Would you allow booming blade/green-flame blade with an unarmed strike?

[thoroughlyS]

If a player came to you and said they wanted their character to punch people with one of these spells, would you allow them to do so? Assume they are following the rest of the rules, so no reach shenanigans or Twin Spell or anything else. They just want to use unarmed strike with magic. Does this break anything, or step on anyone's toes?

[LudicSavant]

If a player came to you and said they wanted their character to punch people with one of these spells, would you allow them to do so? Assume they are following the rest of the rules, so no reach shenanigans or Twin Spell or anything else. They just want to use unarmed strike with magic. Does this break anything, or step on anyone's toes?

I guess the main difference would be that you can get most of your damage out while keeping an extra hand free to, say, grapple someone.

It's probably fine. Doubly so if you have to actually use a free fist, in which case even the above wouldn't factor.

[Quietus]

If a player came to you and said they wanted their character to punch people with one of these spells, would you allow them to do so? Assume they are following the rest of the rules, so no reach shenanigans or Twin Spell or anything else. They just want to use unarmed strike with magic. Does this break anything, or step on anyone's toes?

Outside of metamagic, this shouldn't break anything. They'd have to use an unoccupied hand to do it, and other than unarmed fighting style/natural weapons/tavern brawler/monk levels, they're doing 1+BB damage.

[thoroughlyS]

What metamagic would break it? Twin Spell no longer works with either spell because they have a range of Self (5-foot radius).

[Damon_Tor]

What metamagic would break it? Twin Spell no longer works with either spell because they have a range of Self (5-foot radius).

Why does that matter?

[thoroughlyS]

Before the errata in Tasha's, booming blade and green-flame blade were commonly taken on sorcerers so they could Twin them for more damage. This interaction no longer works because you can't Twin a spell with a range of self. I was laying that out in case the person I was asking didn't know about the change.

[Greywander]

Generally I wouldn't allow it with unarmed strikes, as the way the spell is written you need a weapon. I do interpret natural weapons as counting as weapons, though, and this can be important for an unarmed fighting character who otherwise has another way to boost their unarmed damage (e.g. monk, Unarmed Fighting style).

There's a similar question regarding paladins smiting with their fists. I've always felt that paladins should be able to smite with unarmed strikes, and while the original printing of Divine Smite allowed that, I'm not sure if it's still within the rules. I believe Improved Divine Smite has never worked with unarmed strikes.

All that said, I could be convinced if a player had a compelling character concept and it was clear they weren't just trying to build something overpowered.

[thoroughlyS]

Yeah, I know it's against the rules, I am curious if you'd allow it. And it seems like you would.

A paladin can smite with an unarmed strike, because it triggers on a melee weapon attack (which an unarmed strike is). Improved Divine Smite does require a weapon.

[Quietus]

What metamagic would break it? Twin Spell no longer works with either spell because they have a range of Self (5-foot radius).

I could swear that there was a Sage Advice stating that it was intended to still work with Twin. Either way, Quicken is still on the table.

[thoroughlyS]

Quicken chews through resources for what doesn't seem like a huge damage gain? At 8th level, you're getting to Quicken it four times total for maybe 1d6 + 1d8 + STR damage each?

[Valmark]

Likely not, it doesn't unbalance anything but I dislike removing requirements from spells.

That said, I do use the previous version of the spell since it's stupid that it can't work with (some) weapons (and the reason they changed it for is stupid too) and I'm also the first to dislike the reasons you can't smite with unarmed strikes so... It likely wouldn't be hard to convince me if a player really wanted it for their concept.

[Amnestic]

Yes if they've invested into unarmed strikes in some way (eg. monk levels or fighting style), no if they haven't.

If they're a bladesinger wizard all about stabbing people and they're suddenly weaponless for whatever reason, I'd rather they not be able to use BB/GFB unarmed, so that the being weaponless has more of an impact (and yes it'll have some impact, I get that).

