Unarmed Strike Question

[Z3ro]

So there's something that's been bothering me that I asked about in the RAW QA thread, but I figure this is something more for a discussion. Here's the question; what part of the body is an unarmed strike made with? I'm sure most people will say "any part", such as punches, kicks, headbutts, ect.

The problem is, I can't find support for that in the rules. Under melee attacks, it simply says "when you are unarmed, you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike, as shown in the weapon table in chapter 5". Nothing about what body part, if any. The table in chapter 5 is similarly unhelpful. Even in the monk entry, there's no descriptor for what makes the strike.

Now this isn't a huge problem 99% of the time, but when it comes to things like dueling style and TWF, we need to know what it is. Can you have two unarmed strike (two fists)? This would have been problematic in previous editions, but with the sharp limits on the number of attacks that can be made, I don't think it is.

I think the whole body is a hold-over from 3.5, even to the extent that the designers likely considered it so, but neglected to spell it out. Thoughts?

[Edge of Dreams]

I think this is an example of one of the most subtle failures of 5e - despite being a whole new edition, it's written by and for people who have already played earlier editions. Unarmed strike should be any part of the body, but as far as I can tell the book completely fails to spell that out. For 5e, I rule that unarmed strike is only ever one weapon (your whole body), so you can dual-wield a sword + fist if you want, but just your two fists doesn't count as two weapons. For Dueling style, I rule that unarmed strike doesn't count as "a weapon in your hand" (i.e. a held weapon), so it doesn't stop you from applying the bonus to your other weapon, but you can't apply the Dueling style bonus to unarmed strike damage itself.

[odigity]

I think this is an example of one of the most subtle failures of 5e - despite being a whole new edition, it's written by and for people who have already played earlier editions. Unarmed strike should be any part of the body, but as far as I can tell the book completely fails to spell that out. For 5e, I rule that unarmed strike is only ever one weapon (your whole body), so you can dual-wield a sword + fist if you want, but just your two fists doesn't count as two weapons. For Dueling style, I rule that unarmed strike doesn't count as "a weapon in your hand" (i.e. a held weapon), so it doesn't stop you from applying the bonus to your other weapon, but you can't apply the Dueling style bonus to unarmed strike damage itself.

I think this is reasonable, though half-redundant (because that half is implicit):

1) Dueling -- agreed it should not apply
2) TWF -- redundant/implicit because of Martial Arts; that's exactly what it already gives you (bonus action unarmed strike, just like your TWF rule)

Of course, your rule is universal, therefore useable by non-Monks, so that's a difference. I don't like that difference, though. I don't want every char to have the option of bonus action unarmed strike at all times. If your whole body is the weapon, then you could be sword & board or great weapon and still get bonus action unarmed strike. That's bad.

So, to conclude, just clarify that Dueling doesn't apply and leave it at that.

[Nagalipton]

Personally the way I've always ruled it is this:

Damage output from ANY weapon doesn't neccessarily imply only 1 hit. Multiple hits and duel weilding do tend to favor "more than 1" but from there it gets grey. For unarmed strikes I rule you are fighting with fists, kicks, headbutts etc throughout the round ultimately dealing X ammount of damage to the enemy.

[Dizlag]

The way I see it is per RAW, you can't two-weapon fight with your fists because Unarmed Strike doesn't have the "Light" property. If you get the Duelist feat, then you'll be able to because the "Light" property restriction is lifted for two-weapon fighting for that feat.

Just like you can't duel weapon fight with a rapier and dagger because a rapier is not considered a light weapon. Counter-intuitive, but it is what it is until you get the Duelist feat.

Dizlag


edit: added the rapier / dagger combo as an example.

[odigity]

The way I see it is per RAW, you can't two-weapon fight with your fists because Unarmed Strike doesn't have the "Light" property.

True, but that's dumb. If I was DM, my first houserule would be "unarmed strike is both light and finesse". Also, Monk weapons have "finesse" when wielded by a Monk. Solves lots of minor annoyances, and makes RAW match would should be RAI.

