Also people should keep in mind that anything on Sage Advice are not actually rules. Several things that are listed are actually Jeremy's personal preferences on how he would run games and nothing in it is official. It's semi-official Advice at best and should be treated as such. Anything that is a hard and fast ruling will come up in Errata that get published every so often but they try not to do too much. This has been stated both by the D&D team and by Jeremy.
Please note that the published Sage Advice Compendium IS official rulings and clarifies the difference to unofficial advice given online via twitter.
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that will appear here.
I do apologize for not making the distinction. usually when it is bruoght up it's referencing the Twitter account so that is what I was meaning.
The error is no more... Ever since the first errata. back int he first publishing of the player handbook. Unarmed Strikes were int he weapon section among the actual weapons of the game. this led to many a player thinking unarmed strikes were weapons ! this was corrected by the first errata of the PHB by simply removing unarmed strike from that list and thus making unarmed strike exactly what the name suggest... a "not with a weapon" attack. so basically, to understand what unarmed strike means for a monk, you need to read its martial arts ability which now gives it its definition for the monk.
the first question that you see as an error, was asked before the first errata was made. the errata itself hapenned because of that question to begin with.
we know its not a weapon, because it doesn't work with sneak attack. it would if, it was a weapon. thats where the problems comes in. because if it was a weapon... smites, sneak attacks and the likes could be done with it. the fact its not a weapon means booming blade doesn'T work with it, nor is divine smite, nor is sneak attacks.
mind you... there is a big difference in these words... - melee attack (works with unarmed strikes, because it doesn't specify the word weapon) - Melee weapon attack (doesn't work with unarmed strike, because unarmed strike is not a weapon)
the NPC in volo's guide simply follows the formatting of all attacks of monsters. even those with natural weapons have melee weapon attacks written, but its still not weapons ! thats just the formatting of the text. ignore that.
really the only difference this does, is that a monk cannot use flurry of blows to do stunning strikes. if we follow the rules of "Martial Arts" ability of the monk class. then the monk cannot stunning strikes without a weapon in his hands. to me this would be a perfectly fine DM call.
if you ask me... the problem arises from the word Weapon which was kept in stunning strikes, it was never changed... if you remove the word "weapon", it solves your problem ! stunning strikes would become "any strikes can be a stun" since only th emonk has that, then its not a problem for other classes. solves all problem. i think they just never errata'ed stunning strikes after the initial errata for unarmed strikes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Weapon attack is just the way the game refers to "non-spell attacks." There are two categories of attacks: weapon and spell. The game uses "weapon" for unarmed attacks because it would be insane to use "spell," and it has nothing else to use. You could Find & Replace "weapon attack" with "smack attack" and nothing would actually change, it might just be easier to read.
It's super messy, as evidenced by the countless and unending threads where people are confused by it still to this day. It's stupid, and arbitrary, certainly. It has some unintuitive side effects, as noted already. But it's not actually inconsistent, you just have to reconfigure your brain to recognize the phrase as a game term rather than as a normal English language phrase.
A monk can deliver Stunning Strike with any melee smack attack. They can use Dexterity to make their melee smack attacks as long as it's with a monk weapon or an unarmed strike. (Their ranged smack attacks could already use Dexterity.) (Most creatures have no way to make ranged smack attacks without a weapon. I think manticores and spine devils can do it.)
Unarmed strikes are absolutely considered weapon attacks, and flurry of Blows can absolutely be used to trigger Stunning Strike... this has beem stated by JC on at least two different occasions.
Unarmed Attacks were were removed from the Weapons table because they arent Weapons in the sense that they can be PURCHASED off acquires, which is what the table was supposed to represent.
Tweet from JC back in 2018: "Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks. Here's where the confusion comes in: your unarmed strike (fist, elbow, knee, butt, etc.) is not considered by the rules to be a weapon the way a longsword is a weapon. But the rules let you make unarmed weapon attacks anyway."
As ChoirofFire stated, attacks are oddly generalized into either Weapon Attacks or Spell Attacks.
Unarmed strikes are absolutely considered weapon attacks, and flurry of Blows can absolutely be used to trigger Stunning Strike... this has beem stated by JC on at least two different occasions.
Unarmed Attacks were were removed from the Weapons table because they arent Weapons in the sense that they can be PURCHASED off acquires, which is what the table was supposed to represent.
Tweet from JC back in 2018: "Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks. Here's where the confusion comes in: your unarmed strike (fist, elbow, knee, butt, etc.) is not considered by the rules to be a weapon the way a longsword is a weapon. But the rules let you make unarmed weapon attacks anyway."
