RAW, you cannot use Divine Smite with Primal Savagery
Exactly. Because Primal Savagery is a spell attack, not a weapon attack, even if they can both be melee.
Even if Primal Savagery was a melee weapon attack, it would still not work with Divine Smite as it requires a weapon, which Primal Savagery lacks.
As I've mentioned in previous comments, there are ways around that to use a weapon in the somatic component, which still do not work specifically because of because it still would not specifically be a melee weapon attack.
Similarly, its why the claws from Altar Self and unarmed strikes in general do not work with smite: it isn't a melee weapon attack.
Show me 1 single errata for Sneak Attack that specifies it must be a “weapon attack,” and not “a spell attack using a finesse or ranged weapon.” Show me one.
I'll cite errata again, specifically around these questions of spells that use weapons:
"Third, these weapon attacks work with Sneak Attack if they fulfill the normal requirements for that feature. For example, if you have the Sneak Attack feature and cast green-flame blade with a finesse weapon, you can deal Sneak Attack damage to the target of the weapon attack if you have advantage on the attack roll and hit."
Sneak attack requires as weapon attack. Not just that a finesses weapon be "used", but that it is the specific vehicle of the attack as a weapon attack.
that is not Errata, that is Sage Advice on the interaction of Green Flame Blade and sneak attack. It is a Ruling for that specific spell interaction, not a rule. And it mentions a weapon attack because Green Flame Blade has you make one during the casting of that spell, and it distinguishes it from the damage done to the second target which is not. An Attack with a weapon, and a weapon attack are slightly different things in the rules.
You can pretend that errata doesn't exist, but its right there. Fulfillment of the normal rules for Sneak attack require it.
it’s not errata.
It never says you use the weapon as part of the attacks themselves, only in the casting. RAW, Sneak Attack cannot be used with Steel Wind Strike.
I can argue that Steel Wind Strike doesn't proc Sneak Attack because it doesn't involve a weapon attack. But you have no logic for saying so, since you dismiss that distinction.
If you decide that RAW Sneak Attack just "uses a finesse/ranged weapon in an attack,"... then Steel Wind Strike fulfills that requirement. This is why the distinction of of weapon attacks vs spell attacks matter. You want to kind of intuit that distinction in this example, while rejecting its consistent use.
Sneak attack requires a attack with a finesse or ranged weapon, not a “flourish” with one. Your point is wrong
RAW, you cannot use Divine Smite with Primal Savagery
Exactly. Because Primal Savagery is a spell attack, not a weapon attack, even if they can both be melee. But you keep saying that distinction doesn't exist or have any real bearing, so I don't see how you can agree with the ruling.
it does in this case because the rules for divine smite explicitly say the require a weapon attack
If the presence of a weapon in the spell attack is all that is needed, a cleric using their holy symbol on a weapon for the somatic component or a hexblade with their weapon can suddenly apply abilities like smite, sneak attack, etc. through this cantrip.
wrong, it is not all that is needed, and you are the only one making this point
Because you don't want to apply the core rule distinctions consistently.
No, we just understand the difference in the terms
You can't make the attack without casting the spell. Your weapon is used to cast the spell, not to make the attack. That should be obvious enough from the fact that there are ways to cast spells that don't require any of the components (see: spell scrolls.)
We need the distinction between attack types that is a part of the core rules to make it make sense.
No, we don't. There is absolutely no need for it, you're just assuming that because it's extremely convenient to yous argument.
If you attack with magic stone using a sling, you still are not making a weapon attack. It is a spell attack.
It's still an attack using a weapon. You used a weapon to hurl the stone. Q.E.D. There is no room for argument.
Yeah, sage advice isn't errata until it is literally published in the compendium as official rulings. But that is what has happened here.
If you don't credit official rulings as official, then I don't think we have anything else to discuss.
It’s not even Errata then. The SAC are rulings, not errata. Errata actually gets added to the original book. And the ruling in question does not address the interaction between magic stone and ssneak attack or extra attack, which is a fundamentally different set of conditions than those of green flame blade and booming blade and those abilities
Yeah, sage advice isn't errata until it is literally published in the compendium as official rulings. But that is what has happened here.
