Fighter / Monk questions

[Laughingdagger]

Hey guys, I've been considering a fighter 2 monk 6 for a game I play weekly, and was wondering what all of you think about the dueling fighting style and its interaction with monk weapon attacks in main hand and empty offhand.

For the record, the character is eladrin and open hand and I'm clearly moving to optimize giving him as many short rest resources as possible; ki points, action surge, second wind, misty step racial.

[MinotaurWarrior]

It should work. So, with MA You'd do 1d6+2+ASM twice with your shortsword, and then 1d6+ASM once with your fist.

You're losing 1 damage on average, from not using a quarterstaff in two hands, and 1/4*(4.5-1.5)=3/4 damage from GWM with a quarterstaff, so it's slightly mechanically advantageous.

[Arkhios]

If you think you can afford it, consider Magic Initiate (Druid) for Shillelagh, another cantrip of your choice and maybe Goodberry(1st-level) 1/long rest.

That way you could always wield a (magical) quarterstaff one-handedly for 1d8+2+ability modifier. And since it's a monk weapon you can choose to attack with any of strength, dexterity, or wisdom (whichever is highest is the best, obviously) - in fact, you don't even need Shillelagh to do this, though the weapon damage die will be d6 without, and you'd need to use either strength or dexterity.

[Specter]

If your DM allows it Mariner fighting style could be great. +1ac goes a long way, and sadly Dueling won't apply to the unarmed strikes.

Seconding the magic initiate idea, especially to give you a ranged option like Frostbite or Produce Flame. Monks suck at range. With Shillelagh you could even try to make WIS your highest stat and stun away.

[MinotaurWarrior]

If going for magic initiate, I'd recommend Create Bonfire as your second cantrip, and Longstrider as your spell. Shillelagh and Longstrider aren't concentration spells, so you can maintain the hazard as long as you want. The downside vs produce flame is that it doesn't work on fliers, but if that's going to be a huge problem with your campaign, I'd just recommend you not play a monk.

[MrStabby]

For optimisation I don't think magic initiate is the way to go, but if it's for fun/characterisation it's probably ok.

As a monk you want both dex and wis somewhat high, even just for AC and saves. Given that you will want a good dex anyway the gap between dex and wisdom is likely to be pretty small. Shileighlagh may get you a bonus to attack but using that ASI for +2 to dex would also get you a bonus to attack as well as to initiative, saves, AC and a bunch of skills, so it may depend on how much you value the ancillary benefits.

If i were to take a feat, I would prefer pole arm master and use a quarterstaff. Pole arm master will give you a frequent reaction attack (with +2 damage from duelling style) and it lets you replace your martial arts bonus attack with a more powerful attack as you also get to add +2 damage to that as well. The reaction attack also works nicely with the open hand features allowing you to make a flurry of blows and knock an opponent away so they can trigger a reaction attack again.

[RulesJD]

I've really never understood why people want to go Fighter/Monk. I get that it's an "easy" increase in damage, but it's by far the least advantageous.

Instead, go War Cleric. Divine Favor is a MUCH largest damage increase, and with 2 level dip you get it 3/long rest, which is quite a lot. Take one more level of Cleric and it's 6/long rest, aka basically every fight.

Moreover, you get a ton more benefits. Guidance on a Monk is superb considering how many skill checks you make to Stealth, Initiative, Acrobatics, Slight of Hand, Thieves' Tools, etc. Not to mention access to Bless if you don't really need the damage but your party needs help against Saves/Attack Rolls.

[MrStabby]

I've really never understood why people want to go Fighter/Monk. I get that it's an "easy" increase in damage, but it's by far the least advantageous.

Instead, go War Cleric. Divine Favor is a MUCH largest damage increase, and with 2 level dip you get it 3/long rest, which is quite a lot. Take one more level of Cleric and it's 6/long rest, aka basically every fight.

Moreover, you get a ton more benefits. Guidance on a Monk is superb considering how many skill checks you make to Stealth, Initiative, Acrobatics, Slight of Hand, Thieves' Tools, etc. Not to mention access to Bless if you don't really need the damage but your party needs help against Saves/Attack Rolls.

Divine favour adds D4 damage per melee weapon attack, dueling fighting style adds 2 - on average not really a lot of difference.

I am not against a dip of cleric on a monk (love the light domain for this) but divine favour isn't the reason.