As ChoirofFire stated, attacks are oddly generalized into either Weapon Attacks or Spell Attacks.
the confusion is from the fact that if they are weapon attacks, then divine smite and neak attacks works with them. thats overpowered by a lot. heres why, to me, they shouldn't be weapon attacks at all. they are truly attacks, melee attacks even, but fdefinitely not weapon attacks. as for crawford... he often contradict himself. that also was said often by him in tweets... it is hard for him to keep track of his rulings. so he might just contradict himself. thats why he preffers that we don't take his words for it and play as we want it to be.
thats why i say... instead of making an exception of monk unarmed strikes... i preffer to say they are not weapon attacks, after all, they are literally called "unarmed" strikes ! thats my decision, but yeah thats it... if you go by RAW... then monks unarmed strikes are weapons, thus anything using weapons can use unarmeds trikes. which means a paladin can divine smite with his bare fist. oh right, its an exception just for monks i guess... thats why i'm confused really... but because it makes no sense to me. that exception seems to me like its an error that everyone takes for granted now. its much much easier to just say they aren't weapons at all.
thats my two cents...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Unarmed strikes are absolutely considered weapon attacks, and flurry of Blows can absolutely be used to trigger Stunning Strike... this has beem stated by JC on at least two different occasions.
Unarmed Attacks were were removed from the Weapons table because they arent Weapons in the sense that they can be PURCHASED off acquires, which is what the table was supposed to represent.
Tweet from JC back in 2018: "Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks. Here's where the confusion comes in: your unarmed strike (fist, elbow, knee, butt, etc.) is not considered by the rules to be a weapon the way a longsword is a weapon. But the rules let you make unarmed weapon attacks anyway."
As ChoirofFire stated, attacks are oddly generalized into either Weapon Attacks or Spell Attacks.
the confusion is from the fact that if they are weapon attacks, then divine smite and neak attacks works with them. thats overpowered by a lot.
No, because "weapon attack" isn't what Divine Smite and Sneak Attack require. Divine Smite, as mentioned, adds damage to "the weapon's damage" -- I disagree with this ruling, but I digress -- and Sneak Attack says "the attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." And unarmed strikes don't use a finesse or ranged weapon. They don't use any weapon. Obviously.
heres why, to me, they shouldn't be weapon attacks at all. they are truly attacks, melee attacks even, but fdefinitely not weapon attacks.
So you're saying they're spell attacks? Because that's the only other thing they can be. If they're not weapon attacks ("smack attacks"), they're spell attacks. There is no other type of attack.
I don't think you're internalizing the thing I'm saying. I understand why. The thing I'm saying is really dumb. But it's true.
DnDPaladin, you can house rule it however you want at your table... but you're admiting to the rules being stupid as written, which i don't think anyone is disagreeing on.
Also, I fail to see how divine smite coming from an unarmed strike is over powered... your base damage is reduced if anything unless you have some kind means to bump you damage like martial arts or tavern brawler or the new unarmed fighting style... and that's either a level or feat of resources, considering paladins dont get tge unarmed fighting style option
And yes, monk unarmed strikes are NOT finesse.. they are a special circumstance where you get to use Dex in place of Str for the attack.... similarly how Hex Blade Warlock use Charisma to attack with weapons... although, one could argue that a getting hit in the head by a two handed sword is fairly persuasive to Die....
Bottom line, you cant trigger Sneak Attack with monk unarmed attacks.
Unarmed strikes are absolutely considered weapon attacks, and flurry of Blows can absolutely be used to trigger Stunning Strike... this has beem stated by JC on at least two different occasions.
Unarmed Attacks were were removed from the Weapons table because they arent Weapons in the sense that they can be PURCHASED off acquires, which is what the table was supposed to represent.
Tweet from JC back in 2018: "Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks. Here's where the confusion comes in: your unarmed strike (fist, elbow, knee, butt, etc.) is not considered by the rules to be a weapon the way a longsword is a weapon. But the rules let you make unarmed weapon attacks anyway."
As ChoirofFire stated, attacks are oddly generalized into either Weapon Attacks or Spell Attacks.
the confusion is from the fact that if they are weapon attacks, then divine smite and neak attacks works with them. thats overpowered by a lot.
No, because "weapon attack" isn't what Divine Smite and Sneak Attack require. Divine Smite, as mentioned, adds damage to "the weapon's damage" -- I disagree with this ruling, but I digress -- and Sneak Attack says "the attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." And unarmed strikes don't use a finesse or ranged weapon. They don't use any weapon. Obviously.
heres why, to me, they shouldn't be weapon attacks at all. they are truly attacks, melee attacks even, but fdefinitely not weapon attacks.
