I was rereading the various unearthed arcana and I came across this rule that I think needs to be fixed, the mastery Nick says: When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action, instead of as a Bonus Action . You can still make this extra attack only once per turn. It specifically talks about that type of attack given by fighting with two weapons, and not the bonus attack given by martial arts: Martial Arts
Levels: 1st (see Monk Table for higher levels)
Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use your Unarmed Strike and Monk Weapons, which are the following:
• Simple Melee Weapons
• Martial Weapons that have the Light 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:
Unarmed Strike Bonus. You can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action.
Not going into conflict with the two rules, I deduce that a monk with a fighting style and talent for fighting with two weapons can make his attacks during his action plus the attack given by the mastery: Nick and during his bonus action launch a blow without 'weapons (kick, headbutt, knee, elbow.)
I think it needs to be fixed!
I was rereading the various unearthed arcana and I came across this rule that I think needs to be fixed, the mastery Nick says: When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action, instead of as a Bonus Action . You can still make this extra attack only once per turn. It specifically talks about that type of attack given by fighting with two weapons, and not the bonus attack given by martial arts: Martial Arts
Levels: 1st (see Monk Table for higher levels)
Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use your Unarmed Strike and Monk Weapons, which are the following:
• Simple Melee Weapons
• Martial Weapons that have the Light 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:
Unarmed Strike Bonus. You can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action.
Not going into conflict with the two rules, I deduce that a monk with a fighting style and talent for fighting with two weapons can make his attacks during his action plus the attack given by the mastery: Nick and during his bonus action launch a blow without 'weapons (kick, headbutt, knee, elbow.)
I think it needs to be fixed!
Sorry for the bad English ^_^
yeah, they can, and its probably intended. They specifically said nick applies only to light property weapons.
this means you can still make BA from other sources
like
Great weapon master
Polearm master
Martial arts.
various sub class abilities.
since barbarians, fighters, Rangers, paladins, warlocks, can do nick + polearm mastery BA tactics, why should monk not be able to?
that said, monk has no native masteries any more, so in order to do this, they need a feat.
they also have no access to fighting styles any more, so the attack will be weaker (no dex mod to damage), unless they multiclass
I was rereading the various unearthed arcana and I came across this rule that I think needs to be fixed, the mastery Nick says: When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action, instead of as a Bonus Action . You can still make this extra attack only once per turn. It specifically talks about that type of attack given by fighting with two weapons, and not the bonus attack given by martial arts: Martial Arts
Levels: 1st (see Monk Table for higher levels)
Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use your Unarmed Strike and Monk Weapons, which are the following:
• Simple Melee Weapons
• Martial Weapons that have the Light 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:
Unarmed Strike Bonus. You can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action.
Not going into conflict with the two rules, I deduce that a monk with a fighting style and talent for fighting with two weapons can make his attacks during his action plus the attack given by the mastery: Nick and during his bonus action launch a blow without 'weapons (kick, headbutt, knee, elbow.)
I think it needs to be fixed!
Sorry for the bad English ^_^
yeah, they can, and its probably intended. They specifically said nick applies only to light property weapons.
this means you can still make BA from other sources
like
Great weapon master
Polearm master
Martial arts.
various sub class abilities.
since barbarians, fighters, Rangers, paladins, warlocks, can do nick + polearm mastery BA tactics, why should monk not be able to?
that said, monk has no native masteries any more, so in order to do this, they need a feat.
they also have no access to fighting styles any more, so the attack will be weaker (no dex mod to damage), unless they multiclass
so its still not hugely effective for monks.
How would you be able to use Nick with PAM or GWM (if you’re not a Thri-Kreen)?
It's definitely intended. The recent UA was blatantly meant to kiss up to power-gamers who are pissed off that the Monk isn't the equivalent of a shonen-anime protagonist, dominating other classes in offense, defense, and agility.
This makes no sense; Monks no longer have Weapon Masteries so they can't get Nick without either multi-classing or taking a feat. If they go the easier feat route, they still won't have the two-weapon fighting fighting style so the extra attack won't be adding any modifier.
So I'm not sure how the new UA is appealing to power-gaming there.