If you don't credit official rulings as official, then I don't think we have anything else to discuss.
Arguments about attacks aside, Errata are different from Sage Advice. In fact, that PDF that you link has an entire section that is a resource listing Errata, which would be awkward if it were errata itself.
As Iconarising points out, errata are rule changes that are incorporated to future printings of books (and are kept up to date in D&D beyond). Does anything in SAC end up changing the rule text?
I found this thread yesterday, read all the pages, and, I'm sorry, but what are you all arguing about?
At the moment, whether or not sage advice is errata, apparently... Before that whether sneak attack required a weapon attack or an attack with a weapon (and that there is a difference) and whether spells that involve an attack roll are "attacks with a weapon" if the spellcasting focus is a weapon. Before that whether spell attacks always required the cast a spell action and whether the attack action can only make weapon attacks.
And I cant remember what lies we were trying to set straight before that. Whenever pantz gets backed into a corner, they change to a new one.
Originally, it was whether you could throw 2 rocks with extra attack or just one. Pretty straightforward we thought. And... I just realized that the person arguing all these made up rules is the same person that asked the question. They didn't want a correct answer, this is a troll thread.
Yeah, sage advice isn't errata until it is literally published in the compendium as official rulings. But that is what has happened here.
If you don't credit official rulings as official, then I don't think we have anything else to discuss.
Arguments about attacks aside, Errata are different from Sage Advice. In fact, that PDF that you link has an entire section that is a resource listing Errata, which would be awkward if it were errata itself.
As Iconarising points out, errata are rule changes that are incorporated to future printings of books (and are kept up to date in D&D beyond). Does anything in SAC end up changing the rule text?
It doesn't really matter if it's errata, sage advice, or just a tweet since that particular answer doesn't say what was claimed. The answer gives three points. First, the attack involved in green-flame blade and booming blade is a weapon attack, meaning it uses the applicable stats for your weapon attacks. Second, the weapon attacks in the spell do not qualify for extra attack because the action taken is cast a spell. Third, the attacks qualify for sneak attack if they fulfill the requirements for sneak attack.
At no point does it say that the attack has to be a weapon attack to qualify for sneak attack, only that the attacks in GFB and BB are weapon attacks and use the stats for weapon attacks.
I don't really know if your response was directed at me, since I did mention that I wasn't particularly concerned about the rules on attacks in that specific post. I just want to reiterate that errata are changes to the game, whereas SAC is advice on how to run the game; they are distinct. One changes how the game is written, the other offers interpretations of what is already actually written in terms of how the game is played (if you choose to follow it, which a number of forum members quite vocally do not).
It seemed to be a point of confusion for the particular post I was replying to.
Show me 1 single errata for Sneak Attack that specifies it must be a “weapon attack,” and not “a spell attack using a finesse or ranged weapon.” Show me one.
I'll cite errata again, specifically around these questions of spells that use weapons:
"Third, these weapon attacks work with Sneak Attack if they fulfill the normal requirements for that feature. For example, if you have the Sneak Attack feature and cast green-flame blade with a finesse weapon, you can deal Sneak Attack damage to the target of the weapon attack if you have advantage on the attack roll and hit."
Sneak attack requires as weapon attack. Not just that a finesses weapon be "used", but that it is the specific vehicle of the attack as a weapon attack.
You can pretend that errata doesn't exist, but its right there. Fulfillment of the normal rules for Sneak attack require it.
It never says you use the weapon as part of the attacks themselves, only in the casting. RAW, Sneak Attack cannot be used with Steel Wind Strike.
I can argue that Steel Wind Strike doesn't proc Sneak Attack because it doesn't involve a weapon attack. But you have no logic for saying so, since you dismiss that distinction.
If you decide that RAW Sneak Attack just "uses a finesse/ranged weapon in an attack,"... then Steel Wind Strike fulfills that requirement. This is why the distinction of of weapon attacks vs spell attacks matter. You want to kind of intuit that distinction in this example, while rejecting its consistent use.
RAW, you cannot use Divine Smite with Primal Savagery
Exactly. Because Primal Savagery is a spell attack, not a weapon attack, even if they can both be melee. But you keep saying that distinction doesn't exist or have any real bearing, so I don't see how you can agree with the ruling.
