Monks and TWF

[ES Curse]

So, if I'm reading the rules right, a monk with the TWF style from a multiclass (aka Fighter dip) can add his dexterity modifier to attacks made with an off-hand monk weapon. So, if I dual-wield clubs as a Monk 1/Fighter 1, I can deal 1d4+DEX damage with my bonus action, right? I don't think this applies to unarmed strikes, but it makes the trade-off of not being able to throw back arrows less of a hassle. This also would make Flurry of Blows much less important, as your TWF damage can outpace the bonus damage from rolling a second unarmed attack because you don't add your modifier.

[orange74]

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that monks can add DEX to their unarmed strikes. Everybody gets to add STR, monks are specifically allowed to add DEX.

[EvilAnagram]

This is worse than using the martial arts bonus action attack.

[Arkhios]

Third bullet point under Martial Arts:
When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn.

The monks have a built-in TWF, and because that's just one bullet point under Martial Arts feature, you get to add your dexterity to your damage rolls already. Unless there is a specific reason why you're dual wielding clubs, multiclassing to a class that gives you the fighting style is redundant. The fighting style does work though. Just remember it's either the unarmed strike or off-hand club, since you have only 1 bonus action available every given turn.

[Saeviomage]

The only reason you would do this is if you had decided to wear armor as a monk, since martial arts doesn't function while you do so.

That said, I think you can make a pretty effective armor-wearing monk: you're losing increased monk weapon damage, dex based unarmed strikes, your bonus attack and fast movement, but nothing else requires you to be unarmored or even use a monk weapon.

[Tanarii]

The only reason you would do this is if you had decided to wear armor as a monk, since martial arts doesn't function while you do so.

That said, I think you can make a pretty effective armor-wearing monk: you're losing increased monk weapon damage, dex based unarmed strikes, your bonus attack and fast movement, but nothing else requires you to be unarmored or even use a monk weapon.You're also losing the ability to make Dex-based monk weapon strikes. (Edit: in other words, technically you can't do this as an armor wearing monk. You'd TWF clubs as STR, not DEX.)

I'm curious what 'nothing else' you're thinking of the class provides that is worth advancing as a Monk for, given all the things you lose when wearing armor.

[ES Curse]

2 points I guess I need clarified:
-So you do get to add your DEX modifier to your unarmed strike bonus action?
-You need a free hand to use the Monk unarmed strike? I thought you could make it even with both hands full.

[orange74]

2 points I guess I need clarified:
-So you do get to add your DEX modifier to your unarmed strike bonus action?
-You need a free hand to use the Monk unarmed strike? I thought you could make it even with both hands full.
1. Yes.
2. Full of what? You don't get another attack from holding a weapon and you can't hold a shield and do monk stuff. RAW seem to me to not specifically require an empty hand but other than a spellcasting focus I'm not sure what else you'd have in hand.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You're also losing the ability to make Dex-based monk weapon strikes. (Edit: in other words, technically you can't do this as an armor wearing monk. You'd TWF clubs as STR, not DEX.)

I'm curious what 'nothing else' you're thinking of the class provides that is worth advancing as a Monk for, given all the things you lose when wearing armor.
All the Ki stuff? You'd probably need Tavern Brawler if you wanted to use Flurry of Blows at all, but you can wear full plate and swing a greatsword, spend a ki to stun, spend another ki to kick twice, deflect an arrow, and then fly away using Ride the Wind.


1. Yes.
2. Full of what? You don't get another attack from holding a weapon and you can't hold a shield and do monk stuff. RAW seem to me to not specifically require an empty hand but other than a spellcasting focus I'm not sure what else you'd have in hand.
Two-handing a spear or quarterstaff, usually.

[orange74]

Two-handing a spear or quarterstaff, usually.
I wasn't counting that on the theory that you could take one hand off the weapon while facepunching, but yes, that is an eminently reasonable thing to be holding on to.

[Malifice]

So, if I'm reading the rules right, a monk with the TWF style from a multiclass (aka Fighter dip) can add his dexterity modifier to attacks made with an off-hand monk weapon. So, if I dual-wield clubs as a Monk 1/Fighter 1, I can deal 1d4+DEX damage with my bonus action, right? I don't think this applies to unarmed strikes, but it makes the trade-off of not being able to throw back arrows less of a hassle. This also would make Flurry of Blows much less important, as your TWF damage can outpace the bonus damage from rolling a second unarmed attack because you don't add your modifier.

