The Divine Smite text literally says “when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack.” That is the trigger. That it later refers to “the weapon’s damage” doesn’t retroactively establish a different trigger. It suggests that the intent is that it require a weapon, but it doesn’t change the fact that “an attack with a weapon” is not the trigger.
If the intent was to include any weapon attack then it would say the damage was "in addition to the damage from the melee weapon attack".
It doesn't.
It specifically says "the weapon's damage". The intent is therefore you need a weapon.
This is further clarified by Sage Advice also stating it needs a weapon. Hence, there is no contradiction between Sage Advice and PHB.
Context is key. Look at the whole ability text not the one word or two that suits you. The wording is as it is because it's easier to say it the way it is than to say "melee weapon attack made using a melee weapon" then saying "in addition to the weapon's damage" - because it's redundant repetition. The fact it says the the melee weapon attack was a weapon, is sufficient to establish that it needs to be a melee weapon. This is why you read the whole thing, not just the one line.
I agree that the ruling is stupid, but nevertheless it is the rule as established in the text of the PHB and as clarified by the Sage Advice. I can't be bothered to teach English here and nothing you say is going to change the words my eyes see. Since my understanding of the words matches the same as those who created the rule, I'm inclined to stick with it. I have no energy to go round in circles over basic reading comprehension. So seems we can just agree to disagree and leave it as that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Meh, at my table I'd definitely allow Paladins to use Divine Smite with unarmed strikes. I don't think it breaks the game balance, and the mental image of a Paladin smiting with a punch or a kick is awesome. My mind takes me back to the Dresden Files, when Harry refers to Michael Carpenter, saying "I don't just call him the Fist of God as a pet name, folks". :)
Meh, at my table I'd definitely allow Paladins to use Divine Smite with unarmed strikes. I don't think it breaks the game balance, and the mental image of a Paladin smiting with a punch or a kick is awesome. My mind takes me back to the Dresden Files, when Harry refers to Michael Carpenter, saying "I don't just call him the Fist of God as a pet name, folks". :)
I wholeheartedly agree. The Divine Smite is just energy/power the Paladin summons to strike an enemy. Why would it make any difference if was using a fist or a blade? Even the mechanical justification is baseless; the restriction is probably so you cannot combine with a Monk dip so you get Divine Smiting Flurry of Blows. However, who cares? Divine Smite is a limited resource, it doesn't matter to any signficant detail of you spread that resource over 10 turns or 1 -- it's still the same number of uses in an encounter regardless. A simple dip in Sorc is far deadlier as you get more uses and better spells to amplify the damage (Hold Person, Haste, etc).
Frankly I see no reason to justify the restriction. It's defo a houserule I employ -- and this is from somebody who hates Paladins. XD
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Meh, at my table I'd definitely allow Paladins to use Divine Smite with unarmed strikes. I don't think it breaks the game balance, and the mental image of a Paladin smiting with a punch or a kick is awesome. My mind takes me back to the Dresden Files, when Harry refers to Michael Carpenter, saying "I don't just call him the Fist of God as a pet name, folks". :)
I agree. I don't care what the RAI or RAW is, Rules As Fun is much more important in this situation. I've had paladins in my campaigns be stripped of all their weapons and limited to punching in combat.
In one campaign, a paladin who was in this scenario had to punch-smite a Death Tyrant to death.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Meh, at my table I'd definitely allow Paladins to use Divine Smite with unarmed strikes. I don't think it breaks the game balance, and the mental image of a Paladin smiting with a punch or a kick is awesome. My mind takes me back to the Dresden Files, when Harry refers to Michael Carpenter, saying "I don't just call him the Fist of God as a pet name, folks". :)
I agree. I don't care what the RAI or RAW is, Rules As Fun is much more important in this situation. I've had paladins in my campaigns be stripped of all their weapons and limited to punching in combat.
In one campaign, a paladin who was in this scenario had to punch-smite a Death Tyrant to death.
"The power was never in the weapon. The power was inside you the whole time." :)
It was always RAI that Divine Smite requires the use of a weapon, and this change is just clarifying that.
