Does this work by RAW?

[Spacehamster]

Say you are a barbarian 1 monk 5 Tortle, STR as main attack stat, now you use your attack action and do one attack with a great sword and the other attack you use your feet to kick the enemy, this should as I read it allow you to use martial arts bonus unarmed attack or flurry of blows since it states you have used either a monk weapon or an unarmed strike during your attack action which you did with that kick?

Does this work by RAW or am I reading it wrong?

[nickl_2000]

It says "When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn"

So
1) Are you taking an attack action?
Yes

2) Is there an unarmed strike or attack with a monk weapon
Yes, even though it's the second attack.


That is nothing here that says with ONLY an unarmed strike or a monk weapon. So, this should be fine by RAW

EDIT: this is not right :)



As a side note: Flurry of blows only requires that the person take an attack action. There is no rider on it that it must include a monk weapon/unarmed.

[Christew]

Yes and no.

Since you have extra attack, you could make one attack with your great sword and one attack unarmed (kick, punch, elbow, headbutt, whatever). Unfortunately, Martial Arts is limited by the clause which limits when the bulleted benefits apply -- "You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield." So, since you are wielding a non-monk weapon, you will not gain any of the benefits listed. That means you have to use STR instead of DEX, you don't get your bonus martial arts die, and you can't use the bonus unarmed attack. You can use flurry of blows, and it doesn't even require an initial unarmed attack. The benefits are pretty negligible though.

Unarmed only: Attack action 2(1d6+DEX) + Flurry of blows 2(1d6+DEX)
Great sword: Attack action 2(2d6+STR) + Flurry of blows 2(1+STR)

So depending on your STR vs DEX it might be worthwhile, but you are losing out on a fair suite of monk abilities by not using a monk weapon.

[nickl_2000]

Yes and no.

Since you have extra attack, you could make one attack with your great sword and one attack unarmed (kick, punch, elbow, headbutt, whatever). Unfortunately, Martial Arts is limited by the clause which limits when the bulleted benefits apply -- "You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield." So, since you are wielding a non-monk weapon, you will not gain any of the benefits listed. That means you have to use STR instead of DEX, you don't get your bonus martial arts die, and you can't use the bonus unarmed attack. You can use flurry of blows, and it doesn't even require an initial unarmed attack. The benefits are pretty negligible though.

Unarmed only: Attack action 2(1d6+DEX) + Flurry of blows 2(1d6+DEX)
Great sword: Attack action 2(2d6+STR) + Flurry of blows 2(1+STR)

So depending on your STR vs DEX it might be worthwhile, but you are losing out on a fair suite of monk abilities by not using a monk weapon.

Dang, I missed that part completely.

[Man_Over_Game]

Dang, I missed that part completely.

I mean, technically you can pick up/drop the greatsword constantly, although that would be really obnoxious to do, and tracking what Monk benefits you're allowed to get based on whether you're holding your Greatsword at that moment sounds exhausting.

[Spacehamster]

Yes and no.

Since you have extra attack, you could make one attack with your great sword and one attack unarmed (kick, punch, elbow, headbutt, whatever). Unfortunately, Martial Arts is limited by the clause which limits when the bulleted benefits apply -- "You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield." So, since you are wielding a non-monk weapon, you will not gain any of the benefits listed. That means you have to use STR instead of DEX, you don't get your bonus martial arts die, and you can't use the bonus unarmed attack. You can use flurry of blows, and it doesn't even require an initial unarmed attack. The benefits are pretty negligible though.

Unarmed only: Attack action 2(1d6+DEX) + Flurry of blows 2(1d6+DEX)
Great sword: Attack action 2(2d6+STR) + Flurry of blows 2(1+STR)

So depending on your STR vs DEX it might be worthwhile, but you are losing out on a fair suite of monk abilities by not using a monk weapon.

So one great sword attack, drop great sword with free action and profit? Obviously would never do this but should work if done that way. :)

[nickl_2000]

I mean, technically you can pick up/drop the greatsword constantly, although that would be really obnoxious to do, and tracking what Monk benefits you're allowed to get based on whether you're holding your Greatsword at that moment sounds exhausting.

Yup exactly. That is very much not worth it in my mind.

[Christew]

I mean, technically you can pick up/drop the greatsword constantly, although that would be really obnoxious to do, and tracking what Monk benefits you're allowed to get based on whether you're holding your Greatsword at that moment sounds exhausting.


