Monks are awful at grappling. A typical/traditional monk sucks donkey nuts at grappling, because the grappling rules in 5e are bad and should feel bad grappling is purely Strength-based and no monk without a Heroic stat roll can afford to run Strength.
The idea that monks UND ONLY MUNKS should be the single, sole and only class capable of dealing damage with their fists is ridiculous. Fighters are not the single, sole and only class that can deal damage with swords; barbarians are not the single, sole and only class that can deal damage with axes; rogues are not the single, sole and only class that can deal damage with daggers. This idea that unarmed combat is the sacred domain of the monk and no other may tread upon it is obnoxious. There is room for Strength-based fistpunching in the game without impinging on the monk being a dextrous, powerful unarmed martial-artist combatant.
A fighter with heaps of muscle and extensive physical training should absolutely be allowed to be a better wrestler and streetfighter than the monk is. The monk is a better martial artist - they can strike with precison (use Dex for attacks) and apply their martial artistry to numerous different weapon forms. An Unarmed Fighting Style character is going for the big, thuggish brawler, which is a space/archetype that just doesn't exist in current D&D. Tavern Brawler does not cut it. Tavern Brawler/Grappler layered on top of this unarmed style very well might, even if the character will be less effective against monsters with mundane weapon resistance. Which, I would contend, is not a dealbreaker.
After all, such a character could absolutely have a magical weapon they keep on hand for such battles, while using their grappling skills in conjunction with it. They could save their unarmed combat for less worthy foes, or simply prefer to fight barehanded against enemies they can stare in the eye while acknowledging that ghosts, demons, and dragons are something best fought with a flaming axe. There's lots of room for this style, if we accept as truth the fact that monks do not deserve a strict monopoly on unarmed fighting.
I honestly feel that this puts the concept best out of everything in this thread.
Imagine a Ranger choking out an ogre with their longbow! XD
But that's besides the point. Point is, this is the best argument and commentary on the whole "unarmed fighter vs monk" debate in my opinion because ... well, he's right. Barbarians aren't the only ones able to wield axes, clubs, greatswords, and other larger, more brutish weapons - nor are they forced into wielding only those weapons. If your DM allows it, you could even have a Barbarian doing unarmed strikes like a Monk whilst getting extra bonus damage from rage and strength; similarly, rogues aren't limited to rapiers and daggers, nor are fighters and paladins limited to swords, bows, and crossbows (also applies to rangers). Bards don't have to cast their spells with a musical instrument, regardless what the rules as written state. Ultimately, the rules of the world you play in are dictated by the DM, not the rulebooks; if your DM decides a rule interrupts with the flow of a story or the intrigue of a character, then they are well within their rights to ignore that rule and put their own in place - more so if they make it much more specific than the rules as written state it, because by the rules as written ... specific beats general. So don't be afraid to get crazy with your character concepts; stuff like this makes creative people like me happy, and before now I was not so sure about what to do with a certain character concept I had. It is not, however, related to this thread, and as such, I'll likely make my own thread for it.
Hey I'm currently thinking about going for this with my lvl1 barb lvl3 str based monk with Astral self. Idea is to eventually get this and action surge so im doing 5d8 (attack. Extra attack, action surge, flurry of blows) all with advantage whiles also getting the 5d4 from this and a bonus 10 dmg from rage. Turn order would be
BA: rage and gain advantage on str checks. MA: grapple them down and get a 1d4+str. Next turn would be force them prone and use extra attack and flurry initially and if they don't break out or anything its the combo above. Any thoughts?
Was just about to make a new thread on homebrew for some changes I was looking at making to barbarian (and a couple of feats) based in the class feature variants that might be relevant to the last few posts.
1) Allow reckless attack to be switched out for fighting style (any of the the none class specialist ones), allows for a barbarian who has had more formal martial training rather than just hacking blindly. With unarmed feat also allows an armed/unarmoured martial character other than monk.
2) Include athletics and stealth as options for survival instincts, as they are appropriate skills for a hunter to have expertise in. Yes it allows to to get everything to dominate grappling in single class (apart from enlarge), but it is quite a limited facet to dominate and was easy enough to achieve through feats and multiclassing anyway.
Getting a bit broader in scope.
3) Alter tavern brawler to allow the bonus action grapple off any melee attack no reason why hitting someone with a table leg would let to grapple them but a club or claw wouldn't. Also if a character already has an unarmed die it increases by one size, makes it more relevant for monks and unarmed fighting style.
4) Grappler feat replace the pin mechanic with "allows a chacter to replace an attack with an athletics contest, if successful you can choose to apply the restrained or silenced condition to the opponent until the end of your next turn". Stops it eating away your whole action and takes away the negatives but due to eating an attack each turn makes it a bit more of a strategic choice to use it or not. Also allows martials the ability to do a stealthy take down of guards and makes them effective against casters if able to close the distance. Not sure if this is too powerful.
