what is the best way to build a monk/barbarian MC?

[da newt]

I have an idea (an itch I'd like to scratch), but I haven't figured out how to make it work well. I'd like to build a fairly well optimized Monk with a healthy dip of Barbarian in order to move well, resist damage and STUN everyone.

My initial thought is Bugbear (reach) Kensei X Bear Totem 3 (or 4 -ASI) or something like that. Max ST for attack bonus, good dex, wis, con.

How can I best make this work?

[Dork_Forge]

This is always going to be very tricky to pull off from the get go using point buy, but Tortle could work out okay: Str 17 Dex 13 Con 14 Int 8Wis 14 Cha 9. You'd end up with an AC of 17 regardless of your stats and can focus on just pumping Str for your attacks and Wis to at least 16 down the line (your stun DC keys off it after all). That's just off the top of my head though, some good rolls could make this a lot easier, or biting the bullet on vanilla Human to get the array wide stat bump.

[nickl_2000]

I personally would suggest either a Tortle Barb 3(totem)/Monk X

You get Strength and Wisdom bonuses that give you what you need. You can either do slashing damage or Bludgeoning damage with your fists, and most importantly you get 17 AC without dex.

Since you don't need Dex for your AC you can dump that and give yourself a boost to Str/Wis/Con.




You can play as Raphael and be Tortle Barb 3(totem)/Monk (Shadow) X
Kensai for extra AC and more choices on weapons.
Open Hand for flurry craziness (bonus on DC because you are more focused on Wis than Dex)
Long Death for the sweet, sweet temp HPs that go further since you are raging and get damage resistance



It if were me, I would go Long Death and use a Staff/Spear as a strength weapon.

[chando]

My initial thought is Bugbear (reach) Kensei X Bear Totem 3 (or 4 -ASI) or something like that. Max ST for attack bonus, good dex, wis, con.

Your Initial Though is Fine. I feel like beeing a tortle is too constraining.
Bugbear in my view fits the flavor much better. (but i would personally do shadow monk for more "bugbeary")
Rolling stats or better average would hepf of course any MAD character. But if you are playing this knwing it might not be perfect you will be fine.
Dump the hell alway Int and cha can work nicely for a bugbear char. I would like to star with High Dex if possible, HP can come latter and moblility and resistances will mean a lot.

Str 14+2
Dex 15+1
Con 12
Int 08
Wis 14
Cha 08

Base AC of 15. wich is fine a lower levels, might go to 17 as kensei some rounds, but it will not improve as long as you are maxing STR. And if you want some feat like Mobility or Though or Sentinel (Those would be my top picks for this char, but probably oney one, before Str 20), it will not improve at all. for most of the campaing at least. So make it a point of trying to keep any of the AC items that the party might find, such as a ring of protection. It will help some. (of course if you get a Peripat of Wisdom or whatever is callled to set your Wis to 19 that would be amazing as well if you find your stunning not working proprelly)
I would go Monk 1-2 Barb 2 Monk rest (barb 3 whenever energy attacks start to really show up, most of what you are getting are regular damage attack)
barbarian early gives advantage Str attacks, + rage damge, resist damage, wich is more or comparable to than extra attack, Str increase, other monk features you might get it...
Remember also that if you are "tanking as a barbarian" in some rounds you dont want an AC so high your opponents cant hit you because if they cant hit and you resist all damage then they just preffer better targets, and if you are "going about as a skirmisher" in some other rounds, as a barbarin can play but most monks gain more incentive to do, you shouldn't be in the place to be getting lots of hits most of the time.

[CTurbo]

If you can roll for stats, and get a better spread than point buy, you want to prioritize Str>Wis>Dex=Con and nearly any race would work.

But if you're limited to point buy, you're going to want to build a "typical" Dex Monk with a 13 Str just to meet the multiclass pre-requisite for Barb and stay Dex>Wis>Con>Str

Regular human can start with 13 Str, 16 Dex, 14 Con, 9 Int, 16 Wis, 9 Cha

With point buy, if you prioritize Str, you're AC, Con, or stun DC will be too low to be viable. You don't NEED Str in this build.

[da newt]

If I dump ST, then I get no rage bonus damage. I'm assuming the +2 dam on every hit will add up pretty quickly with multi attack and unarmed strikes/flurry of blows.

