You can use unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks on grappled creatures, and you have advantage to do so if the creature is prone.
But to deal significant damage, you need high base damage, so either a strong natural weapon or improved unarmed strikes... Meaning, the only devastating kidney blow is going to be from monks, and grappler monks are kinda hard to make... (The easy option is Tortle monk, but I'm sure there are others)
A 19 paladin/1 rogue with a belt and demon armor can grapple with one hand and smite with his unarmed strikes. Throw oil of sharpness on your gauntlets and you can do a normal hit with Banishing and Divine Smites with +19 to hit, and 8d8+5d10+13 damage How's that for a kidney punch?
[NEW]Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike? No. Divine Smite requires a melee attack using a weapon. The rules don’t consider unarmed strikes to be weapons.
Sage Advice isn't rules, and Divine Smite does not require a melee attack using a weapon, it requires a "melee weapon attack." They're of course welcome to errata if they're unhappy with the actual printed rule. Printing garbage misinformation like that is precisely why Sage Advice isn't just not rules, it also isn't particularly persuasive.
Sage Advice isn't rules, and Divine Smite does not require a melee attack using a weapon, it requires a "melee weapon attack." They're of course welcome to errata if they're unhappy with the actual printed rule. Printing garbage misinformation like that is precisely why Sage Advice isn't just not rules, it also isn't particularly persuasive.
I don't write the rules, I just know them.
I love it how you browbeat me with Sage Advice when it suited you but now it’s “garbage misinformation.” Taking debate tips from Trump?
Sage Advice isn't rules, and Divine Smite does not require a melee attack using a weapon, it requires a "melee weapon attack."
While plenty of monstrous unarmed attacks are tagged as melee weapon attacks, player attacks don't get monster tags, and the only relevant text I can find is:
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons).
On the other hand, if you look at the monster manual entry for a Kuo-Toa Monitor (which is basically a monk), its unarmed attacks are in fact specifically called out as melee weapon attacks, so I'd call RAW 'muddled, as commonly happens in 5e'.
Sage Advice isn't rules, and Divine Smite does not require a melee attack using a weapon, it requires a "melee weapon attack." They're of course welcome to errata if they're unhappy with the actual printed rule. Printing garbage misinformation like that is precisely why Sage Advice isn't just not rules, it also isn't particularly persuasive.
I don't write the rules, I just know them.
I love it how you browbeat me with Sage Advice when it suited you but now it’s “garbage misinformation.” Taking debate tips from Trump?
Are you sure you aren't confusing me with someone else? O_o
Sage Advice isn't rules, and Divine Smite does not require a melee attack using a weapon, it requires a "melee weapon attack."
While plenty of monstrous unarmed attacks are tagged as melee weapon attacks, player attacks don't get monster tags, and the only relevant text I can find is:
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons).
On the other hand, if you look at the monster manual entry for a Kuo-Toa Monitor (which is basically a monk), its unarmed attacks are in fact specifically called out as melee weapon attacks, so I'd call RAW 'muddled, as commonly happens in 5e'.
I don't see what you find unclear about the RAW: "you can use an unarmed strike"..."to make a melee weapon attack." There is no room for alternate interpretation, an Unarmed Strike is a melee weapon attack.
There's also no room for uncertainty in the Paladin's Divine Smite: it does not call for "a melee attack using a weapon" or "an attack using a melee weapon" or anything of the sort. It calls for "a melee weapon attack," full stop.
Lots of fun ambiguities in the rules to debate over, or areas which SAC could help new players understand with niche rulings. This isn't one of them, and really calls to question what the process is in generating new SAC content.
I don't see what you find unclear about the RAW: "you can use an unarmed strike"..."to make a melee weapon attack." There is no room for alternate interpretation, an Unarmed Strike is a melee weapon attack.
You have reordered the sentence you're trying to quote, and in the process changed its meaning. The sentence is "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike". There are two ways of parsing this: either the 'instead' replaces 'using a weapon' (in which case an unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack), or it replaces 'using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack' (in which case it is a melee attack, but not necessarily a melee weapon attack).
Personally, I'd classify unarmed attacks as melee weapon attacks with natural weapons, but the SAC interpretation isn't actually inconsistent with RAW.
I'm sorry, no. Both before and after the 2015 errata which reworded that section, it has never been in question that Unarmed Strikes are melee weapon attacks (pre-2015 errata, it was because they were Weapons; post-2015 errata, it is because that section tells you that you can use UA to make melee weapon attacks despite them not being weapons). To hold otherwise would lead to such bizarre conclusions as Stunning Strike not being useable with Unarmed Strikes, and any number of other shenanigans.
It's not thought provoking to ponder whether an Unarmed Strike is really a melee weapon attack, or if you can instead torture the sentence which tells you it is into saying something else instead. They just are, move on.
I'm sorry, no. Both before and after the 2015 errata which reworded that section, it has never been in question that Unarmed Strikes are melee weapon attacks (pre-2015 errata, it was because they were Weapons; post-2015 errata, it is because that section tells you that you can use UA to make melee weapon attacks despite them not being weapons). To hold otherwise would lead to such bizarre conclusions as Stunning Strike not being useable with Unarmed Strikes, and any number of other shenanigans.
That section tells you that you can use UA to make melee attacks, not melee weapon attacks (it does not say that they aren't melee weapon attacks, it just doesn't address the point). Your point about stunning strike is absolutely valid, however.
Y'all missed the most important part, which is the demon armor. Thegauntlets on your hands are magical weapons, so your unarmed strikes are now unequivocally weapon attacks.
While wearing this armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC, and you can understand and speak Abyssal. In addition, the armor's clawed gauntlets turn unarmed strikes with your hands into magic weapons that deal slashing damage, with a +1 bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls and a damage die of 1d8.
If restraining strikes makes it into Tasha's (and it looks like it is) there is no reason to take anything else than a Fighting Style Unarmed Battle Master IMO.
I am willing to wager that restraining strike will not be published the way it was in the UA. There may well be a grappling strike, which will be overpowered enough itself, but restrained just simply can't be handed out that freely.
Important to note that Restraining Strike is a limited resource. It gets recharged by a short-rest, but you’ll still need to manage the Superiority Dies.
Grapple, on the other hand, doesn’t have this limitation and can be combined with other good maneuvers.
I’m super anxious to see Tasha’s and finally put in action my Dwarf Barbarian Battlerager with a single dip of Fighter for Unarmed Fighting Style grappling and shoving like a crazy.
Rune Knight fighter Martial Archetype should be added in as sky blue. • Giant's Might gives advantage on Strength checks. • Giant's Might also grows your character to large size and eventually to huge. • All the runes from Rune Carver are great for grappler. With that said, I wouldn't recommend Fire since your unarmed attacks wouldn't triggered Fire rune.
Skill Expert Feat from TCE is should be also added as sky blue. • Without dipping into Rogue or Bard, it allows any race to gain expertise on Athletics skills.
Fighting Style: Unarmed Fighting should be added as Blue. • Increase your unarmed damaged to that of a longsword (1d8) and deals 1d4 bludgeon damage as long as you maintain grapple.
To be fair, I think I should completely re-write the guide to be more a list of techniques and some guidelines. Race isn't as important now as when the guide was written, and classes are getting super versatile. I would mention the strongest options, but otherwise keep it simple, I think the longer the guide, the more it loses value by confusing readers
Strongest subclasses are : - bard (swords and Valor) - druid (moon) - fighter (rune knight) - astral self monk for some wisdom grappling shenanigans
You can use unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks on grappled creatures, and you have advantage to do so if the creature is prone.
But to deal significant damage, you need high base damage, so either a strong natural weapon or improved unarmed strikes... Meaning, the only devastating kidney blow is going to be from monks, and grappler monks are kinda hard to make... (The easy option is Tortle monk, but I'm sure there are others)
My homebrew feat for thrown weapons, feat to help DMs extend Sorcerer's spells known list, and my homebrew combo monk subclass (diablo inspired)!
A 19 paladin/1 rogue with a belt and demon armor can grapple with one hand and smite with his unarmed strikes.
Throw oil of sharpness on your gauntlets and you can do a normal hit with Banishing and Divine Smites with +19 to hit, and 8d8+5d10+13 damage
How's that for a kidney punch?
Paladins cannot smite with unarmed strikes. You would have to be a Tabaxi or something and use your natural weapons.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Unarmed Strikes are melee weapon attacks. False.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
As per the latest Sage Advice release:
True.
And you accuse me of not reading it.... 🙄
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sage Advice isn't rules, and Divine Smite does not require a melee attack using a weapon, it requires a "melee weapon attack." They're of course welcome to errata if they're unhappy with the actual printed rule. Printing garbage misinformation like that is precisely why Sage Advice isn't just not rules, it also isn't particularly persuasive.
I don't write the rules, I just know them.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I love it how you browbeat me with Sage Advice when it suited you but now it’s “garbage misinformation.” Taking debate tips from Trump?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
While plenty of monstrous unarmed attacks are tagged as melee weapon attacks, player attacks don't get monster tags, and the only relevant text I can find is:
On the other hand, if you look at the monster manual entry for a Kuo-Toa Monitor (which is basically a monk), its unarmed attacks are in fact specifically called out as melee weapon attacks, so I'd call RAW 'muddled, as commonly happens in 5e'.