Playing the style now on a EK/War Wizard grapple build in Tomb of Annihilation. Love it!
I've given some thought to improving grappling and had a good thread on Giant in the Playground. Below is the gist of what we got to.
Grapple + Prone is a great combo, but anyone can do it. For the investment of feats or class abilities, it should make the person much better at it than just anyone. Wizards has some good UA content for grappling, but none of it has made it into official printing. In fact the only official thing Wizards has done is nerfed the namesake feat "Grappler."
I think the right question for determining feat balance is: Paralyze is too crippling a condition for an every-turn melee tactic, but ways to inflict Prone and Restrained should be open.
Spells that require only Verbal components or a melee spell attack roll can be cast normally while grappled, but all other spells require a Concentration check to be able to cast them. The DC is 8 + the grappler's Athletics modifier. If the check fails, the spell slot is not expended.
A grappled creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with two-handed weapons.
You may reposition a grappled creature as a bonus action. (we use this in my current game, not OP)
When you succeed on an Athletics check (such as shove prone) against a creature you are grappling, you may deal your unarmed damage to the creature.
You may choose to make opposed Athletics checks in place of attack rolls against creatures you are grappling, dealing your unarmed damage on a success and you may reposition them. (Think of it like powerboms, suplexes or slams instead of "I knock it prone" or "I hit it." Gives fun, but resistible, options in combat)
A better Grappler feat. A few ideas:
You gain proficiency in the Athletics skill. If you are already proficient in it, you gain expertise instead.
If you have a free hand when you hit an adjacent creature, you may grapple the creature as a bonus action. This can be done between attacks if you have the Extra Attack feature.
If you have two free hands, you can Restrain a creature you are grappling by making an Athletics check opposed by the target's Athletics or Acrobatics check (it's choice). You may still make unarmed strikes against the creature as normal and cast spells with somatic components.
Oh most definitely. Do the dip at first level just to grab the fighting style and your 10 levels stronger than you should be...
And then you're 5 levels stronger than you should be, and then you are 0 levels stronger than you should be, and then you are -1 levels stronger than you should be (at level 18).
While yes that is a problem, there are ways to counteract it at that level (which most games don't go long enough for). Namely, magical items. Normally, these only boost a stat or a roll, but if you have the right set, you should be able to keep at least a 1 level difference in power between yourself and someone that is lvl 20 in either Monk or Fighter.
Actually, once you finally hit the level where a Monk's martial art die outpowers the "Unarmed Fighting" style; the Martial Arts die takes over. So you hitting at the strength of Lv.11-16 for the majority of your campaign. Once you hit 17 (if that ever actually somehow happens) then your Martial Arts die is a d10, so then you just overpower the fighting style. Not a bad choice to me.....but that's to me.
Actually, once you finally hit the level where a Monk's martial art die outpowers the "Unarmed Fighting" style; the Martial Arts die takes over. So you hitting at the strength of Lv.11-16 for the majority of your campaign. Once you hit 17 (if that ever actually somehow happens) then your Martial Arts die is a d10, so then you just overpower the fighting style. Not a bad choice to me.....but that's to me.
It does make you take 1 level longer than usual to reach monk milestones though (which are mostly really good), so starting at monk level 10, the fighter dip is only a hindrance.
Any campaign where you plan to reach monk level 11 or higher, should probably avoid the multiclass just for the fighting style. If you have an opportunity to grab it as part of a planned multiclass, it might be good then.
The unarmed fighting style specifically says to use your strength modifier.
Correct, and once you get even a single level of Monk you can use Dex for all of your Unarmed Strikes because of the Martial Arts feature. Also, Monks can still use Str instead of Dex if they choose, so it works two ways.
The attacks have to be strength, not Dex, so no, taking this fighting style with a dip into fighter is not good for a monk.
Once you have the Martial Arts feature, all your unarmed strikes can use Dex. So this is a very viable option.
You have to use Dex for your Martial Arts features, and Unarmed Fighting specifically says you have to use your strength modifier for it.
"Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren't wielding any weapons or a shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8." You would have to use the same modifier for the attack roll, there is no instance, that I know of, in which this is not the case.
This did make me realize that if monks didn't have the 13 dex requirement, certain subclasses may now be viable with strength builds. If you v/h to get the fighting style feat from tashas you could technically be a low DeX Monk. Multiclassing for it would be unwise using point but or standard array though.
The attacks have to be strength, not Dex, so no, taking this fighting style with a dip into fighter is not good for a monk.
Once you have the Martial Arts feature, all your unarmed strikes can use Dex. So this is a very viable option.
You have to use Dex for your Martial Arts features, and Unarmed Fighting specifically says you have to use your strength modifier for it.
"Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren't wielding any weapons or a shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8." You would have to use the same modifier for the attack roll, there is no instance, that I know of, in which this is not the case.
This did make me realize that if monks didn't have the 13 dex requirement, certain subclasses may now be viable with strength builds. If you v/h to get the fighting style feat from tashas you could technically be a low DeX Monk. Multiclassing for it would be unwise using point but or standard array though.
First of all, no, you do not have to use Dex for your Martial Arts. You can, but you could use Str instead if you want to.
Yes, that feat says that you must use Str, but that feat also gets overwritten by the Monk’s Martial Arts ability.
Martial Arts
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons.
You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
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.
Certain monasteries use specialized forms of the monk weapons. For example, you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama). Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game statistics provided for the weapon in the Weapons section.
The attacks have to be strength, not Dex, so no, taking this fighting style with a dip into fighter is not good for a monk.
Once you have the Martial Arts feature, all your unarmed strikes can use Dex. So this is a very viable option.
You have to use Dex for your Martial Arts features, and Unarmed Fighting specifically says you have to use your strength modifier for it.
"Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren't wielding any weapons or a shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8." You would have to use the same modifier for the attack roll, there is no instance, that I know of, in which this is not the case.
This did make me realize that if monks didn't have the 13 dex requirement, certain subclasses may now be viable with strength builds. If you v/h to get the fighting style feat from tashas you could technically be a low DeX Monk. Multiclassing for it would be unwise using point but or standard array though.
First of all, no, you do not have to use Dex for your Martial Arts. You can, but you could use Str instead if you want to.
Yes, that feat says that you must use Str, but that feat also gets overwritten by the Monk’s Martial Arts ability.
Martial Arts
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons.
You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
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.
Certain monasteries use specialized forms of the monk weapons. For example, you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama). Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game statistics provided for the weapon in the Weapons section.
This is correct, they default to strength because most characters will have to use strength, but Monks have the option to use Dex for all their unarmed strikes. This feat doesn't take that option away. It simply adds to the monk's toolbox.
A V. Human Monk should always pick Fighter Initiate for one reason or another.
For most monks the Unarmed Fighting style alone is worth it as it puts you in a REALLY good spot from the get go.
For Shadow Monk Blind Fighting is amazing for your Darkness spell as you can always swing with ADV in darkness against unsuspecting fools.
In general I am glad the fighting style exists but its more a testament to how poorly damage output for monk progresses than an negative statement against the style.
My mistake there with the Martial Arts, I apologize, I think I was considering the unarmored defense and just lumped them together. Do we have sage advice or something confirming Martial arts overwrites unarmed fighting's strength requirement? I'm not sure if that was the intention.
My mistake there with the Martial Arts, I apologize, I think I was considering the unarmored defense and just lumped them together. Do we have sage advice or something confirming Martial arts overwrites unarmed fighting's strength requirement? I'm not sure if that was the intention.
Overall its fairly straight forward as it simply replaces the damage your unarmed strikes do and does not change martial arts in any way.
I honestly think the best combo early on is taking barbarian to level 5 (Beast barb for sure) then picking up one level monk.
You get to do 3 attacks with your claws (3 (d6+STR+Rage)) with your action then a BA d8+STR+Rage. Pretty legit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I honestly feel that this puts the concept best out of everything in this thread.
Imagine a Ranger choking out an ogre with their longbow! XD
But that's besides the point. Point is, this is the best argument and commentary on the whole "unarmed fighter vs monk" debate in my opinion because ... well, he's right. Barbarians aren't the only ones able to wield axes, clubs, greatswords, and other larger, more brutish weapons - nor are they forced into wielding only those weapons. If your DM allows it, you could even have a Barbarian doing unarmed strikes like a Monk whilst getting extra bonus damage from rage and strength; similarly, rogues aren't limited to rapiers and daggers, nor are fighters and paladins limited to swords, bows, and crossbows (also applies to rangers). Bards don't have to cast their spells with a musical instrument, regardless what the rules as written state. Ultimately, the rules of the world you play in are dictated by the DM, not the rulebooks; if your DM decides a rule interrupts with the flow of a story or the intrigue of a character, then they are well within their rights to ignore that rule and put their own in place - more so if they make it much more specific than the rules as written state it, because by the rules as written ... specific beats general. So don't be afraid to get crazy with your character concepts; stuff like this makes creative people like me happy, and before now I was not so sure about what to do with a certain character concept I had. It is not, however, related to this thread, and as such, I'll likely make my own thread for it.