So you're saying they're spell attacks? Because that's the only other thing they can be. If they're not weapon attacks ("smack attacks"), they're spell attacks. There is no other type of attack.
I don't think you're internalizing the thing I'm saying. I understand why. The thing I'm saying is really dumb. But it's true.
Well, Divine Smite doesn't say it adds damage to the weapon damage, it says it does damage in addition to the weapon damage. So they are separate (radiant damage and weapon damage). And since the ability says, "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack", that is all the ability requires, which Unarmed Strikes qualifies for. The "in addition to the weapon's damage" I'm not sure disqualifies Unarmed Strikes as it is worded that way because Paladins are not unarmed fighters. But it does make it a grey area that can be interpreted different ways. I mean, if you can say "where's the weapon to add the damage to?" you could just say "where's the weapon you are making the melee weapon attack with?"
It probably would have been better to have added Melee Attack to the verbiage along with, Melee Weapon Attack, Ranged Weapon Attack, and Weapon Attack (which can be both ranged or melee with a weapon) so unarmed strikes (Monk or non-monk types) would fall under Melee Attack. Or they could have just gone with Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, and Weapon Attack and skip the "weapon" part altogether.
And I agree Unarmed Strikes absolutely do not qualify for sneak attack because they are not Finesse, even though you can use DEX instead of STR.
Divine Smite
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.
the confusion is from the fact that if they are weapon attacks, then divine smite and neak attacks works with them. thats overpowered by a lot.
What? H ow?
Yeah I'm still stuck on that train of process
People often think multiclassing will result in something super powerful. They're rarely correct. Multiclassing, and the resultant power level, is impossible to accurately evaluate for most players. (That's why I consider it a trap, and would flat out disallow it if I was DMing for a different group than the one I'm currently playing with. But I digress.)
Without getting deep into the numbers, I'll just say that you're going to get more powerful by single-classing either Paladin or Monk, than by multiclassing the two together. The same is true for Rogue.
The only time a Rogue or Paladin would use unarmed strikes outside of multiclassing would be if they've been disarmed somehow. This happens so infrequently in play, that I don't even feel it's worth considering as a metric by which to measure the power level of anything at all. But for the sake of argument: It never comes up naturally, by which I mean, a DM always has to make a conscious decision to cause the PCs to be disarmed, and kinda force it. Which is a valid thing to do sometimes, but if you're already going to that trouble, why not just invent a temporary disabling effect for the Divine Smite? If you're trying to force a scenario where the party can't rely on their typical smiting strategies, just do it directly.
For the most part I agree, but multiclasses REALLY helps to fit a more definitive RP for a character.. and with the exception of perhaps Warlock and Rogue level dips, the power level for multiclassing is usually less..
monk for an instances is rarely worth the 1 or 2 level dip, although I do have to say I love my MoonDruid-x -Monk-1 character
For the most part I agree, but multiclasses REALLY helps to fit a more definitive RP for a character.. and with the exception of perhaps Warlock and Rogue level dips, the power level for multiclassing is usually less..
monk for an instances is rarely worth the 1 or 2 level dip, although I do have to say I love my MoonDruid-x -Monk-1 character
That's fine. I'm not here to tear down the very concept of multiclassing, or to tell anyone to unmake their character. My point was that DnDPaladin probably thinks the Rogue/Monk or Paladin/Monk multiclass would be broken, under the theoretical "unarmed = finesse weapon" rule, for the same reason most players think they're building something insane when they multiclass. And DnDPaladin is wrong for the same reason those players are wrong. Remember, most players aren't making the perfect Sorlock build or whatever else the internet has decided is optimal. They're making, like, Barbarian/Paladin because their Paladin character gets angry sometimes and they think it'd be OP if they could Rage. They're welcome to do as they like, but that combo won't be OP, is my point.
It's especially apparent with Monk because of the way ki scales. Also, the idea of combining the Wis/Dex Monk, whose features largely shut off in armor, with the Str/Cha Paladin, who typically relies on armor, is just laughable. Maybe if you roll your stats and they're all 16+, then this would be serviceable. But you could do a lot better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do apologize for not making the distinction. usually when it is bruoght up it's referencing the Twitter account so that is what I was meaning.
The error is no more...