Fighters have other attractions as a you go up levels. Action surge is solid, and the archetype at level 3 can net you things like shield with EK (and you will probably have a free hand) or great battlemaster abilities. It just depends how far you want to go.

[gfishfunk]

I've really never understood why people want to go Fighter/Monk. I get that it's an "easy" increase in damage, but it's by far the least advantageous.

Instead, go War Cleric. Divine Favor is a MUCH largest damage increase, and with 2 level dip you get it 3/long rest, which is quite a lot. Take one more level of Cleric and it's 6/long rest, aka basically every fight.

Moreover, you get a ton more benefits. Guidance on a Monk is superb considering how many skill checks you make to Stealth, Initiative, Acrobatics, Slight of Hand, Thieves' Tools, etc. Not to mention access to Bless if you don't really need the damage but your party needs help against Saves/Attack Rolls.

I think the deterrent is the divine flavor. See what I did there?

Fighter is sort of like vanilla, you can add it or mix it with anything without changing the flavor too much. A monk-fighter can feel exactly like a monk. A monk-cleric can feel different/very different thematically.

Dueling works well. Its a simple bonus. Protection can work really well depending on group make-up, but it does not increase damage output.

Honestly, I think pushing to level 3 for champion is even better, and ditching 1 level of monk for monk 5/champion-fighter 3. With the number of attacks that you are making, that extra crit chance is really nice.

[djreynolds]

I like duelist, but a monk also makes for an excellent part time archer and I feel ranger would be as good of dip as fighter. Both are fine.
For a monk your ranged attack is your speed. You can move 30 and shoot an arrow and move another 20 and punch someone in the face.
You can move all over the battlefield. You have 20AC with Max dex and wis.
Now for monk I like mobile and mage slayer.

For dips, I actually prefer 2 of rogue or barbarian. Cunning action and the damage resistance of rage are more impact full to me.

But action surge, second wind, and +2 damage not bad at all either.

I have always felt, monk should've been like a fighter archetype. Both are really reliant on tactics.

[Tanarii]

I think the deterrent is the divine flavor. See what I did there?

Fighter is sort of like vanilla, you can add it or mix it with anything without changing the flavor too much. A monk-fighter can feel exactly like a monk. A monk-cleric can feel different/very different thematically.
So instead of a devotee of a generic philosophical religious sect hidden away in the mountains, you're a devotee of a religious sect of a specific diety hidden away in the mountains.

That's a huge thematic difference right there.

[smcmike]

So instead of a devotee of a generic philosophical religious sect hidden away in the mountains, you're a devotee of a religious sect of a specific diety hidden away in the mountains.

That's a huge thematic difference right there.

Perhaps you are being ironic, but, yes, that is a pretty significant difference. More importantly, the ability to cast spells is a very big deal.

A fighter/monk can be a martial artist who has mastered esoteric teachings to become a master of the blade. Praying for divine spells doesn't necessarily fit into that at all.

[Tanarii]

A fighter/monk can be a martial artist who has mastered esoteric teachings to become a master of the blade.
You mean like a war cleric or tempest cleric?

[smcmike]

You mean like a war cleric or tempest cleric?

Not really.

[MrStabby]

I like duelist, but a monk also makes for an excellent part time archer and I feel ranger would be as good of dip as fighter.
You can cover a bit of the archer role using javelins. They count as monk weapons so you can throw them with dexterity. Furthermore, if you are using fists then you can use your drawing a weapon allowance for the javelins without any need to allocate a weapon draw to a melee weapon for closing the gap.



For a monk your ranged attack is your speed. You can move 30 and shoot an arrow and move another 20 and punch someone in the face.
You can move all over the battlefield. You have 20AC with Max dex and wis.
Now for monk I like mobile and mage slayer.
Mobile I can see, mage slayer seems a bit odd unless I am missing something. I would have thought that with a caster you would be strong anyway - they don't tend to have the best Con saves (some do, but as a general rule) so you could stun them. Advantage on saves is nice but a bit niche. To be honest, I think I would prefer to be maxing stats with these ASIs rather than taking either feat.




For dips, I actually prefer 2 of rogue or barbarian. Cunning action and the damage resistance of rage are more impact full to me.
Rogue 1 for expertise and sneak attack works for me. Cunning action is largely covered by monk abilities anyway - sure you spend an occasional Ki point, but if you need the ability you have it. You would have to use the dash/disengage more than twice per short rest to surpass the use you would have got from the extra Ki points form turning the rogue levels into monk levels.

