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

[i_dont_meta]

In another thread I also found this to be ridiculous. You specifically get Longsword prof! I homebrewed a Versatile Fighting Style that allows you to add either finesse or heavy when wielding a versatile weapon 2-handed. Instantly makes a very fun Fighter/Rogue. Haven't had a real good chance to playtest it but my group all feels it to be balanced well on paper.

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

 

[Todd Roybark]

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.

Even a swashbuckler rogue has to hit. Taking 5 levels of Monk for Extra Attack means less Sneak A

Fun fact: Most people in history died of arrow wounds in medieval armed conflicts, often not, because the shot was lethal, but because of wound infection afterward.

Richard the Lionhearted, says hello. (this why kings stay away from the front lines).

Redirect Notice

 

[Xeviat]

Rogue levels will slow monks gaining extra attack, and slow ki progression. The difference between two attacks (two weapon fighting or martial arts) vs 3 attacks isn't too terribly much for chance to sneak attack (it goes like 65% to 87.5% to 90 something percent) that a rogue having three attack chances isn't that big of a deal to me.

Also, since monks can use shortswords as Monk weapons, and it takes till level 11 for the Monk's martial arts to be 1d8, I don't see a problem.

 

[Oofta]

We allow sneak attack with any weapon, which would include monk's unarmed strike because Chuck Norris's boots should be registered as lethal weapons.

 

[Xeviat]

We allow sneak attack with any weapon, which would include monk's unarmed strike because Chuck Norris's boots should be registered as lethal weapons.

Seriously. With how good twin shortswords or throwing daggers is for rogues, arguing about not allowing other weapons is missing the point.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

The only issue is that you can spend Ki to get two extra attacks, which means you have a third chance to deal sneak attack damage on top of the normal two. That's really pretty minor, and you can only do it if you have Ki to spend and Sneak Attack damage to benefit from.

However... I'm already of the opinion that Monk Martial Arts or Flurry of Blows should always be made with a Monk weapon (if you have one) and then if your Monk damage die is larger you can use that instead. Basically, I already think a Monk with a +1 short sword should benefit from the +1 when spending a Ki point to get two bonus attacks. I think it's that's already needlessly fiddly and mostly less fun for the player to deny the Monk the benefits of their magical weapons.

Bottom line is that I struggle to find it broken compared to a normal Rogue or Monk, let alone something like a Warlock with EB+AB+Hex, or a Bladesinger with Shadow Blade.

 

[neogod22]

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.

In the 1st printing of the PHB, unarmed strike was a simple weaon attack. I'm not sure why they took that out in subsequent printings. But to address the issue, because of the way multi-classing works, i don't are a problem with being able to use sneak attack with unarmed strikes, because you can only use it once per turn anyway. Maybe the combination of shadow monk rogues might be problematic, but i don't really see it as a problem because, monks on their own are weak, and don't scale well when leveling up.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Give Monks any advantage you can reasonably give them, because they need it. So yes, let sneak attack stack with it.

 

[neogod22]

Wow I can't believe the app destroyed my pic like that. But it does say unarmed strike at the bottom of simple melee weapons. You can see the dashes for gold cost, range and special properties. Like i said, I'm not sure why they took it out of the newer printings, but it used to be there.

 

[Maxperson]

You haven't really arrived as a rogue until you can sneak attack with a ballista.