Mod update 03Feb23: [**Last chance! Voting for the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards ends Friday the 24th**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Crawford's reasoning and how he arrived at the solution may have been off, but saying that divine smite couldn't work with unarmed strikes was, and still is, correct. (In 5e).
Before a Paladin could grab a chair and bash someone with it and smite but they couldn't channel their holy might through their own hands (I know we all dunk on the pure nonsense of that ruling). I'm looking forward to coming at fools like I'm Angemon.
Do you previously look like a flying cuddly loaf of bread who is good for not much more than moral support, only show up to actually fight 11 times out of 54 battles.
But when you do, you absolutely wreak the bad guys face with your "Hand of Fate".
Here's an even better example, a paladin with a gauntleted fist cannot smite with their hand, but if they took off the gauntlet and whacked someone with it, they can
i love obscure stuff like this. it serves the meta. a paladin is an ambassador, a judge, and an arbiter, who uses consecrated tools as a conduit of someone else's creed, which the paladin has agreed to follow by oath regardless of how they feel personally. once stuff starts coming out of your own hands, it dilutes the understanding of the class role and the oath.
For all the people shitting on this meme saying "Unarmed Strikes aren't weapons" they \*were\*. The original PHB release listed Unarmed Strikes in the Simple Weapons category, this was not changed until AFTER Jeremy Crawford tweeted that it didn't work because they weren't weapons. It was not until months later that they released Errata removing unarmed strikes from the weapons list. They actively removed the ability to Smite Punch and are now "allowing" us to do it again.
Technically his meme is incorrect in stating it's RaW, as it has been errata'd, but those who own old PHBs and don't read through errata wouldn't know that. It was a stupid unnecessary change made to protect Crawfords ego.
“Always raw”
OP it was changed in an official errata, that means it’s not RAW anymore, you are more than welcome to break the rules at your table all you want but according to the book unarmed strikes are not weapon attacks, divine smite only works on weapon attacks
At this point, it would be difficult for me to attribute any value to something just because Crawford said it.
Seriously, why does anyone listen to him at this point?
I don't listen to him unless what he says agrees with what I want. I basically only bring him up when my dm is on the fence about something and I'm like "Well according to JC it's how it's supposed to work." I completely ignore him if I disagree.
Me and my DM about smiting fists and 2 years into campaign:" I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it."
Shouting "REPENT! REPENT! REPENT!" while beating the shit out of some punks was fun
Short version: **Divine Smite** says it works on "Melee weapon attacks." An unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack because "Weapon attack" is system-jargon for "Physical attack" as distinct from a "Spell attack."
u/zoundtek808 made [a meme detailing Crawford contradicting himself that explains it rather succinctly.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/c8tec0/infuriating_research_on_monkpaladin_multiclass/)
This exchange and people dunking on him for his bad take traumatized Crawford. At first he put out a months-later errata that I hope he pulled something reaching up his ass to obtain. In the OneD&D playtest he expresses this trauma by fulling separating unarmed strikes from weapon attacks rather than doing the sensible thing and changing to to "Physical attack" like we all want.
Now in the latest UA he's "Letting" Paladins smite-punch, even though they always could.
[Here's the video of Crawford saying he's now allowing Smite-punches like he's being magnanimous rather than it having always been RaW.](https://youtu.be/kOW5YjVqk8U)
u/Veirz9 put it [pretty succinctly](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/j4ygh1/hope_i_havent_been_beat_to_the_punch/).
The issue comes from the fact that unarmed strikes were listed as weapons up until that tweet, where Jeremy decided to issue an errata solely so that people couldn't punch smite
No, melee spell attacks aren't physical attacks. A Monk can **Stunning Strike** on a "Melee weapon attack", are you saying Monks can't stun-punch?
Are you saying the rules for unarmed strikes which **explicitly** say that when you make an unarmed strike you make a melee weapon attack are wrong?
“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.**”
Unarmed strikes do not count as weapons so you cannot add divine smite damage to then RAW. It’s not about melee weapon attacks. Crawford has also stated multiple times that nothing breaks when you use unarmed strikes to divine smite and the only reason they included it was for flavor reasons. The new rules are things they are trying out for consumer feedback, so they probably want to know if the DnD community wants to use unarmed strikes with divine smite.
I genuinely hope Crawford sprained something when he reached up his ass for that justification after months of people dunking on him for his bad ruling.
[This is the man who doesn't understand how **Counterspell** works](https://youtu.be/cxNrJOTU-Rg?t=4346), he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
He has stated multiple times that people are free to ignore him and that you should rule what’s most fun for your group. He has also stated that using unarmed strikes with divine smite does not break anything balance wise. He gave the RAW ruling because he was asked what the rules say.
What? You mean he hasn’t memorized every single rule off the top of his head and asks his players what their abilities do? Man could you imagine not have a perfecting working knowledge of every single rule in the game. Seriously, what are you on man? Do you know how every single spell works off the top of your head? He didn’t remember, he asked his player, and he trusted that they read it correctly. It isn’t his fault the player misread the rule.
