Best way to add bit more damage to the monk with only a 1 level dip?

[Spacehamster]

Rogue: Adds 1d6 on one attack with the right weapons with the added benefit of 1 skill more and expertise on 2 skills
Fighter: Dueling +2 damage on two attacks with 1 handed monk weapon
War cleric: 1d4 damage on all attacks spell(dun remember spell name)
Warlock: Hex, short rest spells and cantrips

Which of these do you guys think is the best option for adding some additional oomph to the monk making it bit better at damage
in addition to its main role of battlefield control, also with best I don´t nessecarily mean highest damage but overall useability of the 1 level dip.
To me Rogue and war cleric seems most attractive.

[JellyPooga]

Strictly speaking, if it's maximum damage you're looking for and it can only be a 1 level dip, then Warlock will give you the best nova damage with Hex.

If you want more reliable/regular damage output, then Fighter for Dueling FS is the way to go.

For pure awesome, though, go Rogue. That Expertise goes a very long way toward increasing your spotlight time as a player and as such, is the "funnest" option IMO, DPR be damned. Just be aware that only a shortsword attack can benefit from both Martial Arts and Sneak Attack.

[MrStabby]

I would also add that the warlock depends on how stats are generated. Getting to 13 in point buy could mean the difference in dexterity / attack attribute which would probably actually reduce your average damage.

[Hudsonian]

The war cleric option brings a lot of versatility to the table. You grab two cantrips, bless, healing word/cure wounds, and bane for those stunning strike saves, Guiding bolt for the really long shots that you really need, and I believe you get turn undead at level 1 too don't you?

**Edit**
I absolutely loved Thaumaturgy... Change your party faces eyes to look like snakes right before he goes into the tavern to ask for a room and watch him try and figure out why the barkeep is acting strangely... I had a reference sheet for my DM so that I could secretly mess with the party in silly ways like that. The floor would 'squeak' every time the rogue bragged about being sneaky etc. But once the party caught on they made me stop. fun while it lasted though

[MinotaurWarrior]

Variant imp familiar + hex makes warlock the way to go, imo.

[MrStabby]

War cleric doesn't do all attacks though, just weapon attacks so you need to use a weapon and it doesn't help the martial arts/flurry attacks. Not that it is bad - still a good spell but i would probably prefer bless.

[Tanarii]

Do you have your stats set already? If not, generally speaking any of those except Warlock works. Unless you're doing something unusual, Cha is your dump stat for a Monk. Whereas Dex (for Rogue/Fighter) or Wis (for Cleric) is something you probably already have a good score in anyway.

[RulesJD]

War cleric doesn't do all attacks though, just weapon attacks so you need to use a weapon and it doesn't help the martial arts/flurry attacks. Not that it is bad - still a good spell but i would probably prefer bless.

I've yet to see a DM that gave any care in the world about that stupid ruling.

Pure damage wise, War Cleric wins because it only eats your Bonus Action for 1 round, whereas Hex continually uses it as enemies die. Against a solo BBEG Hex wins obviously, but then you're using stunning strike anyways so who cares?

Rogue is tempting I'll admit, but I generally found it to be a bit redundant. Granted, this is probably because I prefer Shadow Monks.

[MrStabby]

I've yet to see a DM that gave any care in the world about that stupid ruling.

Pure damage wise, War Cleric wins because it only eats your Bonus Action for 1 round, whereas Hex continually uses it as enemies die. Against a solo BBEG Hex wins obviously, but then you're using stunning strike anyways so who cares?

Rogue is tempting I'll admit, but I generally found it to be a bit redundant. Granted, this is probably because I prefer Shadow Monks.

Well given it is an actual distinction, the very least the OP should do is check with the DM how they would rule. Nothing lost by doing it and could avoid later disappointment.

[RulesJD]

Variant imp familiar + hex makes warlock the way to go, imo.

You don't get the Imp Familiar until level 3 Warlock. This is for 1 level dips.

[Hudsonian]

Don't a monk's fists "Count as Magical weapons"?

[RickAllison]

War cleric doesn't do all attacks though, just weapon attacks so you need to use a weapon and it doesn't help the martial arts/flurry attacks. Not that it is bad - still a good spell but i would probably prefer bless.

That is perfectly fine for a monk, as unarmed strikes are a weapon attack. The restriction you are thinking of is an attack with a weapon, which unarmed strikes are not valid for.

Divine Favor works perfectly well for monks, it is things like Green flame Blade that don't work.

[MrStabby]

Don't a monk's fists "Count as Magical weapons"?

I believe it follows with "for the purpose of overcoming damage resistance" or similar. Someone with the book to hand can probably find the full quote

[MrStabby]

That is perfectly fine for a monk, as unarmed strikes are a weapon attack. The restriction you are thinking of is an attack with a weapon, which unarmed strikes are not valid for.

Divine Favor works perfectly well for monks, it is things like Green flame Blade that don't work.

Maybe I am using the wrong errata but I have been through it a couple of times and cant find this. Can you say where in the PHB or the Errata this is?

[Hudsonian]

I know, but I couldn't keep myself from taunting the rules lawyers around here.

Still a viable argument for the whole RAI. still a DM question. Even without that though, Bane would be pretty powerful on a monk.

[MrStabby]

I know, but I couldn't keep myself from taunting the rules lawyers around here.

Still a viable argument for the whole RAI. still a DM question. Even without that though, Bane would be pretty powerful on a monk.

Yes, bane can be pretty sweet. Even better if the rest of your party uses save spells a lot.

[Tanarii]

Let's boil down what each one gives a Monk:

Fighter:
+1 hp (relative)
Fighting Style : Dueling (only applies to melee weapons damage)
Second Wind (+1d10+1 hps 1/SR)

Rogue:
1 Skill & Thieves Tools proficiency
Expertise in 2 skills
Sneak Attack +1d6 (requires Finesse Weapon)

War Cleric:
bonus attack weapon attack, #Wis / LR
2 Level 1 Spell Slots
3 Cantrips
#Wis+1 prepared Spells, plus 2 Domain spells
Ritual Casting

Personally, I feel like Fighter comes out the lowest by this measure. I'd definitely go Rogue or War Cleric myself.

[MrStabby]

If the revised ranger is allowed it is worth considering.

Natural explorer will boost damage quire a bit - firstly by meaning you are more likely to go before enemies, kind of like a whole free turn where it makes a difference. Secondly the advantage on attack rolls will mean more damage as you hit more often.

Lots of ancillary benefits there as well.


Secondly you get favoured enemy which is a direct damage boost and a few non damage benefits tacked on.