If they're an eldritch knight who punches people with magic fists then that's cool lets do it.

[Mastikator]

Yes if they've invested into unarmed strikes in some way (eg. monk levels or fighting style), no if they haven't.

If they're a bladesinger wizard all about stabbing people and they're suddenly weaponless for whatever reason, I'd rather they not be able to use BB/GFB unarmed, so that the being weaponless has more of an impact (and yes it'll have some impact, I get that).

If they're an eldritch knight who punches people with magic fists then that's cool lets do it.

I second this. It's the only way I'd accept unarmed counting as a weapon attack.

[thoroughlyS]

That's an interesting rule of thumb. I also like it.

[NorthernPhoenix]

If it's just because it seems cool, and not to exploit some kind of gimmick build, then i'd probably allow it.

[Greywander]

Yes if they've invested into unarmed strikes in some way (eg. monk levels or fighting style), no if they haven't.

If they're a bladesinger wizard all about stabbing people and they're suddenly weaponless for whatever reason, I'd rather they not be able to use BB/GFB unarmed, so that the being weaponless has more of an impact (and yes it'll have some impact, I get that).

If they're an eldritch knight who punches people with magic fists then that's cool lets do it.
I'm glad so many people seem to be agreeing with this. Rule of Cool and all that. Like I said in my post above, I wouldn't allow it by default, but could be talked into it if that was part of the player's character concept. Here's a short list of things that I could see as permitting BB/GFB with unarmed strikes:

The Unarmed Fighting style.
Being a monk.
Having a natural weapon.
Tavern Brawler, maybe?

Each of these represents investing into unarmed fighting on your character, and as such makes sense that you might get special perks for fighting unarmed that most other characters wouldn't get. Using a weapon is almost always stronger, so by choosing to go unarmed you're intentionally playing a less than optimal character. Allowing BB/GFB to work with unarmed strikes still leaves you slightly behind someone using a weapon. The tradeoff of being able to use it even when your weapons are taken away is pretty niche, so it balances out nicely.

I know I've mentioned it before, but I also just use the SCAG version of BB and GFB. Tasha's broke those spells by not allowing them to work with natural weapons, Shadow Blade, or things like the Soulknife's psychic blades. You could do a partial reversion, where you just drop the material component cost, but the only other difference is whether it can be twinned or used with Spell Sniper. I don't really have a problem with twinning it, and if you're going to the effort to grab Spell Sniper then why not let you attack at reach?

[JonBeowulf]

A paladin can smite with an unarmed strike, because it triggers on a melee weapon attack (which an unarmed strike is). Improved Divine Smite does require a weapon.

No, unarmed strikes are not melee weapon attacks. Early editions of the PHB were a bit confusing on the topic, but they errata'd it and fixed later printings:


Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on unarmed strikes should read as follows:
“Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”

Houserule it however you like, but it isn't RAW.

As for the OP, the only part of it that bothers me is it makes the spell names silly. It doesn't break anything except the logic portions of my brain.

[thoroughlyS]

No, unarmed strikes are not melee weapon attacks. Early editions of the PHB were a bit confusing on the topic, but they errata'd it and fixed later printings:

Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on unarmed strikes should read as follows:
“Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”
See, I read that as "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike" but both of those are still melee weapon attacks.

[Valmark]

No, unarmed strikes are not melee weapon attacks. Early editions of the PHB were a bit confusing on the topic, but they errata'd it and fixed later printings:



Houserule it however you like, but it isn't RAW.

As for the OP, the only part of it that bothers me is it makes the spell names silly. It doesn't break anything except the logic portions of my brain.

That rule says that you can use an unarmed strike instead of a weapon, not that you use an unarmed strike instead of a melee weapon attack. If your reading was true then monks wouldn't be able to make Stunning Strikes without a weapon.

That said, Divine Smite does specifically mention a weapon in addition to a melee weapon attack so unarmed strikes shouldn't count.

