Monk weapon question

[Spacehamster]

Am I right that monk weapons scale up with their unarmed die so that you quarterstaff would be d10 when you reach d10 unarmed die? And if so would not a 17 monk 3 champion fighter with two weapon fighting style be pretty good with action surges and dual wielding two shortswords that do 1d10 + 5 be a pretty good build? :)

[Giant2005]

Not really - the Monk's unarmed attack scales at the same rate so there is no point dual-wielding shortswords like that. The Fighter/Monk would be better off using a single short sword and using the Dueling fighting style for the extra 2 damage. I also wouldn't recommend getting to level 17 in Monk and then taking a level in something else. The Monk's level 18 ability is among the most powerful in the game - a good case could even be made for it being the single most powerful ability in the game. I'd consider it a crime to get within reach of that ability and veer off willfully.

[Spacehamster]

Not really - the Monk's unarmed attack scales at the same rate so there is no point dual-wielding shortswords like that. The Fighter/Monk would be better off using a single short sword and using the Dueling fighting style for the extra 2 damage. I also wouldn't recommend getting to level 17 in Monk and then taking a level in something else. The Monk's level 18 ability is among the most powerful in the game - a good case could even be made for it being the single most powerful ability in the game. I'd consider it a crime to get within reach of that ability and veer off willfully.

Would not be as cool as dual wielding tho, and afb at work so don't know what the lvl 18 monk thingy does. :)

[Giant2005]

Would not be as cool as dual wielding tho, and afb at work so don't know what the lvl 18 monk thingy does. :)

By spending 4 ki the Monk turns invisible and gains resistance to all damage but force damage for a minute.

[Chronos]

How is dual-wielding shortswords any more cool than doing the same damage with your bare hands? Plus, with unarmed strikes, you can pretty easily make four attacks, not just three-- It costs ki, but you should have plenty of that by level 17.

[Mandragola]

You lose damage from the multiclass, because you're behind on monk levels so your damage dice go up later. Unfortunately this is an anti-combo.

[Santra]

Save for certain builds (assassin rogue/way of shadows monk) monks should never multiclass. They lose more than they gain and their abilities don't mesh very well with other classes.

[Sabeta]

I really like the Shadow Monk + Warlock 2 combination, that gets you Devil's Eyesight.

Drop Darkness on people then walk in and bully them.

[Easy_Lee]

If you're picking up a fighting style as a monk, go dueling and use it with unarmed strike. Unarmed strike is on the weapons table, and since you're not holding anything else it works by RAW. D10 unarmed strikes have their average damage raised from 5.5 to 7.5, effectively a D14.

That said, having more ki and not losing progression are probably more useful. I'd just stay straight monk unless I had something else that I really wanted from the multiclass.

[calebrus]

If you're picking up a fighting style as a monk, go dueling and use it with unarmed strike. Unarmed strike is on the weapons table, and since you're not holding anything else it works by RAW.

No, it doesn't work by RAW.

Dueling: When you are holding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.

Are you holding a melee weapon when fighting unarmed? No, you are not.
By the RAW, unarmed strikes and Dueling do not work together, at all, under any circumstances.
If you are holding a weapon and attack unarmed, the bonus damage does not apply to the unarmed strike, as it only applies to the weapon.
If you are not holding any weapons, the bonus damage does not apply, because you do not meet the requirement of holding a weapon.

Unarmed strikes and Dueling do not work together. Claiming that they do, and especially claiming that it works by the RAW, is flat out incorrect.

[Magic Myrmidon]

What if you hold your hand with your other hand? Like in dark souls? Then swing them together, with twohanded smashes. Unarmed is a weapon on the weapon table. And by holding your hand with your other hand, you're holding a melee weapon with nothing in your other hand.

:p

[Chronos Flame]

What if you hold your hand with your other hand? Like in dark souls? Then swing them together, with twohanded smashes. Unarmed is a weapon on the weapon table. And by holding your hand with your other hand, you're holding a melee weapon with nothing in your other hand.

:p

This describes exactly how I feel about RAW vs RAI.