If the presence of a weapon in the spell attack is all that is needed, a cleric using their holy symbol on a weapon for the somatic component or a hexblade with their weapon can suddenly apply abilities like smite, sneak attack, etc. through this cantrip.
Because you don't want to apply the core rule distinctions consistently.
That is NOT an errata. It is a SAC response to do specifically with how green-flame blade interacts with sneak attack. That spell requires a weapon attack, so the wording referred to it as such. It has everything to do with G-F B, and nothing to do with Sneak Attack’s requirements. That is therefore itrelevant, please find new evidence as that has already been dismissed as 🐴💩.
Again, Steel Wind Strike says you use the weapon as part of the casting, never not once does it say you even so much as “touch” the enemy with the weapon, let alone “attack” with it. Therefore your strawman argument is had been dismissed as 🐴💩.
I keep saying that distinction doesn’t matter when it comes to Sneak Attack, so all the rest of your nonsense about smite and primal savagery has nothing to do with the conversation at all. It is therefore also dismissed as 🐴💩.
No one has said those are eligible for sneak attack, because they're not.
It requires an attack. spell attack. melee attack. ranged attack. weapon attack. Any of these. just that it be an attack. AND that the attack is made using a finesse or a ranged weapon.
I just explained that each of those scenarios fulfill those requirements if you do not distinguish between weapon and spell attacks where a weapon is present.
You can't say those things do not work with sneak attack and also that the very reasons they don't (distinctions between spell attacks and weapon attacks) doesn't matter.
There is no reason to draw that distinction with sneak attack because sneak attack itself was written in a way that makes it agnostic to what type of attack it is.
Your argument is full of 🐴💩.
Do you have anything besides 🐴💩 and incorrectly applied “errata” advice about a different spell? If not, then I have successfully proven that, RAW, sneak attack can be used with magic stone when a sling is involved. Goodbye.
Just because 2/3rds of what someone has posted is the opposite of official definitions and they continually ignore direct questions and change the conversation to some other untruth is no reason to to directly insult them or their posts. Keep it civil (or at least objective).
Just because 2/3rds of what someone has posted is the opposite of official definitions and they continually ignore direct questions and change the conversation to some other untruth is no reason to to directly insult them or their posts. Keep it civil (or at least objective).
I made no comment about the individual whatsoever. I’m also not gonna sugarcoat the truth. Call a spade a spade, on in this case, I’m calling a horse poopy argument a horse poopy argument. Is there a preferred term? Maybe 🐂💩, or 🐶💩 perhaps? I mean, 🐶💩 is kinda cute, what with the alliteration of “puppy poopy” and all.
I reserve 🦄💩 for my own comments. (Only I can be full of 🦄💩, after all, unicorns poo rainbow candy.) Everyone else has to pick a different animal emoji.
Just because 2/3rds of what someone has posted is the opposite of official definitions and they continually ignore direct questions and change the conversation to some other untruth is no reason to to directly insult them or their posts. Keep it civil (or at least objective).
I made no comment about the individual whatsoever. I’m also not gonna sugarcoat the truth.
I'm just saying, use caution. You don't have to sugar coat calling out objectively false and/or completely irrelevant lies and strawmen for what they are, but I don't want anyone to get in trouble for losing their cool at a uh... Troublesome Repeatedly Objectively Lying Layman (yeah, let's go with that). They win when you do that.
Yeah, sage advice isn't errata until it is literally published in the compendium as official rulings. But that is what has happened here.
If you don't credit official rulings as official, then I don't think we have anything else to discuss.
Arguments about attacks aside, Errata are different from Sage Advice. In fact, that PDF that you link has an entire section that is a resource listing Errata, which would be awkward if it were errata itself.
As Iconarising points out, errata are rule changes that are incorporated to future printings of books (and are kept up to date in D&D beyond). Does anything in SAC end up changing the rule text?
It doesn't really matter if it's errata, sage advice, or just a tweet since that particular answer doesn't say what was claimed. The answer gives three points. First, the attack involved in green-flame blade and booming blade is a weapon attack, meaning it uses the applicable stats for your weapon attacks. Second, the weapon attacks in the spell do not qualify for extra attack because the action taken is cast a spell. Third, the attacks qualify for sneak attack if they fulfill the requirements for sneak attack.
