So I'm playing for the first time (5e) with a group that's also pretty much all playing for the first time, and we have one player who rolled a monk. During our last session, the DM informed our level 2 monk that they could only use the unarmed strike bonus action, or spend a ki point to do flurry of blows, if their main attack action hit. If the first one missed, it's over and they can't attack anymore.
Reading the rules, however, it says you can do those things if you take the attack action, not that the first attack has to hit. To me, this says "you can't do the bonus attack if you spend your action doing something else, but as long as you're already attacking, you can get the bonus attack." Questioning this, though, started a bit of an argument, and the monk and I both gave up after a couple of minutes, in the interest of not derailing the game or demoralizing the group too much. But it left the monk and I both feeling a little discouraged, and I'd like to know if I'm the one reading this rule wrong, or if our frustration with the change is justified. It feels to me like it undermines part of the point of the monk's class, but I know I'm not an expert.
I think he's going to apply the the same concept to the party's fighter later, but I haven't read as much about the fighter's mechanics and can't really say anything about that at the moment.
The first attack does not need to hit, it just needs to be made (as an attack action). This applies to the monk's bonus action attack as well as two weapon fighting and a few other bonus action attacks.
Thanks for the confirmation. It's "DM's rules go" and at this point I don't think there's any changing his mind on it, but it's nice to know I'm not a total idiot for understanding it that way, haha.
Your DM would also need to apply the same logic (for all PCs & NPCs) to Extra Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master, etc.
Literally any ability/feature (there are so, so many) that allows an additional attack--with or without a bonus/reaction--contingent upon the Attack action would be affected by their ruling. Your DM is 100% wrong; have fun with that. 😐
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
That's a big enough change from the official rules that it should've been announced before that play rolled up a Monk. Limiting when Flurry Of Blows that much is a big nerf to the Monk's offense.
Yeah, he established it in the middle of combat, and I won't lie, it was pretty discouraging. I think our monk feels unfairly nerfed and is wondering why they didn't just go with another class in the first place, and there's also the sense now (for the two of us, at least) that as players we don't know what else he might change on a whim like that. He refused to hear us out on this, and it made the monk and I look like the bad guys among the rest of the group for questioning it, because The DM Is Always Right and that meant we were the ones being bad sports. I'm honestly glad for the vindication, even if I have no plans to bring it up again and reopen that argument. I'm the cleric, so it shouldn't affect me too much, but man do I feel for our monk.
Yeah, he established it in the middle of combat, and I won't lie, it was pretty discouraging. I think our monk feels unfairly nerfed and is wondering why they didn't just go with another class in the first place, and there's also the sense now (for the two of us, at least) that as players we don't know what else he might change on a whim like that. He refused to hear us out on this, and it made the monk and I look like the bad guys among the rest of the group for questioning it, because The DM Is Always Right and that meant we were the ones being bad sports. I'm honestly glad for the vindication, even if I have no plans to bring it up again and reopen that argument. I'm the cleric, so it shouldn't affect me too much, but man do I feel for our monk.
If you want to lightly test the waters a bit, try doing this during your next combat session: use Two-Weapon Fighting.
It's something everyone can do by default, and is not explicitly impacted by anything except the Dual-Wielder feat. I.e., it's the perfect thing to test your DM's judgement/fairness. If you miss your first attack, ask them if you can make your bonus action attack. If they say no, you'll at least know that they are applying the same logic. If they say yes, or are confused why you're asking, point out their Monk ruling. If they buckle down, at least they're applying the ruling evenly, but oftentimes DMs just need to be shown how a poor rules decision has further reaching consequences than what they had in mind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I would also ask the DM for any other alterations he has made to the standard rules. Explain that his houserule regarding Monks creates a significant balance change and that you want to know if he intends to nerf any other class features before you end up making a choice that turns out to be weaker than as written. If he's not willing to offer that up, but insists on making these rulings on the fly.... ugh
Yeah, he established it in the middle of combat, and I won't lie, it was pretty discouraging. I think our monk feels unfairly nerfed and is wondering why they didn't just go with another class in the first place, and there's also the sense now (for the two of us, at least) that as players we don't know what else he might change on a whim like that. He refused to hear us out on this, and it made the monk and I look like the bad guys among the rest of the group for questioning it, because The DM Is Always Right and that meant we were the ones being bad sports. I'm honestly glad for the vindication, even if I have no plans to bring it up again and reopen that argument. I'm the cleric, so it shouldn't affect me too much, but man do I feel for our monk.