[Hudsonian]

I was thinking about it and I think that Life or Knowledge cleric would be much better options than War Cleric.

You already use your bonus action every turn, and your wisdom is high enough that you will get plenty of versatility out of your prepared spells. But a free Heal a couple times a day would be nice and boosting the power of your healing spell slots would keep you from feeling the need to bump a level or two for that extra slot.

I also considered druid, but you really need two levels for that to take off at all.

[MrStabby]

I was thinking about it and I think that Life or Knowledge cleric would be much better options than War Cleric.

You already use your bonus action every turn, and your wisdom is high enough that you will get plenty of versatility out of your prepared spells. But a free Heal a couple times a day would be nice and boosting the power of your healing spell slots would keep you from feeling the need to bump a level or two for that extra slot.

I also considered druid, but you really need two levels for that to take off at all.

My preferred cleric to MC with monk is light. Faerie fire is good and the shield effect is not a bad reaction if you ever need to tank. Plus you can still pick things like healing word to help keep the party in the game and general good spells like bless or bane.

[ad_hoc]

Rogue: Adds 1d6 on one attack with the right weapons with the added benefit of 1 skill more and expertise on 2 skills
Fighter: Dueling +2 damage on two attacks with 1 handed monk weapon
War cleric: 1d4 damage on all attacks spell(dun remember spell name)
Warlock: Hex, short rest spells and cantrips

Which of these do you guys think is the best option for adding some additional oomph to the monk making it bit better at damage
in addition to its main role of battlefield control, also with best I don´t nessecarily mean highest damage but overall useability of the 1 level dip.
To me Rogue and war cleric seems most attractive.

A 1 level dip in Monk will be your best option.

Fighter is bad because you want to 2hand a staff or spear.
Warlock is bad because Hex uses your bonus action which you want for attacking. You could use it for Hellish Rebuke but it's largely a waste.
War Cleric is bad because you can already attack as a bonus action and you don't want to use martial weapons or armour.
Rogue is the best of the lot but just not as good as another level of Monk. You don't want to be constrained by the restrictions on Sneak Attack for just 1d6 dmg.

Keep in mind that you are delaying everything here. ASIs, 2nd attack, loss of Ki, Stunning Strike, etc.

[Foxhound438]

I would also add that the warlock depends on how stats are generated. Getting to 13 in point buy could mean the difference in dexterity / attack attribute which would probably actually reduce your average damage.

Non-variant human, 9/16/14/9/16/13 gets you all your stats. You lose out on racial features, but you get value back later with the multiclass options open to having 3 high stats and one "high enough" stat.


War cleric doesn't do all attacks though, just weapon attacks so you need to use a weapon and it doesn't help the martial arts/flurry attacks. Not that it is bad - still a good spell but i would probably prefer bless.

PHB 195 says "instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike..." as of one of the erratas. This could imply that the unarmed strike is used in place of the weapon to make a melee weapon attack, but I could see this being viewed as lawyer-ing.

Aside from that, it's pretty widely accepted that there are exactly 4 kinds of attacks: melee weapon, ranged weapon, melee spell, and ranged spell. Since punching someone is not ranged, and not a spell, forces them into the category of melee weapon attack.

I hate to say "sage advice", but sage advice also says that unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, just not melee attacks with weapons; meaning divine favor is fine, but improved divine smite is not, and neither are the SCAG cantrips.

[RickAllison]

Maybe I am using the wrong errata but I have been through it a couple of times and cant find this. Can you say where in the PHB or the Errata this is?

From the SRD and always in the books in the combat section:


Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 - your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.

The first sentence establishes both that it is a melee weapon attack and that it is not an attack with a weapon. The distinction is only important for a few abilities, but it does exist. Other than GFB and BB, it is mainly a concern for ranged combat where only dedicated ranged weapons can use the -5/+10 of Sharpshooter, or where Magic Stones in a sling are still eligible for Sneak Attack.

[jaappleton]

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure if this works, but I think it does.

Undying Light Warlock 1 / Sun Soul Monk X.

Sun Soul lets you make a ranged spell attack that deals Radiant damage. UL Warlock grants +Cha mod to Radiant spells. See where this is going?

Tack on Hex and you're doing a lot of damage.

Plus its entirely short rest dependent.

[RickAllison]

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure if this works, but I think it does.

Undying Light Warlock 1 / Sun Soul Monk X.

Sun Soul lets you make a ranged spell attack that deals Radiant damage. UL Warlock grants +Cha mod to Radiant spells. See where this is going?

Tack on Hex and you're doing a lot of damage.

Plus its entirely short rest dependent.

It does not work because Undying Light works off spells, not spell attacks. Working off spells means it works for things like Fireball or that cleric cantrip, whereas working with spell attacks would help Sun Soul and essentially no one else.

[MrStabby]

From the SRD and always in the books in the combat section:



The first sentence establishes both that it is a melee weapon attack and that it is not an attack with a weapon. The distinction is only important for a few abilities, but it does exist. Other than GFB and BB, it is mainly a concern for ranged combat where only dedicated ranged weapons can use the -5/+10 of Sharpshooter, or where Magic Stones in a sling are still eligible for Sneak Attack.

The first phrase says that the thing you are replacing is a melee attack with a weapon, but I don't see it saying that the thing you are replacing it with is a weapon?

[Foxhound438]

A 1 level dip in Monk will be your best option.

Fighter is bad because you want to 2hand a staff or spear.
Warlock is bad because Hex uses your bonus action which you want for attacking. You could use it for Hellish Rebuke but it's largely a waste.
War Cleric is bad because you can already attack as a bonus action and you don't want to use martial weapons or armour.
Rogue is the best of the lot but just not as good as another level of Monk. You don't want to be constrained by the restrictions on Sneak Attack for just 1d6 dmg.

Keep in mind that you are delaying everything here. ASIs, 2nd attack, loss of Ki, Stunning Strike, etc.

dueling style with a d6 does more damage than no style with a d8.
hex can stick to a "boss" target for a long time, giving you plenty of value for your actions... and you save on ki compared to always flurrying.
war cleric is suggested for the divine favor spell, but the war priest ability is still usable with a longbow
sneak attack is extremely easy to get in 5e

Remember that there are dead levels in monk- most notably, their capstone. A dip at level 6 or 7 gets you a nice DPR boost, doesn't delay extra attack or stunning blow (the important abilities of monk), and only puts you back 1 ki point- not exactly a massive disadvantage. I'm not saying it's necessarily good to delay your other monk features, but it's not trash as you seem to be suggesting.

