Can a Paladin Smite with Green Flame Blade?

[JakOfAllTirades]

This has me confused: the PHB sez a Paladin can Smite "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack."

And the GFB spell description says: "As part of the action use to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon..."

Now, this is almost crystal clear, but by writing it this way, WOTC left room for debate: they could have actually used the phrase "melee weapon attack" in the spell description and removed all doubt, but they didn't. So I'm not certain.

But "melee attack with a weapon" is pretty much semantically equivalent. Or is it? I've learned not to jump to conclusions. Is there some reason for the difference in wording? Or is it just sloppy writing as usual? (Drat it WOTC, I hate it what you do this!)

Correction: WOTC didn't write the SCAG.

[Submortimer]

This has me confused: the PHB sez a Paladin can Smite "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack."

And the GFB spell description says: "As part of the action use to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon..."

Now, this is almost crystal clear, but by writing it this way, WOTC left room for debate: they could have actually used the phrase "melee weapon attack" in the spell description and removed all doubt, but they didn't. So I'm not certain.

But "melee attack with a weapon" is pretty much semantically equivalent. Or is it? I've learned not to jump to conclusions. Is there some reason for the difference in wording? Or is it just sloppy writing as usual? (Drat it WOTC, I hate it what you do this!)

Correction: WOTC didn't write the SCAG.

Yes, in fact, you can. As a part of casting the spell, you make an attack with a melee weapon (ore melee weapon attack, I'm AFB and don't remember which). This is in all respects still a normal weapon attack, so anything you can do that would modify a normal weapon attack (smite, GWM, Sneak Attack, etc.) would still work here. Something that required you to take the Attack ACTION (like Flurry of Blows or Two weapon fighting) would not function, since you are casting a spell, not taking the attack action.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The only requirement for smite is a melee weapon attack and burning spell slots. Do that and you are golden.

The only think that it works weird with is the Ranger's whirlwind attack as JC or someone clarified that whirlwind is one attack not multiple attacks (even though you make multiple attack rolls...).

[MaxWilson]

This has me confused: the PHB sez a Paladin can Smite "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack."

And the GFB spell description says: "As part of the action use to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon..."

Now, this is almost crystal clear, but by writing it this way, WOTC left room for debate: they could have actually used the phrase "melee weapon attack" in the spell description and removed all doubt, but they didn't. So I'm not certain.

But "melee attack with a weapon" is pretty much semantically equivalent. Or is it? I've learned not to jump to conclusions. Is there some reason for the difference in wording? Or is it just sloppy writing as usual? (Drat it WOTC, I hate it what you do this!)

Correction: WOTC didn't write the SCAG.

GFB is telling you to make a melee weapon attack that cannot be an unarmed strike. It needs to be an actual weapon.

Yes, the paladin can smite.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

GFB is telling you to make a melee weapon attack that cannot be an unarmed strike. It needs to be an actual weapon.

Yes, the paladin can smite.

Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on unarmed strikes should read as follows: “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 a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”


Though to be fair WotC really doesn't know what to do with or how it wants to deal with unarmed strikes.

I would just call it a weapon and move on. Tell the monk, a pugilist, a boxer, or some mad redneck (totally needs to be a class in the next UA modern update) that their unarmed strikes aren't weapons.

[JakOfAllTirades]

The character I'm working on will definitely be using a weapon rather than unarmed strikes, but I'd say my question has been answered.

Many thanks.

[Arkhios]

Sorry for an off-topic question, but am I to assume that one could not smite with an unarmed strike? o_O

[JakOfAllTirades]

Sorry for an off-topic question, but am I to assume that one could not smite with an unarmed strike? o_O

That apparently depends on whether an unarmed strike is considered a "weapon" under RAW or RAI. It's definitely a melee attack, but I have no idea if it's officially been ruled a weapon or not. However, I've never actually seen a Paladin go into combat unarmed, so I'm gonna leave this debate to someone else.

[Dimers]

Sorry for an off-topic question, but am I to assume that one could not smite with an unarmed strike? o_O

Certainly. An unarmed strike is not a weapon, but you can make melee weapon attacks with it, which qualifies for paladin smiting. The rather odd wording of green-flame blade is such that you can't use unarmed strike with THAT, but yeah, it's fine for smiting.

Aaaaaand now I want to make a vengeance paladin who pimpslaps the undead to their final rest.

[Arkhios]

That apparently depends on whether an unarmed strike is considered a "weapon" under RAW or RAI. It's definitely a melee attack, but I have no idea if it's officially been ruled a weapon or not. However, I've never actually seen a Paladin go into combat unarmed, so I'm gonna leave this debate to someone else.

If you're (no, not personally, 'you' in general) into deliberate min/maxing, then a two-hander is obviously better for a paladin (I'd say that a greatsword/maul is even better than greataxe for Pally, because of GWF style + smiting); if not, however...


Certainly. An unarmed strike is not a weapon, but you can make melee weapon attacks with it, which qualifies for paladin smiting. The rather odd wording of green-flame blade is such that you can't use unarmed strike with THAT, but yeah, it's fine for smiting.

Aaaaaand now I want to make a vengeance paladin who pimpslaps the undead to their final rest.

