Frozen_Heart
Hero
One thing I've noticed about 5e is that it really struggles to handle concepts which are too redundant to be a class, but too unique and large to be a subclass.
ideally we want monk to be like the fighter and work of both str and dexPugilist seems to be popular, though. I generally agree but I think people really do want a strong, punchy-guy thematically.
How is the martial artist distinct from the fighter? Why would it not be miles better to give he fighter a variant level 1 class feature that loses heavy armor and shields but gains Unarmored defense?If anything happened to the monk I'd rather see it go more martial, and not more gish like. DnD has barely any martials as it is and needs more.
The 'classic' 4e swordmage has light armour and teleports around the battlefield, being extremely movement based itself.
Paladins don't "fight with holy magic." They fight with the fervor of their convictions. In earlier editions, those convictions were always divine in nature; now, their convictions stem from the oaths they take. Even monks don't really fight with magic; they "fight with their fists" and use magic (ki) to enhance their physical abilities.But "can fight" is all fighters have in common. There's subsets of that, but there's nothing else to the Fighter class. But lookig at the others: "can fight by getting angry" and "can fight with fists because magic" and "can fight with holy magic" and "can fight and do woodsy stuff" are the other fighty options - why does "can fight with arcane magic" not pass the test?
A Paladin feels like a Fighter subclass with divine magic. A Barbarian feels like a Fighter subclass with rage powers.A Pugilist feel much like a Fighter subclass with maneuvers and bonus Unarmed Fighting fighting style and Unarmored Defenses.
Unless you go full Street Fighter Ii through V
They don't have Action Surge.A Paladin feels like a Fighter subclass with divine magic. A Barbarian feels like a Fighter subclass with rage powers.