Wait...that's not my fist...

[carrdrivesyou]

So I saw another thread earlier about a "fist wizard" and it got me thinking. What's the best unarmed/pugilist out there? Then I wondered if I could make it sneaky. Then I went off the rails and started thinking...

How would a shadow monk/rogue assassin synergize (6 monk/14 rogue)? I mean, would you basically be sneaking your fists into their organs and chest cavity? Or would it be a bit more nuanced than that? Could I use the "John Cena" prank call theme every time I surprise grapple someone? Go wild Playground. Give me your thoughts...

[Man_Over_Game]

So I saw another thread earlier about a "fist wizard" and it got me thinking. What's the best unarmed/pugilist out there? Then I wondered if I could make it sneaky. Then I went off the rails and started thinking...

How would a shadow monk/rogue assassin synergize (6 monk/14 rogue)? I mean, would you basically be sneaking your fists into their organs and chest cavity? Or would it be a bit more nuanced than that? Could I use the "John Cena" prank call theme every time I surprise grapple someone? Go wild Playground. Give me your thoughts...

It'd be not great, honestly. Sneak Attack doesn't work with unarmed strikes, and Shadow Monks cannot see through the Darkness that they'd create.

A better solution would be to utilize Gloom Stalker with either of those classes.

Gloom Stalker + Monk would be a high mobility assassin that can cast Darkness on himself and be a teleporting shadow of death.
Gloom Stalker + Rogue would have a lot of options to assassinate people, and can utilize spells to high his approach. It's a lot more effective when considering that the Gloom Stalker works great with ranged weapons.

[Vogie]

Not necessarily - the problem is that the designers of 5e realized what they were doing, and specifically & intentionally did not make a monk's unarmed strike a finesse weapon. It shares the definition of a finesse weapon, but doesn't have the keyword.

There's a couple other strange nonbos out there, such as Magic Stone being able to sneak attack when used with a sling, but not being able to sneak attack when thrown.

That being said, if you have a DM that handwaves that distinction away, that is probably the way to do it.

[Mr.Spastic]

It wouldn't work because you can't sneak attack with an unarmed strike. You could use a dagger or shortsword but not a fist.

[Mr.Spastic]

There's a couple other strange nonbos out there, such as Magic Stone being able to sneak attack when used with a sling, but not being able to sneak attack when thrown.

You can sneak attack with a thrown weapon. According to Crawford here: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/sneak-attack-d6/

Thrown satisfies the range requirements for a sneak attack. This also counts in melee. For example, handaxes with the thrown property can be used to make melee sneak attacks. Noted in this tweet exchange
Thanks
@mikemearls: Yes, at least that is the intent, both for melee and ranged sneak attacks. @Plaguescarred Thrown weapon like handaxe is listed as melee weapon can you still Sneak Attack with it even if its not a ranged or finesse?
@mikemearls yes, as it is a ranged weapon since it's thrown
@Plaguescarred Ok txThe thrown property should be updated to say it then because it doesn't say it anywhere All thrown are melee excp dart/net

[Arkhios]

If you wanted to play something like this, and your DM would be fine with homebrew, take a look at my signature's newest homebrew: Thug.

It would solve your RAW problem with unarmed strike not being a finesse weapon which makes it impossible to sneak attack with it.
Thug, as I imagine it, would be the master of dirty tactics and would've learned ways to use just about any relatively small weapon available to make sneak attacks.

[Vogie]

You can sneak attack with a thrown weapon. According to Crawford here: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/sneak-attack-d6/

Thrown satisfies the range requirements for a sneak attack. This also counts in melee. For example, handaxes with the thrown property can be used to make melee sneak attacks. Noted in this tweet exchange
Thanks
@mikemearls: Yes, at least that is the intent, both for melee and ranged sneak attacks. @Plaguescarred Thrown weapon like handaxe is listed as melee weapon can you still Sneak Attack with it even if its not a ranged or finesse?
@mikemearls yes, as it is a ranged weapon since it's thrown
@Plaguescarred Ok txThe thrown property should be updated to say it then because it doesn't say it anywhere All thrown are melee excp dart/net

... and magic stone, when thrown, is a Ranged spell attack, which doesn't count. Which is why I called it out, specifically.