Barbarian is a funny one. I have also been trying to make this work but it always seems like you are wasting so many features. Reckless attack only works with strength based attacks, as does rage - so either you have a bad armour class due to low dex, or you waste ability scores have two high attack stats.




I have always felt, monk should've been like a fighter archetype. Both are really reliant on tactics.

To be honest I wouldn't have minded if a lot more classes were fighter archetypes, in fact all of those with a native second attack in the base class would work for me.

[CantigThimble]

You mean like a war cleric or tempest cleric?

Do you understand how pulling out a holy symbol and requesting the favor of a specific being 3+ times per day is kind of hard to ignore thematically?

[gfishfunk]

So instead of a devotee of a generic philosophical religious sect hidden away in the mountains, you're a devotee of a religious sect of a specific diety hidden away in the mountains.

That's a huge thematic difference right there.

Monk can be but is not necessarily a philosophical driven person. It can just as easily be a punk ninja, an evil street brawler, or a traveling boxer. All of those work with the class in terms of flavor of the class. So does the flavor or a reclusive or religious devotee. Cleric fits into a smaller thematic box.

While it might be more optimal, it might not have the right feel.

[Foxhound438]

To be honest I wouldn't have minded if a lot more classes were fighter archetypes, in fact all of those with a native second attack in the base class would work for me.

eh, to a degree I can see that, but things become a bit homogeneous like that. It's not really as interesting when figuring out team comp when every party basically requires someone to play fighter, cause that's the only tank class at that point.

To the OP, yeah dueling style is a pretty decent damage boost, and action surge isn't bad on its own either.

Not sure that it's the best possible 2 level dip, as others have mentioned-

cleric is great if you don't see a ton of fights between long rests. divine favor is an easy synergy with monk's 4 attacks per turn, and things like bless or domain 1st level features are solid as well

ranger 3 gives a ton of damage improvement: favored enemy if you use revised, dueling style, hunter's mark, and colossus slayer; the mark and CS would probably out damage action surge, long term, since it's 2 attacks once per fight versus 4d6+1d8 every turn.

warlock if you can spare the 13 for charisma for short rest hex, utility invocations, assorted other spells...

rogue is very solid- more so for shadow monks, but that's more or less non sequitor considering you have an open hand in mind. The synergy with sneak attack and opportunist is fairly good, as is free advantage from shadow step.

[RulesJD]

Divine favour adds D4 damage per melee weapon attack, dueling fighting style adds 2 - on average not really a lot of difference.

I am not against a dip of cleric on a monk (love the light domain for this) but divine favour isn't the reason.

Fighters have other attractions as a you go up levels. Action surge is solid, and the archetype at level 3 can net you things like shield with EK (and you will probably have a free hand) or great battlemaster abilities. It just depends how far you want to go.

The difference is that Divine Favor works with your Unarmed Strikes unless your DM wants to be a complete smuck regarding them no longer appearing on the Weapon table. I've yet to find a DM that cared.

If they do, then Hex is still a better option than Fighter 2.

[MrStabby]

The difference is that Divine Favor works with your Unarmed Strikes unless your DM wants to be a complete smuck regarding them no longer appearing on the Weapon table. I've yet to find a DM that cared.

If they do, then Hex is still a better option than Fighter 2.

When I DM my ruling is that an attack has to be made with a weapon the be a weapon attack - and the list of weapons is the weapon table + improvised weapons. The reason is that if i were to allow a free for all then people would start doing things like mixing hunters mark with flurry of blows.

[MinotaurWarrior]

For optimisation I don't think magic initiate is the way to go, but if it's for fun/characterisation it's probably ok.

As a monk you want both dex and wis somewhat high, even just for AC and saves. Given that you will want a good dex anyway the gap between dex and wisdom is likely to be pretty small. Shileighlagh may get you a bonus to attack but using that ASI for +2 to dex would also get you a bonus to attack as well as to initiative, saves, AC and a bunch of skills, so it may depend on how much you value the ancillary benefits.

If i were to take a feat, I would prefer pole arm master and use a quarterstaff. Pole arm master will give you a frequent reaction attack (with +2 damage from duelling style) and it lets you replace your martial arts bonus attack with a more powerful attack as you also get to add +2 damage to that as well. The reaction attack also works nicely with the open hand features allowing you to make a flurry of blows and knock an opponent away so they can trigger a reaction attack again.