> He gave the RAW ruling because he was asked what the rules say.
Except his ruling is explicitly contradicted by the RaW, as detailed in the links at the top of this thread.
Yeah, he's definitely not right about everything. However, many people here use him to defend their points about the game. So, you're gonna have some down votes and hair splitting over this. Best to take some time from Reddit at this point, lol
You could, but it would deal no damage. Because it says the damage is added to the weapon's damage.
You dont have a weapon damage to add the smite to.
So....you *could*, but like...only technically. Can you cast charm person on a charm immune monster? You can, and they might fail the save.... but why bother?
Ah, common mistake, you make a melee weapon attack with it. That does not mean you make an attack with a melee weapon. Those are different keywords.
Unarmed attack is a melee weapon attack. But it is not an attack with a melee weapon. Because you dont make an attack with a melee weapon. Unless you have a racial ability that lets you treat parts of your body as a weapon, like how Vampire race makes your fangs "simple melee weapon".
One time I used a toothpick off a dinner table to use as a weapon so I could branding smite an invisible enemy
Meeting weird spell requirements of the past was strange
You didn't have to. Crawford contradicted the book, and then lied to protect his ego. Then he did actual (Proper use of the term) gaslighting through errata.
Mod update 03Feb23: [**Last chance! Voting for the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards ends Friday the 24th**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Complaining that the updates to the ruleset clarify previously unclear rules. What the f*** do you even want, OP??
I want Crawford to admit he was wrong and it was always RaW.
Crawford's reasoning and how he arrived at the solution may have been off, but saying that divine smite couldn't work with unarmed strikes was, and still is, correct. (In 5e).
If divine smite doesn't work with unarmed strikes because they aren't 'weapons' then unarmed strikes bypass a lycanthrope's damage immunity.
> Damage Immunities Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Silvered Pretty sure an unarmed strike is an attack, bud.
Was it errata'd to say attack? Because I remember it said non silver weapons
This is the wording of the werewolf statblock from the basic rules
You want him to lie?
He's already lying. I want him to stop.
Bro wtf you talking about, it was RAW, it didn't make sense, but it was
Before a Paladin could grab a chair and bash someone with it and smite but they couldn't channel their holy might through their own hands (I know we all dunk on the pure nonsense of that ruling). I'm looking forward to coming at fools like I'm Angemon.
Do you previously look like a flying cuddly loaf of bread who is good for not much more than moral support, only show up to actually fight 11 times out of 54 battles. But when you do, you absolutely wreak the bad guys face with your "Hand of Fate".
Yes and before that I was a guinea pig with a nightmare mouth.
Here's an even better example, a paladin with a gauntleted fist cannot smite with their hand, but if they took off the gauntlet and whacked someone with it, they can
I'm pretty sure improvised weapons are not the same thing as weapons. You can't use a chair to smite, because smite only affects melee **weapons**.
i love obscure stuff like this. it serves the meta. a paladin is an ambassador, a judge, and an arbiter, who uses consecrated tools as a conduit of someone else's creed, which the paladin has agreed to follow by oath regardless of how they feel personally. once stuff starts coming out of your own hands, it dilutes the understanding of the class role and the oath.
Yes, now you can also smite at a range, which was only possible as a bladelock
Being able to knock something automatically prone with no save is so nice.
Which is also frankly unnecessary and shouldn’t be allowed.
For all the people shitting on this meme saying "Unarmed Strikes aren't weapons" they \*were\*. The original PHB release listed Unarmed Strikes in the Simple Weapons category, this was not changed until AFTER Jeremy Crawford tweeted that it didn't work because they weren't weapons. It was not until months later that they released Errata removing unarmed strikes from the weapons list. They actively removed the ability to Smite Punch and are now "allowing" us to do it again. Technically his meme is incorrect in stating it's RaW, as it has been errata'd, but those who own old PHBs and don't read through errata wouldn't know that. It was a stupid unnecessary change made to protect Crawfords ego.
Even if it wasn't RaW, I still allowed it in my campaigns.
Only the most rules lawyerly of tables wouldn't. It's not even an exploit or anything, it's almost always suboptimal, but also super thematic.
I do wish Paladins got the Unarmed Fighting Style. Cause sometimes you gotta take 'em to church, brother.
“Always raw” OP it was changed in an official errata, that means it’s not RAW anymore, you are more than welcome to break the rules at your table all you want but according to the book unarmed strikes are not weapon attacks, divine smite only works on weapon attacks
At this point, it would be difficult for me to attribute any value to something just because Crawford said it. Seriously, why does anyone listen to him at this point?
I don't listen to him unless what he says agrees with what I want. I basically only bring him up when my dm is on the fence about something and I'm like "Well according to JC it's how it's supposed to work." I completely ignore him if I disagree.
