Question regarding Revised Kensai

[Mongobear]

Question:

If I am a Kensai Monk, and select a Quarterstaff as one of my Kensai weapons, then take the Polearm Master Feat, can I swap out the d4 damage die of the BA attack for the Martial Arts damage die based on my level?

I know this is sort of redundant, since I get a bunch of BA attacks anyways, was just something that came up discussing the newest UA in my group. (Mainly the idea sparked up when the idea of getting a Q-staff with bonus damage dice similar to Flametongue or Frostbrand, using the BA attack with a weapon instead of unarmed strikes would be a better useage, which also saves up on Ki for other things.)

[Maxilian]

Question:

If I am a Kensai Monk, and select a Quarterstaff as one of my Kensai weapons, then take the Polearm Master Feat, can I swap out the d4 damage die of the BA attack for the Martial Arts damage die based on my level?

No, its a special attack, it would still use the D4 (just like with the Shillelaght cantrip -Well that at least make it WIS based-)

[Mongobear]

No, its a special attack, it would still use the D4 (just like with the Shillelaght cantrip -Well that at least make it WIS based-)

But it's made with a Q-staff, which is a Monk weapon, which qualifies for the substitution of the Martial Arts damage dice.

If you can use GWM/GWF style with it (PAM d4 attack), I don't see why you couldn't swap it's damage via this feature.

[DivisibleByZero]

But it's made with a Q-staff, which is a Monk weapon, which qualifies for the substitution of the Martial Arts damage dice.

If you can use GWM/GWF style with it (PAM d4 attack), I don't see why you couldn't swap it's damage via this feature.

Because it doesn't do [weapon damage die] damage, it does 1d4 damage.
the "haft" is basically being used as an improvised weapon, and improvised weapons do 1d4 damage.

[Hrugner]

The rules clarification we've been given for the PAM attack in the past have said that you don't replace the dice size of the PAM attack even if you can change the damage dice for the quarter staff itself. I couldn't tell you why the designers chose to rule it that way, but they have. By all means try and convince your table to play it differently if you disagree with it though.

[Mongobear]

Because it doesn't do [weapon damage die] damage, it does 1d4 damage.
the "haft" is basically being used as an improvised weapon, and improvised weapons do 1d4 damage.

Except that's a horrible analogy, since I'm still proficient with the attack, still use every traits of the base weapon(reach, heavy, finesse, etc)

It's only a coincidence. that their damage is the same.

[Mongobear]

The rules clarification we've been given for the PAM attack in the past have said that you don't replace the dice size of the PAM attack even if you can change the damage dice for the quarter staff itself. I couldn't tell you why the designers chose to rule it that way, but they have. By all means try and convince your table to play it differently if you disagree with it though.

Has there been an errata or Sage Advice on this topic? That would help out tremendously instead of back and forth arguing.

[iTreeby]

Maybe if you select "haft" as your Kensai weapon...

[Hrugner]

Has there been an errata or Sage Advice on this topic? That would help out tremendously instead of back and forth arguing.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/02/shillelagh-on-quarterstaff/ That's the only additional info we have on the topic.

[Solunaris]

The real question is why bother? The basic Monk chassis allows for a single unarmed strike as a bonus action when you make the Attack Action with an unarmed strike or a Monk Weapon.

Save yourself a feat and just punch things like a real Monk.

Edit: I took a moment to fetch my book and take a look at the feat it's self, and it specifically says that the weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4. As the feat's bonus attack is a more specific instance than the general replacement Monk Weapons receive, the attack should stay as a d4.

[DivisibleByZero]

Except that's a horrible analogy,

It's not an horrible analogy. It's the reason that it deals a d4 damage. The haft is not a weapon. The haft, when used with PAM, is being used as an improvised weapon. The feat allows you to essentially dual wield with a single weapon, and your second attack deals 1d4+mod, keeping your prof bonus by virtue of the feat.

[Misterwhisper]

It's not an horrible analogy. It's the reason that it deals a d4 damage. The haft is not a weapon. The haft, when used with PAM, is being used as an improvised weapon. The feat allows you to essentially dual wield with a single weapon, and your second attack deals 1d4+mod, keeping your prof bonus by virtue of the feat.

You have said this in many threads and keep acting like it is a written rule somewhere.