At no point does it say that the attack has to be a weapon attack to qualify for sneak attack, only that the attacks in GFB and BB are weapon attacks and use the stats for weapon attacks.
Im just not sure how to read "you can deal Sneak Attack damage to the target of the weapon attack if you have advantage on the attack roll and hit." as not saying sneak attack requires a weapon attack.
Is there any situation where a spell attack could trigger sneak attack, or is it just an argument from silence? It seems like the whole argument has devolved into how I called official ruling errata by mistake and how the distinctions between spell attacks and weapon attacks do not exist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Even if Primal Savagery was a melee weapon attack, it would still not work with Divine Smite as it requires a weapon, which Primal Savagery lacks.
As I've mentioned in previous comments, there are ways around that to use a weapon in the somatic component, which still do not work specifically because of because it still would not specifically be a melee weapon attack.
Similarly, its why the claws from Altar Self and unarmed strikes in general do not work with smite: it isn't a melee weapon attack.
The distinction is key.
that is not Errata, that is Sage Advice on the interaction of Green Flame Blade and sneak attack. It is a Ruling for that specific spell interaction, not a rule. And it mentions a weapon attack because Green Flame Blade has you make one during the casting of that spell, and it distinguishes it from the damage done to the second target which is not. An Attack with a weapon, and a weapon attack are slightly different things in the rules.
it’s not errata.
Sneak attack requires a attack with a finesse or ranged weapon, not a “flourish” with one. Your point is wrong
it does in this case because the rules for divine smite explicitly say the require a weapon attack
wrong, it is not all that is needed, and you are the only one making this point
No, we just understand the difference in the terms
You can't make the attack without casting the spell. Your weapon is used to cast the spell, not to make the attack. That should be obvious enough from the fact that there are ways to cast spells that don't require any of the components (see: spell scrolls.)
No, we don't. There is absolutely no need for it, you're just assuming that because it's extremely convenient to yous argument.
It's still an attack using a weapon. You used a weapon to hurl the stone. Q.E.D. There is no room for argument.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
An unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack. It doesn't work with Divine Smite because it requires a weapon, which an unarmed strike lacks.
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
Yeah, sage advice isn't errata until it is literally published in the compendium as official rulings. But that is what has happened here.
If you don't credit official rulings as official, then I don't think we have anything else to discuss.
It’s not even Errata then. The SAC are rulings, not errata. Errata actually gets added to the original book. And the ruling in question does not address the interaction between magic stone and ssneak attack or extra attack, which is a fundamentally different set of conditions than those of green flame blade and booming blade and those abilities
Arguments about attacks aside, Errata are different from Sage Advice. In fact, that PDF that you link has an entire section that is a resource listing Errata, which would be awkward if it were errata itself.
As Iconarising points out, errata are rule changes that are incorporated to future printings of books (and are kept up to date in D&D beyond). Does anything in SAC end up changing the rule text?
I found this thread yesterday, read all the pages, and, I'm sorry, but what are you all arguing about?
At the moment, whether or not sage advice is errata, apparently... Before that whether sneak attack required a weapon attack or an attack with a weapon (and that there is a difference) and whether spells that involve an attack roll are "attacks with a weapon" if the spellcasting focus is a weapon. Before that whether spell attacks always required the cast a spell action and whether the attack action can only make weapon attacks.
And I cant remember what lies we were trying to set straight before that. Whenever pantz gets backed into a corner, they change to a new one.
Originally, it was whether you could throw 2 rocks with extra attack or just one. Pretty straightforward we thought. And... I just realized that the person arguing all these made up rules is the same person that asked the question. They didn't want a correct answer, this is a troll thread.
It doesn't really matter if it's errata, sage advice, or just a tweet since that particular answer doesn't say what was claimed. The answer gives three points. First, the attack involved in green-flame blade and booming blade is a weapon attack, meaning it uses the applicable stats for your weapon attacks. Second, the weapon attacks in the spell do not qualify for extra attack because the action taken is cast a spell. Third, the attacks qualify for sneak attack if they fulfill the requirements for sneak attack.
