New to this forum (and forums in general) so, sorry if this is not posted in the correct place...
I'm building an arcane trickster and my DM and I got into this debate about the rogue being able to use ranged magic attacks in conjunction with sneak attacks.
For example: wizard cantrip "firebolt". If my arcane trickster fires it off, and hits the target/enemy, it should also get sneak attack dice for the damage.
The rules for sneak attack say that the requirements are either a "versatile weapon" or a "ranged weapon" for using sneak attacks and the argument my DM made is that a firebolt is not a ranged weapon. My understanding is that a ranged magic attack in both a ranged attack and the weapon. Because otherwise the weapon is the caster's hands an in any case, he/she is "shooting" it out of there hands at a target/enemy within range. So either the firebolt is the attack and the weapon or the caster's hands are which he/she is using in "ranged" capacity.
I'd really like a ruling on this because this is one of those make or break rules for me. There's no way I'd play an arcane trickster if I had to choose between the fun of magic (confounding, controlling and blasting my enemies) or rolling extra sneak attack damage dice (the super fun part about being a rogue).
Thanks all,
Nouveau
***EDIT*** Thanks for the all your input, Ladies and Gents. I really appreciate it. I definitely going to apply some of these great ideas...
As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the rules allowing you to count spells as weapons. I'm not certain if it's a good or bad houserule to allow it (cantrips can end up dealing quite a bit more damage than weapon attacks, before things like sneak attack, but I'd prossibly allow it were I the DM. Sounds like yours is opposed to the idea, though.
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.
The bolded line in the Sneak Attack description excludes spells by stating it must be a weapon. Spells are not considered weapons.
However, a DM may choose to allow it, especially considering the part where it states "you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction" - if I know how to strike subtly with a crossbow, I should also be able to do so with a spell. This would be a house rule and ultimately up to the DM to decide.
Where you are probably best off with the spells is using spells that help to impose advantage on your attack rolls - something like Hold Person, so all your weapon attacks against the target have advantage and therefore are sneak attacks (and if you are in melee, a Paralyzed person takes Crits from all melee attacks (so Advantage, and a Crit Sneak Attack).
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.
The bolded line in the Sneak Attack description excludes spells by stating it must be a weapon. Spells are not considered weapons.
However, a DM may choose to allow it, especially considering the part where it states "you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction" - if I know how to strike subtly with a crossbow, I should also be able to do so with a spell. This would be a house rule and ultimately up to the DM to decide.
Where you are probably best off with the spells is using spells that help to impose advantage on your attack rolls - something like Hold Person, so all your weapon attacks against the target have advantage and therefore are sneak attacks (and if you are in melee, a Paralyzed person takes Crits from all melee attacks (so Advantage, and a Crit Sneak Attack).
Agreed. It clearly states WEAPON in the text. Spells attacks are not weapon attacks.
It would only be cantrips like Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade, because they make a weapon attack. Cantrips like Fire Bolt would not be allowed still.
Sneak Attack: You know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. As you gain levels, the amount of damage increases, as shown on the level table.
Note that it only states the attack must USE a finesse or a ranged weapon. Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade use a weapon as part of their attack. I also don't think that it's too overpowered. Powerful, yes, and definitely always wanted over a normal attack, but not overpowered, since it's only one attack.
As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.
Just go Full Roleplay! Use a bow, but explain to your DM that it's actually a "firebolt spell", that does the same damage than a bow, uses the sames modifiers, etc. One of my players does something similar with his rogue in a futuristic game using 5th edition. For the purpose of calculation, his attacks are made using a shortbow, but in his RP, he uses remotely controlled drones that zoom around, zapping his opponents. Everything is about the RP, numbers are just numbers. =P
As a DM I would require the Rogue to make a Slight of Hand check. If they succeed the enemy doesn’t catch that they are casting a spell and they get SA. As the battle wears on I would give each enemy a bonus to their perception in order to perceive the casting. I would also say this is only available for cantrips requiring an attack roll. Anything bigger would have to be a very special case like during a surprise round or something like that.
As a DM I would require the Rogue to make a Slight of Hand check. If they succeed the enemy doesn’t catch that they are casting a spell and they get SA. As the battle wears on I would give each enemy a bonus to their perception in order to perceive the casting. I would also say this is only available for cantrips requiring an attack roll. Anything bigger would have to be a very special case like during a surprise round or something like that.
What if you are hidden? would your player still need to make the slight of hand check?
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.
