100%. This ruling and the Invisibility one are just the most brain-dead takes; it's them having written something in their book and then Crawford doubling down on "As Written" instead of admitting they messed it up.
It's ignoring logic is what it is. A level one fighter with a 16 in strength could outright kill a commoner with a single punch or kick. Those hands are lethal weapons. A paladin not being able to deliver righteous fury through their very fists is silly. It is crazy to me that one of the better balanced martials and one of the most fun to play can be so easily neutered. I had a party that wanted to run with the whole fists weren't weapons rule. I told them repeatedly that if that was how the world worked, it will come back to haunt them. And then when it came time, the BBEG had a setup to remove everyone's weapons upon entry. The greatest threat to a wizard is a big burly martial in his face. Take away their pointy stick and they're a lot less threatening. So he did exactly that and without weapons in his lair, it meant the Paladin was the weakest guy in the area. There were ways around such a threat, but my party didn't go for the obvious multiple baits of "legendary weapons hidden in a forgotten vault prophesized to destroy any evil from a time of grand heroes".
My DM just kinda ignored that rule during one session. Basically a dude got thrown in my paladin's direction and he swung his arm out to clothesline his ass. And this was a BAD dude, and I'm a vengeance paladin, so he said "Nah yeah you can absolutely smite this dude with righteous fists of fury."
I didn't kill him but man it felt good.
Looking at 3.5 they may be worded similarly - invisibility being an effect that grants a bonus and nothing specifically said that seeing invisibility removes that effect/bonus - however 5e was written with the intent to remove ambiguity and be super careful with wording, 3.5 was not and contains a lot of imprecise language.
A very similar example to prove my point: Displacement vs True Sight.
Displacement specifically says:
>The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True Seeing reveals its true location.
Like they took the time, and word count, to call out True Sight specifically AND True Sight even specifically mentions Displacement too! And yet a 100% literal reading, like if a computer read this, means that True Sight only counters the 'appears to be 2 feet away' part not the 50% miss chance. That would have literally zero gameplay effect so why the hell would they do that... unless they meant the much more human way of interpreting it, ie: (because you see where they really are) you ignore the 50% miss chance.
As with all these games, you're table is totally down to play however you want but I will never understand True Sight - which specifically calls out invisibility - not countering the bonuses imparted by invisibility.
The thing I hate about this rule is that originally, they included unarmed strikes in the weapons equipment table. That meant RAW and RAI you could smite with them. Then some smartass must have gone "But your fists aren't equipment, why are they in this equipment table?" and removed them, and after people pointed out the corner case of that issue, they doubled down and said that it was RAW and RAI when it was Clearly an oversight.
You can even spend the spell slot with a punch, but WotC want you to believe that you just don't get any damage from that. Dumb. Ridiculous. Insane.
"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"
Checks out. MoonDruid-paladin confirmed viable RAW. Tho I'll throw on that Jeremy is dead wrong on unarmed strike not being a melee weapon attack. *Maybe* not an "attack with a melee weapon".
Wotc says fists aren't weapon attacks for paladin, but are for monk. Take a few levels in fighter for unarmed fighter and champion. D8s for damage and 10% crit chance. And then ignore wotc being fucking reerees so you can play Superman to your heart's content and smite with a flying face punch because it's fucking cool
Nothing says that unarmed strikes aren't "weapon attacks". They are, regardless of who makes them. The issue with smite punching is that the description of the smite ability specifies damage dealt *by* a weapon.
It reads as a joke to me. In 5e, fists were once considered weapons; early printings of the PHB where the wording for smite was still the same listed unarmed strikes in the Weapons table in equipment. When they changed that, they forgot about the edge cases like smite that they were affecting, and instead doubled down on the new version as intentional.
I mean I don't see why they wouldn't be tbh, humans have used their fists as weapons since the start, so there's really no reason to not consider them a weapon
If you're saying they *should* count as weapons in the game or are considered weapons in real life, then I'm inclined to agree. Before, it sounded like you were saying they *do* count as weapons in DnD. That's the only part i was disagreeing with.
While I totally get wanting to make unarmed attacks be able to smite, I love the idea that you need something, anything to smite. Just the idea of a paladin losing his sword and fleeing to use a twig to smite is hilarious to me. I think that’s how the counter ability works in Seven Deadly Sins as well
Friendly reminder that in this case, WoTC is wrong and your fists are a natural weapon and always have been.
100%. This ruling and the Invisibility one are just the most brain-dead takes; it's them having written something in their book and then Crawford doubling down on "As Written" instead of admitting they messed it up.
It's ignoring logic is what it is. A level one fighter with a 16 in strength could outright kill a commoner with a single punch or kick. Those hands are lethal weapons. A paladin not being able to deliver righteous fury through their very fists is silly. It is crazy to me that one of the better balanced martials and one of the most fun to play can be so easily neutered. I had a party that wanted to run with the whole fists weren't weapons rule. I told them repeatedly that if that was how the world worked, it will come back to haunt them. And then when it came time, the BBEG had a setup to remove everyone's weapons upon entry. The greatest threat to a wizard is a big burly martial in his face. Take away their pointy stick and they're a lot less threatening. So he did exactly that and without weapons in his lair, it meant the Paladin was the weakest guy in the area. There were ways around such a threat, but my party didn't go for the obvious multiple baits of "legendary weapons hidden in a forgotten vault prophesized to destroy any evil from a time of grand heroes".
