Question on Unarmed Attacks, Natural Weapons, and all that jazz

[Man_Over_Game]

So I understand that racial-based natural weapons can be used as unarmed attacks.

To me, this reads as

Weapon X can also be treated as an unarmed strike when attacking with it.

However, does it work in reverse? Can I make an Unarmed Strike and choose to use my Natural Weapon for it? That is, if I have a Claw weapon, can I use it on all of my Flurry of Blows attacks?

On top of that, could the attack utilize the stat changes from the racial natural weapon (if, say, a Natural Weapon used your Wisdom to attack with), and could I upgrade the damage die to my Martial Arts die when doing so?

[nickl_2000]

This seems to imply that the reverse works just fine.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/798290908248559616



on the other hand, this implies that it doesn't.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/756202441142444032


So maybe it just works for Tabaxi? JC is as clear as ever



Tortle "Your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes"
Tabaxi " In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes"
Lizardfolk "Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes"

For all of those an unarmed strike can use the natural weapon. So flurry of blows in fine. Maybe it just doesn't work with beast wild shape?

[Man_Over_Game]

For all of those an unarmed strike can use the natural weapon. So flurry of blows in fine. Maybe it just doesn't work with beast wild shape?

I know that that much is correct. What he's saying is that Natural Weapons are not, inherently, Unarmed Strikes. Things like Alter Self or Racial Natural Weapons add an exception to the rule by stating they can be used as Unarmed Strikes. This mostly applies to Wild Shape (in that, it doesn't), and maybe Polymorph.

I guess I'm asking for the opposite, if anything that calls for an Unarmed Strike (such as Flurry of Blows) could instead call for a Natural Weapon (if eligible) and what kind of stat/die requirements would it follow?

For that matter, what damage does a Monk with Shillelagh use? Or someone using Shillelagh with Polearm Master?

So many questions.

[x3n0n]

For that matter, what damage does a Monk with Shillelagh use? Or someone using Shillelagh with Polearm Master?

The latter has been answered in Sage Advice: the Polearm Master bonus action uses a d4, regardless of weapon, including Shillelagh.

I would assume that a Shillelagh held by a Monk would use a d8 until the Martial Arts die becomes a d10 at Monk 17.

[Christew]

I know that that much is correct. What he's saying is that Natural Weapons are not, inherently, Unarmed Strikes. Things like Alter Self or Racial Natural Weapons add an exception to the rule by stating they can be used as Unarmed Strikes. This mostly applies to Wild Shape (in that, it doesn't), and maybe Polymorph.

I guess I'm asking for the opposite, if anything that calls for an Unarmed Strike (such as Flurry of Blows) could instead call for a Natural Weapon (if eligible) and what kind of stat/die requirements would it follow?

For that matter, what damage does a Monk with Shillelagh use? Or someone using Shillelagh with Polearm Master?

So many questions.
I think you basically have it. If a natural weapon includes the rider that it can be used to make unarmed strikes, then it can be used for flurry of blows. As for stat/damage die, I think it is similar to having multiple sources of AC calculation -- you pick one. So at low levels you would pick the base damage (natural weapon, shillelagh, etc) and at higher levels (once your martial arts die has eclipsed base damage) you would pick the martial arts die.

So, Monk/Shillelagh: use a d8 until your martial arts die becomes a d10.
Shillelagh/PAM: d8 for main attack, d4 for bonus attack -- I don't think Shillelagh has any effect on the bonus attack. The only interaction is to make the attack magical and bump its damage to a d8 if you are one handing.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think you basically have it. If a natural weapon includes the rider that it can be used to make unarmed strikes, then it can be used for flurry of blows. As for stat/damage die, I think it is similar to having multiple sources of AC calculation -- you pick one. So at low levels you would pick the base damage (natural weapon, shillelagh, etc) and at higher levels (once your martial arts die has eclipsed base damage) you would pick the martial arts die.

