character a large creature and the DM might rightfully not allow you to grapple a huge or larger creature simply due to the creature's size and not due to its weight (similar to some items like a big screen TV needing to be carried by two people because they are unwieldy even if they aren't particularly heavy).
So basically, I want to make a kobold fighter that uses the Unarmed fighting style with a background of being a pit fighter or something. Mechanically, I know it won't be very efficient but D&D isn't just about rolling damage for me. I just want to know what people think about it and if as a DM you'd allow it. I've played with a DM before that said he wouldn't allow stuff like that, where the character is the exact opposite of what the race normally can do. Like a wizard orc or a barb gnome.
As Falwith said, there are some mechanical drawbacks you'll want to avoid with this concept, but there are ways to do it. I'm not a big optimization guy either, but there's a wide range between "perfectly tuned DPS machine" and "struggles to contribute in combat" that you can aim for. If I were your DM, I'd suggest one of these two options:
Solution 1: Rune Knight. Small-sized grappling stops being an option at all the moment you run into a Large creature (which would have put a definite ceiling on your pit fighting career, unless it was a league for pixies and other Tiny fey and you were basically their Andre the Giant, which now that it's popped into my head would be a pretty great backstory and I'll probably use it myself at some point) but if your kobold can suddenly get Large too when necessary, there isn't much you can't put in a headlock
Solution 2: Forget fighter with Unarmed style and go monk. Sure, you still won't be a great grappler, but you can be a very effective unarmed combatant regardless of size. Ascendant Dragon is maybe the obvious subclass choice for a kobold, but if this is more of a fun build, stuff like Drunken Master or Astral Self (all kinds of ways to reflavor those extra arms) could be a blast
Of course, if I were your DM I'd also be using the updated MMM version or a homebrewed version of kobold, since I think that Groveling feature from Volo's is just white hot garbage
I would slightly disagree with not being able to be a great grappler type using a Monk. You could go for Strength, though it makes you crazy MAD and in theory, going Open Hand would make you more "grapple-y" with FoB being able to knock prone, push back or simply steal a reaction. I play an Open Hand Monk and there's not a size restriction on creatures you can Prone, lol, so my Air Genasi Monk has knocked a Hill Giant Prone. Going Monk also means at level 6 creatures with resistance to non-magical damage are not an issue for you to still damage. Low Strength and HP are the downsides to Monks, but mechanically, they can do a lot of the things you might want your Grappler to do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I've played with a DM before that said he wouldn't allow stuff like that, where the character is the exact opposite of what the race normally can do. Like a wizard orc or a barb gnome.
Kordak Foesmiter wants to know “What the farg is wrong with an Orc Wizard pinkskin?!?”
Personally, I absolutely LOVE when players take the race and make a class you rarely hear of. Using racial boosts to offset what is often a dump stat for the class is creative and makes for a more interesting character IMO. Non-standard roles are one of the greatest beauties of D&D in my view. I have a Goliath Wizard I am itching to play as one example.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I agree with AntonSirius... the easiest way to make this work is just to go Rune Knight. It eliminates the Small-size problems during combat, and even gives you advantage on Strength Checks to help with grapples. I'd grab the Tavern Brawler feat to get that bonus action grapple, so once you're already enlarged you'll get all your attacks per round plus grapple to deal extra damage through your unarmed fighting... between the damage boost from Rune Knight plus automatic grapple damage you won't fall as far behind in damage compared to a more min/maxed character despite your kind of goofy character concept. Plus the Runes themselves provide great passive boosts and grant you limited use game-changer abilities.
If you want to avoid having any magic abilities, because you just want to focus on being just a tough fighter guy I'd say your best bet is to go Battlemaster. The obvious maneuver to focus on as a grappler is Trip Attack... A grappled opponent has a movement speed of zero, and a creature has to use half its movement to get up from prone. Breaking a grapple is a full action unto itself... basically it gives you the means to pin an opponent and just hammer them with unarmed blows at advantage, and they have to decide if they want to keep fighting back at disadvantage, or break the grapple and use up their full action, so they can't disengage, and even if they try to walk away they can't get far and you'll get an opportunity attack against them.
