Dual wielding on Monk/Rogue?

[PocketYoda]

I was wondering do you need to take dual wielding on monks (say two Shortswords over a staff?) if you wield two monk weapons? Do you get disadvantages on you off hand?

[PocketYoda]

Bump because the crazy fast forums..

[TheBlueFox]

Define "Take" dual wielding. Because that could mean 2 things. The two weapon fighting STYLE, or the dual wielder FEAT

You wouldn't really WANT to dual wield on a monk, because it's a bonus action to use the weapon in your offhand...

It's also a bonus action to use your flurry of blows, which is usually the better option since you get to add your dexterity to your damage of your flurry. You have to have the two weapon fighting style from Paladin, fighter, or ranger to get that.

All the dual wielding feat does is give you +1 to your AC, which could be nice, and it lets you dual wield bigger weapons, which aren't that great because none of them would really be monk weapons

So I mean, yes you CAN dual wield, but it's not really better than using unarmed strikes with your bonus action.

The disadvantage is that because you aren't a fighter/Ranger/Paladin, you don't get the "two weapon fighting style" so you cannot add dexterity to the damage of your offhand

[PocketYoda]

Originally posted by TheBlueFox:

Define "Take" dual wielding. Because that could mean 2 things. The two weapon fighting STYLE, or the dual wielder FEAT

You wouldn't really WANT to dual wield on a monk, because it's a bonus action to use the weapon in your offhand...

It's also a bonus action to use your flurry of blows, which is usually the better option since you get to add your dexterity to your damage of your flurry. You have to have the two weapon fighting style from Paladin, fighter, or ranger to get that.

All the dual wielding feat does is give you +1 to your AC, which could be nice, and it lets you dual wield bigger weapons, which aren't that great because none of them would really be monk weapons

So I mean, yes you CAN dual wield, but it's not really better than using unarmed strikes with your bonus action.

The disadvantage is that because you aren't a fighter/Ranger/Paladin, you don't get the "two weapon fighting style" so you cannot add dexterity to the damage of your offhand

Yeah i wanted a Katana/Wakisashi combination or fighting claws but sadly none of them existed..

I quit playing in Act 2 anyway Monk was fun but the lack of weapons was boring.

[AlphaVictorKilo]

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Originally posted by TheBlueFox:

Define "Take" dual wielding. Because that could mean 2 things. The two weapon fighting STYLE, or the dual wielder FEAT

You wouldn't really WANT to dual wield on a monk, because it's a bonus action to use the weapon in your offhand...

It's also a bonus action to use your flurry of blows, which is usually the better option since you get to add your dexterity to your damage of your flurry. You have to have the two weapon fighting style from Paladin, fighter, or ranger to get that.

All the dual wielding feat does is give you +1 to your AC, which could be nice, and it lets you dual wield bigger weapons, which aren't that great because none of them would really be monk weapons

So I mean, yes you CAN dual wield, but it's not really better than using unarmed strikes with your bonus action.

The disadvantage is that because you aren't a fighter/Ranger/Paladin, you don't get the "two weapon fighting style" so you cannot add dexterity to the damage of your offhand

Yeah i wanted a Katana/Wakisashi combination or fighting claws but sadly none of them existed..

I quit playing in Act 2 anyway Monk was fun but the lack of weapons was boring.

Monk really isn't mean to be using weapons...

[PocketYoda]

Originally posted by AlphaVictorKilo:

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Yeah i wanted a Katana/Wakisashi combination or fighting claws but sadly none of them existed..

I quit playing in Act 2 anyway Monk was fun but the lack of weapons was boring.

Monk really isn't mean to be using weapons...

In D&D maybe.. but in real life Monks use heaps of weapons..

[AlphaVictorKilo]

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Originally posted by AlphaVictorKilo:

Monk really isn't mean to be using weapons...

In D&D maybe.. but in real life Monks use heaps of weapons..

...and what game are you playing? What rules is it based on?

[PocketYoda]

Originally posted by AlphaVictorKilo:

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

In D&D maybe.. but in real life Monks use heaps of weapons..

...and what game are you playing? What rules is it based on?

Battletech.

[AlphaVictorKilo]

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Originally posted by AlphaVictorKilo:

...and what game are you playing? What rules is it based on?

Battletech.

Dual-wield all day then

[Black Captain]

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Originally posted by AlphaVictorKilo:

...and what game are you playing? What rules is it based on?

Battletech.

I can smell your low charisma from here. I dig it!

[Hidden Gunman]

Monk builds are fine, would be more lethal if attacks against prone enemies were stronger though. As it is, the build isnt about tanking through the opposition, its about avoiding them...get in, strike, get out. Use the skillset, not just the hitting.

Think locust, not atlas.

[AlphaVictorKilo]

Originally posted by Hidden Gunman:

Monk builds are fine, would be more lethal if attacks against prone enemies were stronger though. As it is, the build isnt about tanking through the opposition, its about avoiding them...get in, strike, get out. Use the skillset, not just the hitting.

Think locust, not atlas.

Now you're thinking with portals!