New SA says no to paladin unarmed smiting

[cutlery]

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf


Page 5:

Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit us-ing an unarmed strike? No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part — paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice


Weird that they say it isn't a balance choice but still stick with it.

[MaxWilson]

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf


Page 5:


Weird that they say it isn't a balance choice but still stick with it.

Weirder still is this bit:

[NEW] Can I cast animate dead on the humanoid-shaped
corpse of an undead creature such as a zombie or a
ghast? When animate dead targets a corpse, the body must
have belonged to a creature of the humanoid creature type.
If the spell targets a pile of bones, there is no creature
type restriction; the bones become a skeleton.

Tyranny of RAW I suppose.

[Unoriginal]

Weird that they say it isn't a balance choice but still stick with it.

Not sure how it is weird, they do thematic-over-mechanic all the time.

I mean the ruling is weird, but the reason why they stick with it isn't.



Tyranny of RAW I suppose.

That or it's a Trader Joe's response.

[cutlery]

Not sure how it is weird, they do thematic-over-mechanic all the time.

I mean the ruling is weird, but the reason why they stick with it isn't.

It's rather a lot of words for "we meant it that way, but it doesn't matter if you don't like it".



Weirder still is this bit:

[NEW] Can I cast animate dead on the humanoid-shaped
corpse of an undead creature such as a zombie or a
ghast? When animate dead targets a corpse, the body must
have belonged to a creature of the humanoid creature type.
If the spell targets a pile of bones, there is no creature
type restriction; the bones become a skeleton.

Tyranny of RAW I suppose.

I guess they need to be very careful with this spell.

I wonder if you can make a large enough pile of fish bones to make some skeletons.

[Unoriginal]

It's rather a lot of words for "we meant it that way, but it doesn't matter if you don't like it".

"We meant it that way, but it doesn't matter if you don't like it" is already one of the core principle of the edition, they don't need to repeat it. This is just explaining that it's specifically a thematic choice and not a mechanical issue.

Not sure why they're against a Paladin punch-smiting thematically, though. Or headbut-smiting.

[SiCK_Boy]

Who the heck writes the SA? I had to re-read that Animate Dead question 2-3 times, and I'm not fully sure of the ruling being made here.

They start with a simple question (Can I cast animate dead on the humanoid-shaped corpse of an undead creature such as a zombie or a ghast?) How in the world can the next word following that question mark be something other than yes or no?

My interpretation is that you cannot animate a humanoid-shaped corpse of an undead creature, because that creature was not of the "humanoid" type prior to just becoming a corpse, but was instead of the "undead" type. But really, why go through such convoluted language to state this?

The answer should have been: No. When targeting a body, animate dead can only target the body of a creature that formerly had the "humanoid" type. The body of an undead (such as a zombie or a ghast) is considered to be from a creature with the "undead" type, so the spell would not work. Note that when targeting a pile of bones, no such restriction exist, so you could target a pile of bone having previously belonged to an undead creature; in such a case, the targeted bones always become a skeleton.

It's like they hesitate to state their ruling, leaving plenty of stuff unsaid or leaving it to the reader to just figure out all the potential interactions... I mean, you got to write the rule clarification because someone, somewhere, asked the question: why not provide a complete answer? Are they still worrying about page count for something that is designed to just be a .pdf anyway?

[cutlery]

Not sure why they're against a Paladin punch-smiting thematically, though. Or headbut-smiting.

Too much like a battlerager?

[micahaphone]

I wonder if you can make a large enough pile of fish bones to make some skeletons.

You're giving me DM ideas! A sewer dwelling necromancer, making undead minions ranging in size from small to large, all made out of rat bones fused together by evil magics. Kobold-sized skeletons with many rat skulls on top, lurking under the sludge.

[Foxhound438]

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf


Page 5:


Weird that they say it isn't a balance choice but still stick with it.

It's a clear example of them not even reading the rules they're talking about, which sage advice is notorious for. The rule has always been that an unarmed strike is a "melee weapon attack"*, even though it's not a "melee attack with a weapon". The wording is different for Improved divine smite, so punching doesn't get free d8's at 11th, and the person posting that answer might have gotten these abilities mixed up and posted without checking the book (as I said, not reading the rules).

By the way, this would also mean no stunning strikes with punches. Maybe that's better for balance, but i've literally never seen someone say to their monk players that they can't stun with unarmed strikes.

*In case you want to dispute that, check out the martial arts adept in Volo's guide.

[Unoriginal]

Weirder still is this bit:

[NEW] Can I cast animate dead on the humanoid-shaped
corpse of an undead creature such as a zombie or a
ghast? When animate dead targets a corpse, the body must
have belonged to a creature of the humanoid creature type.
If the spell targets a pile of bones, there is no creature
type restriction; the bones become a skeleton.

Tyranny of RAW I suppose.

I've just checked the spell, and it's true that the "pile of bones" option is never said to requiring humanoid bones, while the "corpse" option does.