[jaappleton]

It does not work because Undying Light works off spells, not spell attacks. Working off spells means it works for things like Fireball or that cleric cantrip, whereas working with spell attacks would help Sun Soul and essentially no one else.

Honestly, I agree with you. Radiant Sun Bolt is fairly unique in that it's (as far as I know) the only thing in the game that's a ranged spell attack without actually being a spell. It's... funky.

But I want you to be wrong. :P

[RickAllison]

Honestly, I agree with you. Radiant Sun Bolt is fairly unique in that it's (as far as I know) the only thing in the game that's a ranged spell attack without actually being a spell. It's... funky.

But I want you to be wrong. :P

I am not, but I built a character using it anyway :smallbiggrin:. He had all the potential to be a power gaming monstrosity, but he blew all his invocations on home brew to make his familiar better, never went up in monk, and RPed like a barbarian. He was awesome.


The first phrase says that the thing you are replacing is a melee attack with a weapon, but I don't see it saying that the thing you are replacing it with is a weapon?

It is stating that when making a melee weapon attack, you can substitute unarmed strikes instead of using a weapon. A DM can always declare that unarmed strikes aren't a weapon, but that paragraph and Sage Advice confirm that the intention is that unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks that don't use a weapon.

Which, keep in mind, is a good thing for anyone who wants to use unarmed strikes. Otherwise, you could end up being screwed by monsters like Maegera the Dawn Titan. Specifically under Fire Aura: "Nonmagical weapons that hit Maegera are destroyed by fire immediately after dealing damage to it." Since unarmed strikes are not considered weapons, a DM can't have a barbarian whose axe was burnt off be vaporized by punching the thing.

[jaappleton]

TC, ask your DM about that Sun Soul Monk / Undying Light Warlock thing. Maybe he'll let it fly. If he does, great. If not, hey, you tried.

[MrStabby]

It is stating that when making a melee weapon attack, you can substitute unarmed strikes instead of using a weapon. A DM can always declare that unarmed strikes aren't a weapon, but that paragraph and Sage Advice confirm that the intention is that unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks that don't use a weapon.

Which, keep in mind, is a good thing for anyone who wants to use unarmed strikes. Otherwise, you could end up being screwed by monsters like Maegera the Dawn Titan. Specifically under Fire Aura: "Nonmagical weapons that hit Maegera are destroyed by fire immediately after dealing damage to it." Since unarmed strikes are not considered weapons, a DM can't have a barbarian whose axe was burnt off be vaporized by punching the thing.

All the text you quoted said was that you could replace a melee attack that was made with a weapon with an unarmed strike, a melee attack not made with a weapon. Now I can't talk to sage advice - it's better left unread, but the rules in the rulebook, at least the rulebook and errata I have read, don't seem to suggest that the intention be for an unarmed strike to be considered a weapon.

[Specter]

War Cleric for sure. Bonus damage on all dudes, without needing to boost CHA and costing a measly 1st-level slot.

[RickAllison]

All the text you quoted said was that you could replace a melee attack that was made with a weapon with an unarmed strike, a melee attack not made with a weapon. Now I can't talk to sage advice - it's better left unread, but the rules in the rulebook, at least the rulebook and errata I have read, don't seem to suggest that the intention be for an unarmed strike to be considered a weapon.

Do you not like to read?


Instead of using a weapon to make a
melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed
strike

It is right there, in black and white. When you make a melee weapon attack, you can forgo the use of a weapon to instead make it an unarmed strike. It makes no mention of making a melee attack with a weapon and instead mentions a melee weapon attack. Why would they use such a redundant phrasing of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack? Because you can make melee weapon attacks without using a melee weapon.

It may not be intuitive, but that is how it works.

[Foxhound438]

I feel like unarmed strikes have become the new great weapon fighting style, in the sense that I've seen this exact argument multiple times over the last month or so.

[RickAllison]

I feel like unarmed strikes have become the new great weapon fighting style, in the sense that I've seen this exact argument multiple times over the last month or so.

Which is really weird, because the combination of Sage Advice and then adding it to the errata made it rather unquestionable. It was understandable a year ago, but that has been the norm for a long time now...

[MrStabby]

Do you not like to read?



It is right there, in black and white. When you make a melee weapon attack, you can forgo the use of a weapon to instead make it an unarmed strike. It makes no mention of making a melee attack with a weapon and instead mentions a melee weapon attack. Why would they use such a redundant phrasing of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack? Because you can make melee weapon attacks without using a melee weapon.

It may not be intuitive, but that is how it works.

Unfortunatly for you English is my fist language and I am capable of reading. So I read what you put in for post. Then I re read it.:

"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 - your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes."

Now it doesn't say:
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 - your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.

It also doesn't say:
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 - your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes."

Now either of these would have been in support of what you are saying. Instead you provide a paragraph that explicitly states "none of which count as weapons". Maybe you didn't mean it. Maybe the authors didn't mean it. But you did say it and Yes, I can read so I read it. Now, maybe "none of which count as weapons" means something different to you but to me it means They Do Not Count as Weapons.

[MinotaurWarrior]

You don't get the Imp Familiar until level 3 Warlock. This is for 1 level dips.

Whoops, my bad. Still, even with just one level, I'd say Fiendlock.

If you take it as your 6th character level, even on the turns you're using your bonus action you're coming out just 1d6-ASM behind vs martial arts, or less if you weren't going to Stun and can just EB instead. And then you pull ahead with 3d6 or 4d6 extra damage next round. Plus, easy grapples.

Yes, other options are better when you're fighting lots of little guys, but that could also be said for the monk as a whole. And hey, at least you get a free 2hp / round for slaying the critters!

I'd take EB & Mage hand as my cantrips, with Hex and Arms of Hadar as my spells. Mage hand just for utility, Arms as a get the hell out of dodge option.

[RickAllison]

Unfortunatly for you English is my fist language and I am capable of reading. So I read what you put in for post. Then I re read it.:

"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 - your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes."

Now it doesn't say:
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 - your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.

It also doesn't say:
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 - your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes."

Now either of these would have been in support of what you are saying. Instead you provide a paragraph that explicitly states "none of which count as weapons". Maybe you didn't mean it. Maybe the authors didn't mean it. But you did say it and Yes, I can read so I read it. Now, maybe "none of which count as weapons" means something different to you but to me it means They Do Not Count as Weapons.

They are not weapons, and I never claimed they were. Thanks to unarmed strikes, you just don't need a weapon to make a weapon attack. A weapon attack is NOT the same thing as an attack with a weapon.

All attacks are divided into two categories: weapon attacks and spell attacks. Every attack you make will be one of those. If it says it is a spell attack, it is; everything else is a weapon attack.

