Can you drop your weapon mid-attack action?

[elyktsorb]

So I was thinking about Monk's and GWM and how using a weapon applicable for GWM means your don't get your bonus action unarmed strike.

For the first four levels of monk, you can only make one attack with the attack action.

But level five and beyond, you can make two attacks.

Is there anything stopping a Monk from using a Heavy Weapon to make the first attack as a GWM attack. Dropping it before the second attack, and using an unarmed strike, which means you can then use a bonus action unarmed strike.

The ability.

"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. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn."

As it says when you "use" the attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon. If you drop the Heavy Weapon, and then make the second attack, your still "using" the attack action with an unarmed strike, meaning you can now do your bonus action attack since your no longer holding onto the Heavy Weapon that prevented this feature from working.



I also figure that since Monk's are usually not carrying much, they can probably carry many Heavy Weapons at a time, and since you can usually draw a weapon as part of an attack action, you could then draw a Heavy Weapon with the first attack, drop it, make an unarmed strike with the second attack, and then get your bonus action unarmed strike.

The idea of also littering the ground with heavy weapons as a monk amuses me greatly.

[Amnestic]

There isn't, but you also don't need to drop it - unarmed strikes can use any body part, not just hands. Kicks and headbutts are fair game.

PHB:

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

[elyktsorb]

There isn't, but you also don't need to drop it - unarmed strikes can use any body part, not just hands. Kicks and headbutts are fair game.

PHB:

Okay but for that ability to work you can't be using a heavy weapon.

"You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield." (for clarification, weapons with the two handed property, or heavy property can't be monk weapons by default)

So if I want to do a GWM attack, I need a heavy weapon, but this heavy weapon prevents me from getting a bonus action unarmed strike when wielding it, but if I drop it before I make my second attack, I can get that bonus action unarmed strike.

[nickl_2000]

Yes, you can drop a weapon in between attacks in an attack action. You are allowed to move between attacks, so you have plenty of time to drop a weapon.

As for the assumption with heavy weapons, make sure you DM is okay with it before building around it.

[Chronic]

As other said, check with your gm, I know I wouldn't allow it.

[stoutstien]

I'd rather just let the monk use heavy weapons within reason.

[Keravath]

I think that RAW it works. However, I don't really think being able to use GWM on one attack is worth the feat (especially on a monk) or the effort required in combat to make it happen.

Multiclassing one level of war cleric gets a couple of uses of divine favor every day which will add d4 to every monk attack without penalizing the to hit roll - at the cost of a first round bonus action.

[Unoriginal]

So I was thinking about Monk's and GWM and how using a weapon applicable for GWM means your don't get your bonus action unarmed strike.

For the first four levels of monk, you can only make one attack with the attack action.

But level five and beyond, you can make two attacks.

Is there anything stopping a Monk from using a Heavy Weapon to make the first attack as a GWM attack. Dropping it before the second attack, and using an unarmed strike, which means you can then use a bonus action unarmed strike.

The ability.

"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. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn."

As it says when you "use" the attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon. If you drop the Heavy Weapon, and then make the second attack, your still "using" the attack action with an unarmed strike, meaning you can now do your bonus action attack since your no longer holding onto the Heavy Weapon that prevented this feature from working.



I also figure that since Monk's are usually not carrying much, they can probably carry many Heavy Weapons at a time, and since you can usually draw a weapon as part of an attack action, you could then draw a Heavy Weapon with the first attack, drop it, make an unarmed strike with the second attack, and then get your bonus action unarmed strike.

The idea of also littering the ground with heavy weapons as a monk amuses me greatly.


Okay but for that ability to work you can't be using a heavy weapon.

"You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield." (for clarification, weapons with the two handed property, or heavy property can't be monk weapons by default)

So if I want to do a GWM attack, I need a heavy weapon, but this heavy weapon prevents me from getting a bonus action unarmed strike when wielding it, but if I drop it before I make my second attack, I can get that bonus action unarmed strike.


You don't need free hands to use unarmed strikes, and you don't even need to drop the heavy weapon to have a free hand. You can just do an heavy weapon attack with your first attack, then an unarmed strike with your second attack, and then use the bonus action unarmed attack.

Unless your DM says the contrary, of course.