It's still an amazingly inefficient way to say " an ghast's corpse is the corpse of an undead type, meaning you cannot use it for the Zombie option, but the skeleton option doesn't have this restriction", if it's what they wanted to say.

[x3n0n]

It's a clear example of them not even reading the rules they're talking about, which sage advice is notorious for.


Just to clarify, this is what SA is referring to:


Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.

If you read the newly-updated-today text of the SAC entry, the bolded reference to "the weapon" is what the ruling is based on. They are *not* claiming that an unarmed strike is not a melee weapon attack. (As you said, it clearly is, and Stunning Strike depends on it. Note that Stunning Strike has no such reference to "the weapon".)

They definitely read the rule. I'm not arguing that their interpretation is the best one, but it's not careless nor uninformed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just to clarify, this is what SA is referring to:


If you read the newly-updated-today text of the SAC entry, the bolded reference to "the weapon" is what the ruling is based on. They are *not* claiming that an unarmed strike is not a melee weapon attack. (As you said, it clearly is, and Stunning Strike depends on it. Note that Stunning Strike has no such reference to "the weapon".)

They definitely read the rule. I'm not arguing that their interpretation is the best one, but it's not careless nor uninformed.

Right. And there's at least one reading where that makes sense. Let me illustrate with computer pseudocode.



def DivineSmite(weapon, target, level):
smite = min(2d8 + level*1d8, 5d8)
if (target.type == 'FIEND' or target.type == ...):
smite += 1d8
return weapon.damage + smite


If weapon == null, then the call fails on that return step with a "NullReferenceException: can't read property damage of null" error.

Since unarmed strikes are not weapons (despite being able to be used to make weapon attacks), they have no damage property. Thus, you can't add 2d8 to null.

But, as they said, this was a thematic choice, not a balance choice. Like so many other decisions in 5e. If you're always looking for balance reasons for rules/rulings, you're going to get disappointed a lot.

Would I run it this way? Likely not, because I don't feel that aesthetic. I'm fine with a paladin punch-smiting or a palamonk going all ham with his unarmed smites. But I can see where they're getting that ruling from and it's not insane or absurd in my eyes.

[MaxWilson]

I've just checked the spell, and it's true that the "pile of bones" option is never said to requiring humanoid bones, while the "corpse" option does.

Yes, I know, and I've been saying so for years, but I was pointing it out as an amusing technicality--"theoretically you could create humanoid skeletons out of discarded chicken bones, and shortbows materialize out of nowhere for them"--whereas WotC is in earnest.

A saner ruling would be that non-human bones create different creatures, e.g. skeletal chickens from chicken bones, skeletal minotaurs from minotaur bones. Sage Advice doesn't take this opportunity, just sticks mindlessly to the RAW, and they deserve my eye rolling for it.

[Keltest]

Yes, I know, and I've been saying so for years, but I was pointing it out as an amusing technicality--"theoretically you could create humanoid skeletons out of discarded chicken bones, and shortbows materialize out of nowhere for them"--whereas WotC is in earnest.

A saner ruling would be that non-human bones create different creatures, e.g. skeletal chickens from chicken bones, skeletal minotaurs from minotaur bones. Sage Advice doesn't take this opportunity, just sticks mindlessly to the RAW, and they deserve my eye rolling for it.

Speaking as somebody who plays with people who will absolutely make me try and stat out a skeleton chicken for them to use, im with Wizards here. If you want to create a crazy abomination of a skeleton with chicken bones, go right ahead. If you want me to make a chicken skeleton for you for some absolutely insane reason, please kindly go away.

[MaxWilson]

Speaking as somebody who plays with people who will absolutely make me try and stat out a skeleton chicken for them to use, im with Wizards here. If you want to create a crazy abomination of a skeleton with chicken bones, go right ahead. If you want me to make a chicken skeleton for you for some absolutely insane reason, please kindly go away.

AC 10, 1 HP, movement 20'. Done.

[x3n0n]

def DivineSmite(weapon, target, level):
smite = min(2d8 + level*1d8, 5d8)
if (target.type == 'FIEND' or target.type == ...):
smite += 1d8
return weapon.damage + smite


If weapon == null, then the call fails on that return step with a "NullReferenceException: can't read property damage of null" error.

Now I'm just amused because I would have been tempted to create a placeholder object to represent the unarmed strike with a "1". :) Thanks for the chuckle.

[Keltest]

AC 10, 1 HP, movement 20'. Done.

Thats not really the point. I start allowing that, i have to come up with stuff for every crazy non-humanoid abomination they come up with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Now I'm just amused because I would have been tempted to create a placeholder object to represent the unarmed strike with a "1". :) Thanks for the chuckle.