Natural weapons now counting as actual weapons is the big news here. As much as I love my Aarakocra Monk, I'm not sure how I actually feel about it, and this might cause more problems than it solves. If Natural Weapon(s) count as actual weapons, are they simple, martial, or neither? SA doesn't say, so are they a distinct category? This is important because they definitely cannot be used as an Unarmed Strike now. Without being explicitly simple/martial they cannot benefit from Martial Arts damage, or be used in place of Unarmed Strike on bonus actions either. This seems like a huge mistake to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It was always RAI that Divine Smite requires the use of a weapon, and this change is just clarifying that.
Natural weapons now counting as actual weapons is the big news here. As much as I love my Aarakocra Monk, I'm not sure how I actually feel about it, and this might cause more problems than it solves. If Natural Weapon(s) count as actual weapons, are they simple, martial, or neither? SA doesn't say, so are they a distinct category? This is important because they definitely cannot be used as an Unarmed Strike now. Without being explicitly simple/martial they cannot benefit from Martial Arts damage, or be used in place of Unarmed Strike on bonus actions either. This seems like a huge mistake to me.
Natural weapons were always supposed to be weapons, that’s not new, just clarified. And the rules for (at least some of) them explicitly state that they can be used as unarmed strikes as well. (Not sure if that counts for all of them though.)
It was always RAI that Divine Smite requires the use of a weapon, and this change is just clarifying that.
Natural weapons now counting as actual weapons is the big news here. As much as I love my Aarakocra Monk, I'm not sure how I actually feel about it, and this might cause more problems than it solves. If Natural Weapon(s) count as actual weapons, are they simple, martial, or neither? SA doesn't say, so are they a distinct category? This is important because they definitely cannot be used as an Unarmed Strike now. Without being explicitly simple/martial they cannot benefit from Martial Arts damage, or be used in place of Unarmed Strike on bonus actions either. This seems like a huge mistake to me.
Natural weapons were always supposed to be weapons, that’s not new, just clarified. And the rules for (at least some of) them explicitly state that they can be used as unarmed strikes as well. (Not sure if that counts for all of them though.)
Mmm... I completely forgot the PC races with NWs explicitly say they can be used as UAs. As long as they don't also revoke that, then there isn't an issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It was always RAI that Divine Smite requires the use of a weapon, and this change is just clarifying that.
Natural weapons now counting as actual weapons is the big news here. As much as I love my Aarakocra Monk, I'm not sure how I actually feel about it, and this might cause more problems than it solves. If Natural Weapon(s) count as actual weapons, are they simple, martial, or neither? SA doesn't say, so are they a distinct category? This is important because they definitely cannot be used as an Unarmed Strike now. Without being explicitly simple/martial they cannot benefit from Martial Arts damage, or be used in place of Unarmed Strike on bonus actions either. This seems like a huge mistake to me.
Natural weapons were always supposed to be weapons, that’s not new, just clarified. And the rules for (at least some of) them explicitly state that they can be used as unarmed strikes as well. (Not sure if that counts for all of them though.)
Mmm... I completely forgot the PC races with NWs explicitly say they can be used as UAs. As long as they don't also revoke that, then there isn't an issue.
Now, what I want to know is if a Tabaxi Monk/Paladin can still use both Martial Arts and Divine Smite on the same attack if they use their claws? Before it was a clear yes. Now...?
It was always RAI that Divine Smite requires the use of a weapon, and this change is just clarifying that.
Natural weapons now counting as actual weapons is the big news here. As much as I love my Aarakocra Monk, I'm not sure how I actually feel about it, and this might cause more problems than it solves. If Natural Weapon(s) count as actual weapons, are they simple, martial, or neither? SA doesn't say, so are they a distinct category? This is important because they definitely cannot be used as an Unarmed Strike now. Without being explicitly simple/martial they cannot benefit from Martial Arts damage, or be used in place of Unarmed Strike on bonus actions either. This seems like a huge mistake to me.
Natural weapons were always supposed to be weapons, that’s not new, just clarified. And the rules for (at least some of) them explicitly state that they can be used as unarmed strikes as well. (Not sure if that counts for all of them though.)
Mmm... I completely forgot the PC races with NWs explicitly say they can be used as UAs. As long as they don't also revoke that, then there isn't an issue.