[ad_hoc]

What if you hold your hand with your other hand? Like in dark souls? Then swing them together, with twohanded smashes. Unarmed is a weapon on the weapon table. And by holding your hand with your other hand, you're holding a melee weapon with nothing in your other hand.

:p

I just want to take a moment to note the shift in cultural references.

This used to be known as Star Trek hitting. See Kirk vs The Gorn.

[odigity]

I really like the Shadow Monk + Warlock 2 combination, that gets you Devil's Eyesight.

Drop Darkness on people then walk in and bully them.

I just got this combo up finally last session for the first time. Started as Warlock 1, then when Monk 6, and just reached Warlock 2 (8th lvl char).

So, I drop darkness and start attacking... but it was a room full of animated suits of armor with blindsense, so the didn't affect them at all.

Talk about anti-climactic. :)

Still, it's incredibly powerful and I look forward to abusing it in the future.

[Spacehamster]

also is not monk unarmed strikes very underwhelming late game since they will never get +1-3 hit/damage as other martials weapons will get when they get their hands on some magic weapons. :) so the build I said will most likely from lvl 5-8 get more than +5 to its DMG die whereas the monks unarmed strike never goes over +5.

[ghost_warlock]

also is not monk unarmed strikes very underwhelming late game since they will never get +1-3 hit/damage as other martials weapons will get when they get their hands on some magic weapons. :) so the build I said will most likely from lvl 5-8 get more than +5 to its DMG die whereas the monks unarmed strike never goes over +5.

You could always get one of those gloves or belts that increase your Strength. Don't some of those go up to 27 Strength or something like that? Get one of those and apply the full attack/damage bonus to your attacks and you'll be dealing some serious hurt with or without the +1/2/3 from a magic weapon.

And don't forget that your Martial Arts gives you a bonus action unarmed attack (with your full modifiers, I believe) every time you take the Attack action, so after 5th level you can pretty much be making five attacks with your full modifiers every round (2 from Extra Attack, 1 bonus action, 2 from Flurry of Blows).

Also a lot of fun to get your wizard buddy to haste you. :smallbiggrin:

[Giant2005]

also is not monk unarmed strikes very underwhelming late game since they will never get +1-3 hit/damage as other martials weapons will get when they get their hands on some magic weapons. :) so the build I said will most likely from lvl 5-8 get more than +5 to its DMG die whereas the monks unarmed strike never goes over +5.

You can get +1,2 or 3 weapons for unarmed damage too.

[coredump]

Those +1-3 weapons can't do Stunning Strike....or Quivering Palm....nor gain advantage by turning invisible....etc...

[Chronos]

That's four, not five. Flurry of Blows also uses a bonus action, so it replaces your normal one bonus attack, rather than stacking with it.

And you can use magic weapons if you want. Martial Arts applies to the damage of all monk weapons you use, not just your unarmed strikes. Your bonus attacks need to be unarmed, but you can still make both of your standard attacks with a magical quarterstaff or short sword or whatever.

[ad_hoc]

Those +1-3 weapons can't do Stunning Strike....or Quivering Palm....nor gain advantage by turning invisible....etc...

You can do stunning strike with a great sword if you want to.

Not sure what you mean about being invisible.

[Easy_Lee]

also is not monk unarmed strikes very underwhelming late game since they will never get +1-3 hit/damage as other martials weapons will get when they get their hands on some magic weapons. :) so the build I said will most likely from lvl 5-8 get more than +5 to its DMG die whereas the monks unarmed strike never goes over +5.

There are items which boost unarmed strike, see HotDQ. A DM would be biased to not make these kinds of things available to his monk players if the others have magic weapons.

[Chronos]

Note also that monk unarmed strikes automatically become magic weapons at level 6, which is something that no one else other than warlocks get. They don't get a plus to attack or damage, but they do overcome resistance to nonmagical. That could be a big deal, for games where magic items are sparse or nonexistent (remember that having magic items at all is supposed to be an optional rule).

[Malifice]

There are items which boost unarmed strike, see HotDQ. A DM would be biased to not make these kinds of things available to his monk players if the others have magic weapons.

I don't know. I'm reasonably satisfied that the absence (or rarity at least) of such unarmed boosters was an intentional design choice.