I mean...you could. If I really wanted to be precise, I'd have used a strongly-typed language where weapon had to conform to the interface IWeapon. Which unarmed strikes don't (by explicit statement). They conform to interface IAttackSource, which is a parent of IWeapon, but yeah. Just like not all IEnumerables are ILists, not all IAttackSource's are IWeapon's.






enum AttackType {
Weapon,
Spell
}

enum WeaponType {
Simple,
Martial,
Natural
}

interface IAttackSource {
AttackType Source (get);
AbilityScore Ability (get);
int ShortRange (get);
int? LongRange (get);
}

interface IWeapon : IAttackSource {
WeaponType Type (get);
DiceExpression Damage (get);
IEnumerable<string> Properties (get);
}

class UnarmedStrike : IAttackSource {
...
}

class Paladin {
...

public DiceExpression DivineSmite(IWeapon weapon, ITarget target, int spellLevel) {
var smiteDamage = DiceExpression.Minimum(DiceExpression.FromString(' 2d8 + 1d8*spellLevel'), DiceExpresssion.FromString('5d8'));
if (target.Type in this.ExtraDamageTypes) { smiteDamage.Add('1d8'); }
this.SpellSlots.Expend(spellLevel);
return smiteDamage.Add(weapon.Damage)
}
...
}


Trying to pass an instance of type `UnarmedStrike` into Paladin.DivineSmite wouldn't even compile.

Can you guess what I do for a living? :smallwink:

[ProsecutorGodot]

Thats not really the point. I start allowing that, i have to come up with stuff for every crazy non-humanoid abomination they come up with.

It's not really all that difficult I think, most animals are going to be extremely similar once you've stripped the meat off their bones, assuming we follow the same logic as any humanoid skeleton being relatively similar to another.

If I were coming up with a system to make it simple, I'd probably make a scale that includes Size, Creature Type and Bone Quality as metrics.

[MaxWilson]

Thats not really the point. I start allowing that, i have to come up with stuff for every crazy non-humanoid abomination they come up with.

Different strokes for different folks. Seeing what certain of my players do to with a skeletal possum with 15' movement is kind of why I enjoy D&D in the first place.

[KorvinStarmast]

This "official" ruling suxors the duxors.

Paladins smite. Unarmed attacks are melee weapon attacks.
Smite away.

:smalltongue:

[Kane0]

SA be damned, you can't stop me from smite-punching!

[Ding]

Strange, but it doesn't come up often enough for me to worry about it. I think I'll keep allowing smite-punches regardless. Firstly because it's fun, and secondly because fluff-wise it doesn't make any sense to me. Why would it be that a paladin can channel divine energy into an otherwise nonmagical sword when he's holding it in his hand, but can't just channel divine energy into his hand?

[animewatcha]

Not sure why they're against a Paladin punch-smiting thematically, though. Or headbut-smiting.

They don't believe that there may be a deity of speed, sport, and technology named Falcon whose favored weapon is unarmed strike.

[Kane0]

Haha

Also, name checks out

[Bunny Commando]

Guess O'chul (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0542.html) didn't know that a Paladin smiting without a weapon is not thematic.:smalltongue:

[Rynjin]

Guess O'chul (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0542.html) didn't know that a Paladin smiting without a weapon is not thematic.:smalltongue:

In 3.5, Smite Evil was actually something you did to your opponent (it's essentially a debuff that says "take additional damage on each strike" to the bad guy and a buff that says "gain a bonus to attack and AC" for the paladin), rather than a weapon, to be fair.

To be not fair, this ruling is just stupid, from both a mechanical and thematic perspective. Monk/Paladin multiclass characters are mechanically underwhelming in every edition, but highly thematic; enough so that Pathfinder has at least two options (the Enlightened Paladin (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo-paladin-archetypes/enlightened-paladin-paladin-archetype) archetype which gains Monk abilities, and the Champion of the Enlightened (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/c-d/champion-of-the-enlightened/) Prestige Class) for them.

Both are highly lawful, often religiously oriented character types. Why wouldn't they be a good mix? It's the same situation as not letting Rage bonuses apply to bows or thrown weapons in 5e; it just serves to stifle creativity. it's why I got fed up with the game entirely.

[micahaphone]

All you accommodating DMs who think "rule of cool" applies here, and that JC is being daft, don't realize how much you're dooming yourselves. What if a player at your table rolls godly stats in all six categories, and they go monk/paladin/druid? Before you know it, you'll be suffering from a Dire Wolf using pack tactics and flurry of blows to make 4 attacks at advantage, and they'll smite on every single hit!

[Bunny Commando]

In 3.5, Smite Evil was actually something you did to your opponent (it's essentially a debuff that says "take additional damage on each strike" to the bad guy and a buff that says "gain a bonus to attack and AC" for the paladin), rather than a weapon, to be fair.

Sure, but my post was less about the ruling itself and more about the reasoning behind it.

[Silly Name]

In 3.5, Smite Evil was actually something you did to your opponent (it's essentially a debuff that says "take additional damage on each strike" to the bad guy and a buff that says "gain a bonus to attack and AC" for the paladin), rather than a weapon, to be fair.

That's not how the Paladin's Smite Evil worked in 3.5. It was a small pool of daily uses of an ability that let you add your Cha modifier to a melee attack roll against an Evil creature, and if it hit you also dealt bonus damage equal to your Paladin level.

There was no AC buff for the Paladin, and it certainly wasn't worded as a debuff for the target.

[Corran]

Too much like a battlerager?
Maybe too much like a monk. Unarmed combat is their thing. Not that a paladin smiting boxer makes the monk redundant, but perhaps they thought that the (however small) thematic overlap was unnecessary.

[Rynjin]

That's not how the Paladin's Smite Evil worked in 3.5. It was a small pool of daily uses of an ability that let you add your Cha modifier to a melee attack roll against an Evil creature, and if it hit you also dealt bonus damage equal to your Paladin level.

There was no AC buff for the Paladin, and it certainly wasn't worded as a debuff for the target.

Hm, I thought 3.5 Smite worked like PF Smite, my bad.

[Dork_Forge]

Maybe too much like a monk. Unarmed combat is their thing. Not that a paladin smiting boxer makes the monk redundant, but perhaps they thought that the (however small) thematic overlap was unnecessary.

Given that the soon to be released unarmed fighting style outdoes the Monk at unarmed damage in early levels, I don't think that's a priority for them. Or at least not a consistent one...

[BloodSnake'sCha]

All you accommodating DMs who think "rule of cool" applies here, and that JC is being daft, don't realize how much you're dooming yourselves. What if a player at your table rolls godly stats in all six categories, and they go monk/paladin/druid? Before you know it, you'll be suffering from a Dire Wolf using pack tactics and flurry of blows to make 4 attacks at advantage, and they'll smite on every single hit!

No need for high stats to do it.
Also, I don't see it as a problem(I know it is in blue text).

[Corran]

Given that the soon to be released unarmed fighting style outdoes the Monk at unarmed damage in early levels, I don't think that's a priority for them. Or at least not a consistent one...
One way this (and the change to smites) could make some sense (at the same time), would be if both the paladin and the monk were fighter archetypes. The base class gets the fighting style that can support a monk-ish subclass, but only one of the subclasses allows further specialization in unarmed combat (which is why smite stops working with unarmed strikes). Making things compatible enough to house them under the same roof/class (hence why there's now an unarmed fighting style), but different enough to make then incompatible to each other so that each can mechanically at least justify its separate existence (as a different subclass).

Edit: No, I am not thinking that we are going to see that in 5e, but I am thinking that the variant rules for classes explore this idea (ie fewer base classes) for the next edition (whatever it will be called, and whenever that will be).

[Trafalgar]

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf


Page 5:


Weird that they say it isn't a balance choice but still stick with it.

Maybe they didn't want anyone to multi-class Paladin and Monk (Palamonk? Monkadin?) and do a build based on Marvel's Iron Fist.

I am not sure what the thematic issue is. It is always going to be better to do smite with a weapon. But what if the Paladin was captured and disarmed? Or say, in the King's Chamber where weapons are not allowed? Those will be pretty rare occurrences in any campaign.

[GooeyChewie]

I'd take that ruling more seriously if WotC had bothered to restrict the new fighting styles by class. If a player tells me they want to use the new Unarmed Fighting Style on a Paladin, I'm not telling them that one of their key damage-dealing mechanics doesn't work for them.

[Unoriginal]

I'd take that ruling more seriously if WotC had bothered to restrict the new fighting styles by class. If a player tells me they want to use the new Unarmed Fighting Style on a Paladin, I'm not telling them that one of their key damage-dealing mechanics doesn't work for them.

The new fighting styles aren't restricted by class?

[Trafalgar]

I'd take that ruling more seriously if WotC had bothered to restrict the new fighting styles by class. If a player tells me they want to use the new Unarmed Fighting Style on a Paladin, I'm not telling them that one of their key damage-dealing mechanics doesn't work for them.

Are you talking about the UA Unarmed Fighting Style with 1d6 bludgeoning damage? I didn't know this was going to be incorporated into Tashas.

[x3n0n]

The new fighting styles aren't restricted by class?

I believe they *are* restricted by class, based on leak screenshots.

New to Ranger: Druidic Warrior (exclusive), Blind Fighting, Thrown Weapons

New to Fighter: Superior Technique (exclusive), Blind Fighting, Thrown Weapons, Interception, Unarmed Fighting

Now to Paladin: unknown to me, but believed to include at least Divine Warrior or similar as an exclusive.

I think that it's reasonable to *guess* that Paladins would get Interception and Unarmed Fighting for symmetry.


Are you talking about the UA Unarmed Fighting Style with 1d6 bludgeoning damage? I didn't know this was going to be incorporated into Tashas.

It's not identical to the UA version, but yes, it's known to be in via leaks.

[Trafalgar]

It's not identical to the UA version, but yes, it's known to be in via leaks.

What does it look like? I wasn't a fan of the UA one.