[Greywander]

No, unarmed strikes are not melee weapon attacks. Early editions of the PHB were a bit confusing on the topic, but they errata'd it and fixed later printings:

Houserule it however you like, but it isn't RAW.
Unarmed strikes are still melee weapon attacks. They are not, however, an attack with a melee weapon. Attacks are always either melee or ranged and weapon or spell. Since an unarmed strike is not a spell attack, and it's not a ranged attack, it can only be a melee weapon attack.

[king_steve]

From the latest Sage Advice Compendium:



[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using 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.


So, ultimately I think you can make an argument either way on this and it will be up to the DM how they will rule.

I feel this argument equally applies to BB/GFB.

[thoroughlyS]

With booming blade and green-flame blade, the text explicitly calls out requiring a weapon. My question isn't whether it follows the rules (I know it doesn't). My question is would you allow a player to break that rule anyway? I liked the rule of thumb mentioned earlier in the thread to allow it for a character with some investment into unarmed strikes (e.g. having a natural weapon, or the Unarmed Fighting Style).

[Kane0]

I'd allow it as long as you have some way you already treat unarmed attacks like weapons (being a monk, having a natural attack, taking the fighting style, etc).

Bonus points if you're a member of the Flaming Fist.

[borg286]

I'd allow it.
There are only 1 main thing that make this anything near "well why not?"
Is the player trying to do this so he doesn't have to juggle a weapon because of somatic components of his spells? Personally I've found the whole somatic thing to be rather silly. It is a bunch of historic red tape that you have to either juggle to get through, buy a magical ruby to attach onto your staff/sword to make it more magical-instrument-like, or you get for free through warcaster. Each of these solutions are just a way to skirt around what many already do, just ignore somatic components unless there is a rules lawyer in the room.

If the player is just trying to get out of the somatic conundrum that is having a shield and still wanting to cast spells but can't afford to take warcaster, just let him do it. He's dropping damage to maintain a gish playstyle. Just let him play a gish.

[Coidzor]

Yes, it's asinine that it doesn't work that way RAW anyway.

[JonBeowulf]

The text literally says, "none of which count as weapons". How do y'all interpret that to mean that they are weapon attacks?

As for monks, you're right -- Stunning Strike requires a weapon attack. Smack 'em with a stick and burn a point of Ki. Open Hand Technique, however, does not require a weapon... in fact, it only works with the unarmed strikes granted by Flurry of Blows.

[Greywander]

The text literally says, "none of which count as weapons". How do y'all interpret that to mean that they are weapon attacks?
If you look at the Monster Manual, you'll see that any creature making some kind of unarmed strike (e.g. zombies) makes a melee weapon attack. Go ahead and try to find a counterexample, if you can.

All attacks are either weapon attacks or spell attacks. Unarmed strikes are more similar to hitting someone with a weapon than they are to hitting someone with a magic. Your fist is essentially a type of club. It doesn't count as a weapon, for things like smites or BB, but it is still a weapon attack because it's not a spell attack.

Edit: Apes literally have an attack called "Fist", which is, you guessed it, a melee weapon attack.

[JonBeowulf]

If you look at the Monster Manual, you'll see that any creature making some kind of unarmed strike (e.g. zombies) makes a melee weapon attack. Go ahead and try to find a counterexample, if you can.

All attacks are either weapon attacks or spell attacks. Unarmed strikes are more similar to hitting someone with a weapon than they are to hitting someone with a magic. Your fist is essentially a type of club. It doesn't count as a weapon, for things like smites or BB, but it is still a weapon attack because it's not a spell attack.

Edit: Apes literally have an attack called "Fist", which is, you guessed it, a melee weapon attack.

Creatures in the various monster books use different rules than PCs. That point comes up every time there's a post about using PC rules to create a BBEG. Yes, Apes use "fist" and Zombies have "slam" and logically those are unarmed strikes and the book calls them "melee weapon attacks" (and this is a run-on sentence), but that doesn't modify what's in the PHB -- the book that contains all the rules for PCs. I have no problem calling them natural weapons (which are a thing certain PC races have) but not unarmed melee weapon.