For the record, is your DM insisting that their ruling is A) a proper interpretation of the rules as written, or B) a change has has decided to make for the game he's running? If it's B, then he's just a jerk for not sharing that significant nerfing of Monks ahead of time, it should have been disclosed as soon as he knew someone in the group was going to play one. But if it's A, then I'd be even more upset, he grossly mis-read a very clearly defined class feature.
Yeah, he established it in the middle of combat, and I won't lie, it was pretty discouraging. I think our monk feels unfairly nerfed and is wondering why they didn't just go with another class in the first place, and there's also the sense now (for the two of us, at least) that as players we don't know what else he might change on a whim like that. He refused to hear us out on this, and it made the monk and I look like the bad guys among the rest of the group for questioning it, because The DM Is Always Right and that meant we were the ones being bad sports. I'm honestly glad for the vindication, even if I have no plans to bring it up again and reopen that argument. I'm the cleric, so it shouldn't affect me too much, but man do I feel for our monk.
For the record, is your DM insisting that their ruling is A) a proper interpretation of the rules as written, or B) a change has has decided to make for the game he's running? If it's B, then he's just a jerk for not sharing that significant nerfing of Monks ahead of time, it should have been disclosed as soon as he knew someone in the group was going to play one. But if it's A, then I'd be even more upset, he grossly mis-read a very clearly defined class feature.
At this point I think it's a mix of both, but we also went around in circles on it for so long the night of the session that I can't even be sure anymore. This wasn't even our first combat of the night, and I can't remember if the first battle had any missed attacks that would have brought this up, or if he actually decided it during the second fight. It started off as A, with him insisting that "take the attack action" actually meant "make a successful attack." When I mentioned the rules as written, he just kept insisting, and trying to justify it with some sort of logic about how if you make an attack toward somebody and miss, it would throw you so off balance you couldn't recover from it. (Our monk has done some boxing irl and both of us were baffled by this claim.) Eventually I think he just got tired of hearing me try to find ways to get him to understand the RAW, like comparing the wording for Stunning Strike, which does require a hit, to the wording for Flurry of Blows, because he just started sending me screenshots of "Rule 0, aka "The DM is always right." So I think we may be in "whatever, just call it a house rule" territory now.
It didn't help that another player, during the session when we had the initial short disagreement about this (most of the more in-depth talking happened afterward, with just the three of us) volunteered the information that apparently, in Critical Role, Matt has put a similar nerf into play on their monk. But considering I'm 55 episodes into catching up on CR's current campaign and haven't seen anything of the sort yet, that means that's basically a 9th or 10th level nerf, on a homebrew subclass, specific to their particular campaign and team balance, being used to justify nerfing our level 2 monk. And from what I've seen, Matt does a much better job of discussing things like that with the players before it comes into play and making sure that everyone is cool with it.
My goal isn't to be petty about this and cause more strife in our group, it was mostly just to confirm I wasn't going crazy to have read the rules that way. So I don't know if I want to deliberately poke at this, for now - and my cleric doesn't have the weapons to try the Two-Weapon Fighting thing personally anyway. My plan was basically just to keep an eye out for enemy multi-attacks and, if it started to seem like a problem, ask about the "house rule" again at that point (and also do what I can along the way to make things more fun again for the monk, even if all I can do is pull shenanigans in the story with their character).