[paladinn]

Wow, I was thinking that a paladin/monk multiclass would have fun smiting with unarmed strikes.

If unarmed smites aren't an option, they should allow smiting with ranged attacks.

[x3n0n]

What does it look like? I wasn't a fan of the UA one.

1d6 unarmed strikes. If neither holding a weapon nor a shield, 1d8 instead.
At the start of your turn, can deal 1d4 to one creature grappled by you. (no action cost)

[Trafalgar]

1d6 unarmed strikes. If neither holding a weapon nor a shield, 1d8 instead.
At the start of your turn, can deal 1d4 to one creature grappled by you. (no action cost)

So.....

An empty handed first level fighter can make an unarmed strike that does as much damage as a spear. And a monk doesn't do 1d8 damage until level 11.

A Level 20 Fighter, using action surge, can make eight 1d8+5 (76hp) unarmed attacks in a single round. A Level 20 Monk, using flurry of blows, can make four 1d10+5 (42hp) attacks in a single round.

I think this makes the monk class superfluous.

[micahaphone]

1d6 unarmed strikes. If neither holding a weapon nor a shield, 1d8 instead.
At the start of your turn, can deal 1d4 to one creature grappled by you. (no action cost)

Maybe they made this ruling so that people can't smite on the 1d4 grapple damage? I don't know, just trying to spitball.

A shame, I'd love to see an arm lock done with holy fervor.

[cutlery]

If unarmed smites aren't an option, they should allow smiting with ranged attacks.

That would have a balance effect.

[Unoriginal]

So.....

An empty handed first level fighter can make an unarmed strike that does as much damage as a spear. And a monk doesn't do 1d8 damage until level 11.

A Level 20 Fighter, using action surge, can make eight 1d8+5 (76hp) unarmed attacks in a single round. A Level 20 Monk, using flurry of blows, can make four 1d10+5 (42hp) attacks in a single round.

I think this makes the monk class superfluous.

It really doesn't.

-A lvl 20 Monk can use 20 Flurry of Blows per short rests, a lvl 20 Fighter can use 2 Action Surge per long rests.

-A lvl 1 Monk can do two unarmed attacks using a bonus action, for 2d4+(2xDex or STR mod) damages. A lvl 1 fighter can do one attack for 1d8+(STR mod).

-A lvl 6+ Monk's unarmed strikes bypass resistance and immunity to non-magic weapons, a lvl 6+ Fighter's unarmed strikes don't.

-A lvl 5+ Monk has access to Stunning Strike on each attack that lands, a lvl 5+ Fighter doesn't.

-Etc.

Lvl 20 novaing damages is not a good point of comparison, unless the ressources spending and other factors are also taken into account, and it's certainly not enough of declare a class superfluous.

However it is true that it makes a one-or-two-levels-Fighter-dip very attractive for a Monk.

I was thinking of making a full comparison of all the unarmed fighting options, once the Tasha's is out. Would have done it already but apparently the Beast Barbarian will give different options for that, and to my knowledge there was no spoilers on this subclass.

[JNAProductions]

It's confirming what's RAW.

I'll certainly not be obeying the RAW if a Paladin player of mine wants to smite with their fists, but that's not a ruling, in this case, it's a straight-up houserule. And that's okay.

[Trafalgar]

It really doesn't.

-A lvl 20 Monk can use 20 Flurry of Blows per short rests, a lvl 20 Fighter can use 2 Action Surge per long rests.

-A lvl 1 Monk can do two unarmed attacks using a bonus action, for 2d4+(2xDex or STR mod) damages. A lvl 1 fighter can do one attack for 1d8+(STR mod).

-A lvl 6+ Monk's unarmed strikes bypass resistance and immunity to non-magic weapons, a lvl 6+ Fighter's unarmed strikes don't.

-A lvl 5+ Monk has access to Stunning Strike on each attack that lands, a lvl 5+ Fighter doesn't.

-Etc.

Lvl 20 novaing damages is not a good point of comparison, unless the ressources spending and other factors are also taken into account, and it's certainly not enough of declare a class superfluous.

However it is true that it makes a one-or-two-levels-Fighter-dip very attractive for a Monk.

I was thinking of making a full comparison of all the unarmed fighting options, once the Tasha's is out. Would have done it already but apparently the Beast Barbarian will give different options for that, and to my knowledge there was no spoilers on this subclass.

I think it does. The point is that this is intruding the basic schtick of what a monk is. Monks are the class that fights best without weapons, it is what they do. They can do unbelievable things with their fists. But if any 1st level fighter can do something equivalent to a first level monk, the whole class is diminished.

If they had "Anger fighting style" that gave a fighter combat bonuses while angry or a "Holy Warrior fighting style" that allowed a fighter to focus divine energy in a blow, it would be equally bad because it intrudes in on Barbarian and Paladin territory.

If someone wants to do monk unarmed damage, they can multiclass with Monk.