This is different than an attack with a weapon. This involved separate qualifiers based on the nature of the weapon, the medium for the attack, rather than the attack itself. Booming Blade cannot be used with a fist because it requires a weapon as a medium and something says the body cannot do so. Sharpshooter's removal of range restrictions is allowed for all ranged weapon attacks so one could throw a greatsword (which would be an improvised ranged weapon attack with a melee weapon) and take advantage of it. The next two bonuses only apply to attacks with a ranged weapon; the thrown greatsword is NOT allowed to use those. This restriction even applies to daggers and javelins that have the Thrown qualifier, but are not ranged weapons.

Although it is rare, you can even have cross-examples! The only major examples of this Magic Stone (which allows for making a ranged spell attack with a weapon), and unarmed strikes (melee weapon attacks without a weapon). Still, there are opportunities for more variations that just aren't needed right now.

[Tanarii]

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 - your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.The first sentence establishes both that it is a melee weapon attack and that it is not an attack with a weapon. The distinction is only important for a few abilities, but it does exist.
This is a very bad interpretation of the sentence. It says that instead of making a melee weapon attack with a weapon, you are replacing the melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike.

The SRD quote establishes that unarmed strike != melee weapon attack, but instead replaces it

Edit: /contrarynature :smallbiggrin:

[Hrugner]

The main drawback for warlock and cleric are that both hex and bless are concentration spells. You plan on being toe to toe I imagine, so having a damage boost rely on concentration may be a poor choice. Maybe tempest cleric would be okay so you get a use out of your reaction. Fighter is going to be +2 per round, rogue will probably be +3, cleric +2 with spell and concentration, warlock +3 with spell and concentration. I don't think any of these choices are really amazing. Variant ranger could be good, ignoring terrain is great for melee and their initiative advantage and advantage before other actors is also great, their favored enemy is hit or miss. Still, not a runaway choice.

I think you may be best off taking a level of awakened mystic for psychic weapon. You get two skill proficiencies, expertise and another discipline to play with as well as the psychic talents. It's also pretty thematic to the monk anyway.

[RickAllison]

This is a very bad interpretation of the sentence. It says that instead of making a melee weapon attack with a weapon, you are replacing the melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike.

The SRD quote establishes that unarmed strike != melee weapon attack, but instead replaces it

Edit: /contrarynature :smallbiggrin:

That is blatantly at odds with the parallel structure.

Clause 1: "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack"; this is a little ambiguous on its own whether the "instead" refers to using a weapon or to the entire clause, but that is disambiguated by the following clause.

Clause 2: "you can use an unarmed strike"; I suppose with twisting this can be made to support the claim that unarmed strikes are no melee weapon attacks, but to do so requires that we acknowledge that the writers do not fluently understand English. The parallel structure of the verbs indicates that the unarmed strike is being substituted for the weapon as the medium of the attack. You can't "use" an unarmed strike in the way that the melee weapon attack was made. "Use" indicates taking something that exists to facilitate something else, whereas the attack is something that did not exist before and so you "make" it rather than "use" it.

More important than the grammatical catastrophe is the context. As evidenced by the Martial Arts section, unarmed strikes are treated as parallel with weapons and possess a damage die. None of that is consistent with a substitution of unarmed strike for a melee weapon attack rather than a weapon.

Best of all, that reading would ensure monks could not use Stunning Strike with their unarmed strikes. It would insinuate that the designers both put in incentives for monks to focus on fighting unarmed, and in the same breadth ensured that one of the class's most prominent abilities, to the point that it took the illustrious level 5 slot. I don't buy it. There is ample evidence from the book, the errata, and the official designer words that support unarmed strikes making melee weapon attacks, and NONE against it. The only support given for it requires that the writers had less comprehension of English grammar and syntax than a second grader.

[Tanarii]

The only support given for it requires that the writers had less comprehension of English grammar and syntax than a second grader.hahaha and apparently me too, since I disagree with your interpretation of the English grammar and syntax.

[Spacehamster]

The main drawback for warlock and cleric are that both hex and bless are concentration spells. You plan on being toe to toe I imagine, so having a damage boost rely on concentration may be a poor choice. Maybe tempest cleric would be okay so you get a use out of your reaction. Fighter is going to be +2 per round, rogue will probably be +3, cleric +2 with spell and concentration, warlock +3 with spell and concentration. I don't think any of these choices are really amazing. Variant ranger could be good, ignoring terrain is great for melee and their initiative advantage and advantage before other actors is also great, their favored enemy is hit or miss. Still, not a runaway choice.

I think you may be best off taking a level of awakened mystic for psychic weapon. You get two skill proficiencies, expertise and another discipline to play with as well as the psychic talents. It's also pretty thematic to the monk anyway.

Which book is awakened mystic in? :)

[djreynolds]

Why not just go barbarian? Instead of monk, grab a quarterstaff and polearm master and fight in robes.

Little John, grab that ancestor totem stuff. Strength based monk, heck if no one is looking... grab mithral breastplate. Take resilient wisdom. You are now a monk.

Now you can take a level in fighter and reroll 1s and 2s with a quarterstaff.

[Hrugner]

Which book is awakened mystic in? :)

http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/Psionics_and_Mystic_V2.pdf

Not a book, but there you go.

[RickAllison]

Why not just go barbarian? Instead of monk, grab a quarterstaff and polearm master and fight in robes.

Little John, grab that ancestor totem stuff. Strength based monk, heck if no one is looking... grab mithral breastplate. Take resilient wisdom. You are now a monk.

Now you can take a level in fighter and reroll 1s and 2s with a quarterstaff.

Figuring out how to replicate a "class" with an unconventional build is one of my favorite theory crafting exercises! I especially love the inverse, a monk who is based on being a barbaric brute (and which works especially well for Long Death...). For the barbarian, I would say switch the traditional foaming-at-the-mouth Rage for a cold Trance that does the same thing, and pick either Berserker with Tavern Brawler (so you spend non-Frenzy/Rage bonus actions on judo/aikido grabs) or Battlerager with DM permission to use it with Unarmored Defense. Both would put much greater emphasis on grappling martial arts rather than striking, but they would still do a decent enough job with it.

[Human Paragon 3]

I'd actually recommend Barbarian. A rogue gets 1d6 sneak attack for an average of 3.5 extra damage per round. A barbarian adds +2 to all hits, and you get 2-3 attacks per round, so this would add 4-6 extra damage per round. Resistance to damage will also give you more staying power, which is a nice boon.