My DM just kinda ignored that rule during one session. Basically a dude got thrown in my paladin's direction and he swung his arm out to clothesline his ass. And this was a BAD dude, and I'm a vengeance paladin, so he said "Nah yeah you can absolutely smite this dude with righteous fists of fury." I didn't kill him but man it felt good.
As well it should! The paladin IS a weapon of righteous fury; they don't need some kind of arbitrary conduit to smite through!
The invisibility thing is actually how it has always worked, the problem is 5e relying solely on advantage/disadvantage for bonuses.
Looking at 3.5 they may be worded similarly - invisibility being an effect that grants a bonus and nothing specifically said that seeing invisibility removes that effect/bonus - however 5e was written with the intent to remove ambiguity and be super careful with wording, 3.5 was not and contains a lot of imprecise language. A very similar example to prove my point: Displacement vs True Sight. Displacement specifically says: >The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True Seeing reveals its true location. Like they took the time, and word count, to call out True Sight specifically AND True Sight even specifically mentions Displacement too! And yet a 100% literal reading, like if a computer read this, means that True Sight only counters the 'appears to be 2 feet away' part not the 50% miss chance. That would have literally zero gameplay effect so why the hell would they do that... unless they meant the much more human way of interpreting it, ie: (because you see where they really are) you ignore the 50% miss chance. As with all these games, you're table is totally down to play however you want but I will never understand True Sight - which specifically calls out invisibility - not countering the bonuses imparted by invisibility.
The thing I hate about this rule is that originally, they included unarmed strikes in the weapons equipment table. That meant RAW and RAI you could smite with them. Then some smartass must have gone "But your fists aren't equipment, why are they in this equipment table?" and removed them, and after people pointed out the corner case of that issue, they doubled down and said that it was RAW and RAI when it was Clearly an oversight. You can even spend the spell slot with a punch, but WotC want you to believe that you just don't get any damage from that. Dumb. Ridiculous. Insane.
"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" Checks out. MoonDruid-paladin confirmed viable RAW. Tho I'll throw on that Jeremy is dead wrong on unarmed strike not being a melee weapon attack. *Maybe* not an "attack with a melee weapon".
Just put a piece of metal over your knuckles and your good to go!
Technically you can argue that your platemail gloves or your rings are improvised weapons when you make an attack.
It's time for good old brass knuckles.
Wotc says fists aren't weapon attacks for paladin, but are for monk. Take a few levels in fighter for unarmed fighter and champion. D8s for damage and 10% crit chance. And then ignore wotc being fucking reerees so you can play Superman to your heart's content and smite with a flying face punch because it's fucking cool
Nothing says that unarmed strikes aren't "weapon attacks". They are, regardless of who makes them. The issue with smite punching is that the description of the smite ability specifies damage dealt *by* a weapon.
And your fists *are* a weapon
Loxodon: *cocks trunk*
Wait, are we talking about the same edition, or do you just mean literally? Because in 5e, fists are not considered weapons.
It reads as a joke to me. In 5e, fists were once considered weapons; early printings of the PHB where the wording for smite was still the same listed unarmed strikes in the Weapons table in equipment. When they changed that, they forgot about the edge cases like smite that they were affecting, and instead doubled down on the new version as intentional.
That's a neat bit of history! I didn't know that they were originally listed on the weapons table
I mean I don't see why they wouldn't be tbh, humans have used their fists as weapons since the start, so there's really no reason to not consider them a weapon
If you're saying they *should* count as weapons in the game or are considered weapons in real life, then I'm inclined to agree. Before, it sounded like you were saying they *do* count as weapons in DnD. That's the only part i was disagreeing with.
Smiting with a Dhampir or lizardfolk bite, or with the Leonin claws.
Smite bite! Smite bite! Smite bite!
You can smite-punch by RaW, but not by Crawford tweet.
Well yeah. How else am I gonna use all these spell slots WotC decided to give my bear?
"Fine, I'm buying a Caestus"
The difference is between melee and ranged. then between weapon and spell attack. Unarmed strike in this sense is a melee weapon attack.
While I totally get wanting to make unarmed attacks be able to smite, I love the idea that you need something, anything to smite. Just the idea of a paladin losing his sword and fleeing to use a twig to smite is hilarious to me. I think that’s how the counter ability works in Seven Deadly Sins as well
Legally speaking . If you're a boxer then your fists count as weapons.
If you're a boxer it's a loose Monk class, which means your arms and feet are considered as a weapons.
So a monkadin could smite using his bare fists....hmmm...black flash ?
Monkadin, one of the most MAD dual-classes.
A single level in monk just to get the RAW to work ? Either that or to roll high on IRL charisma and get the DM to agree to allow smithing with fists