[Easy_Lee]

I don't know. I'm reasonably satisfied that the absence (or rarity at least) of such unarmed boosters was an intentional design choice.

You basically just said you're reasonably satisfied that monks doing less damage than other characters is an intentional design choice. That's not what 5e is about. This edition, we even have fairly common items that boost magical attacks, to say nothing of unarmed-boosting magic items that we've had since 3.5e and before. So not only is what you proposed imbalanced, it's wrong.

[Safety Sword]

No, it doesn't work by RAW.

Dueling: When you are holding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.

Are you holding a melee weapon when fighting unarmed? No, you are not.
By the RAW, unarmed strikes and Dueling do not work together, at all, under any circumstances.
If you are holding a weapon and attack unarmed, the bonus damage does not apply to the unarmed strike, as it only applies to the weapon.
If you are not holding any weapons, the bonus damage does not apply, because you do not meet the requirement of holding a weapon.

Unarmed strikes and Dueling do not work together. Claiming that they do, and especially claiming that it works by the RAW, is flat out incorrect.

Amen. Praise the Gods of Faerun. The Light has been seen.

Read the rules and apply just a little common sense when you play D&D guys. Seriously.


What if you hold your hand with your other hand? Like in dark souls? Then swing them together, with twohanded smashes. Unarmed is a weapon on the weapon table. And by holding your hand with your other hand, you're holding a melee weapon with nothing in your other hand.

:p

Stop encouraging them. Please. And anyway, your hand is not a versatile weapon, so you gain no benefit from using it two-handed. Dammit, now I'm doing it.... :smallfrown:

[Magic Myrmidon]

Amen. Praise the Gods of Faerun. The Light has been seen.

Read the rules and apply just a little common sense when you play D&D guys. Seriously.



Stop encouraging them. Please. And anyway, your hand is not a versatile weapon, so you gain no benefit from using it two-handed. Dammit, now I'm doing it.... :smallfrown:

Sure, it doesn't necessarily work by RAW. But it's far from unreasonable to allow it for rules as convenient, or rule of cool, or rule of fun. Just call it boxing or something, not dueling. The reason I used such an absurd idea was to get dueling to apply to unarmed. It was also to illustrate that such strict adherence to RAW without considering context leads to such silly ideas as that.

+2 damage with your main unarmed attack isn't exactly a crazy request, especially if you're forgoing an entire level of monk for something so small.

(Man, 5th edition is doing weird things to me. Never thought I'd advocate just ignoring/handwaving the rules. >.>)

[RulesJD]

These OP's original question is absolutely valid and is what every Monk should be doing.

Why?

Because magical weapons > fist, even with the unarmed strike boosters.

Take a look at LMoP, the starter set to 5e. Within the game is a magical staff that adds 1d6 damage on hit. Any Monk would be insane not to use a weapon like that. Daggers and staffs that add a +d4/6/8 on hit are plentiful in 5e, so having their base damage level with a monk's damage dice is a potential huge increase in DPS over unarmed strikes.

[Malifice]

You basically just said you're reasonably satisfied that monks doing less damage than other characters is an intentional design choice.

Yes I am satisfied with Monks doing 20 percent less damage than Fighters. Just like I am satisfied with monks having 20 percent less maximum HP than a Fighter.

In exchange Monks get the best defence in the game via proficiencies in every single save (plus at will re-rolls) and a swathe of immunities, better mobility than the Rogue with higher movement speed, bonus action dash, etherealness, shadow step, fly and so forth, and a ton of rider effects on those attacks (stun-lock, quivering palm, open hand shennanigans and so forth).

I'm totally OK with the lack of 'AoMF's in the DMG.

[MrStabby]

Yes I am satisfied with Monks doing 20 percent less damage than Fighters. Just like I am satisfied with monks having 20 percent less maximum HP than a Fighter.

In exchange Monks get the best defence in the game via proficiencies in every single save (plus at will re-rolls) and a swathe of immunities, better mobility than the Rogue with higher movement speed, bonus action dash, etherealness, shadow step, fly and so forth, and a ton of rider effects on those attacks (stun-lock, quivering palm, open hand shennanigans and so forth).

I'm totally OK with the lack of 'AoMF's in the DMG.