Ever since the first errata.
back int he first publishing of the player handbook. Unarmed Strikes were int he weapon section among the actual weapons of the game.
this led to many a player thinking unarmed strikes were weapons !
this was corrected by the first errata of the PHB by simply removing unarmed strike from that list and thus making unarmed strike exactly what the name suggest...
a "not with a weapon" attack.
so basically, to understand what unarmed strike means for a monk, you need to read its martial arts ability which now gives it its definition for the monk.
the first question that you see as an error, was asked before the first errata was made.
the errata itself hapenned because of that question to begin with.
we know its not a weapon, because it doesn't work with sneak attack. it would if, it was a weapon. thats where the problems comes in. because if it was a weapon... smites, sneak attacks and the likes could be done with it. the fact its not a weapon means booming blade doesn'T work with it, nor is divine smite, nor is sneak attacks.
mind you... there is a big difference in these words...
- melee attack (works with unarmed strikes, because it doesn't specify the word weapon)
- Melee weapon attack (doesn't work with unarmed strike, because unarmed strike is not a weapon)
the NPC in volo's guide simply follows the formatting of all attacks of monsters. even those with natural weapons have melee weapon attacks written, but its still not weapons ! thats just the formatting of the text. ignore that.
really the only difference this does, is that a monk cannot use flurry of blows to do stunning strikes.
if we follow the rules of "Martial Arts" ability of the monk class.
then the monk cannot stunning strikes without a weapon in his hands.
to me this would be a perfectly fine DM call.
if you ask me... the problem arises from the word Weapon which was kept in stunning strikes, it was never changed...
if you remove the word "weapon", it solves your problem !
stunning strikes would become "any strikes can be a stun"
since only th emonk has that, then its not a problem for other classes.
solves all problem. i think they just never errata'ed stunning strikes after the initial errata for unarmed strikes.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Weapon attack is just the way the game refers to "non-spell attacks." There are two categories of attacks: weapon and spell. The game uses "weapon" for unarmed attacks because it would be insane to use "spell," and it has nothing else to use. You could Find & Replace "weapon attack" with "smack attack" and nothing would actually change, it might just be easier to read.
It's super messy, as evidenced by the countless and unending threads where people are confused by it still to this day. It's stupid, and arbitrary, certainly. It has some unintuitive side effects, as noted already. But it's not actually inconsistent, you just have to reconfigure your brain to recognize the phrase as a game term rather than as a normal English language phrase.
A monk can deliver Stunning Strike with any melee smack attack. They can use Dexterity to make their melee smack attacks as long as it's with a monk weapon or an unarmed strike. (Their ranged smack attacks could already use Dexterity.) (Most creatures have no way to make ranged smack attacks without a weapon. I think manticores and spine devils can do it.)
What ChoirofFire said
Unarmed strikes are absolutely considered weapon attacks, and flurry of Blows can absolutely be used to trigger Stunning Strike... this has beem stated by JC on at least two different occasions.
Unarmed Attacks were were removed from the Weapons table because they arent Weapons in the sense that they can be PURCHASED off acquires, which is what the table was supposed to represent.
Tweet from JC back in 2018: "Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks. Here's where the confusion comes in: your unarmed strike (fist, elbow, knee, butt, etc.) is not considered by the rules to be a weapon the way a longsword is a weapon. But the rules let you make unarmed weapon attacks anyway."
As ChoirofFire stated, attacks are oddly generalized into either Weapon Attacks or Spell Attacks.
the confusion is from the fact that if they are weapon attacks, then divine smite and neak attacks works with them. thats overpowered by a lot.
heres why, to me, they shouldn't be weapon attacks at all. they are truly attacks, melee attacks even, but fdefinitely not weapon attacks. as for crawford... he often contradict himself.
that also was said often by him in tweets... it is hard for him to keep track of his rulings. so he might just contradict himself. thats why he preffers that we don't take his words for it and play as we want it to be.
thats why i say... instead of making an exception of monk unarmed strikes... i preffer to say they are not weapon attacks, after all, they are literally called "unarmed" strikes !
thats my decision, but yeah thats it... if you go by RAW... then monks unarmed strikes are weapons, thus anything using weapons can use unarmeds trikes. which means a paladin can divine smite with his bare fist. oh right, its an exception just for monks i guess... thats why i'm confused really... but because it makes no sense to me. that exception seems to me like its an error that everyone takes for granted now. its much much easier to just say they aren't weapons at all.
thats my two cents...
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
No, because "weapon attack" isn't what Divine Smite and Sneak Attack require. Divine Smite, as mentioned, adds damage to "the weapon's damage" -- I disagree with this ruling, but I digress -- and Sneak Attack says "the attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." And unarmed strikes don't use a finesse or ranged weapon. They don't use any weapon. Obviously.