...the question sprang up from my latest Pathfinder character, before I grew bored of the ridiculous turbo-boost enabling system. I had this Paladin of Irori (=a monk god)/Sacred Fist Warpriest who was as ridiculous as it can get in Pathfinder: HUGE defenses, HUGE damage, and a HUGE block of cheese.
Basically a paladin monk who smit his foes with each blow of his flurry. Insane, I tell you. Insane!

Not that I was going to make a Divine Fister anytime in near future, the thought is there, looming, waiting... And it's apparently a viable path *if* you can live with (only) a slightly smaller base damage output. ;)

[Foxhound438]

Sorry for an off-topic question, but am I to assume that one could not smite with an unarmed strike? o_O

all attacks fall into one of the four following categories: Melee weapon, ranged weapon, melee spell, ranged spell.

An unarmed strike isn't a spell or a ranged attack, so there it is... more or less...

back to OP though, there's definitely room to debate that GFB is a spell attack since the attack is part of casting a spell, while at the same time you use your str/dex for attack and damage as normal, so unless there's a clarification out there any DM might rule it either way. Kind of an odd case, but i don't think anyone would be super upset if you tried to do it. It's only minimally more powerful than using your normal attack to smite.

[Arkhios]

i don't think anyone would be super upset if you tried to do it. It's only minimally more powerful than using your normal attack to smite.

AND you restrict yourself from using Extra Attack if you cast a cantrip. (unless you can cast a cantrip as a Bonus Action).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If you're (no, not personally, 'you' in general) into deliberate min/maxing, then a two-hander is obviously better for a paladin (I'd say that a greatsword/maul is even better than greataxe for Pally, because of GWF style + smiting); if not, however...

I'm not sure why you would think you can't THF with unarmed strikes... Not sure if it would be considered heavy but two non-light weapons together should be "heavy"..

http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/articles/fight6.jpg

[MaxWilson]

If you're (no, not personally, 'you' in general) into deliberate min/maxing, then a two-hander is obviously better for a paladin (I'd say that a greatsword/maul is even better than greataxe for Pally, because of GWF style + smiting); if not, however...

Not necessarily. From a min-maxing perspective, Tavern Brawler and improvised attacks with your shield can be quite attractive on a paladin, especially if you're trying to optimize a whole party instead of a solo PC. Forcing an enemy to remain prone is a powerful, powerful effect in 5E, and if you're getting the bulk of your damage off of smites and Improved Smite anyway, the smaller d4 of improvised weapons matters less compared to the fact that you're making all of your attacks at advantage and the enemy is making all of his attacks at disadvantage.

[Arkhios]

Not necessarily. From a min-maxing perspective, Tavern Brawler and improvised attacks with your shield can be quite attractive on a paladin, especially if you're trying to optimize a whole party instead of a solo PC. Forcing an enemy to remain prone is a powerful, powerful effect in 5E, and if you're getting the bulk of your damage off of smites and Improved Smite anyway, the smaller d4 of improvised weapons matters less compared to the fact that you're making all of your attacks at advantage and the enemy is making all of his attacks at disadvantage.

The two-hander is still a better choice if your intent is to min/max (with which I refer to maximum damage output and cheesy saves for a paladin; Max out Str & Cha, and pretty much disregard the rest), Two-Handed Fighting Style allows you to reroll each and every damage die result of 2 or lower, potentially increasing the damage quite a lot (it applies both for the weapon as well as with any other dice that play along with the hit, such as divine smite dice, and a greatsword or maul, both with 2d6, benefit greatly.

It's entirely another thing to actually play as one of your team than a solo Min/Maxed one man army.

[MaxWilson]

The two-hander is still a better choice if your intent is to min/max (with which I refer to maximum damage output and cheesy saves for a paladin; Max out Str & Cha, and pretty much disregard the rest), Two-Handed Fighting Style allows you to reroll each and every damage die result of 2 or lower, potentially increasing the damage quite a lot (it applies both for the weapon as well as with any other dice that play along with the hit, such as divine smite dice, and a greatsword or maul, both with 2d6, benefit greatly.

It's entirely another thing to actually play as one of your team than a solo Min/Maxed one man army.

It is true that min-maxing for DPR is quite different from min-maxing operational efficiency/effectiveness or loss ratios.

[Syll]

The Two-Handed Fighting Style allows you to reroll each and every damage die result of 2 or lower, potentially increasing the damage quite a lot (it applies both for the weapon as well as with any other dice that play along with the hit, such as divine smite dice, and a greatsword or maul, both with 2d6, benefit greatly.

Is the fighting style stacking with smite written anywhere? I just started a campaign as a paladin, so it would benefit me, but that's not how I interpreted the 2 handed style description

[Desamir]

Is the fighting style stacking with smite written anywhere? I just started a campaign as a paladin, so it would benefit me, but that's not how I interpreted the 2 handed style description

Rules as written, Smite benefits from GWF style. The intention (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/651510346092429312) is GWF only benefits weapon damage.

[Arkhios]

Is the fighting style stacking with smite written anywhere? I just started a campaign as a paladin, so it would benefit me, but that's not how I interpreted the 2 handed style description

Sorry, messed up with the name myself. I meant the Great Weapon Fighting style.