Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6762623" data-attributes="member: 2067">That's that squinting I was talking about......and Monks get those abilities in the first place because they point at the archetype that the monk is meant to allow you to role play, and that archetype isn't just "fist-fighty-person."I'm not saying it doesn't work fine, but I am saying that I prefer it when the mechanics fully support the role I want to play, rather than just kinda support it (and thus that class has a pretty concrete meaning in my games, and that I think it's a GOOD idea that it does and want it to be even MORE concrete). I think the "mechanics is too hard" hurdle might be more in peoples' minds than in their games. Though 3e and 4e arguably had that condition, 5e isn't too complex. It accommodates a change like "swap heavy armor for a monk's unarmed defense and martial weapon proficiency for a monk's martial arts" pretty gracefully. What's hard is thinking of good names for things. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Pugilist? Make it a fighting style? More than one way to skin that cat. Someone who wants to punch dragons shouldn't have to be a Monk to do it.</blockquote>