Monks get a bonus unarmed attack when using a monk weapon. I wanted to confirm that they get the bonus unarmed attack when they use a versatile weapon with both hands, like a spear or a quarterstaff.
Thanks!
That's correct. They get the bonus attack while wielding their weapons in the two-handed versatile stance.
My wood elf monk uses Unicorn Style Kung-Fu. His spear is the horn, followed up with a lot of kicking.
Luke-Lightning wrote:
As above. And it's a Monk for frak's sakes. Their whole body is a weapon. I'm sure they could head butt you and crack your skull if they wanted to, lol.
KarlB wrote:
Besides, nothing says you still have to be holding onto the quarterstaff and spear with both hands when taking the bonus action unarmed strike. Whack with both hands, hold the quarterstaf with one, and punch away. This notion of not being able to hold a two-handed or versatile weapon with one hand when not attacking just boggles my mind. This is supposed to be seamless, folks. Stop trying to make it harder than it needs to be. 
Nothing says you can't be up in the air on the spear/staff butt and kicking someone in the face. ;)
Kalani wrote:
Rathyr wrote:
Even if it wasn't intended, I can't help but feel like it really doesn't have any interpretation besides dismissive and insulting (to only me, as I was the only one discussing it with you on the other thread). Cross thread jabs are a bit of a sore issues for myself, as it strikes me as people that are unwilling to let go of a conversation and are looking to get some weak shots in without the other party even being present. Heck, if this wasn't a Monk thread (my favourite class) I wouldn't have even checked in.
Anyways, I'll take your explanation at face value. As suprising as you may find it, I actually agree the with majority of your posts. Keep proning those Tarrasque (with Yakkity Sax playing in the background, if some are to be believed). I am very much a Rule of Cool player at the table, but behind that is a strong understanding of what the actual RAW is and isn't.
Rathyr wrote:
Rathyr wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Okay, sounds like the current discussion has boiled down to "Ask your DM. Expect table variation."
(A) If the DM allows unarmed strikes with feet / other body parts, there is no issue with wielding a versatile weapon (quarterstaff) in two hands and still benefiting from the additional unarmed strike attacks.
(B) If the DM requires a free hand for unarmed strikes, a versitile weapon (quarterstaff) should be wielded in one hand on the same turn (action? - tricky) that unarmed attacks are made.
The discussion gets even trickier with the 3rd level feature of deflecting missiles, which requires a free hand. Let's say that my 3rd level monk attacks with a quarterstaff and uses a ki point to Dodge. Does the ability to deflect missiles depend on whether I rolled d6 or d8 for damage? Can I release the end of my quarterstaff for free at the end of my attack? If so, how does that reasoning impact the prior discussion? If not, how long do I have to keep holding on with two hands?
Uthrac wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
It seems to me that Unarmed Strike is not defined in the book at all. So, a few things:
1 - No where is it stated in the PHB that an Unarmed attack is with your fists. In fact, Unarmed Striek isn't defined period, near as I can tell. So logically, it must be any attack that doesn't use any kind of weapon.
2 - Monks are trained to fight with certain weapons in their martial arts.
So, first, an unarmed strike, no matter what class, could be a kick, a punch, a headbutt, or anything that uses your body and not a weapon. Say, if you are a Fighter wielding a longsword, you could attempt to kick an opponent. This would be an unarmed strike, as you are not attacking with the weapon in your hand but rather your "unarmed" feet. The fact that you hold a sword doesn't change the fact you are attacking with a weaponless foot.
A Monk who gets to make an additional Unarmed Strike as a bonus action could hold a staff two handed and kick with his feet. I don't see how this isn't RAW, as the PHB doesn't define Unarmed Strike and it would logically follow that it simply is a weaponless attack.
Rathyr wrote:
From PH, page 78: Martial Arts
"You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield:"
the third bullet point under this reads:
"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."
The first sentence states that you gain the benefits of Martial Arts while you are wielding only monk weapons. Weapons, plural. As in more than one. The benefit gained is the ability to make an unarmed attack as a bonus action. If you are wielding more than one monk weapon, then you have no free hand for this attack, and therefore must make the attack with something other than your hand.
This is quite clear to me. Can any one explain how I am wrong in this specific instance?
jonathonhawke wrote:
Of course you get your martial arts attacks when wielding a quarterstaff two-handed. Even if you rule that an unarmed strike requires a free hand, what stops you from being able to switch from two-handed to one-handed after making the attack? Let's say I'm a Fighter wielding a longsword that has 4 attacks. I can make my first attack two-handed, move 10 feet attack one-handed, move 5 feet attack two-handed, move 10 feet and finish it up with a one-handed attack. Just like as a Monk I can attack with the quarterstaff two-handed, the wield it one handed and use my unarmed strike, and once finished with the unarmed strike, go back to wielding the quarterstaff two-handed. If I was at a table where a DM didn't allow me to do this, I would play a different class because he obviously has something against monks.
reddaemon wrote:
Kalani wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Yeah, but the requirement would be to carry a pair of magical weapons in either case so it is a wash. Mechanically monks are better off not using two weapons, so offering them a handwave when they do isn;t really an issue anywhere but AL.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
I'm not sure what you're asking. Weapons is plural. It just doesn't refer to the act of holding two items in your hands as used in the quoted passage. It refers to a broad class of items which could potentially be used by a monk as a sort of favored class of implements of destruction.
