Paladins may be generally associated with weapons, but what is most fundamental to a paladin is their unwavering commitment to embody the transcendent might and moral sanctity of a higher power. I don't feel that a paladin should need crude steel to channel the divine magic that is granted to them by virtue of their sacred oath.
I'll allow it if a PC has some feature or ability that gives their hands a damage dice, such as a monk, unarmed fighting, or natural weapon. I do it this way because If a character can use their unarmed strikes like weapons then they should be granted the benefits of weapons.
U can actually do that by Raw. Not for Monks but for natural weapons (at least for Minotaur and Tabaxi not sure about others) since with those they are considered both a weapon attack and an unarmed attack (which really opens up a lot). So Raw u could already do this but only by playing a very specific race and using a very specific part of your body to attacks.
In the webcomic Weekly Roll, the Paladin Beckett uses whatever he can as an improvised weapon to smite, including a loose brick or a quill, because unarmed isn't really allowed.
If you would allow it, Paladins should also get the Unarmed Fighting Style too. Becomes more like a fighting video game when you start uppercuts and radiant energy comes off your knuckles!
Just be a race like Minotaur or Tabaxi since they have natural weapons that are considered both weapon attacks and an unarmed attack (not sure about other races if they are also like this). So u could divine smite with an unarmed attack but only by playing a specific race. And just pick up the feat fighting initiate for the unarmed fighting style.
@@OniNoSweeney The unarmed fighting style would work with it my dude. Did u forget about that? I’m just saying by RAW this is something u could already do. Also Minotaurs natural weapons do a d6 do it’s not as low.
@@OniNoSweeney Like I feel like u didn’t pay attention to what I was getting at. Like at all. I never said that u have to stick with just what the natural weapons do naturally cause u could get the unarmed fighting style and buff it up to a d8 while also being able to divine smite with it (this is by RAW since like I said they count as both). And also like I said theirs the feat to get a fighting style.
If you can divine smite with brick or a shovel (improvised weapons), you ought to be able to divine smite with a People's Elbow. My thoughts are just that none of those are actual weapons anyways, and channeling smite through a chair or fists can easily both disappoint the god (and not work), or just be equally viable (and work). Because even the RAW argument is just fluff, I don't think either side has a win. It's preference, that has a default for us, until the table wants to think about it.
I go with the, if they have unarmed training, such as cross classed with monk of spends enough downtime training with monks for the martial arts feature, or a feat that increases their unarmed strike damage, then your fists are trained weapons and can channel smite through it.
We use brass knuckles at our table. In fact, my DM made a homebrew magic item called the spellbrawler knucks. Its 4 rings of spell-storing that each store a level 1-4 spell respectively. For every ring charged, the weapon gets an additional +1 to hit and damage. The knucks deal 1d4 damage. My character is a lv 7 trickery domain cleric who is now multiclassing into monk :)
As a martial arts enthusiast whose trained IRL in Taekwondo, Muay Thai, Boxing (both kick and regular), and MMA, to Matt Mercer's flavoring I say... Bull. Complete and utter bull. The focus of Divine Smite is entirely internal, exactly the same way that, say, Stunning Strike works (both of which use the exact same phrasing in their rules in fact, "Melee Weapon Attack", not "Attack with a Melee Weapon"), so why is Unarmed valid for one but not the other beyond "the DM said so"? Moreover, a man's first weapon is his body. The swing of a weapon of any kind, be it slash, bludgeon, or pierce, is not going to be particularly useful without being at least somewhat physically fit (which I believe is part of why previous editions of D&D ruled the fists to be Natural Weapons). If our holy pugilist wants to channel the divine might of Elohim into his fists, why should I stop him?
This is one of those times where i don't allow it. In our games at least, being disarmed is a possibility to guard against, and to impose on others. This gives players something to consider when attacking paladin NPCs, and something to guard against when playing a paladin themselves. Always keep in mind that if you are allowing something, that means that you're also taking away any creative solutions that your players might have to circumvent the problem.
Using the limitation to add a tactical element to the game is another good reason to keep it. I could also see a middle ground where the size of the smite dice scales to match the lack of a focus. Rolling d4s for holy headbutts.