If using a Monk weapon or unarmed strike they dont need TWF style.

They just add either Dex or Str to the hit and damage of all attacks they make each turn with either.

So with a Dex of +4 (at 1st level) and using a staff, they use their action to attack at +6 dealing 1d8+4 damage, then they use their bonus action to make an unarmed strike at +6 dealing 1d4+4 damage.

At 2nd level, they can atack with the staff and also flurry (for two unarmed attacks as a bonus action at +6 dealing 1d4+4)

At 5th level its two attacks with the staff (dealing 1d8+4) and two more as a bonus action with flurry.

[Tanarii]

All the Ki stuff? You'd probably need Tavern Brawler if you wanted to use Flurry of Blows at all, but you can wear full plate and swing a greatsword, spend a ki to stun, spend another ki to kick twice, deflect an arrow, and then fly away using Ride the Wind.
Huh. For some reason I thought flurry of blows and especially stunning strike required no armor too. My mistake on that.

I assume we'd be talking a STR/Wis build here then. Vuman Fighter 1 / Monk X with Tavern Brawler maybe? Use lots of grapples? Still seems like sacrificing a lot of Monk power, but might be an interesting shadow monk or even elemonk.

[Malifice]

-So you do get to add your DEX modifier to your unarmed strike bonus action?

Yes. Or Strength, take your pick.


-You need a free hand to use the Monk unarmed strike?

No. You can kick, headbut, elbow, knee, slap or whatever.

Technically you cant use Martial arts if holding a non-monk weapon or shield full stop, but most DMs wont care as long as you dont use it (i.e. simply holding a bow in one hand wont stop you from using Martial Arts, but some DMs will be a jerk and say it does 'because RAW').

[jas61292]

The only reason you would do this is if you had decided to wear armor as a monk, since martial arts doesn't function while you do so.

Actually, the best reason to do this would be if you found two good magical monk weapons, and you want to be able to make your bonus action attack with one of them. Usually, if you were going to do some build that wanted to wear armor as a monk, you wouldn't bother to go TWF or use monk weapons, since other fighting styles would be better.

[Joe the Rat]

I wasn't counting that on the theory that you could take one hand off the weapon while facepunching, but yes, that is an eminently reasonable thing to be holding on to. Kicking is a thing.

[djreynolds]

You can freely add your dexterity when kick monsters in the jimmies. And Open hand lets you do it twice.

[ES Curse]

Basically, I was thinking about adapting someone from a video game who practices the real martial art Escrima/Kali, which involves fighting with a 2-foot stick in each hand. Most other TWF builds would be horrifically underpowered while wielding 2 clubs, so I thought I could use the Monk's Martial Arts feature to make it work.

[djreynolds]

I see you want to swat with one hand and then the next and then kick?

At 5th level a monk can attack twice with a quarterstaff, which is 1d8 cause it is versatile, and then Bonus action FOB.

You want attack left hand club and then right hand club, and then FOB, more of just a style thing/conceptual instead of swing twice with the right hand and FOB.

If that is all you are doing, I would allow it, as the quarterstaff is 1d8 and clubs are 1d6, and you are getting two attacks with each and the just flurry of kicks

[Malifice]

Basically, I was thinking about adapting someone from a video game who practices the real martial art Escrima/Kali, which involves fighting with a 2-foot stick in each hand. Most other TWF builds would be horrifically underpowered while wielding 2 clubs, so I thought I could use the Monk's Martial Arts feature to make it work.

Hit with stick, kick, [round 1 ends] hit with other stick, elbow, kick [round 2 ends with flurry], headbut, hit them with the first stick [round 3 ends], hit with second stick, knee them twice [round 4 ends, starting with another flurry] hit with stick one, kick [round 5 ends].

Sounds pretty Escrima/ Kali like.

[CapnZapp]

Monks should not do TWF, they get what they need from their class.

[Arkhios]

I see you want to swat with one hand and then the next and then kick?

At 5th level a monk can attack twice with a quarterstaff, which is 1d8 cause it is versatile, and then Bonus action FOB.

You want attack left hand club and then right hand club, and then FOB, more of just a style thing/conceptual instead of swing twice with the right hand and FOB.

