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
What does "a ranged spell attack with a weapon" mean though? If the weapon were used in the actual attack, it would just be a weapon attack. There is no counter example to this.
And all those other spells attacks made "with a weapon" come back up.
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
What does "a ranged spell attack with a weapon" mean though? If the weapon were used in the actual attack, it would just be a weapon attack. There is no counter example to this.
And all those other spells attacks made "with a weapon" come back up.
Let’s see…Magic Stone with a sling…ranged spell attack? Si. With a weapon? Si. Ranged spell attack with a weapon? Logical conclusion. Si
did the entry explicitly extend the ruling to other spells? or is that just you wanting it to? I’ll wait while you check
In that the rules are generally applicable and were not just made up for those spells, yes. But if you can find where in the Sage Advice Compendium it says "we made up special rules that only apply to the interaction of sneak attack and these 2 spells" I'd love to see it.
no it doesn’t, or do you care to demonstrate just how it does directly violate the rules for sneak attack. Again, still waiting…
A spell using a weapon needs to make a weapon attack to proc sneak attack. I already cited it. You just don't like it and, since you can't pretend its an unofficial ruling anymore, want to pretend the ruling must depend on some concepts outside of existing rules.
@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.
Why such a hard on for just ignoring that?
I've been reading every post on every page, and I can't follow your alleged points. But here's what I've put together:
Sneak Attack is only sometimes applicable to booming blade and green-flame blade because both spells call for an attack with a weapon. So long as that attack meets all the requirements, the attack can make use of Sneak Attack. They are two different clauses that interact with the same action independently of one another. It's also a melee weapon attack (Sage 17), despite being used as part of the [Tooltip Not Found] action.
The reason magic stone can work with Sneak Attack is because the ranged spell attack (as specifically called out in its spell description) can be made with a sling. But it doesn't have to be. The transmuted stones can just as easily be thrown, with no change to its attack roll, and with arguably a longer effective range.
did the entry explicitly extend the ruling to other spells? or is that just you wanting it to? I’ll wait while you check
In that the rules are generally applicable and were not just made up for those spells, yes.
specific rules and rulings are not generally applicable, at all. General rules are generally applicable. The ruling in the SAC is not a general rule, it’s not even in the right place in the SAC if it were a general ruling (that would be the class features section under Rogue)
But if you can find where in the Sage Advice Compendium it says "we made up special rules that only apply to the interaction of sneak attack and these 2 spells" I'd love to see it.
no it doesn’t, or do you care to demonstrate just how it does directly violate the rules for sneak attack. Again, still waiting…
A spell using a weapon needs to make a weapon attack to proc sneak attack. I already cited it.
that’s not a rule. It’s not RAW, not RAI, and isn’t even in the SAC entry you seem to not be able to drop. That entry says a weapon attack can trigger sneak attack, it in no way says that only a weapon attack can.
You just don't like it and, since you can't pretend its an unofficial ruling anymore, want to pretend the ruling must depend on some concepts outside of existing rules.
it depends on the question being asked, which was about GFB
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
What does "a ranged spell attack with a weapon" mean though? If the weapon were used in the actual attack, it would just be a weapon attack. There is no counter example to this.
And all those other spells attacks made "with a weapon" come back up.
Let’s see…Magic Stone with a sling…ranged spell attack? Si. With a weapon? Si. Ranged spell attack with a weapon? Logical conclusion. Si
Ah, now you see, I gave you the link that would google "circular logic" for you. My bad, I thought you could use the link. I won't make that kind of assumption again.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.
@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.
Why such a hard on for just ignoring that?
I've been reading every post on every page, and I can't follow your alleged points. But here's what I've put together:
Sneak Attack is only sometimes applicable to booming blade and green-flame blade because both spells call for an attack with a weapon. So long as that attack meets all the requirements, the attack can make use of Sneak Attack. They are two different clauses that interact with the same action independently of one another. It's also a melee weapon attack (Sage 17), despite being used as part of the Cast a Spell action.
The reason magic stone can work with Sneak Attack is because the ranged spell attack (as specifically called out in its spell description) can be made with a sling. But it doesn't have to be. The transmuted stones can just as easily be thrown, with no change to its attack roll, and with arguably a longer effective range.
And nothing is being violated.
You succinctly sum up the argument everyone keeps making.
My point is that the type of attack also matters. Its why spell attacks with weapons like Steel Wind Strike do not proc sneak attack, but spells that employ weapon attacks like booming blade do. As per official ruling, a weapon attack is required, not just that a weapon be present in some vague way.
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
What does "a ranged spell attack with a weapon" mean though? If the weapon were used in the actual attack, it would just be a weapon attack. There is no counter example to this.
And all those other spells attacks made "with a weapon" come back up.