Nowhere, in any way has the extra attack from pole arm master ever been called an improvised weapon attack.

That is not the reason it does 1d4, it does 1d4 because that is what the feat says it does.
Also not all improvised weapons do 1d4 anyway.

[Misterwhisper]

It's not an horrible analogy. It's the reason that it deals a d4 damage. The haft is not a weapon. The haft, when used with PAM, is being used as an improvised weapon. The feat allows you to essentially dual wield with a single weapon, and your second attack deals 1d4+mod, keeping your prof bonus by virtue of the feat.

You have said this in many threads and keep acting like it is a written rule somewhere.

Nowhere, in any way has the extra attack from pole arm master ever been called an improvised weapon attack.

That is not the reason it does 1d4, it does 1d4 because that is what the feat says it does.
Also not all improvised weapons do 1d4 anyway.

[RSP]

The reason is a bonus action only does what it states. PAM doesn't give you an extra attack, it gives you a bonus action that allows a melee attack that deals d4 damage. The normal modifiers (Str usually) apply as do magical bonuses from weapon:

"Matteo Gama Galli @Il_Gama
@JeremyECrawford A question on Polearm Master feat: does the bonus of a magic weapon (+2 halberd) apply to the opposite end d4 damages?

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
@Il_Gama Yes, it applies.
1:52 AM - 24 Oct 2015"

So the reasoning isn't because it's an improvised weapon, it's because it's a bonus action attack that does d4 damage and you can't swap out parts of the BA (in this case the weapon damage die) for parts of a different action. Per another JC tweet:

"A bonus action can do only the thing that gave you the bonus action. You can't swap it for another action. #DnD"

I'd assume based on the first JC tweet I posted, a weapon that does +xdx damage would apply to the haft as well, unless the weapon specifically states it only effects the one end.

[Mongobear]

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/02/shillelagh-on-quarterstaff/ That's the only additional info we have on the topic.

I guess it's similar, but not an exact answer.


The real question is why bother? The basic Monk chassis allows for a single unarmed strike as a bonus action when you make the Attack Action with an unarmed strike or a Monk Weapon.

Save yourself a feat and just punch things like a real Monk.

Edit: I took a moment to fetch my book and take a look at the feat it's self, and it specifically says that the weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4. As the feat's bonus attack is a more specific instance than the general replacement Monk Weapons receive, the attack should stay as a d4.

As I explained in the initial post, the reason was to gain a higher benefit from magical weapons which add bonus damage dice to the attack.

As a (Revised) Kensai, it's probably likely that you would only ever get 1 weapon attack per attack action, plus a 2nd Unarmed attack with that action, followed either by a single or pair of Unarmed Strikes as your Bonus Action. neither of which would benefit from your magical weapons' features.

The idea was, with a Q-staff and PAM, you would attack once with the Staff, once with an Unarmed Strike, and then BA another Staff strike, gaining the added effect more often, assuming you have one.

It's a lot of effort just to capitalize on something you may not ever even have, my group just brought the idea up and wondered how Martial Arts interacted with Kensai(Monk) Weapons and PAM.


It's not an horrible analogy. It's the reason that it deals a d4 damage. The haft is not a weapon. The haft, when used with PAM, is being used as an improvised weapon. The feat allows you to essentially dual wield with a single weapon, and your second attack deals 1d4+mod, keeping your prof bonus by virtue of the feat.

Literally everything you said is wrong and not supported by RAW. The PAM BA attack is still made with whatever weapon, using all of the traits and qualities of the weapon. It's not improvised, it doesnt give you an extra proficiency with "Weapons Hafts" It doesn't require you to "engage in TWFing" in order to dual weild by proxy.

As someone even said earlier, the weapon damage die of the BA PAM attack is 1d4, because of the way its' worded, it sounds like Martial Arts would replace it, since it replaces the Weapon Damage Die of Monk Weapons.


You have said this in many threads and keep acting like it is a written rule somewhere.

Nowhere, in any way has the extra attack from pole arm master ever been called an improvised weapon attack.

That is not the reason it does 1d4, it does 1d4 because that is what the feat says it does.
Also not all improvised weapons do 1d4 anyway.

This.