Variant human still gets to 20/20 by level 16 with MI at level 1. Also, 1d4+2+ASM = 1d8+ASM on average, so the butt strike has a limited lifespan. However, you're right that the reaction attack is nice. To me, it's a question of what kind of monk you want to be.



Do you understand how pulling out a holy symbol and requesting the favor of a specific being 3+ times per day is kind of hard to ignore thematically?

Honestly? No. Especially given how relaxed your options are on that front. If you really have an issue with religion, would your DM not allow cause-clerics? An orphan streetbrawler who says, "I'm fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves!" or a punk who says, "Anarchy in the Sword Coast!" And if your DM doesn't allow that, think of all the real-world athletes who make small religious or superstitious gestures before, during, and after games. Is that really so thematically distracting to you, or can you focus on their central theme as athletes? Someone with a small dip into Cleric isn't having conversations with a deity.

[Pex]

If you think you can afford it, consider Magic Initiate (Druid) for Shillelagh, another cantrip of your choice and maybe Goodberry(1st-level) 1/long rest.

That way you could always wield a (magical) quarterstaff one-handedly for 1d8+2+ability modifier. And since it's a monk weapon you can choose to attack with any of strength, dexterity, or wisdom (whichever is highest is the best, obviously) - in fact, you don't even need Shillelagh to do this, though the weapon damage die will be d6 without, and you'd need to use either strength or dexterity.

If you use Shillelagh you'd have to use Wisdom because the spell says you use your casting modifier for the attack roll as it's the spell that makes it 1d8 and magical.

[Specter]

Dueling applies forever, but won't apply to the unarmed strikes. Divine Favor will cost a slot and a bonus action, but will apply to all attacks. Both are good in their own right. And nothing's stopping you from taking both.

In terms of flavor yes, there's a humongous difference between learning to fight mundanely and being a deity's servant to get magical gifts.

[Tanarii]

Do you understand how pulling out a holy symbol and requesting the favor of a specific being 3+ times per day is kind of hard to ignore thematically?not really. Since we're typically talking fanstasy-medieval era setting, most characters are probably doing this several times a day already. Cleric spells or not.


Monk can be but is not necessarily a philosophical driven person. It can just as easily be a punk ninja, an evil street brawler, or a traveling boxer. All of those work with the class in terms of flavor of the class. So does the flavor or a reclusive or religious devotee. Cleric fits into a smaller thematic box.Not seeing why Clerics can't be all of those things. Especially 'punk ninja' is a fit for trickery clerics. The other two would require either Brawler or (gasp) multi classing as a Monk.

I m just not seeing Fighter/Monk as being more thematic than Cleric (or Rogue) / Monk. Because to me those are the two most thematic multi class options available to a monk.

[smcmike]

I m just not seeing Fighter/Monk as being more thematic than Cleric (or Rogue) / Monk. Because to me those are the two most thematic multi class options available to a monk.

Doesn't it depend on what theme you are going for??

[Tanarii]

Doesn't it depend on what theme you are going for??
Of course. I'm talking generic out-of-the-box D&D cleric. Historically, they're originally a Rogue-Cleric Hybrid, minus Cleric spells. And they still carry most of that thematic baggage IMO.

[Arkhios]

I m just not seeing Fighter/Monk as being more thematic than Cleric (or Rogue) / Monk. Because to me those are the two most thematic multi class options available to a monk.

Just because you don't see it that way it doesn't mean others would have to see it your way. Honestly, this is absurd.

[RulesJD]

When I DM my ruling is that an attack has to be made with a weapon the be a weapon attack - and the list of weapons is the weapon table + improvised weapons. The reason is that if i were to allow a free for all then people would start doing things like mixing hunters mark with flurry of blows.

That's not really stopping anything. I'll just pickup Hex and be on 100% ruling grounds. It's a stupid distinction that Unarmed Strikes are "melee weapon attacks" but not "melee weapons" and they know it.

[gfishfunk]

That's not really stopping anything. I'll just pickup Hex and be on 100% ruling grounds. It's a stupid distinction that Unarmed Strikes are "melee weapon attacks" but not "melee weapons" and they know it.

Right. The only thing it does is confuse DMs and players. DMs feel like they need to exclude something because the rules appear to exclude something, and the DM is not sure why - it appears to be an intentional decision, so there must be some reason, right? At least, that is the train of logic.

I simply rule unarmed strikes as melee weapons for all purposes.