If that is all you are doing, I would allow it, as the quarterstaff is 1d8 and clubs are 1d6, and you are getting two attacks with each and the just flurry of kicks

Minor nitpick. 5th edition Quarterstaff is 1d6 (1d8 only when wielded in two hands, due to versatile property), and club is 1d4. That being said, there's really no "need" to allow it, because that's how it works. You can hold two one-handed weapons in each hand, and attack with both on your turn, as long as you have Extra Attack feature, regardless of their type as long as you're not trying to use two-weapon fighting as is for yet another attack as a bonus action (unless you have Dual Wielder feat).

I can see a 5th level monk practicing eskrima, attacking with each hand with Attack action (making two separate attacks) and then make an unarmed strike (which can be any of the following: fist punch/kick/headbutt/etc.) either once with the Bonus Action granted by Martial Arts (no ki points required) or twice with Flurry of Blows (requires ki points).

[Arc-Royal]

Hit with stick, kick, [round 1 ends] hit with other stick, elbow, kick [round 2 ends with flurry], headbut, hit them with the first stick [round 3 ends], hit with second stick, knee them twice [round 4 ends, starting with another flurry] hit with stick one, kick [round 5 ends].

Sounds pretty Escrima/ Kali like.

Minor nitpick: On round 3, you'd have to hit with the stick first or just make an unarmed strike for your second attack (Martial Arts stipulates that you get to make the bonus action unarmed strike when you take the Attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon, so while I think it's a fair RAI to say you could change up the order, based on RAW you don't get the bonus action attack if you haven't taken the Attack action with an unarmed strike/monk weapon yet).

I was actually surprised to learn that Grod is right and performing a Stunning Strike with a greatsword is, in fact, possible per RAW. It requies you to hit with a melee weapon attack, not necessarily a monk weapon. *insert "The More You Know" image here*

[Tanarii]

Minor nitpick: On round 3, you'd have to hit with the stick first or just make an unarmed strike for your second attack (Martial Arts stipulates that you get to make the bonus action unarmed strike when you take the Attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon, so while I think it's a fair RAI to say you could change up the order, based on RAW you don't get the bonus action attack if you haven't taken the Attack action with an unarmed strike/monk weapon yet).You can take resolve them in any order, as long as you take the Attack Action on your turn. Taking an action is not the same as resolving the results of said action.

See SA for Shield Master / War Magic for other examples of this.

Edit: changed 'take' to 'resolve' because even in a post saying they aren't the same thing, I still managed to mix them up lol

[Saeviomage]

I assume we'd be talking a STR/Wis build here then. Vuman Fighter 1 / Monk X with Tavern Brawler maybe? Use lots of grapples? Still seems like sacrificing a lot of Monk power, but might be an interesting shadow monk or even elemonk.
Well, you could do a grappler (but it's not a good way).

Regardless of which tradition, you've got stunning strike, slow fall, deflect missiles, evasion, proficiency in all saves, immunity to a bunch of stuff, the ability to dodge, disengage or dash as a bonus action or hit a couple of extra times (weakly, sure).

My own take wouldn't bother with tavern brawler: unarmed attacks dealing 1+str isn't much worse than 1d4+str, and that's only if you're spending ki on flurry.

Open hand and shadow both give abilities that work just fine in heavy armor while wielding a two-handed sword (or a sword and shield). Shadow seems particularly nice with it's reaction-attack grant. Open hand gives you some nice control abilities.

[Phoenix042]

1. Yes.
2. Full of what? You don't get another attack from holding a weapon and you can't hold a shield and do monk stuff. RAW seem to me to not specifically require an empty hand but other than a spellcasting focus I'm not sure what else you'd have in hand.

Absolutely no reason that you can't have a weapon in each hand and simply NOT two weapon fight.

You could alternate attacks with different weapons against different foes (or with different magical powers), or else hold two throw-able weapons and throw one or both of them whenever you want to attack at range.

Two weapon fighting is a specific set of rules governing the provision of a bonus action you can use to make an extra attack. It does not restrict you from otherwise alternating which hand you attack with during normal attack routines.

For example, I had a concept for a "Yuan Ti disciple" style assassin 3 / monk 5 multiclass. He'd carry around two fang-shaped short swords and poison them both before a fight. Since he has extra attack, he can attack twice with the swords with one action, so he'd attack with one sword with his first attack, and a different one with his second attack. If neither hit (so he still hadn't dealt sneak attack damage), then he'd engage in two weapon fighting, using his bonus action to try for SA and poison-proc one more time. If he had already hit with one of the swords, he'd use his bonus action for flurry instead, and kick or elbow or w/e twice. Note that even though your unarmed strikes can't sneak attack, they CAN crit when you use assassinate.