[RickAllison]

I'd actually recommend Barbarian. A rogue gets 1d6 sneak attack for an average of 3.5 extra damage per round. A barbarian adds +2 to all hits, and you get 2-3 attacks per round, so this would add 4-6 extra damage per round. Resistance to damage will also give you more staying power, which is a nice boon.

Do note Barbarian Rage only gives a damage bonus when attacking using Strength. Unless the monk is also boosting strength, Barb gives nothing for damage.

[Malifice]

All the text you quoted said was that you could replace a melee attack that was made with a weapon with an unarmed strike, a melee attack not made with a weapon. Now I can't talk to sage advice - it's better left unread, but the rules in the rulebook, at least the rulebook and errata I have read, don't seem to suggest that the intention be for an unarmed strike to be considered a weapon.

No, you're confusing an attack with a weapon (stabbing someone in the face) with a 'weapon attack' (a claw, bite, tail slap, unarmed strike, warhammer to the solar plexus etc).

'Weapon attack' has an in game rules meaning, and is broken down into melee and ranged. Look in your monster manual. All attacks with attack rolls are either Melee weapon attacks (claws, swords, fists, slams), Ranged weapon attacks (flung tail spikes, bows, thrown rocks), Melee spell attacks (greenflame blade, shocking grasp) or Ranged spell attacks (scorching ray, beholder eye rays).

Punching someone with an unarmed strike is not an attack with a weapon. But it is a melee weapon attack.

[Sicarius Victis]

Variant imp familiar + hex makes warlock the way to go, imo.


No, you're confusing an attack with a weapon (stabbing someone in the face) with a 'weapon attack' (a claw, bite, tail slap, unarmed strike, warhammer to the solar plexus etc).

'Weapon attack' has an in game rules meaning, and is broken down into melee and ranged. Look in your monster manual. All attacks with attack rolls are either Melee weapon attacks (claws, swords, fists, slams), Ranged weapon attacks (flung tail spikes, bows, thrown rocks), Melee spell attacks (greenflame blade, shocking grasp) or Ranged spell attacks (scorching ray, beholder eye rays).

Punching someone with an unarmed strike is not an attack with a weapon. But it is a melee weapon attack.

Correct, except that IIRC Green-Flame Blade is still a weapon attack, rather than a spell attack.

[djreynolds]

You could go with minotaur as your race, nice free bonus action shove there.

I like ranger best of all with monk. Hunter's mark is 1 hour, though I love divine favor... it is 1 minute.

Ranger gives archery style at 2nd and 2 spells (hunter's mark and cure wounds, maybe pass without a trace), +2 with a bow really allows you to shape the battlefield, or grab the duelist style and one more skill, 3 levels horde breaker or colossus slayer

Monks and rangers, IMO, are skirmishers and shape the battlefield for their fellow team. They can break up hordes or squish them close and pick off stragglers.

A bow can really help out till your thrown weapon damage catches up.

I like rogue, cheap for expertise and cunning action (there when you run out of KI points), though the mobile feat works just fine... not many monsters with the sentinel feat.

Warlock is just fine, but you may have dumped charisma... pricey.

Cleric works fine as sacred flame is a nice ranged attack based on our high wisdom, guiding bolt, good spells.

Wizard isn't crazy either, grab the shield spell... 2 uses once a day and fill up that spellbook with all the 1st level spells you can buy. Nice utility.

Barbarian is a cheap dip for rage damage resistance, allowing you to stay in the fight and use KI points for fighting and not disengaging.

But remember, every level not monk... is one less KI point.

[Foxhound438]

No, you're confusing an attack with a weapon (stabbing someone in the face) with a 'weapon attack' (a claw, bite, tail slap, unarmed strike, warhammer to the solar plexus etc).

'Weapon attack' has an in game rules meaning, and is broken down into melee and ranged. Look in your monster manual. All attacks with attack rolls are either Melee weapon attacks (claws, swords, fists, slams), Ranged weapon attacks (flung tail spikes, bows, thrown rocks), Melee spell attacks (greenflame blade, shocking grasp) or Ranged spell attacks (scorching ray, beholder eye rays).

Punching someone with an unarmed strike is not an attack with a weapon. But it is a melee weapon attack.

take for example Githzerai Monk, which specifically has an action called "unarmed strike", and is in fact classified as a melee weapon attack.

I guess there has to be the separation between rules parlance and logic parlance in these discussions. when you say you can make a weapon attack without a weapon, that's entirely true in the rules of the game, but logically is nonsensical in other contexts.

[Arkhios]

-- and I believe you get turn undead at level 1 too don't you?

I tried to find if someone addressed this already but didn't notice.

No, a cleric actually doesn't get the whole Channel Divinity feature until 2nd level.


War Cleric is bad because you can already attack as a bonus action and you don't want to use martial weapons or armour.

I have to disagree here. Having proficiency with anything doesn't obligate you to use the corresponding features. A paladin could wear light armor and wield a dagger if he so wished, for example.

The monk abilities to attack as a bonus action are unarmed strikes only, while a monk may still want to use a monk weapon (=any simple melee weapon) instead of an unarmed strike, with which he might get some edge over unarmed strike (such as magic weapon with significant bonus to attack and damage rolls). Being able to attack one more time with it is not a bad thing. Plus the versatility from spells is not bad either.

I would second though that rogue might still be overall best 1 level dip for monk, but War Cleric isn't far behind in my opinion. Also Fighter with Dueling Fighting Style, or Mariner if allowed, is quite nice.

[MrStabby]

'Weapon attack' has an in game rules meaning, and is broken down into melee and ranged. Look in your monster manual. All attacks with attack rolls are either Melee weapon attacks (claws, swords, fists, slams), Ranged weapon attacks (flung tail spikes, bows, thrown rocks), Melee spell attacks (greenflame blade, shocking grasp) or Ranged spell attacks (scorching ray, beholder eye rays).



OK, please can you provide the PHB page reference for this.

[Tanarii]

OK, please can you provide the PHB page reference for this.
The PHB doesn't break it down that way. It breaks it down into Ranged Attacks and Melee Attacks. Then within each it says they can be spell attacks, or weapon attacks, or monster attacks. In other words, it clearly distinguishes monster attacks as being something different from weapon or spell attacks. They're still ranged attacks or melee attacks, but monster attack / unarmed attack = weapon attack is not specified.

Furthermore, as was quoted earlier, the Melee attack section says instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike. In other words, unarmed strikes are melee attacks, but they are neither weapon attacks nor melee weapon attacks. Similar to how weapon, monster and spell attacks are all described as ways to make melee attacks.