Of course, this only works on Medium or smaller creatures. Of course, Medium creatures are probably the most common, and you can pull off a similar trick as a Rune Knight, you just need to spend one of your attacks on a shove action.
1) GM says I will not allow this. "This" can be disallowed for multiple reasons in their campaign and or game, even if it is a valid option in the rules. Also the GM knows what is to come in the adventure and your idea is very problematic.
2) Race X cannot do/be Y: Again this can be because of setting material. An old school example you use D&D are your rule framework in your homebrew setting and in that setting all evil races turn to stone in sunlight.
Options use another small race for your build, find out more what the GM's reasons are for saying no and try to provide the GM with time to think about your proposition and idea and not force decisions on the spot.
I also think Rune Knight would be a good route to go. If you did want to try monk to grapple, Astral Self would be my pick. Get your WIS up, take athletics as one of your skills, then at level 4 take skill expert to get expertise in athletics. With the arms active you will be using your WIS modifier + two times your proficiency bonus to grapple with your regular arms/hands. Then you beat your opponents with your astral arms.
Ignoring mechanical efficiency, since you said you aren't that bothered about that, here would be my take as a DM:
1) I would absolutely allow it - players get to choose what they want to play, provided it comes from an official source it's cool.
2) I wouldn't enjoy it at all. A little punching kobold would bring up mental images of Scrappy Do. Monks I can just about get on board with; I envisage their attacks being mystically Ki empowered, like Iron Fist in the MCU. But straight up non-mystical punching when you could be wielding a sword is just impossible to justify from any perspective other than "I want to." For me this is immersion breaking.
But (2) is just me and maybe you're playing in a light hearted campaign and maybe your fellow players will enjoy the scrappy little fella. No two tables are the same.
I've played with a DM before that said he wouldn't allow stuff like that, where the character is the exact opposite of what the race normally can do. Like a wizard orc or a barb gnome.
The only time I've ever made such restrictions is on shorter story ideas in which specific races/classes are restricted because the nature of the world.
I've played with a DM before that said he wouldn't allow stuff like that, where the character is the exact opposite of what the race normally can do. Like a wizard orc or a barb gnome.
The only time I've ever made such restrictions is on shorter story ideas in which specific races/classes are restricted because the nature of the world.
I agree with Animorte, only if it is absolutely unfeasible or if it breaks the world ( and even then thats not very good design) should a class race combo of cultures in that world be banned. Half orcs make more than decent wizards because they have things like brutal critical and some abilities that mitigate the wizard's weaknesses
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
A Kobold Fighter is fine. The Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse version that has a +2 and a +1 ability score bonus that you can put anywhere, but has the tradeoff of losing Pack Tactics to drop the Sunlight Sensitivity, so you can use it for a strength-based Fighter if you want really well. And like others have said, the Rune Knight would make you really good at Grappling.
If you're not focusing on Grappling but want to do unarmed fighting, you can go with a Dex build, and you might consider the Monk, with the scaling damage dice for your unarmed attacks. I have one character that's a Kobold Shadow Monk with the Urchin background, who's the Rogue facsimile for the party.
I don't see why you couldn't do that narratively. Doesn't seem like a mechanically viable character to me, but if I were your DM, and you wanted to play a character like that, I wouldn't stop you.
However, to play those types of characters that are mechanically ineffective, I would recommend playing other RPGs. DnD is not designed to be a narrative game (as much as there are people who insist on it), but its design is focused on luddistic aspects (such as what you mention about rolling damage dice). I love narrative games, but I know what I'm playing when I play DnD. That said, everyone plays as they please, of course. I just don't see much point in it as there are millions of games that are focused on aspects other than those proposed by DnD.
I don't see why you couldn't do that narratively. Doesn't seem like a mechanically viable character to me, but if I were your DM, and you wanted to play a character like that, I wouldn't stop you.
