D&D 5E Hs anyone else noticed this shifter wrinkle?

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure, but it's still once per short rest and requires you to be an otherwise unimpressive race and to be a Barbarian or two level dip in one (which is a big deal, in practice). Its a cute trick rather than a game breaker.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I will never understand that thinking. The players will literally spend hundreds of dollars to get access to all the books to find every loophole to exploit it to the Nth degree, with entire forums dedicated to character and strategic optimisation...and that’s a perfectly valid and reasonable and good way to play. But the DM avoids a melee powerhouse and attacks from range and he’s a snip profanity DM?

I think the truth is in the middle. The DM is supposed to be an impartial referee, not against the players (that's why the DM was originally called the referee back in the day). So to your point, a DM actively using meta knowledge to screw with the players isn't exactly kosher.

However, if the monsters could reasonably use tactics and react to what's working and not working, then that's fair game.

The smite spells require a weapon. The smite ability requires a melee weapon attack, and unarmed strikes count as a melee weapon attacks (as opposed to "an attack with a melee weapon"). So RAW you can smite (or use battlemaster abilities etc) with the bite.

I'll look for it to see if I can find it, but that's specifically what the sage advice was talking about, and how unarmed attacks are NOT considered weapon attacks in regards to the paladin's divine smite ability. I could be wrong, but I'm almost sure that's how it was worded.

edit

Here it is:
Also, the PHB seems to back that up:
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). (PHB 195)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sage Advice compendium, page 4:

"The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons."

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sage Advice compendium, page 4:

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

yeah, and see Jeremy's tweet above, that is the most recent. It also clarifies that just because it's a melee weapon attack, it's not a melee weapon, which is what is required for divine smite (according to Jeremy)

Look, do what you want in your game, but when the designer says it should be working a certain way, we can be sure the intent was that it worked a certain way.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

yeah, and see Jeremy's tweet above, that is the most recent. It also clarifies that just because it's a melee weapon attack, it's not a melee weapon, which is what is required for divine smite.

Look, do what you want in your game, but when the designer says it should be working a certain way, we can be sure the intent was that it worked a certain way.

The designer is contradicting himself - AKA he doesn't know.

In fact, the quote from the compendium is in the context of monks' stunning strike ability, which uses the exact same wording as paladin's Divine Smite ability. Ergo, if you rule that you can't use divine smite with an unarmed attack, it follows that a monk cannot use stunning strike with an unarmed attack, which I think most people would agree makes a nonsense of the ability.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The designer is contradicting himself - AKA he doesn't know.

In fact, the quote from the compendium is in the context of monks' stunning strike ability, which uses the exact same wording as paladin's Divine Smite ability. Ergo, if you rule that you can't use divine smite with an unarmed attack, it follows that a monk cannot use stunning strike with an unarmed attack, which I think most people would agree makes a nonsense of the ability.

No, he's not contradicting himself. There is a difference between what counts as a "melee weapon attack", and and a melee weapon. Is the wording ambiguous? Yes, thus all the questions. But what Jeremy is saying is that while it counts as a melee weapon attack (which encompasses a broad umbrella for various other things that are triggered by it), the divine smite is meant to require an actual melee weapon, which unarmed strikes are not actual weapons. You can disagree with his intention, and many do. But disagreeing with how you want it to work doesn't change how it was meant to work. Ergo, using unarmed strikes (and bites) to apply divine smites would be a house rule. Which again, is perfectly fine. But it's not how the designer intended it to work.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No, he's not contradicting himself. There is a difference between what counts as a "melee weapon attack", and and a melee weapon.

True. However the PHB entry for Divine Smite uses the wording "melee weapon attack", not "attack with a melee weapon".

It's not ambiguous, I imagine I imagine JC has forgotten how the PHB entry is worded.

 

[Sacrosanct]

True. However the PHB entry for Divine Smite uses the wording "melee weapon attack", not "attack with a melee weapon".

It's not ambiguous, I imagine I imagine JC has forgotten how the PHB entry is worded.

It also says, "In addition to the weapon's damage..", which infers you need an actual weapon since the smite damage in in addition to that. So yes, it is ambiguous. Maybe you should stop taking digs at Jeremy and just admit you're tying to act like your interpretation is the one true way to interpret it, when clearly it's not. There's enough questions going either way we can reference, so many that Jeremy felt the need to clarify. We have that clarification. From the designer. End of story.

 

[CleverNickName]

Player: "Check it out! I've carefully optimized my character so that I can take maximum advantage of my class features in combat and always gain advantage, while carefully minimizing or removing any key weaknesses which will allow me to prevail over the monsters that this entire campaign is based around! I win!"

DM: "Check it out! I've carefully optimized my monsters so that I can take maximum advantage of their abilities and powers in combat and always gain advantage, while carefully minimizing or removing any key weaknesses which will allow this monster to prevail over the heroes that this entire campaign is based around! I win!"

Both are terrible, in the same way.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It also says, "In addition to the weapon's damage..", which infers you need an actual weapon since the smite damage in in addition to that.

You can infer that the intent is that a weapon be used, but an inference is not a fact. What is a fact is that Divine Smite uses the same wording as stunning strike - you cannot rule one way for one ability and the other way for the other.

It would probably be more accurate to say that the wording in the PHB is in error rather than JC, but it would be rather unfair to penalise a player for that.