OTOH, the Monster Manual definitely categorizes many monster attacks as melee weapons attacks, exactly as Malifice says.

[MrStabby]

The PHB doesn't break it down that way. It breaks it down into Ranged Attacks and Melee Attacks. Then within each it says they can be spell attacks, or weapon attacks, or monster attacks. In other words, it clearly distinguishes monster attacks as being something different from weapon or spell attacks. They're still ranged attacks or melee attacks, but monster attack / unarmed attack = weapon attack is not specified.
Ah, this is the first sensible thing someone has said on the subject. I will see if I can find that.




Furthermore, as was quoted earlier, the Melee attack section says instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike. In other words, unarmed strikes are melee attacks, but they are neither weapon attacks nor melee weapon attacks. Similar to how weapon, monster and spell attacks are all described as ways to make melee attacks.


Unfortunately this doesn't meet with the same high standard, as it doesn't say that you use the unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack. I seriously doubt that is it said "instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can cast a spell" that people would still say that spells were also melee weapon attacks despite it using exactly the same sentence structure.

[Tanarii]

Ah, this is the first sensible thing someone has said on the subject. I will see if I can find that.
PHB p195. It's also in the online Basic Rules doc under Combat, Making an attack. 2 sections, one for Ranged attacks, and one for Melee attacks.




Unfortunately this doesn't meet with the same high standard, as it doesn't say that you use the unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack. I seriously doubt that is it said "instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can cast a spell" that people would still say that spells were also melee weapon attacks despite it using exactly the same sentence structure.I agree. However, I recall there being some sage advice etc etc on the matter.

(And I'm someone that listens to SA, because I recall when SA was worthless for RAI, instead being some dudes personal house rules. At least now it takes a stab at explaining what the actual designers intended.)

[Malifice]

Unfortunately this doesn't meet with the same high standard, as it doesn't say that you use the unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack.

What? All attacks are one of either a Weapon attack or a Spell attack.

Further broken down into melee and ranged.

Open your MM and look up the Githzeri monk. Note how his unarmed strike is listed: Melee weapon attack

The same applies for slam attacks, tentacles, claws, suckers, swords, axes, chairs, sharpened pencils, halflings etc

You're confusing an 'attack with a weapon' which a [tentacle/ unarmed strike/ claw] is not, and a 'melee weapon attack' which a [tentacle/ unarmed strike/ claw] is.

[MrStabby]

What? All attacks are one of either a Weapon attack or a Spell attack.

Further broken down into melee and ranged.



OK, is this PHB 195 as well?

[Tanarii]

OK, is this PHB 195 as well?

No. The PHB on page 195 breaks down into Ranged and Weapon.

Then it further breaks down ranged attacks into weapon, monster and spell. It further breaks down melee attacks into weapon, monster, and spell. IMO These aren't officially "broken down" so much as describing possible ways to make these attacks, ie descriptive rather than categorical, unlike the Monster Manual.

Then melee adds the additional note that instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike. Note that there are two possible ways to interpret that last sentence. You use unarmed strike in place of a weapon in a melee weapon attack, or you use unarmed strike in place of a melee weapon attack using a weapon. (Honestly I think both are fair ways to read it. I'm devil's advocating because I don't think the position of those advocating one particular reading is justified.)

[Waffle_Iron]

This is a very bad interpretation of the sentence. It says that instead of making a melee weapon attack with a weapon, you are replacing the melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike.

The SRD quote establishes that unarmed strike != melee weapon attack, but instead replaces it

Edit: /contrarynature :smallbiggrin:

By this interpretation, stunning strike may only be used with a weapon in hand, right?


When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike.

So, a monk can only get two stun attempts a turn?

Ooh. I've been allowing a monk at my table to flurry and attempt a stun on those hits. Drat.

It does make the Open Hand monk's level three feature better though. You can use Stunning Strike with the Attack action MWA, and you can use Open Hand Technique on the bonus action unarmed attacks from Flurry.

Edit: Oh, and monks will need to pick between overcoming magical defenses with unarmed attack OR using stunning strike with a weapon.

[MrStabby]

No. The PHB on page 195 breaks down into Ranged and Weapon.

Then it further breaks down ranged attacks into weapon, monster and spell. It further breaks down melee attacks into weapon, monster, and spell. IMO These aren't officially "broken down" so much as describing possible ways to make these attacks, ie descriptive rather than categorical, unlike the Monster Manual.

Then melee adds the additional note that instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike. Note that there are two possible ways to interpret that last sentence. You use unarmed strike in place of a weapon in a melee weapon attack, or you use unarmed strike in place of a melee weapon attack using a weapon. (Honestly I think both are fair ways to read it. I'm devil's advocating because I don't think the position of those advocating one particular reading is justified.)

Yeah, it turns out that there is nothing on p195 that says that unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks.

In fact having now had time to trawl through the index and anywhere else in the PHB that I can think of, I can't find anything to suggest that unarmed strikes count as weapons for melee weapon attacks.

https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata-V1.pdf

Only the errata suggests anything at all by explicitly stating that unarmed strikes are not weapons.


I can find no trace of where this idea that unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks has come from. I am guessing A Guy on the Internet said it once and once people played with it without reading the rules they were not willing to change their mind and started telling other people to play that way.

I mean in principle I can agree that you could interpret the sentence, at a stretch, to suggest that you can make a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike but to do that would have to require ignoring the bit that explicitly says it isn't a weapon. I could even accept that some people could miss this if it were anywhere else in the book - but where it is added so that it can be specifically interpreted in the context of melee weapon attacks and unarmed strikes, added to clarify those words right next to it - I just can't see how it can be ignored.

[Waffle_Iron]

In reply to the OP, I think the best 1 level dip for a monk is actually Druid.

Take Guidance and Thorn Whip as your cantrips.
Then you get access to Entangle (restrained), Faerie Fire(advantage), and Cure Wounds (dying allies)

It's not a damage boost, but it pretty well compliments the bag of utility which defines the monk.

[JAL_1138]

Sage Advice allows Stunning Strike on unarmed attacks, and says unarmed attacks count as "melee weapon attacks" even though unarmed strikes are not "melee weapons."

Link:
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/30/does-stunning-strike-work-with-unarmed-strikes/

[MrStabby]

Sage Advice allows Stunning Strike on unarmed attacks, and says unarmed attacks count as "melee weapon attacks" even though unarmed strikes are not "melee weapons."

Link:
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/30/does-stunning-strike-work-with-unarmed-strikes/

But again this is just Sage Advice, not the Rules. Last Errata is dated 2016 though so I don't know if it will enter the rules at some point in the future or if they decided to not incorporate it and it was just an off the cuff comment.