Still wouldn't let UAS qualify for Dueling OR TWF, though. Not necessary. The existing options are balanced across styles.

[RedMage125]

True, but that's dumb. If I was DM, my first houserule would be "unarmed strike is both light and finesse". Also, Monk weapons have "finesse" when wielded by a Monk. Solves lots of minor annoyances, and makes RAW match would should be RAI.

Still wouldn't let UAS qualify for Dueling OR TWF, though. Not necessary. The existing options are balanced across styles.

Be careful with that ruling. The reason monk weapons do not say that they have "finesse" when wielded by a monk is to prevent exploitation by multiclassed Monk/Rogues.

The "Finesse" property and the Monk's ability to use his DEX mod for attack and damage with all Monk Weapons are two completely different concepts that mechanically do the same thing. But because they are different, they do not overlap.

The main difference is that a Monk/Rogue may NOT use a quarterstaff or his unarmed strike to deal Sneak Attack damage.

[odigity]

Be careful with that ruling. The reason monk weapons do not say that they have "finesse" when wielded by a monk is to prevent exploitation by multiclassed Monk/Rogues.

I don't consider that exploitation. I consider that RAI -- and if it isn't according to Mearls & Crawford, then they are fools. If you MC Monk/Rogue, you *should* be able to sneak attack with Monk weapons and UAS.


The main difference is that a Monk/Rogue may NOT use a quarterstaff or his unarmed strike to deal Sneak Attack damage.

So what? Quarterstaff does the same damage as Rapier, an actual finesse weapon that is on the Rogue's list. Sure, at level 17 a Monk would be able to do 1d10 with the Quarterstaff, which he'll never do with the Rapier, but it's a 1pt avg difference, and that's at level *17*.

Quarterstaff doesn't give you reach. The only benefit it has over Rapier is that it qualifies for Polearm Master, which gives you:
a) a bonus action attack that's no better than what Martial Arts already gives you (magic items aside)
b) an AoO when an opponent enter's reach, which is nice

So, the only thing I can see people complaining about is that a Monk/Rogue will then get to Sneak Attack someone using their reaction when they enter their reach if they've got a Quarterstaff and took Polearm Master.

Is that really a big deal? And if you've taken lavels of Monk, levels of Rogue, and invested in being a Polearm Master, why should you not be able to do that?

Basically, what I'm saying is: Explaining to me where and how this becomes broken. Because without the house-rules I mentioned, what you have is a bunch of "can't do this thing that feels right because of possibly unintended technicality", and that's just lame.

[Vogonjeltz]

So there's something that's been bothering me that I asked about in the RAW QA thread, but I figure this is something more for a discussion. Here's the question; what part of the body is an unarmed strike made with? I'm sure most people will say "any part", such as punches, kicks, headbutts, ect.

The problem is, I can't find support for that in the rules. Under melee attacks, it simply says "when you are unarmed, you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike, as shown in the weapon table in chapter 5". Nothing about what body part, if any. The table in chapter 5 is similarly unhelpful. Even in the monk entry, there's no descriptor for what makes the strike.

Now this isn't a huge problem 99% of the time, but when it comes to things like dueling style and TWF, we need to know what it is. Can you have two unarmed strike (two fists)? This would have been problematic in previous editions, but with the sharp limits on the number of attacks that can be made, I don't think it is.

I think the whole body is a hold-over from 3.5, even to the extent that the designers likely considered it so, but neglected to spell it out. Thoughts?

The body part isn't relevent to either Dueling or TWF.

TWF requires a weapon with the light property (unless you have the appropriate feat) and Unarmed Strikes don't have that property. Ergo, one can not use an unarmed strike for TWF.

Dueling requires the character to be holding the weapon and nothing else. An unarmed character is holding no weapon, and so gains no benefit from Dueling fighting style.