So, Monk/Shillelagh: use a d8 until your martial arts die becomes a d10.
Shillelagh/PAM: d8 for main attack, d4 for bonus attack -- I don't think Shillelagh has any effect on the bonus attack. The only interaction is to make the attack magical and bump its damage to a d8 if you are one handing.

Interesting. Thank you. That does all make sense. I see the PAM ruling as perfectly accurate, since the BA attack is only ever called by the Feat, and so it uses the Feat's rules regardless of any plausible "exceptions" from other sources (like Shillelagh).

[Christew]

Interesting. Thank you. That does all make sense. I see the PAM ruling as perfectly accurate, since the BA attack is only ever called by the Feat, and so it uses the Feat's rules regardless of any plausible "exceptions" from other sources (like Shillelagh).
My pleasure. Yeah, one of those specific versus general things.

Good thread topic, by the way. The language around natural/unarmed is one of the more unclear portions of the rules and Crawford's deliberately short and uncontextualized responses do little to clear it up.

[Man_Over_Game]

My pleasure. Yeah, one of those specific versus general things.

Good thread topic, by the way. The language around natural/unarmed is one of the more unclear portions of the rules and Crawford's deliberately short and uncontextualized responses do little to clear it up.

God does it frustrate me. At one point, when asked about how Beastmaster needs some TLC on the whole "losing your companion" thing, since it's the only way to get a beast companion, he basically says "Well, talk to your DM about using Animal Handling for getting one if you're worried about it".
Like, *scrubbed*. How does that help ANYONE...

Sorry...just bugs me that the lead developer wants to maintain communication with the public, and does so in cryptic 10 word tweets, like 5e is supposed to be some *scrubbed* riddle, a modern equivalent to reading the bones.

Anyway, thanks for all the help. Probably gonna try my hand at making an AG/Drunken Master or something. Ooh, Tortle Battlerager with a spiked shell and Tavern Brawler! So many choices...

[Christew]

God does it frustrate me. At one point, when asked about how Beastmaster needs some TLC, since it's the only way to get a beast companion, he basically says "Well, talk to your DM about using Animal Handling for it".
Like, *scrub the post, scrub the quote*. How does that help ANYONE...

Sorry...just bugs me that the lead developer wants to maintain communication with the public, and does so in cryptic 10 word tweets, like 5e is supposed to be some *scrub the post, scrub the quote* riddle, a modern equivalent to reading the bones.

Anyway, thanks for all the help. Probably gonna try my hand at making an AG/Drunken Master or something.
Preaching to the choir, brother. Cryptic ten word tweets that basically never feature a follow up. The number of times that his tweets are followed immediately by "That doesn't really answer my question ..." or "Yeah, but what does that mean in X situation?" is truly comical.

Sounds fun, hope it turns out well. I had a Druid/Drunken Master that was far from optimized, but a riot to play.

[Greywander]

Huh, I was recently thinking about a similar question, but the other way around: Can a natural weapon be used as a weapon? As in, could you use it with things like Booming Blade or Sneak Attack? At the time, I was working on a playable cat and made their claws count as finesse weapons while also being an unarmed strike. Most animals can't wield weapons, and it would be kind of weird if an ambush predator like a cat couldn't take advantage of the rogue's Sneak Attack.

I guess the real question is: what is a natural weapon? It appears that they're not automatically an unarmed strike, so does that mean they by default count as weapons?

[Man_Over_Game]

Preaching to the choir, brother. Cryptic ten word tweets that basically never feature a follow up. The number of times that his tweets are followed immediately by "That doesn't really answer my question ..." or "Yeah, but what does that mean in X situation?" is truly comical.

Sounds fun, hope it turns out well. I had a Druid/Drunken Master that was far from optimized, but a riot to play.

I can kinda see the issue. There's no way for a Drunken Master to leverage a high Wisdom like he'd need to, since it's focused all around Flurry of Blows (which HAS to use Dexterity or Strength, no other options so far).

Next time, I'd suggest Long Death.