[DivisibleByZero]

Just because you can't see the blatantly obvious design philosophy behind that particular choice for the damage die of this feat doesn't mean that this design philosophy wasn't present.
Every decision that they made doesn't need to be spelled out and explained.
It's perfectly clear what the idea was behind using the haft of your weapon for a secondary attack.

[Mongobear]

The reason is a bonus action only does what it states. PAM doesn't give you an extra attack, it gives you a bonus action that allows a melee attack that deals d4 damage. The normal modifiers (Str usually) apply as do magical bonuses from weapon:

"Matteo Gama Galli @Il_Gama
@JeremyECrawford A question on Polearm Master feat: does the bonus of a magic weapon (+2 halberd) apply to the opposite end d4 damages?

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
@Il_Gama Yes, it applies.
1:52 AM - 24 Oct 2015"

So the reasoning isn't because it's an improvised weapon, it's because it's a bonus action attack that does d4 damage and you can't swap out parts of the BA (in this case the weapon damage die) for parts of a different action. Per another JC tweet:

"A bonus action can do only the thing that gave you the bonus action. You can't swap it for another action. #DnD"

I'd assume based on the first JC tweet I posted, a weapon that does +xdx damage would apply to the haft as well, unless the weapon specifically states it only effects the one end.

The distinction is that in this hypothetical situation, I am not swapping out parts of one Bonus Action for another.

I am still using the PAM Bonus Action, I am just questioning whether Martial Arts replaces the damage die of the PAM Attack (1d4+mod) with your Martial Arts damage dice, especially as a Kensai who is allowed to select weapons outside of the normal Monk list, but for the same of discussion I was using a Q-staff as an easy choice available to all Monks.


Just because you can't see the blatantly obvious design philosophy behind that particular choice for the damage die of this feat doesn't mean that this design philosophy wasn't present.
Every decision that they made doesn't need to be spelled out and explained.
It's perfectly clear what the idea was behind using the haft of your weapon for a secondary attack.

Just because you interpreted something differently as a RAI case, doesn't mean that's how it is actually used, RAW.

RAI, you may be correct, however what is written in the book and in the UA articles conflicts with that opinion you got there.

[DivisibleByZero]

Just because you interpreted something differently as a RAI case, doesn't mean that's how it is actually used, RAW.

RAI, you may be correct, however what is written in the book and in the UA articles conflicts with that opinion you got there.

No, it doesn't conflict with anything.
I never said it used the improvised weapon rules.
I never said it used the TWF rules.
I said that the design philosophy behind the choice for a 1d4 damage was based on the idea that it is, for all intents and purposes, being used as an improvised weapon.

I made no comment at all about what the rules were, so there is nothing to create conflict in the first place. I made a comment about why that choice was made. And that choice makes perfect sense. All you have to do is think about it for half a second.

What's happening?
What is happening is that you are using something which is not normally a weapon (under DnD rules) to make an attack. That's the very definition of an improvised weapon. And hey, guess what? Improvised weapons do 1d4 damage. So does this!
So you take a feat, and now you get a bonus attack (like TWF, but using the haft as your "second" weapon). But since you spent a feat on it, you get your mod to damage and add your prof bonus to the attack.
That's why it works the way it does.
It's not friggin rocket science. If you just stop to think about it for a nanosecond, it makes perfect sense.

[Sigreid]

Ask your DM because I'd let you.

[GlenSmash!]

If the regular PM Bonus action attack damage is a d4 instead of the weapon's damage dice, I don't see why martial arts would change that.

[Mandragola]

I wouldn't let you have it. I'd say it was d4.

Currently, the haft does d4 regardless of the weapon dice of the usual end of the weapon (which can be anything from d6-d10, I believe).

So I'd follow the same logic. Your monk skills let you get better at using the normal end of the weapon but not the haft.

Using the haft of a pole arm is not part of your monk training. It's something you get from the feat. So you read what the feat says, and only that.

However, as per previous clarification, if it's a +2 quarter staff that adds 2d6 fire damage, I'd rule that it did d4+2d6+dex+2.

[Mongobear]

What's happening?
What is happening is that you are using something which is not normally a weapon (under DnD rules) to make an attack.


Except I am literally using a weapon to do this. I can't pick up a broom and make these attacks, I have to be using a Q-staff, Glaive, or some other Polearm to allow it.