However, to play those types of characters that are mechanically ineffective, I would recommend playing other RPGs. DnD is not designed to be a narrative game (as much as there are people who insist on it), but its design is focused on luddistic aspects (such as what you mention about rolling damage dice). I love narrative games, but I know what I'm playing when I play DnD. That said, everyone plays as they please, of course. I just don't see much point in it as there are millions of games that are focused on aspects other than those proposed by DnD.
Why not mechanically viable? Kobolds have no restrictions on STR so getting that to 20 is no different than any other character. They can do 1d8+STR on each attack plus 1d4 if they grapple a medium or smaller creature. Without a shield their AC would be 2 less than I’d they did use a shield. And the only other issue is resistance to B, P, S damage from non-magical attacks. No different if you are in a low magic campaign. So I don’t see how it’s not mechanically viable. Optimized? Certainly not, but viable. I think so.
I think a fair number of us saying it's not ideal are simply ensuring the OP realizes this plan will not be a damage dealer on par with the others in the party as they level. Yes, 1d8 is decent for an unarmed strike, but it's non magical, so around level 4-5 parties often start seeing these foes resistant to non-magical damage. Also, 1d8 sounds a lot less appealing when comparing to 2d6 or 1d12, which could easily be magical. That said, I think some folks are using the term viable when they mean optimal (or at least close)
Again, it wouldn't be a useless character, IMO, but it certainly isn't going to be the one folks count on to take out a threat. Controlling where the threat is coming from, or able to go to isn't insignificant, so it should be able to contribute in fights that way. Not something I, myself would try, but it's not my table or character, so my opinion is just a review of mechanics. I would personally lean towards a Monk and look into a build that would also allow some grapple type tactics. I believe I mentioned earlier how a few of the Open Hand techniques accomplish much the same as grapples do, with all the other perks a Monk gets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I would agree cautioning the OP that unarmed fighting isn’t optimal, even for a monk who will probably use a weapon for some of their attacks. Monk has other means of offsetting the downsides.
And depending on the subclass of fighter an unarmed build can do ok compared to a sword and board fighter (I mentioned the 2 less AC due to no shield if they want the d8). But you and others are correct when comparing them to a GWM, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Sharpshooter feated-up PC they will be behind. I’m not trying to dispute that.
Like so much else, it depends on the table, the player, and the DM, wether this kind of character will be fun to play or just disappointing
I don't see why you couldn't do that narratively. Doesn't seem like a mechanically viable character to me, but if I were your DM, and you wanted to play a character like that, I wouldn't stop you.
However, to play those types of characters that are mechanically ineffective, I would recommend playing other RPGs. DnD is not designed to be a narrative game (as much as there are people who insist on it), but its design is focused on luddistic aspects (such as what you mention about rolling damage dice). I love narrative games, but I know what I'm playing when I play DnD. That said, everyone plays as they please, of course. I just don't see much point in it as there are millions of games that are focused on aspects other than those proposed by DnD.
Why not mechanically viable? Kobolds have no restrictions on STR so getting that to 20 is no different than any other character. They can do 1d8+STR on each attack plus 1d4 if they grapple a medium or smaller creature. Without a shield their AC would be 2 less than I’d they did use a shield. And the only other issue is resistance to B, P, S damage from non-magical attacks. No different if you are in a low magic campaign. So I don’t see how it’s not mechanically viable. Optimized? Certainly not, but viable. I think so.
Well, ok, you are right. It's not that it's not viable, it's that it's not optimal.
Actually, if we get picky, any build is technically feasible. Even when using fixed ASIS, and you don't get the increment you need.
But you're right, what I meant is that it's not optimal. Especially for the size.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So basically, I want to make a kobold fighter that uses the Unarmed fighting style with a background of being a pit fighter or something. Mechanically, I know it won't be very efficient but D&D isn't just about rolling damage for me. I just want to know what people think about it and if as a DM you'd allow it. I've played with a DM before that said he wouldn't allow stuff like that, where the character is the exact opposite of what the race normally can do. Like a wizard orc or a barb gnome.