You asked how you could be in error. I pointed out that you were confusing the "s" on weapons as being explicit to the moment of the attack, when it has nothing to do with that.
This specific part of what you said:
I didn't ask how I could be wrong. I asked how I am wrong. You say that I'm confusing the fact that the term "wielding monk weapons" with the concept of a monk wielding more than one monk weapon. (If I understand you correctly)
(I haven't seen anyone ask your about your credentials as an expert in the English language...)
Rathyr wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
obsid wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Opieus wrote:
Rathyr wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Rathyr wrote:
Providing a similar argument is not always a strawman, but run with it if you feel like it, don't bother me none. Any game instance where it tells you to do one specific task isn't a green card for ignoring other factors at hand. Not having hands to make an unarmed strike is something that might be in this category.
The rules don't specifically allow for hands free Unarmed Strike, only that you can make an Unarmed Strike after your attack. Monks have a single weapon available to them that can possibly be used in two hands. You REALLY sure there wasn't a slight oversight at some point in the rules, and that this is not a crystal clear issue? I'm fairly sure we are well past the point (again) o even bothering trying to understand what is being put forth. The rules are unclear. There is arguments for and against allowing hands free Unarmed Strike. Ask your DM.
Rathyr wrote:
Right you are. Could have sworn it was 1 handed.
Rathyr wrote:
Sure sure, I lack common sense, RAI is so obvious, heard it before. Carry on.
Just like I would clarify Unarmed (Fist) + Dagger, I would clarify Quarterstaff and Feet. People can't seem to get past that they might have to, you know, communicate, when the rules arent clear.
Rathyr wrote:
1eejit wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Opieus wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Opieus wrote:
Kalani wrote:
So, not optimal. Still allowed. The point was just a tangent on how many 2h weapons a monk had proficiency in. The clarifications to the effects of that seem complete.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
shivafang wrote:
See edit above. There's a difference between weapons a monk is proficient with and what they can use with Martial Arts.
The entire point of the tangent was just identifying the (potentially) two-handed melee weapons a Monk was proficient in. Two of those being the spear and quarterstaff, versatile monk weapons, and the third being the greatclub. 
shivafang wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
As far as I can see, the description is very clear: You can use Martial Arts with shortswords and simple weapons that do not have the two-handed to heavy *property*. It mentions the word property specifically, hence allows the use of versatile property weapons. Which means you can use a quarterstaff in two hands and still use the bonus attack from Martial Arts. Plus there's no action economy concern since you're not drawing or sheathing a weapon for this bonus attack ... you are just using your fists and kicks. And if you really want to go into rules lawyering, take into consideration that while two-handed weapons require two hands, a versatile weapon allows you to *hold and use* it in one hand, hence not having to deal with questions of readying or unreadying the weapon.
So, personally, as a GM, I'd allow it. It's why I LOVE versatile weapons in this edition. In previous editions, pretty much no one ever used versatile weapons in two hands as there was no real reason to. In this one, there's actual good reasons to juggle between the two stances.
A quarterstaff, even used in both hands, does NOT fall under the catagory of two weapon fighting, which states that you need one light weapon in each hand. So you could not do the bonus attack from it as if it were. You *could* do the bonus attack from Polearm Master, but given it's only a D4+mod damage attack, you may as well just stick to your unarmed strikes.
Now in terms of Flurry of Blows, nothing actually says you need to use monk weapons only as it's in a seperate section from the Martial Arts one. That being said, you'd be at a serious disadvantage if you do not use a Monk weapon, especially a two-handed property one, as you wouldn't be able to use Dex as your base stat for it.
KarlB wrote:
So is everybody agreed that Flurry of Blows allows the monk to make two (2) unarmed strikes while wielding a two-handed weapon?
Further, is it agreed that if a two-handed weapon is being wielded, these strikes could be made with a body part other than an empty hand?
(Sub-optimal, of course. But is it RAW?)
I don't know about everyone but yeah. It's sub-optimal to use Flurry (with only d1's, but still the chance to inflict special effects) with a two-handed weapon of whatever description. By RAW.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
shivafang wrote:
I would said you replied before my edit, but seeing as how my edit was quoted in your responce that would be false.
Regardless, we are on the same page.
shivafang wrote: