@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.
There is a pretty clear reason why tweet threads starting with "as a DM, I would allow it" do not automatically make it into official rulings. There, Crawford is describing what he would allow at his table with a wonky cantrip description. If he was just describing how the spell actually works in the game system, no such qualification would be necessary.
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.
it says it works with weapon attacks. It does not say it works only with weapon attacks. Only the second would imply a requirement. Sorry, try again
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.
@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.
There is a pretty clear reason why tweet threads starting with "as a DM, I would allow it" do not automatically make it into official rulings. There, Crawford is describing what he would allow at his table with a wonky cantrip description. If he was just describing how the spell actually works in the game system, no such qualification would be necessary.
He’s performing the same rules analysis the same way we are, and arriving at the same result. Sure, it’s not an official ruling, but it should at least give you some sort of pause about your point of view, especially when you have 0 RAW text to back you up
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.)
Yeah, its a spell attack, so you make it by casting the spell. The weapon is a part of that, which makes it connected to the attack as much as the spell if we do not care about distinguishing between spell attacks and weapon attacks.
As for casting spells without components, that isn't true. A scroll's creation involves putting the material components, according to Xanathar's guide, chapter 2. The material component has already gone into the spell.
No, we don't. There is absolutely no need for it, you're just assuming that because it's extremely convenient to yous argument.
Its a core part of the rules. Yes, it is convenient to my argument, but Im not the one making it part of the rules. I promise, I haven't held Jeremy Crawford or any other member of the creative team at gunpoint to force them to make the rules.
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.
To proc most abilities, it can't just be an attack that has a weapon tangetially involved. It must be a melee weapon attack. I've cited official rulings on this multiple times already. And I've given counter examples ya'll keep agreeing would be wrong, but don't want to say are wrong because of the actual game system.
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.)
Yeah, its a spell attack, so you make it by casting the spell. The weapon is a part of that, which makes it connected to the attack as much as the spell if we do not care about distinguishing between spell attacks and weapon attacks.
As for casting spells without components, that isn't true. A scroll's creation involves putting the material components, according to Xanathar's guide, chapter 2. The material component has already gone into the spell.
No, we don't. There is absolutely no need for it, you're just assuming that because it's extremely convenient to yous argument.
Its a core part of the rules. Yes, it is convenient to my argument, but Im not the one making it part of the rules. I promise, I haven't held Jeremy Crawford or any other member of the creative team at gunpoint to force them to make the rules.
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.
To proc most abilities, it can't just be an attack that has a weapon tangetially involved. It must be a melee weapon attack. I've cited official rulings on this multiple times already. And I've given counter examples ya'll keep agreeing would be wrong, but don't want to say are wrong because of the actual game system.
Im at a loss. I think Im done.
I’m pretty certain most of us have said outright that they are explicitly wrong, and given reasons why. We aren’t hedging bets here
@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.
There is a pretty clear reason why tweet threads starting with "as a DM, I would allow it" do not automatically make it into official rulings. There, Crawford is describing what he would allow at his table with a wonky cantrip description. If he was just describing how the spell actually works in the game system, no such qualification would be necessary.
He’s performing the same rules analysis the same way we are, and arriving at the same result. Sure, it’s not an official ruling, but it should at least give you some sort of pause about your point of view, especially when you have 0 RAW text to back you up
wtf, if I call an official ruling errata its totally discrediting and the point I brought up must be wrong, but unofficial rulings about how they'd play it at their own table ought to be binding (and also the official rulings I cite don't exist, apparently).
Poor reasons that try to replicate the rules without citing the actual language of weapon attacks while pretending they don't exist, in a self-serving argument.
I can agree that thematically, what ya'll are saying makes sense. I use a sling for the stone, it ought to be a weapon attack (or a bs "attack that uses a weapon.")
But there are rules for this. And ya'll even go out of the way to agree with their conclusions except for the one spell we are discussing.
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.
Probably because that still isn't the rule. We have already said repeatedly that it isn't. Here is what the rule actually says since you seem to have misplaced it:
...hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
Notice no mention of "weapon attack" anywhere?
Is there any situation where a spell attack could trigger sneak attack, or is it just an argument from silence?
According to the rules? Yes. If it is a spell attack roll using a ranged or finesse weapon and you either have advantage or an ally within 5 feet of them, it would trigger sneak attack.
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.
The only person that ever said there is no distinction between spell and weapon attacks is you, as a strawman argument. There is a difference, it just isn't relevant to anything we have ever said. It is not relevant to the attack action, extra attack, or sneak attack. That is why magic stone works with those things.