Edit: For the issue of being small I plan on being the Rune Knight fighter to be able to grow to large size and eventually even bigger.
It would be allowed, but with a lot of drawbacks. Small size would limit your grappling ability, which is about the ONLY benefit to Unarmed style. I am a big "anti-unarmed fighting" guy, as it holds the character back so severely, unless the character is going for the whole "wrestler/grappler/controller" role. Large races (Goliath, Firbolg, Orc) can often pull it off by stacking feats in, but outside of the grappler build, it's not much use to the rest of the team. If you don't mind being almost dead weight to your party, it should be ok.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I see no reason why the character shouldn't be allowed. Kobolds are small so they would only be able to grapple medium creatures or smaller and you'd be giving up at least one ability point from the racial bonus over other races. However, the kobold does have pack tactics to at least offset the sunlight sensitivity and otherwise be attacking with advantage.
On a class that can make a lot of attacks like a fighter or a monk, that can help offset some of the disadvantage of having the smaller damage die. It can help a barbarian to avoid reckless attacks some and taking more damage.
With a sword and board character, you'd only be dropping a die size from longsword to the armed version of unarmed fighting style and the 1d4 per round on grappled creatures can help with that.
The idea of having this crazed little dragon-like creature that everyone expects to perhaps run away that runs up and jumps on someone, screaming in their face keeping the creature from properly seeing what is going on while raining down punches, kicks, elbows, headbutts, and whatever other blows makes for an entertaining story for me. Once the creature gets focused on the kobold and is either focusing on the kobold to try to get free or pummeling the kobold back, the kobold can grovel beg and cower to give its allies advantage on their attacks on creatures within 10 ft of the kobold that can see it. Seems like a decent way for a sturdier class to provide a lot of support particularly if they can tank the most dangerous creature this way.
It could be an instance where a fighter takes fighting initiate or goes champion to pick up and additional fighting style or grabs 2 levels of paladin or Ranger. This would allow the kobold to have a fall back for when they can grapple or to pick up something like blind fighting and have some drop darkness on them while they are tanking the creature that they can't grapple. Going with something like Rune Knight could help you overcome the size disadvantage (or a well timed enlarge/reduce from someone else). This is before getting into any of the feats that were mentioned before.
As Falwith said, there are some mechanical drawbacks you'll want to avoid with this concept, but there are ways to do it. I'm not a big optimization guy either, but there's a wide range between "perfectly tuned DPS machine" and "struggles to contribute in combat" that you can aim for. If I were your DM, I'd suggest one of these two options:
Solution 1: Rune Knight. Small-sized grappling stops being an option at all the moment you run into a Large creature (which would have put a definite ceiling on your pit fighting career, unless it was a league for pixies and other Tiny fey and you were basically their Andre the Giant, which now that it's popped into my head would be a pretty great backstory and I'll probably use it myself at some point) but if your kobold can suddenly get Large too when necessary, there isn't much you can't put in a headlock
Solution 2: Forget fighter with Unarmed style and go monk. Sure, you still won't be a great grappler, but you can be a very effective unarmed combatant regardless of size. Ascendant Dragon is maybe the obvious subclass choice for a kobold, but if this is more of a fun build, stuff like Drunken Master or Astral Self (all kinds of ways to reflavor those extra arms) could be a blast
Of course, if I were your DM I'd also be using the updated MMM version or a homebrewed version of kobold, since I think that Groveling feature from Volo's is just white hot garbage
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It should be mentioned that the Goliath, Firbolg, Orc, Bugbear, and other similar races aren't large in size, but still medium. They have powerful build, which can be interpreted as being a large creature for grappling purposes depending on how your DM looks at the following sentence: You count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push, drag, or lift. That doesn't actually make the character a large creature and the DM might rightfully not allow you to grapple a huge or larger creature simply due to the creature's size and not due to its weight (similar to some items like a big screen TV needing to be carried by two people because they are unwieldy even if they aren't particularly heavy).