True, but that's dumb. If I was DM, my first houserule would be "unarmed strike is both light and finesse". Also, Monk weapons have "finesse" when wielded by a Monk. Solves lots of minor annoyances, and makes RAW match would should be RAI.

Still wouldn't let UAS qualify for Dueling OR TWF, though. Not necessary. The existing options are balanced across styles.

Being able to use Dexterity for unarmed strike attack and damage is a class feature of the Monk.

[odigity]

Being able to use Dexterity for unarmed strike attack and damage is a class feature of the Monk.

Yes, it is. That's already been covered, and is contested by no one, so I'm not sure what point you're making -- unless you're trying to say that eliminates the need for declaring unarmed strike to be a finesse weapon, in which case I would disagree. It needs to be tagged finesse to work with Sneak Attack, which it damn well should.

[Feldarove]

With regards to a Monk/Rogue using his monk weapons/fist for sneak attack:

It might not seem too overpowered to allow a monk to say, use his fist to make a sneak attack, but it is. It can be heavily exploited. Even this simply bump in mechanical benefits is pretty awesome, let alone mixing in roleplaying possibilities (like being naked and still sneak attacking someone with ANY PART OF YOUR BODY!!!).

When designers (and DMs) are thinking about how to balance out stuff (or houserule), you have to step back and realize, that everytime you make a feature (or allow something) in your game that makes a character slightly better, you are throwing things out of balance.

As a player I often get caught up in wanting to have this, that, and that ability for my character, and asking my DM if he will allow some tweaks so I can do it. We are always wanting more, never asking for less....to try and create a balance.

I think the designers of the game knew very well that the requirement for Rogue's sneak attack to be a light or finesse weapon, and not spelling out monk weapons as such was creating a necessary balance. I wouldn't stray away from this rule.

I dunno, I think of sneak attack stabbing someone right in a vital area. I think of monk strikes as your body has become hardened and impacting someone with your fist is more deadly than a regular person. You could say that a monk is poking people with two fingers in the neck or something for sneak attack, but ...that just sounds dumb to me.


I do agree that the rule for your body counting as 1 weapon (unarmed strike) and having to use another actual weapon to meet the requirements for twf and such does seem balanced (thought I wouldnt allow it in my game).

[odigity]

With regards to a Monk/Rogue using his monk weapons/fist for sneak attack:

It might not seem too overpowered to allow a monk to say, use his fist to make a sneak attack, but it is. It can be heavily exploited. Even this simply bump in mechanical benefits is pretty awesome, let alone mixing in roleplaying possibilities (like being naked and still sneak attacking someone with ANY PART OF YOUR BODY!!!).

Why?

First of all, the naked-in-prison-scenario is overvalued. IT doesn't happen that often, and when it does, plenty of other races/classes have things they can do (cantrips, pact weapon, grapple, and even regular old unarmed strike, since most damage comes from bonuses rather than base weapon damage). A Rogue could use all manor of objects lying around as an improvised shiv (a large splinter of wood, a sharpened rock) in that scenario. Why shouldn't a trained martial artist be able to use his hands? That's what he does. In fact, he forgoes the huge advantage of magic weapons/armor for that minor benefit.

If you don't want anyone to be able to sneak attack with UAS, that's fine. Make it Monk only. So instead of adding the light/finesse tag to the UAS strike itself, you add it to the Monk's Martial Arts ability that it's actually considered light/finesse for a Monk.


I dunno, I think of sneak attack stabbing someone right in a vital area. I think of monk strikes as your body has become hardened and impacting someone with your fist is more deadly than a regular person. You could say that a monk is poking people with two fingers in the neck or something for sneak attack, but ...that just sounds dumb to me.

But that's exactly what a martial artist DOES.


I do agree that the rule for your body counting as 1 weapon (unarmed strike) and having to use another actual weapon to meet the requirements for twf and such does seem balanced (thought I wouldnt allow it in my game).