[Mr.Spastic]

... and magic stone, when thrown, is a Ranged spell attack, which doesn't count. Which is why I called it out, specifically.

Ah, I hadn't read magic stone in a while.

[Naanomi]

Magic stone wth a sling works for sneak attack because it is still an attack with a ranged weapon

[Arkhios]

You can sneak attack with a thrown weapon. According to Crawford here: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/sneak-attack-d6/

Thrown satisfies the range requirements for a sneak attack. This also counts in melee. For example, handaxes with the thrown property can be used to make melee sneak attacks. Noted in this tweet exchange
Thanks
@mikemearls: Yes, at least that is the intent, both for melee and ranged sneak attacks. @Plaguescarred Thrown weapon like handaxe is listed as melee weapon can you still Sneak Attack with it even if its not a ranged or finesse?
@mikemearls yes, as it is a ranged weapon since it's thrown
@Plaguescarred Ok txThe thrown property should be updated to say it then because it doesn't say it anywhere All thrown are melee excp dart/net

First of all: that tweet was answered by Mike Mearls, not Jeremy Crawford.
Secondly, it shows again why Mearls isn't the "rules guy", but rather the "flavor guy" (his title at D&D design team is Creative Director: His job is to figure out how things fit into the game from flavor perspective. His grasp of actual mechanics is somewhat lacking). His argument is that, you, as a DM, may let the rogue sneak attack with anything that has damage die of d6 or less. I wonder, when did he last time (before this tweet) even look at the statistics of Rapier (which is a 1d8 weapon).

Also, thrown on its own, does NOT satisfy requirements for a sneak attack. A weapon that can be thrown, but that isn't under the Ranged Weapon category doesn't qualify for sneak attack by RAW just because it has a listed range_ [Notice; there's no 'd' at the end]. The weapon has to be, by its very nature, either a Ranged Weapon completely, or have the Finesse property.

[Mr.Spastic]

I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out.

On a personal basis though, rogues in my games can sneak attack with any weapon they are proficient in as a rogue. On paper it changes almost nothing about the game except your main attack stat.

[Arkhios]

On a personal basis though, rogues in my games can sneak attack with any weapon they are proficient in as a rogue. On paper it changes almost nothing about the game except your main attack stat.

I tend to agree. When I run games, I'm lenient almost to a fault, but I still prefer to follow the RAW whenever it makes sense. And that's part of the reason why I like to homebrew things that break the norm, such as the Thug. I think it's fun to be able to play a character that actually is better than most of their kind at something. In this case, Thugs would be able to sneak attack with (almost) any weapon they have proficiency with, which gives them an edge over other rogues.

[Man_Over_Game]

If I had to wager a guess, the limitation was put in place to make sure that Sneak Attack was front loaded (so you get the cool Rogue feature right off the bat), but also to limit the synergy between Rogue and martial classes who get multiple attacks, notably Barbarian. Barbarian also has a front loaded feature (Reckless Attack) that directly synergizes with Rogue extremely well, and by forcing the Finesse trait upon the weapon, you directly limit the amount of damage the combination is able to do.

Because otherwise, that's a 10.5 (avg roll) + Str + 2 attack with Advantage coming your way each turn, and the best you can hope to do about that is hoping your Advantage to hit the Barbarian Rogue is enough to matter. Even with a Rapier, it's still good, but deals +3 less damage.

[JackPhoenix]

You can sneak attack with a thrown weapon. According to Crawford here: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/sneak-attack-d6/

Thrown satisfies the range requirements for a sneak attack. This also counts in melee. For example, handaxes with the thrown property can be used to make melee sneak attacks. Noted in this tweet exchange
Thanks
@mikemearls: Yes, at least that is the intent, both for melee and ranged sneak attacks. @Plaguescarred Thrown weapon like handaxe is listed as melee weapon can you still Sneak Attack with it even if its not a ranged or finesse?
@mikemearls yes, as it is a ranged weapon since it's thrown
@Plaguescarred Ok txThe thrown property should be updated to say it then because it doesn't say it anywhere All thrown are melee excp dart/net

That's not Crawford, it's Mearls. His tweets have no bearing on rules or the intent behind them, unlike Crawford, and he's wrong on that one. Melee weapon is still a melee weapon even when thrown.