That's the very definition of an improvised weapon. And hey, guess what? Improvised weapons do 1d4 damage. So does this!


I am not improvising this BA Attack.

This is the exact wording from the PHB:

When you take the Attack action and attack with only
a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can use a bonus
action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of
the weapon. The weapon's damage die for this attack
is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage.

While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack
from you when they enter your reach.

Notice how it says "the opposite end of the weapon" not "a part of the weapon not meant to be used as a weapon" granted, using this with a Halberd or Glaive is a lot different than a Quarterstaff, there is literally no difference between the ends of a common fighting Quarterstaff.

And this part "The weapon's damage damage die for this attack is a d4 and it deals bludgeoning damage." And this part from Martial Arts "You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage
of your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk leveis, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table." For PAM's BA Attack, the "normal damage" is 1d4, as long as you have a Q-staff or are a Kensai and select a qualifying weapon as one of your chosen weapons, it would allow you to swap in the Martial Arts die instead of the d4.

Also, specific trumps general. Both the damage of PAM's BA Attack AND Martial Arts are a specific case that modifies a general one. If you are in a situation where you have to apply both, I see no reason why you couldnt apply one before the other to gain the better effect.


So you take a feat, and now you get a bonus attack (like TWF, but using the haft as your "second" weapon). But since you spent a feat on it, you get your mod to damage and add your prof bonus to the attack.


No. No. And no. The leaps in logic you had to have taken to come up with this is mind boggling. If you had to explain it this way to your own group as a ruling for your own table, that's fine. But that doesnt mean it applies to every table or even the general game itself.


That's why it works the way it does.
It's not friggin rocket science.


Except nothing you said is ACTUALLY why these things work the way they do. Unless you want to get into the argument about every weapon that deals 1d4 being improvised? And also, not all improvised weapons deal 1d4, it's entirely based on the size/shape of the weapon, and whether it is similar enough to a real weapon to use that damage range. Example, a shovel could be argued to be similar to a battleaxe or halberd, a pitchfork could be equivalent to a Trident, a sledgehammer for pounding in posts equivalent to a Maul or Warhammer, this alone completely nullifies 90% of your argument.

[MrStabby]

Is the quarterstaff a monk weapon? If so then you can swap it's damage die for the monk die.

I would argue that it is still the same weapon (so if the base damage was d6+mod+2 (i.e. a +2 weapon) then the bonus attack would do d4+mod+2). If it is still the same weapon then it is still a monk weapon and you still get to substitute the die.

[RSP]

The distinction is that in this hypothetical situation, I am not swapping out parts of one Bonus Action for another.

I am still using the PAM Bonus Action, I am just questioning whether Martial Arts replaces the damage die of the PAM Attack (1d4+mod) with your Martial Arts damage dice, especially as a Kensai who is allowed to select weapons outside of the normal Monk list, but for the same of discussion I was using a Q-staff as an easy choice available to all Monks

Per JC's quote in my post, you use the Ability that gives you the bonus action. You can't swap out features within a bonus action. If you are using the PAM bonus action to make the attack, you use those rules to resolve the attack, which is a d4+mod +magic weapon (if applicable) for damage.

Monk does not give you a bonus action attack with Monk weapons, it gives you a bonus action unarmed strike attack as a bonus action.

Kensai does not give you a bonus action attack with monk weapons either.

Therefore, if using the feat PAM to make a bonus action attack, you must use the feature as it is written, that is, it does d4 as a damage die.


Is the quarterstaff a monk weapon? If so then you can swap it's damage die for the monk die.

I would argue that it is still the same weapon (so if the base damage was d6+mod+2 (i.e. a +2 weapon) then the bonus attack would do d4+mod+2). If it is still the same weapon then it is still a monk weapon and you still get to substitute the die.

Again, you don't get to substitute qualities of a feature that gives you a bonus action, you must keep the features of the bonus action, per JC's tweet, therefore the Monk weapon damage isn't a factor in what damage the PAM feat's bonus action does. All that matters is what the feature that gives you the bonus action states. In this case it's d4 damage.

[GlenSmash!]