Could use daggers instead at that level, for the option to throw one or both of them if I wanted to attack at range, and still deal 1d6 damage each (from martial arts).


Even if you're not doing that, you could be:
1) Grappling someone with one hand from a previous round and wielding a monk weapon in the other.
2) Dragging/ carrying a fallen ally with one hand, wielding a monk weapon in the other.
3) Holding onto a rope or handhold and bracing yourself against a cliff or wall 50ft above the ground, wielding a monk weapon in the other hand, and fighting spiders or something.
4) Holding onto a large object or item in one hand and wielding a monk weapon in the other.
5) Grappling two people at once, one in each hand.
6) Holding a rope with one hand and an unconscious ally's wrist in the other, dangling on a cliff 50ft off the ground, and fighting spiders or something.
7) Bound with both hands tied behind your back.
8) Holding closed a gigantic set of doors, one in each hand, and forcing a horde of foes to fight their way past you, buying your fleeing allies precious seconds.

In all of these cases and more, the monk can fight with unarmed strikes WITHOUT PENALTY, using feet, elbows, thighs (see Black Widow), headbutts, knees, etc.

RAW, you do not need a free hand to execute an unarmed strike, and no good DM would take that away from you or add unnecessary restriction to how "cool" your character gets to be.

[Phoenix042]

Minor nitpick: On round 3, you'd have to hit with the stick first or just make an unarmed strike for your second attack (Martial Arts stipulates that you get to make the bonus action unarmed strike when you take the Attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon, so while I think it's a fair RAI to say you could change up the order, based on RAW you don't get the bonus action attack if you haven't taken the Attack action with an unarmed strike/monk weapon yet).

It makes me sad that this is such a common misconception, as I can't begin to imagine all the fun that isn't being had by people forced to resolve actions in a certain order on their turn.

"When" is not the same thing as "after."

As long as you've committed to taking the attack action on your turn, you can resolve the attacks granted by either that action or any bonus action you might also take in
ANY
ORDER

and divide up your move as you wish, too.

In fact, if you had the extra attack class feature and quicken spell, you could move a little, attack, move a little more, cast a quickened spell, then move a little more and attack again. And those attacks wouldn't need to be with the same weapon, as long as you had access to a second somehow on your turn.

Welcome to 5th edition, where needless restrictions on player fun and character concepts are no longer built in to the Rules As Written.

Now if we could just get all the DM's to also stop imposing needless restrictions, too.

[Malifice]

Minor nitpick: On round 3, you'd have to hit with the stick first or just make an unarmed strike for your second attack (Martial Arts stipulates that you get to make the bonus action unarmed strike when you take the Attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon, so while I think it's a fair RAI to say you could change up the order, based on RAW you don't get the bonus action attack if you haven't taken the Attack action with an unarmed strike/monk weapon yet).

By RAW the attack action has to happen on your turn. The sequencing doesnt matter.

You can take the bonus action before, after or even (arguably) during the attack action.

[Zalabim]

Even if you're not doing that, you could be:
1) Grappling someone a spider with one hand from a previous round and wielding a monk weapon in the other.
2) Dragging/ carrying a fallen ally with one hand, wielding a monk weapon in the other.
3) Holding onto a rope or handhold and bracing yourself against a cliff or wall 50ft above the ground, wielding a monk weapon in the other hand, and fighting spiders or something.
4) Holding onto a large object or item spider totem in one hand and wielding a monk weapon in the other.
5) Grappling two people spiders at once, one in each hand.
6) Holding a rope with one hand and an unconscious ally's wrist in the other, dangling on a cliff 50ft off the ground, and fighting spiders or something.
7) Bound with both hands tied webbed behind your back.
8) Holding closed a gigantic set of doors, one in each hand, and forcing a horde of foes spiders to fight their way past you, buying your fleeing allies precious seconds.
These are all good examples, I just wanted to upgrade a few of them a little.

[Phoenix042]

Technically you cant use Martial arts if holding a non-monk weapon or shield full stop [...]
some DMs will be a jerk and say [you can't] 'because RAW').

That's not RAW, actually. Wielding is not the same thing as holding. You can hold a greatsword in your left hand and a longsword in your right and still benefit from the dueling fighting style, or even the martial arts benefits, as long as you don't WIELD the weapons that would disqualify you.