And here, again from the PHB errata:

Weapons (p. 149). Unarmed strike doesn’t belong on the Weapons table.
Unarmed strikes are not classified as weapons. Everything in the PHB that wasn't clear on this point has been errata'd. Should they be? Dunno don't care... it doesn't come up enough to be an issue. If one of my players wants them to be (as in the OP), I'd have them explain the rationale, think about it for a bit, and probably let them have it. I may even add it to my houserules.

Look, feel free to run things how you like... we all should do that. But don't claim your ruling is RAW when it patently isn't.

[Greywander]

Look, feel free to run things how you like... we all should do that. But don't claim your ruling is RAW when it patently isn't.

Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack.
Would it help if we pretended that it was called a "physical attack" rather than a "weapon attack"? Because that's basically what it is.

Unless you're arguing that unarmed strikes are somehow spell attacks?

[Coidzor]

No, unarmed strikes are not melee weapon attacks. Early editions of the PHB were a bit confusing on the topic, but they errata'd it and fixed later printings:

Unarmed Strikes are not weapons.

Unarmed Strikes are still used to make melee weapon attacks.

This is not the first time that language and game terms ended up being really weird in D&D. It will not be the last time, either.


As for the OP, the only part of it that bothers me is it makes the spell names silly. It doesn't break anything except the logic portions of my brain.

Do you require it to be made with a bladed weapon, then?

[Deathtongue]

Attacking with unarmed strikes, especially in a game with magical items (which despite the conservatism of CharOP, exist in the vast majority of games) is largely a downgrade. There are some weird edge cases in which it's marginally superior, such as if you are a spellcaster that has the other hand occupied and doesn't have Warcaster, but for the most part a Bladesinger who had to invest in a feat or fighting style to punch someone with Booming Blade is preferable to them stabbing them with a +1 Rapier with no further investment.

[Valmark]

The text literally says, "none of which count as weapons". How do y'all interpret that to mean that they are weapon attacks?

As for monks, you're right -- Stunning Strike requires a weapon attack. Smack 'em with a stick and burn a point of Ki. Open Hand Technique, however, does not require a weapon... in fact, it only works with the unarmed strikes granted by Flurry of Blows.


Creatures in the various monster books use different rules than PCs. That point comes up every time there's a post about using PC rules to create a BBEG. Yes, Apes use "fist" and Zombies have "slam" and logically those are unarmed strikes and the book calls them "melee weapon attacks" (and this is a run-on sentence), but that doesn't modify what's in the PHB -- the book that contains all the rules for PCs. I have no problem calling them natural weapons (which are a thing certain PC races have) but not unarmed melee weapon.

And here, again from the PHB errata:

Unarmed strikes are not classified as weapons. Everything in the PHB that wasn't clear on this point has been errata'd. Should they be? Dunno don't care... it doesn't come up enough to be an issue. If one of my players wants them to be (as in the OP), I'd have them explain the rationale, think about it for a bit, and probably let them have it. I may even add it to my houserules.

Look, feel free to run things how you like... we all should do that. But don't claim your ruling is RAW when it patently isn't.

The confusion comes from the fact that you're saying that only weapons make weapon attacks without any proof of it. Nothing you quoted says anything of the sort- in fact the section you first quoted says the opposite with a straightforward reading (i.e. it says to use unarmed strikes instead of weapons to make melee weapon attacks).

Speaking of which, if unarmed strikes weren't weapon attacks then we'd actually not know what attribute they use- because the book presents melee weapon attacks as using Strenght and ranged weapon attacks as using Dexterity, period. There's no other case. Non-weapon melee attacks don't exist (until you get to spells, that is).

[KorvinStarmast]

That rule says that you can use an unarmed strike instead of a weapon, not that you use an unarmed strike instead of a melee weapon attack. If your reading was true then monks wouldn't be able to make Stunning Strikes without a weapon.