Per JC's quote in my post, you use the Ability that gives you the bonus action. You can't swap out features within a bonus action. If you are using the PAM bonus action to make the attack, you use those rules to resolve the attack, which is a d4+mod +magic weapon (if applicable) for damage.

Monk does not give you a bonus action attack with Monk weapons, it gives you a bonus action unarmed strike attack as a bonus action.

Kensai does not give you a bonus action attack with monk weapons either.

Therefore, if using the feat PAM to make a bonus action attack, you must use the feature as it is written, that is, it does d4 as a damage die.



Again, you don't get to substitute qualities of a feature that gives you a bonus action, you must keep the features of the bonus action, per JC's tweet, therefore the Monk weapon damage isn't a factor in what damage the PAM feat's bonus action does. All that matters is what the feature that gives you the bonus action states. In this case it's d4 damage.

This is in my opinion the best most correct answer.

[Talionis]

Ask your DM. We allow Monk to replace the 1d4. It doesn't break the game and seems to be in line with what Monks do. That might not be RAW or RAI but it won't cripple your game.

[Lombra]

The wording of martial arts says that you can replace the normal damage of the weapon with your martial arts die. It is not explicitly written, but I guess that the haft of the quarterstaff doesn't count as the normal damage of the quarterstaff. Heck the wording of the feat even implies that it isn's a weapon attack, but just a melee attack, for whatever this could be worth.

Although it's stupid and I'd allow that. Even if magical weapons don't fit the kensai theme well.

[MrStabby]

Again, you don't get to substitute qualities of a feature that gives you a bonus action, you must keep the features of the bonus action, per JC's tweet, therefore the Monk weapon damage isn't a factor in what damage the PAM feat's bonus action does. All that matters is what the feature that gives you the bonus action states. In this case it's d4 damage.


What you are quoting is rules as twitter not rules as written in the actual rulebook. If they actually mean something to be treated as rules then that is what the errata are for.

What matters is the order in which things happen. Is the quarterstaff damage die replaced by the monk die then by a d4, or is it replaced by the d4 then overwritten by the monk die?

[cZak]

I'm kinda stumped why you'd want the feat.
You get (1) a bonus attack for 1d4 & (2) an AoO when foes enter your reach.

Martial arts gives you the bonus attack & as a >4 level monk, your unarmed strike does equivalent damage as a quarter staff
Fluff wise, it's just the order of ops that changes, but pretty much accomplishes the same thing:
(Martial arts) Whack with quarter staff (Atk)/ Elbow to the throat (Bonus)
(PM) Whack w quarter staff (Atk)/ Whack w butt of quarter staff (Bonus)

Both have the same:
Range
Chance of hitting
Damage

So the only benefit of the feat is the AoO.
Which doesn't seem worth it to me, when Mobile, Sentinel or others

[RSP]

What you are quoting is rules as twitter not rules as written in the actual rulebook. If they actually mean something to be treated as rules then that is what the errata are for.

What matters is the order in which things happen. Is the quarterstaff damage die replaced by the monk die then by a d4, or is it replaced by the d4 then overwritten by the monk die?

Ignore them if you want but JC's tweets are official to the rules of 5e.

Order doesn't matter. You can't change what a bonus action does.

[Mongobear]

I'm kinda stumped why you'd want the feat.
You get (1) a bonus attack for 1d4 & (2) an AoO when foes enter your reach.

Martial arts gives you the bonus attack & as a >4 level monk, your unarmed strike does equivalent damage as a quarter staff
Fluff wise, it's just the order of ops that changes, but pretty much accomplishes the same thing:
(Martial arts) Whack with quarter staff (Atk)/ Elbow to the throat (Bonus)
(PM) Whack w quarter staff (Atk)/ Whack w butt of quarter staff (Bonus)

Both have the same:
Range
Chance of hitting
Damage

So the only benefit of the feat is the AoO.
Which doesn't seem worth it to me, when Mobile, Sentinel or others

Ive explained this before. It's a small benefit, but assuming you manage to find a Quarterstaff with some sort of magical bonus damage, similar to Flametongue/Frostbrand, it is higher damage than alternating between Staff and Unarmed Strikes.

It is pretty redundant, I don't disagree with that point, it was just a hypothetical scenario that came up when my group started to discuss/critique the most recent UA subclasses.

I'm not actually advocating this build, or currently playing it in a game. I just figured I would ask how it would work out if it was to be done.

[Christian]

Well, if you allow this, it wouldn't just apply to the quarterstaff, right? A level 17+ kensai who took PAM and had the glaive as his weapon would do 1d10 with glaive attacks made with his attack action, and also 1d10 with the bonus action attack with the haft.

I'd allow it, just under the rule of cool. :smallcool:

[Lombra]

Well, if you allow this, it wouldn't just apply to the quarterstaff, right? A level 17+ kensai who took PAM and had the glaive as his weapon would do 1d10 with glaive attacks made with his attack action, and also 1d10 with the bonus action attack with the haft.

I'd allow it, just under the rule of cool. :smallcool:

I believe that you can't use heavy weapons except for longbows with the kensai, but at level 17 a monk can deal 1d10 anyways regardless of the *weapon that he wields

*monk weapon

[Christian]

Ignore them if you want but JC's tweets are official to the rules of 5e.


I'm sorry, I don't see a tweet about monk damage dice not applying to PAM bonus action attacks. There was one up above about the Shillelagh spell, is that what you're referring to?
It's not clear to me that the ruling applies. (a) the spell and the monk ability are worded very differently, and (b) the reasoning for JC's ruling is not spelled out, so it's hard to say whether the reasoning would carry over.

Shillelagh changes the weapon's damage die when you cast the spell to 1d8. It would never have occurred to me to let shillelagh change the damage die for the bonus action attack; the feat states that 'the weapon's damage die for this attack is 1d4', which it makes sense overrides the spell effect. But when a monk uses a monk weapon, she can "roll [her martial arts die] in place of the normal damage" (PHB pg. 78). The only argument I can see that this wouldn't apply to the PAM bonus action attack is that 'normal' means the damage die on the weapon table. To me, the natural reading of the word in that sentence is referring to the damage the attack would do if you weren't a monk using a monk weapon, though.


Order doesn't matter. You can't change what a bonus action does.


Can a rogue get sneak attack damage on a bonus action attack? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but whatever it is, I can't agree.

[Christian]

I believe that you can't use heavy weapons except for longbows with the kensai, but at level 17 a monk can deal 1d10 anyways regardless of the weapon that he wields

Oh, yeah, that's right. No polearm kensai ... And you can't use martial arts bonus attacks while wielding non-monk weapons. :smallsigh:

[RSP]

I'm sorry, I don't see a tweet about monk damage dice not applying to PAM bonus action attacks. There was one up above about the Shillelagh spell, is that what you're referring to?
It's not clear to me that the ruling applies. (a) the spell and the monk ability are worded very differently, and (b) the reasoning for JC's ruling is not spelled out, so it's hard to say whether the reasoning would carry over.

Shillelagh changes the weapon's damage die when you cast the spell to 1d8. It would never have occurred to me to let shillelagh change the damage die for the bonus action attack; the feat states that 'the weapon's damage die for this attack is 1d4', which it makes sense overrides the spell effect. But when a monk uses a monk weapon, she can "roll [her martial arts die] in place of the normal damage" (PHB pg. 78). The only argument I can see that this wouldn't apply to the PAM bonus action attack is that 'normal' means the damage die on the weapon table. To me, the natural reading of the word in that sentence is referring to the damage the attack would do if you weren't a monk using a monk weapon, though.



Can a rogue get sneak attack damage on a bonus action attack? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but whatever it is, I can't agree.

"I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but whatever it is, I can't agree," sounds like a horrible philosophy. So no matter what I'm saying, you just can't agree? I guess it's pointless to explain to you then.

For anyone else interested: you have to take the BA as is, is the point of the JC tweet: no mismatching with it, like substituting the damage die of one Ability for the damage die of another.

However, if the BA does something that qualifies another Ability/modifier/whatever, such as it includes a weapon attack that also otherwise qualifies for SA, or say the weapon used has a +2 magic modifier on it, it can still apply. Basically, so long as you aren't changing the BA you can build off it.

BUT REMEMBER: you only have a BA if an Ability gives you one. So whatever Ability you're using to get the BA, has to use the Ability of the BA as written.

[GlenSmash!]

Can a rogue get sneak attack damage on a bonus action attack? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but whatever it is, I can't agree.