If you have any doubts about this, take a look at the Barbarian from the same UA, where their Strength requirement for attacks to benefit from their Rage bonus exists as normal...for weapon attacks. Unarmed Strikes are specifically excluded and allowed to benefit from Rage's damage boost even if they use Dexterity, a carve-out that exists solely to empower a specific multiclass in a way that makes playing a pure-classed Monk weaker than said multiclass.
If you're referring to the wording "When you make an attack with a weapon using Strength or an Unarmed Strike" then I'm not so sure "Strength weapon attack or any type of unarmed strike" is the intention there; even if it was it's a clunky way to word it.
Barbarian has always needed to use Strength to benefit from Rage, I don't see that changing, and I expect a lot of people have queried the wording so I'd expect that to be fixed.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Except Unarmed Strikes always use STR unless a class feature is modifying them, whereas finesse weapons inherently have the option to use DEX. Saying “Unarmed Strikes that use STR” is redundant unless someone decides to attempt a Monk/Barbarian hybrid; a quite uncommon and generally suboptimal build, particularly since you’d need 13 in both DEX and STR to take both, which will seriously hurt your point spread as a Monk and ultimately be the opposite of a power-gaming optimized build.
they reworded the feature in a way that very unsubtly singles out Unarmed Strikes as the exclusion to the Strength rule. In fact, all we need to do to prove this is to look at the preceding time they included Barbarians in a UA Playtest. How was it worded there?
So yes, it is very much an intentional change from the previous Barbarian playtest that exists solely to make "optimizers" drool and give the finger to Monk players who don't want to do a one-level Barbarian dip.
They've been adding "or an Unarmed Strike" onto rules throughout the playtests, seemingly because they want to get rid of the concept of "a melee weapon attack without using a weapon" which is how unarmed strikes basically existed in the past.
I'm not at all convinced that they've intentionally separated it though; it's just as possible they slapped it in and didn't think too hard about it. Wouldn't be the first time we've got shoddy wording in a UA, they've literally rolled back entire classes already because of things they clearly didn't proof read well enough before previewing them.
Either way it's wildly premature to ascribe it to some kind of malicious desire to ruin the game in favour of appeasing power-gaming multi-classers; whether it was unintended and gets fixed, or intended and gets rolled back due to feedback, either way I very much doubt it's going to stick as it makes no sense as a change and only makes the rule more easily misunderstood.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Oh, and if you think a Barbarian/Monk multiclass is actually inferior to a pure-classed Monk...
Getting Rage damage on Unarmed Strikes even with DEX is a greater damage increase than each step of the Martial Arts die and gives greater benefit to the Monk with their bonus-action attacks than it does for a pure Barbarian.
Deflect Attacks has obvious synergy with Rage reducing bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage.
Evasion has obvious synergy with Danger Sense.
A Barbarian/Monk can use the Barbarian's Unarmored Defense for DEX/CON instead of DEX/WIS, as Stunning Strike doing damage on a successful save actually provides a benefit to low-WIS Monk builds.
You are right that Barbarian 1 / Monk 1 is an offensive powerhouse capable of dealing 2*(3+2+1d6) +2+1d6 = 22.5 damage in tier 1. And it should be fun to roleplay as the angry guy in anger management classes. But it does come at significant cost.
With 16 STR as the primary ability and dumping INT and CHA, that leaves a balanced 14 among DEX, CON, and WIS. The stats could be tweaked to provide a 16 in a secondary stat. That would be a maximum 15 AC, which won't be raised until the 3rd ASI (likely at level 14). And that AC can't be improved with magic armors or shields. Expect to get hit a lot, especially by multi-attack. Rage + Deflect Attack offsets this a bit. (Note: the Deflect Attack is applied before the Rage resistance.)
Combined with a Monk subclass that allows skirmishing, it should be interesting. But not necessarily overpowered.
You'd still need 13 WIS in addition to 13 STR and 13 DEX to dip into Barb, so unless this hypothetical build is happening on some very blessed rolled stats, it's going to have a weak spread on AC, HP, save DC, and saves. Yes, hypothetically it's powerful to combo Rage with a Monk, but the reality is that to do it you have to spread your points so widely it will inhibit your overall performance. I ran the numbers on a point buy calculator, and you can just barely squeak into STR 13, DEX 16, CON 12, INT 10, WIS 14, and CHA 10. That's 15 AC out the gate, the equivalent of Studded Leather, and only a +1 to HP (+2 if you decide to dump both INT and CHA to make CON 14, leaving AC unchanged). At which point you've essentially got 3 dead points in STR since you're not going to use it to attack, an unremarkable AC and HP, and you can't use the Weapon Masteries you should be getting from Barbarian since you'd be making DEX attacks with weapons.
There's some potential as a high-end build, but in early play you're locking your damage die into d6's with no Weapon Masteries and putting off the rather crucial Extra Attack for two levels to get Danger Sense, downsizing your Ki pool, and generally overspecializing in DEX- particularly since the combo of Danger Sense and Evasion won't start until you're level 9 overall. Your AC will be sub-par for an optimized Monk, the Ki pool will be small enough that you're burning through it fast throughout tier 1 and into tier 2, and while you'll be good at resisting a direct weapon attack, any elementally based attack is gonna leave a mark and a caster can kill your Rage with a Tasha's Hideous Laughter or Hold Person, targeting your also below par WIS save.
Honestly, I wouldn't call this a flaw, simply because as a tier 3 concept this does give a nice blend of features, but in typical tier 1 and 2 play you're having to pass up or compromise too many elements of both classes to call this build broken.
I was rereading the various unearthed arcana and I came across this rule that I think needs to be fixed, the mastery Nick says: When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action, instead of as a Bonus Action . You can still make this extra attack only once per turn. It specifically talks about that type of attack given by fighting with two weapons, and not the bonus attack given by martial arts: Martial Arts
Levels: 1st (see Monk Table for higher levels)
Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use your Unarmed Strike and Monk Weapons, which are the following:
• Simple Melee Weapons
• Martial Weapons that have the Light 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:
Unarmed Strike Bonus. You can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action.
Not going into conflict with the two rules, I deduce that a monk with a fighting style and talent for fighting with two weapons can make his attacks during his action plus the attack given by the mastery: Nick and during his bonus action launch a blow without 'weapons (kick, headbutt, knee, elbow.)
I think it needs to be fixed!
Sorry for the bad English ^_^
yeah, they can, and its probably intended. They specifically said nick applies only to light property weapons.
this means you can still make BA from other sources
like
Great weapon master
Polearm master
Martial arts.
various sub class abilities.
since barbarians, fighters, Rangers, paladins, warlocks, can do nick + polearm mastery BA tactics, why should monk not be able to?
that said, monk has no native masteries any more, so in order to do this, they need a feat.
they also have no access to fighting styles any more, so the attack will be weaker (no dex mod to damage), unless they multiclass
so its still not hugely effective for monks.
How would you be able to use Nick with PAM or GWM (if you’re not a Thri-Kreen)?
for gwm, the extra attack from landing a crit only requires a melee weapon.
"Cleave.Immediately after you score a Critical Hit with a Melee Weapon or reduce a creature to 0 Hit Points with one, you can make one attack with the same weapon as a Bonus Action.
In general though, right now, equipping weapons is about number of attacks made in attack action. you can equip or unequip one weapon
Equipping and Unequipping Weapons
You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack.
Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath, picking it up, or retrieving it from a container. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it.
so if you already have you weapons equipped
scimitar attack, sheathe after attack
shortsword attack, sheathe after attack
polearm, equip before attack
BA polar haft attack.
you can also
equip weapon throw weapon
equip weapon, throw weapon
equip polearm attack
fot a fighter they can do more since they have more attacks
It's definitely intended. The recent UA was blatantly meant to kiss up to power-gamers who are pissed off that the Monk isn't the equivalent of a shonen-anime protagonist, dominating other classes in offense, defense, and agility.
If you have any doubts about this, take a look at the Barbarian from the same UA, where their Strength requirement for attacks to benefit from their Rage bonus exists as normal...for weapon attacks. Unarmed Strikes are specifically excluded and allowed to benefit from Rage's damage boost even if they use Dexterity, a carve-out that exists solely to empower a specific multiclass in a way that makes playing a pure-classed Monk weaker than said multiclass.
they could do this easier in earlier iterations.
expert UA had no nick, but let everyone use nick as part of light weapon property.
UA6 monk was born with weapon mastery.
the latest UA reduced monks ability to do this.
Its also not equal to a whole attack, BA doesnt have a mod. so its not a huge boost, it allows +MA dice worth of damage a round.
for the cost of a feat, thats pretty much on par, or low. its 3.5-6.5 depending on level. (level 11 for 5.5)
xbow expert adds mod damage to offhand attacks, which is +5 by level 8
GWM adds extra attacks and +2-+6 depending on level
Pam adds d4+mod or 5.5-8.5 depending on level.
charger adds 4.5
grappler can give a lot of advantage, for generally a lot more damage, but its less straightforward
Monk doesn't get to use heavy weapons, so if they are looking for damage feats, they don't have much options, but thats more about feats than nick mastery being OP. I'll also point out monk is the only martial, phb half caster, warlock, or melee subclass one who needs a feat to benefit from nick. Sooo I don't think they were trying to make monks powergame nick in UA8
The equip and unequip language references the attack action as I recall. A bonus action attack is not the same as the attack action. One is an bonus action, the other an action.
The equip and unequip language references the attack action as I recall. A bonus action attack is not the same as the attack action. One is an bonus action, the other an action.
yes, I wasn't using the BA to equip/unequip.
light attacks with nick become part of the attack action
The equip and unequip language references the attack action as I recall. A bonus action attack is not the same as the attack action. One is an bonus action, the other an action.
yes, I wasn't using the BA to equip/unequip.
light attacks with nick become part of the attack action
Juggling weapons seems to work for one turn. On your next turn, you’ll start with your polearm. The wording of PAM in UA2 says that “Immediately after you take the attack action and attack”, you can make the BA Pole Strike attack; if you unequip your Polearm, you won’t have it available after the Action is complete, so whether you can use your BA will depend on your DM’s interpretation of “immediately after”. (You also no longer have it available for Reactive Strikes until your next turn.)
The equip and unequip language references the attack action as I recall. A bonus action attack is not the same as the attack action. One is an bonus action, the other an action.
yes, I wasn't using the BA to equip/unequip.
light attacks with nick become part of the attack action
Juggling weapons seems to work for one turn. On your next turn, you’ll start with your polearm. The wording of PAM in UA2 says that “Immediately after you take the attack action and attack”, you can make the BA Pole Strike attack; if you unequip your Polearm, you won’t have it available after the Action is complete, so whether you can use your BA will depend on your DM’s interpretation of “immediately after”. (You also no longer have it available for Reactive Strikes until your next turn.)
I would allow it as GM, I generally always allows BA to be used mid attack action if the option was available. Also it just seems overly pedantic at that point.
however some might allow it only every other turn, you can get back to two weapons end of turn.
Can still do it via thrown weapons. though, which is another reason I wouldn't be overly pedantic about the first case, they can already basically achieve the same thing via throwing.
one hand Polearm. (only needs two hands while attacking, which is why you can cast while holding a two handed weapon)
sentence has been changed to “This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it.
equip thrown weapon, throw
equip thrown weapon throw
two hand polearm attack BA attack.
if you end the turn without a polearm in your hand you cant use it for reactions, that is accurate
essentially nick+light attack is generally 2d6+MoD, or less if you have to use a dagger for whatever reason, so its not really OP. (1.5 light attacks = 1 GS attack) Some get special benfits due to a class feature or spell, but thats accounted for in the balance of the spell/feature.
I admit I’m not following all this on the bonus action attack (last I recall, Nick specifically says you’re taking the Light attack as a part of the Attack Action and thus using it up for the turn), but regarding weapon juggling in general my stance as someone who does prefer to leaven with a touch of realism on repeatable combos is that if you have to use a flow chart to explain how your attack and sheathe/unsheathe goes, it’s too complicated to do in combat. Combining Nick with bonus action features in general is the intended function, but the kind of weapon juggling involved in somehow consistently transitioning between holding a polearm and dual wielding another pair of weapons in the space of six seconds just strains my credulity too much. I’m not saying it’s objectively wrong, just one of those fuzzy areas of rule interactions that can be legitimately ruled either way.
I admit I’m not following all this on the bonus action attack (last I recall, Nick specifically says you’re taking the Light attack as a part of the Attack Action and thus using it up for the turn), but regarding weapon juggling in general my stance as someone who does prefer to leaven with a touch of realism on repeatable combos is that if you have to use a flow chart to explain how your attack and sheathe/unsheathe goes, it’s too complicated to do in combat. Combining Nick with bonus action features in general is the intended function, but the kind of weapon juggling involved in somehow consistently transitioning between holding a polearm and dual wielding another pair of weapons in the space of six seconds just strains my credulity too much. I’m not saying it’s objectively wrong, just one of those fuzzy areas of rule interactions that can be legitimately ruled either way.
I also rather struggle to think of any fantasy archetype that features repeatedly drawing and sheathing the same three weapons throughout combat.
I admit I’m not following all this on the bonus action attack (last I recall, Nick specifically says you’re taking the Light attack as a part of the Attack Action and thus using it up for the turn), but regarding weapon juggling in general my stance as someone who does prefer to leaven with a touch of realism on repeatable combos is that if you have to use a flow chart to explain how your attack and sheathe/unsheathe goes, it’s too complicated to do in combat. Combining Nick with bonus action features in general is the intended function, but the kind of weapon juggling involved in somehow consistently transitioning between holding a polearm and dual wielding another pair of weapons in the space of six seconds just strains my credulity too much. I’m not saying it’s objectively wrong, just one of those fuzzy areas of rule interactions that can be legitimately ruled either way.
I also rather struggle to think of any fantasy archetype that features repeatedly drawing and sheathing the same three weapons throughout combat.
Maybe one or two RWBY characters. I remember when a friend tried to homebrew rules to use the 5e chassis to run campaigns in the RWBY setting; had some good times, but ultimately the powers and moves of the setting were a bit too soft to mesh easily with D&D.
I admit I’m not following all this on the bonus action attack (last I recall, Nick specifically says you’re taking the Light attack as a part of the Attack Action and thus using it up for the turn), but regarding weapon juggling in general my stance as someone who does prefer to leaven with a touch of realism on repeatable combos is that if you have to use a flow chart to explain how your attack and sheathe/unsheathe goes, it’s too complicated to do in combat. Combining Nick with bonus action features in general is the intended function, but the kind of weapon juggling involved in somehow consistently transitioning between holding a polearm and dual wielding another pair of weapons in the space of six seconds just strains my credulity too much. I’m not saying it’s objectively wrong, just one of those fuzzy areas of rule interactions that can be legitimately ruled either way.
I also rather struggle to think of any fantasy archetype that features repeatedly drawing and sheathing the same three weapons throughout combat.
its not just sheathing weapons, its throwing them, dropping them, picking them up etc. All now use the same mechanic.
And its really common in combat to use multiple weapons. Samurais had katanas, daggers, bows, and shortswords. Viking had spears, shields, and daggers. Romans used pilums scutum and gladius. The idea that combatants didnt switch weapons in combat doesnt hold up to actual facts. Most weapons have optimal uses and ranges which constantly changes in battle.
I admit I’m not following all this on the bonus action attack (last I recall, Nick specifically says you’re taking the Light attack as a part of the Attack Action and thus using it up for the turn), but regarding weapon juggling in general my stance as someone who does prefer to leaven with a touch of realism on repeatable combos is that if you have to use a flow chart to explain how your attack and sheathe/unsheathe goes, it’s too complicated to do in combat. Combining Nick with bonus action features in general is the intended function, but the kind of weapon juggling involved in somehow consistently transitioning between holding a polearm and dual wielding another pair of weapons in the space of six seconds just strains my credulity too much. I’m not saying it’s objectively wrong, just one of those fuzzy areas of rule interactions that can be legitimately ruled either way.
the flow chart is just because people don't know the rules yet, and want to show its legit.
once you ve run it a few times its simply. 1 swap(equip+unequip) per 2 attack action attacks.
Or one equipment action per attack.
the resistance has little to do with the rule, and more to do with whether you believe players should use multiple weapons
Oh, and if you think a Barbarian/Monk multiclass is actually inferior to a pure-classed Monk...
Getting Rage damage on Unarmed Strikes even with DEX is a greater damage increase than each step of the Martial Arts die and gives greater benefit to the Monk with their bonus-action attacks than it does for a pure Barbarian.
Deflect Attacks has obvious synergy with Rage reducing bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage.
Evasion has obvious synergy with Danger Sense.
A Barbarian/Monk can use the Barbarian's Unarmored Defense for DEX/CON instead of DEX/WIS, as Stunning Strike doing damage on a successful save actually provides a benefit to low-WIS Monk bu.ilds.