LD doesn't need Dex all that badly, so you can focus on making Wisdom your primary stat by using Shillelagh for really powerful Stunning Strikes, tons of THP from your passive feature, could even regularly use Patient Defense often due to the fact that you aren't going to be using your BA for Flurry/Martial Arts too terribly often.

Plus you get things like Misty Step, Mirror Image, Magic Stone, Thorn Whip, all very well optimized.

It's something I've always wanted to try. An old-man with mediocre Dexterity but still knows a dozen forbidden arts to kick your ass.

[Christew]

I can kinda see the issue. There's no way for a Drunken Master to leverage a high Wisdom like he'd need to, since it's focused all around Flurry of Blows (which HAS to use Dexterity or Strength, no other options so far).
Exactly. It was a pretty comedic game where everyone was playing shifter tribesfolk (builds had to have at least 2 levels of Moon Druid). Actually turned into a pretty good story, but yeah a bit of a mechanical dead end.


LD doesn't need Dex all that badly, so you can focus on making Wisdom your primary stat by using Shillelagh for really powerful Stunning Strikes, tons of THP from your passive feature, could even regularly use Patient Defense often due to the fact that you aren't going to be using your BA for Flurry/Martial Arts too terribly often.

Plus you get things like Misty Step, Mirror Image, Magic Stone, Thorn Whip, all very well optimized.

It's something I've always wanted to try. An old-man with mediocre Dexterity but still knows a dozen forbidden arts to kick your ass.
That sounds awesome actually; I am unabashedly stealing it.

[sithlordnergal]

yes, if your race has a natural weapon, such as a bite or claw attack, then you can use that weapon dice and weapon for all Monk related activities, including Flurry of Blows. You can also choose which weapon dice to use out of the two. So say you're a Lizardfolk Monk, you can start with a 1d6 Piercing unarmed strike as you bite. Though if you make a Bludgeoning attack, it would technically still only be 1d4 since you're not biting anything

[Christew]

Huh, I was recently thinking about a similar question, but the other way around: Can a natural weapon be used as a weapon? As in, could you use it with things like Booming Blade or Sneak Attack? At the time, I was working on a playable cat and made their claws count as finesse weapons while also being an unarmed strike. Most animals can't wield weapons, and it would be kind of weird if an ambush predator like a cat couldn't take advantage of the rogue's Sneak Attack.

I guess the real question is: what is a natural weapon? It appears that they're not automatically an unarmed strike, so does that mean they by default count as weapons?
Further down the rabbit hole that is 5e's dodgy terminology.

To my understanding, natural weapons are weapons (unless otherwise stated) and unarmed strikes are not weapons (unless otherwise stated) though both are used to make melee weapon attacks.

For something like Booming Blade (which requires a weapon as a material component) I believe a natural weapon qualifies provided you are not using said natural weapon to make an unarmed strike. For Sneak Attack (which requires a finesse weapon) I believe you are out of luck, especially since they all list STR instead of DEX, unless your DM approves (probably a no go in AL for example).

As to what they are, I think a non-manufactured weapon that is sometimes able to make Unarmed Strikes and sometimes not is the closest thing to a definition provided -- "These can be spell attacks or weapon attack, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon such as a claw or tail spike."

[Dork_Forge]

I can kinda see the issue. There's no way for a Drunken Master to leverage a high Wisdom like he'd need to, since it's focused all around Flurry of Blows (which HAS to use Dexterity or Strength, no other options so far).

Next time, I'd suggest Long Death.

LD doesn't need Dex all that badly, so you can focus on making Wisdom your primary stat by using Shillelagh for really powerful Stunning Strikes, tons of THP from your passive feature, could even regularly use Patient Defense often due to the fact that you aren't going to be using your BA for Flurry/Martial Arts too terribly often.

Plus you get things like Misty Step, Mirror Image, Magic Stone, Thorn Whip, all very well optimized.

It's something I've always wanted to try. An old-man with mediocre Dexterity but still knows a dozen forbidden arts to kick your ass.