Thanks for reading! ^^
Hey I'm currently thinking about going for this with my lvl1 barb lvl3 str based monk with Astral self. Idea is to eventually get this and action surge so im doing 5d8 (attack. Extra attack, action surge, flurry of blows) all with advantage whiles also getting the 5d4 from this and a bonus 10 dmg from rage. Turn order would be
BA: rage and gain advantage on str checks. MA: grapple them down and get a 1d4+str. Next turn would be force them prone and use extra attack and flurry initially and if they don't break out or anything its the combo above. Any thoughts?
Playing the style now on a EK/War Wizard grapple build in Tomb of Annihilation. Love it!
I've given some thought to improving grappling and had a good thread on Giant in the Playground. Below is the gist of what we got to.
Grapple + Prone is a great combo, but anyone can do it. For the investment of feats or class abilities, it should make the person much better at it than just anyone. Wizards has some good UA content for grappling, but none of it has made it into official printing. In fact the only official thing Wizards has done is nerfed the namesake feat "Grappler."
I think the right question for determining feat balance is: Paralyze is too crippling a condition for an every-turn melee tactic, but ways to inflict Prone and Restrained should be open.
Brawny feat - https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/d...SkillFeats.pdf
Simple fix
Grappler and Tavern Brawler are one feat.
Potential Houserules
A better Grappler feat. A few ideas:
Can’t the unarmed style fighter make one 1d6+str attack and as a bonus action use his off-“hand” to make bonus attack for another 1d6?
Not according to the rules as written.
Oh most definitely. Do the dip at first level just to grab the fighting style and your 10 levels stronger than you should be...
And then you're 5 levels stronger than you should be, and then you are 0 levels stronger than you should be, and then you are -1 levels stronger than you should be (at level 18).
While yes that is a problem, there are ways to counteract it at that level (which most games don't go long enough for). Namely, magical items. Normally, these only boost a stat or a roll, but if you have the right set, you should be able to keep at least a 1 level difference in power between yourself and someone that is lvl 20 in either Monk or Fighter.
Actually, once you finally hit the level where a Monk's martial art die outpowers the "Unarmed Fighting" style; the Martial Arts die takes over. So you hitting at the strength of Lv.11-16 for the majority of your campaign. Once you hit 17 (if that ever actually somehow happens) then your Martial Arts die is a d10, so then you just overpower the fighting style. Not a bad choice to me.....but that's to me.
It does make you take 1 level longer than usual to reach monk milestones though (which are mostly really good), so starting at monk level 10, the fighter dip is only a hindrance.
Any campaign where you plan to reach monk level 11 or higher, should probably avoid the multiclass just for the fighting style. If you have an opportunity to grab it as part of a planned multiclass, it might be good then.
The attacks have to be strength, not Dex, so no, taking this fighting style with a dip into fighter is not good for a monk.
Once you have the Martial Arts feature, all your unarmed strikes can use Dex. So this is a very viable option.
The unarmed fighting style specifically says to use your strength modifier.
Correct, and once you get even a single level of Monk you can use Dex for all of your Unarmed Strikes because of the Martial Arts feature. Also, Monks can still use Str instead of Dex if they choose, so it works two ways.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You have to use Dex for your Martial Arts features, and Unarmed Fighting specifically says you have to use your strength modifier for it.
"Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren't wielding any weapons or a shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8." You would have to use the same modifier for the attack roll, there is no instance, that I know of, in which this is not the case.
This did make me realize that if monks didn't have the 13 dex requirement, certain subclasses may now be viable with strength builds. If you v/h to get the fighting style feat from tashas you could technically be a low DeX Monk. Multiclassing for it would be unwise using point but or standard array though.
First of all, no, you do not have to use Dex for your Martial Arts. You can, but you could use Str instead if you want to.
Yes, that feat says that you must use Str, but that feat also gets overwritten by the Monk’s Martial Arts ability.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is correct, they default to strength because most characters will have to use strength, but Monks have the option to use Dex for all their unarmed strikes. This feat doesn't take that option away. It simply adds to the monk's toolbox.
A V. Human Monk should always pick Fighter Initiate for one reason or another.
For most monks the Unarmed Fighting style alone is worth it as it puts you in a REALLY good spot from the get go.
For Shadow Monk Blind Fighting is amazing for your Darkness spell as you can always swing with ADV in darkness against unsuspecting fools.
In general I am glad the fighting style exists but its more a testament to how poorly damage output for monk progresses than an negative statement against the style.
My mistake there with the Martial Arts, I apologize, I think I was considering the unarmored defense and just lumped them together. Do we have sage advice or something confirming Martial arts overwrites unarmed fighting's strength requirement? I'm not sure if that was the intention.
Overall its fairly straight forward as it simply replaces the damage your unarmed strikes do and does not change martial arts in any way.
I honestly think the best combo early on is taking barbarian to level 5 (Beast barb for sure) then picking up one level monk.
You get to do 3 attacks with your claws (3 (d6+STR+Rage)) with your action then a BA d8+STR+Rage. Pretty legit.