Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8215757" data-attributes="member: 6704184">If it’s a completely different archetype, like say a non-mystical/esoteric warrior, it shouldn’t be a monk. Any mystic/esoteric warrior can be either built as an existing monk, or have a subclass built for them. The point is incorrect. You keep stating your point, but refusing to actually support it with any arguments, examples, etc. And I suggested an alt feature that would make the fighter not use armor, and the game already has a very good option for unarmed fighters. What else is needed, that the base class doesn’t do? What is there other than mobility, being able to fight Unarmored and unarmed, dodge attacks more readily than others, etc? So grappling. Why can’t you just say the thing that is the answer to the question?Grappling in 5e is what it is. That ain’t on the design of the monk. However, dealing damage to a grappled creature is absolutely part of the system. Tapping out...isn’t part of real fights. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> The dragon gives up when you’ve hurt it enough to hit 0hp and you choose to knock it out rather than kill it, or when the dm decides it’s had enough. Why on earth should there even be a D&D class that models Hulk Hogan, by the way? What a totally left field expectation to even have! Why?</blockquote>

Verification