If anything, I've seen Mercer be MORE generous with Marisha's use of Beau's bonus action. Monks can make one attack as a Bonus Action for free if they had taken the Attack action, or two attacks as a Bonus Action if they spend the Ki point for Flurry Of Blows. More than once I've seen Beau make one attack as a Bonus Action, and THEN decide to spend the Ki point for Flurry Of Blows and make the second attack. Is it a major exploit? Not at all. But if we're sticking to the rules, she's supposed to declare that she's doing Flurry Of Blows before she starts her Bonus Action. I don't recall Mercer ever preventing her from making the Bonus Action attacks if she missed during the Attack action.
If anything, I've seen Mercer be MORE generous with Marisha's use of Beau's bonus action. Monks can make one attack as a Bonus Action for free if they had taken the Attack action, or two attacks as a Bonus Action if they spend the Ki point for Flurry Of Blows. More than once I've seen Beau make one attack as a Bonus Action, and THEN decide to spend the Ki point for Flurry Of Blows and make the second attack. Is it a major exploit? Not at all. But if we're sticking to the rules, she's supposed to declare that she's doing Flurry Of Blows before she starts her Bonus Action. I don't recall Mercer ever preventing her from making the Bonus Action attacks if she missed during the Attack action.
Pretty sure the only time Mercer prematurely ends someone's actions like that is when they roll a 1 on their attack rolls, and that's 100% his house rule since RAW a critical failure only means that specific attack automatically misses. 🤷♂️
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Like I said, I'm not totally caught up yet, so I was taking this player and what they were saying at face value, but I'll admit it seemed a little strange to me as well, haha.
I'm playing a monk in our campaign for the first time, and when I started using the bonus action, and/or Flurry of Blows, the DM asked me how I was getting all those attacks, and I read out what I could do based on the PHB. He said ok, and then said he'd look up what I could do later - just to make sure I wasn't BS'ing him.
I'd be upset if that rule was not explained that way your DM is playing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Odo Proudfoot - Lvl 10 Halfling Monk - Princes of the Apocalypse (Campaign Finished)
I mean, another option for the monk, if the DM is going to stand by unnecessarily nerfing their abilities, is to roll a different character if they're especially put out by this.
If the player isn't enjoying playing the character, then they should be free to do that. Just need to explain that they aren't having fun playing the character with that houserule and want to roll something else. *shrugs*
Of course, now there would be the foresight to ask about abilities and see how the DM is going to rule them, so the player can make a more informed decision. This also doesn't have to slow up the game much if this is done between sessions via texting or discord or what have you.
I don't know - just a thought if there's serious discontent with this rule. If not, good luck! Though, I would probably recommend the players going through their abilities/spells/etc. (current and future) with the DM to make sure everyone's on the same page. Again, this could be done between sessions so as not to take up too much time at the table. Of course, if it's really only this one thing, that may be overkill. Just a thought.
Sounds like your DM has an ego problem - he doesn't want to admit he's wrong, so he's doubling down on an obviously incorrect ruling out of pride. That is... not a good sign regarding how he'll handle rules questions or disputes in the future. It may behoove you to start shopping for a better DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
If you're going to argue against it, a better starting point is how crippling it would be for dual wielding rogues. The whole point of their bonus action attack is to get a second chance to land sneak attack, otherwise they'd usually be better off using their bonus for something else.
So I'm playing for the first time (5e) with a group that's also pretty much all playing for the first time, and we have one player who rolled a monk. During our last session, the DM informed our level 2 monk that they could only use the unarmed strike bonus action, or spend a ki point to do flurry of blows, if their main attack action hit. If the first one missed, it's over and they can't attack anymore.
Reading the rules, however, it says you can do those things if you take the attack action, not that the first attack has to hit. To me, this says "you can't do the bonus attack if you spend your action doing something else, but as long as you're already attacking, you can get the bonus attack." Questioning this, though, started a bit of an argument, and the monk and I both gave up after a couple of minutes, in the interest of not derailing the game or demoralizing the group too much. But it left the monk and I both feeling a little discouraged, and I'd like to know if I'm the one reading this rule wrong, or if our frustration with the change is justified. It feels to me like it undermines part of the point of the monk's class, but I know I'm not an expert.
I think he's going to apply the the same concept to the party's fighter later, but I haven't read as much about the fighter's mechanics and can't really say anything about that at the moment.