Are you sure you aren't confusing me with someone else? O_o
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't see what you find unclear about the RAW: "you can use an unarmed strike"..."to make a melee weapon attack." There is no room for alternate interpretation, an Unarmed Strike is a melee weapon attack.
There's also no room for uncertainty in the Paladin's Divine Smite: it does not call for "a melee attack using a weapon" or "an attack using a melee weapon" or anything of the sort. It calls for "a melee weapon attack," full stop.
Lots of fun ambiguities in the rules to debate over, or areas which SAC could help new players understand with niche rulings. This isn't one of them, and really calls to question what the process is in generating new SAC content.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You have reordered the sentence you're trying to quote, and in the process changed its meaning. The sentence is "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike". There are two ways of parsing this: either the 'instead' replaces 'using a weapon' (in which case an unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack), or it replaces 'using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack' (in which case it is a melee attack, but not necessarily a melee weapon attack).
Personally, I'd classify unarmed attacks as melee weapon attacks with natural weapons, but the SAC interpretation isn't actually inconsistent with RAW.
I'm sorry, no. Both before and after the 2015 errata which reworded that section, it has never been in question that Unarmed Strikes are melee weapon attacks (pre-2015 errata, it was because they were Weapons; post-2015 errata, it is because that section tells you that you can use UA to make melee weapon attacks despite them not being weapons). To hold otherwise would lead to such bizarre conclusions as Stunning Strike not being useable with Unarmed Strikes, and any number of other shenanigans.
It's not thought provoking to ponder whether an Unarmed Strike is really a melee weapon attack, or if you can instead torture the sentence which tells you it is into saying something else instead. They just are, move on.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That section tells you that you can use UA to make melee attacks, not melee weapon attacks (it does not say that they aren't melee weapon attacks, it just doesn't address the point). Your point about stunning strike is absolutely valid, however.
Y'all missed the most important part, which is the demon armor. Thegauntlets on your hands are magical weapons, so your unarmed strikes are now unequivocally weapon attacks.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/demon-armor
While wearing this armor, you gain a +1![]()
bonus to AC, and you can understand and speak Abyssal. In addition, the armor's clawed gauntlets turn unarmed strikes with your hands into magic weapons that deal slashing damage, with a +1![]()
bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls and a damage die of 1d8![]()
.
Check out the text of demon armor :)
If restraining strikes makes it into Tasha's (and it looks like it is) there is no reason to take anything else than a Fighting Style Unarmed Battle Master IMO.
I am willing to wager that restraining strike will not be published the way it was in the UA. There may well be a grappling strike, which will be overpowered enough itself, but restrained just simply can't be handed out that freely.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Important to note that Restraining Strike is a limited resource. It gets recharged by a short-rest, but you’ll still need to manage the Superiority Dies.
Grapple, on the other hand, doesn’t have this limitation and can be combined with other good maneuvers.
I’m super anxious to see Tasha’s and finally put in action my Dwarf Barbarian Battlerager with a single dip of Fighter for Unarmed Fighting Style grappling and shoving like a crazy.
Rune Knight fighter Martial Archetype should be added in as sky blue.
• Giant's Might gives advantage on Strength checks.
• Giant's Might also grows your character to large size and eventually to huge.
• All the runes from Rune Carver are great for grappler. With that said, I wouldn't recommend Fire since your unarmed attacks wouldn't triggered Fire rune.
Skill Expert Feat from TCE is should be also added as sky blue.
• Without dipping into Rogue or Bard, it allows any race to gain expertise on Athletics skills.
Fighting Style: Unarmed Fighting should be added as Blue.
• Increase your unarmed damaged to that of a longsword (1d8) and deals 1d4 bludgeon damage as long as you maintain grapple.
To be fair, I think I should completely re-write the guide to be more a list of techniques and some guidelines.
Race isn't as important now as when the guide was written, and classes are getting super versatile.
I would mention the strongest options, but otherwise keep it simple, I think the longer the guide, the more it loses value by confusing readers
Strongest subclasses are :
- bard (swords and Valor)
- druid (moon)
- fighter (rune knight)
- astral self monk for some wisdom grappling shenanigans
Strongest feats :
- skill expert
- unarmed fighting style
Strongest spells :
- Enlarge / reduce (enlarge only)
- enhance ability is okay
- transformation spells
My homebrew feat for thrown weapons, feat to help DMs extend Sorcerer's spells known list, and my homebrew combo monk subclass (diablo inspired)!