But even if my ST lags a little, w/ reckless I ought to still be able to hit stuff consistently (but then I'm giving up +1 to hit and dam, for +2 dam ...)

Need to find a giant belt ...

[Man_Over_Game]

Eh, I'd just say "screw AC" and rely on Rage for defenses.

Ancestral Guardian and Drunken Master. Hit you in the face for massive damage, run the hell away.

You can chase me, but you'll have to go through my team. If you try to hit my team, suffer 1/2 damage and Disadvantage to hit.

It's an unorthodox way of Barbarianing, but it's still tanking, and it still plays like a Monk.

Personally, I like the idea of Dwarf for that one Hit Dice feat. That way, I can heal 1d12+CON whenever I bonus action Dodge.



Had an idea for a character like that once, using different combinations of maneuvers as 'techniques' while shouting them like some kind of anime hero.

"SEVEN-SIN STRIKE OF WRATH!" (Reckless Attack + Flurry of Blows + 2 Rage damage per hit + Taunt + Disengage from enemies to hide into team)
"GUILE OF GLUTTONY!" (Attack + Taunt + Bonus Action Dodge + 1d12 healing)

At any rate, I would not put much faith in Stunning Strike, as you won't have enough room to get much Wisdom for your Saving Throw, and you're dividing several levels away from Monk (meaning less Ki Points). Less control, but a lot more damage (specifically +6-+8).

[Specter]

This is, in reality, a bad MC, so you need to know what you want from it.

The best way to do it is to take 3 levels of Barbarian and the rest in Monk, I guess, but keep in mind that your level 1 barb features should be useless (you won't use STR to attack and Monk's Unarmored Defense should be better anyway).

What you really get from Barbarian is Danger Sense and the level 3 feature from Bear Totem to keep you alive longer. Other than that, it's monk all the way.

[clash]

So in order to make the most of this multiclass I would suggest using Flurry of blows as much as possible to gain the bonus rage damage. Since we want to be doing that, I suggest open hand monk. Path of the beast would be pretty cool if your dm allows ua and if the claws count as unarmed strikes. It would effectively give you another attack per turn. Otherwise zealot or several of the totems would work well. The largest issue here is stats:
I would take monk unarmored defence to get it to key off wisdom so you save dc is good. Then is using point buy we could do:
Standard Human:
str 16
wis 16
dex 14
con 12
cha 10
int 8
That starts you with 15 ac and it can grow as you go. Take monk to level 5 to get your 4 attacks and stunning strike/open hand manuevers etc. Then take barbarian 4 for the extra asi. Then monk all the way up.
For stats I might focus on wisdom first to improve your ac and saves. so at level 9 you could have wis maxed for 17 ac and your save dc maxed out, then at 13, and 17 improve your str to get that maxed out. Or you could alternate for a more even growth. Endgame stats would be:
str 20
wis 20
dex 14
con 12
cha 10
int 8

[da newt]

****. Rage damage bonus requires a 'melee weapon attack' so it doesn't increase the unarmed strike damage ... bummer.

[Man_Over_Game]

****. Rage damage bonus requires a 'melee weapon attack' so it doesn't increase the unarmed strike damage ... bummer.

It does.

"Melee Weapon Attack" means "Non-Projectile Physical Attack", which an unarmed attack qualifies as.



What you're looking for is "an attack with a melee weapon". You can look at Sneak Attack or fighting styles to see the difference, as those often have wording that is weapon-specific.

For example, a Dagger is a melee weapon, but it can be thrown as a Ranged Weapon Attack. It is still a melee weapon while doing so (so you benefit from the Duelist fighting style while throwing weapons).

Or, simply put, Rage does not apply to projectile attacks (throwing a Dagger) or Spell attacks (Shocking Grasp) but it applies to everything else (including improvised weapons or unarmed strikes).

[clash]

Alternatively see if you dm would allow combining the unarmored defense of monk and barabrian to make it a little easier to mc them. Basically instead of wis + dex or con + dex see if you could do wis + con. Then you could fully dump dex go 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8 with point buy and improve that to 16, 16, 16, 9, 9, 9 with human right away giving you 16 ac out the gate and eventually improving to 18.