[JNAProductions]

I think it does. The point is that this is intruding the basic schtick of what a monk is. Monks are the class that fights best without weapons, it is what they do. They can do unbelievable things with their fists. But if any 1st level fighter can do something equivalent to a first level monk, the whole class is diminished.

If they had "Anger fighting style" that gave a fighter combat bonuses while angry or a "Holy Warrior fighting style" that allowed a fighter to focus divine energy in a blow, it would be equally bad because it intrudes in on Barbarian and Paladin territory.

If someone wants to do monk unarmed damage, they can multiclass with Monk.

But then, to get the Unarmed Damage, you can't be wearing armor.

Someone who fights with heavy gauntlets while in full plate is not a bad concept, but not one the Monk allows for.

And, as mentioned above, a Monk does 2d4+2Dex (assuming both hit) at level 1, for an average of 9-11.
An Unarmed Fighter does 1d6+Str or 1d8+Str, depending on whether they want to use a shield or have a free hand. That's 5.5-7.5, or less than a Monk does.

At level five, a Monk does 3d6+3Dex without spending resources. 19.5-22.5 damage.
The Fighter does 2d6+2Str or 2d8+2Str. 13-17 damage. Still less.

At level eleven, the Fighter finally catches up. Without spending resources, they're both doing 3d8+3Stat damage. But the Monk has eleven Ki Points per short rest, meaning they can flurry a lot, and if the foe has resistance to non-magical damage, or god forbid immunity, the Fighter gets hosed.

[MaxWilson]

I think it does. The point is that this is intruding the basic schtick of what a monk is. Monks are the class that fights best without weapons, it is what they do. They can do unbelievable things with their fists. But if any 1st level fighter can do something equivalent to a first level monk, the whole class is diminished.

If they had "Anger fighting style" that gave a fighter combat bonuses while angry or a "Holy Warrior fighting style" that allowed a fighter to focus divine energy in a blow, it would be equally bad because it intrudes in on Barbarian and Paladin territory.

If someone wants to do monk unarmed damage, they can multiclass with Monk.

This seems a little bit reductionist to me. Take that Action-surging fighter, tell him he's a spy and to impersonate an (unarmed and unarmored) accountant until it's time to take the gloves off and DESTROY. Partner him with a monk. Who's going to be more successful at that monk-ish mission, and what are they going to look like while doing it?

The Fighter is going to be a hulking Str 20 brute--he'll stick out like a sore thumb as an accountant--and he's running around in accountant's robes with AC 10, but his actual fighting style is more like the Incredible Hulk than Bruce Lee, and compared to the monk (or even a real-life 5th grader) he is slow. While his damage is respectable, if this isn't happening at 20th level his offense even on the nova isn't all that much better than the monk's, and he doesn't have the mobility to make good use of that offense. He's probably going to wish he'd just brought along some daggers to hurl. Meanwhile the monk is running up to bad guys (up walls and over balconies where necessary) to punch bad guys in the face while catching any daggers or crossbow bolts that get thrown/fired at him in return, and if there turn to be demons or werewolves, the monk can harm them with his ki-empowered strikes while the fighter is stuck doing half or no damage.

I'm not sure that "fights without weapons or armor" is truly the monk's class identity, but even so, you need more than an Action Surge and decent damage to be actually good at it. You need defense (especially against ranged attacks) and mobility. If you're going to play a Fighter, play an actually-good Fighter with a weapon instead of trying to play a bad version of a monk.

[Telwar]

I strongly suspect we won't see the Unarmed fighting style for paladins in Tasha's. If they did, that's be a little nonsensical to have this "no smite" rule attached and have the option to pick up a fighting style that didn't work with one of their core features.

Now watch me be proven wrong, heh.

[noob]

I strongly suspect we won't see the Unarmed fighting style for paladins in Tasha's. If they did, that's be a little nonsensical to have this "no smite" rule attached and have the option to pick up a fighting style that didn't work with one of their core features.

Now watch me be proven wrong, heh.

Or maybe the paladin will get a feature such as "my fist is the weapon of my oath" or something like that just to make monks sad.

[Unoriginal]

But if any 1st level fighter can do something equivalent to a first level monk, the whole class is diminished.

While I am *not* happy with how the Unarmed fighting style ended up being, the 1rst level Fighter cannot do something equivalent to the 1rst level Monk.


If someone wants to do monk unarmed damage, they can multiclass with Monk.

Good thing that they do not Monk unarmed damage with that fighting style.


If you're going to play a Fighter, play an actually-good Fighter with a weapon instead of trying to play a bad version of a monk.

Well I feel this is kinda reductionist from the other side. I have no issue with an unarmed Fighter, and it can be awesome. It just should be acknowledged that they're different than Monks and certainly not better than them at doing Monk things.

The Unarmed fighting style also helps with grappling builds, and honestly it's needed.

[Luccan]

One thing this unarmed fighting style does is further illustrate how silly it is that anyone can get a bonus attack with a dagger or shortsword, but they require a level in monk to hit someone with their offhand as a bonus action it it's empty. Including, apparently, the non-monk warriors trained in unarmed combat. Its very silly.