Sure there's some synergy here (assuming your DM lets the "Rage damage applies to Dex-based unarmed strikes" reading fly), but as with all multiclasses there are tradeoffs.
Needing a minimum of 13 Str, Dex and Wis means you have fewer points to work with than straight-classed monks. Notably, you'll either need to start with 12 Con/16 Wis or 14 Con/14 Wis to keep your starting Dex at 16-17 and Str at 13, even if you dump Int and Cha; neither are ideal for a frontliner with d8 HD for most of their levels.
Even a single Barbarian dip here is delaying your damage progression due to putting off spikes like Extra Attack and Heightened Discipline, but you appear to want more than 1 Barbarian Level because you mentioned Danger Sense, so that's at least two. Also, Reckless Attack becomes a dead feature even if you rule that Rage works with Dex-based attacks, because RA explicitly requires strength. So by the time your Evasion + Danger Sense combo comes online, the straight-classed Monk has an entire ASI on you, 2 discipline per SR, and is about to get their 5th attack and the ability to turn off Charmed/Frightened/Poisoned conditions.
Sure you can access the Barbarian's Unarmored Defense too, but again, you still need a minimum of 13 Wis, so that's actually worse. At least with the Monk's calculation you can get away with 12 Con and maybe the Tough feat, and/or be a Tortle or Thri-kreen or something.
And all of that is without taking subclass features into account. At 11th level, I'd much rather be a Mercy Monk 11 with Flurry of Healing and Harm than a Barb 2/Monk 9. And I'd definitely rather be a Monk 12 than a Barb 2/Monk 10. So it's not as straightforward as declaring that Barb 2/Monk X is strictly better than Monk X+2.
I was rereading the various unearthed arcana and I came across this rule that I think needs to be fixed, the mastery Nick says: When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action, instead of as a Bonus Action . You can still make this extra attack only once per turn. It specifically talks about that type of attack given by fighting with two weapons, and not the bonus attack given by martial arts: Martial Arts Levels: 1st (see Monk Table for higher levels) Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use your Unarmed Strike and Monk Weapons, which are the following: • Simple Melee Weapons • Martial Weapons that have the Light 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: Unarmed Strike Bonus. You can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action. Not going into conflict with the two rules, I deduce that a monk with a fighting style and talent for fighting with two weapons can make his attacks during his action plus the attack given by the mastery: Nick and during his bonus action launch a blow without 'weapons (kick, headbutt, knee, elbow.) I think it needs to be fixed!Sorry for the bad English ^_^yeah, they can, and its probably intended. They specifically said nick applies only to light property weapons.
this means you can still make BA from other sources
like
Great weapon master
Polearm master
Martial arts.
various sub class abilities.
since barbarians, fighters, Rangers, paladins, warlocks, can do nick + polearm mastery BA tactics, why should monk not be able to?
that said, monk has no native masteries any more, so in order to do this, they need a feat.
they also have no access to fighting styles any more, so the attack will be weaker (no dex mod to damage), unless they multiclass
so its still not hugely effective for monks.
How would you be able to use Nick with PAM or GWM (if you’re not a Thri-Kreen)?
This makes no sense; Monks no longer have Weapon Masteries so they can't get Nick without either multi-classing or taking a feat. If they go the easier feat route, they still won't have the two-weapon fighting fighting style so the extra attack won't be adding any modifier.
So I'm not sure how the new UA is appealing to power-gaming there.
If you're referring to the wording "When you make an attack with a weapon using Strength or an Unarmed Strike" then I'm not so sure "Strength weapon attack or any type of unarmed strike" is the intention there; even if it was it's a clunky way to word it.
Barbarian has always needed to use Strength to benefit from Rage, I don't see that changing, and I expect a lot of people have queried the wording so I'd expect that to be fixed.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Except Unarmed Strikes always use STR unless a class feature is modifying them, whereas finesse weapons inherently have the option to use DEX. Saying “Unarmed Strikes that use STR” is redundant unless someone decides to attempt a Monk/Barbarian hybrid; a quite uncommon and generally suboptimal build, particularly since you’d need 13 in both DEX and STR to take both, which will seriously hurt your point spread as a Monk and ultimately be the opposite of a power-gaming optimized build.
