Monk stuff

[Lolzyking]

I had a very interesting discussion at my home game about monks unarmed strike.

to get the bonus action unarmed strike, you need to attack with an unarmed strike or monk weapon during your attack action. The interesting idea that was floating about was two weapon fighting, If you attack with first attack with a non monk weapon, but the second attack was with a valid monk weapon, do you still apply for the unarmed strike?

[JackPhoenix]

No, because you only get one bonus action per round. If you use it on TWF, you can't use it for Martial Arts unarmed strike.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If you mean this in the way of using Extra Attack to attack with those two separate weapons I don't see why you couldn't be allowed an unarmed attack. Extra Attack allows attacking with any combination of weapon/unarmed and Martial Arts only asks that a monk weapon or unarmed strike be involved in your attack action.

If you mean using the twf bonus attack then the above mentioned by JackPhoenix would be correct. Only one bonus action per turn.

[Lolzyking]

No, because you only get one bonus action per round. If you use it on TWF, you can't use it for Martial Arts unarmed strike.

I wasn't referring to two weapon fighting with bonus actions

Extra attack-attack action
Attack 1 Longsword
Attack 2 shortsword monk weapon
Bonus action unarmed strike/flurry
~
You've attacked with a monk weapon, but does the other attack with a not monk weapon disallow flurry of blows/unarmed strike with the bonus action

[Theodoxus]

You can't attack with an offhand attack as part of an extra attack.
1) You'd need the two weapon fighting feat to be able to wield a long sword in one hand and a short in the other.
2) There's nothing that allows an offhand attack, other than a bonus attack as part of the TWF attack.
3) Even if you COULD do what you say, why would you want to? Without the TWF style, you're not getting ability mod to damage, the SS is doing 1 point less on average than the LS (before attribute mod is considered) and a quarterstaff is superior all around in this regard; doing 2 strikes with your extra attack at 1d8+mod, and allows a MA or FoB BA follow up...

[Lolzyking]

You can't attack with an offhand attack as part of an extra attack.
1) You'd need the two weapon fighting feat to be able to wield a long sword in one hand and a short in the other.
2) There's nothing that allows an offhand attack, other than a bonus attack as part of the TWF attack.
3) Even if you COULD do what you say, why would you want to? Without the TWF style, you're not getting ability mod to damage, the SS is doing 1 point less on average than the LS (before attribute mod is considered) and a quarterstaff is superior all around in this regard; doing 2 strikes with your extra attack at 1d8+mod, and allows a MA or FoB BA follow up...

I think you have a misunderstanding of the extra attack class feature.

For example a 20th level fighter (4 attacks) already holding a Rapier could with the Attack action:

Shove a creature (Attack No 1)
Draw your dagger (interact with an object)
Use your Rapier (Attack No 2)
Use your dagger (Attack No 3)
Use your Rapier (Attack No 4)
Two weapon fight with your dagger (Bonus Action)

All attacks from the extra attack feature don't have to be from the same weapon.

[DivisibleByZero]

My ruling would be No.
If you made any attack with a non-monk weapon, you can't use martial arts for the bonus attack. You could, however, use TWF if they were appropriate weapons to do so.

[Citan]

I had a very interesting discussion at my home game about monks unarmed strike.

to get the bonus action unarmed strike, you need to attack with an unarmed strike or monk weapon during your attack action. The interesting idea that was floating about was two weapon fighting, If you attack with first attack with a non monk weapon, but the second attack was with a valid monk weapon, do you still apply for the unarmed strike?
It's the kind of case where RAW is insufficient to give a clear answer either way.
PHB only tells us "when you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon, ... For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff".
This wording was clearly thought without taking the "Extra Attack" into consideration, because WoTC didn't think anyone would be crazy enough to think about this very particular niche.
You can interpret either as "you just need one attack with monk weapon" or as "you take the whole (implicit word) Attack action with monk weapon/unarmed strike".

My gut feeling is that RAI is no, but I would certainly allow it nevertheless because...
a) As said just above, there is no clear rule to draw from RAW wording.
b) As of now, I don't see any particular powerful combo that wouldn't need a hefty investment in multiclass or feats, meaning that player payed the opportunity cost for the sake of creating his concept so shouldn't end more powerful (probably less in fact).

[Lolzyking]

I think the biggest point here is the fact that wotc chose to word it "when you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon" instead of with only.