I feel like that depends on the party. Full casters are already broken so making your martials feel crap by taking weapons could go really awkwardly (unless you're strict about spell requirements and nab staves also, I suppose)
Smite with an improvised weapon [GLOVE], or if you want to be spicy challenge someone to a duel by smiting them with your [GAUNTLET]. 100% RAW don’t look it up your dm is legally obligated to believe you. There is only 1 situation where I don’t think unarmed smites work, and that’s a prison break. You great sword paladin is trying to break out of prison and suddenly they want to smite with their fists so they aren’t lame that smacks of desperation. In all other circumstances you are arbitrarily lowing your damage to smite with a 1+str weapon. And if you are deliberately building that way it seems like it should apply even more, if you are taking monk levels to smite and stun you should be able to. A fix for the above could be that the paladin need to have a holy symbol on them to smite, a talisman of uncommon holiness to perform the unarmed smite. If they are ever separated from that the smite is turned off.
Unarmed smites would be convenient, but they feel off to me. You channel alot of destructive energy into your weapon, which could hurt you if it was inside of you. Like that one guy from My Hero Academy. Maybe with a check/save for no/half/full damage I would allow it. Honestly just slap someone with a coin.
As a monk player I would take the backlash for sure, my 1d6 punch (even if I get 3 or 4) doesn’t feel as good as the fighter with 20 ac and a d8 longsword (or 18 ac and 4 2d6 greatsword) or the barbarian with a d12 great ax and rage. And with monk’s disengage and mobility options being a glass cannon Deku (that’s the MHA character you mentioned) style brawler would be fun.
Paladins may be generally associated with weapons, but what is most fundamental to a paladin is their unwavering commitment to embody the transcendent might and moral sanctity of a higher power. I don't feel that a paladin should need crude steel to channel the divine magic that is granted to them by virtue of their sacred oath.
Considering you can smite using a fish you should be able to smite with your hands
I'll allow it if a PC has some feature or ability that gives their hands a damage dice, such as a monk, unarmed fighting, or natural weapon. I do it this way because If a character can use their unarmed strikes like weapons then they should be granted the benefits of weapons.
That's a sensible middle ground, it rewards the style the player is going for without making it the default.
U can actually do that by Raw. Not for Monks but for natural weapons (at least for Minotaur and Tabaxi not sure about others) since with those they are considered both a weapon attack and an unarmed attack (which really opens up a lot). So Raw u could already do this but only by playing a very specific race and using a very specific part of your body to attacks.
In the webcomic Weekly Roll, the Paladin Beckett uses whatever he can as an improvised weapon to smite, including a loose brick or a quill, because unarmed isn't really allowed.
That's a neat dynamic. Hopefully we get some better improvised weapon rules to support that style.
"You know what they say, a quill is mightier than the sword... Too soon?"
If you would allow it, Paladins should also get the Unarmed Fighting Style too.
Becomes more like a fighting video game when you start uppercuts and radiant energy comes off your knuckles!
You could even use the fighting style as the justification for allowing it. You'd need to multiclass to get something like a hadouken, though.
Just be a race like Minotaur or Tabaxi since they have natural weapons that are considered both weapon attacks and an unarmed attack (not sure about other races if they are also like this). So u could divine smite with an unarmed attack but only by playing a specific race.
And just pick up the feat fighting initiate for the unarmed fighting style.
@@davidstratton696 limiting it to pitily d4 damage claws for ~10 races, when you could have a d8 and stay on par with most weapons for every race.
@@OniNoSweeney The unarmed fighting style would work with it my dude. Did u forget about that? I’m just saying by RAW this is something u could already do. Also Minotaurs natural weapons do a d6 do it’s not as low.
@@OniNoSweeney Like I feel like u didn’t pay attention to what I was getting at. Like at all. I never said that u have to stick with just what the natural weapons do naturally cause u could get the unarmed fighting style and buff it up to a d8 while also being able to divine smite with it (this is by RAW since like I said they count as both). And also like I said theirs the feat to get a fighting style.
i just found this channel, and i really appreciate your work here! the presentation style is very nice
Thanks, that's great to hear. Especially on an older video where the sound was still garbage. :-D
If you can divine smite with brick or a shovel (improvised weapons), you ought to be able to divine smite with a People's Elbow. My thoughts are just that none of those are actual weapons anyways, and channeling smite through a chair or fists can easily both disappoint the god (and not work), or just be equally viable (and work). Because even the RAW argument is just fluff, I don't think either side has a win. It's preference, that has a default for us, until the table wants to think about it.