[x3n0n]

However it is true that it makes a one-or-two-levels-Fighter-dip very attractive for a Monk.

If they interact in the obvious way, v.human/custom-origin Monk with the expected fighting-style feat becomes a pretty formidable offensive force in tier 1 without sacrificing any AC. 1d8 per attack looks a lot better than 1d4 when you get it 2 or 3 times a turn. (That is, rather than multi-classing, which would delay Monk features like Stunning Strike.)

If the feat offers some form of versatility, you can trade the fighting style in for something useful in tier 2 or 3 (maybe Blind Fighting or Interception).

[Unoriginal]

If they interact in the obvious way, v.human/custom-origin Monk with the expected fighting-style feat becomes a pretty formidable offensive force in tier 1 without sacrificing any AC. 1d8 per attack looks a lot better than 1d4 when you get it 2 or 3 times a turn. (That is, rather than multi-classing, which would delay Monk features like Stunning Strike.)

That is true. And the grappling damage make grappling better for the Monk too.



If the feat offers some form of versatility, you can trade the fighting style in for something useful in tier 2 or 3 (maybe Blind Fighting or Interception).

Duelist would improve the Monk's AC, which makes a difference at those tiers.

[x3n0n]

Duelist would improve the Monk's AC, which makes a difference at those tiers.

If you mean the Dueling fighting style, I don't see how it helps AC (although I've previously considered it as the only useful PHB style for Fighter/Monk multiclass): "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
If you mean Defense, I would have already been tempted, but the existing wording is "While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC."

[MaxWilson]

If you mean the Dueling fighting style, I don't see how it helps AC (although I've previously considered it as the only useful PHB style for Fighter/Monk multiclass): "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
If you mean Defense, I would have already been tempted, but the existing wording is "While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC."

I think Unoriginal meant the Defensive Duelist feat.

[x3n0n]

I think Unoriginal meant the Defensive Duelist feat.

That makes sense.

While it would be awesome, I don't think they've talked about that level of versatility (exchanging the already-taken fighting-style feat for an entirely different feat). :)

[MaxWilson]

That makes sense.

While it would be awesome, I don't think they've talked about that level of versatility (exchanging the already-taken fighting-style feat for an entirely different feat). :)

I think it may have been a response to this sentence:

<<If they interact in the obvious way, v.human/custom-origin Monk with the expected fighting-style feat becomes a pretty formidable offensive force in tier 1 without sacrificing any AC.>>

Perhaps the thought was, "You could also spend that feat on increasing AC via Defensive Duelist," especially since Defensive Duelist is a pretty solid feat for a human monk anyway.

[Unoriginal]

If you mean the Dueling fighting style, I don't see how it helps AC (although I've previously considered it as the only useful PHB style for Fighter/Monk multiclass): "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
If you mean Defense, I would have already been tempted, but the existing wording is "While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC."

I meant Dueling, but I misremembered the effects. You're quite correct that neither Dueling nor Defense would help an unarmed Monk.

Today's not my most brilliant day.


I think Unoriginal meant the Defensive Duelist feat.

I didn't, but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Although Defensive Duelist would not work for an unarmed Monk either, it would be quite good if the Monk used a shortsword, a dagger or, with the new rules and assuming the Monk is proficient, a rapier, which in turn would make switching to Dueling more interesting (if still not that impressive compared to other Fighting Styles, or to retraining the fighting style feat into Defensive Duelist if it's possible)

[x3n0n]

which in turn would make switching to Dueling more interesting


Now that you mention it, *Ki-Fueled Strike* makes the Dueling fighting style look significantly more attractive to me.
(Funnily enough, Dueling looks worse on Kensei than on several other subclasses, since there's real tension between Agile Parry and attacking with your kensei weapon.)

For raw damage:
Tier 1: Unarmed Fighting for 2 or 3 attacks of 1d8+Dex
Tier 2: Dedicated Weapon (any one-handed 1d8) + Dueling for at least 2 1d8+2+Dex attacks, plus another on Ki-Fueled Strike turns. Without a d8 Dedicated Weapon, still 1d6+2+Dex per attack (via shortsword).

Blind Fighting is actually pretty good on a Monk at all levels, and especially good on a Shadow monk. I will be curious to see if Eldritch Adept still has the spellcaster prerequisite; if not, then Devil's Sight might be better for the Shadow Monk, but not as versatile (blindsight 10' is pretty good in fog or smoke or with invisible foes).

Interception is kind of like Deflect Missiles, but weaker and only for your neighbors. Better than nothing.

Thrown-weapon fighting and Archery are both usable now, but for different reasons, and neither synergizes with Stunning Strike.

[GooeyChewie]

I'd take that ruling more seriously if WotC had bothered to restrict the new fighting styles by class. If a player tells me they want to use the new Unarmed Fighting Style on a Paladin, I'm not telling them that one of their key damage-dealing mechanics doesn't work for them.