The bolded line in the Sneak Attack description excludes spells by stating it must be a weapon. Spells are not considered weapons.
However, a DM may choose to allow it, especially considering the part where it states "you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction" - if I know how to strike subtly with a crossbow, I should also be able to do so with a spell. This would be a house rule and ultimately up to the DM to decide.
Where you are probably best off with the spells is using spells that help to impose advantage on your attack rolls - something like Hold Person, so all your weapon attacks against the target have advantage and therefore are sneak attacks (and if you are in melee, a Paralyzed person takes Crits from all melee attacks (so Advantage, and a Crit Sneak Attack).
Agreed. It clearly states WEAPON in the text. Spells attacks are not weapon attacks.
Spells that are part of a weapon attack (like Green-flame Blade) can be used if the other conditions for Sneak Attack are met
It's ultimately up to your DM what is allowed or not.
Spell attacks are not weapons but the essence of the spell, its essentials, it's being.. that is the weapon. its substance. that is the weapon. Yes Spells are a weapon..
I can yell at you all day long FIREBOLT.. and nothing will happen but if I took out a damn lighter an burnt you, would feel it, FLAMES, LIGHTNING, ICE these things can hurt. Their substance is a weapon. the act of the spell is not a weapon its the method the weapon is released. The substance is the weapon. Weapons get sneak attack. Spells get Sneak attack under the correct circumstances. and that should be RAW.
RAW was already adjudicated on. Spells do not count. The exception being booming blade or green flame blade. Assuming that the caster attacks with a finesse weapon. Because spells are spells and weapons are weapons when discussing rules in the PHB. If they were interchangeable there would be a sidebar or a rule somewhere saying so. Just like the 3rd level spell Flame Arrows would also stack. Because the quiver is enchanted and a ranged weapon is making the attack.
As a DM I would require the Rogue to make a Slight of Hand check. If they succeed the enemy doesn’t catch that they are casting a spell and they get SA. As the battle wears on I would give each enemy a bonus to their perception in order to perceive the casting. I would also say this is only available for cantrips requiring an attack roll. Anything bigger would have to be a very special case like during a surprise round or something like that.
Why does it matter if the enemy knows they're casting a spell or not? Do you prevent sneak attacks on other attacks if the enemy knows the rogue is attacking?
Elemental arrow: As part of the spell you must make a ranged weapon attack with a bow or cross bow. When you fire the projectile you must change the damage from piercing to either fire, ice or lightning. At lvl 5 you can add another d4 to the dammage as well as at lvl 11 and 17.
Spell attacks are not weapons but the essence of the spell, its essentials, it's being.. that is the weapon. its substance. that is the weapon. Yes Spells are a weapon..
No, they aren't. You can argue semantics, but in DnD 5e Rules they are absolutely not considered a weapon. Even if they were, Sneak Attack requires a light or finesse weapon to activate.
But even then, other effects that require a weapon attack such as say Green Flame Blade can not activate off of a spell (even a Touch spell) because spells are not weapons.
That said, per the original topic, I actually have a player who has a Wild-Magic Sorcerer in my game and his background is very rogueish. Took the Street Urchin background and was essentially raised on the streets of Waterdeep doing small crimes for street thugs and whatnot, and I do plan on eventually giving him a homebrew magic item or ability that allows him to add a little bit of Sneak Attack damage to his Attack Spells (if he meets the other requirements for Sneak Attack of course; Advantage on the attack or an ally next to the target). Probably won't exceed 2d6 even at higher levels, however.
For an actual Rogue, this might be too broken; an 11th level Arcane Trickster casting Fire Bolt would do 3d10 + 6d6 or an average of 33. That's nuts for just a cantrip.
Edit addition; Just pondering the math to see how broken it would be. A Rogue at 11th level can easily have 20 Dex, and attacking with a Longbow (if they're proficient, say an Elf) or Rapier would be 1d8+5 + 6d6, or an average of 27 damage. It's 6 more damage for the Cantrip, which is significant, and that's just on average. Max possible damage for the Cantrip would be 66, while max damage for Bow/Rapier would be 49. Insane potential.
i really don't think using sneak attack with cantrips would be game breaking
my arcane trickster has shocking grasp, which at 9th level is 2d8. 2d8 has a damage range of 2-16, with her +2 dagger damage being 1d4 + 6 (dex mod +4) which has a damage range of 5-10. its a risk-reward thing, i usually go dagger bc a bad roll can still mean you do a decent amount of damage. also means i can do an offhand dagger attack which i believe RAW you wouldn't be able to do using a cantrip as your action.
also shocking grasp gives you advantage if your enemy is wearing metal so, imo, a good one to allow sneak attack for rogues for.