[elyktsorb]

You don't need free hands to use unarmed strikes, and you don't even need to drop the heavy weapon to have a free hand. You can just do an heavy weapon attack with your first attack, then an unarmed strike with your second attack, and then use the bonus action unarmed attack.

Unless your DM says the contrary, of course.

wat

This isn't about having a free hand to do the unarmed strike. Wielding the Heavy weapon means I can't make the bonus action unarmed strike period, that's how Martial Arts works.

When wielding a non-monk weapon, the ability turns off entirely. Hence why I would have to drop the weapon.

[JackPhoenix]

wat

This isn't about having a free hand to do the unarmed strike. Wielding the Heavy weapon means I can't make the bonus action unarmed strike period, that's how Martial Arts works.

When wielding a non-monk weapon, the ability turns off entirely. Hence why I would have to drop the weapon.

Dropping the weapon doesn't change the fact you've wielded a non-monk weapon in the same turn.

[Unoriginal]

wat

This isn't about having a free hand to do the unarmed strike. Wielding the Heavy weapon means I can't make the bonus action unarmed strike period, that's how Martial Arts works.

When wielding a non-monk weapon, the ability turns off entirely. Hence why I would have to drop the weapon.

I guess it depends on how you interpret "wielding", then.

Whole threads have been made on the subject, but personally I don't consider "holding the heavy weapon in one hand" to count as "wielding it".

[ender241]

I guess it depends on how you interpret "wielding", then.

Whole threads have been made on the subject, but personally I don't consider "holding the heavy weapon in one hand" to count as "wielding it".

What exactly is your definition of "wield" then? In this example the PC literally just attacked with it and is still holding it in their hands. In what scenario does wielding a non-monk weapon invalidate the martial arts features?


Dropping the weapon doesn't change the fact you've wielded a non-monk weapon in the same turn.

There's no timing constraint on when the requirements have to be met for martial arts. If the conditions are met, you receive the benefits. Nothing prevents this from happening mid turn, though it does feel clunky/cheesy in this example, imo.

[strangebloke]

This doesn't have a clear RAW answer. Jc has been tweeted at about this, iirc his answer was "meh I'd allow it".

Personally like JC I'd allow it, but I'd also argue that stowing or drawing or picking up a weapon would be your free item interaction for the turn. If "de-wielding" a weapon is free it creates a lot of weird interactions like running forward, drawing a sword, attacking, dropping the sword, casting a spell, then picking up the sword at the start of your next turn.

Dropping your weapon shouldn't be a hack to get free action economy imo.

[Joe the Rat]

I guess it depends on how you interpret "wielding", then.

Whole threads have been made on the subject, but personally I don't consider "holding the heavy weapon in one hand" to count as "wielding it".
Breaking the necessary hold definitely means it is not being wielded - though I may be a bit generous on holding v. wielding for my kids.

The all-or-none usage is where it rubs - is it using an unarmed strike or monk weapon strike what allows the MA strike, or is it only using unarmed/monk that allows it?

[Unoriginal]

What exactly is your definition of "wield" then? In this example the PC literally just attacked with it and is still holding it in their hands. In what scenario does wielding a non-monk weapon invalidate the martial arts features?

I'd say that if you did both attacks with the heavy weapon, it counts as wielding it, but if you are holding an heavy weapon and do an unarmed strike, then you are not wielding the heavy weapon.

At least that's my guts feeling answer. I may have to think longer on the question.

[Damon_Tor]

This is totally fine RAW. And it doesn't break anything: it's not like monks are high on the power curve. I wouldn't require the monk to drop the weapon either: one doesn't have to be "wielding" something to be holding it.

[ender241]

I'd say that if you did both attacks with the heavy weapon, it counts as wielding it, but if you are holding an heavy weapon and do an unarmed strike, then you are not wielding the heavy weapon.

At least that's my guts feeling answer. I may have to think longer on the question.

So 2 attacks with it = wielding, what about 1 attack?

[strangebloke]

This is totally fine RAW. And it doesn't break anything: it's not like monks are high on the power curve. I wouldn't require the monk to drop the weapon either: one doesn't have to be "wielding" something to be holding it.
It's not op but it's a bit whacky.

[Psyren]

1) Per JC dropping your weapon is "super-free" i.e. doesn't even use an object interaction.

