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

[Sacrosanct]

It was ambiguous enough that lots of players had questions. That’s a fact.
we also have Jeremys explanation of how it should work. That’s a fact too
No one is penalizing players because those players can play however they want and use it to apply to unarmed strikes if that’s how they want.

The entire point of me bringing it up in the first place was just to point out how it’s not intended to apply divine smite to bite attacks.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It was ambiguous enough that lots of players had questions. That’s a fact.

The whole "unarmed attack is a melee weapon attack but not an attack with a melee weapon" is clearly difficult, it's not surprising people have questions.

we also have Jeremys explanation of how it should work.

An explanation that is inconsistent with RAW and makes a nonsense of his ruling with regards to stunning strike. If the PHB is wrong it should be in the PHB errata.

No one is penalizing players because those players can play however they want and use it to apply to unarmed strikes if that’s how they want.

It is penalising a player if they build a longtooth shifter paladin based on the PHB, then the DM says "you can't do that because JC says so on Twitter".

I should also point out that it raises questions with regards to a lot of other abilities that use similar wording, particularly battlemaster manoeuvres. Should they be treated like stunning strike or divine smite?

 

[Sacrosanct]

It is penalising a player if they build a longtooth shifter paladin based on the PHB, then the DM says "you can't do that because JC says so on Twitter".

I usually have discussions with my players about their character ideas before we actually start the game. And not allowing every option, even those technically available via one of the books let alone one that was unclear and later clarified, is punishing the player. It's called session zero. Many DMs don't allow every option out there. I don't allow evil PCs (unless I know the player very well), or weird races like tortles as a general rule. That doesn't mean I'm punishing the players. They can go find another table if they want and more power to them.

Also, I wouldn't say "because Jeremy said so on twitter". I'd say, "because the designer clarified the intent behind that rule."

 

[LordEntrails]

I LIKE situational modifiers. It means there is opportunity for variety in combats. If every combat is the same, then it's boring!

Sure, situational modifiers makes it harder to optimize a character, but again, imo, that's a GOOD thing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I usually have discussions with my players about their character ideas before we actually start the game. And

It's nice to have the luxury of discussing every single rule with every single player, but unless session zero lasts six months there is unlikely to be time to do so. And, given the unambiguity of the wording in the PHB, there is no reason why a player should raise the issue before they try it in the game. At which point it is to late. Rip up you character sheet and go home.

Really, JC needs to rule RAW, no matter what his original intent was. It has to be assumed that players only have access to the PHB, not every single Twitter post.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's nice to have the luxury of discussing every single rule with every single player, but unless session zero lasts six months there is unlikely to be time to do so. And, given the unambiguity of the wording in the PHB, there is no reason why a player should raise the issue before they try it in the game. At which point it is to late. Rip up you character sheet and go home.

Really, JC needs to rule RAW, no matter what his original intent was. It has to be assumed that players only have access to the PHB, not every single Twitter post.

if you have to resort to ridiculous hyperbole, then you might want to re-evaluate your argument. It takes all of about 5 minutes for a player to tell me what they want, and/or if there are any blanket limitations in my campaign I tell all players.

 

[CleverNickName]

Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. And they don't work with Divine Smite, which requires a weapon.

Yeah, that's not exactly clear. I don't know what the official ruling would be, but here's the way I understand it. Grain of salt, all that.

When you make an unarmed strike, you are making a melee attack. Though you are not holding a physical weapon, you are slamming part of your body into your target, so in essence your fist/knee/teeth becomes the virtual "weapon." But some special abilities require an actual--not virtual--weapon, one that is separate from your body, which will be imbued with arcane/divine/cheese power in ways that your body cannot, because Reasons. Weird, but okay.

Now, understanding it and agreeing with it are two different things. The way I would rule it at my table: if an ability specifically says "melee weapon attack," I require the player to use the Attack action, and use it with one of the specific Melee weapons listed in the Player's Handbook, pg. 149.

And guess what? "Unarmed Strike" is on that list. So at my table, you can certainly roundhouse smite someone in the face if you want. Jeremy Crawford is entitled to his opinion, but I'm going to respectfully disagree.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Forgive me for reviving my own thread, but I noticed something interesting, if hardly earth-shattering, about Longtooth shifters - worth mentioning, but not worth starting a thread over.

Most bonus action attacks (e.g. duel wielding) require you to take an attack action in order to use them. The longtooth's bite does not. Which means you could use it in conjunction with a cast a spell action, such as Booming Blade, or a dodge action.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I require the player to use the Attack action, and use it with one of the specific Melee weapons listed in the Player's Handbook, pg. 149.

And guess what? "Unarmed Strike" is on that list.

Actually, it isn't - in later editions of the PHB. It was changed.

 

[jgsugden]

One thing to remember - a major benefit of the barbarian class is being able to survive being hit better than most classes. You have more hp and resistances. If you are making it harder to hit you, you're decreasing the utility of these other features. This combo is cute, but taking away the advantage others get when you are reckless is generaly not going to actually mean that much.... My mountain dwarf barbarian/fighter always attacked recklessly, even when it made no sense to do so, and always acted recklessly, too (diving off 100' cliffs to attack a giant at the bottom of the cliff, for example). After level 10, he never was reduced to 0 hp and I played him almost to 20.