Traps and Hazards can be exemple of attack that have no type. The Poison Darts trap in the DMG doesn't mention if the ranged attack is a weapon or spell attack. Other exemples might be found in published adventures.
'''Each dart makes a ranged attack with a +8 bonus against a random target within 10 feet of the pressure plate (vision is irrelevant to this attack roll).''
Seems like an irrelevant example though, since a trap's attack is not something that would ever be tied to character features or actions. Sort of like bringing up legendary actions in a discussion of how many attacks a pc can make.
Grappling and shoving are the only things in the game I'm aware of that are neither a weapon nor a spell attack, and the rules do explicitly call attention to them being special. That's just yet another side effect of their unfortunate decision to make those moves use skill contests. I wouldn't turn to it as an example of a well-designed exception to the rules.
I don't buy for a second that traps fall outside the weapon/spell binary. It makes a lot more sense that the writers simply omitted the "weapon" part for the sake of brevity, like they do elsewhere in the core rules when it's obvious from context:
Ammunition. You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon.
Thrown. If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack.
If you command an object to attack, it can make a single melee attack against a creature within 5 feet of it. It makes a slam attack with an attack bonus and bludgeoning damage determined by its size.
Common sense dictates these are weapon attacks. There's only two options (weapon attack and spell attack) and there's no reason to think these would be spell attacks.
The wording of the spell in the dndbeyond spell compendium is still the wording from "Elemental Evil Player's Companion" and it references the page in that publication. The spell hasn't been updated with the minor word changes which appear in XgtE.
Not sure what you're talking about. Watery Sphere definitely has the errata in DDB.
Traps and Hazards can be exemple of attack that have no type. The Poison Darts trap in the DMG doesn't mention if the ranged attack is a weapon or spell attack. Other exemples might be found in published adventures.
'''Each dart makes a ranged attack with a +8 bonus against a random target within 10 feet of the pressure plate (vision is irrelevant to this attack roll).''
Seems like an irrelevant example though, since a trap's attack is not something that would ever be tied to character features or actions. Sort of like bringing up legendary actions in a discussion of how many attacks a pc can make.
I was answering more generally to the question of wether attacks exist without weapon or spell tag. It's true that this exemple is usable by PCs though.
Traps and Hazards can be exemple of attack that have no type. The Poison Darts trap in the DMG doesn't mention if the ranged attack is a weapon or spell attack. Other exemples might be found in published adventures.
'''Each dart makes a ranged attack with a +8 bonus against a random target within 10 feet of the pressure plate (vision is irrelevant to this attack roll).''
Seems like an irrelevant example though, since a trap's attack is not something that would ever be tied to character features or actions. Sort of like bringing up legendary actions in a discussion of how many attacks a pc can make.
Yes, they can. Lycanthropes and other creatures have resistance, if not outright immunity, to nonmagical weapons that may or may not be adamantine or silvered. By removing traps from that weapon/spell attack binary and creating a third, untyped, attack, these traps can still affect these creatures.
I don't buy for a second that traps fall outside the weapon/spell binary. It makes a lot more sense that the writers simply omitted the "weapon" part for the sake of brevity, like they do elsewhere in the core rules when it's obvious from context:
In Prince of Apocalyspe, there is a tripwire trap that trigger an attack by a greataxe specifically not labeled as a weapon attack nor was it corrected in its errata document
Tripwire Trap: If the wire is tripped, a spring-loaded greataxe disguised to look like part of the southern statue snaps across the hallway and makes an attack against the creature that triggered the trap (+10 to hit; 1d12 + 5 slashing damage on a hit).
I don't buy for a second that traps fall outside the weapon/spell binary. It makes a lot more sense that the writers simply omitted the "weapon" part for the sake of brevity, like they do elsewhere in the core rules when it's obvious from context:
In Prince of Apocalyspe, there is a tripwire trap that trigger an attack by a greataxe specifically not labeled as a weapon attack nor was it corrected in its errata document
Tripwire Trap: If the wire is tripped, a spring-loaded greataxe disguised to look like part of the southern statue snaps across the hallway and makes an attack against the creature that triggered the trap (+10 to hit; 1d12 + 5 slashing damage on a hit).
Why correct it if it isn't controversial? Most will assume it is a weapon attack as it would happen, not interact with any character features, and be a memorable moment without complication.
Why correct it if it isn't controversial? Most will assume it is a weapon attack as it would happen, not interact with any character features, and be a memorable moment without complication.
