Rules for special attacks? (E.g. Withering Touch vs. Extra Attack, OAs, smites, etc.)

[Greywander]

Let me preface this by saying that, although I am presenting a specific example, try not to get too caught up on the specifics. What I'm trying to figure out is more in the vein of, "What are the rules for handling any kind of nonstandard attack, and what sorts of wording and clauses do I need to include to get certain effects?" That said, I'm not aware of any way, RAW, for a PC to get abilities such as this, but I'd still be a bit surprised if the rules didn't already handle something like this.

I was doing some updating of the undead race I've worked on off and on, and one the tweaks was to give them the following feature:

Withering Touch. As an action, make an unarmed weapon attack with a free hand against a creature within reach. On a hit, the target takes necrotic damage equal to 1d6 + your Constitution modifier. This attack uses Constitution instead of Strength for the attack roll.
This damage increases by 1d6 at 5th, 11th, and 17th level.

This ability is... well, it's okay. Decent, even. Compared to a standard unarmed attack, it's a definite upgrade, but in the majority of cases, it will likely get edged out slightly by weapons or cantrips. It's almost a ribbon, included mostly because many undead have a trait like this, or similar. I thought it would be neat.

I was going to add a racial feat that gives an upgrade to Withering Touch. One of the upgrades was that you could use it for opportunity attacks. But then I got to thinking, "Can you already use it for opportunity attacks? It's a weapon attack, and OAs just say to make a weapon attack." This is kind of important, as other, similar but stronger touch attacks exist for specific subraces, like the skeleton gets a paralyzing touch that is adapted from the lich, and probably shouldn't be allowed for OAs (the lich's paralyzing touch is a spell attack, though, so it should be fine). This, in turn, got me wondering about other rule interactions, and just how a special ability like this works with the rules.

Some things I think I already know:

Due to the "As an action" clause, this attack can't be used as part of an Attack action, nor does it benefit from Extra Attack, hence the cantrip-like scaling. It also doesn't count as taking the Attack action (e.g. for Shield Master). If I had wanted this to replace your Attack action attacks, I could have used similar wording to the grapple and shove rules. If I had wanted this to operate as a "regular" attack, I probably would have said something like "Your unarmed attacks deal 1d6 necrotic damage, and you use Consitution for the attack and damage rolls". If had wanted it to use the Attack action, but replace all of your attacks with the special one, I could have said something like, "When you take the Attack action, you can forgo all your normal attacks to make one special attack..."

Because it is an unarmed attack, it doesn't benefit from magic weapons. Because it is a weapon attack, it doesn't benefit from items like the Wand of the War Mage. I'm not aware of any magic items that would boost this ability, except those that do so indirectly by increasing CON or your proficiency bonus. Again, weapons or cantrips will likely edge this ability out. This doesn't preclude the possibility of such an item being created, though.

This attack does not qualify for Sneak Attack, because it does not use a finesse or ranged weapon. A special attack that used DEX for the attack roll might be argued as intending to qualify for Sneak Attack, using the same logic that many apply to the monk's Martial Arts feature, but RAW it would not. As an aside, I don't understand why Sneak Attacks can't be used with any weapon, but that's a different matter entirely.

There currently aren't any fighting styles that would benefit this attack, though that doesn't preclude the possibility of one being created in the future.

Some things I'm not sure of:

Could this feature be used for OAs, since it is, indeed, a weapon attack? Or does the "as an action" clause preclude this? What about the Mage Slayer and Sentinel feats, both of which also allow "weapon attacks" as a reaction?

Can you smite with this? Does it benefit from Improved Smite? I know there's a disagreement on the difference between "a weapon attack" vs. "an attack with a weapon". Special attacks aside, I don't see why a paladin can't punch to smite, and I find the image pretty amusing. Also remember, this special attack doesn't benefit from Extra Attack, so fewer smites.

Can you use this with Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade? Those spells specifically require a weapon as a component, and an attack with a weapon, however nothing says these need to be the same weapon. See above on "weapon attack" vs. "attack with a weapon". It's silly, and definitely not RAI, but as above I don't fully understand why BB wasn't written to work with fists.

As this is an unarmed attack, does it use the monk's Martial Arts die? Can you make this attack as a bonus action after using the Attack action? Can you use it twice with Flurry of Blows? Can you use Stunning Strike at the same time?

If I have Tavern Brawler, can I grapple as a bonus action after using this attack, as it is an unarmed attack?

There's probably others I'm forgetting or am not aware of.

What I intended:

I didn't originally intend for this to be used for OAs without a feat, though I don't have a huge problem with it. Likewise for Mage Slayer/Sentinel. Reaction attacks seem rare enough that I don't see a reason to take nice things away from players.

