D&D 5E Fighter should be called Knight and Monk Should be called Fighter, change my mind


log in or register to remove this ad

Monk should be Pugilist. Which specifically is about unarmed combat.

05673v.jpg


Fighter is too generic for that.
Pugilism specifically refers to boxing though.
 

Pugilism specifically refers to boxing though.

I think if you want a generic term for unarmed you could use something like martial artist, hand to hand fighter, or unarmed fighter. Or you could have say Striker-Grappler. Martial artist probably encompasses the broadest range of unarmed styles
 


Do we want the monk to explicitly be about unarmed combat though? I think the monk is better serving as a semi-mystical mobile skirmisher and that concept isn’t limited to being a pure unarmed combatant, kensei is a popular subclass.

Yeah, I feel like if you strip out the other elements, the monk just becomes an MMA fighter or something
 

Do we want the monk to explicitly be about unarmed combat though? I think the monk is better serving as a semi-mystical mobile skirmisher and that concept isn’t limited to being a pure unarmed combatant, kensei is a popular subclass.
Kensai would probably be better suited as a fighter subclass. Beyond that, there's no reason a martial artist couldn't be mystical as well.
 

I'd split Fighter into soldier and lancer (cavaliers, cataphract, samurai, etc). I would then add a martial artist class for non-woodsy unarmored and light armored warriors (e.g. corsair/pirates, pugilists, kensei swashbucklers). Monks would then become a ki based subclass of martial artist or remain their own class.
 




Trending content

Remove ads

Top