So one great sword attack, drop great sword with free action and profit? Obviously would never do this but should work if done that way. :)
Yeah, exactly. You can work around it, but why bother? If you were specifically building a STR monk, you could conceivably take Tavern Brawler to bump your flurry of blows to 2(d4+STR), I guess.

[ThePolarBear]

I mean, technically you can pick up/drop the greatsword constantly, although that would be really obnoxious to do, and tracking what Monk benefits you're allowed to get based on whether you're holding your Greatsword at that moment sounds exhausting.

To be completely fair: if you can cast spells while holding a two-handed weapon, expecially out of your turn, because you need to wield the weapon only when making attacks with it (and this seems to be an "ok fair" consensus), you could attack with the greatsword, let one of the hands off - thus only holding the greatsword - and punch someone. You would, at the moment of the punch, fulfill all the requirements.

[nickl_2000]

Yeah, exactly. You can work around it, but why bother? If you were specifically building a STR monk, you could conceivably take Tavern Brawler to bump your flurry of blows to 2(d4+STR), I guess.

You don't need tavern brawler to use your str mod for unarmed strike damage. The martial arts section says that you "can" use dex instread of strength for monk weapons and unarmed strike not that you must. The martial arts damage die is a completely different bullet and not impacted by use of dex or str mods at all.

[Christew]

To be completely fair: if you can cast spells while holding a two-handed weapon, expecially out of your turn, because you need to wield the weapon only when making attacks with it (and this seems to be an "ok fair" consensus), you could attack with the greatsword, let one of the hands off - thus only holding the greatsword - and punch someone. You would, at the moment of the punch, fulfill all the requirements.
You wouldn't though, because you are still holding a non-monk weapon.


You don't need tavern brawler to use your str mod for unarmed strike damage. The martial arts section says that you "can" use dex instread of strength for monk weapons and unarmed strike not that you must. The martial arts damage die is a completely different bullet and not impacted by use of dex or str mods at all.
Yeah, it's not for the STR bonus, it is to raise it from 1 to 1d4 base damage to (somewhat) mitigate losing out on the martial arts die.

[ThePolarBear]

You wouldn't though, because you are still holding a non-monk weapon.

And?

"You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield."

There is no restriction on holding a non-monk weapon. There is no restriction on holding anything.

[Man_Over_Game]

And?

"You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield."

There is no restriction on holding a non-monk weapon. There is no restriction on holding anything.

Erm...

"You gain the following benefits while you are ... wielding only monk weapons"

Note that it does not mention that you must make an unarmed strike. The only way you can do these things is if you were only wielding Monk weapons, or wielding nothing at all.

This gets a little complicated when you try to determine what's considered "wielding" or not (can you hold a potion and do this? What about a wand? A scroll? A stick? What about a weapon that you're smuggling but not attacking with? What about a weapon you're not attacking with right now?) but I think common sense would deal with that.

[ThePolarBear]

Erm...

"You gain the following benefits while you are ... wielding only monk weapons"

Note that it does not mention that you must make an unarmed strike. The only way you can do these things is if you were only wielding Monk weapons, or wielding nothing at all.

And since wield implies at least the ability to use, how can i use something that requires two hands when i'm explicitly not doing so? That is the whole point: you can't attack with a greatsword that you are simply holding with one hand because you need two hands to attack with it.

If the monk in question can't use the greatsword... how can they be wielding it?

And note: the rule requires them to be either unarmed or wielding only monk weapons. Were the monk, holding a staff and a greatsword, to try to kick someone, would you allow the use of Martial Arts or not? That's the question i ask myself, among others.


This gets a little complicated when you try to determine what's considered "wielding" or not (can you hold a potion and do this? What about a wand? A scroll? A stick? What about a weapon that you're smuggling but not attacking with? What about a weapon you're not attacking with right now?) but I think common sense would deal with that.

Yep.

[nickl_2000]

You wouldn't though, because you are still holding a non-monk weapon.


Yeah, it's not for the STR bonus, it is to raise it from 1 to 1d4 base damage to (somewhat) mitigate losing out on the martial arts die.

Oh... in that case just be a barbarian then

[Christew]

And?

"You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield."

There is no restriction on holding a non-monk weapon. There is no restriction on holding anything.
Well, that's a level of semantic pedantry that I am unwilling to engage in. IMHO, holding = wielding is the common sense interpretation.

This also highlights the near impossibility of having a true RAW discussion.