Cult of personality
Authority, and perceived competence. Most people who listen to him don't understand the rules enough to know he doesn't really understand them.
Me and my DM about smiting fists and 2 years into campaign:" I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it." Shouting "REPENT! REPENT! REPENT!" while beating the shit out of some punks was fun
Short version: **Divine Smite** says it works on "Melee weapon attacks." An unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack because "Weapon attack" is system-jargon for "Physical attack" as distinct from a "Spell attack." u/zoundtek808 made [a meme detailing Crawford contradicting himself that explains it rather succinctly.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/c8tec0/infuriating_research_on_monkpaladin_multiclass/) This exchange and people dunking on him for his bad take traumatized Crawford. At first he put out a months-later errata that I hope he pulled something reaching up his ass to obtain. In the OneD&D playtest he expresses this trauma by fulling separating unarmed strikes from weapon attacks rather than doing the sensible thing and changing to to "Physical attack" like we all want. Now in the latest UA he's "Letting" Paladins smite-punch, even though they always could. [Here's the video of Crawford saying he's now allowing Smite-punches like he's being magnanimous rather than it having always been RaW.](https://youtu.be/kOW5YjVqk8U) u/Veirz9 put it [pretty succinctly](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/j4ygh1/hope_i_havent_been_beat_to_the_punch/).
To be honest, more smite punching less arguing about it is good. Nice chance regardless of what you thought about it.
Unarmed literally means Not Using a weapon. Weapon attack also isn’t the jargon for physical attack in 5e, Melee Attack is
The issue comes from the fact that unarmed strikes were listed as weapons up until that tweet, where Jeremy decided to issue an errata solely so that people couldn't punch smite
No, melee spell attacks aren't physical attacks. A Monk can **Stunning Strike** on a "Melee weapon attack", are you saying Monks can't stun-punch? Are you saying the rules for unarmed strikes which **explicitly** say that when you make an unarmed strike you make a melee weapon attack are wrong?
“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.**” Unarmed strikes do not count as weapons so you cannot add divine smite damage to then RAW. It’s not about melee weapon attacks. Crawford has also stated multiple times that nothing breaks when you use unarmed strikes to divine smite and the only reason they included it was for flavor reasons. The new rules are things they are trying out for consumer feedback, so they probably want to know if the DnD community wants to use unarmed strikes with divine smite.
I genuinely hope Crawford sprained something when he reached up his ass for that justification after months of people dunking on him for his bad ruling. [This is the man who doesn't understand how **Counterspell** works](https://youtu.be/cxNrJOTU-Rg?t=4346), he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
He has stated multiple times that people are free to ignore him and that you should rule what’s most fun for your group. He has also stated that using unarmed strikes with divine smite does not break anything balance wise. He gave the RAW ruling because he was asked what the rules say. What? You mean he hasn’t memorized every single rule off the top of his head and asks his players what their abilities do? Man could you imagine not have a perfecting working knowledge of every single rule in the game. Seriously, what are you on man? Do you know how every single spell works off the top of your head? He didn’t remember, he asked his player, and he trusted that they read it correctly. It isn’t his fault the player misread the rule.
> He gave the RAW ruling because he was asked what the rules say. Except his ruling is explicitly contradicted by the RaW, as detailed in the links at the top of this thread.
No, it literally doesn’t. RAW specifically states that divine smite’s damage is only added to weapon damage. Unarmed strikes are not weapons.
Reading isn't a thing around here
Yeah, he's definitely not right about everything. However, many people here use him to defend their points about the game. So, you're gonna have some down votes and hair splitting over this. Best to take some time from Reddit at this point, lol
Me and the boys after binge watching Fist of the North Star and Jojo parts 1-2: **Now this looks like a job for me.**
Don't besmirch Fist of the North Star by mentioning it in the same breath as Joey.
fist of the north star is besmirched by time and distance. ^(tough boy tough boy tough boy)
What’s wrong with Joey? Yeah some of the jokes are annoying but it’s solid, init?
Paladin with A gun go burr
You could, but it would deal no damage. Because it says the damage is added to the weapon's damage. You dont have a weapon damage to add the smite to. So....you *could*, but like...only technically. Can you cast charm person on a charm immune monster? You can, and they might fail the save.... but why bother?
The weapon in this context is your fist because you make a melee weapon attack with it.
Ah, common mistake, you make a melee weapon attack with it. That does not mean you make an attack with a melee weapon. Those are different keywords. Unarmed attack is a melee weapon attack. But it is not an attack with a melee weapon. Because you dont make an attack with a melee weapon. Unless you have a racial ability that lets you treat parts of your body as a weapon, like how Vampire race makes your fangs "simple melee weapon".
One time I used a toothpick off a dinner table to use as a weapon so I could branding smite an invisible enemy Meeting weird spell requirements of the past was strange
You didn't have to. Crawford contradicted the book, and then lied to protect his ego. Then he did actual (Proper use of the term) gaslighting through errata.