I want to play a Pacifist character. My plan is to go 1 level of Monk then max out Wizard-Enchanting. I never want to cause a creature harm, but I'm ok with my friends, or minions, causing havoc.

I realized that several species are immune to charm, which is just about every enchantment spell, so my DM suggested multiclassing as a monk for the extra defense. My DM was on board with trading the martial arts feature for the grappling feat after I suggested it. Grappling is the character's backup plan for when enchantments do not work.

Are there any concerns we should have about balance due to replacing the class feature with the feat, especially since feats are supposed to be much harder to get?

(I did go human BTW for the extra feat, but I got Skilled because I figured most of my usefulness would be outside of battle and wanted the extra skills.)


Considering you're only planning on taking one level of Monk, I'm not sure getting a whole feat for martial arts is really a fair trade.

First level Monk martial arts isn't that great. You get a bonus action attack that adds your Dex, (And can use dex for melee with non-finesse weapons), but, ultimately, it's a d4 damage die. That's small potatoes and comes with weapon restrictions on the primary attack. Also, with wiz as your primary class it's next to useless.

Grappler on the other hand is a good bit better than martial arts. Granted, grappling in general may be kind of pointless, but this is three features that provides a ton of support for the mechanic, and could actually combine to make it useful (advantage on attacks against, use action to pin, and grapple larger creatures).

I would grant one feature, maybe advantage on attacks against, in exchange for one level of martial arts, but I would definitely not give all 3 features.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.