That said, Divine Smite does specifically mention a weapon in addition to a melee weapon attack so unarmed strikes shouldn't count. I have played it both ways, it works fine either way other than doing less damage overall if you don't have a weapon.

So, ultimately I think you can make an argument either way on this and it will be up to the DM how they will rule.

I feel this argument equally applies to BB/GFB. Yes, that makes sense. On that basis, I'll probably rule that way in my games, but I need to ask my DM about my one PC that has GFB.

Bonus points if you're a member of the Flaming Fist. Oh, heck yeah!

All attacks are either weapon attacks or spell attacks. Unarmed strikes are more similar to hitting someone with a weapon than they are to hitting someone with a magic. My favorite sentence this morning, thanks. :smallsmile:

[Droodicus]

Reflavour club as knuckle dusters or a punching gauntlet. Problem solvered.
That said if they wanted cool flaming lizard bites or something I'd allow it too.

[KorvinStarmast]

Reflavour club as knuckle dusters or a punching gauntlet. Problem solvered.
That said if they wanted cool flaming lizard bites or something I'd allow it too. Not a bad idea.

[Hytheter]

Whenever this discussion comes up - on whether unarmed strikes are weapon attacks - I can only think of Stunning Strike.

Stunning Strike reads "When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack". In other words, it requires a melee weapon attack. If an unarmed strike isn't meant to count as a weapon attack, then you can't use stunning strike with an unarmed strike.

And if you don't think monks are supposed to be able to stun with their fists, we just aren't playing the same game.

[strangebloke]

Reflavour club as knuckle dusters or a punching gauntlet. Problem solvered.
That said if they wanted cool flaming lizard bites or something I'd allow it too.

This should be a basic houserule in every game, IMO. Anyone who wants to rely on (essentially) daggers for damage isn't doing anything broken. You can't even "Leave a hand free for grappling" because, well, you are holding a weapon. Allowing knuckle dusters basically allows a martial character to lose 1 damage per hit for some niche side benefits like "easier-to-conceal weapons" and "rule of cool."

Totally fine. Mandatory, even.


Whenever this discussion comes up - on whether unarmed strikes are weapon attacks - I can only think of Stunning Strike.

Stunning Strike reads "When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack". In other words, it requires a melee weapon attack. If an unarmed strike isn't meant to count as a weapon attack, then you can't use stunning strike with an unarmed strike.

And if you don't think monks are supposed to be able to stun with their fists, we just aren't playing the same game.

The issue is that BB and GFB don't say 'melee weapon attack' they say 'make an attack with a melee weapon' which is an important distinction. Yes this is unclear but that's DND for you.

[Yakk]

Sure, with 2 requirements.

1) They have a way to enhance their unarmed strikes beyond the baseline 1 point.

2) They have a focus that can be taken away from them.

The default focus for the spells is a weapon (the price is there so you can't pull one out of the bag of components, heh). But I like the idea that those spells need a physical focus.

But I could probably be persuaded to allow someone to have flaming fists of doom without #2.

[Greywander]

My favorite sentence this morning, thanks. :smallsmile:
Oh shoot, I didn't realize I wrote "a magic" until just now. It was originally going to be "a spell", then I changed "spell" to "magic" but must have forgotten to take out the "a".

Also, I never really thought about it before, but "magic" is an uncountable noun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun), like most liquids such as water. You'd never say you had "a water", unless you're using it as a shorthand for something like "a bottle of water", in which case "bottle" is the countable noun.

[Hytheter]

The issue is that BB and GFB don't say 'melee weapon attack' they say 'make an attack with a melee weapon' which is an important distinction. Yes this is unclear but that's DND for you.

In the specific case of BB, yeah. But the discussion has become more general than that, and I feel Stunning Strike is a compelling example of intent regarding what is and isn't a weapon attack.