[elyktsorb]

I personally would suggest either a Tortle Barb 3(totem)/Monk X

Currently running this myself, chose long death for the temp hp (but I rolled stats so I have good dex wisdom, and str.) Funnily enough I'm using a Yklwa, which is a short spear that's 1 handed and does 1d8 as opposed to a spear where you'd need both hands to do 1d8 with it, so I can smack with my 1d8 Yklwa and still have a hand free for punching/grappling. Basically after you get a magic weapon your next goal becomes bracers of defense, or other AC boosting items.

[nickl_2000]

Currently running this myself, chose long death for the temp hp (but I rolled stats so I have good dex wisdom, and str.) Funnily enough I'm using a Yklwa, which is a short spear that's 1 handed and does 1d8 as opposed to a spear where you'd need both hands to do 1d8 with it, so I can smack with my 1d8 Yklwa and still have a hand free for punching/grappling. Basically after you get a magic weapon your next goal becomes bracers of defense, or other AC boosting items.

Just an FYI. You are absolutely allowed to use a spear or staff for a two handed attack, then make an unarmed strike as a bonus action. The unarmed strike is described as any attack not with a weapon. That could be a knee, a kick, elbow jab, head butt, or using your fists.

Beyond that, it has been verified by JC that the intent was that a two handed item only requires two hands when making an attack. So, a paladin could be holding a great sword in only one hand for it's bonus action so that they can cast Holy Weapon (which has a somatic component), then place the hand used for casting the bonus action spell back on the weapon to make two attacks. Although this doesn't work for grappling

[elyktsorb]

Just an FYI. You are absolutely allowed to use a spear or staff for a two handed attack, then make an unarmed strike as a bonus action. The unarmed strike is described as any attack not with a weapon. That could be a knee, a kick, elbow jab, head butt, or using your fists.

Although this doesn't work for grappling

The grappling part is the important bit for me anyway. Which means I can use the 1 handed 1d8 option while still grappling, and then the unarmed strikes as well.

[da newt]

"Melee Weapon Attack" means "Non-Projectile Physical Attack", which an unarmed attack qualifies as.

Can you please provide a reference that backs this statement up? Certainly "a melee weapon attack" requires an attack with a weapon if you go by literal English language definitions, but does D&D 5e have a different definition that includes unarmed attacks as a valid "melee weapon attack"?

pg 195 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)." - this seems pretty clear and appears to define unarmed strikes as not counting as weapon attacks ....

From the SA compendium:
"Can a rogue/monk use Sneak Attack with unarmed
strikes? The Sneak Attack feature works with a weapon
that has the finesse or ranged property. An unarmed strike
isn’t a weapon, so it doesn’t qualify. In contrast, a rogue/
monk can use Sneak Attack with a monk weapon, such
as a shortsword or a dagger, that has one of the required
properties."

Also, a ranged weapon attack required a ranged weapon, and a thrown weapon is not a ranged weapon, right? pg 149 of the PHB lists ranged weapons separately from melee weapons. Some melee weapons have the thrown property, which allows one to make a ranged attack with them, but does not reclassify the weapon a ranged weapon, it is still a melee weapon.

Therefore a thrown handaxe is a ranged attack with a melee weapon by definition (RAW), right?

From the SA compendium:
"Does the Archery fighting style work with a melee
weapon that you throw? No, the Archery feature benefits
ranged weapons. A melee weapon, such as a dagger or
handaxe, is still a melee weapon when you make a ranged
attack with it."

[Man_Over_Game]

"Melee Weapon Attack" means "Non-Projectile Physical Attack", which an unarmed attack qualifies as.



Can you please provide a reference that backs this statement up? Certainly "a melee weapon attack" requires an attack with a weapon if you go by literal English language definitions, but does D&D 5e have a different definition that includes unarmed attacks as a valid "melee weapon attack"?

http://media.wizards.com/2016/downlo...um.pdf#page=10


From the source:

What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack
with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon?

It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged
weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon.
Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack
even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of
those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon.
Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-
weapon attack” if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.



Sorry if the formatting is weird. Copying from the DnD PDFs for whatever reason adds a bunch of line breaks and I can't tell if the formatting is jacked up from my phone.

You are correct on the throwing weapon rules, the problem is that you're not classifying the attack typing correctly after the fact.

Throw a melee weapon, it's now a ranged attack with a melee weapon. Smack someone with the same weapon and it's now a melee weapon attack with a melee weapon.