I'm fine with smites working, including Improved Smite. Less attacks mean less smites. The balance is similar to, if slightly weaker than, using BB and smiting, and without the control aspect of BB.

This isn't intended to work with BB or GFB. It would be a neat trick to use them together, but doubling up on the cantrip-style scaling would be too much. And it looks like BB and GFB don't work with unarmed attacks anyway.

I'm surprisingly okay with using the Martial Arts die, and with using Stunning Strikes. I think it's too much for a bonus action, or Flurry of Blows, though.

I'm also fine with the Tavern Brawler interaction.

I might rewrite this to use the Attack action (replacing all attacks). Would this have any other effects, aside from those I've already noted (e.g. Shield Master)?

[Lunali]

There is an item that gives bonuses to unarmed strikes, the insignia of claws from the HotDQ, it gives +1 attack and damage.

You would be able to use divine smite with it, but not improved smite.

This is essentially another cantrip you could use, so you wouldn't be able to combine it with Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade as all three have the attack contained within the spell. You could, however, combine it with one of the smite spells since those take effect on your next successful attack.

This would use martial arts dice or any other adjustments to unarmed strikes, like tavern brawler or racial traits (if you allowed combining races).

You would be able to use tavern brawler to grapple after landing this attack.

As for OAs, I would treat this as a cantrip, so make people take warcaster to use it. Actually, that's probably the easiest way to implement it, just treat it as a racial cantrip.

[Greywander]

After thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that, as written, this feature would not qualify for any kind of bonus action or reaction attack, and it's because of the "as an action" clause.

Part of the problem is that 5e doesn't spell everything out explicitly in the rules. This is both a blessing and a curse. It means that the rules can be more streamlined, and you have the liberty to use some common sense to fill in the gaps, but it also means that a lot of things are implied and not explicitly stated.

If we wanted to be absurdly strict in our reading of the rules, OAs let us make an attack using our reaction, but we don't have any attacks we can legally make with a reaction, so we can't use OAs. This is, of course, incredibly silly, and it's obvious that the intention is that an OA allows us to attack as a reaction, despite attacking normally using an action. Further application of common sense tells us that there is, in fact, a distinction between "normal" attacks and "special" attacks. A normal attack is any attack we can do as part of the Attack action. Things like OAs, Flurry of Blows, Sentinel, etc. are implied to use normal attacks only, not special attacks. If we didn't distinguish between normal and special attacks, then we could use the Attack action to "make a weapon attack" with Withering Touch, despite the fact that Withering Touch explicitly uses its own action.

TL;DR, if I'm allowed to use Withering Touch with an OA, it implies that I can also use it as one of my attacks for the Attack action, since both say to "make a weapon attack". Since Withering Touch uses its own action and not the Attack action, this implies that I can't just use it any time I get to "make a weapon attack".


There is an item that gives bonuses to unarmed strikes, the insignia of claws from the HotDQ, it gives +1 attack and damage.
I wish they wouldn't do this. If you're going to make new character options, like spells or magic items, then don't hide them in an adventure module. I mean, it's fine to have the item in the adventure module, they should just also put it in the next book they publish that specifically provides more character options (books like XGtE).


You would be able to use divine smite with it, but not improved smite.
But y tho? One of the features is literally called "Improved X", and yet they have different rules for unarmed attacks. Maybe it's so that a disarmed paladin doesn't have strong unarmed attacks, unless they're willing to burn one of their limited spell slots. I'm still tempted to houserule that both smite features work with unarmed attacks, or at least on a monk multiclass.


or racial traits (if you allowed combining races).
This is actually kind of weird. I'd imagine, say, an aarakocra could still punch people for 1 + STR mod bludgeoning damage, instead of scratching with their talons. If a race has a modified unarmed attack, I'm having trouble seeing how that would interact at all with something like Withering Touch. As I see it, they're separate things. Heck, some creatures even have separate bite and claw attacks, with no interaction between them. The monk's Martial Arts die is different, because it modifies the damage die of all unarmed attacks (and attacks with monk weapons). So we're talking about a character with two different unarmed attacks that don't interact with each other, but both benefit from the Martial Arts die.


As for OAs, I would treat this as a cantrip, so make people take warcaster to use it. Actually, that's probably the easiest way to implement it, just treat it as a racial cantrip.
At one point, I did make the paralyzing touch ability for the skeletons a cantrip, then changed it back because it felt weird. No matter what you do, you're going to get unintended interactions. Make it an unarmed attack? Monk says "hi". Make it a cantrip? Hello metamagic. Make it a spell attack? Nice wand +3 you got there.

In any case, my intention was to make a racial feat that affected all of the special touch attacks for each undead subrace. They all get Withering Touch, but also a subrace-specific touch attack (like Paralyzing Touch for the skeletons). So you're not taking this feat just to make OAs with Withering Touch. Anyway, still working out the details.