Actually you have convinced me here. I was leaning towards the other side but you do make some reasonable points. We shouldn't expect equality in one aspect of the performance of a class without equality in the others.

[silveralen]

Amen. Praise the Gods of Faerun. The Light has been seen.

Read the rules and apply just a little common sense when you play D&D guys. Seriously.

According to the rules, it doesn't have to be the monk's unarmed strike, he could be holding someone else's arm in one hand and beating people over the head while getting all the bonuses.

Common sense says dueling is meant to be used when all your attack are coming from a single source. Such as all monk's attack's being unarmed.

[Malifice]

Actually you have convinced me here. I was leaning towards the other side but you do make some reasonable points. We shouldn't expect equality in one aspect of the performance of a class without equality in the others.

Thanks man.

I look at it no differently to how Wizards lack the at will DPR of the Warlock with EB + Hex + Agonizing blast, but make up for it with second to none spell versitility, rituals and a larger list of spells known.

There is more to classes that 'at will DPR' comparisons. Defensive considerations, mobility, HP, saves, utility and the ability to lay conditions like stunned, prone, quivering palm and shoving people around are all totally valid factors to consider (and the Monk excells at most of those, while still having a more than respectable 4d10+20 DPR at 17th level with flurry or 3d10+15 without)

[RulesJD]

Just FYI, Dueling fighting style most definitely works if you are wielding a Monk weapon (usually quarterstaff or short sword) in one hand and using your other hand for unarmed strikes.

How well have people found dual-wielding as a monk? I'm imagining the scenario where you have two monk weapons (thus they get to use the monk weapon damage die). You get to use the bonus attack anyways (any character can), and all you need is 1 level in Fighter to get your Dex damage. Combine with dual-wielding feat and you get to start with pretty decent AC (17), and solid damage after you pick up TW FS. 2d6+6 at level 3, and you can still Flurry of blows at any time by using your kicks/elbows, etc.

[ad_hoc]

Well you can't Flurry if you are already using your bonus action to attack with your second weapon.

Base you can wield a quarterstaff or spear 2 handed for 1d8 and still get your unarmed strikes.

Boosting Dex is much better than the dual wielding feat.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes I am satisfied with Monks doing 20 percent less damage than Fighters. Just like I am satisfied with monks having 20 percent less maximum HP than a Fighter.

In exchange Monks get the best defence in the game via proficiencies in every single save (plus at will re-rolls) and a swathe of immunities, better mobility than the Rogue with higher movement speed, bonus action dash, etherealness, shadow step, fly and so forth, and a ton of rider effects on those attacks (stun-lock, quivering palm, open hand shennanigans and so forth).

I'm totally OK with the lack of 'AoMF's in the DMG.

No, you misunderstand. Monks do comparable damage to rogues, warlocks, rangers, and so on. Barbarians and fighters are on another level because they are dedicated, but these classes are all comparable for damage. Deny monks a magic weapon when everyone else gets one, and you alter that balance. It's reverse discrimination; giving good things to all but one group discriminates against that group.

[Person_Man]

Yes I am satisfied with Monks doing 20 percent less damage than Fighters. Just like I am satisfied with monks having 20 percent less maximum HP than a Fighter.

In exchange Monks get the best defence in the game via proficiencies in every single save (plus at will re-rolls) and a swathe of immunities, better mobility than the Rogue with higher movement speed, bonus action dash, etherealness, shadow step, fly and so forth, and a ton of rider effects on those attacks (stun-lock, quivering palm, open hand shennanigans and so forth).

I'm totally OK with the lack of 'AoMF's in the DMG.

I agree with this entirely.

My one quibble is that I think the Elemental Monk should be more flexible (allowed to choose more elemental spells) and all of the subclasses should be a bit more powerful at high levels. But they're pretty minor quibbles.

[Joe the Rat]

Twin shortswords can work above monk5. Attack with one, Extra attack with the other, bonus attack with your foot.


According to the rules, it doesn't have to be the monk's unarmed strike, he could be holding someone else's arm in one hand and beating people over the head while getting all the bonuses.No, other people are improvised weapons, which are not monk weapons. You can't get the martial arts bonus attacks when wielding another person.