[strangebloke]

Not sure about a one-punch build, but you can punch pretty hard if you go:

Tortle Monk 5, Barb 2.

Recklessly punch for (1d6+4+2)*4=38 damage a round while raging. Your accuracy will be very high, so that's nice for your hit rate.

[Man_Over_Game]

That's not Crawford, it's Mearls. His tweets have no bearing on rules or the intent behind them, unlike Crawford, and he's wrong on that one. Melee weapon is still a melee weapon even when thrown.

I think that might have had something to do with the fact that "Ranged Weapon" is different than "Ranged Weapon Attack" in the case of Thrown Weapons, and it seems Mearls didn't fully recognize that, which makes me wonder why the hell they treated the terminology for Attacks to be different than literally every other instance of Weapons/Range in the game.

[Man_Over_Game]

Not sure about a one-punch build, but you can punch pretty hard if you go:

Tortle Monk 5, Barb 2.

Recklessly punch for (1d6+4+2)*4=38 damage a round while raging. Your accuracy will be very high, so that's nice for your hit rate.

The catch with that is that you need 13 Dex, 13 Wis, 13 Str, and however much Con you want for a Reckless Attacking Barbarian (which is likely a decent amount). It's doable, but not very ideal.

[strangebloke]

The catch with that is that you need 13 Dex, 13 Wis, 13 Str, and however much Con you want for a Reckless Attacking Barbarian (which is likely a decent amount). It's doable, but not very ideal.

Yeah.

Its not that bad though. You can start with a spread like

14/13/14/8/13/8 which with racials turns into
16/13/14/8/14/8 which with your first ASI turns into
18/13/14/8/13/8

Your AC is as good as any other monk's (though you'll fall behind next level) your damage output is superior, and while your difficulty is a little low, that's pretty much fine if you're using your fist more for damage than for stunning.

I really don't get the multi-stat multi-classing restrictions. Why make it harder to be a ranger/fighter than a rogue/fighter? Especially considering that paladins and rangers don't actually need STR or DEX respectively.

[DarkKnightJin]

I might allow it, though not without some RP/Downtime to learn the style needed to turn your hands into Finesse weapons.
It's not as costly as losing an ASI, which Monks very much want, but you won't be able to do it from the start, either. By the time you to such levels, I don't think that letting the Monk have a few d6's of extra damage once per turn is really THAT much of an issue. Especially if they've been working towards being able to do that with RP and spending time and resources (training, with GP cost for the trainer) to unlock the ability. It'd be something unique for their character to do, that not a lot of other people in the world can.

[Man_Over_Game]

I really don't get the multi-stat multi-classing restrictions. Why make it harder to be a ranger/fighter than a rogue/fighter? Especially considering that paladins and rangers don't actually need STR or DEX respectively.

I think it's to limit the versatility of front-loaded martial classes, so you're forced to decide between investing in a martial class or investing into a weak casting class.

Note that every "easy" class to invest in is either a caster (inherently weakened by multiclassing), or has some kind of major penalty involved with their primary features.

Fighter doesn't get much until medium levels. Barbarian has Rage, that interferes with spellcasting. Rogues have Sneak Attack, which doesn't do anything without teamwork or more levels.

On the other hand, Monks have a Bonus Action attack that scales with the most common stat in the game that costs no resources, while also providing a unique AC calculation and increased mobility, and Paladins and Rangers get all of their cool features before level 3.

So now you can't easily be a Fighter with Ranger spells that don't scale with Wisdom, unless you already have some Wisdom. Paladins can't efficiently abuse Abjuration Wizard and make themselves the tankiest thing ever (but Fighters, who are worse spellcasters and lack healing, Concentration spells, and aura buffs, can).

[strangebloke]

I think it's to limit the versatility of front-loaded martial classes, so you're forced to decide between investing in a martial class or investing into a weak casting class.

Note that every "easy" class to invest in is either a caster (inherently weakened by multiclassing), or has some kind of major penalty involved with their primary features.

Fighter doesn't get much until medium levels. Barbarian has Rage, that interferes with spellcasting. Rogues have Sneak Attack, which doesn't do anything without teamwork or more levels.

On the other hand, Monks have a Bonus Action attack that scales with the most common stat in the game that costs no resources, while also providing a unique AC calculation and increased mobility, and Paladins and Rangers get all of their cool features before level 3.