As I said above, this makes no sense. Non-Monks shouldn't be able to TWF with weapon and body (then EVERYONE gets a bonus action attack for free, from level 1). Monks can already TWF with weapon and body - that's what Martial Arts *IS*.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Martial Arts *IS* the Monk's Fighting Style.

[Feldarove]

But that's exactly what a martial artist DOES.


.


I think that Unarmed bonus damage, Stunning Fist, and possibly Quivering Palm fully cover the technique flavor of a martial artist strikes. When a monk punches someone really hard in the rib, the boost in damage is only big as the boost in Unarmed damage reps. When that ninja judo chops someone in the neck and they go down, I don't think of that person being mortally wounded, I think of them being stunned. When you five finger death touch someone, you are quivering palm, not sneak attacking.

But that's just like my opinion man.....

[odigity]

I think that Unarmed bonus damage, Stunning Fist, and possibly Quivering Palm fully cover the technique flavor of a martial artist strikes. When a monk punches someone really hard in the rib, the boost in damage is only big as the boost in Unarmed damage reps. When that ninja judo chops someone in the neck and they go down, I don't think of that person being mortally wounded, I think of them being stunned. When you five finger death touch someone, you are quivering palm, not sneak attacking.

But that's just like my opinion man.....

Were you listening to the dude's story?

I see nothing wrong with Monk sneak attacking with unarmed strike. This isn't 3.5, it's not subdual damage, it's a real weapon that's more powerful in the hands of a Monk -- and all finesse weapons are more powerful in the hands of a Rogue -- and it's crazy to think that a short sword is more finesseable than your own hands.

If you've got the Monk levels, you've earned Martial Arts. If you've got the Rogue levels, you've earned Sneak Attack. This is not an exploit. This is an earned result, like any other.

The closest to "exploit" scenario would be a Rogue who dips 1 level of Monk to be able to sneak attack when he has no daggers on him. First of all, who cares (see my rant about naked-in-prison scenarios above). Secondly, the dip would require a Wis 13. I don't think it's wise (pun intended) to invest in Wisdom and dip a level just to sneak attack fools with your fists in prison.

[Durazno]

An unarmed sneak attack could be, oh, a chop or ape fist to the throat, a precise punch to the solar plexus, a heel of the hand to the base of the skull, a thumb to the eye, wringing their head about... really, what you ended up being able to pull off would have to be fluffed based on what you actually managed to do to your target (you wouldn't say you snapped the neck of a hobgoblin if you only did 7 damage), but there are a huge variety of ways to strike at vital points with your body if you don't limit martial arts to punching and nothing else.

[Feldarove]

I think you may have missed my joke/point about being naked and sneak attacking

If you go assassin rogue, infiltrate someone and make love to them, then BAM sneak attack from behind (get it?!)

If I were trying to strike someone between the ribs, or some other specific (small) spot. I would feel more confident in a blade then my fist, getting the job done.

However, I am not a monk. And I see your point that if you go through the hoops of being a monk and a rogue, that you now gain access to their powers. I just think it was intentional by the designers to not allow monk features to count for sneak attack. I pointed out why that might be.

Sticking to raw. I would say you need to have a weapon that states Light and Finesse for its features. and you need to have a weapon IN each hand to count for twf.

To answer the original question. With the lack of detail provided, it seemed assumed to me that unarmed strikes were meant to be delivered with any part of the body. Going with that, I would shy away from allowing monk strikes to sneak attack or twf (outside of my thoughts on RAW). You can wield your staff in two hands, doing the higher versatile damage, use your dex for the attack/damage. and then kick someone with your bonus action. This is pretty sweet.

[odigity]

I think you may have missed my joke/point about being naked and sneak attacking

I still am. :)


I just think it was intentional by the designers to not allow monk features to count for sneak attack. I pointed out why that might be.

That's certainly possible, and I allowed for that possibility earlier (calling the designers fools if that's the case). They do seem to have been a little over-paranoid in some areas of 5e with respect to preventing too much synergy. I agree with not letting spells be used for sneak attack. I disagree with not letting the Monk do it with an UAS. I think it's reasonable to expect, and not broken to allow, and opens up yet another fun and balanced char possibility.