To be in line with attack type standard. Errata serve exactly for this purpose. While the element works fine, RAW it doesn't trigger any game element that require a spell/weapon/melee/ranged attack specifically. Looking at other type of trap, hazard or vehicule, they normally mention it. This one clearly should have been a melee weapon attack.
Why correct it if it isn't controversial? Most will assume it is a weapon attack as it would happen, not interact with any character features, and be a memorable moment without complication.
To be in line with attack type standard. Errata serve exactly for this purpose. While the element works fine, RAW it doesn't trigger any game element that require a spell/weapon/melee/ranged attack specifically. Looking at other type of trap, hazard or vehicule, they normally mention it. This one clearly should have been a melee weapon attack.
I think you are over-estimating the design teams particularity. It makes no difference to the game if that one trap's attack is not clarified as a weapon attack.
Why correct it if it isn't controversial? Most will assume it is a weapon attack as it would happen, not interact with any character features, and be a memorable moment without complication.
To be in line with attack type standard. Errata serve exactly for this purpose. While the element works fine, RAW it doesn't trigger any game element that require a spell/weapon/melee/ranged attack specifically. Looking at other type of trap, hazard or vehicule, they normally mention it. This one clearly should have been a melee weapon attack.
I think you are over-estimating the design teams particularity. It makes no difference to the game if that one trap's attack is not clarified as a weapon attack.
Yes, they can. Lycanthropes and other creatures have resistance, if not outright immunity, to nonmagical weapons that may or may not be adamantine or silvered. By removing traps from that weapon/spell attack binary and creating a third, untyped, attack, these traps can still affect these creatures.
I'd like to expand this to include angels, elementals, fiends, golems, and vampires. By refusing to classify traps as weapons, WotC is making their stance on their applicability crystal clear. The core books have been out for almost 7 years now. It's long past time to call this an oversight. It's deliberate.
That's definitely a bit of a gray area but the wording of a +1 weapon is general enough to apply to the attack and damage roll of Magic Stone:
You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon.
If you hurl the stone from a +1 sling then the attack and damage roll is being made with the weapon, and the +1 bonus doesn't what rule is determining the attack and damage roll. After all, most people would agree the +1 bonus still applies if you use a feature like Hex Warrior to override the general rules for weapon attacks.
That's definitely a bit of a gray area but the wording of a +1 weapon is general enough to apply to the attack and damage roll of Magic Stone:
You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon.
If you hurl the stone from a +1 sling then the attack and damage roll is being made with the weapon, and the +1 bonus doesn't what rule is determining the attack and damage roll. After all, most people would agree the +1 bonus still applies if you use a feature like Hex Warrior to override the general rules for weapon attacks.
So what Im hearing is... if I use my hex weapon as an arcane focus for spell attacks like Eldritch Blast, it is involved in the spell attack, and I get a +1 to attack and damage rolls. And I can Eldritch Smite on a hit.
I think over the last 10 pages, you've made it clear that what you hear isn't always what we or the rules say.
Eldritch smite requires that you "hit a creature with your pact weapon."
Spellcasting foci that provide both a bonus to weapon attacks and spell attacks have language such as "This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls." so maybe it is incorrect to grant magic stone the +1 from a sling.
I think over the last 10 pages, you've made it clear that what you hear isn't always what we or the rules say.
Eldritch smite requires that you "hit a creature with your pact weapon."
Spellcasting foci that provide both a bonus to weapon attacks and spell attacks have language such as "This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls." so maybe it is incorrect to grant magic stone the +1 from a sling.
If the sling is your pact weapon, you're hitting with it even if it isn't a weapon attack and it is the ammunition hitting the target, not even the weapon. Same with using a pact weapon as an arcane focus. You do something with your weapon that results in a hit.
If the sling is your pact weapon, you're hitting with it even if it isn't a weapon attack and it is the ammunition hitting the target, not even the weapon. Same with using a pact weapon as an arcane focus. You do something with your weapon that results in a hit.
Not same. Those two things are not the same. Using an object as a focus for a spell is not the same as attacking with that weapon. Using a sling as a spell focus does not involve throwing a rock from that sling to hit an enemy. Using a sword as a focus does not involve swinging that sword and cutting an enemy with its sharp edge. In that way, the things are not the same.
You do not get to activate Sneak Attack because your spell focus is a finesse or ranged weapon. You *do* activate Sneak Attack when you hit someone with a rock from a sling - even if that rock is a magic rock. You do not get to use a Eldritch Smite when you cast a spell using your pact weapon crossbow as the focus. You do get to use a Eldritch Smite when you hit someone with a bolt fired from that pact-bow (I don't think a sling can be a pact weapon).