But the bonus action granted by Two Weapon Fighting does not dictate the damage dice of the attack. The bonus action granted by Polearm Master does.

[Mongobear]

But the bonus action granted by Two Weapon Fighting does not dictate the damage dice of the attack. The bonus action granted by Polearm Master does.

PAM also specifically calls out that the d4 is the weapon damage for the attack, which would qualify to be swapped with Martial Arts, assuming it is a Monk/Kensai weapon. Which is the entire argument/discussion point.

Sure the Shillelagh Sage Advice linked earlier is a similar effect, but not worded the same, so it is possible that specific answer doesn't apply.

[RSP]

PAM also specifically calls out that the d4 is the weapon damage for the attack, which would qualify to be swapped with Martial Arts, assuming it is a Monk/Kensai weapon. Which is the entire argument/discussion point.

Sure the Shillelagh Sage Advice linked earlier is a similar effect, but not worded the same, so it is possible that specific answer doesn't apply.

The point isn't the Shillelagh ruling, though you could certainly make an RAI argument based on that.

The point is a Bonus Action can't be swapped out by other abilities; you have to use it as written. You can't, say, swap out the attack granted by the PAM Bonus Action with a shove like you can with the Attack Action. You can't swap out the PAM BA attack for casting Booming Blade.

You have to use the feature as granted by whatever is providing the bonus action, because there is no generic Bonus Action.

"Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford

A bonus action can do only the thing that gave you the bonus action. You can't swap it for another action. #DnD "

A bonus action can do only the thing that gave the bonus action; in this case, it's a d4 damage attack.

[Mongobear]

The point isn't the Shillelagh ruling, though you could certainly make an RAI argument based on that.

The point is a Bonus Action can't be swapped out by other abilities; you have to use it as written. You can't, say, swap out the attack granted by the PAM Bonus Action with a shove like you can with the Attack Action. You can't swap out the PAM BA attack for casting Booming Blade.

You have to use the feature as granted by whatever is providing the bonus action, because there is no generic Bonus Action.

"Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford

A bonus action can do only the thing that gave you the bonus action. You can't swap it for another action. #DnD "

A bonus action can do only the thing that gave the bonus action; in this case, it's a d4 damage attack.

Saying you cant use the PAM BA to cast Booming Blade or Shove is a lot different of an argument than saying Martial Arts cant bump the damage up from a d4. Using BB or Shoving is an entire different action than making a single attack, Martial Arts only effects the damage it deals, it doesnt change the amount of effort or the way you do the bonus action.

At best, I think the best answer to this whole thing is an "Ask your DM to decide" solution, since there seems to be people on both sides.

[GlenSmash!]

PAM also specifically calls out that the d4 is the weapon damage for the attack, which would qualify to be swapped with Martial Arts, assuming it is a Monk/Kensai weapon. Which is the entire argument/discussion point.

Sure the Shillelagh Sage Advice linked earlier is a similar effect, but not worded the same, so it is possible that specific answer doesn't apply.

Sure you can use the Monk's Weapon die... then replace it with a d4 like the feat says :smallamused:

[RSP]

Saying you cant use the PAM BA to cast Booming Blade or Shove is a lot different of an argument than saying Martial Arts cant bump the damage up from a d4. Using BB or Shoving is an entire different action than making a single attack, Martial Arts only effects the damage it deals, it doesnt change the amount of effort or the way you do the bonus action.

At best, I think the best answer to this whole thing is an "Ask your DM to decide" solution, since there seems to be people on both sides.

So basically you asked the OP question, not because you were interested in finding out the answer, but because you wanted to defend your position. Having seen the responses and not liking the answer, you default to "ask your DM." I guess you just wanted to waste everyone's time who thought they were assisting you by providing the answers.

The Shillelagh ruling and JC's statements on Bonus Actions paints a pretty clear picture of what the answer is, but by all means, play it at your table as you wish. Next time, though, please just state what you want to state.

[MrStabby]

So basically you asked the OP question, not because you were interested in finding out the answer, but because you wanted to defend your position. Having seen the responses and not liking the answer, you default to "ask your DM." I guess you just wanted to waste everyone's time who thought they were assisting you by providing the answers.