[RickAllison]

But again this is just Sage Advice, not the Rules. Last Errata is dated 2016 though so I don't know if it will enter the rules at some point in the future or if they decided to not incorporate it and it was just an off the cuff comment.

It was already in the errata. Grammatically, there is no way that the errata can mean anything other than unarmed strikes are used in lieu of a weapon to make melee weapon attacks unless the writer is assumed to be of a 1st-grade writing level. Combined with evidence from the MM that "unarmed strikes" are explicitly melee weapon attacks and there is literally no evidence of unarmed strikes not being a melee weapon attack.

If you would like to refute that, please do so by supplying evidence. The only evidence supplied so far has required a tortured twisting of English sentence structure.

[MrStabby]

If you would like to refute that, please do so by supplying evidence. The only evidence supplied so far has required a tortured twisting of English sentence structure.

Well mainly the evidence is in plain text. Let me quote for those who missed it last time, and the time before. Really it shouldn't be this difficult:

"none of which count as weapons"

Not quite sure how you interpret that part of the sentence as meaning that they get counted as weapons. Not quite sure how you can believe it isn't intended to be relevant as IT IS IN THE SAME SENTENCE AS THE BIT YOU QUOTED.

Six words clearly determine the meaning. You don't even have to read past a period to get to them. None of them are even big or hard words.

[Tanarii]

Grammatically, there is no way that the errata can mean anything other than unarmed strikes are used in lieu of melee weapon attacks, unless the writer is assumed to be of a 1st-grade writing level.Fixed that for ya. :smallyuk:

Seriously tho, your interpretation isn't automatically some superior form of grammar. Nor is the alternative twisted English. It makes just as much sense. If you're going to come up with an argument to prove your point, please do so by supplying evidence. The only evidence supplied so far has required your own personal interpretation of English sentence structure.

OTOH, what is a fairly good point of evidence, unlike your claim about the PHB / Errata sentence, is the MM classifying many monster attacks as melee weapon attacks.

[MrStabby]

Fixed that for ya. :smallyuk:



OTOH, what is a fairly good point of evidence, unlike your claim about the PHB / Errata sentence, is the MM classifying many monster attacks as melee weapon attacks.

Yeah sure, I would be fine with that. The moment a player is going to play a Gith I would let them sub in the MM component.

I see this as a case of the specific overiding the general - like a monk allowing you to use dex with a quarterstaff.

Anyway, I think I have had about enough of this one. I'm out. Have fun.

[RickAllison]

Fixed that for ya. :smallyuk:

Seriously tho, your interpretation isn't automatically some superior form of grammar. Nor is the alternative twisted English. It makes just as much sense. If you're going to come up with an argument to prove your point, please do so by supplying evidence. The only evidence supplied so far has required your own personal interpretation of English sentence structure.

OTOH, what is a fairly good point of evidence, unlike your claim about the PHB / Errata sentence, is the MM classifying many monster attacks as melee weapon attacks.

No, it actually is twisted English, not an alternative interpretation. If unarmed strikes were intended to be used in place of melee/ranged weapon/spell attacks, it would have used the same structure used throughout the PHB, that of making those attacks. But no, it implements the same verbiage used for the weapon itself, "use". No ambiguity, no alternative interpretation (at least for that specific argument; I am sure we could find some ambiguity, just not on this), unless we have elementary school writers.

That is not an exaggeration, parallel structures like that and the use of consistent verbiage is a skill taught in elementary English.

So we have proper sentence structure, usage through the PHB supporting unarmed strikes existing as an alternative to weapons in the monk section, direct passages from the MM stating that this is so, and confirmation in official Safe Advice (JC, not Mearls) that unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks.

In light of all that, what support is there that they are not? An unconventional English sentence that has a more proper reading? That directly contradicts both the developers and the books? There have been plenty of rule debates on this site where Sage Advice is ignored, but the alternative interpretations bring evidence. Support with other rules, being better balanced, more engaging or fun for play, anything that gives some reason to use it. So why this one? If there is no corroborating rules support, what is the non-rules justification?

[Spacehamster]

Just came up with best 1 dip, its start as v-human fighter with dueling and with polearm fighter feat(now now hear me out), not only does
the dueling make your quarterstaff 1d6 + 5 at level 2 when you pick monk but it also lets you bonus attack with the quarterstaff instead of martial arts
which applies the dueling damage for a small added bit of oomph at early levels, but best part is it also gives you reaction attacks when somebody steps up next to
you so adds a bit of spice to your reaction as well. .)

[jaappleton]

Just came up with best 1 dip, its start as v-human fighter with dueling and with polearm fighter feat(now now hear me out), not only does
the dueling make your quarterstaff 1d6 + 5 at level 2 when you pick monk but it also lets you bonus attack with the quarterstaff instead of martial arts
which applies the dueling damage for a small added bit of oomph at early levels, but best part is it also gives you reaction attacks when somebody steps up next to
you so adds a bit of spice to your reaction as well. .)

But you can't use this for Flurry of Blows.

[Spacehamster]

But you can't use this for Flurry of Blows.

Did not say that it did either, I pointed out the awesomeness of it making you a lot stronger without spending resources tho. :)

[JellyPooga]

Just came up with best 1 dip, its start as v-human fighter with dueling and with polearm fighter feat(now now hear me out), not only does
the dueling make your quarterstaff 1d6 + 5 at level 2 when you pick monk but it also lets you bonus attack with the quarterstaff instead of martial arts
which applies the dueling damage for a small added bit of oomph at early levels, but best part is it also gives you reaction attacks when somebody steps up next to
you so adds a bit of spice to your reaction as well. .)

Polearm Master is one you'll probably one you want to check with your GM before getting excited. A valid interpretation means the bonus action attack will only ever use a d4 and not your Martial Arts die. You'll still benefit from whatever properties the staff has, such as if it's a magical weapon, but the lower die at high levels makes that Fighter dip much less attractive.

The OA benefit is also not quite so nice as it first might appear; my first thought was utilising Open Hand technique to immediately shove someone away as soon as they step up, but that's only on FoB attacks.

The Fighter dip w.Polearm Master is ok/good at early levels...after level 10, though, it will start losing its lustre, given the lower die type and less attacks offered than FoB.

[Spacehamster]

Polearm Master is one you'll probably one you want to check with your GM before getting excited. A valid interpretation means the bonus action attack will only ever use a d4 and not your Martial Arts die. You'll still benefit from whatever properties the staff has, such as if it's a magical weapon, but the lower die at high levels makes that Fighter dip much less attractive.