Hmmm... Duelist would combine nicely with Tavern Brawler. One-hand that stool, +2 damage, and follow up with a grapple.

[Millface]

These OP's original question is absolutely valid and is what every Monk should be doing.

Why?

Because magical weapons > fist, even with the unarmed strike boosters.

Take a look at LMoP, the starter set to 5e. Within the game is a magical staff that adds 1d6 damage on hit. Any Monk would be insane not to use a weapon like that. Daggers and staffs that add a +d4/6/8 on hit are plentiful in 5e, so having their base damage level with a monk's damage dice is a potential huge increase in DPS over unarmed strikes.

This says it all, and I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. All of the Monk abilities state that they work with Monk weapons, which are short swords and any other simple weapons. The advantage here is clearer at higher levels when you start acquiring more powerful magic items but you just can't argue that its in your best interest to wield Vorpal/Nine-lives stealer short swords than it could ever be to just use your fists. Or a Staff of Thunder and Lightning. The added effects on these weapons make it a no brainer since you don't lose any of your Monk abilities as long as they qualify as monk weapons.

Beyond that, One level in fighter to take Dual Wielding Style does add a significant addition to your offhand damage, it becomes more worth it as your Str or Dex reach higher values.

[Easy_Lee]

Beyond that, One level in fighter to take Dual Wielding Style does add a significant addition to your offhand damage, it becomes more worth it as your Str or Dex reach higher values.

Martial arts already allows for a bonus attack with attribute (DEX) that scales higher than one-handed weapon die. The only reason why a monk would want to dual wield is if he had some twinned weapons that he absolutely had to attack three times per round with.

[SharkForce]

This says it all, and I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. All of the Monk abilities state that they work with Monk weapons, which are short swords and any other simple weapons. The advantage here is clearer at higher levels when you start acquiring more powerful magic items but you just can't argue that its in your best interest to wield Vorpal/Nine-lives stealer short swords than it could ever be to just use your fists. Or a Staff of Thunder and Lightning. The added effects on these weapons make it a no brainer since you don't lose any of your Monk abilities as long as they qualify as monk weapons.

Beyond that, One level in fighter to take Dual Wielding Style does add a significant addition to your offhand damage, it becomes more worth it as your Str or Dex reach higher values.

at present, the monk martial arts bonus attack and flurry of blows require that you use your unarmed strike. so no, using monk weapons does not synergize with all monk abilities. in fact, two of their basic abilities do not benefit from having a weapon in any way.

(granted, this is a very easy fix; just make the bonus action attacks deal martial arts damage no matter what weapon it is made with, though making it a general rule kind messes up open hand monk's focus on not having a weapon... so the better solution is probably to have unarmed strike/natural weapon boosters).

[Millface]

Martial arts already allows for a bonus attack with attribute (DEX) that scales higher than one-handed weapon die. The only reason why a monk would want to dual wield is if he had some twinned weapons that he absolutely had to attack three times per round with.

This is a fair point, taking that level in fighter is not something you'd do until higher levels when you're sure the situation calls for it. If I have, for example, a Luck Blade in my main hand and come into possession of a Flame Tongue it would be in my best interest to dual wield those as opposed to using my bonus action for an unarmed strike. In this scenario I would consider taking a level in Fighter. Until you have those two weapons though that make it worth it you're right that there's really no point in it.

[Millface]

at present, the monk martial arts bonus attack and flurry of blows require that you use your unarmed strike. so no, using monk weapons does not synergize with all monk abilities. in fact, two of their basic abilities do not benefit from having a weapon in any way.

(granted, this is a very easy fix; just make the bonus action attacks deal martial arts damage no matter what weapon it is made with, though making it a general rule kind messes up open hand monk's focus on not having a weapon... so the better solution is probably to have unarmed strike/natural weapon boosters).

Correct me if I'm wrong here but martial arts bonus attack is NOT as potent as a dual wielding bonus attack if your monk weapon in the off hand has enough special properties. As for turns where you'd like to use flurry of blows, and this is where I'm not positive, can't you use your feet/elbows/head/knees for this or does it specify that you have to have a hand completely free?

