D&D 5E Yes, I know what RAW says, but, Effects of allowing Sneak Attack on Monk attacks.

[Hussar]

Like the title says, I know that by RAW, you aren't supposed to allow monk unarmed strikes to work with rogue sneak attacks. OTOH, that seems needlessly fiddly and a huge PITA. Is there any really serious reasons for not allowing it? I can't see any huge problems.

 

[Li Shenron]

Is it because unarmed strikes are not a weapon and sneak attacks require finess/ranged weapons?

I think normally unarmed strikes are prevented to benefit from abilities that work on weapons mainly because the Monk gets additional unarmed strikes during the turn even beyond Extra Attack. But Sneak Attack is anyway limited to once per turn, so the Monk's Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows won't anyway get additional Sneak Attack bonuses.

If that's how it works, I don't see a serious reason not to allow it. The only benefit is that if the Monk/Rogue first misses with the weapons attacks, she still has a chance for Sneak Attack damage with the extra unarmed strikes, and I don't think it's that huge benefit.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

The game is set up to give Rogues limited access to extra attacks, thus lowering their chance of landing their sneak attack in a given round. Monks get a lot of attacks in at a low level, with the limitation being that early on they are fairly weak attacks. It is a bit of a power combo for a Rogue to be able to make a flurry of potentially sneak attacking blows. Other 2 level dips do not get you access to a third attack a couple times per rest, and progressively more often with each monk level.

But given how many redundant features there are between the two classes I doubt calling a Monk's fists finesse weapons would really lead to a bunch of somehow overpowered Rogue/Monks. Really I'm not so sure just allowing sneak attack with any weapon attack would be a serious problem. The finesse rule seems to support Rogues using weapons thematic to them more than it does any actual power constraint.

 

[TheSword]

In short @Hussar there is no problem, and no downside to changing it.

Monks do get the opportunity to have a third attack but very limited times as opposed to the two weapon rogue attacking twice most rounds. If flurry keyed off something other than a bonus action it could be a problem in opening up too many other rogue action economy options but as it doesn’t...

With all these things my approach is there a way of breaking the game by letting stuff slip. Even if there is, as long as the player doesn’t use it to break the game then I’m fine.

 

[Coroc]

In short @Hussar there is no problem, and no downside to changing it.

Monks do get the opportunity to have a third attack but very limited times as opposed to the two weapon rogue attacking twice most rounds. If flurry keyed off something other than a bonus action it could be a problem in opening up too many other rogue action economy options but as it doesn’t...

With all these things my approach is there a way of breaking the game by letting stuff slip. Even if there is, as long as the player doesn’t use it to break the game then I’m fine.

Well it does start to be a problem if you got a rogue subclass like swashbuckler, who can basically sneak attack (once) every time he is alone with an opponent. Then it might become a bit to powerful. Other than that I see no real big problem, especially since you have to MC which does lower your monk damage output at the other end.

 

[Hussar]

Is it because unarmed strikes are not a weapon and sneak attacks require finess/ranged weapons?

I think normally unarmed strikes are prevented to benefit from abilities that work on weapons mainly because the Monk gets additional unarmed strikes during the turn even beyond Extra Attack. But Sneak Attack is anyway limited to once per turn, so the Monk's Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows won't anyway get additional Sneak Attack bonuses.

If that's how it works, I don't see a serious reason not to allow it. The only benefit is that if the Monk/Rogue first misses with the weapons attacks, she still has a chance for Sneak Attack damage with the extra unarmed strikes, and I don't think it's that huge benefit.

That's pretty much how I'm interpreting it.

 

[Al2O3]

The main "problem" I would expect is that you might suddenly have rogues using melee weapons other than rapiers, shortswords, daggers or other weapons typically associated with swashbuckling, musketeers or similar inspirations for the rogue class.

Previous replies have pointed out the possible problems with allowing sneak attack on unarmed strike and flurry of blows. Other than that, I see counting monk weapons as finesse for sneak attack as similar to allowing druids to use metal armour: breaking stereotypes encouraged by the rules, but not breaking the game.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, see, I've never quite understood why it's okay for rogues to sneak attack with a bow - not exactly a swashbuckling weapon (although it does fit with more scouty type rogues) - but not a club. I mean, of all the weapons that you SHOULD be able to sneak attack with, you'd think a club would fit the bill. But, nope.

So, yeah, I see where you're going with this, but, meh, I'm not going to get too fussed about it.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Yeah, see, I've never quite understood why it's okay for rogues to sneak attack with a bow - not exactly a swashbuckling weapon (although it does fit with more scouty type rogues) - but not a club. I mean, of all the weapons that you SHOULD be able to sneak attack with, you'd think a club would fit the bill. But, nope.

So, yeah, I see where you're going with this, but, meh, I'm not going to get too fussed about it.

The truly ridiculous thing is that they can't sneak attack with a longsword, yet Rogues specifically get longsword proficiency.

 

[Flamestrike]

The truly ridiculous thing is that they can't sneak attack with a longsword, yet Rogues specifically get longsword proficiency.

Bronn of the Blackwater dislikes this.