The Shillelagh ruling and JC's statements on Bonus Actions paints a pretty clear picture of what the answer is, but by all means, play it at your table as you wish. Next time, though, please just state what you want to state.

I don't see any issue with what the OP said - there was no agreement, no agreement on even what counts as evidence. He/she was not going to pretend there was agreement where there wasn't so defaulted to a pretty grown up response for what to do when there is no agreement... I can't fault it. Given that this position was based on the fact that there were conflicting views it was hardly a waste of time. As to the OP defending a position - if they wanted a position they could have just ignored the other side, rather than accepting the ambiguity.


I don't see the beef.

[Mongobear]

So basically you asked the OP question, not because you were interested in finding out the answer, but because you wanted to defend your position. Having seen the responses and not liking the answer, you default to "ask your DM." I guess you just wanted to waste everyone's time who thought they were assisting you by providing the answers.

The Shillelagh ruling and JC's statements on Bonus Actions paints a pretty clear picture of what the answer is, but by all means, play it at your table as you wish. Next time, though, please just state what you want to state.

One for you.

http://www.saltopiasalts.com/uploads/1/0/7/8/10782629/7109779_orig.jpg


I don't see any issue with what the OP said - there was no agreement, no agreement on even what counts as evidence. He/she was not going to pretend there was agreement where there wasn't so defaulted to a pretty grown up response for what to do when there is no agreement... I can't fault it. Given that this position was based on the fact that there were conflicting views it was hardly a waste of time. As to the OP defending a position - if they wanted a position they could have just ignored the other side, rather than accepting the ambiguity.


I don't see the beef.

And one for you.

http://cdn.modernfarmer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/innercowhero.jpg

My work here is done.

*Heroic Pose*

*Flies away*

[RSP]

Has there been an errata or Sage Advice on this topic? That would help out tremendously instead of back and forth arguing.


I don't see any issue with what the OP said - there was no agreement, no agreement on even what counts as evidence. He/she was not going to pretend there was agreement where there wasn't so defaulted to a pretty grown up response for what to do when there is no agreement... I can't fault it. Given that this position was based on the fact that there were conflicting views it was hardly a waste of time. As to the OP defending a position - if they wanted a position they could have just ignored the other side, rather than accepting the ambiguity.


I don't see the beef.

No beef, just prefer the OP state what they want rather than pretend otherwise. The above quote asked for SA rulings. I provided them as requested to show the rule. They decided then to ignore what's pretty clearly stated about BAs and nicely backed up with intent from the Shillelagh ruling.

Just pointing out it's rather poor etiquette to request help from people, get it, and then dismiss said help.

[Mongobear]

No beef, just prefer the OP state what they want rather than pretend otherwise. The above quote asked for SA rulings. I provided them as requested to show the rule. They decided then to ignore what's pretty clearly stated about BAs and nicely backed up with intent from the Shillelagh ruling.

Just pointing out it's rather poor etiquette to request help from people, get it, and then dismiss said help.

Except you didn't provide solid proof via the SA articles, it was an unrelated, albeit vaguely similar case based on Shillelagh.

Not only that, both Shillelagh AND Martial Arts use entirely different wording as to how they modify the weapon damage, which doesn't lend any more belief in the original SA link you provided.

[MadBear]

For what little it's worth (very little I'm guessing) I'd say the rules don't support adding your monk weapon damage so you'd have to use d4's, but at my table I'd house rule it due to the rule of cool.

[RSP]

Except you didn't provide solid proof via the SA articles, it was an unrelated, albeit vaguely similar case based on Shillelagh.

Not only that, both Shillelagh AND Martial Arts use entirely different wording as to how they modify the weapon damage, which doesn't lend any more belief in the original SA link you provided.

No, you keep ignoring the ruling I'm quoting: Bonus Actions aren't a given. They're only available via an Ability that gives one, such as TWF or the feat PAM. Per the JC' Tweet, you can't swap out what a particular BA does, but need to use them as they're written.

The Shillelagh tweet is just an example of the BA rule. Even though The spell let's you use a d8 damage die, you still need to use the ability as written: that is, the d4 damage die.

Again, you can choose to discount this if you don't like the ruling, but it's bad form to ask how somethings done, ask for specific SA rulings, and then just discount that people helped you out because you don't like the results.