For a Grung do unarmed strikes inflict the poison effect?
Poisonous Skin
Any creature that grapples you or otherwise comes into direct contact with your skin must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or become poisoned for 1 minute. A poisoned creature no longer in direct contact with you can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.
You can also apply this poison to any piercing weapon as part of an attack with that weapon, though when you hit the poison reacts differently. The target must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or take 2d4 poison damage.
RAW, that would be a hard no -- an Unarmed Strike by default does Bludgeoning damage, not Piercing. There are a few Racial traits that make it Slashing, but then it wouldn't be a Grung anymore so it would be irrelevant. Because the Unarmed Strike is not Piercing, the poison cannot apply.
RAI, though.... there's not enough there to determine what the intention is. The concept of an Unarmed Strike is not terribly different than the Grappling scenario, besides the length of exposure. But the first section does specifically say "...or otherwise comes into direct contact with your skin...", which if your character is not wearing some type of gloves, would be an Unarmed Strike.
I'd say it's up to your DM, until such time as Sage Advice on the subject is posted.
If you're making unarmed strikes without wearing gloves, etc, then I'd say yes based on this line:
Any creature that grapples you or otherwise comes into direct contact with your skin must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or become poisoned for 1 minute.
Punching/kicking someone, if you're not wearing gloves or boots, would be direct contact with your skin
For the purpose of damage, I would be torn whether to have the poisoned state be activated by an unarmed strike or the poison damage (2d4). Interesting question though, does make it easier to apply the poisoned state with an attack rather than a grapple at least for the monster stat block.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I would argue poisoned condition saving throw during an unarmed attack and only the 2d4 poison damage for piercing attacks. each being afflicted on target once per turn on a successful attack regardless of the amount of attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For a Grung do unarmed strikes inflict the poison effect?
Poisonous Skin
Any creature that grapples you or otherwise comes into direct contact with your skin must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or become poisoned for 1 minute. A poisoned creature no longer in direct contact with you can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.
You can also apply this poison to any piercing weapon as part of an attack with that weapon, though when you hit the poison reacts differently. The target must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or take 2d4 poison damage.
RAW, that would be a hard no -- an Unarmed Strike by default does Bludgeoning damage, not Piercing. There are a few Racial traits that make it Slashing, but then it wouldn't be a Grung anymore so it would be irrelevant. Because the Unarmed Strike is not Piercing, the poison cannot apply.
RAI, though.... there's not enough there to determine what the intention is. The concept of an Unarmed Strike is not terribly different than the Grappling scenario, besides the length of exposure. But the first section does specifically say "...or otherwise comes into direct contact with your skin...", which if your character is not wearing some type of gloves, would be an Unarmed Strike.
I'd say it's up to your DM, until such time as Sage Advice on the subject is posted.
If you're making unarmed strikes without wearing gloves, etc, then I'd say yes based on this line:
Punching/kicking someone, if you're not wearing gloves or boots, would be direct contact with your skin
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
For the purpose of damage, I would be torn whether to have the poisoned state be activated by an unarmed strike or the poison damage (2d4). Interesting question though, does make it easier to apply the poisoned state with an attack rather than a grapple at least for the monster stat block.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I would argue poisoned condition saving throw during an unarmed attack and only the 2d4 poison damage for piercing attacks. each being afflicted on target once per turn on a successful attack regardless of the amount of attacks.