I'd go the other way and take War Cleric: Divine Favor would let you add 1d4 radiant damage to all of your attacks and when you run out of Ki you can use your War Domain bonus action attack to raise your bonus damage a bit (until your martial arts die matches a d8 at least).

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd go the other way and take War Cleric: Divine Favor would let you add 1d4 radiant damage to all of your attacks and when you run out of Ki you can use your War Domain bonus action attack to raise your bonus damage a bit (until your martial arts die matches a d8 at least).

That's not a bad consideration, but you do end up in a scenario where your Divine Favor relies on a stat that you aren't pumping much (Dexterity for Flurry of Blows), and War Cleric doesn't have much that actually uses Wisdom beyond its BA weapon attack (which is generally only a 1d8 anyway). You'd also still need Shillelagh from Druid in order to leverage your high Wisdom on your attacks.

Although, I've never really considered it before, but Divine Favor on a Hunter Ranger would be amazing, since every use of Volley or Whirwind Strike are considered "attacks".

[Chronos]

If you're fighting a small number of bigger enemies, which in my experience is the more common situation, a ranger benefits more from Hunter's Mark. Divine Favor only pulls ahead if you're switching targets so much that your bonus actions can't keep up.

[Man_Over_Game]

If you're fighting a small number of bigger enemies, which in my experience is the more common situation, a ranger benefits more from Hunter's Mark. Divine Favor only pulls ahead if you're switching targets so much that your bonus actions can't keep up.

Buuuut at +1 damage difference, I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to lose out on my BA, depending on my build.

I could definitely see the difference in value when duration is considered, but that might depend on what kind of table you have.

[Dork_Forge]

That's not a bad consideration, but you do end up in a scenario where your Divine Favor relies on a stat that you aren't pumping much (Dexterity for Flurry of Blows), and War Cleric doesn't have much that actually uses Wisdom beyond its BA weapon attack (which is generally only a 1d8 anyway). You'd also still need Shillelagh from Druid in order to leverage your high Wisdom on your attacks.

Although, I've never really considered it before, but Divine Favor on a Hunter Ranger would be amazing, since every use of Volley or Whirwind Strike are considered "attacks".

Oh I didn't mean on a Wis primary build, just in general to add a decent amount of damage to the build, taking a level dip in Druid is all it takes to grab Shillelagh though and if you're going to be leaving Dex a low stat then your damage will be eh regardless.

[Man_Over_Game]

Further down the rabbit hole that is 5e's dodgy terminology.

To my understanding, natural weapons are weapons (unless otherwise stated) and unarmed strikes are not weapons (unless otherwise stated) though both are used to make melee weapon attacks.

For something like Booming Blade (which requires a weapon as a material component) I believe a natural weapon qualifies provided you are not using said natural weapon to make an unarmed strike. For Sneak Attack (which requires a finesse weapon) I believe you are out of luck, especially since they all list STR instead of DEX, unless your DM approves (probably a no go in AL for example).

As to what they are, I think a non-manufactured weapon that is sometimes able to make Unarmed Strikes and sometimes not is the closest thing to a definition provided -- "These can be spell attacks or weapon attack, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon such as a claw or tail spike."

That's how I read it, too. Even an improvised weapon is still a weapon at the time of striking (although whether that's also the time that the spell is cast, thus fulfilling the requirement, is DM fiat).

This does actually set the groundwork for a Cestus-style of equipment for monks that are both considered Weapons that are qualified as Unarmed Strikes. The only thing needed is a change from a natural weapon example to be a normal weapon.

Coincidentally, this does push new life into the Tavern Brawler feat, and potentially dual-wielding or duelist fighting styles, depending on how it's written. Hmm..Unarmed Dual-Wield Ranger Hunter Build sounds rad.

[Greywander]

I know by RAW you don't count as dual-wielding when unarmed, but is there a reason not to allow it anyway? Basically, everyone would get a TWF BA attack that deals... 1 point of damage, since TWF doesn't add your ability mod to the BA attack. As per the TWF rules, you'd need to use the Attack action with a light weapon to qualify, but you could also just straight up punch someone. I'm not sure if you could do this while holding a shield or other object, or if you'd need the hand empty to qualify for an unarmed TWF BA attack, seeing as you can attack with any part of your body (knee, headbutt, elbow strike, etc.).