At no point does it say that the attack has to be a weapon attack to qualify for sneak attack, only that the attacks in GFB and BB are weapon attacks and use the stats for weapon attacks.
I don't really know if your response was directed at me, since I did mention that I wasn't particularly concerned about the rules on attacks in that specific post. I just want to reiterate that errata are changes to the game, whereas SAC is advice on how to run the game; they are distinct. One changes how the game is written, the other offers interpretations of what is already actually written in terms of how the game is played (if you choose to follow it, which a number of forum members quite vocally do not).
It seemed to be a point of confusion for the particular post I was replying to.
That is NOT an errata. It is a SAC response to do specifically with how green-flame blade interacts with sneak attack. That spell requires a weapon attack, so the wording referred to it as such. It has everything to do with G-F B, and nothing to do with Sneak Attack’s requirements. That is therefore itrelevant, please find new evidence as that has already been dismissed as 🐴💩.
Again, Steel Wind Strike says you use the weapon as part of the casting, never not once does it say you even so much as “touch” the enemy with the weapon, let alone “attack” with it. Therefore your strawman argument is had been dismissed as 🐴💩.
I keep saying that distinction doesn’t matter when it comes to Sneak Attack, so all the rest of your nonsense about smite and primal savagery has nothing to do with the conversation at all. It is therefore also dismissed as 🐴💩.
There is no reason to draw that distinction with sneak attack because sneak attack itself was written in a way that makes it agnostic to what type of attack it is.
Your argument is full of 🐴💩.
Do you have anything besides 🐴💩 and incorrectly applied “
errata” advice about a different spell? If not, then I have successfully proven that, RAW, sneak attack can be used with magic stone when a sling is involved. Goodbye.Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
🐴💩. Apparently we’re arguing about 🐴💩.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sneak Attack + Magic Stone with a sling was also confirmed by the Devs RAI https://www.sageadvice.eu/magic-stone-sneak-attack/
@selectstriker2 With Magic Stone can sneak attack be used with the sling even though the spell states that it is a ranged spell attack?
@JeremyECrawford As DM, I'd allow it to work, given how Sneak Attack and magic stone are worded. #DnD
@selectstriker2 OK, so if you throw the magic stone its a spell attack but if you use it with a sling then it is a ranged weapon?
@JeremyECrawford It's a spell attack you're making with a sling.
@selectstriker2 so it is a ranged spell attack that you make with a weapon. Seems odd that you can do that
@JeremyECrawford That's what the magic stone spell does—let you make a spell attack via a sling.
@selectstriker2 would you get the same benefit by throwing the stone rather than using the sling?
@JeremyECrawford No, since you're not using a finesse or ranged weapon.
Just because 2/3rds of what someone has posted is the opposite of official definitions and they continually ignore direct questions and change the conversation to some other untruth is no reason to to directly insult them or their posts. Keep it civil (or at least objective).
I made no comment about the individual whatsoever. I’m also not gonna sugarcoat the truth. Call a spade a spade, on in this case, I’m calling a horse poopy argument a horse poopy argument. Is there a preferred term? Maybe 🐂💩, or 🐶💩 perhaps? I mean, 🐶💩 is kinda cute, what with the alliteration of “puppy poopy” and all.
I reserve 🦄💩 for my own comments. (Only I can be full of 🦄💩, after all, unicorns poo rainbow candy.) Everyone else has to pick a different animal emoji.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm just saying, use caution. You don't have to sugar coat calling out objectively false and/or completely irrelevant lies and strawmen for what they are, but I don't want anyone to get in trouble for losing their cool at a uh... Troublesome Repeatedly Objectively Lying Layman (yeah, let's go with that). They win when you do that.
Well sugar honey iced tea, I do appreciate you lookin’ out for a neighbor.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Im just not sure how to read "you can deal Sneak Attack damage to the target of the weapon attack if you have advantage on the attack roll and hit." as not saying sneak attack requires a weapon attack.
Is there any situation where a spell attack could trigger sneak attack, or is it just an argument from silence? It seems like the whole argument has devolved into how I called official ruling errata by mistake and how the distinctions between spell attacks and weapon attacks do not exist.