Yeah, that's at 9th level. It wouldn't be terribly broken early on, but would get so from 11th level and above. Average damage would be roughly the same - spells would only have a little bit more - due to their Dex bonus added to main-hand weapon damage, but the potential max damage from spells is much more. I spelled this out at the bottom of my last post.
Average damage is more (up to 6+) and max damage is way more for spells. Rogues already do a tonne of damage as is.
Wow that was an entertaining read. As to the are spells weapons, RAW no, in practically probably. But i wouldn't think Marvel's comic book character of cyclops as able to sneak attack with his eye blasts. Deal damage sure, hit a vital spot sure, that is what a critical represent; but sneak attack, no.
Do i think it's game breaking to allow sneak attacks once per round to spells with attack rolls, not really. I kind of wish it was the arcane trickster's cap stone instead of spell thief.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey Guys,
New to this forum (and forums in general) so, sorry if this is not posted in the correct place...
I'm building an arcane trickster and my DM and I got into this debate about the rogue being able to use ranged magic attacks in conjunction with sneak attacks.
For example: wizard cantrip "firebolt". If my arcane trickster fires it off, and hits the target/enemy, it should also get sneak attack dice for the damage.
The rules for sneak attack say that the requirements are either a "versatile weapon" or a "ranged weapon" for using sneak attacks and the argument my DM made is that a firebolt is not a ranged weapon. My understanding is that a ranged magic attack in both a ranged attack and the weapon. Because otherwise the weapon is the caster's hands an in any case, he/she is "shooting" it out of there hands at a target/enemy within range. So either the firebolt is the attack and the weapon or the caster's hands are which he/she is using in "ranged" capacity.
I'd really like a ruling on this because this is one of those make or break rules for me. There's no way I'd play an arcane trickster if I had to choose between the fun of magic (confounding, controlling and blasting my enemies) or rolling extra sneak attack damage dice (the super fun part about being a rogue).
Thanks all,
Nouveau
***EDIT*** Thanks for the all your input, Ladies and Gents. I really appreciate it. I definitely going to apply some of these great ideas...
As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the rules allowing you to count spells as weapons. I'm not certain if it's a good or bad houserule to allow it (cantrips can end up dealing quite a bit more damage than weapon attacks, before things like sneak attack, but I'd prossibly allow it were I the DM. Sounds like yours is opposed to the idea, though.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorSneak Attack - RAW (Rules as Written):
The bolded line in the Sneak Attack description excludes spells by stating it must be a weapon. Spells are not considered weapons.
However, a DM may choose to allow it, especially considering the part where it states "you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction" - if I know how to strike subtly with a crossbow, I should also be able to do so with a spell. This would be a house rule and ultimately up to the DM to decide.
Where you are probably best off with the spells is using spells that help to impose advantage on your attack rolls - something like Hold Person, so all your weapon attacks against the target have advantage and therefore are sneak attacks (and if you are in melee, a Paralyzed person takes Crits from all melee attacks (so Advantage, and a Crit Sneak Attack).
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
This means that:
Don't know, I think allowing Sneak Attack with a cantrip is a bit broken. Cantrip scales with the rogue level, weapon damage does not.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorIt would only be cantrips like Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade, because they make a weapon attack. Cantrips like Fire Bolt would not be allowed still.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
Note that it only states the attack must USE a finesse or a ranged weapon. Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade use a weapon as part of their attack. I also don't think that it's too overpowered. Powerful, yes, and definitely always wanted over a normal attack, but not overpowered, since it's only one attack.
Just go Full Roleplay! Use a bow, but explain to your DM that it's actually a "firebolt spell", that does the same damage than a bow, uses the sames modifiers, etc. One of my players does something similar with his rogue in a futuristic game using 5th edition. For the purpose of calculation, his attacks are made using a shortbow, but in his RP, he uses remotely controlled drones that zoom around, zapping his opponents. Everything is about the RP, numbers are just numbers. =P
As a DM I would require the Rogue to make a Slight of Hand check. If they succeed the enemy doesn’t catch that they are casting a spell and they get SA. As the battle wears on I would give each enemy a bonus to their perception in order to perceive the casting. I would also say this is only available for cantrips requiring an attack roll. Anything bigger would have to be a very special case like during a surprise round or something like that.