I admit, I may have jumped the gun. I assumed that because the Fighting Styles were not restricted in the UA, that they would also not be restricted in Tasha's. If I am wrong about that, then, well, I'll take the ruling more seriously.

[x3n0n]

Now to Paladin: unknown to me, but believed to include at least Divine Warrior or similar as an exclusive.

I think that it's reasonable to *guess* that Paladins would get Interception and Unarmed Fighting for symmetry.

Corrected via previews, Paladin gets Divine Warrior, Interception, and Blind Fighting (not Unarmed Fighting).

So, among the new styles:
* everybody gets Blind Fighting,
* Paladins and Fighters get Interception,
* Rangers and Fighters get Thrown Weapons, and
* the rest (unarmed, maneuvers, and cantrips) are single-classed.

[Kane0]

Ah, interception. Better protection.

Im still not sure how i feel about that one.

[Trandir]

I am a bit late to the party and I am confused. The SA did absolutely nothing, unarmed strike (and improvised weapons for that matter) were never weapons and the smites have always required a weapon. What exactly changed with this sage advice?

[x3n0n]

I am a bit late to the party and I am confused. The SA did absolutely nothing, unarmed strike (and improvised weapons for that matter) were never weapons and the smites have always required a weapon. What exactly changed with this sage advice?

Improved Divine Smite has always explicitly required an attack with a melee weapon.

Divine Smite just says "melee weapon attack". Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks (aka melee non-spell attacks), so that part of the feature does _not_ rule out unarmed strikes; otherwise, Stunning Strike would not function on unarmed strikes. The SA is clarifying that the reference to "the weapon's damage" later in the text of Divine Smite causes it to require a weapon (ruling out unarmed strikes).

(Note that they also said that there is no game balance reason to disallow unarmed strikes to trigger Divine Smite.)

[Sigreid]

I don't really get these debates about SA. The only time I can see them being valuable is if you don't have agreement at your table on how something should be handled. Otherwise, just go with what works for your table. And yeah, my perspective isn't AL or random table friendly. /shrug

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't really get these debates about SA. The only time I can see them being valuable is if you don't have agreement at your table on how something should be handled. Otherwise, just go with what works for your table. And yeah, my perspective isn't AL or random table friendly. /shrug

Agreed. Of course, I feel the same way about debates about what is or isn't RAW vs houserules. So yeah.

[Luccan]

I don't really get these debates about SA. The only time I can see them being valuable is if you don't have agreement at your table on how something should be handled. Otherwise, just go with what works for your table. And yeah, my perspective isn't AL or random table friendly. /shrug

As someone who has participated in the complaining, I will admit that part of it is just that, at least for me. I assume for others as well. It's just a really stupid ruling from official sources that even admits to being completely arbitrary. So complaining about and mocking it provides some level of catharsis for other stress.

But it also serves as an indication of some of the issues WotC has, mainly creating situations that don't please anyone for seemingly no benefit. Like if they suddenly declared you needed proficiency with cook's utensils to even attempt making a meal. Would that be really stupid? Yes. Would it be something everyone would ignore? Yes, probably moreso than this. Would that be at least somewhat indicative of issues at the company producing the game we all like? Yeah.*

And finally, as you seem to concede this probably will have a less-fun impact on at least one table and nobody really wants that.

*Admittedly this applies better to other complaints, but breaking this down to "no this wouldn't cause issues, but you can't/shouldn't do it for no explained reason" isn't exactly an encouraging stance

[MaxWilson]

As someone who has participated in the complaining, I will admit that part of it is just that, at least for me. I assume for others as well. It's just a really stupid ruling from official sources that even admits to being completely arbitrary. So complaining about and mocking it provides some level of catharsis for other stress.

Fair enough. I suppose I could try talking about really GOOD and interesting design instead. But then we'd be talking about stuff like Dragonmarked races and Star Spawns (all types, and the way they work together) and Flameskulls.

[SiCK_Boy]

*Admittedly this applies better to other complaints, but breaking this down to "no this wouldn't cause issues, but you can't/shouldn't do it for no explained reason" isn't exactly an encouraging stance

They did provide an explanation. They ruled this way for aesthetic reasons.

Now, it’s fair to disagree with them (I don’t much care one way or another, since I don’t intend to ever play a paladin/monk where that would be an issue), but they did at least provide more context on this answer than what they usually do.

[FabulousFizban]

But can i smite with my penis? What if i'm a paladin/bard multiclass?

[Kane0]

But can i smite with my penis? What if i'm a paladin/bard multiclass?

Of course, unarmed strike isn't limited to hands.

In fact, it'd be extra good against succubi.

I am a bit late to the party and I am confused. The SA did absolutely nothing, unarmed strike (and improvised weapons for that matter) were never weapons and the smites have always required a weapon. What exactly changed with this sage advice?
I think the fact that unarmed strike isn't considered a weapon is the root cause for a lot of the weirdness really.