[JackPhoenix]

My ruling would be thus:

You've attacked with a greatsword? You're wielding it, obviously. Martial Arts is off for the turn.
You're just holding a greatsword (for whatever reason) without attacking with it? Everything's fine, keep kicking them.
Same thing with say, Dueling FS and shield. You attack with just a sword, Dueling works. You smack someone with a shield (Tavern Brawler optional) as part of your attack routine? Dueling is off, TWF potentially applies (with Dual Wielder). No takebacks, it's one or the other.

[Christew]

My ruling would be thus:

You've attacked with a greatsword? You're wielding it, obviously. Martial Arts is off for the turn.
You're just holding a greatsword (for whatever reason) without attacking with it? Everything's fine, keep kicking them.
Same thing with say, Dueling FS and shield. You attack with just a sword, Dueling works. You smack someone with a shield (Tavern Brawler optional) as part of your attack routine? Dueling is off, TWF potentially applies (with Dual Wielder). No takebacks, it's one or the other.
Seems perfectly reasonable.

[Spacehamster]

My ruling would be thus:

You've attacked with a greatsword? You're wielding it, obviously. Martial Arts is off for the turn.
You're just holding a greatsword (for whatever reason) without attacking with it? Everything's fine, keep kicking them.
Same thing with say, Dueling FS and shield. You attack with just a sword, Dueling works. You smack someone with a shield (Tavern Brawler optional) as part of your attack routine? Dueling is off, TWF potentially applies (with Dual Wielder). No takebacks, it's one or the other.

But if you are not holding it with two hands you are not wielding it anymore + you are allowed to stow or draw a weapon as a free action anyways so could even put it away. :)

[JackPhoenix]

But if you are not holding it with two hands you are not wielding it anymore + you are allowed to stow or draw a weapon as a free action anyways so could even put it away. :)

I don't care what are you doing after. Have you wielded it on your turn? Yes. That's what matters.

[Spacehamster]

I don't care what are you doing after. Have you wielded it on your turn? Yes. That's what matters.

Ah always preferred to let my players do cool stuff myself but to each their own. :)

[Christew]

Ah always preferred to let my players do cool stuff myself but to each their own. :)
Ah, but we are talking about RAW not personal preference or what is cool though, right? :)

[Xetheral]

If you want to get really silly, you could find something close enough to a Greatsword that the DM rules it counts as Greatsword under the improvised weapon rules. Crawford has said that improvised weapons are only weapons when you attack with them, so the rest of the time you're not even holding a weapon, even if it's still in two hands.

[ThePolarBear]

If you want to get really silly, you could find something close enough to a Greatsword that the DM rules it counts as Greatsword under the improvised weapon rules. Crawford has said that improvised weapons are only weapons when you attack with them, so the rest of the time you're not even holding a weapon, even if it's still in two hands.

Absolutely!

[Man_Over_Game]

If you want to get really silly, you could find something close enough to a Greatsword that the DM rules it counts as Greatsword under the improvised weapon rules. Crawford has said that improvised weapons are only weapons when you attack with them, so the rest of the time you're not even holding a weapon, even if it's still in two hands.

I got you, fam! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eku)

Hmm..If I'm trained in using boat oars, could I use a greatsword as an improvised tool?

Now I'm just imagining a fishermen becoming an adventurer because murdering goblins with a greatsword is easy compared to sea fishing 16 hours a day.

"Sir, why did you decide to become a hero?"
"Mmhm....pays better".

[Xetheral]

I got you, fam! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eku)

Hmm..If I'm trained in using boat oars, could I use a greatsword as an improvised tool?

Of course! But if anyone seeing you use it that way asks you if the greatsword is a tool, the correct answer will depend on whether you are responding during your action or not. After all, it's only a tool in the moment it's used as such. ;)

[Misterwhisper]

I got you, fam! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eku)

Hmm..If I'm trained in using boat oars, could I use a greatsword as an improvised tool?

Now I'm just imagining a fishermen becoming an adventurer because murdering goblins with a greatsword is easy compared to sea fishing 16 hours a day.

"Sir, why did you decide to become a hero?"
"Mmhm....pays better".

I would call that a very large great club.

The key to me is damage type, great swords are slashing, that is bludgeoning.

Now a large wooden mallet for planing posts or something as improvised maul... much more likely.

[Christew]

I would call that a very large great club.

The key to me is damage type, great swords are slashing, that is bludgeoning.