So now you can't easily be a Fighter with Ranger spells that don't scale with Wisdom, unless you already have some Wisdom. Paladins can't efficiently abuse Abjuration Wizard and make themselves the tankiest thing ever (but Fighters, who are worse spellcasters and lack healing, Concentration spells, and aura buffs, can).
This is a really confusing outlook.

Sorcerers, Clerics, and Warlocks are three of the most frontloaded classes in the game. Moon druid is a crazy powerful dip. Of all the martials, two level of fighter is probably the most generally good option.

Who dips ranger? Nobody does that. Last I heard, monk is generally considered to be a bad dip because the martial arts damage doesn't scale and their ki points don't scale either. Their AC is nice for a druid, but the 13 DEX requirement hardly keeps the druid away.

Paladin 2 is a good dip for sorcs, warlocks, and bards, but for those dips the STR requirement doesn't do much, since those builds would prefer to build STR anyway. (Generally, its easier for a palabard to start paladin and pick up heavy armor. Requires a lower stat investment to max your AC.)

TL;DR. I find the restrictions ungainly and pointless.

[Helliquin]

It'd be not great, honestly. Sneak Attack doesn't work with unarmed strikes, and Shadow Monks cannot see through the Darkness that they'd create.

A better solution would be to utilize Gloom Stalker with either of those classes.

Gloom Stalker + Monk would be a high mobility assassin that can cast Darkness on himself and be a teleporting shadow of death.
Gloom Stalker + Rogue would have a lot of options to assassinate people, and can utilize spells to high his approach. It's a lot more effective when considering that the Gloom Stalker works great with ranged weapons.

Ranger (3) - Gloomstalker
Monk (5) - Drunken Master
Rogue (3) - Assassin

Very very sneaky, very very quick, very very stabby/punchy. I think works out to be 153 max damage a round with a lot of utility.

[Man_Over_Game]

This is a really confusing outlook.

Sorcerers, Clerics, and Warlocks are three of the most frontloaded classes in the game. Moon druid is a crazy powerful dip. Of all the martials, two level of fighter is probably the most generally good option.

Who dips ranger? Nobody does that. Last I heard, monk is generally considered to be a bad dip because the martial arts damage doesn't scale and their ki points don't scale either. Their AC is nice for a druid, but the 13 DEX requirement hardly keeps the druid away.

Paladin 2 is a good dip for sorcs, warlocks, and bards, but for those dips the STR requirement doesn't do much, since those builds would prefer to build STR anyway. (Generally, its easier for a palabard to start paladin and pick up heavy armor. Requires a lower stat investment to max your AC.)

TL;DR. I find the restrictions ungainly and pointless.

The difference is that, with spellcasting, multiclassing automatically nerfs you due to how the available spell levels work. The more you multiclass as a caster, the worse your casting gets.

However, with Martial classes, you're always attacking, and that'll never get worse as you level into Martial classes. Rangers don't care about spell modifiers for their spells, since it's all utility, so having a low Wisdom isn't a big deal. Similarly with Paladins, who don't actually need a decent Charisma to just spam Divine Smite all day (which a lot of them do).

So if Spellcasters are already nerfed by multiclassing, then the only ones you gotta watch out for are front-loaded, combat oriented classes (Monks, Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers), take out the ones with inherent weaknesses (Barbarians), and make multiclassing more restrictive for the ones that are left (Paladins, Monks, Rangers).

With this, multiclassing sucks just a little bit for everyone. Note that the martial classes that don't have two stat restrictions (Fighters, Rogues) are often the ones that you have to invest heavily in to get the most combat-related benefits, with Barbarians getting an exception (with Rage naturally filtering out almost every mage option). I don't think that's an accident.

[strangebloke]

snip

I don't agree with you at all, in fact I believe your reasoning is exactly backwards. I don't see that lifting the multiclassing restrictions would change anything other than making a few common multiclasses a little more diverse.

But this derail has gone on long enough.

[carrdrivesyou]

Ranger (3) - Gloomstalker
Monk (5) - Drunken Master
Rogue (3) - Assassin

Very very sneaky, very very quick, very very stabby/punchy. I think works out to be 153 max damage a round with a lot of utility.

Interesting build idea. I think I'll play with this on paper a bit. Thanks for the feedback guys!