I can smack you with a bow and it'd be a melee weapon attack. Normally it'd be considered a ranged weapon while doing so, but ranged weapons don't have a clause that you can make a melee weapon attack with them, so doing so treats the weapon as an Improvised weapon, which has its own stats and traits. So if you try to hit someone directly with your bow, it's treated as if you hit someone with an Improvised Weapon, like a chair or a crowbar.


The simplest way of remembering it is that :

• "Melee Weapon Attack" is a "Striking Physical Attack"
• "Ranged Spell Attack" is a "Projectile Energy Attack"
• "Melee Spell Attack" is a "Striking Energy Attack"
• "Ranged Weapon Attack" is a "Projectile Physical Attack"

Every type of attack follows these concepts, although some things are weapon-specific (whether it is a weapon on the Melee weapons list or the Ranged weapons list). Most of these exceptions are from Sneak Attack, fighting styles, or certain weapon-related feats.

Sharpshooter in particular has different effects that are attack-specific and weapon-specific, making it pretty tricky to remember, but it's a good reference to show the differences.

[Dork_Forge]

"Melee Weapon Attack" means "Non-Projectile Physical Attack", which an unarmed attack qualifies as.



Can you please provide a reference that backs this statement up? Certainly "a melee weapon attack" requires an attack with a weapon if you go by literal English language definitions, but does D&D 5e have a different definition that includes unarmed attacks as a valid "melee weapon attack"?

JC has tweeted an explanation before that essentially all attacks are either spell or weapon attacks, so unarmed strikes fall under the melee weapon attack language, it's what makes it possible to Smite with your hands.

[da newt]

Thanks for the link. My literal reading of RAW as printed, does not match the RAI in the provided link.

I can find no mention of unarmed strikes counting as melee weapon attacks "as specified in the text of those attacks" in my books despite the below ...

"What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack
with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon?
It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged
weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon.
Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack
even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of
those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a
melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t
considered a weapon."

In the same document:
"Can a rogue/monk use Sneak Attack with unarmed
strikes? The Sneak Attack feature works with a weapon
that has the finesse or ranged property. An unarmed strike
isn’t a weapon, so it doesn’t qualify. In contrast, a rogue/
monk can use Sneak Attack with a monk weapon, such
as a shortsword or a dagger, that has one of the required
properties."

Well that contradiction really cleared things up for me ...

[Man_Over_Game]

Thanks for the link. My literal reading of RAW as printed, does not match the RAI in the provided link.

I can find no mention of unarmed strikes counting as melee weapon attacks "as specified in the text of those attacks" in my books despite the below ...

"What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack
with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon?
It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged
weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon.
Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack
even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of
those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a
melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t
considered a weapon."

Might have been errata'd into the new books.

Action Surge used to mention Bonus Actions, Unarmed Attacks used to be on the weapon table, Portent used to not be limited to the "reroll one die per roll" rule, Beastmasters' pets used to not take the Dodge action if they weren't being told what to do, etc.

[clash]

Sneak attack is what's causing the confusion. It does not specify anywhere you can do it with a weapon attack. It says "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." An unarmed strike is not an attack that uses a weapon it's just a weapon attack.

[da newt]

Where is it written that an unarmed attack counts as a "melee weapon attack"? That's the piece I'm searching for, but have not been able to find despite this quote:

"Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attacks
even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of
those attacks."

The closest I can find is pg 195 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 a weapon)."

To my reading, this clearly states an unarmed strike does not count as a melee weapon attack - it is something else, BUT the grammar is so chunky it's unclear if it means 'instead of making a melee weapon attack you can make an unarmed strike' (my interpretation) or 'instead of using a weapon, you can use an unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack' (an alternate reading).

Thanks again.

[clash]

It's in the phb errata
Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on
unarmed strikes should read as follows:
“Instead of using a weapon to make a
melee weapon attack, you can use an un-
armed 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.”

[da newt]

Yes - and the part that is missing is that it does not state that an unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack, it states you can make a unarmed strike instead of a melee weapon attack.

[Arkhios]

I've been thinking about this a lot, as I've tried to figure how could I convert my (admittedly slightly weird) Pathfinder's Barbarian/Monk to 5e.