You can wield your staff in two hands, doing the higher versatile damage, use your dex for the attack/damage. and then kick someone with your bonus action. This is pretty sweet.

I'd say you can even take a hand off the staff to deliver an UAS with your hands, though it's not actually necessary to specify the body part for mechanics -- it's purely fluff, except in the case of a grapple attack.

[Ghost Nappa]

Unarmed Strikes never count for Two-Weapon Fighting because Unarmed Strikes are made with the same one weapon: your body. You are not holding it. You ARE it.


As for UA not working with Sneak Attack because it's not Light or Finesse, I agree that that particular restriction should be lifted for Monk/Rogue.

[Z3ro]

Unarmed Strikes never count for Two-Weapon Fighting because Unarmed Strikes are made with the same one weapon: your body. You are not holding it. You ARE it.


Can you cite a source for this? I've been trying to find anything in any book that says this, but have been unable to so far.

[odigity]

Can you cite a source for this? I've been trying to find anything in any book that says this, but have been unable to so far.

I agree they should have specified this in the PHB, but it's a silly thing to get hung up on:

1) It was clear in 3.5 that any part of your body can be used.
2) It's sort of implicit from the name - unarmed strike. A strike made without arms or while unarmed. If you're not holding any arms, or using the arms you're holding to strike, then what remains? Yourself. Your body. Anythign external to your body, wielded as a weapon, *is* a weapon, and therefore not an unarmed strike. Therefore, an unarmed strike is that which is done without arms, and therefore your body. If they didn't specify it must be a particular part of your body, then any part of your body will do (assuming you're in a position to make an attack - no paralyzed, for example).

[RedMage125]

If you don't want anyone to be able to sneak attack with UAS, that's fine. Make it Monk only. So instead of adding the light/finesse tag to the UAS strike itself, you add it to the Monk's Martial Arts ability that it's actually considered light/finesse for a Monk.
Which is redundant, because the Martial Arts trait of a Monk already specifies that monk weapons and unarmed strikes may use DEX for attack and damage if the monk so wishes.

So why "should" anyone add the light/finesse tag to those weapons for Monks, especially if they're a person who does not want Monk/Rogues using Sneak Attack with UAS?

This whole paragraph makes no sense.



As I said above, this makes no sense. Non-Monks shouldn't be able to TWF with weapon and body (then EVERYONE gets a bonus action attack for free, from level 1). Monks can already TWF with weapon and body - that's what Martial Arts *IS*.

Agreed that non-Monks should not be able to gain the benefits of two-weapon fighting with their unarmed strike.

However, what TWF benefits are we talking about monks potentially getting? Is this about a multiclassed monk who has levels in a class that has the Fighting Style ability? Because Monks already get to add their DEX mod to damage with the bonus UAS they get with Martial Arts, so no Monk would take the TWF Fighting Style. It's clear that Martial Arts is superior to the TWF rules on page 195, so there's no "benefit" from Monks using those. Is it the Dual Wielder feat? Because most of that feat is useless to a Monk, and I would say that UAS does NOT count as a weapon for the +1 AC bonus, namely because using your hand to deflect an incoming attack is going to hurt more than using a 3-4 foot piece of steel.

Also, Dueling...The Dueling Fighting Style specifies that someone is wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons. I'd say UAS counts as both "weapon" and "not a weapon" for purposes of that abiltiy, but only for the attacks taken as an Action and not with the Bonus Action attack granted by Martial Arts (or Flurry of Blows). To clarify: a Monk/Fighter with the Duelist Fighting style using a monk weapon may get the +2 damage with the monk weapon, but not with the UAS. While a Monk/Fighter fighting completely unarmed gets the +2 damage with his UAS attacks taken as an Action, but not with his Bonus Action attack(s). But that's how I would rule it. It seems balanced. By strict RAW UAS is not a "weapon", Monks just have a class feature that allows them to do more damage when fighting without one.