It's one of those things where it's not broken at all and you'll almost always have something better to do with your BA. If you specialize into making unarmed TWF attacks, then you've spent build resources making it worthwhile, so it should be fine. The only real wrinkle is the Dual-Wielder feat (which should definitely require both hands empty or holding qualifying weapons).

I just think it's kind of dumb to have to add something like brass knuckles or a caestus to the game in order to dual wield unarmed attacks.

[Man_Over_Game]

I know by RAW you don't count as dual-wielding when unarmed, but is there a reason not to allow it anyway? Basically, everyone would get a TWF BA attack that deals... 1 point of damage, since TWF doesn't add your ability mod to the BA attack. As per the TWF rules, you'd need to use the Attack action with a light weapon to qualify, but you could also just straight up punch someone. I'm not sure if you could do this while holding a shield or other object, or if you'd need the hand empty to qualify for an unarmed TWF BA attack, seeing as you can attack with any part of your body (knee, headbutt, elbow strike, etc.).

It's one of those things where it's not broken at all and you'll almost always have something better to do with your BA. If you specialize into making unarmed TWF attacks, then you've spent build resources making it worthwhile, so it should be fine. The only real wrinkle is the Dual-Wielder feat (which should definitely require both hands empty or holding qualifying weapons).

I just think it's kind of dumb to have to add something like brass knuckles or a caestus to the game in order to dual wield unarmed attacks.

I agree. The main use of the unarmed weapons is just to get around finicky weapon-focused BS, and to improve your damage die.

[jmartkdr]

Further down the rabbit hole that is 5e's dodgy terminology.

To my understanding, natural weapons are weapons (unless otherwise stated) and unarmed strikes are not weapons (unless otherwise stated) though both are used to make melee weapon attacks.

For something like Booming Blade (which requires a weapon as a material component) I believe a natural weapon qualifies provided you are not using said natural weapon to make an unarmed strike. For Sneak Attack (which requires a finesse weapon) I believe you are out of luck, especially since they all list STR instead of DEX, unless your DM approves (probably a no go in AL for example).

As to what they are, I think a non-manufactured weapon that is sometimes able to make Unarmed Strikes and sometimes not is the closest thing to a definition provided -- "These can be spell attacks or weapon attack, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon such as a claw or tail spike."

See, I thought Natural Weapons (and improvised weapons) didn't count as weapons unless you were actually attacking with them, which are definitely Melee Weapon Attacks but only not actually Attacks with a Melee Weapon. For situations where that matters.

In practice, there's not really a good reason to not blur the lines - booming bite isn't a game-breaking ability. You just can't use spells that target a weapon on a natural weapon (ie no using magic weapon to get a +1 claw).

[Man_Over_Game]

See, I thought Natural Weapons (and improvised weapons) didn't count as weapons unless you were actually attacking with them, which are definitely Melee Weapon Attacks but only not actually Attacks with a Melee Weapon. For situations where that matters.

I don't think there's anything that states that about Natural Weapons. Even in the Monster section of the basic rules:

Melee and Ranged Attacks
"The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike."

So, from my understanding, natural weapons are to be included as the same option as an actual weapon a monster might be carrying. These rules probably aren't supposed to be very relevant to players, since there are only like 3 ways of getting natural weapons in the core rules, 2 of which are from spells and the third being a very specific subclass that doesn't reference them.

[Christew]

See, I thought Natural Weapons (and improvised weapons) didn't count as weapons unless you were actually attacking with them, which are definitely Melee Weapon Attacks but only not actually Attacks with a Melee Weapon. For situations where that matters.