DMs that say you cannot do that are houseruling, and their houserule, in this case, is inconsistent with common sense and good game balance.

Imagine, for example, that you grab a small treasure chest off the floor in your off-hand, and fight with a longsword in the other. You're not wielding the chest, so most DMs won't impose any kind of restriction on you (although if you had the dual wielder feat, you could probably try to use the treasure chest as part of TWF, and then you'd be wielding it). Also, what if you hold a rope or other object in your off hand and a longsword in the other? In any case, you shouldn't be penalized on your longsword attacks because of it.

But what if your treasure is instead an ornate, ceremonial greatsword? Perhaps even one that you wouldn't dream of actually fighting with (like if it's made of something valuable but fragile, or if it's some significant symbol of history or culture, or a cursed magic item which, if bloodied, releases a terrible demon into the world). Now some DMs apparently say that you can't use martial arts because the thing you're holding COULD be wielded as a weapon?

That's ridiculous. Also not RAW, and really, really bad DMing style. Restrictions you impose on your players should be intended to improve game balance, make a setting distinct, or create new gameplay opportunities (for example, restricting access to food-and-water creating magic as part of an adventure where basic survival is a central motivator and objective).


(Edited some grammar mistakes)

[Phoenix042]

These are all good examples, I just wanted to upgrade a few of them a little.

Your version is VASTLY superior. Hats off to you.

[Groggen]

As long as you've committed to taking the attack action on your turn, you can resolve the attacks granted by either that action or any bonus action you might also take in
ANY
ORDER

Any bonus action is actually not correct, as Flurry of Blows, RAW, requires that you've made at least one attack with your attack action first (since it says "Immediately after you take the Attack action". This has also been confirmed by Crawford.).

I think this is part of the reason many are unsure on the rules regarding monks and the Martial Arts bonus action. Come to think of it, are there any other bonus actions with similar "timing rules"? I can't think of any right now at least.

My ruling would be to just treat FOB like any other bonus action, as in without timing restrictions :)

[Tanarii]

Any bonus action is actually not correct, as Flurry of Blows, RAW, requires that you've made at least one attack with your attack action first (since it says "Immediately after you take the Attack action". This has also been confirmed by Crawford.). nope. You can still use the flurry before any attacks. Here's how:

1) take the attack action. This does not require making any actual attacks. It is a metagame activity.
2) take the bonus action to flurry of blows. Again, a metagame activity.
3) resolve attacks in any order, including flurry attacks first.

You're still conflating 'take the attack action' with 'resolve attacks from the attack action'.

[odigity]

nope. You can still use the flurry before any attacks. Here's how:

1) take the attack action. This does not require making any actual attacks. It is a metagame activity.
2) take the bonus action to flurry of blows. Again, a metagame activity.
3) resolve attacks in any order, including flurry attacks first.

You're still conflating 'take the attack action' with 'resolve attacks from the attack action'.

Yes.

If this is surprising to you (it's surprising to most people because the rules are written so poorly), see this post for further explanation:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21193796&postcount=22

[Groggen]

nope. You can still use the flurry before any attacks. Here's how:

1) take the attack action. This does not require making any actual attacks. It is a metagame activity.
2) take the bonus action to flurry of blows. Again, a metagame activity.
3) resolve attacks in any order, including flurry attacks first.

You're still conflating 'take the attack action' with 'resolve attacks from the attack action'.

The following question, and answer (by Crawford), can be found at this page http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/28/monk-bonus-attacks-beforeafterduring-attack-action/ .

Q: "so FoB must be after the Attack action is fully resolved, while Unarmed Strike acts like any other bonus action then?"

A: "That's correct."

[Tanarii]

The following question, and answer (by Crawford), can be found at this page http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/28/monk-bonus-attacks-beforeafterduring-attack-action/ .

Q: "so FoB must be after the Attack action is fully resolved, while Unarmed Strike acts like any other bonus action then?"

A: "That's correct."
Nice to see JC being as completely inconsistent as people always accuse him of being.

Total /facepalm
I wish he'd make up his damn mind.

[Groggen]

I wish he'd make up his damn mind.

I don't recall him saying something that's contrary to his statement about FOB; what has he said before?

And it seems to me that most accuse Mearls of being inconsistent, not Crawford. It has happened that he's contradicted himself on a couple of occasions, but nowhere near what Mearls has done, as I recall at least.