In regards to the Defensive Duelist feat: UAS does not have the "finesse" property, and a Monk may not use the feat to get the bonus to AC. Should the Monk be wielding a monk weapon which is a Finesse weapon (a dagger being the only one), he would benefit from the feat.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yes, it is. That's already been covered, and is contested by no one, so I'm not sure what point you're making -- unless you're trying to say that eliminates the need for declaring unarmed strike to be a finesse weapon, in which case I would disagree. It needs to be tagged finesse to work with Sneak Attack, which it damn well should.

No, I'm saying it is taking away from the unique nature of the monk class feature. Which it shouldn't.

[Ghost Nappa]

Can you cite a source for this? I've been trying to find anything in any book that says this, but have been unable to so far.

Rule Zero, Rule of Cool, or this video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT5UlRy80cw).

There is no official explanation of what an Unarmed Strike is in the book. If you ask enough times, the developers will clarify.

All that's really required is that

1) It's not a weapon. ("Unarmed")

2) You're hitting them ("Strike")

3) It's part of your body.

If you actually do martial artes, or watch a movie this is limited by only your imagination and your own sturdiness.

Fist? Check.
Foot? Check.
Shin? Check.
Headbutt? Check.
Palm? Check.
Body-Check? Check.
Elbow? Check.
Tongue? Wait, are you playing Mercenary Tao?

[odigity]

No, I'm saying it is taking away from the unique nature of the monk class feature. Which it shouldn't.

That's fine. So don't make Unarmed Strike light/finesse in general, just make it considered so for Monks so they can use their damn Sneak Attack after multiclassing with Rogue.


Which is redundant, because the Martial Arts trait of a Monk already specifies that monk weapons and unarmed strikes may use DEX for attack and damage if the monk so wishes.

So why "should" anyone add the light/finesse tag to those weapons for Monks, especially if they're a person who does not want Monk/Rogues using Sneak Attack with UAS?

This whole paragraph makes no sense.

Agreed that non-Monks should not be able to gain the benefits of two-weapon fighting with their unarmed strike.

However, what TWF benefits are we talking about monks potentially getting? Is this about a multiclassed monk who has levels in a class that has the Fighting Style ability? Because Monks already get to add their DEX mod to damage with the bonus UAS they get with Martial Arts, so no Monk would take the TWF Fighting Style. It's clear that Martial Arts is superior to the TWF rules on page 195, so there's no "benefit" from Monks using those. Is it the Dual Wielder feat? Because most of that feat is useless to a Monk, and I would say that UAS does NOT count as a weapon for the +1 AC bonus, namely because using your hand to deflect an incoming attack is going to hurt more than using a 3-4 foot piece of steel.

Also, Dueling...The Dueling Fighting Style specifies that someone is wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons. I'd say UAS counts as both "weapon" and "not a weapon" for purposes of that abiltiy, but only for the attacks taken as an Action and not with the Bonus Action attack granted by Martial Arts (or Flurry of Blows). To clarify: a Monk/Fighter with the Duelist Fighting style using a monk weapon may get the +2 damage with the monk weapon, but not with the UAS. While a Monk/Fighter fighting completely unarmed gets the +2 damage with his UAS attacks taken as an Action, but not with his Bonus Action attack(s). But that's how I would rule it. It seems balanced. By strict RAW UAS is not a "weapon", Monks just have a class feature that allows them to do more damage when fighting without one.

In regards to the Defensive Duelist feat: UAS does not have the "finesse" property, and a Monk may not use the feat to get the bonus to AC. Should the Monk be wielding a monk weapon which is a Finesse weapon (a dagger being the only one), he would benefit from the feat.

I'm complete lost as to what you think we're arguing about at this point.