What if you are hidden? would your player still need to make the slight of hand check?
Spell attacks are not weapons but the essence of the spell, its essentials, it's being.. that is the weapon. its substance. that is the weapon. Yes Spells are a weapon..
I can yell at you all day long FIREBOLT.. and nothing will happen but if I took out a damn lighter an burnt you, would feel it, FLAMES, LIGHTNING, ICE these things can hurt. Their substance is a weapon. the act of the spell is not a weapon its the method the weapon is released. The substance is the weapon. Weapons get sneak attack. Spells get Sneak attack under the correct circumstances. and that should be RAW.
RAW was already adjudicated on. Spells do not count. The exception being booming blade or green flame blade. Assuming that the caster attacks with a finesse weapon. Because spells are spells and weapons are weapons when discussing rules in the PHB. If they were interchangeable there would be a sidebar or a rule somewhere saying so. Just like the 3rd level spell Flame Arrows would also stack. Because the quiver is enchanted and a ranged weapon is making the attack.
Why does it matter if the enemy knows they're casting a spell or not? Do you prevent sneak attacks on other attacks if the enemy knows the rogue is attacking?
I been wondering if the spell catapult could be used, launching a finess weapon at the opponent apply sneak attack?
Or you could just homebrew a cantrip eg:
Elemental arrow: As part of the spell you must make a ranged weapon attack with a bow or cross bow. When you fire the projectile you must change the damage from piercing to either fire, ice or lightning. At lvl 5 you can add another d4 to the dammage as well as at lvl 11 and 17.
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]No, they aren't. You can argue semantics, but in DnD 5e Rules they are absolutely not considered a weapon. Even if they were, Sneak Attack requires a light or finesse weapon to activate.
But even then, other effects that require a weapon attack such as say Green Flame Blade can not activate off of a spell (even a Touch spell) because spells are not weapons.
That said, per the original topic, I actually have a player who has a Wild-Magic Sorcerer in my game and his background is very rogueish. Took the Street Urchin background and was essentially raised on the streets of Waterdeep doing small crimes for street thugs and whatnot, and I do plan on eventually giving him a homebrew magic item or ability that allows him to add a little bit of Sneak Attack damage to his Attack Spells (if he meets the other requirements for Sneak Attack of course; Advantage on the attack or an ally next to the target). Probably won't exceed 2d6 even at higher levels, however.
For an actual Rogue, this might be too broken; an 11th level Arcane Trickster casting Fire Bolt would do 3d10 + 6d6 or an average of 33. That's nuts for just a cantrip.
Edit addition; Just pondering the math to see how broken it would be. A Rogue at 11th level can easily have 20 Dex, and attacking with a Longbow (if they're proficient, say an Elf) or Rapier would be 1d8+5 + 6d6, or an average of 27 damage. It's 6 more damage for the Cantrip, which is significant, and that's just on average. Max possible damage for the Cantrip would be 66, while max damage for Bow/Rapier would be 49. Insane potential.
i really don't think using sneak attack with cantrips would be game breaking
my arcane trickster has shocking grasp, which at 9th level is 2d8. 2d8 has a damage range of 2-16, with her +2 dagger damage being 1d4 + 6 (dex mod +4) which has a damage range of 5-10. its a risk-reward thing, i usually go dagger bc a bad roll can still mean you do a decent amount of damage. also means i can do an offhand dagger attack which i believe RAW you wouldn't be able to do using a cantrip as your action.
also shocking grasp gives you advantage if your enemy is wearing metal so, imo, a good one to allow sneak attack for rogues for.
Yeah, that's at 9th level. It wouldn't be terribly broken early on, but would get so from 11th level and above. Average damage would be roughly the same - spells would only have a little bit more - due to their Dex bonus added to main-hand weapon damage, but the potential max damage from spells is much more. I spelled this out at the bottom of my last post.
Average damage is more (up to 6+) and max damage is way more for spells. Rogues already do a tonne of damage as is.
Wow that was an entertaining read. As to the are spells weapons, RAW no, in practically probably. But i wouldn't think Marvel's comic book character of cyclops as able to sneak attack with his eye blasts. Deal damage sure, hit a vital spot sure, that is what a critical represent; but sneak attack, no.
Do i think it's game breaking to allow sneak attacks once per round to spells with attack rolls, not really. I kind of wish it was the arcane trickster's cap stone instead of spell thief.