They've been adding "or an Unarmed Strike" onto rules throughout the playtests, seemingly because they want to get rid of the concept of "a melee weapon attack without using a weapon" which is how unarmed strikes basically existed in the past.
I'm not at all convinced that they've intentionally separated it though; it's just as possible they slapped it in and didn't think too hard about it. Wouldn't be the first time we've got shoddy wording in a UA, they've literally rolled back entire classes already because of things they clearly didn't proof read well enough before previewing them.
Either way it's wildly premature to ascribe it to some kind of malicious desire to ruin the game in favour of appeasing power-gaming multi-classers; whether it was unintended and gets fixed, or intended and gets rolled back due to feedback, either way I very much doubt it's going to stick as it makes no sense as a change and only makes the rule more easily misunderstood.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You are right that Barbarian 1 / Monk 1 is an offensive powerhouse capable of dealing 2*(3+2+1d6) +2+1d6 = 22.5 damage in tier 1. And it should be fun to roleplay as the angry guy in anger management classes. But it does come at significant cost.
With 16 STR as the primary ability and dumping INT and CHA, that leaves a balanced 14 among DEX, CON, and WIS. The stats could be tweaked to provide a 16 in a secondary stat. That would be a maximum 15 AC, which won't be raised until the 3rd ASI (likely at level 14). And that AC can't be improved with magic armors or shields. Expect to get hit a lot, especially by multi-attack. Rage + Deflect Attack offsets this a bit. (Note: the Deflect Attack is applied before the Rage resistance.)
Combined with a Monk subclass that allows skirmishing, it should be interesting. But not necessarily overpowered.
You'd still need 13 WIS in addition to 13 STR and 13 DEX to dip into Barb, so unless this hypothetical build is happening on some very blessed rolled stats, it's going to have a weak spread on AC, HP, save DC, and saves. Yes, hypothetically it's powerful to combo Rage with a Monk, but the reality is that to do it you have to spread your points so widely it will inhibit your overall performance. I ran the numbers on a point buy calculator, and you can just barely squeak into STR 13, DEX 16, CON 12, INT 10, WIS 14, and CHA 10. That's 15 AC out the gate, the equivalent of Studded Leather, and only a +1 to HP (+2 if you decide to dump both INT and CHA to make CON 14, leaving AC unchanged). At which point you've essentially got 3 dead points in STR since you're not going to use it to attack, an unremarkable AC and HP, and you can't use the Weapon Masteries you should be getting from Barbarian since you'd be making DEX attacks with weapons.
There's some potential as a high-end build, but in early play you're locking your damage die into d6's with no Weapon Masteries and putting off the rather crucial Extra Attack for two levels to get Danger Sense, downsizing your Ki pool, and generally overspecializing in DEX- particularly since the combo of Danger Sense and Evasion won't start until you're level 9 overall. Your AC will be sub-par for an optimized Monk, the Ki pool will be small enough that you're burning through it fast throughout tier 1 and into tier 2, and while you'll be good at resisting a direct weapon attack, any elementally based attack is gonna leave a mark and a caster can kill your Rage with a Tasha's Hideous Laughter or Hold Person, targeting your also below par WIS save.
Honestly, I wouldn't call this a flaw, simply because as a tier 3 concept this does give a nice blend of features, but in typical tier 1 and 2 play you're having to pass up or compromise too many elements of both classes to call this build broken.
for gwm, the extra attack from landing a crit only requires a melee weapon.
In general though, right now, equipping weapons is about number of attacks made in attack action. you can equip or unequip one weapon
so if you already have you weapons equipped
scimitar attack, sheathe after attack
shortsword attack, sheathe after attack
polearm, equip before attack
BA polar haft attack.
you can also
equip weapon throw weapon
equip weapon, throw weapon
equip polearm attack
fot a fighter they can do more since they have more attacks
they could do this easier in earlier iterations.
expert UA had no nick, but let everyone use nick as part of light weapon property.
UA6 monk was born with weapon mastery.
the latest UA reduced monks ability to do this.