[SharkForce]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but martial arts bonus attack is NOT as potent as a dual wielding bonus attack if your monk weapon in the off hand has enough special properties. As for turns where you'd like to use flurry of blows, and this is where I'm not positive, can't you use your feet/elbows/head/knees for this or does it specify that you have to have a hand completely free?

you can use your feet, head, etc. but then you're not attacking with the magical weapons. thus, not all monk abilities work with magical weapons.

like i said, it's a fairly simple fix. just let them use the monk weapons on those bonus attacks but replace the weapon die with martial arts die.

[Malifice]

This says it all, and I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. All of the Monk abilities state that they work with Monk weapons, which are short swords and any other simple weapons. The advantage here is clearer at higher levels when you start acquiring more powerful magic items but you just can't argue that its in your best interest to wield Vorpal/Nine-lives stealer short swords than it could ever be to just use your fists. Or a Staff of Thunder and Lightning. The added effects on these weapons make it a no brainer since you don't lose any of your Monk abilities as long as they qualify as monk weapons.

Beyond that, One level in fighter to take Dual Wielding Style does add a significant addition to your offhand damage, it becomes more worth it as your Str or Dex reach higher values.

Nice user name.

:)

[Easy_Lee]

Would just like to add that taking a level of fighter for more damage adds 5-8 damage per round at best and delays monk progression. In the long run, it costs you one ki per short rest, a ki which you would use to fuel your monk abilities that make you good at something. It's very arguably not worth it, since you're still not hitting the same DPR of a full fighter or barbarian anyway.

[RulesJD]

Martial arts already allows for a bonus attack with attribute (DEX) that scales higher than one-handed weapon die. The only reason why a monk would want to dual wield is if he had some twinned weapons that he absolutely had to attack three times per round with.

That's the point. There are plenty of weapons out there that qualify as a Monk weapon and add a static damage on hit. Especially daggers. Once you have two of those, your DPR is going to be comparable to any class. You can always Flurry because you can still hold both weapons and just use your feet. It makes literally no difference, but only boosts damage with the magical weapon due to the static damage on hit.

But there is actually a good question here. Do you need to take a level of fighter to get Two Weapon Fighting to add your dex to the damage of your off-hand bonus attack with another monk weapon? Or does the first bullet of Martial Arts already cover that?

[calebrus]

Just FYI, Dueling fighting style most definitely works if you are wielding a Monk weapon (usually quarterstaff or short sword) in one hand and using your other hand for unarmed strikes.

Yeah, it does work in that case. You get the extra damage with the quarterstaff or shortsword, just like I said.
It does not work with unarmed strikes, which is what we were discussing.

[Easy_Lee]

Yeah, it does work in that case. You get the extra damage with the quarterstaff or shortsword, just like I said.
It does not work with unarmed strikes, which is what we were discussing.

It depends on your definition of "wielding in one hand" and whether your DM gives a crap. I'd rather have the extra ki and monk progression, so it's not something I'd personally do regardless.

[calebrus]

It depends on your definition of "wielding in one hand" and whether your DM gives a crap.

No it doesn't, because the Dueling description doesn't say anything at all about wielding. It says holding.
One more time.
Dueling: When you are holding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.

(edit: it seems I misquoted that, and it does in fact say wielding, but that changes nothing. You still aren't holding a weapon, and you are not "wielding" your hand. Unarmed strikes can be, and for all purposes are, attacks with your body. Hence, Unarmed. You are not "wielding" anything. Wield means: Hold and use. You hold nothing, so you wield nothing.)

Are you holding a melee weapon when fighting unarmed? No, you are not.
By the RAW, unarmed strikes and Dueling do not work together, at all, under any circumstances.
If you are holding a weapon and attack unarmed, the bonus damage does not apply to the unarmed strike, as it only applies to the weapon.
If you are not holding any weapons, the bonus damage does not apply, because you do not meet the requirement of holding a weapon.

Furthermore, first claming
and since you're not holding anything else it works by RAW.And then claiming
It depends on your definition of "wielding in one hand" isn't kosher.
If i depends on your interpretation of something, then it isn't strictly RAW.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/11/dueling-unarmed-strikes/
eric moss @eerongal
-- dueling fighting style: yay or neigh to unarmed strikes and the monks martial arts?
Mike Mearls @mikemearls
-- the book response is no. Doesn't break anything if you allow it, though.