In practice, there's not really a good reason to not blur the lines - booming bite isn't a game-breaking ability. You just can't use spells that target a weapon on a natural weapon (ie no using magic weapon to get a +1 claw).
I think the devs (especially Crawford) have the same difficulty with RAW vs RAI as the rest of us do. Per RAW, natural weapons are used to make weapon attacks, referred to as weapons in the rules (quoted above), and have the word weapon in their name. There is nothing in the rules to challenge or limit their status as weapons. Coupled with the fact that Magic Weapon states "you touch a nonmagical weapon" with no further limitations, it should work with natural weapons.

That said, Crawford has made varying claims about RAI:
- "The magic weapon spell targets weapons (PH 146–49), not body parts."
- "Their attacks count as weapon attacks, but the system doesn't consider their body parts weapons."
- "That was part of a discussion about the magic weapon spell. I stated that it was meant to be cast on weapons that are objects, but that casting it on natural weapons would break nothing."
- "So paladins can smite with whatever natural weapons by intent, and magic weapon at DM's discretion?" "That's right!"
He is making a ruling based on what was meant, not what was written (RAI vs RAW). So by intent, natural weapons are sometimes weapons (smite) and sometimes not (spell target) with no way to distinguish between the two states AND it doesn't really matter anyway because it wouldn't break anything if they were just weapons all the time? Cool Jeremy, you've done it again.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think the devs (especially Crawford) have the same difficulty with RAW vs RAI as the rest of us do. Per RAW, natural weapons are used to make weapon attacks, referred to as weapons in the rules (quoted above), and have the word weapon in their name. There is nothing in the rules to challenge or limit their status as weapons. Coupled with the fact that Magic Weapon states "you touch a nonmagical weapon" with no further limitations, it should work with natural weapons.

That said, Crawford has made varying claims about RAI:
- "The magic weapon spell targets weapons (PH 146–49), not body parts."
- "Their attacks count as weapon attacks, but the system doesn't consider their body parts weapons."
- "That was part of a discussion about the magic weapon spell. I stated that it was meant to be cast on weapons that are objects, but that casting it on natural weapons would break nothing."
- "So paladins can smite with whatever natural weapons by intent, and magic weapon at DM's discretion?" "That's right!"
He is making a ruling based on what was meant, not what was written (RAI vs RAW). So by intent, natural weapons are sometimes weapons (smite) and sometimes not (spell target) with no way to distinguish between the two states AND it doesn't really matter anyway because it wouldn't break anything if they were just weapons all the time? Cool Jeremy, you've done it again.

I think part of that is a wording issue around the whole "Weapon Attack" phrasing.

"Melee Weapon Attack" could be better understood as "Striking Physical Attack". So a Whip can make a melee weapon attack, even though it's not within melee distance, and a fist can make a melee weapon attack, even though it's not classified as a weapon.

Similarly, "Ranged Spell Attack" just means "Projectile Energy Attack". So throwing an axe (a melee weapon) makes it considered a projectile, thus why you can make a Ranged Weapon Attack with a melee weapon.

Melee = Striking
Range = Projectile
Weapon = Physical
Spell = Energy

You'll note that the Paladin's phrasing doesn't state you need a weapon, but that you make a Melee Weapon Attack, which is why you can punch someone with a nonweapon and Smite them while you do it.

The Rogue's Sneak Attack explicitly states it must come from a ranged weapon, not a ranged weapon attack, meaning that thrown melee weapons are unusable (unless they happen to have Finesse, the other option for Sneak Attack).

Although, as a side note, using a weapon in a way that it wasn't intended (such as throwing a weapon without the Thrown feature) defaults that weapon into using the Improvised Weapon stats and traits, which is why you can't utilize your Archery feature while bashing someone with your bow as an Improvised Weapon (as it's no longer classified as a Bow for that attack).

[Greywander]

In practice, there's not really a good reason to not blur the lines - booming bite isn't a game-breaking ability.
Well, there is the matter of disarming the character. Cantrips are already bad enough, especially the ones that don't require material components. Combining a cantrip like Booming Blade with a natural weapon more or less allows the character to retain full offensive capability, even when stripped of all of their equipment.