The first attack does not need to hit, it just needs to be made (as an attack action). This applies to the monk's bonus action attack as well as two weapon fighting and a few other bonus action attacks.
Thanks for the confirmation. It's "DM's rules go" and at this point I don't think there's any changing his mind on it, but it's nice to know I'm not a total idiot for understanding it that way, haha.
As long as he plans to similarly nerf monster multiattack to keep gameplay difficulty balanced...
Your DM would also need to apply the same logic (for all PCs & NPCs) to Extra Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master, etc.
Literally any ability/feature (there are so, so many) that allows an additional attack--with or without a bonus/reaction--contingent upon the Attack action would be affected by their ruling. Your DM is 100% wrong; have fun with that. 😐
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
That's a big enough change from the official rules that it should've been announced before that play rolled up a Monk. Limiting when Flurry Of Blows that much is a big nerf to the Monk's offense.
Yeah, he established it in the middle of combat, and I won't lie, it was pretty discouraging. I think our monk feels unfairly nerfed and is wondering why they didn't just go with another class in the first place, and there's also the sense now (for the two of us, at least) that as players we don't know what else he might change on a whim like that. He refused to hear us out on this, and it made the monk and I look like the bad guys among the rest of the group for questioning it, because The DM Is Always Right and that meant we were the ones being bad sports. I'm honestly glad for the vindication, even if I have no plans to bring it up again and reopen that argument. I'm the cleric, so it shouldn't affect me too much, but man do I feel for our monk.
If you want to lightly test the waters a bit, try doing this during your next combat session: use Two-Weapon Fighting.
It's something everyone can do by default, and is not explicitly impacted by anything except the Dual-Wielder feat. I.e., it's the perfect thing to test your DM's judgement/fairness. If you miss your first attack, ask them if you can make your bonus action attack. If they say no, you'll at least know that they are applying the same logic. If they say yes, or are confused why you're asking, point out their Monk ruling. If they buckle down, at least they're applying the ruling evenly, but oftentimes DMs just need to be shown how a poor rules decision has further reaching consequences than what they had in mind.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I, personally, would probably pull out the term "homebrew" while referring to it, because that's what your DM did here.
But, yeah, you should definitely make sure npcs are similarly "homebrewed"/nerfed.
Ultimately, that was a pretty poor ruling.
Good luck. :/
I would also ask the DM for any other alterations he has made to the standard rules. Explain that his houserule regarding Monks creates a significant balance change and that you want to know if he intends to nerf any other class features before you end up making a choice that turns out to be weaker than as written. If he's not willing to offer that up, but insists on making these rulings on the fly.... ugh
For the record, is your DM insisting that their ruling is A) a proper interpretation of the rules as written, or B) a change has has decided to make for the game he's running? If it's B, then he's just a jerk for not sharing that significant nerfing of Monks ahead of time, it should have been disclosed as soon as he knew someone in the group was going to play one. But if it's A, then I'd be even more upset, he grossly mis-read a very clearly defined class feature.
At this point I think it's a mix of both, but we also went around in circles on it for so long the night of the session that I can't even be sure anymore. This wasn't even our first combat of the night, and I can't remember if the first battle had any missed attacks that would have brought this up, or if he actually decided it during the second fight. It started off as A, with him insisting that "take the attack action" actually meant "make a successful attack." When I mentioned the rules as written, he just kept insisting, and trying to justify it with some sort of logic about how if you make an attack toward somebody and miss, it would throw you so off balance you couldn't recover from it. (Our monk has done some boxing irl and both of us were baffled by this claim.) Eventually I think he just got tired of hearing me try to find ways to get him to understand the RAW, like comparing the wording for Stunning Strike, which does require a hit, to the wording for Flurry of Blows, because he just started sending me screenshots of "Rule 0, aka "The DM is always right." So I think we may be in "whatever, just call it a house rule" territory now.