Now a large wooden mallet for planing posts or something as improvised maul... much more likely.
Hmm, this raises an interesting distinction about damage types. Would an unsharpened great sword become a bludgeoning weapon? Could an oar be sharpened to such a point that it becomes slashing instead of bludgeoning?

The people need answers. Someone get Crawford :P

[CorporateSlave]

And since wield implies at least the ability to use, how can i use something that requires two hands when i'm explicitly not doing so? That is the whole point: you can't attack with a greatsword that you are simply holding with one hand because you need two hands to attack with it.

If the monk in question can't use the greatsword... how can they be wielding it?

And note: the rule requires them to be either unarmed or wielding only monk weapons. Were the monk, holding a staff and a greatsword, to try to kick someone, would you allow the use of Martial Arts or not? That's the question i ask myself, among others.


Just because you can't use the great sword to Attack with as a great sword when holding it with one hand, as a DM, and per my interpretation of RAW, absolutely you are wielding it, because one handed it would still count as an Improvised Weapon. You could still try to smack somebody with it, but possibly without Proficiency and only doing Improvised Weapon damage.

"But...then anything held counts as being wielded!"

Well. Yes.

If you ask me the RAI for Martial Arts is, you can Do The Stuff when either unarmed or wielding a Monk Weapon, i.e. you have either nothing or the weapon you have specifically trained your Martial Arts to work with, and not some other item...be it another weapon, a big stick, a rock, or a pint of ale...in one or both hands throwing off your balance.

Since the PHB even states that objects that bear no resemblance to a weapon can be used as improvised weapons, a great sword held in one hand certainly effectively becomes one.

On the other hand, make one attack with the great sword then let go and have it clatter to the ground, you're now unarmed and could finish up with Martial Arts.

[Tanarii]

Well, that's a level of semantic pedantry that I am unwilling to engage in. IMHO, holding = wielding is the common sense interpretation.

This also highlights the near impossibility of having a true RAW discussion.

Welcome to D&D, where the last several editions have made a semantic pedantic distinction between wielding and holding multiple places in the written rules. :smallamused:

[Christew]

Welcome to D&D, where the last several editions have made a semantic pedantic distinction between wielding and holding multiple places in the written rules. :smallamused:
Part of the ongoing problem with ill-defined verbiage in this game.

To clarify, I am referring specifically to the situation under discussion. One could certainly hold a great sword in such a way as to not be wielding it -- momentarily taking one hand off the grip mid-attack routine is not such a way.

[Tanarii]

Part of the ongoing problem with ill-defined verbiage in this game.

To clarify, I am referring specifically to the situation under discussion. One could certainly hold a great sword in such a way as to not be wielding it -- momentarily taking one hand off the grip mid-attack routine is not such a way.
Well yes that's the rub. Wielding, and what it means within an atomic or semi-atomic action-based and turn-based system, has never been well defined. Largely because the illusionary contention that your attacks doesn't represent a single swing of the sword, despite being treated in that way at multiple levels.

[Christew]

Well yes that's the rub. Wielding, and what it means within an atomic or semi-atomic action-based and turn-based system, has never been well defined. Largely because the illusionary contention that your attacks doesn't represent a single swing of the sword, despite being treated in that way at multiple levels.
Yes. That's part of why it is so frustrating. It is an eminently solvable problem and the fact that it has persisted across the editions is pretty silly.

Unless the devs have always intended to leave things deliberately unclear in order to facilitate unending discussion of divergent interpretations of what could have been clearly defined terminology on internet message boards (or zine columns back in the day, I guess).

[Tanarii]

Yes. That's part of why it is so frustrating. It is an eminently solvable problem and the fact that it has persisted across the editions is pretty silly.

Unless the devs have always intended to leave things deliberately unclear in order to facilitate unending discussion of divergent interpretations of what could have been clearly defined terminology on internet message boards (or zine columns back in the day, I guess).Its almost like they haven't participated in the almost twenty years of forums debates about it. :smallamused:

I'm pretty sure the entire idea of being in a RAW forum debates makes devs shudder

[ThePolarBear]

Wielding, and what it means within an atomic or semi-atomic action-based and turn-based system, has never been well defined.

I personally go with what i explained. I mean, TWF requires "holding", after all.
Which has its own problems when approached with a pure "RAW" perspective, even if i believe we might reach an easy understanding of what fantasy trope the rules are meant to facilitate.