Now you can cry foul that this wasn't Crawford all you want, but he flat out called it the book response, so that foul cry will be garbage.

[Millface]

It depends on your definition of "wielding in one hand" and whether your DM gives a crap. I'd rather have the extra ki and monk progression, so it's not something I'd personally do regardless.

At that point Lee it is definitely up to the player and what they find most beneficial. But since you can hold two swords, the swords can have baller magical effects that your fists don't, and you can still use flurry of blows (No, the extra attacks from flurry don't use your offhand weapon, but you get an additional attack so its still worth using) its a no brainer that multiclass or not its going to be better at higher levels to pick up two weapons.

It seems to me like we've got this figured out. Is it worthwhile to dual wield monk weapons? Usually once you get two good ones. Is it worthwhile to multiclass to enhance it? Probably not.

[Easy_Lee]

At that point Lee it is definitely up to the player and what they find most beneficial. But since you can hold two swords, the swords can have baller magical effects that your fists don't, and you can still use flurry of blows (No, the extra attacks from flurry don't use your offhand weapon, but you get an additional attack so its still worth using) its a no brainer that multiclass or not its going to be better at higher levels to pick up two weapons.

It seems to me like we've got this figured out. Is it worthwhile to dual wield monk weapons? Usually once you get two good ones. Is it worthwhile to multiclass to enhance it? Probably not.

As I said, we have precedence for and examples of items which enhance unarmed strikes. There's no reason why a DM couldn't award one of those instead of encouraging monks to wield some super-special staff or whatever.

[SharkForce]

the item that enhances unarmed strike could even be a monk weapon, actually :)

i think that would be pretty cool, personally...

[RulesJD]

As I said, we have precedence for and examples of items which enhance unarmed strikes. There's no reason why a DM couldn't award one of those instead of encouraging monks to wield some super-special staff or whatever.

So far none of those weapons (in any published adventure or in the DMG) has anything besides a static +1/+2/+3. Compare that to the staff from LMoP, the Dragontooth dagger from RoT, Dagger of Venom from HotDQ, and the ungoldly Spear/Dagger in PotA.

[Easy_Lee]

So far none of those weapons (in any published adventure or in the DMG) has anything besides a static +1/+2/+3. Compare that to the staff from LMoP, the Dragontooth dagger from RoT, Dagger of Venom from HotDQ, and the ungoldly Spear/Dagger in PotA.

Sounds less like a monk problem and more like those campaigns just not having good monk options. Besides, most magical weapons could, conceivably, be reforged into a claw, knuckle duster, katar, glove, etc.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Yeah, really, it seems this isn't really about MONKS having less damage than other classes, it's about unarmed being less viable than using a weapon. Which is lame, when the monk is kinda built to let unarmed be completely viable. Since monks can use magic monk weapons just fine with their abilities, it seems silly for the reason behind a lack of unarmed magic weapons to be "it's a balance issue".

In other words, you're making a weapon choice less powerful, rather than a class. And when that weapon is often worse than other weapon in the first place, well, that just seems like the reasoning is faulty.

[coredump]

Because magical weapons > fist, even with the unarmed strike boosters.

Take a look at LMoP, the starter set to 5e. Within the game is a magical staff that adds 1d6 damage on hit. Any Monk would be insane not to use a weapon like that. Daggers and staffs that add a +d4/6/8 on hit are plentiful in 5e, so having their base damage level with a monk's damage dice is a potential huge increase in DPS over unarmed strikes.

That is quite an assumption you are making there.... maybe you are playing a different game than I am.

[Chronos]

Quoth Joe the Rat:

Twin shortswords can work above monk5. Attack with one, Extra attack with the other, bonus attack with your foot.
Why do you need twin shortswords for this? Attack with one, extra attack with the same one, then bonus attack with your foot. That way, you only need to find one magic weapon, not two (and even if you find so many magic weapons that every party member can get two, just keep whichever one is better and leave the other in your backpack).