I do search for answers in the forum before posting these elementary questions, really I do.
So, DM'ing for a new party with a Monk and a Warlock... so I'll keep my question here for the Monk.
1st Level gets you "Martial Arts" where the rules say this: "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."
Ok, so my Monk says, "I swing witch my quarterstaff and then do a roundhouse kick as an unarmed strike." So.... Is that a two handed quarterstaff attack at 1d8, or must it be one handed to use the unarmed strike at 1d6?
I don't think it matters, but what if he declares that the unarmed strike is a "spinning back fist." Then does the Quarterstaff strike have to be one handed for the 1d6?
Why, oh why did the quarter staff have to be "versatile" to make this so complicated??
There's nothing in the rules that answers your question one way or the other. I've studied martial arts though and it's difficult to fight with a bo staff and also attack with your hands but it's easy to fight with a bo staff and also attack with your feet. I'd let the player determine which damage die to use, but if he's using the quarterstaff two handed that means he can't use his off hand for anything else. For a monk that's not a disadvantage though.
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).
They don't require using your fists, so you can still make one while holding a weapon with two hands.
Additionally, the rules don''t require you to hold a versatile weapon two-handed at all times to benefit from the increased damage dice; you just need to hold it two-handed when you attack with it.
Versatile. This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property--the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack.
So two-handed quarterstaff attack to spinning back fist is also a valid choice.
Finally, while the rules are silent on this, the intent is that letting go of an item or changing your grip from two-handed to one-handed is a non-action that can be done at any time, similar to releasing a grapple. So there's no issues with a player freeing up one hand to cast a reaction spell with somatic components or throw a punch as an opportunity attack.
It makes sense. I just started playing with a new party. So new classes I haven't dealt with, some min-maxing players, and being challenged on rules. So I'm learning to walk the path to keep it fun for all. :-)
You're take makes sense. Thank you. It kind of makes me wonder when you'd find it necessary to use a quarterstaff one handed. Maybe I just need to stretch my imagination.
I almost didn't see your reply (DDB only gave me one notification). Thanks for your input. This particular monk is also being played by a player who engages in the real martial arts... me not so much. So your perspective is appreciated.
It kind of makes me wonder when you'd find it necessary to use a quarterstaff one handed. Maybe I just need to stretch my imagination.
Any time one of your hands is holding something more important. You could be grappling a creature, holding a torch in a dark dungeon (humans and halflings don't have darkvision), or wielding a shield (druids can deal 1d8 one-handed with shillelagh.)
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.
I've been using the Versatile feat on my "katana" (read: longsword) with my Kensei Monk. I've not read any rules stating this isn't allowed. Unarmed strikes specifically don't have to be punches. I envision my character, Kinuko, slashing twice and then twisting on her heel to kick her quarry in the chest/stomach, or elbowing them out of a blade-lock, or smashing them in the face with the pommel of her sword, the flat edge of her bracers, etc. Not to mention, all these acrobatics fit perfectly well into the Monk's fighting style. Also, when you take into consideration that releasing your grip on/drawing a weapon, etc. is not considered part of your action, I figure there's nothing wrong with releasing one hand from the grip to back-hand your enemy.
The rules dont say what it takes to add or remove hand so we can assume its done as a free item interaction. Also an uarmed strike doesnt have to be with a empty hand necessarily, it could be a headbutt, a kick or even a back fist with the hand wielding a weapon if you.want.
I do search for answers in the forum before posting these elementary questions, really I do.
So, DM'ing for a new party with a Monk and a Warlock... so I'll keep my question here for the Monk.
1st Level gets you "Martial Arts" where the rules say this: "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."
Ok, so my Monk says, "I swing witch my quarterstaff and then do a roundhouse kick as an unarmed strike."
So.... Is that a two handed quarterstaff attack at 1d8, or must it be one handed to use the unarmed strike at 1d6?
I don't think it matters, but what if he declares that the unarmed strike is a "spinning back fist." Then does the Quarterstaff strike have to be one handed for the 1d6?
Why, oh why did the quarter staff have to be "versatile" to make this so complicated??
There's nothing in the rules that answers your question one way or the other. I've studied martial arts though and it's difficult to fight with a bo staff and also attack with your hands but it's easy to fight with a bo staff and also attack with your feet. I'd let the player determine which damage die to use, but if he's using the quarterstaff two handed that means he can't use his off hand for anything else. For a monk that's not a disadvantage though.
Professional computer geek
Here's the rules for unarmed strikes:
They don't require using your fists, so you can still make one while holding a weapon with two hands.
Additionally, the rules don''t require you to hold a versatile weapon two-handed at all times to benefit from the increased damage dice; you just need to hold it two-handed when you attack with it.
So two-handed quarterstaff attack to spinning back fist is also a valid choice.
Finally, while the rules are silent on this, the intent is that letting go of an item or changing your grip from two-handed to one-handed is a non-action that can be done at any time, similar to releasing a grapple. So there's no issues with a player freeing up one hand to cast a reaction spell with somatic components or throw a punch as an opportunity attack.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
It makes sense. I just started playing with a new party. So new classes I haven't dealt with, some min-maxing players, and being challenged on rules. So I'm learning to walk the path to keep it fun for all. :-)
You're take makes sense. Thank you. It kind of makes me wonder when you'd find it necessary to use a quarterstaff one handed. Maybe I just need to stretch my imagination.
I almost didn't see your reply (DDB only gave me one notification). Thanks for your input. This particular monk is also being played by a player who engages in the real martial arts... me not so much. So your perspective is appreciated.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I know in previous editions, Unarmed Strike could be used with your feet, elbows, or other body parts for a monk.
InquisitiveCoder Already covered this, but:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/combat#MeleeAttacks
3rd Paragraph down:
I've been using the Versatile feat on my "katana" (read: longsword) with my Kensei Monk. I've not read any rules stating this isn't allowed. Unarmed strikes specifically don't have to be punches. I envision my character, Kinuko, slashing twice and then twisting on her heel to kick her quarry in the chest/stomach, or elbowing them out of a blade-lock, or smashing them in the face with the pommel of her sword, the flat edge of her bracers, etc. Not to mention, all these acrobatics fit perfectly well into the Monk's fighting style. Also, when you take into consideration that releasing your grip on/drawing a weapon, etc. is not considered part of your action, I figure there's nothing wrong with releasing one hand from the grip to back-hand your enemy.
My opinion? I'd say go for it.
You proabably got your answer , but ya you can use both hands on your staff and still get unarmed attacks.
The rules dont say what it takes to add or remove hand so we can assume its done as a free item interaction. Also an uarmed strike doesnt have to be with a empty hand necessarily, it could be a headbutt, a kick or even a back fist with the hand wielding a weapon if you.want.
unarmed strikes so ya kicks work too.