2) As others said you don't need to drop your 2H weapon to use unarmed strike.

3) While you can't use the free bonus action MA attack with a heavy weapon/armor, you can use both with flurry just fine. So one bonus action kick is out, but two are a-ok by RAW. Make of that what you will :smalltongue:

[ecarden]

So theoretically, I think this works as you drop it, do the unarmed strike and pick it back up as object interaction.

But one, that's very silly in universe and two, if anyone fights you more than once, or sees you doing this repeatedly (assuming they have the required intelligence/competence) I'd have them hold an action to grab your greatsword when you drop it.

[JNAProductions]

I think you're better off asking your DM "Can I use a Heavy Weapon as a Monk Weapon?" and getting that houseruled in rather than trying for wonky RAW interactions.

[Tanarii]

Some DMs rule dropping a weapon as your object interaction, which affects if you want to drop a weapon, especially if you were otherwise planning to use your interaction to pick it up. Check with your DM.

Some DMs will have enemies pick up or kick your weapon away as their object interaction if you drop it, because why wouldn't they? Check with your DM.

[strangebloke]

I think you're better off asking your DM "Can I use a Heavy Weapon as a Monk Weapon?" and getting that houseruled in rather than trying for wonky RAW interactions.

Agreed.

I'm still salty kensei can't use heavy weapons. Like why not? It's cool!!

[ender241]

I think you're better off asking your DM "Can I use a Heavy Weapon as a Monk Weapon?" and getting that houseruled in rather than trying for wonky RAW interactions.

Yeah, +1 to that. I feel funny taking advantage of wonky RAW stuff like this and it would probably feel better for everyone to just let it work as a Monk weapon. Unless you're really power gaming hard I think a reasonable DM would go for it. And if they don't, I wouldn't be surprised if they also don't allow the cheesy-but-RAW strategy.

[Psyren]

Some DMs will have enemies pick up or kick your weapon away as their object interaction if you drop it, because why wouldn't they? Check with your DM.

While I agree with checking with the DM, "why wouldn't they" is easily answered because object interactions can't be used off-turn.

[LibraryOgre]

I'd rather just let the monk use heavy weapons within reason.

I tend to divorce monks from being Asian-flavored by saying that if you're proficient in it, it's a monk weapon for you.

Dwarven monks have a style that includes hammers and axes. Elven monks will use longswords and rapiers. Multiclass monks might use a glaive, or any monk might pick it up with a feat.

I still restrict armor (that's a big part of the class, IMO), so mountain dwarves lose out a bit on their racial armor proficiency, but not all fighting styles are going to be the same, or use the same weapons. (Heck, when I was doing martial arts styles for 2e (https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-style-for-every-race-style-for-every.html), I specifically made a fighting style that assumed you might be wearing heavy armor and using a halberd, with the style mostly focusing on kicking attacks)

[strangebloke]

While I agree with checking with the DM, "why wouldn't they" is easily answered because object interactions can't be used off-turn.

It depends. A DM might be fine with you dropping your sword for free, but not picking it up. The free item interaction is something done as part of or in tandem with your action. Attacking as an action, then doing a bonus action contingent on that action (flurry, MA) then doing an item interaction and claiming its 'part of your action' even though your action has concluded might be too far for some DMs.

[Psyren]

It depends. A DM might be fine with you dropping your sword for free, but not picking it up. The free item interaction is something done as part of or in tandem with your action. Attacking as an action, then doing a bonus action contingent on that action (flurry, MA) then doing an item interaction and claiming its 'part of your action' even though your action has concluded might be too far for some DMs.

I'm not talking about the player dropping and picking up their weapon on their turn (that should be allowed.) I'm talking about the player dropping the weapon and the enemy immediately picking it up on the player's turn (that should not be, or at the very least should require a readied action from the enemy.)

[strangebloke]

I'm not talking about the player dropping and picking up their weapon on their turn (that should be allowed.) I'm talking about the player dropping the weapon and the enemy immediately picking it up on the player's turn (that should not be, or at the very least should require a readied action from the enemy.)
I know. I'm saying that:

Free item interaction is part of a PC's action

MA bonus action attack is a bonus action that occurs after the action that enabled it per JC ruling.