The entire thread (I hesitate to even call it an argument anymore) has devolved into you referencing completely irrelevant advice and making irrelevant and objectively false strawmen arguments, the entire community telling you that those things are irrelevant and reasserting the correct rules for the topic, then you ignoring those rules and repeating your irrelevant points again.
@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.
There is a pretty clear reason why tweet threads starting with "as a DM, I would allow it" do not automatically make it into official rulings. There, Crawford is describing what he would allow at his table with a wonky cantrip description. If he was just describing how the spell actually works in the game system, no such qualification would be necessary.
He’s performing the same rules analysis the same way we are, and arriving at the same result. Sure, it’s not an official ruling, but it should at least give you some sort of pause about your point of view, especially when you have 0 RAW text to back you up
wtf, if I call an official ruling errata its totally discrediting and the point I brought up must be wrong, but unofficial rulings about how they'd play it at their own table ought to be binding (and also the official rulings I cite don't exist, apparently).
Ok then.
Your ruling was discredited not because it isn’t errata, but because it isn’t applicable to a spell other than GFB or BB, both of which have different effects than Magic Stone
Poor reasons that try to replicate the rules without citing the actual language of weapon attacks while pretending they don't exist, in a self-serving argument.
I can agree that thematically, what ya'll are saying makes sense. I use a sling for the stone, it ought to be a weapon attack (or a bs "attack that uses a weapon.")
But there are rules for this. And ya'll even go out of the way to agree with their conclusions except for the one spell we are discussing.
The one spell we are discussing has an effect that is different from practically any other spell. The other examples you have tried to cite don’t work because the specific language those examples use makes it so. The explicit language used in MS allows the effect. It’s not that hard to grasp it you understand that different words have different meanings
But there are rules for this. And ya'll even go out of the way to agree with their conclusions except for the one spell we are discussing.
Thank the gods. Why didn't you mention that sooner? If you had rules that said extra attack and sneak attack (who even brought that up? That wasn't part of the original question) didn't work with spell attacks all along, we could have ended this with 100(!) fewer posts. Please cite them.
wtf, if I call an official ruling errata its totally discrediting and the point I brought up must be wrong, but unofficial rulings about how they'd play it at their own table ought to be binding (and also the official rulings I cite don't exist, apparently).
Ok then.
The rules for Sneak Attack don't need errata. It's intended to be used with any weapon or spell attack that use a ranged or finesse weapon.
Probably because that still isn't the rule. We have already said repeatedly that it isn't. Here is what the rule actually says since you seem to have misplaced it:
So first off, Im citing an official ruling saying that the blade cantrips can proc sneak attack because they make a weapon attack specifically (and with the right kind of weapon). That is clarification on the sort of attack Sneak Attack functions with.
There would literally be no other example of sneak attack working with a non weapon attack than magic stone. Using magic stone as the example to say that sneak attack works with magic stone is circular logic.
So can you address that ruling I cited already?
According to the rules? Yes. If it is a spell attack roll using a ranged or finesse weapon and you either have advantage or an ally within 5 feet of them, it would trigger sneak attack.
Except no. You can use a weapon in a spell attack as a material component or as part of the somatic component in certain circumstances. It takes more than the weapon being used in the attack.
I would say that would be verboten because spell attacks are specifically not weapon attacks even if they use a weapon in the attack in some manner. If its as vague as just "using a weapon" rather than specifically saying "a weapon attack," then the whole can of worms is opened.
The only person that ever said there is no distinction between spell and weapon attacks is you, as a strawman argument. There is a difference, it just isn't relevant to anything we have ever said.
Why is it not relevant then? Why, when the rules around weapon vs spell attacks exist, are they not relevant when discussing the interaction of a spell attack and abilities that depend on certain weapon attacks?
@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.
There is a pretty clear reason why tweet threads starting with "as a DM, I would allow it" do not automatically make it into official rulings. There, Crawford is describing what he would allow at his table with a wonky cantrip description. If he was just describing how the spell actually works in the game system, no such qualification would be necessary.
He’s performing the same rules analysis the same way we are, and arriving at the same result. Sure, it’s not an official ruling, but it should at least give you some sort of pause about your point of view, especially when you have 0 RAW text to back you up
wtf, if I call an official ruling errata its totally discrediting and the point I brought up must be wrong, but unofficial rulings about how they'd play it at their own table ought to be binding (and also the official rulings I cite don't exist, apparently).
Ok then.