My end result was as follows:

Kensei 16/Totem Warrior 4
V.human (Tough, +1 Dex, +1 Wis)
Str 20, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 20, Cha 10
4th monk level ASI: +2 Str
4th barbarian level ASI: +2 Str
8th monk level ASI: +2 Wis
12th monk level ASI: +2 Wis
16th monk level ASI: +2 Str
Unarmored Defense: 17 (+2 agile parry, +X magic items)
Max HP: 171
First three Kensei Weapons: Battleaxe, Longsword, Warhammer.

My reasoning was that since you need to attack with Strength in order to fully benefit from rage, and that Wisdom is important especially for Stunning Strike, but you can't get both without sacrificing something (at least if you use point buy). The only thing I could think of sacrificing was, oddly enough, Constitution, but I thought I'd mitigate some of the loss with taking Tough. Sure, Con save won't be particularly great, but I don't see this character needing it at least for Concentration anyway, what with being a barbarian, after all. And monks aren't proficient with the save until at 14th level, but then they become proficient with all of them.
At least the character has hit points as if he had Con 16. That's not half bad, imho.

AC won't be the greatest (only 17 at highest sans magic items), but you have agile parry most of the time if you want it, so that's a +2 bonus.

.
.
.
.

As for the matter of unarmed strikes and melee weapon attacks. Believe what you will, but don't expect a DM to agree with you, if you start arguing that "a punch that you make in melee range without letting go of any of the objects used to deal damage" isn't a melee attack. You aren't dismembering your fist from the wrist and throwing your fist, are you? Likewise, a kick doesn't dislocate the leg, elbow doesn't send the tip flying, or a headbutt doesn't separate your forehead from your skull.

'Melee [weapon] attack' is like a code string.
'Ranged [weapon] attack' is another.
Both do the same thing, but by different means.
'weapon' in there is a parameter to tell you that it's not a 'spell'. It's really that simple.

In other words, there are only two types of attacks:
Melee attacks and Ranged attacks.
But, both can have either 'weapon' or 'spell' parameter.

The point is that an Unarmed Strike is a 'melee [weapon] attack' simply because it's not a spell you are using and you are doing it in melee.

However, as the rules say, an Unarmed Strike is not a Weapon. Thus it can't be an 'attack [with a Weapon]'.

[Vogie]

In the same document:
"Can a rogue/monk use Sneak Attack with unarmed
strikes? The Sneak Attack feature works with a weapon
that has the finesse or ranged property. An unarmed strike
isn’t a weapon, so it doesn’t qualify. In contrast, a rogue/
monk can use Sneak Attack with a monk weapon, such
as a shortsword or a dagger, that has one of the required
properties."

Well that contradiction really cleared things up for me ...

You're missing the inherent, assumed statements within the question there - Rogues can only sneak attack with finesse weapons, which are defined as weapons you can use either strength or dexterity for the attack/damage rolls. Monks can use their strength or dexterity for their unarmed strikes... BUT they aren't defined as having finesse. Functional finesse, but not actual finesse. So the questioner is actually asking:
"Can a rogue/monk use Sneak attack with unarmed strikes, because Martial Arts effectively gives their unarmed strikes finesse?"
and the errata is replying:
"No, the sneak attack feature works with a weapon that has the finesse or ranged property, which the Unarmed strikes are officially not. We've made sure we've worded them specifically to not be that way for precisely this reason."

[Snig]

Did you consider Ranger / Monk instead? Much more synergy IMO. Dueling style replaces rage damage. Hunter or Gloomstalker add some great features. You can focus on Dex and Wisdom. Hunter's Mark is amazing with monk.

[Arkhios]

Did you consider Ranger / Monk instead? Much more synergy IMO. Dueling style replaces rage damage. Hunter or Gloomstalker add some great features. You can focus on Dex and Wisdom. Hunter's Mark is amazing with monk.

That would defeat the purpose of the thread.
Ranger/monk focused on dex & wis
≠
Barbarian/Monk with a focus on Str.

[Snig]

That would defeat the purpose of the thread.
Ranger/monk focused on dex & wis
≠
Barbarian/Monk with a focus on Str.

I disagree.

[Arkhios]

I disagree.

You may disagree all you want, but a potato is not an apple.

Even though a potato looks exactly like an apple from the inside, they taste very different.

The question was what is the best way to build a Monk/Barbarian.

Monk/Ranger is a very bad answer to that question, because Barbarian ≠ Ranger.