Thus it's arguable you can't use item interaction after ma bonus action because your action is over

Thus you leave your weapon on the floor

Thus weapon can be stolen/kicked as item interaction on opponents turn

Personally I'd side with unoriginal here, you don't need to drop it, just "stop wielding" it.

[Psyren]

Thus it's arguable you can't use item interaction after ma bonus action because your action is over

Thus you leave your weapon on the floor


I agree it's arguable because I would definitely be arguing that.

[ecarden]

I know. I'm saying that:

Free item interaction is part of a PC's action

MA bonus action attack is a bonus action that occurs after the action that enabled it per JC ruling.

Thus it's arguable you can't use item interaction after ma bonus action because your action is over

Is it? My player handbook says:

"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."

[Psyren]

Is it? My player handbook says:

"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."

DM: Sorry, you can't pick that up, your action is over and you can only interact as part of your action.

Player: I can interact as part of my move too right? Okay, I'll step 5ft to the side and "re-enable" my OI.

DM: Curses!

[strangebloke]

Is it? My player handbook says:

"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."

The examples given are "open a door as part of moving" and "draw a weapon as part of an attack".

"Pick up a weapon as part of moving when you're standing still" is a bit eh. Even if you move as psyren suggests (lol) it's not something that feels like part of your movement.

Again, arguably. This is not how I would rule things. Overall, it's just fiddly. As a DM I would just let you use heavy weapons as monk weapons

[Psyren]

DM: Okay, you can get it as part of your move, but there's no room in this corridor for you to step to the side. Ha!

Player: Standing up uses my movement too right? I'll drop prone or free, do a push-up and stand using half my movement, picking up my weapon in the process.

DM: *swears profusely*

[ecarden]

Heh, I admit to finding the above scenarios extremely amusing.

I agree with what I think is the consensus, that getting picky on this just gets annoying real fast. Can you not open a door if you disengage and spend your entire movement to run to it?

Speaking only for my own experience, the practice I've seen is:

On your turn you have, barring special abilities to give additional stuff:
1) (1) action
2) (1) bonus action
3) (1) movement
4) (1) object interaction
5) (limited only by common sense/6 second timeframe/DM fiat) 'truly free' actions (e.g. talking/falling/dropping things you're holding)

and very occasionally

6) (1) reaction

And you can take them in any order you like.

More generally, I don't think this breaks anything. If you make the heavy weapon a monk weapon than you've given a moderate power boost. If you leave it as a non-monk weapon, then they either need to invest in strength (and monks are already pretty MAD) or accept they're going to miss a lot.

ETA: The one thing I would be careful on is if you have another heavy weapon user in the group. There might be some grumpiness about getting to use the generally more useful Dex AND a heavy weapon.

[elyktsorb]

The entire reason I went with dropping the weapon was to avoid the whole 'excess item interaction thing' in the first place.

You can definitely draw a weapon as part of an attack action, that much is true.

And there's nothing that says you can't drop a weapon at any time, nor is there anything really supporting that this can't be the case.

But if you pick a weapon up off of the ground that's definitely an item interaction.

My solution was to just have the character hold a ton of heavy weapons. Not like Monk's need to carry much else. And if there's ever a lul in the combat where I can pick up one of the weapons I've littered on the ground, well that's good for me.

Sure it's incredibly silly, but it's not like characters don't carry ridiculous amounts of stuff anyway.


The reason I'd rather rely on odd raw intentions is that I don't like just asking to break a rule. Even if that rule doesn't matter that much. I've played with people who break more than just simple rules and it feels like a slippery slope to tread.

[ecarden]

I think you're better off with one strike with the two handed, let go with one hand, second strike unarmed, then bonus action martial arts. Speaking only for myself, I'd find character carrying half a dozen mauls around and dropping them everywhere actively immersion breaking. But you know yourself, your group and your DM.

[elyktsorb]

Speaking only for myself, I'd find character carrying half a dozen mauls around and dropping them everywhere actively immersion breaking. But you know yourself, your group and your DM.

Personally I think having your own bag of holding full of Greatswords you just keep drawing would be awesome.

"You need to check your weapons at the gate sir." Dumps bag of holding full of Greatswords out on the ground.

[Damon_Tor]

It's not op but it's a bit whacky.