Now, what I want to know is if a Tabaxi Monk/Paladin can still use both Martial Arts and Divine Smite on the same attack if they use their claws? Before it was a clear yes. Now...?
I'd just say yes and be done with it. They want Divine Smite to be used with NWs? Fine, I'm not going to accept anything which hamstrings the Monk class in favor of buffing the already strong Paladin class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If the intent was to include any weapon attack then it would say the damage was "in addition to the damage from the melee weapon attack".
It doesn't.
It specifically says "the weapon's damage". The intent is therefore you need a weapon.
This is further clarified by Sage Advice also stating it needs a weapon. Hence, there is no contradiction between Sage Advice and PHB.
Context is key. Look at the whole ability text not the one word or two that suits you. The wording is as it is because it's easier to say it the way it is than to say "melee weapon attack made using a melee weapon" then saying "in addition to the weapon's damage" - because it's redundant repetition. The fact it says the the melee weapon attack was a weapon, is sufficient to establish that it needs to be a melee weapon. This is why you read the whole thing, not just the one line.
I agree that the ruling is stupid, but nevertheless it is the rule as established in the text of the PHB and as clarified by the Sage Advice. I can't be bothered to teach English here and nothing you say is going to change the words my eyes see. Since my understanding of the words matches the same as those who created the rule, I'm inclined to stick with it. I have no energy to go round in circles over basic reading comprehension. So seems we can just agree to disagree and leave it as that.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Meh, at my table I'd definitely allow Paladins to use Divine Smite with unarmed strikes. I don't think it breaks the game balance, and the mental image of a Paladin smiting with a punch or a kick is awesome. My mind takes me back to the Dresden Files, when Harry refers to Michael Carpenter, saying "I don't just call him the Fist of God as a pet name, folks". :)
I wholeheartedly agree. The Divine Smite is just energy/power the Paladin summons to strike an enemy. Why would it make any difference if was using a fist or a blade? Even the mechanical justification is baseless; the restriction is probably so you cannot combine with a Monk dip so you get Divine Smiting Flurry of Blows. However, who cares? Divine Smite is a limited resource, it doesn't matter to any signficant detail of you spread that resource over 10 turns or 1 -- it's still the same number of uses in an encounter regardless. A simple dip in Sorc is far deadlier as you get more uses and better spells to amplify the damage (Hold Person, Haste, etc).
Frankly I see no reason to justify the restriction. It's defo a houserule I employ -- and this is from somebody who hates Paladins. XD
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I agree. I don't care what the RAI or RAW is, Rules As Fun is much more important in this situation. I've had paladins in my campaigns be stripped of all their weapons and limited to punching in combat.
In one campaign, a paladin who was in this scenario had to punch-smite a Death Tyrant to death.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
"The power was never in the weapon. The power was inside you the whole time." :)
It was always RAI that Divine Smite requires the use of a weapon, and this change is just clarifying that.
Natural weapons now counting as actual weapons is the big news here. As much as I love my Aarakocra Monk, I'm not sure how I actually feel about it, and this might cause more problems than it solves. If Natural Weapon(s) count as actual weapons, are they simple, martial, or neither? SA doesn't say, so are they a distinct category? This is important because they definitely cannot be used as an Unarmed Strike now. Without being explicitly simple/martial they cannot benefit from Martial Arts damage, or be used in place of Unarmed Strike on bonus actions either. This seems like a huge mistake to me.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Natural weapons were always supposed to be weapons, that’s not new, just clarified. And the rules for (at least some of) them explicitly state that they can be used as unarmed strikes as well. (Not sure if that counts for all of them though.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Mmm... I completely forgot the PC races with NWs explicitly say they can be used as UAs. As long as they don't also revoke that, then there isn't an issue.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Now, what I want to know is if a Tabaxi Monk/Paladin can still use both Martial Arts and Divine Smite on the same attack if they use their claws? Before it was a clear yes. Now...?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'd just say yes and be done with it. They want Divine Smite to be used with NWs? Fine, I'm not going to accept anything which hamstrings the Monk class in favor of buffing the already strong Paladin class.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.