Please stop trying so hard to misunderstand or position.
If the sling is your pact weapon, you're hitting with it even if it isn't a weapon attack and it is the ammunition hitting the target, not even the weapon. Same with using a pact weapon as an arcane focus. You do something with your weapon that results in a hit.
Not same. Those two things are not the same. Using an object as a focus for a spell is not the same as attacking with that weapon. Using a sling as a spell focus does not involve throwing a rock from that sling to hit an enemy. Using a sword as a focus does not involve swinging that sword and cutting an enemy with its sharp edge. In that way, the things are not the same.
You do not get to activate Sneak Attack because your spell focus is a finesse or ranged weapon. You *do* activate Sneak Attack when you hit someone with a rock from a sling - even if that rock is a magic rock. You do not get to use a Eldritch Smite when you cast a spell using your pact weapon crossbow as the focus. You do get to use a Eldritch Smite when you hit someone with a bolt fired from that pact-bow (I don't think a sling can be a pact weapon).
Please stop trying so hard to misunderstand or position.
Actually using the sword to hit would be a melee weapon attack, not just vaguely using the weapon in the abstract. There is no rule requirement saying that using the pact weapon means actively hit with the physical weapon itself. "With" and "use" are vague terms. Its RAW.
If the sling is your pact weapon, you're hitting with it even if it isn't a weapon attack and it is the ammunition hitting the target, not even the weapon. Same with using a pact weapon as an arcane focus. You do something with your weapon that results in a hit.
See, this is the problem. You keep subtly injecting your own bogus definitions of what constitutes as attacking with your weapon and then pretending that's what the RAW said. You can't knock a vase off a shelf with your pact weapon to start a Rube Goldberg machine that results in firing a crossbow and call that attacking with your pact weapon. Simply having your weapon involved at some point in the cause-and-effect chain isn't enough to say the attack was made with the weapon. You have to actually use the weapon directly.
Yes, you can Eldritch Smite if you hurl a magic stone from a Pact Weapon sling. You hurled the rock from the sling, as you would any other rock. That's not remotely the same as simply using your weapon as a focus to cast a spell that'll create the same attack regardless of what material component is used in the casting, if there's even a material involved at all.
If the sling is your pact weapon, you're hitting with it even if it isn't a weapon attack and it is the ammunition hitting the target, not even the weapon. Same with using a pact weapon as an arcane focus. You do something with your weapon that results in a hit.
See, this is the problem. You keep subtly injecting your own bogus definitions of what constitutes as attacking with your weapon and then pretending that's what the RAW said. You can't knock a vase off a shelf with your pact weapon to start a Rube Goldberg machine to fires a crossbow and call that attacking with your pact weapon either.
Hey, you can use magic stone "with" a sling without using the sling in a weapon attack. Its just used "with" the magic stone.
Since that language is good enough, Im just following the logic of RAW.
The Arcane Focus in used in the Spell, the spell attack is part of the spell, so the weapon is used in the spell attack. Its not a Rube Goldberg Machine, its not even a whole extra step, its the same action.
Seems like an irrelevant example though, since a trap's attack is not something that would ever be tied to character features or actions. Sort of like bringing up legendary actions in a discussion of how many attacks a pc can make.
Grappling and shoving are the only things in the game I'm aware of that are neither a weapon nor a spell attack, and the rules do explicitly call attention to them being special. That's just yet another side effect of their unfortunate decision to make those moves use skill contests. I wouldn't turn to it as an example of a well-designed exception to the rules.
I don't buy for a second that traps fall outside the weapon/spell binary. It makes a lot more sense that the writers simply omitted the "weapon" part for the sake of brevity, like they do elsewhere in the core rules when it's obvious from context:
Animate Objects does something similar:
Common sense dictates these are weapon attacks. There's only two options (weapon attack and spell attack) and there's no reason to think these would be spell attacks.
Not sure what you're talking about. Watery Sphere definitely has the errata in DDB.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I was answering more generally to the question of wether attacks exist without weapon or spell tag. It's true that this exemple is usable by PCs though.
Yes, they can. Lycanthropes and other creatures have resistance, if not outright immunity, to nonmagical weapons that may or may not be adamantine or silvered. By removing traps from that weapon/spell attack binary and creating a third, untyped, attack, these traps can still affect these creatures.