So this guy hits once with a really big sword then kicks three times instead of hitting twice with a smaller sword then kicking twice. I don't see any issues at with this by RAW, by power level, or by concept.

Yeah if he was actually dropping the weapon to make it work THAT would be silly, but like I said he doesn't need to do that.

[Psyren]

And you can take them in any order you like.


I was of course being facetious earlier but this is ultimately my point - splitting hairs in the language goes both ways.



And there's nothing that says you can't drop a weapon at any time, nor is there anything really supporting that this can't be the case.

But if you pick a weapon up off of the ground that's definitely an item interaction.

In case it helps, this reading is intended. (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/584435399767883776?lang=en)

[ender241]

So this guy hits once with a really big sword then kicks three times instead of hitting twice with a smaller sword then kicking twice. I don't see any issues at with this by RAW, by power level, or by concept.

Yeah if he was actually dropping the weapon to make it work THAT would be silly, but like I said he doesn't need to do that.

That's exactly what OP is saying they would do - drop the weapon and draw a new one each turn. And I don't get the argument that you can be holding a weapon that you just attacked with and not be "wielding" it. By your definition of "wielding" the bolded section of the martial arts requirements below effectively means nothing. You're essentially saying you could take this part out and it wouldn't change anything:

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

[ecarden]

Personally I think having your own bag of holding full of Greatswords you just keep drawing would be awesome.

"You need to check your weapons at the gate sir." Dumps bag of holding full of Greatswords out on the ground.

This would be awesome, but alas pulling a sword out of a bag of holding is indeed an action.

[greenstone]

Dropping the weapon doesn't change the fact you've wielded a non-monk weapon in the same turn.

This is my ruling too, for the same rationale as not letting someone use the two-weapon and duelling styles as well as duel weilder feat all in the same turn - it just seems cheesy.

[Witty Username]

Throwing...?

[Kane0]

Sure why not. If you can use movements and bonus actions between attacks of the attack action, item interactions should be fine too.

[Leon]

Ive always played with people who ruled that dropping anything is a free action, my Ranger dropped her bow extensively in the last campaign. Whether wielding a weapon is the same as merely holding it after attacking with it ultimately comes down to your DM and how they feel about it.

[Damon_Tor]

That's exactly what OP is saying they would do - drop the weapon and draw a new one each turn. And I don't get the argument that you can be holding a weapon that you just attacked with and not be "wielding" it. By your definition of "wielding" the bolded section of the martial arts requirements below effectively means nothing. You're essentially saying you could take this part out and it wouldn't change anything:

"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 exception proves the rule" is a fallacy.

But if it makes you feel better, the rules ARE clear that two-handed weapons cannot be wielded with one hand. Ergo, the monk would definitely NOT be wielding the greatsword if he switched it to one hand. Personally I dont find that to be necessary, but think of it as a compromise between dropping the weapon between attacks and just saying "yeah that works, go for it".

[ender241]

"The exception proves the rule" is a fallacy.

But if it makes you feel better, the rules ARE clear that two-handed weapons cannot be wielded with one hand. Ergo, the monk would definitely NOT be wielding the greatsword if he switched it to one hand. Personally I dont find that to be necessary, but think of it as a compromise between dropping the weapon between attacks and just saying "yeah that works, go for it".

Actually, the two-handed property changes nothing about what is required to wield it.


Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.

You need two hands to attack with it. That's it. Do you consider holding a one-handed weapon to be "wielding" it?

If your answer is yes, then it would also hold true for two-handed weapons, because the two-handed property doesn't say anything about a change to the rules for when you can or can't wield it. Answering "yes" also introduces the weird scenario whereby according to your reading you can attack with a two-handed non-monk weapon and still get the full benefits of martial arts, but if you do the same thing with a one-handed non-monk weapon you lose the martial arts benefit. That makes zero sense.

If your answer is no, I'm really curious what your definition of wield is.

And I'm aware that "The exception proves the rule" is a fallacy. You can't use it alone to argue RAW. But it can do a lot to inform RAI. And if you are on the fence about the RAW but one interpretation lines up much more closely with RAI, most DMs are going to go with that one, and rightfully so.