Thats where my group got the idea that someone could go with a longsword/shortsword fighter monk, Theme it as a katana and tanto and go full action movie samurai with kicks and flips.

[Lucadibeppo]

I think you have a misunderstanding of the extra attack class feature.

For example a 20th level fighter (4 attacks) already holding a Rapier could with the Attack action:

Shove a creature (Attack No 1)
Draw your dagger (interact with an object)
Use your Rapier (Attack No 2)
Use your dagger (Attack No 3)
Use your Rapier (Attack No 4)
Two weapon fight with your dagger (Bonus Action)

All attacks from the extra attack feature don't have to be from the same weapon.

I agree with this. Makes sense and no where did it say you have to use the same weapon for each attack.

[Lucadibeppo]

I think the biggest point here is the fact that wotc chose to word it "when you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon" instead of with only.

Thats where my group got the idea that someone could go with a longsword/shortsword fighter monk, Theme it as a katana and tanto and go full action movie samurai with kicks and flips.

I also agree with this. Rule of cool and all. Doesn't break the game, is cool, and RAW.

[DivisibleByZero]

Do it with a wakizashi and tanto combo (shortsword / dagger). Shortswords are monk weapons.
You could even ss/dagg fluffed any way you want, as a katana / wakizashi. As long as you're using the stats of a monk weapon, you can fluff it however you want to.

[Lucadibeppo]

Fighter monk wielding a battleaxe. Has two attacks. First attack battleaxe. Second attack elbow with offhand. Bonus action unarmed strike headbutt. All RAW.

[nickl_2000]

Fighter monk wielding a battleaxe. Has two attacks. First attack battleaxe. Second attack elbow with offhand. Bonus action unarmed strike headbutt. All RAW.

Now all I can imagine is the monk with a shaved head sitting in the lotus position until someone bugs him to much. He calmly stands up yells " you disturbed my inner peace" while drawing a battleaxe. Then immediately proceeding to smash everything in sight

[Lolzyking]

Fighter monk wielding a battleaxe. Has two attacks. First attack battleaxe. Second attack elbow with offhand. Bonus action unarmed strike headbutt. All RAW.

I mean people might complain about how they feel the class is intended to be played, I don't see any possible weapon combination that suddenly becomes the most over powered thing with monk bonus action attacks. You need 1 monkweapon/unarmed attack to qualify meaning at best a single attack with a non monk weapon unless you went 11 fighter, but then monk damage suffers.

Worst case, monk with a Greatsword. Slash>Elbow>Kick>Headbutt, This ate 1 Ki vs the equivalent fighter that got Slash>Slash, then at 11 Slash>Slash>Slash.

[Theodoxus]

Ok, so if you're using paired weapons and you attack with your main hand, say a long sword, dealing 1d8+Str damage. And you use Extra Attack to attack with your offhand, say a short sword, dealing 1d6... plus mod? Do you need the TWF fighting style to get mod damage on your second attack?

Only under Two-Weapon Fighting, page 195, does it talk at all about attacking with an off-hand weapon. And it has specific requirements, and allows only specific benefits - but most importantly, it requires a bonus action to do.

Your whole premise breaks down when you start to dig into it.

[Lolzyking]

Ok, so if you're using paired weapons and you attack with your main hand, say a long sword, dealing 1d8+Str damage. And you use Extra Attack to attack with your offhand, say a short sword, dealing 1d6... plus mod? Do you need the TWF fighting style to get mod damage on your second attack?

Only under Two-Weapon Fighting, page 195, does it talk at all about attacking with an off-hand weapon. And it has specific requirements, and allows only specific benefits - but most importantly, it requires a bonus action to do.

Your whole premise breaks down when you start to dig into it.

Except two weapon fighting is about gaining an attack by meeting requirements during the attack action, it doesn't actually limit what you can do during the attack action.

It's already been answered in sage advice that you don't have to perform all attacks from extra attack with the same weapon, you can use any combination of weapons you are wielding (fighter disarming strike and using object interaction to grab the enemies weapon as an example.)

You also get your modifier to all attacks performed with the Attack action regardless of how you are wielding it, the bonus action attack specifies when you don't

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light
melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can
use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee
weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t
add your ability odifier to the damage o f the bonus
attack, unless that modifier is negative.