Your ruling was discredited not because it isn’t errata, but because it isn’t applicable to a spell other than GFB or BB, both of which have different effects than Magic Stone
You obviously didn't read the ruling, because it explained why those two spells (and by extension, ANY SPELL THAT WORKS WITH SNEAK ATTACK) will work.
Magic stone works differently in a way that directly violates one of the stated reasons why sneak attack works with the blade cantrips.
It works because the RAW says it does, the details of why have been stated to you multiple times in this thread
RAW says no such thing. As I pointed out, melee attacks vs spell attacks are part of the core rules.
A surface reading just between Sneak Attack and Magic Stone would allow it, because that would let one just ignore that part of the core rules.
But all my counter examples show why an attack that must use a weapon means a weapon attack, not just an attack with a weapon involved in its creation somewhere.
@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.
There is a pretty clear reason why tweet threads starting with "as a DM, I would allow it" do not automatically make it into official rulings. There, Crawford is describing what he would allow at his table with a wonky cantrip description. If he was just describing how the spell actually works in the game system, no such qualification would be necessary.
He’s performing the same rules analysis the same way we are, and arriving at the same result. Sure, it’s not an official ruling, but it should at least give you some sort of pause about your point of view, especially when you have 0 RAW text to back you up
wtf, if I call an official ruling errata its totally discrediting and the point I brought up must be wrong, but unofficial rulings about how they'd play it at their own table ought to be binding (and also the official rulings I cite don't exist, apparently).
Ok then.
Your ruling was discredited not because it isn’t errata, but because it isn’t applicable to a spell other than GFB or BB, both of which have different effects than Magic Stone
You obviously didn't read the ruling, because it explained why those two spells (and by extension, ANY SPELL THAT WORKS WITH SNEAK ATTACK) will work.
did the entry explicitly extend the ruling to other spells? or is that just you wanting it to? I’ll wait while you check
Magic stone works differently in a way that directly violates one of the stated reasons why sneak attack works with the blade cantrips.
no it doesn’t, or do you care to demonstrate just how it does directly violate the rules for sneak attack. Again, still waiting…
wtf, if I call an official ruling errata its totally discrediting and the point I brought up must be wrong, but unofficial rulings about how they'd play it at their own table ought to be binding (and also the official rulings I cite don't exist, apparently).
Ok then.
The rules for Sneak Attack don't need errata. It's intended to be used with any weapon or spell attack that use a ranged or finesse weapon.
Ok give an example. Oh wait, there is only the one and its the one we are already discussing.
And I've already shown how the spells we do know work with sneak attack work by making a weapon attack.
So back up your statement with evidence or stop repeating your personal dogma.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There is a pretty clear reason why tweet threads starting with "as a DM, I would allow it" do not automatically make it into official rulings. There, Crawford is describing what he would allow at his table with a wonky cantrip description. If he was just describing how the spell actually works in the game system, no such qualification would be necessary.
it says it works with weapon attacks. It does not say it works only with weapon attacks. Only the second would imply a requirement. Sorry, try again
yes, and that situation is Magic Stone
He’s performing the same rules analysis the same way we are, and arriving at the same result. Sure, it’s not an official ruling, but it should at least give you some sort of pause about your point of view, especially when you have 0 RAW text to back you up
Yeah, its a spell attack, so you make it by casting the spell. The weapon is a part of that, which makes it connected to the attack as much as the spell if we do not care about distinguishing between spell attacks and weapon attacks.
As for casting spells without components, that isn't true. A scroll's creation involves putting the material components, according to Xanathar's guide, chapter 2. The material component has already gone into the spell.
Its a core part of the rules. Yes, it is convenient to my argument, but Im not the one making it part of the rules. I promise, I haven't held Jeremy Crawford or any other member of the creative team at gunpoint to force them to make the rules.
To proc most abilities, it can't just be an attack that has a weapon tangetially involved. It must be a melee weapon attack. I've cited official rulings on this multiple times already. And I've given counter examples ya'll keep agreeing would be wrong, but don't want to say are wrong because of the actual game system.
Im at a loss. I think Im done.
I’m pretty certain most of us have said outright that they are explicitly wrong, and given reasons why. We aren’t hedging bets here
So magic stone is the one example of a spell attack that works with sneak attack, which supports that magic stone works with sneak attack? lol
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=circular logic
wtf, if I call an official ruling errata its totally discrediting and the point I brought up must be wrong, but unofficial rulings about how they'd play it at their own table ought to be binding (and also the official rulings I cite don't exist, apparently).