[Tanarii]

And I'm aware that "The exception proves the rule" is a fallacy. You can't use it alone to argue RAW. But it can do a lot to inform RAI. And if you are on the fence about the RAW but one interpretation lines up much more closely with RAI, most DMs are going to go with that one, and rightfully so.
The exception that proves the rule is not a fallacy if used in a specific way.
If there is an specific exception that under conditions X then exception Y, that implies a higher general rule that not-Y. Although other specific exceptions to allow Y may also exist.
But it has to be clear, or at least strongly implied, that Y is an exception under conditions X for this to be the case.

An example of this in use is feats that allow you to do something Y if X, the strong implication is that normally not-Y, at least without some other way to arrive at it.

[Damon_Tor]

Oxford defines "wield" as "to hold and use" or "have and be able to use". The "and" clause is important, and it tells us why they don't simply use the word "hold" in the monk feature in question.

[ender241]

Oxford defines "wield" as "to hold and use" or "have and be able to use". The "and" clause is important, and it tells us why they don't simply use the word "hold" in the monk feature in question.

Alright, so if I'm a monk and I attack with a one-handed non-monk weapon and then just hold it behind my back am I no longer wielding it and would regain use of my martial arts? I certainly can't attack/use it with it behind my back. What if I put the tip of the blade on the ground. Same thing - can't stab someone with a longsword if the tip of it is in the dirt. Or hold a maul by the hammer part instead of the handle? All of these make it so I can't use it to attack in that exact moment so I'm no longer wielding the weapon?

[Damon_Tor]

Alright, so if I'm a monk and I attack with a one-handed non-monk weapon and then just hold it behind my back am I no longer wielding it and would regain use of my martial arts? I certainly can't attack/use it with it behind my back. What if I put the tip of the blade on the ground. Same thing - can't stab someone with a longsword if the tip of it is in the dirt. Or hold a maul by the hammer part instead of the handle? All of these make it so I can't use it to attack in that exact moment so I'm no longer wielding the weapon?

That's a whole lot of work. Just relax your grip on it slightly, you're good to go.

[ender241]

That's a whole lot of work. Just relax your grip on it slightly, you're good to go.

Wow ok. So that part of the martial arts requirement really is meaningless, huh? Weird that the designers still spent ink on something that would likely just confuse people into thinking they can't do something they actually can.

Lol the amount of rules lawyering / mental gymnastics that goes on on this forum sometimes I swear...

[Damon_Tor]

Wow ok. So that part of the martial arts requirement really is meaningless, huh? Weird that the designers still spent ink on something that would likely just confuse people into thinking they can't do something they actually can.

Lol the amount of rules lawyering / mental gymnastics that goes on on this forum sometimes I swear...

Just learn to say yes as a DM. He wants to be a monk with a greatsword, who cares, let him.

[Leon]

Wow ok. So that part of the martial arts requirement really is meaningless, huh? Weird that the designers still spent ink on something that would likely just confuse people into thinking they can't do something they actually can.

Lol the amount of rules lawyering / mental gymnastics that goes on on this forum sometimes I swear...

All the rules are more or less suggestions supplied by some people with a codified way they see the game and this particularly class has always given people curry with it and its themes/ way of play. WotC have no clue for half the stuff they write most of the time given its poor interactions with its own rules and its hard to interpret at the best of times and then when people try and get answers from them the arch idiot in sage advice provides something contradictory to what was printed in Ink by them.

[ender241]

Just learn to say yes as a DM. He wants to be a monk with a greatsword, who cares, let him.

It's not my call to make because I'm not their DM. But I said back on page 1 that I think asking the DM for it to just work as a Monk weapon would be the most reasonable approach, rather than trying to cheese it to work RAW.

If I was the DM, I would probably allow it if the player gave a flavor / background reason why their monk would use a greatsword, as long as I didn't think it would mess with balance too much. But if a player tried to argue that they could do what you're suggesting and that it was technically RAW (questionable) and/or RAI (it's definitely not) I would have a much harder time saying yes to that. There's a difference between asking to homebrew / bend the rules so the player can build the character they want and the player saying "technically, if I wiggle my fingers I'm no longer wielding my sword because I can't use it (even though I just did) and so I can still use martial arts and this is RAW".

That's just my opinion, but based on my experience and what I see others say here I think that's a pretty common view of DMs.