It didn't help that another player, during the session when we had the initial short disagreement about this (most of the more in-depth talking happened afterward, with just the three of us) volunteered the information that apparently, in Critical Role, Matt has put a similar nerf into play on their monk. But considering I'm 55 episodes into catching up on CR's current campaign and haven't seen anything of the sort yet, that means that's basically a 9th or 10th level nerf, on a homebrew subclass, specific to their particular campaign and team balance, being used to justify nerfing our level 2 monk. And from what I've seen, Matt does a much better job of discussing things like that with the players before it comes into play and making sure that everyone is cool with it.
My goal isn't to be petty about this and cause more strife in our group, it was mostly just to confirm I wasn't going crazy to have read the rules that way. So I don't know if I want to deliberately poke at this, for now - and my cleric doesn't have the weapons to try the Two-Weapon Fighting thing personally anyway. My plan was basically just to keep an eye out for enemy multi-attacks and, if it started to seem like a problem, ask about the "house rule" again at that point (and also do what I can along the way to make things more fun again for the monk, even if all I can do is pull shenanigans in the story with their character).
If anything, I've seen Mercer be MORE generous with Marisha's use of Beau's bonus action. Monks can make one attack as a Bonus Action for free if they had taken the Attack action, or two attacks as a Bonus Action if they spend the Ki point for Flurry Of Blows. More than once I've seen Beau make one attack as a Bonus Action, and THEN decide to spend the Ki point for Flurry Of Blows and make the second attack. Is it a major exploit? Not at all. But if we're sticking to the rules, she's supposed to declare that she's doing Flurry Of Blows before she starts her Bonus Action. I don't recall Mercer ever preventing her from making the Bonus Action attacks if she missed during the Attack action.
Pretty sure the only time Mercer prematurely ends someone's actions like that is when they roll a 1 on their attack rolls, and that's 100% his house rule since RAW a critical failure only means that specific attack automatically misses. 🤷♂️
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Like I said, I'm not totally caught up yet, so I was taking this player and what they were saying at face value, but I'll admit it seemed a little strange to me as well, haha.
I'm playing a monk in our campaign for the first time, and when I started using the bonus action, and/or Flurry of Blows, the DM asked me how I was getting all those attacks, and I read out what I could do based on the PHB. He said ok, and then said he'd look up what I could do later - just to make sure I wasn't BS'ing him.
I'd be upset if that rule was not explained that way your DM is playing it.
Odo Proudfoot - Lvl 10 Halfling Monk - Princes of the Apocalypse (Campaign Finished)
Orryn Pebblefoot - Lvl 5 Rock Gnome Wizard (Deceased) - Waterdeep: Dragon Heist (Deceased)
Anerin Ap Tewdr - Lvl 5 Human (Variant) Bard (College of Valor) - Waterdeep: Dragon Heist
I mean, another option for the monk, if the DM is going to stand by unnecessarily nerfing their abilities, is to roll a different character if they're especially put out by this.
If the player isn't enjoying playing the character, then they should be free to do that. Just need to explain that they aren't having fun playing the character with that houserule and want to roll something else. *shrugs*
Of course, now there would be the foresight to ask about abilities and see how the DM is going to rule them, so the player can make a more informed decision. This also doesn't have to slow up the game much if this is done between sessions via texting or discord or what have you.
I don't know - just a thought if there's serious discontent with this rule. If not, good luck! Though, I would probably recommend the players going through their abilities/spells/etc. (current and future) with the DM to make sure everyone's on the same page. Again, this could be done between sessions so as not to take up too much time at the table. Of course, if it's really only this one thing, that may be overkill. Just a thought.
Sounds like your DM has an ego problem - he doesn't want to admit he's wrong, so he's doubling down on an obviously incorrect ruling out of pride. That is... not a good sign regarding how he'll handle rules questions or disputes in the future. It may behoove you to start shopping for a better DM.
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
If you're going to argue against it, a better starting point is how crippling it would be for dual wielding rogues. The whole point of their bonus action attack is to get a second chance to land sneak attack, otherwise they'd usually be better off using their bonus for something else.
There is no rules to back up your Dm's claim and says nothing of that in the PHB.