Ok then.
Poor reasons that try to replicate the rules without citing the actual language of weapon attacks while pretending they don't exist, in a self-serving argument.
I can agree that thematically, what ya'll are saying makes sense. I use a sling for the stone, it ought to be a weapon attack (or a bs "attack that uses a weapon.")
But there are rules for this. And ya'll even go out of the way to agree with their conclusions except for the one spell we are discussing.
Probably because that still isn't the rule. We have already said repeatedly that it isn't. Here is what the rule actually says since you seem to have misplaced it:
Notice no mention of "weapon attack" anywhere?
According to the rules? Yes. If it is a spell attack roll using a ranged or finesse weapon and you either have advantage or an ally within 5 feet of them, it would trigger sneak attack.
The only person that ever said there is no distinction between spell and weapon attacks is you, as a strawman argument. There is a difference, it just isn't relevant to anything we have ever said. It is not relevant to the attack action, extra attack, or sneak attack. That is why magic stone works with those things.
The entire thread (I hesitate to even call it an argument anymore) has devolved into you referencing completely irrelevant advice and making irrelevant and objectively false strawmen arguments, the entire community telling you that those things are irrelevant and reasserting the correct rules for the topic, then you ignoring those rules and repeating your irrelevant points again.
Your ruling was discredited not because it isn’t errata, but because it isn’t applicable to a spell other than GFB or BB, both of which have different effects than Magic Stone
It works because the RAW says it does, the details of why have been stated to you multiple times in this thread
The one spell we are discussing has an effect that is different from practically any other spell. The other examples you have tried to cite don’t work because the specific language those examples use makes it so. The explicit language used in MS allows the effect. It’s not that hard to grasp it you understand that different words have different meanings
Thank the gods. Why didn't you mention that sooner? If you had rules that said extra attack and sneak attack (who even brought that up? That wasn't part of the original question) didn't work with spell attacks all along, we could have ended this with 100(!) fewer posts. Please cite them.
The rules for Sneak Attack don't need errata. It's intended to be used with any weapon or spell attack that use a ranged or finesse weapon.
So first off, Im citing an official ruling saying that the blade cantrips can proc sneak attack because they make a weapon attack specifically (and with the right kind of weapon). That is clarification on the sort of attack Sneak Attack functions with.
There would literally be no other example of sneak attack working with a non weapon attack than magic stone. Using magic stone as the example to say that sneak attack works with magic stone is circular logic.
So can you address that ruling I cited already?
Except no. You can use a weapon in a spell attack as a material component or as part of the somatic component in certain circumstances. It takes more than the weapon being used in the attack.
I would say that would be verboten because spell attacks are specifically not weapon attacks even if they use a weapon in the attack in some manner. If its as vague as just "using a weapon" rather than specifically saying "a weapon attack," then the whole can of worms is opened.
Why is it not relevant then? Why, when the rules around weapon vs spell attacks exist, are they not relevant when discussing the interaction of a spell attack and abilities that depend on certain weapon attacks?
Its just self-serving argumentation.
You obviously didn't read the ruling, because it explained why those two spells (and by extension, ANY SPELL THAT WORKS WITH SNEAK ATTACK) will work.
Magic stone works differently in a way that directly violates one of the stated reasons why sneak attack works with the blade cantrips.
Why such a hard on for just ignoring that?
To illustrate all the possibilities, does Sneak Attack works with
A melee weapon attack with a weapon? Yes
A ranged weapon attack with a weapon? Yes
A melee weapon attack without a weapon? No
A ranged weapon attack without a weapon? No
A melee spell attack with a weapon? Yes
A ranged spell attack with a weapon? Yes
A melee spell attack without a weapon? No
A ranged spell attack without a weapon? No
RAW says no such thing. As I pointed out, melee attacks vs spell attacks are part of the core rules.
A surface reading just between Sneak Attack and Magic Stone would allow it, because that would let one just ignore that part of the core rules.
But all my counter examples show why an attack that must use a weapon means a weapon attack, not just an attack with a weapon involved in its creation somewhere.
did the entry explicitly extend the ruling to other spells? or is that just you wanting it to? I’ll wait while you check
no it doesn’t, or do you care to demonstrate just how it does directly violate the rules for sneak attack. Again, still waiting…
yeah, not going to dignify this with a comeback.
Ok give an example. Oh wait, there is only the one and its the one we are already discussing.
And I've already shown how the spells we do know work with sneak attack work by making a weapon attack.
So back up your statement with evidence or stop repeating your personal dogma.