So you're saying they're spell attacks? Because that's the only other thing they can be. If they're not weapon attacks ("smack attacks"), they're spell attacks. There is no other type of attack.
I don't think you're internalizing the thing I'm saying. I understand why. The thing I'm saying is really dumb. But it's true.
DnDPaladin, you can house rule it however you want at your table... but you're admiting to the rules being stupid as written, which i don't think anyone is disagreeing on.
Also, I fail to see how divine smite coming from an unarmed strike is over powered... your base damage is reduced if anything unless you have some kind means to bump you damage like martial arts or tavern brawler or the new unarmed fighting style... and that's either a level or feat of resources, considering paladins dont get tge unarmed fighting style option
And yes, monk unarmed strikes are NOT finesse.. they are a special circumstance where you get to use Dex in place of Str for the attack.... similarly how Hex Blade Warlock use Charisma to attack with weapons... although, one could argue that a getting hit in the head by a two handed sword is fairly persuasive to Die....
Bottom line, you cant trigger Sneak Attack with monk unarmed attacks.
Well, Divine Smite doesn't say it adds damage to the weapon damage, it says it does damage in addition to the weapon damage. So they are separate (radiant damage and weapon damage). And since the ability says, "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack", that is all the ability requires, which Unarmed Strikes qualifies for. The "in addition to the weapon's damage" I'm not sure disqualifies Unarmed Strikes as it is worded that way because Paladins are not unarmed fighters. But it does make it a grey area that can be interpreted different ways. I mean, if you can say "where's the weapon to add the damage to?" you could just say "where's the weapon you are making the melee weapon attack with?"
It probably would have been better to have added Melee Attack to the verbiage along with, Melee Weapon Attack, Ranged Weapon Attack, and Weapon Attack (which can be both ranged or melee with a weapon) so unarmed strikes (Monk or non-monk types) would fall under Melee Attack. Or they could have just gone with Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, and Weapon Attack and skip the "weapon" part altogether.
And I agree Unarmed Strikes absolutely do not qualify for sneak attack because they are not Finesse, even though you can use DEX instead of STR.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think you missed the part where I said I disagree with the Divine Smite ruling. But yes. You summed up my thoughts on it nicely.
What? H ow?
Yeah I'm still stuck on that train of process
People often think multiclassing will result in something super powerful. They're rarely correct. Multiclassing, and the resultant power level, is impossible to accurately evaluate for most players. (That's why I consider it a trap, and would flat out disallow it if I was DMing for a different group than the one I'm currently playing with. But I digress.)
Without getting deep into the numbers, I'll just say that you're going to get more powerful by single-classing either Paladin or Monk, than by multiclassing the two together. The same is true for Rogue.
The only time a Rogue or Paladin would use unarmed strikes outside of multiclassing would be if they've been disarmed somehow. This happens so infrequently in play, that I don't even feel it's worth considering as a metric by which to measure the power level of anything at all. But for the sake of argument: It never comes up naturally, by which I mean, a DM always has to make a conscious decision to cause the PCs to be disarmed, and kinda force it. Which is a valid thing to do sometimes, but if you're already going to that trouble, why not just invent a temporary disabling effect for the Divine Smite? If you're trying to force a scenario where the party can't rely on their typical smiting strategies, just do it directly.
Choir,
For the most part I agree, but multiclasses REALLY helps to fit a more definitive RP for a character.. and with the exception of perhaps Warlock and Rogue level dips, the power level for multiclassing is usually less..
monk for an instances is rarely worth the 1 or 2 level dip, although I do have to say I love my MoonDruid-x -Monk-1 character
That's fine. I'm not here to tear down the very concept of multiclassing, or to tell anyone to unmake their character. My point was that DnDPaladin probably thinks the Rogue/Monk or Paladin/Monk multiclass would be broken, under the theoretical "unarmed = finesse weapon" rule, for the same reason most players think they're building something insane when they multiclass. And DnDPaladin is wrong for the same reason those players are wrong. Remember, most players aren't making the perfect Sorlock build or whatever else the internet has decided is optimal. They're making, like, Barbarian/Paladin because their Paladin character gets angry sometimes and they think it'd be OP if they could Rage. They're welcome to do as they like, but that combo won't be OP, is my point.
It's especially apparent with Monk because of the way ki scales. Also, the idea of combining the Wis/Dex Monk, whose features largely shut off in armor, with the Str/Cha Paladin, who typically relies on armor, is just laughable. Maybe if you roll your stats and they're all 16+, then this would be serviceable. But you could do a lot better.