All the rules are more or less suggestions supplied by some people with a codified way they see the game and this particularly class has always given people curry with it and its themes/ way of play. WotC have no clue for half the stuff they write most of the time given its poor interactions with its own rules and its hard to interpret at the best of times and then when people try and get answers from them the arch idiot in sage advice provides something contradictory to what was printed in Ink by them.

The rules are what we have to go on, and on an online forum the base assumption is that DMs are going to run RAW and/or RAI. So I think it's important to make the distinction between RAW/RAI and homebrew. The fact that there are ambiguous rules or contradictory sage advice in other areas shouldn't mean we just toss out the rules whenever we feel like it, or at least, we shouldn't assume that someone else's DM is going to do that.

[Leon]

Hence why the core Answer should always be ask your DM/Group what they are happy with and not what a bunch of people on a online forum think is best.

[Willie the Duck]

Wow ok. So that part of the martial arts requirement really is meaningless, huh? Weird that the designers still spent ink on something that would likely just confuse people into thinking they can't do something they actually can.
Lol the amount of rules lawyering / mental gymnastics that goes on on this forum sometimes I swear...

Fundamentally (and this is mostly coming from them leaning into the natural language/rulings over rules frameworks) I think the designers had wanted this to be the edition where the DMs were going to have to make decisions on these things, and 'well technically, by RAW...' was not to be treated as important (unless that was something a given group was specifically interested in exploring). That said, if they wanted it to be that way, they needed to be consistent about that, and should have in 2014 started a policy where the devs responded to twitter questions about incredible mental-gymnastic questions with a consistent 'the rules allow for the DM to rule how they please in this scenario. If I were the DM at that moment, what I would have done is ________.'

[Jakinbandw]

So side question: if I hit with an attack, can I release my hold on the weapon to leave it stuck inside the person I'm fighting? I've seen this done in a couple forgotten realms books, and so it's seems like it fits the lore.

Also, the idea of this monk attacking a troll and ending the fight with 10 greatswords stuck into the troll sounds hilarious.

[strangebloke]

Just learn to say yes as a DM. He wants to be a monk with a greatsword, who cares, let him.
Sure? But you were arguing about RAI/RAW, and I'm very confident Ender is right to say that the "wielding only monk weapons" is intended to have meaning and to restrict monk options.

You can ignore that as DM! But that wasn't what we were talking about.

Also, the question isn't using greatswords as a monk, its using greatswords on the same turn as a MA BA attack. Which is almost entirely irrelevant anyway because unless this is a Tortle the STRONK is wearing armor and thus isn't eligible for MA anyway, and greatsword builds often have a BA attack through GWM.

Best ruling is removing the 'heavy' restriction on Kensei weapons and dedicated weapon. Makes it possible to do for any monk with just a little effort, is less strong than sharpshooter monk and thus not overpowered, and allows for Dexterity greatswords which are cool.

Fundamentally (and this is mostly coming from them leaning into the natural language/rulings over rules frameworks) I think the designers had wanted this to be the edition where the DMs were going to have to make decisions on these things, and 'well technically, by RAW...' was not to be treated as important (unless that was something a given group was specifically interested in exploring). That said, if they wanted it to be that way, they needed to be consistent about that, and should have in 2014 started a policy where the devs responded to twitter questions about incredible mental-gymnastic questions with a consistent 'the rules allow for the DM to rule how they please in this scenario. If I were the DM at that moment, what I would have done is ________.'

It's funny you say this, because the JC tweet everyone's mentioned repeatedly is basically this: "The intent is that letting go of something requires no appreciable effort. But picking it up does."

[nickl_2000]

So side question: if I hit with an attack, can I release my hold on the weapon to leave it stuck inside the person I'm fighting? I've seen this done in a couple forgotten realms books, and so it's seems like it fits the lore.

Also, the idea of this monk attacking a troll and ending the fight with 10 greatswords stuck into the troll sounds hilarious.

As long as you don't have it doing extra damage or having any mechanical impact on the troll, stick as many sword into the as your DM and table enjoy.

[ender241]

Hence why the core Answer should always be ask your DM/Group what they are happy with and not what a bunch of people on a online forum think is best.

So any time someone asks a rules question on a forum about d&d rules we should just say "ask your DM"? That's not particularly helpful.