It's not a huge deal, as getting captured isn't something that comes up all that often, but it does mean that your captors, if they're aware of your abilities, are more likely to just kill you because you're too much trouble to deal with. Then there's things like weapon-restricted zones where you simply might not be allowed, ever, because you can't be disarmed. Most likely, DMs just won't bother treating you differently, right up until you take advantage of it to assassinate someone important. This is kind of a verisimilitude thing to me; imagine airports screening people for weapons but just ignoring mages who they know could vaporize a plane with a single spell.

On the other hand, and as I mentioned in an earlier post, this does become an issue with, say, playable animals. Most animals can't wield weapons, and so have to rely on natural weapons. But if natural weapons don't count as weapons then it locks them out of using certain abilities. Sneak Attack is probably the biggest one, and particularly egregious when the animal I was working on was a cat, which would otherwise fit a rogue very well. Now, you could just allow animals to use weapons and not question how they do it (I once played a horse monk with a shortbow), but to me that strains the suspension of disbelief too much for a serious game.

[Christew]

I think part of that is a wording issue around the whole "Weapon Attack" phrasing.

"Melee Weapon Attack" could be better understood as "Striking Physical Attack". So a Whip can make a melee weapon attack, even though it's not within melee distance, and a fist can make a melee weapon attack, even though it's not classified as a weapon.

Similarly, "Ranged Spell Attack" just means "Projectile Energy Attack". So throwing an axe (a melee weapon) makes it considered a projectile, thus why you can make a Ranged Weapon Attack with a melee weapon.

Melee = Striking
Range = Projectile
Weapon = Physical
Spell = Energy

You'll note that the Paladin's phrasing doesn't state you need a weapon, but that you make a Melee Weapon Attack, which is why you can punch someone with a nonweapon and Smite them while you do it.

The Rogue's Sneak Attack explicitly states it must come from a ranged weapon, not a ranged weapon attack, meaning that thrown melee weapons are unusable (unless they happen to have Finesse, the other option for Sneak Attack).

Although, as a side note, using a weapon in a way that it wasn't intended (such as throwing a weapon without the Thrown feature) defaults that weapon into using the Improvised Weapon stats and traits, which is why you can't utilize your Archery feature while bashing someone with your bow as an Improvised Weapon (as it's no longer classified as a Bow for that attack).
Agreed, that all makes sense. I wish they would just move to a keyword based vocabulary like MtG. Having to guess what is meant by Weapon, Weapon, Weapon, or weapon through context and comparison to other similar rules is exhausting and unnecessary.

[Lavaeolus]

You'll note that the Paladin's phrasing doesn't state you need a weapon, but that you make a Melee Weapon Attack, which is why you can punch someone with a nonweapon and Smite them while you do it.

For context, the Crawford tweets talk about UA Minotaur horns working with Smite come because Crawford had tweeted, prior (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1088200198814232577), that Divine Smite doesn't work with unarmed strikes or non-weapons. To my knowledge, he hasn't directly contradicted that since, and may have echoed it here and there.

Why? Well, Smite triggers "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack". Fine so far, Divine Smite ready to trigger. What does Smite do? "You can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage".

Is this an important note, read literally? I'm not sure.

From other Crawford tweets and this line, it's obvious that RAI is that Divine Smite is meant to be used with a weapon (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/905511898938003456?s=21). So the cause-and-effect is written in a way that seems to assume if you're making a melee weapon attack, well, clearly you must be hitting them with a weapon.

Legalistically, hm, "in addition to the weapon's damage" isn't strictly the same as "on the condition of having a weapon to damage" -- but it does at least imply there should be a weapon involved.

Of course, this is where tabaxi and the like get funky: tabaxi can make unarmed strikes using a natural weapon, and if a natural weapon is a weapon, does that bypass the issue? My opinion leans towards 'allow Smite regardless', both in terms of literally reading the rules and in terms of "sure, play an Puncher Paladin if you want", but it is an example of weapon attack / attack with a weapon / natural weapons getting needlessly funky.