I go with the, if they have unarmed training, such as cross classed with monk of spends enough downtime training with monks for the martial arts feature, or a feat that increases their unarmed strike damage, then your fists are trained weapons and can channel smite through it.
We use brass knuckles at our table. In fact, my DM made a homebrew magic item called the spellbrawler knucks. Its 4 rings of spell-storing that each store a level 1-4 spell respectively. For every ring charged, the weapon gets an additional +1 to hit and damage. The knucks deal 1d4 damage.
My character is a lv 7 trickery domain cleric who is now multiclassing into monk :)
As a martial arts enthusiast whose trained IRL in Taekwondo, Muay Thai, Boxing (both kick and regular), and MMA, to Matt Mercer's flavoring I say... Bull. Complete and utter bull. The focus of Divine Smite is entirely internal, exactly the same way that, say, Stunning Strike works (both of which use the exact same phrasing in their rules in fact, "Melee Weapon Attack", not "Attack with a Melee Weapon"), so why is Unarmed valid for one but not the other beyond "the DM said so"? Moreover, a man's first weapon is his body. The swing of a weapon of any kind, be it slash, bludgeon, or pierce, is not going to be particularly useful without being at least somewhat physically fit (which I believe is part of why previous editions of D&D ruled the fists to be Natural Weapons). If our holy pugilist wants to channel the divine might of Elohim into his fists, why should I stop him?
Just remember that unarmed strikes don't have to literally be your fists! Divine Smite on that booty bounce or karate kick!
I'm a fan of the headbutt, personally.
Great voice, great art, very excited to see where your channel goes from here! +1 Sub
I'd rule that it needs a focus, but a glove or a ring could do that job. Or if you kick your boots.
Time to Smite Bite.
Honestly I don’t see why, yes it thematically clashes with the Paladin concept but if a player can make fists with smites make sense Ill allow it
This is one of those times where i don't allow it. In our games at least, being disarmed is a possibility to guard against, and to impose on others. This gives players something to consider when attacking paladin NPCs, and something to guard against when playing a paladin themselves. Always keep in mind that if you are allowing something, that means that you're also taking away any creative solutions that your players might have to circumvent the problem.
Using the limitation to add a tactical element to the game is another good reason to keep it. I could also see a middle ground where the size of the smite dice scales to match the lack of a focus. Rolling d4s for holy headbutts.
I feel like that depends on the party. Full casters are already broken so making your martials feel crap by taking weapons could go really awkwardly (unless you're strict about spell requirements and nab staves also, I suppose)
That’s the best argument for a strict ruling I’ve seen, fair point.
Smite with an improvised weapon [GLOVE], or if you want to be spicy challenge someone to a duel by smiting them with your [GAUNTLET]. 100% RAW don’t look it up your dm is legally obligated to believe you.
There is only 1 situation where I don’t think unarmed smites work, and that’s a prison break. You great sword paladin is trying to break out of prison and suddenly they want to smite with their fists so they aren’t lame that smacks of desperation. In all other circumstances you are arbitrarily lowing your damage to smite with a 1+str weapon. And if you are deliberately building that way it seems like it should apply even more, if you are taking monk levels to smite and stun you should be able to.
A fix for the above could be that the paladin need to have a holy symbol on them to smite, a talisman of uncommon holiness to perform the unarmed smite. If they are ever separated from that the smite is turned off.
Unarmed smites would be convenient, but they feel off to me.
You channel alot of destructive energy into your weapon, which could hurt you if it was inside of you. Like that one guy from My Hero Academy.
Maybe with a check/save for no/half/full damage I would allow it.
Honestly just slap someone with a coin.
If monks weren't already suffering, I would absolutely be down to let them smite with backlash.
As a monk player I would take the backlash for sure, my 1d6 punch (even if I get 3 or 4) doesn’t feel as good as the fighter with 20 ac and a d8 longsword (or 18 ac and 4 2d6 greatsword) or the barbarian with a d12 great ax and rage. And with monk’s disengage and mobility options being a glass cannon Deku (that’s the MHA character you mentioned) style brawler would be fun.