The OA benefit is also not quite so nice as it first might appear; my first thought was utilising Open Hand technique to immediately shove someone away as soon as they step up, but that's only on FoB attacks.

The Fighter dip w.Polearm Master is ok/good at early levels...after level 10, though, it will start losing its lustre, given the lower die type and less attacks offered than FoB.

Thing is, with dueling the average damage of D4 + DEX + 2 averages the same damage as a d8 + DEX, so it's useful for most of the game plus as you said if you get either a quarterstaff that adds extra die or just a generic +1 one it gets useful through the entire game. :) plus as I said the nice reaction attacks you can get is also very neat to get some extra damage in.

Example with spiders staff from the starter set adventure:
With polearm master at lvl 6: two attacks 1d6 + 1d6 poison + DEX(4) + 2. 1 bonus attack 1d4 + 1d6 poison + 6 average 38 damage.
Example with same weapon w/o polearm master: attack action is the same bonus is either 1d6 + 4 with martial arts or 2d6 + 8 with flurry. So w/o flurry: avg 33,5. With flurry: 40 damage.
And yes flurry is obviously better especially late game but this build lets you use your ki points for other things instead which is a nice boon.

[Nicodiemus]

Unarmed strikes are listed in the weapons table in the PHB. Doesn't that classify them as weapons?

[TheUser]

Strictly speaking, if it's maximum damage you're looking for and it can only be a 1 level dip, then Warlock will give you the best nova damage with Hex.

If you want more reliable/regular damage output, then Fighter for Dueling FS is the way to go.

For pure awesome, though, go Rogue. That Expertise goes a very long way toward increasing your spotlight time as a player and as such, is the "funnest" option IMO, DPR be damned. Just be aware that only a shortsword attack can benefit from both Martial Arts and Sneak Attack.

What about daggers?

[RickAllison]

Unarmed strikes are listed in the weapons table in the PHB. Doesn't that classify them as weapons?

Check the PHB errata, you have an older printing.


Weapons (p. 149). Unarmed strike
doesn’t belong on the Weapons table.

[Nicodiemus]

Check the PHB errata, you have an older printing.

Fair enough. My GM ruled that they could satisfy the requirements for SA so I could simulate a Snake style with a monk/rogue MC. Pressure point strikes and all.

[RickAllison]

Fair enough. My GM ruled that they could satisfy the requirements for SA so I could simulate a Snake style with a monk/rogue MC. Pressure point strikes and all.

Really, the only impact it would have mechanically is if you were ever disarmed of any short, pointy objects (monks get to make anything that could be a dagger whatever their Martial Arts die is...) or if you miss with both of your main attacks. Since the majority of your attacks are viable for Sneak Attack naturally, it is a small change.

[Princess]

The issue with unarmed sneak attack isn't whether they are weapons, rules wise, it's that specifically "finesse weapons" as a category are part of sneak attack (or ranged, like shortbows, but those aren't melee and thus aren't "monk weapons" even though monks can use them). Martial Arts lets you use dex to attack with your unarmed strike, which is a weapon (both game rules wise and legally on earth), but is not a finesse weapon. Daggers are, and are cheap and easy to carry a bunch of, though. So 1 rogue level gives skill finesse and an extra d6 damage sneak attack option to attacks *other than* the extra unarmed attacks from the Martial Arts feature. Any round you aren't spending any ki for the two-for-one special, however, you can just use regular offhand attacks with a dagger if you really want to land that sneak attack. Plus, you don't need a free hand to kick someone, or headbutt them. Monk/Rogue is a solid representation of literary and screen depictions of ninjas with various small bladed weapons.

Personally I think Cleric (War Domain) 1 is a pretty solid choice for a monk who wants other options. Divine Favor for an extra 1d4 radiant damage per round, or Shield of Faith for +2 ac, or bless for you and other party members to hit more reliably with attacks, and you can healing word somebody else in an emergency. Plus, now you have longbow and heavy crossbow proficiency on the off chance the fight is stuck at longer range. And you're proficient in the net, which is potentially a great way to confuse everyone else at the table, which is fun in its own little way. You might not care about the armor proficiency or the extra feature for a bonus action attack, but firing a longbow twice instead of not doing any damage at all in a round with flying enemies, awkward terrains, and or vast distances is a versatile option that is excellent *if it happens.*

[Asmotherion]

It would be a pitty/waste to not take at least 2 warlock levels if you go Warlock. Instead, you can get Hex with Magic Initiate. You also get 2 cantrips with it, so you can get your hands on Eldritch Blast to have an amazing ranged option. Then, you can use your one level dip to fighter to get a fighting style.

[Foxhound438]

It would be a pitty/waste to not take at least 2 warlock levels if you go Warlock. Instead, you can get Hex with Magic Initiate. You also get 2 cantrips with it, so you can get your hands on Eldritch Blast to have an amazing ranged option. Then, you can use your one level dip to fighter to get a fighting style.

you might want 4 ASI's and a real feat, though, not to mention a warlock level gives you one SR hex, where the feat gives one LR hex. There's room to argue both, but by no means is a warlock dip a "2 or nothing" option like ranger is.

[RulesJD]

Just came up with best 1 dip, its start as v-human fighter with dueling and with polearm fighter feat(now now hear me out), not only does
the dueling make your quarterstaff 1d6 + 5 at level 2 when you pick monk but it also lets you bonus attack with the quarterstaff instead of martial arts
which applies the dueling damage for a small added bit of oomph at early levels, but best part is it also gives you reaction attacks when somebody steps up next to
you so adds a bit of spice to your reaction as well. .)

At first I questioned this tactic, but I admit, it has some merit. Average damage at level 5-10 (discounting Dex bonuses because that evens out) is as follows:

Qstaff + Dueling = 2d6+10+1d4+5 = 24.5 (+8.5 more damage on first round if enemy enters range for a total of 33)

Qstaff 2handed = 2d8+6+1d6+3 = 21.5

On first rounds (Monk's don't have much use for their Reaction anyways) the Qstaff + Dueling does some pretty impressive damage that I'm at a loss for how Qstaff 2handed + Divine Favor could catch up. It would take 3-4 rounds of Divine Favor always hitting to really see a difference. Plus you could always just take Fighter 1/Cleric 1/Monk+ anyways. Alternatively, you could take Fighter 1/Barbarian 1/Monk+ to make a pretty terrific Tank (Evasion eventually, resist most damage, Second Wind).

Color me impressed.

The only time this build breaks down is if you start introducing magical daggers that have rider damage.