[Greywander]

And then there's the paladin's Divine Smite, which requires a "melee weapon attack" (i.e. works with unarmed strike), whereas Improved Divine Smite requires an "attack with a melee weapon" (i.e. doesn't work with unarmed strike).

You know, at some point it's good to remember that this isn't a computer game, and we're not forced to rigidly follow a specific interpretation of the rules. As far as I'm aware, there isn't anywhere in the rules that says that a "melee weapon attack" and an "attack with a melee weapon" aren't actually the same thing, we've just inferred that they are based on the assumption that the wording would be the same if it was meant to be the same. But maybe we don't need to be so legalistic about such things if they're not stated outright. An unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack, ergo perhaps we should just let it work with both smite abilities.

Booming Blade is a bit different, since it specifically requires a weapon as a material component (which wouldn't be necessary if you could use it with an unarmed strike). Natural weapons still blur the line here, since they may or may not be considered "weapons". Even weirder, you could use a severed body part as an improvised weapon and it would work with BB, but you can't use the same body part while it's still attached to you.

[Man_Over_Game]

Legalistically, hm, "in addition to the weapon's damage" isn't strictly the same as "on the condition of having a weapon to damage" -- but it does at least imply there should be a weapon involved.

Perhaps, but with that reasoning, it should be allowed to INSTEAD deal the Smite's damage, since the only condition related to the use of a weapon is "in addition to".

So I guess I could punch someone for 1 damage, Smite, and simply choose to just use my Smite damage instead of Smite + 1.

Assuming we're reading this correctly, I guess.


As far as I'm aware, there isn't anywhere in the rules that says that a "melee weapon attack" and an "attack with a melee weapon" aren't actually the same thing

There are a few places where it gets wonky. For example, the Throwing feature would mean that you would make both a Melee Weapon Attack and a Ranged Weapon Attack, as the Throwing feature states you can make a Ranged Weapon Attack with that melee weapon.

Either we decide they are mutually exclusive, or I guess throwing weapons count as both.

[Lavaeolus]

Perhaps, but with that reasoning, it should be allowed to INSTEAD deal the Smite's damage, since the only condition related to the use of a weapon is "in addition to".

So I guess I could punch someone for 1 damage, Smite, and simply choose to just use my Smite damage instead of Smite + 1.

Assuming we're reading this correctly, I guess.

Now we're getting to some weird places! Sticking with RAW, I don't think there's anything saying your attack was replaced, per se. Assume you had never seen the "in addition" bit at all. You had just read "when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack" "you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target". I think my instinct would be that the attack otherwise goes as normal, but you can have some radiant damage on top of it.

My RAW opinion leans towards "allow Smite regardless", as mentioned. The writer may have intended to require Paladins to be using a weapon and written as if they had, but they did not actually put the requirement in. Of course, I don't determine what happens at any tables but one I'm running.

But if, alternatively, you stick with an intepretation that the Smite radiant damage is supposed to be added to a weapon's damage, the weapon is non-existent, and its damage can't be added to -- what happens? Nothing? Computer error? Explosion? Or do we just default to a big ol' 0? I think that's a very specific way of reading "in addition to", though the Paladin's similar Smite spells all (despite triggering on 'weapon attacks') do describe how they cause weapons to flare, glow, etc. But that's more in the 'intent' side of things.

Sorry for maybe going slightly off-rail; but it may be a little relevant to "what sort of stuff can you do with natural weapons".


You know, at some point it's good to remember that this isn't a computer game, and we're not forced to rigidly follow a specific interpretation of the rules.

No real disagreements there.

[JackPhoenix]

As far as I'm aware, there isn't anywhere in the rules that says that a "melee weapon attack" and an "attack with a melee weapon" aren't actually the same thing, we've just inferred that they are based on the assumption that the wording would be the same if it was meant to be the same. But maybe we don't need to be so legalistic about such things if they're not stated outright. An unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack, ergo perhaps we should just let it work with both smite abilities.

Unarmed strike rules *do* make that distinction: "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)."