You can use the extra attack action and use one attack with both light weapons for example, this doesn't rule out the use of them for the bonus action, It enables either of them for it because you used the other one as well.

[Theodoxus]

Nope, you're going to have to define that a lot better. I'm not seeing it.

Basically, you're saying a 5th level fighter can go in florentine style with paired warhammers, use the Attack Action to attack with the Warhammer in his right hand, hitting for 1d8+Str, then using Extra Attack, swing with his left hand, hitting for 1d8+Str. No feats required, just, boom.

Then, if he has the TWF feat, he can take a Bonus Action to attack with either weapon, for an extra 1d8 damage. And, if he happens to have the TWF style, he can add his strength mod to that attack.

That's what you're saying?

Mechanically, it's no different than swinging the hammer in his right hand twice, then swinging once, as a BA, the hammer in his left. I get that - mechanically, it's the same. But makes zero logical sense to do it that way. There's no benefit to doing it that way.

Let's put it another way, the end of TWF on 195 states: "If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it." Now, reading that in common English, that unequivocally states that if you're holding a short sword in one hand, and a handaxe in the other, that you can throw the short sword; because it is part of the 'if either'. Not, 'if both', not 'if one of them, you can throw that one'...

So, just because the rules say something, doesn't mean it makes any bloody sense. Same with fighting with two weapons. Your offhand has to obey all the rules of TWF, or it falls apart into meaninglessness.

[Lolzyking]

Offhand isn't even in the wording of two weapon fighting.

"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand ,you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand."

No where does it mention that you cannot attack with a weapon you've already attacked with, only that you had to use another weapon, wielded in the other hand during the attack action.

I use the attack action, I have extra attack

I attack with weapon A first (with str). This makes weapon B eligible for the bonus action
I use my second attack with weapon B(with str). This makes weapon A eligible for the bonus action

I can now at my leisure choose which weapon to attack with as a bonus action, which if I don't have the fighting style won't have the ability mod to damage.

this is the rules, Sage advice has answered about this before.

[SpamCreateWater]

Just to clear something up.


Let's put it another way, the end of TWF on 195 states: "If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it." Now, reading that in common English, that unequivocally states that if you're holding a short sword in one hand, and a handaxe in the other, that you can throw the short sword; because it is part of the 'if either'. Not, 'if both', not 'if one of them, you can throw that one'...

Emphasis is mine.

Common English reading states that you can throw the weapon. The weapon being the one that has the thrown property.

[JackPhoenix]

Even without TWF, RAW, you can't use BA attack if you use non-monk weapon. Not because of the wording of the BA part, but because of the wording of Martial Arts itself (before the 3 points):


At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two- handed or heavy property. You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:

The moment you use non-monk weapon, you aren't wielding only monk weapons, and the whole Martial Arts feature is turned off. Arguably, it could work if you drop or sheathe the sword after you attack with it, and use the unarmed attack while unarmed.

[Lolzyking]

Even without TWF, RAW, you can't use BA attack if you use non-monk weapon. Not because of the wording of the BA part, but because of the wording of Martial Arts itself (before the 3 points):



The moment you use non-monk weapon, you aren't wielding only monk weapons, and the whole Martial Arts feature is turned off. Arguably, it could work if you drop or sheathe the sword after you attack with it, and use the unarmed attack while unarmed.

Thank you for giving me a clear answer on this, I had the nagging feeling I missed something.

This brings up the new horrible question, It doesn't stop flurry of blows though because it is not part of the martial arts feature. but those would be 1+ability modifier unarmed strikes with out martial arts

[JackPhoenix]

Thank you for giving me a clear answer on this, I had the nagging feeling I missed something.

This brings up the new horrible question, It doesn't stop flurry of blows though because it is not part of the martial arts feature. but those would be 1+ability modifier unarmed strikes with out martial arts

Even worse, 1+Str mod, using Dex for unarmed attack is part of Martial Arts. And Str is usually a dump stat for monks...

[Citan]

Even without TWF, RAW, you can't use BA attack if you use non-monk weapon. Not because of the wording of the BA part, but because of the wording of Martial Arts itself (before the 3 points):



The moment you use non-monk weapon, you aren't wielding only monk weapons, and the whole Martial Arts feature is turned off. Arguably, it could work if you drop or sheathe the sword after you attack with it, and use the unarmed attack while unarmed.
Oh, right, we all totally forgot that, I had that feeling.
Thanks for bringing the missing bit. ;)

Then RAW is no. ROC would probably still be yes though (for me at least).