I would slightly disagree with not being able to be a great grappler type using a Monk. You could go for Strength, though it makes you crazy MAD and in theory, going Open Hand would make you more "grapple-y" with FoB being able to knock prone, push back or simply steal a reaction. I play an Open Hand Monk and there's not a size restriction on creatures you can Prone, lol, so my Air Genasi Monk has knocked a Hill Giant Prone. Going Monk also means at level 6 creatures with resistance to non-magical damage are not an issue for you to still damage. Low Strength and HP are the downsides to Monks, but mechanically, they can do a lot of the things you might want your Grappler to do.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Kordak Foesmiter wants to know “What the farg is wrong with an Orc Wizard pinkskin?!?”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Personally, I absolutely LOVE when players take the race and make a class you rarely hear of. Using racial boosts to offset what is often a dump stat for the class is creative and makes for a more interesting character IMO. Non-standard roles are one of the greatest beauties of D&D in my view. I have a Goliath Wizard I am itching to play as one example.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I agree with AntonSirius... the easiest way to make this work is just to go Rune Knight. It eliminates the Small-size problems during combat, and even gives you advantage on Strength Checks to help with grapples. I'd grab the Tavern Brawler feat to get that bonus action grapple, so once you're already enlarged you'll get all your attacks per round plus grapple to deal extra damage through your unarmed fighting... between the damage boost from Rune Knight plus automatic grapple damage you won't fall as far behind in damage compared to a more min/maxed character despite your kind of goofy character concept. Plus the Runes themselves provide great passive boosts and grant you limited use game-changer abilities.
If you want to avoid having any magic abilities, because you just want to focus on being just a tough fighter guy I'd say your best bet is to go Battlemaster. The obvious maneuver to focus on as a grappler is Trip Attack... A grappled opponent has a movement speed of zero, and a creature has to use half its movement to get up from prone. Breaking a grapple is a full action unto itself... basically it gives you the means to pin an opponent and just hammer them with unarmed blows at advantage, and they have to decide if they want to keep fighting back at disadvantage, or break the grapple and use up their full action, so they can't disengage, and even if they try to walk away they can't get far and you'll get an opportunity attack against them.
Of course, this only works on Medium or smaller creatures. Of course, Medium creatures are probably the most common, and you can pull off a similar trick as a Rune Knight, you just need to spend one of your attacks on a shove action.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I see a couple of issues:
1) GM says I will not allow this. "This" can be disallowed for multiple reasons in their campaign and or game, even if it is a valid option in the rules. Also the GM knows what is to come in the adventure and your idea is very problematic.
2) Race X cannot do/be Y: Again this can be because of setting material. An old school example you use D&D are your rule framework in your homebrew setting and in that setting all evil races turn to stone in sunlight.
Options use another small race for your build, find out more what the GM's reasons are for saying no and try to provide the GM with time to think about your proposition and idea and not force decisions on the spot.
I also think Rune Knight would be a good route to go. If you did want to try monk to grapple, Astral Self would be my pick. Get your WIS up, take athletics as one of your skills, then at level 4 take skill expert to get expertise in athletics. With the arms active you will be using your WIS modifier + two times your proficiency bonus to grapple with your regular arms/hands. Then you beat your opponents with your astral arms.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Ignoring mechanical efficiency, since you said you aren't that bothered about that, here would be my take as a DM:
1) I would absolutely allow it - players get to choose what they want to play, provided it comes from an official source it's cool.
2) I wouldn't enjoy it at all. A little punching kobold would bring up mental images of Scrappy Do. Monks I can just about get on board with; I envisage their attacks being mystically Ki empowered, like Iron Fist in the MCU. But straight up non-mystical punching when you could be wielding a sword is just impossible to justify from any perspective other than "I want to." For me this is immersion breaking.