To clarify on what I *hope* is the source of confusion between us: I do not believe the Monks need any modification with regards to fighting abilities (other than their UAS should qualify for Sneak Attack), nor do I believe that the Fighter's TWF style should confer any benefits to the Monk unless the Monk actually wants to wield two actual weapons for some reason.

I am merely saying, to all those trying to make Fighter styles work with the Monk, is that it makes no sense. The Monk class *as is* already has better benefits than those fighting styles. They can already do the equivalent of TWF -- they already have a bonus attack.

A Monk can attack with weapon or UAS. A Monk can bonus attack with UAS. They've already got it all. There is no need to get into debates about whether the body constitutes a weapon, or is being wielded, or any of that nonsense. The Monk can already do everything everyone wants it to do RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.

[RedMage125]

I'm complete lost as to what you think we're arguing about at this point.

Well, you said that if people want to uphold the "UAS is not a viable weapon for Sneak Attack" that they should, instead of adding he "finesse" tag to UAS, add it under the Monk's Martial Arts entry that for a Monk, the UAS is a "light/Finesse" weapon.

Which makes no sense.

I agree that the Monk is fine as is.

That includes the fact that UAS and monk weapons (except daggers) do not work for Sneak Attack.

Everything else was me asking for clarification. I don't understand why there's a TWF diagreement with the Monk. Martial Arts is better than normal TWF rules b/c the Monk adds his DEX mod to damage anyway, and a Monk/Fighter taking TWF Fighting Style would be stupid, since he already had Martial Arts. I do, however, have the opinion that a Monk/Fighter should be able to get SOME benefit from Dueling Fighting Style, even if the rules on this are unclear as to whether or not UAS is a "weapon"

[Dizlag]

As RedMage125 said, Martial Arts is better than Two-Weapon Fighting because even though both take a bonus action to give you an extra attack (MA is an UAS attack and TWF is a light weapon in both hands), MA allows you to still apply your Dex bonus to the damage where TWF only gives you the dice of damage on the extra attack. Flurry of Blows at 2nd level gives you two UAS attacks as a bonus action by spending a point of Ki, so clearly TWF wasn't made with the Monk in mind.

I'm enjoying the Sneak Attack and Monk/Rogue discussion. As written, it would seem that all monk weapons and unarmed strike would get the Finesse attribute added to it for a Monk since the first bullet of the Martial Arts description says you can use Dex instead of Str for attacks and damage with these weapons. Therefore, all monk weapons and unarmed strike could be used for Sneak Attack as I interpret it as a DM and would rule it so for my games. Thoughts?

Come on, a Ways of the Shadow Monk / Assassin Rogue IS the D&D 5e Ninja. Oooo ... I know what my party will be coming up against soon. LOL

Now, RedMage125's comment about the Duelist Fighting Style and a Monk/Fighter getting some benefit out of it. Hmmm. The fighting style says that if you are only wielding a weapon in one hand and no other weapons, then you can get +2 damage with that weapon. I'm not a fencer or swordsman by any means, but it would seem that the fighter is focused on using just that weapon in that round of combat. So, I think I would rule that if a Monk/Fighter just attacks with "a weapon in one hand" (monk weapons and UAS count), then they would get a +2 damage with that weapon as the feature states. I wouldn't allow the Monk/Fighter to get this bonus if they are wielding a monk weapon and want to use the Martial Arts/Flurry of Blows bonus action for extra UAS attacks, but I would if they are completely unarmed though. I'm not thinking it will be too powerful because the Monk's UAS damage will be 1d4, then a 1d6 at 5th level. The Extra Attack at 5th level from both classes will not stack so you'll only be getting two UA attacks per Action plus two more UAS attacks from Flurry of Blows until you reach 11th level in fighter.

Sorry for the long post.

Dizlag

[Dappershire]

I don't understand the point some are making on why unarmed strikes are valid for sneak attack. So you have monk and rogue levels. So what? They don't automatically synergize. A rogue trains on how to puncture those organs. A monk gets additional damage because they know where to hit. The two aren't mutually inclusive.
So my vote is no.