D&D 5E Are monks proficient in Unarmed Strikes?

[Z. H. Darkstar]

Huh. I specifically do want Sneak Attack to work with unarmed strikes. I just have a picture in my head of the good guys sneaking up behind the guard and putting him in a sleeper hold and equate it to unarmed sneak attack. *shrug*

Maybe there should be a proficiency for "unarmed strike as weapons" to allow some folks (Monk, some kinds of Rogue) to stack.

The only way that you'll see this in an official capacity is if WotC decides to bring back multiclass-specific feats, like Ascetic Rogue. If your DM allows for homebrew, then here's what I envision to be the 5e version of that feat.

Ascetic Rogue
Requires: Sneak Attack, Martial Arts
1. Increase your Dexterity or Wisdom by 1, to a maximum of 20.
2. You may treat your monk weapons, including unarmed strikes, as having the finesse property only for the purposes of determining use of Sneak Attack.

 

[pukunui]

Huh. I specifically do want Sneak Attack to work with unarmed strikes. I just have a picture in my head of the good guys sneaking up behind the guard and putting him in a sleeper hold and equate it to unarmed sneak attack. *shrug*

Maybe there should be a proficiency for "unarmed strike as weapons" to allow some folks (Monk, some kinds of Rogue) to stack.

Well, to be honest, sneak attack didn't work with unarmed strikes even before the errata. That's because sneak attack specifically states it can only be used with finesse weapons, and unarmed strikes weren't classed as finesse-able even when they were weapons.

 

[Aribar]

This is definitely one of the more confusing rulings in a game filled with awkward natural language, and one of the reasons why I've stopped paying attention to the Sage articles. It's a punch; unless you take like a dozen levels as a Monk, it won't even be as good as a longsword. In a game with wizards, clerics, druids, and sharpshooter fighters among other things, I think doing neat things with martial arts should be at the bottom of the list.

 

[Mercule]

Well, to be honest, sneak attack didn't work with unarmed strikes even before the errata. That's because sneak attack specifically states it can only be used with finesse weapons, and unarmed strikes weren't classed as finesse-able even when they were weapons.

The errata is beside the point, really. I just think it's silly to have no mechanism for using unarmed strikes with Sneak Attack. I guess my commentary on the errata is that 5E started with a bad restriction and the errata his moved it the wrong direction.

I'm fine with vanilla unarmed strikes being "non-weapons". There should be some sort of feat or other designation for exceptional unarmed fighting ability. What makes the most sense is that most people aren't actually proficient with unarmed attacks. That said, I can also see a middle ground of proficient without turning into a krav maga black belt. Monks definitely deserve a gold star next to their unarmed strike of "Counts as a light, finesse weapon at the player's option. In any round used as a weapon, the character is not considered to have a free hand for spell-casting and other purposes. Always counts as a weapon if ki-based attacks are used in a round."

You could create a feat to add the same benefit to non-monk characters, but it's somewhat anemic on its own and I'm not sure what other benefits it'd give. Maybe just grant it to Monk and anyone who wants to do ninja sleeper holds can try to talk their GM into allowing multi-classing.

 

[Azurewraith]

The errata is beside the point, really. I just think it's silly to have no mechanism for using unarmed strikes with Sneak Attack. I guess my commentary on the errata is that 5E started with a bad restriction and the errata his moved it the wrong direction.

I'm fine with vanilla unarmed strikes being "non-weapons". There should be some sort of feat or other designation for exceptional unarmed fighting ability. What makes the most sense is that most people aren't actually proficient with unarmed attacks. That said, I can also see a middle ground of proficient without turning into a krav maga black belt. Monks definitely deserve a gold star next to their unarmed strike of "Counts as a light, finesse weapon at the player's option. In any round used as a weapon, the character is not considered to have a free hand for spell-casting and other purposes. Always counts as a weapon if ki-based attacks are used in a round."

You could create a feat to add the same benefit to non-monk characters, but it's somewhat anemic on its own and I'm not sure what other benefits it'd give. Maybe just grant it to Monk and anyone who wants to do ninja sleeper holds can try to talk their GM into allowing multi-classing.

Sorry but the krav maga comment just has me imagining a monk punting a dragon in the nads, a tear springing to the dragons eye as he collapses on top of the monk.

 

[Mercule]

Sorry but the krav maga comment just has me imagining a monk punting a dragon in the nads, a tear springing to the dragons eye as he collapses on top of the monk.

Exactly! See how WotC ruins our fun?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't see what's OP about monks getting sneak attack damage. Monks get their damage from multiple attacks (flurries), rogues get their damage from sneak attack, and if the two stack, the damage gap isn't really that significant (at low levels, the monk/rogue would be dealing 11 (3d4+1d6) with an Attack action; a rogue would be dealing 7 (1d8+1d6), but at high levels, that gap disappears). It's definitely not more egregious than the Monk/Fighter who can Action Surge for 6 attacks, so I don't really see what the big deal is? Could be missing something.

 

[Illithidbix]

A number of Monk Weapons are finesse weapons anyway (dagger, dart and short sword), so already qualify for Sneak Attack.

And Sneak Attack can only be applied once per turn. Anyhow.
(Extra points if you find ways to use Sneak Attack from your Reaction on another creature's turn... like the Way of the Shadows Opportunist feature)

And so it's not a huge change.
Allowing it with Unarmed attacks as well as just Action attacks makes it a tad more reliable to pull off. - Which might count for a lot for a Rogue who has dipped into a few levels of Monk rather than a Monk who has a few levels of Rogue.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

I will never understand why fists are non weapons. My guess is to prevent sneak attack but would that really be so broken? To stop a monk trying to silver his fists?(in hospital no access to books for a week please correct me) isn't there a clause that says something to the effect of it needs to be made of metal.

Sorry. Just checked and you can silver any weapon.

I'm really not sure why unarmed strikes aren't weapons, really. After all, it's not like your hands and feet are weapons all the time. Only when you hit people with them.

The rest of the time, you'd be doing more damage to yourself than your enemies to attempt a strike with properly preparing yourself. Using your foot to kick something without angling it just the right way would break the bones inside.

 

[Lanliss]

Sorry. Just checked and you can silver any weapon.

I'm really not sure why unarmed strikes aren't weapons, really. After all, it's not like your hands and feet are weapons all the time. Only when you hit people with them.

The rest of the time, you'd be doing more damage to yourself than your enemies to attempt a strike with properly preparing yourself. Using your foot to kick something without angling it just the right way would break the bones inside.

No offense, but I think a Master of martial arts, who has been training for their entire life in unarmed combat, might know how to kick without breaking their foot (except on a critical failure of course). Or they just have bones made of iron at this point.