In Prince of Apocalyspe, there is a tripwire trap that trigger an attack by a greataxe specifically not labeled as a weapon attack nor was it corrected in its errata document
Why correct it if it isn't controversial? Most will assume it is a weapon attack as it would happen, not interact with any character features, and be a memorable moment without complication.
To be in line with attack type standard. Errata serve exactly for this purpose. While the element works fine, RAW it doesn't trigger any game element that require a spell/weapon/melee/ranged attack specifically. Looking at other type of trap, hazard or vehicule, they normally mention it. This one clearly should have been a melee weapon attack.
I think you are over-estimating the design teams particularity. It makes no difference to the game if that one trap's attack is not clarified as a weapon attack.
Yes, it does.
I'd like to expand this to include angels, elementals, fiends, golems, and vampires. By refusing to classify traps as weapons, WotC is making their stance on their applicability crystal clear. The core books have been out for almost 7 years now. It's long past time to call this an oversight. It's deliberate.
So to be clear: you can use sneak attack with magic stone.
But you wouldn't get any benefits from the sling, like if it was a +1 sling? Since the magic stone overrides all of that.
A +1 sling gives you a “+1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the sling”. No limitation that it not be a spell attack.
That's definitely a bit of a gray area but the wording of a +1 weapon is general enough to apply to the attack and damage roll of Magic Stone:
If you hurl the stone from a +1 sling then the attack and damage roll is being made with the weapon, and the +1 bonus doesn't what rule is determining the attack and damage roll. After all, most people would agree the +1 bonus still applies if you use a feature like Hex Warrior to override the general rules for weapon attacks.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
So what Im hearing is... if I use my hex weapon as an arcane focus for spell attacks like Eldritch Blast, it is involved in the spell attack, and I get a +1 to attack and damage rolls. And I can Eldritch Smite on a hit.
I think over the last 10 pages, you've made it clear that what you hear isn't always what we or the rules say.
Eldritch smite requires that you "hit a creature with your pact weapon."
Spellcasting foci that provide both a bonus to weapon attacks and spell attacks have language such as "This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls." so maybe it is incorrect to grant magic stone the +1 from a sling.
If the sling is your pact weapon, you're hitting with it even if it isn't a weapon attack and it is the ammunition hitting the target, not even the weapon. Same with using a pact weapon as an arcane focus. You do something with your weapon that results in a hit.
Not same. Those two things are not the same. Using an object as a focus for a spell is not the same as attacking with that weapon. Using a sling as a spell focus does not involve throwing a rock from that sling to hit an enemy. Using a sword as a focus does not involve swinging that sword and cutting an enemy with its sharp edge. In that way, the things are not the same.
You do not get to activate Sneak Attack because your spell focus is a finesse or ranged weapon. You *do* activate Sneak Attack when you hit someone with a rock from a sling - even if that rock is a magic rock. You do not get to use a Eldritch Smite when you cast a spell using your pact weapon crossbow as the focus. You do get to use a Eldritch Smite when you hit someone with a bolt fired from that pact-bow (I don't think a sling can be a pact weapon).
Please stop trying so hard to misunderstand or position.
Actually using the sword to hit would be a melee weapon attack, not just vaguely using the weapon in the abstract. There is no rule requirement saying that using the pact weapon means actively hit with the physical weapon itself. "With" and "use" are vague terms. Its RAW.
See, this is the problem. You keep subtly injecting your own bogus definitions of what constitutes as attacking with your weapon and then pretending that's what the RAW said. You can't knock a vase off a shelf with your pact weapon to start a Rube Goldberg machine that results in firing a crossbow and call that attacking with your pact weapon. Simply having your weapon involved at some point in the cause-and-effect chain isn't enough to say the attack was made with the weapon. You have to actually use the weapon directly.
Yes, you can Eldritch Smite if you hurl a magic stone from a Pact Weapon sling. You hurled the rock from the sling, as you would any other rock. That's not remotely the same as simply using your weapon as a focus to cast a spell that'll create the same attack regardless of what material component is used in the casting, if there's even a material involved at all.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Hey, you can use magic stone "with" a sling without using the sling in a weapon attack. Its just used "with" the magic stone.
Since that language is good enough, Im just following the logic of RAW.
The Arcane Focus in used in the Spell, the spell attack is part of the spell, so the weapon is used in the spell attack. Its not a Rube Goldberg Machine, its not even a whole extra step, its the same action.
If you are using a focus to cast a spell with an attack roll, you are hitting with a spell.