Let’s see…Magic Stone with a sling…ranged spell attack? Si. With a weapon? Si. Ranged spell attack with a weapon? Logical conclusion. Si
Ah, now you see, I gave you the link that would google "circular logic" for you. My bad, I thought you could use the link. I won't make that kind of assumption again.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.
Yeah except what we are saying is that A (magic stone works with these abilities) is true because of B (the RAW which does not limit those abilities to weapon attacks only), and you are saying that it is untrue because of 3 (unrelated SAC ruling that is both being misunderstood and is not applicable to A or B). We are saying that 3 isn’t applicable.
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
What does "a ranged spell attack with a weapon" mean though? If the weapon were used in the actual attack, it would just be a weapon attack. There is no counter example to this.
And all those other spells attacks made "with a weapon" come back up.
Let’s see…Magic Stone with a sling…ranged spell attack? Si. With a weapon? Si. Ranged spell attack with a weapon? Logical conclusion. Si
Ah, now you see, I gave you the link that would google "circular logic" for you. My bad, I thought you could use the link. I won't make that kind of assumption again.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.
Oh, now you're getting disrespectful. Not cool, man, not cool.
Look, Sneak Attack doesn't explicitly call for a weapon attack. Just look at the wording.
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.
See? All it says is, "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." If the intent was to limit it to just a weapon attack, then it would say so. Like it does with the paladin's Divine Smite.
Divine Smite
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.
It's fine if you want to interpret Sneak Attack as only applying to weapon attacks and not a potential spell attack made with a weapon. As a DM, that is your prerogative. But it isn't RAW.
did the entry explicitly extend the ruling to other spells? or is that just you wanting it to? I’ll wait while you check
In that the rules are generally applicable and were not just made up for those spells, yes.
specific rules and rulings are not generally applicable, at all. General rules are generally applicable. The ruling in the SAC is not a general rule, it’s not even in the right place in the SAC if it were a general ruling (that would be the class features section under Rogue)
But if you can find where in the Sage Advice Compendium it says "we made up special rules that only apply to the interaction of sneak attack and these 2 spells" I'd love to see it.
no it doesn’t, or do you care to demonstrate just how it does directly violate the rules for sneak attack. Again, still waiting…
A spell using a weapon needs to make a weapon attack to proc sneak attack. I already cited it.
that’s not a rule. It’s not RAW, not RAI, and isn’t even in the SAC entry you seem to not be able to drop. That entry says a weapon attack can trigger sneak attack, it in no way says that only a weapon attack can.
You just don't like it and, since you can't pretend its an unofficial ruling anymore, want to pretend the ruling must depend on some concepts outside of existing rules.
it depends on the question being asked, which was about GFB
Again, if you want to decide the Sage Advice Compendium isn't RAW, then we are just discussing totally different rules; the ones that exist and the cherry picked ones you want to consider official. So there is no point in us discussing it.
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
What does "a ranged spell attack with a weapon" mean though? If the weapon were used in the actual attack, it would just be a weapon attack. There is no counter example to this.
And all those other spells attacks made "with a weapon" come back up.
Let’s see…Magic Stone with a sling…ranged spell attack? Si. With a weapon? Si. Ranged spell attack with a weapon? Logical conclusion. Si
Ah, now you see, I gave you the link that would google "circular logic" for you. My bad, I thought you could use the link. I won't make that kind of assumption again.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.
Oh, now you're getting disrespectful. Not cool, man, not cool.
Look, Sneak Attack doesn't explicitly call for a weapon attack. Just look at the wording.
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.
See? All it says is, "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." If the intent was to limit it to just a weapon attack, then it would say so. Like it does with the paladin's Divine Smite.
Divine Smite
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.
It's fine if you want to interpret Sneak Attack as only applying to weapon attacks and not a potential spell attack made with a weapon. As a DM, that is your prerogative. But it isn't RAW.
I guess you just got in, so you missed where I cited the official ruling that spells that use weapons only work with sneak attack if they include a weapon attack. If official rulings, written and published, are not "RAW," then that is my bad, Im mixing up RAI and RAW.
did the entry explicitly extend the ruling to other spells? or is that just you wanting it to? I’ll wait while you check
In that the rules are generally applicable and were not just made up for those spells, yes.
specific rules and rulings are not generally applicable, at all. General rules are generally applicable. The ruling in the SAC is not a general rule, it’s not even in the right place in the SAC if it were a general ruling (that would be the class features section under Rogue)
But if you can find where in the Sage Advice Compendium it says "we made up special rules that only apply to the interaction of sneak attack and these 2 spells" I'd love to see it.
no it doesn’t, or do you care to demonstrate just how it does directly violate the rules for sneak attack. Again, still waiting…
A spell using a weapon needs to make a weapon attack to proc sneak attack. I already cited it.
that’s not a rule. It’s not RAW, not RAI, and isn’t even in the SAC entry you seem to not be able to drop. That entry says a weapon attack can trigger sneak attack, it in no way says that only a weapon attack can.