[Lolzyking]

Alright, telling my friend to shelf that idea until kensai comes out in xenathurs guide.

[Lucadibeppo]

Well I stand corrected then. The monk needs to be wielding a monk weapon to make that happen then. Serves me right for posting away from book!

[Lolzyking]

Actually you could by raw get away with a martial thrown weapon, because you wouldn't be wielding it after throwing it.

attack action
Attack 1 net / Trident thrown - no longer wielding a non monk weapon.
Move up to enemy
Attack 2 monkweapon/Unarmed strike
~
bonus action flurry of blows/Martial arts.

[DivisibleByZero]

Actually you could by raw get away with a martial thrown weapon, because you wouldn't be wielding it after throwing it.

attack action
Attack 1 Net thrown - no longer wielding a non monk weapon.
Move up to enemy
Attack 2 monkweapon/Unarmed strike
~
bonus action flurry of blows/Martial arts.

Only if your DM were extremely lenient and willing to look past your lawyering.

Martial Arts:
--You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing arm or or wielding a shield:
--When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action

You used the Attack action, and that action included an attack with a non-monk weapon.

This would be akin to applying TWF and dueling in the same turn by throwing the first weapon and then claiming that you're only wielding a single one handed weapon for dueling.
You'd need a very lenient DM, willing to overlook the obvious cheese.

[Lolzyking]

Only if your DM were extremely lenient and willing to look past your lawyering.

Martial Arts:
--You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing arm or or wielding a shield:
--When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action

You used the Attack action, and that action included an attack with a non-monk weapon.

I understand your point, Its completely up to interpretation if meeting the requirements of the Martial arts feature mid attack action makes you eligible to benefit from that attack action.

In my own opinion I feel like monk is intentionally limited based on wotc's opinion on what a monk should be. One look at kryx's charts show's that monks lack compared to every other non caster.

[DivisibleByZero]

Check my edit from while you were typing, just in case you missed it.

[Lolzyking]

I understand what you mean about the cheesiness, but I see it as cheese for a good cause, not cheese for fighting style stacking.

Joke intended, but what were wotc thinking when they thought martial weapons aren't used in martial arts.

[DivisibleByZero]

what were wotc thinking when they thought martial weapons aren't used in martial arts.

Martial Arts are what people commonly refer to as fighting unarmed, with your body, in the stereotypical Asian fighting style. That's common usage. That's what they were going with.

When someone says the words "martial arts" that's what you think of, not battleaxes and polearms.

[Arcangel4774]

I think you have a misunderstanding of the extra attack class feature.

For example a 20th level fighter (4 attacks) already holding a Rapier could with the Attack action:

Shove a creature (Attack No 1)
Draw your dagger (interact with an object)
Use your Rapier (Attack No 2)
Use your dagger (Attack No 3)
Use your Rapier (Attack No 4)
Two weapon fight with your dagger (Bonus Action)

All attacks from the extra attack feature don't have to be from the same weapon.

I'm amused as in this case, you applied similar ruling for your two weapon fighting bonus attacks as you did the monks bonus attack.

Two weapon fighting says that when you take an attack action with a light weapon wielded in one hand, you can attack with with a different light weapon wielded in the other.

Basically the hair splitting of both this and your monk question is whether the bonus action attack keys off of the whole attack action attack or only one of the attack action's attacks.

[Lolzyking]

I'm amused as in this case, you applied similar ruling for your two weapon fighting bonus attacks as you did the monks bonus attack.

Two weapon fighting says that when you take an attack action with a light weapon wielded in one hand, you can attack with with a different light weapon wielded in the other.

Basically the hair splitting of both this and your monk question is whether the bonus action attack keys off of the whole attack action attack or only one of the attack action's attacks.

Yeah its fun to talk about.


Martial Arts are what people commonly refer to as fighting unarmed, with your body, in the stereotypical Asian fighting style. That's common usage. That's what they were going with.

When someone says the words "martial arts" that's what you think of, not battleaxes and polearms.

What I'm refering to is that Most martial arts, asian and non asian, there are usually weapon forms for weapons that can only be represented as Polearms, greatclubs, longswords, ect. that are just poorly represented as anything other than being a martial weapon.