[Tanarii]

Just because you don't see it that way it doesn't mean others would have to see it your way. Honestly, this is absurd.

I guess you're unaware that the D&D monk is historically a cleric subclass?

[Arkhios]

I guess you're unaware that the D&D monk is historically a cleric subclass?

I was, but that doesn't matter to what I said. You see it your way, others don't have to. Times change.

[smcmike]

I guess you're unaware that the D&D monk is historically a cleric subclass?

This is a funny argument, considering how many times I've seen you argue against using past editions to understand 5e Alignments.

The definining fluff for 5e monks is the ability to control Ki, the magical energy that flows through one's body. This is very different from the fluff of clerics, who are intermediaries between mortal worlds and the distant planes of the gods.

For me, the most natural thematic choices for a multiclass monk are classes with abilities that emphasize excellence of the body. Fighter makes sense - mastering martial maneuvers is a big part of being a monk. Rogue makes sense - expertise and sneak attack are both skillful mastery of self, well within the theme. Barbarian is a stretch, but could make sense as mastering another realm of self-control, the ability to release that control.

Cleric can work, but it requires significant addition to the character's story in a way that fighter, rogue, or barbarian don't.

[Arkhios]

If you use Shillelagh you'd have to use Wisdom because the spell says you use your casting modifier for the attack roll as it's the spell that makes it 1d8 and magical.

Wrong. Shillelagh says "you can use", not "you use" nor "you must use".

Which ability modifier you choose to use for the attack is volitional - you can choose between strength and wisdom. Being a monk adds dexterity as yet another possibility.

[Tanarii]

This is a funny argument, considering how many times I've seen you argue against using past editions to understand 5e Alignments. Thats a fair point (with same being made my Arkhios that I can see). 5e is in many ways a back-to-the-roots edition, but that doesn't mean it's not it's own edition.


The definining fluff for 5e monks is the ability to control Ki, the magical energy that flows through one's body. This is very different from the fluff of clerics, who are intermediaries between mortal worlds and the distant planes of the gods.Since we're talking 5e fluff specifically, I just went back and re read the 5e class intro.
They magically harness the energy of their body.
Ki is part of the magic of the universe, ie the weave.
They are generally cloistered ascetic monastics, possibly serving mortal or divine powers.
They focus on spiritual contemplation and physical training.

The physical training part works for Fighter, certainly. But almost everything else screams Cleric. (Edit: or rogue for training, and sorcerer for harnessing inherent magic, obviously)

Of course, that's just the generic fluff. Certainly YMMV based on campaign, race, background, specific character etc. I'm objecting to the idea that somehow choosing to Multiclass Cleric is less thematic than Fighter. It's at least as thematic. (As usual for me when objecting to something I went too far overboard arguing the opposite side, as is usual for my contrarian nature.)

[djreynolds]

You can cover a bit of the archer role using javelins. They count as monk weapons so you can throw them with dexterity. Furthermore, if you are using fists then you can use your drawing a weapon allowance for the javelins without any need to allocate a weapon draw to a melee weapon for closing the gap.

Mobile I can see, mage slayer seems a bit odd unless I am missing something. I would have thought that with a caster you would be strong anyway - they don't tend to have the best Con saves (some do, but as a general rule) so you could stun them. Advantage on saves is nice but a bit niche. To be honest, I think I would prefer to be maxing stats with these ASIs rather than taking either feat.

Rogue 1 for expertise and sneak attack works for me. Cunning action is largely covered by monk abilities anyway - sure you spend an occasional Ki point, but if you need the ability you have it. You would have to use the dash/disengage more than twice per short rest to surpass the use you would have got from the extra Ki points form turning the rogue levels into monk levels.

Barbarian is a funny one. I have also been trying to make this work but it always seems like you are wasting so many features. Reckless attack only works with strength based attacks, as does rage - so either you have a bad armour class due to low dex, or you waste ability scores have two high attack stats.

To be honest I wouldn't have minded if a lot more classes were fighter archetypes, in fact all of those with a native second attack in the base class would work for me.

Very true, simple weapons might be better in the long run as the damage increases.

Mage slayer could be useful, as you can get to a caster quickly, not shabby. Yes this is definitely a luxury feat or maybe if you rolled well

I like saving KI points and you're right, maybe 3 of swashbuckler would be better or the mobile feat

I'm there for the resistance, pop rage and then don't worry about disengaging.

I could definitely see barbarian and monk as fighters