Much more helpful is to say "here's what the rules say, what the designers intended (if it's different), and what I would do as a DM (again, if it's different). But your DM always has final say."

[Tanarii]

The best solution is to not allow dropping, switching number of hands, or switching between wielding and holding, without item interactions.

[Willie the Duck]

It's funny you say this, because the JC tweet everyone's mentioned repeatedly is basically this: "The intent is that letting go of something requires no appreciable effort. But picking it up does."

I mean in general, not this one instance. They have made rulings that are contingent on specific parsing of words just enough to validate that mindset, and thus (in spite of what I think was their intent) the 3e/4e internet gymnastics has returned. Or maybe it is just overall communication. Back in the TSR-era, there certainly was a Sage Advise column answering rules questions. However, there was also a pretty well-communicated 'Rules Lawyering is not the way this game was intended' (actually it was less polite than that, but we certainly don't need to reintroduce confrontational DMing). Or maybe it's just the nature of the beast and a certain subset of people really really would rather have a ruleset that has twice or more the wordcount and tries to spell out in exacting detail what is and isn't possible in all situations (there certainly are games which are better at this, although I think every one I've seen either falls apart or ends up with bizarre optimal strategies when subjected to the same scrutiny that D&D gets).

My central point is that I think if they had been highly consistent with supporting their natural language and ruling over rules framing, there would be less pushback, fewer people talking about the devs not knowing their posterior from their elbow, and possibly more DMs deviating from RAW (although I'm not clear how prevalent that is outside of the forumite demographic).


So any time someone asks a rules question on a forum about d&d rules we should just say "ask your DM"? That's not particularly helpful.

Much more helpful is to say "here's what the rules say, what the designers intended (if it's different), and what I would do as a DM (again, if it's different). But your DM always has final say."
I would call it helpful (in the end, despite all the gymnastics in the middle, it is up to your DM. That's an important piece of information to keep in mind), just more truncated of a response. Of course the more complex and nuanced answer is usually going to include more helpful components. Leon did say, it was the core answer, which pretty closely maps to a summary version of your response.

[Psyren]

So any time someone asks a rules question on a forum about d&d rules we should just say "ask your DM"? That's not particularly helpful.

Much more helpful is to say "here's what the rules say, what the designers intended (if it's different), and what I would do as a DM (again, if it's different). But your DM always has final say."

Equally valuable is "here's what the rules say, and the designers said it's intended to work that way" (i.e. RAW and RAI align, like with superfree action dropping things.)

[strangebloke]

Equally valuable is "here's what the rules say, and the designers said it's intended to work that way" (i.e. RAW and RAI align, like with superfree action dropping things.)

This isn't accurate. JC said that dropping things is intended to be actionless, not that every possible exploit this makes possible is intended.

[Psyren]

This isn't accurate. JC said that dropping things is intended to be actionless, not that every possible exploit this makes possible is intended.

"Actionless" is all I was referring to there, not any "exploits." So I stand by what I said.

[ender241]

I would call it helpful (in the end, despite all the gymnastics in the middle, it is up to your DM. That's an important piece of information to keep in mind), just more truncated of a response. Of course the more complex and nuanced answer is usually going to include more helpful components. Leon did say, it was the core answer, which pretty closely maps to a summary version of your response.

My point is just that if someone is coming to an online forum to ask a rules question they probably want people to weigh in on the actual rules and how they interpret them, how the designers intended them to work, etc. And not just say "ask your DM." Yes, it's ultimately up to the DM but most people already know that. If someone can provide a strong argument for why a rule should work a certain way based on RAW, that's something OP can take to their DM and probably have a better chance at getting them to go along with it.

[strangebloke]

"Actionless" is all I was referring to there, not any "exploits." So I stand by what I said.

The thread is about the exploits though, so saying "its intended" is misleading.

[Psyren]

The thread is about the exploits though, so saying "its intended" is misleading.

I don't think so but whatever. Neither my post nor the one I was quoting was referring to an exploit.

[Leon]

So any time someone asks a rules question on a forum about d&d rules we should just say "ask your DM"? That's not particularly helpful.

Much more helpful is to say "here's what the rules say, what the designers intended (if it's different), and what I would do as a DM (again, if it's different). But your DM always has final say."

Prob, would get these threads sorted faster and with less circular arguments that they normally descend into.