But (2) is just me and maybe you're playing in a light hearted campaign and maybe your fellow players will enjoy the scrappy little fella. No two tables are the same.
The only time I've ever made such restrictions is on shorter story ideas in which specific races/classes are restricted because the nature of the world.
I agree with Animorte, only if it is absolutely unfeasible or if it breaks the world ( and even then thats not very good design) should a class race combo of cultures in that world be banned. Half orcs make more than decent wizards because they have things like brutal critical and some abilities that mitigate the wizard's weaknesses
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
Drummer Generated Title
After having been invited to include both here, I now combine the "PM me CHEESE 🧀 and tomato into PM me "PIZZA🍕"
A Kobold Fighter is fine. The Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse version that has a +2 and a +1 ability score bonus that you can put anywhere, but has the tradeoff of losing Pack Tactics to drop the Sunlight Sensitivity, so you can use it for a strength-based Fighter if you want really well. And like others have said, the Rune Knight would make you really good at Grappling.
If you're not focusing on Grappling but want to do unarmed fighting, you can go with a Dex build, and you might consider the Monk, with the scaling damage dice for your unarmed attacks. I have one character that's a Kobold Shadow Monk with the Urchin background, who's the Rogue facsimile for the party.
I don't see why you couldn't do that narratively. Doesn't seem like a mechanically viable character to me, but if I were your DM, and you wanted to play a character like that, I wouldn't stop you.
However, to play those types of characters that are mechanically ineffective, I would recommend playing other RPGs. DnD is not designed to be a narrative game (as much as there are people who insist on it), but its design is focused on luddistic aspects (such as what you mention about rolling damage dice). I love narrative games, but I know what I'm playing when I play DnD. That said, everyone plays as they please, of course. I just don't see much point in it as there are millions of games that are focused on aspects other than those proposed by DnD.
Why not mechanically viable? Kobolds have no restrictions on STR so getting that to 20 is no different than any other character. They can do 1d8+STR on each attack plus 1d4 if they grapple a medium or smaller creature. Without a shield their AC would be 2 less than I’d they did use a shield. And the only other issue is resistance to B, P, S damage from non-magical attacks. No different if you are in a low magic campaign. So I don’t see how it’s not mechanically viable. Optimized? Certainly not, but viable. I think so.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think a fair number of us saying it's not ideal are simply ensuring the OP realizes this plan will not be a damage dealer on par with the others in the party as they level. Yes, 1d8 is decent for an unarmed strike, but it's non magical, so around level 4-5 parties often start seeing these foes resistant to non-magical damage. Also, 1d8 sounds a lot less appealing when comparing to 2d6 or 1d12, which could easily be magical. That said, I think some folks are using the term viable when they mean optimal (or at least close)
Again, it wouldn't be a useless character, IMO, but it certainly isn't going to be the one folks count on to take out a threat. Controlling where the threat is coming from, or able to go to isn't insignificant, so it should be able to contribute in fights that way. Not something I, myself would try, but it's not my table or character, so my opinion is just a review of mechanics. I would personally lean towards a Monk and look into a build that would also allow some grapple type tactics. I believe I mentioned earlier how a few of the Open Hand techniques accomplish much the same as grapples do, with all the other perks a Monk gets.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I would agree cautioning the OP that unarmed fighting isn’t optimal, even for a monk who will probably use a weapon for some of their attacks. Monk has other means of offsetting the downsides.
And depending on the subclass of fighter an unarmed build can do ok compared to a sword and board fighter (I mentioned the 2 less AC due to no shield if they want the d8). But you and others are correct when comparing them to a GWM, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Sharpshooter feated-up PC they will be behind. I’m not trying to dispute that.
Like so much else, it depends on the table, the player, and the DM, wether this kind of character will be fun to play or just disappointing
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Well, ok, you are right. It's not that it's not viable, it's that it's not optimal.
Actually, if we get picky, any build is technically feasible. Even when using fixed ASIS, and you don't get the increment you need.
But you're right, what I meant is that it's not optimal. Especially for the size.