[Tanarii]

I don't recall him saying something that's contrary to his statement about FOB; what has he said before?this directly contradicts the shield master and war magic rulings he made.

[Groggen]

this directly contradicts the shield master and war magic rulings he made.

That's not the way I've read it. He has usually simply restated what it says in the PHB, which is "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified" (highlight by me). And FOB says "Immediately after", not When, If or some other general term. And allowing FOB before the attack action actually increases the strength of it quite a lot, so I for one, have no problem with it.

We're all free to rule as we want though :)

[odigity]

Flurry of Blows:

"Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action."

Now, in the Permission Slip model, taking the Attack action is not the same thing as executing the attacks granted by the Attack action, but given Crawford's tweet on Flurry of Blows, I would reinterpret FoB's text to read:

"Immediately after executing the last attack granted by taking the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action."

That still leaves the question of if movement is allowed between attack and flurry #1, and between flurry #1 and flurry #2.

I wish they had more precisely defined the model in the PHB instead of "trying to keep it simple". All they've done is obfuscate the truth.

[Phoenix042]

Flurry of Blows:
"Immediately after executing the last attack granted by taking the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action."

That still leaves the question of if movement is allowed between attack and flurry #1, and between flurry #1 and flurry #2.

I wish they had more precisely defined the model in the PHB instead of "trying to keep it simple". All they've done is obfuscate the truth.

A bonus action is still an action, remember, and "if you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack (which, confusingly, unarmed strikes actually ARE), you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks," as per the text in the "Moving between attacks" section in chapter 9 of the PHB.

Also in chapter 9 and one section up, we get this:
"You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action." Note again that a bonus action is still considered an action by literally every part of the game that doesn't explicitly SAY that it isn't, and therefore, this applies again. Since "after your action" is when flurry of blows occurs, you've got clear answers to both of your questions at the end. Yes, and yes. Basically, you can move whenever the hell you want between each discreet event on your turn, and I've yet to see a rule that overrides this general fact in any specific case.

"Immediately after" is pretty clearly meant to force you to finish your attack action (executing each of it's attacks) before you can use any of the attacks granted by flurry. The permission slip model is super helpful and generally correct, but it is not explicitly the way the game works in all cases, though this is the only exception I'm aware of.

However, "Immediately after" does not necessarily preclude other activity happening in between the action granted attacks and the FOB attacks, even though it might seem to. That's because this does not explicitly clarify that nothing you do can interrupt the flurry attacks, and since most activity you can take on your turn CAN interrupt any other activity on your turn, movement and the like can interrupt flurry of blows.

[odigity]

Yes, and yes. Basically, you can move whenever the hell you want between each discreet event on your turn, and I've yet to see a rule that overrides this general fact in any specific case.

I agree.


"Immediately after" is pretty clearly meant to force you to finish your attack action (executing each of it's attacks) before you can use any of the attacks granted by flurry. The permission slip model is super helpful and generally correct, but it is not explicitly the way the game works in all cases, though this is the only exception I'm aware of.

However, "Immediately after" does not necessarily preclude other activity happening in between the action granted attacks and the FOB attacks, even though it might seem to. That's because this does not explicitly clarify that nothing you do can interrupt the flurry attacks, and since most activity you can take on your turn CAN interrupt any other activity on your turn, movement and the like can interrupt flurry of blows.

It depends on what they mean by "immediately". They don't define things well. :)

Also, any time you move, you can generate an AoO, which could create the possibility of using your reaction...

[djreynolds]

Minor nitpick. 5th edition Quarterstaff is 1d6 (1d8 only when wielded in two hands, due to versatile property), and club is 1d4. That being said, there's really no "need" to allow it, because that's how it works. You can hold two one-handed weapons in each hand, and attack with both on your turn, as long as you have Extra Attack feature, regardless of their type as long as you're not trying to use two-weapon fighting as is for yet another attack as a bonus action (unless you have Dual Wielder feat).

I can see a 5th level monk practicing eskrima, attacking with each hand with Attack action (making two separate attacks) and then make an unarmed strike (which can be any of the following: fist punch/kick/headbutt/etc.) either once with the Bonus Action granted by Martial Arts (no ki points required) or twice with Flurry of Blows (requires ki points).

good catch, thanks.

Unless you have some magic weapon that has some elemental damage property, once you hit 6th monk you hands/feet/body parts are magical