Its also not equal to a whole attack, BA doesnt have a mod. so its not a huge boost, it allows +MA dice worth of damage a round.
for the cost of a feat, thats pretty much on par, or low. its 3.5-6.5 depending on level. (level 11 for 5.5)
xbow expert adds mod damage to offhand attacks, which is +5 by level 8
GWM adds extra attacks and +2-+6 depending on level
Pam adds d4+mod or 5.5-8.5 depending on level.
charger adds 4.5
grappler can give a lot of advantage, for generally a lot more damage, but its less straightforward
Monk doesn't get to use heavy weapons, so if they are looking for damage feats, they don't have much options, but thats more about feats than nick mastery being OP. I'll also point out monk is the only martial, phb half caster, warlock, or melee subclass one who needs a feat to benefit from nick. Sooo I don't think they were trying to make monks powergame nick in UA8
The equip and unequip language references the attack action as I recall. A bonus action attack is not the same as the attack action. One is an bonus action, the other an action.
yes, I wasn't using the BA to equip/unequip.
light attacks with nick become part of the attack action
Juggling weapons seems to work for one turn. On your next turn, you’ll start with your polearm. The wording of PAM in UA2 says that “Immediately after you take the attack action and attack”, you can make the BA Pole Strike attack; if you unequip your Polearm, you won’t have it available after the Action is complete, so whether you can use your BA will depend on your DM’s interpretation of “immediately after”. (You also no longer have it available for Reactive Strikes until your next turn.)
I would allow it as GM, I generally always allows BA to be used mid attack action if the option was available. Also it just seems overly pedantic at that point.
however some might allow it only every other turn, you can get back to two weapons end of turn.
Can still do it via thrown weapons. though, which is another reason I wouldn't be overly pedantic about the first case, they can already basically achieve the same thing via throwing.
one hand Polearm. (only needs two hands while attacking, which is why you can cast while holding a two handed weapon)
equip thrown weapon, throw
equip thrown weapon throw
two hand polearm attack BA attack.
if you end the turn without a polearm in your hand you cant use it for reactions, that is accurate
essentially nick+light attack is generally 2d6+MoD, or less if you have to use a dagger for whatever reason, so its not really OP. (1.5 light attacks = 1 GS attack) Some get special benfits due to a class feature or spell, but thats accounted for in the balance of the spell/feature.
I admit I’m not following all this on the bonus action attack (last I recall, Nick specifically says you’re taking the Light attack as a part of the Attack Action and thus using it up for the turn), but regarding weapon juggling in general my stance as someone who does prefer to leaven with a touch of realism on repeatable combos is that if you have to use a flow chart to explain how your attack and sheathe/unsheathe goes, it’s too complicated to do in combat. Combining Nick with bonus action features in general is the intended function, but the kind of weapon juggling involved in somehow consistently transitioning between holding a polearm and dual wielding another pair of weapons in the space of six seconds just strains my credulity too much. I’m not saying it’s objectively wrong, just one of those fuzzy areas of rule interactions that can be legitimately ruled either way.
I also rather struggle to think of any fantasy archetype that features repeatedly drawing and sheathing the same three weapons throughout combat.
Maybe one or two RWBY characters. I remember when a friend tried to homebrew rules to use the 5e chassis to run campaigns in the RWBY setting; had some good times, but ultimately the powers and moves of the setting were a bit too soft to mesh easily with D&D.
its not just sheathing weapons, its throwing them, dropping them, picking them up etc. All now use the same mechanic.
And its really common in combat to use multiple weapons. Samurais had katanas, daggers, bows, and shortswords. Viking had spears, shields, and daggers. Romans used pilums scutum and gladius. The idea that combatants didnt switch weapons in combat doesnt hold up to actual facts. Most weapons have optimal uses and ranges which constantly changes in battle.
the flow chart is just because people don't know the rules yet, and want to show its legit.
once you ve run it a few times its simply. 1 swap(equip+unequip) per 2 attack action attacks.
Or one equipment action per attack.
the resistance has little to do with the rule, and more to do with whether you believe players should use multiple weapons
Sure there's some synergy here (assuming your DM lets the "Rage damage applies to Dex-based unarmed strikes" reading fly), but as with all multiclasses there are tradeoffs.
And all of that is without taking subclass features into account. At 11th level, I'd much rather be a Mercy Monk 11 with Flurry of Healing and Harm than a Barb 2/Monk 9. And I'd definitely rather be a Monk 12 than a Barb 2/Monk 10. So it's not as straightforward as declaring that Barb 2/Monk X is strictly better than Monk X+2.