You just don't like it and, since you can't pretend its an unofficial ruling anymore, want to pretend the ruling must depend on some concepts outside of existing rules.
it depends on the question being asked, which was about GFB
Again, if you want to decide the Sage Advice Compendium isn't RAW, then we are just discussing totally different rules; the ones that exist and the cherry picked ones you want to consider official. So there is no point in us discussing it.
I’m not saying that (though it is, by it’s own definition, rulings, not rules). I’m saying the ruling you are using to defend your position is not applicable to the discussion occurring because 1) it is not a general ruling, 2) it isn’t about the spell in question and 3) the ruling in question is an inclusive statement about weapon attacks (rather than an exclusive one) that does not state a requirement, only an option
For real? it doesn't even look like Kronzy even read the SAC entry.
Third, these weapon attacks work with Sneak Attack if they fulfill the normal requirements for that feature.
What does that say? Does it say that it changes the normal requirements for the feature? Because the normal requirements do not prohibit the attack from being a spell attack.
What does "a ranged spell attack with a weapon" mean though? If the weapon were used in the actual attack, it would just be a weapon attack. There is no counter example to this.
And all those other spells attacks made "with a weapon" come back up.
A ranged spell attack would be any effect that called for a ranged spell attack that can use a weapon. If that weapon is finesse or ranged, Sneak Attack will apply, like Magic Stone's ranged spell attack delivered with a sling.
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.
1 exemple is enought. Magic Stone and any other game element that would use a weapon or spell attack that can be delieved with a finesse or ranged weapon. But if you refute Magic Stone, i don't see why you wouldn't refute any other we could find so it's not worth it.
For real? it doesn't even look like Kronzy even read the SAC entry.
Third, these weapon attacks work with Sneak Attack if they fulfill the normal requirements for that feature.
What does that say? Does it say that it changes the normal requirements for the feature? Because the normal requirements do not prohibit the attack from being a spell attack.
I see this now as either Kronzy can either 1) accept this ruling isn’t applicable and go back to the actual rules for Sneak Attack, or 2) continue saying the ruling is applicable but recognizing that the ruling actually allows it since it points back to the original rule as you have pointed out.
or 3) ignore this in a futile attempt to avoid being wrong
I guess you just got in, so you missed where I cited the official ruling that spells that use weapons only work with sneak attack if they include a weapon attack. If official rulings, written and published, are not "RAW," then that is my bad, Im mixing up RAI and RAW.
The ruling says nothing of the sort. The ruling says that these particular spells use weapon attacks instead of spell attacks, with the associated bonus for those attacks. It also says that those weapon attacks are eligible for sneak attack if they meet the requirements for sneak attack. Nowhere does it say that sneak attack requires a weapon attack, only an attack with a weapon.
1. You say its not a general ruling. I would point out that no such distinction exists. All the rulings are made according to existing rules. We are allowed to go off the reservation at our tables for the sake of what is fun (I've already said I would just let magic stones work with all these features and consider making the damage scale like other cantrips). But there is no place where a different set of rules become operative. Its all one set.
2. This goes back to point one.
3. On this point I am actually a bit perplexed. The ruling says the blade cantrips work with sneak attack because, aside from all the other requirements, it makes a weapon attack. Now that seems pretty exclusive of non-weapon attacks. And as we have discussed, there is no example or explicit rule that contradicts that.
Just a straight reading of the Sneak Attack description lays out the broader, vaguer version of the rule, but this ruling makes clear what "an attack with a weapon" means; a weapon attack.
I think it comes down to a philosophical disagreement on the place of rulings and the rules. I see rulings as exacting applications of the rules, and therefore showing core rules at work. You see them as distinct from the core rules.
I would only add that for an official ruling to be distinct from the core rules in its application would be for it to become errata and a part of the core rules anyways. Like the errata on shield master that seems to otherwise violates the other rules on when actions and bonus actions can be taken.
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
What does "a ranged spell attack with a weapon" mean though? If the weapon were used in the actual attack, it would just be a weapon attack. There is no counter example to this.
And all those other spells attacks made "with a weapon" come back up.
Let’s see…Magic Stone with a sling…ranged spell attack? Si. With a weapon? Si. Ranged spell attack with a weapon? Logical conclusion. Si
Ah, now you see, I gave you the link that would google "circular logic" for you. My bad, I thought you could use the link. I won't make that kind of assumption again.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.
Oh, now you're getting disrespectful. Not cool, man, not cool.
Look, Sneak Attack doesn't explicitly call for a weapon attack. Just look at the wording.
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.
See? All it says is, "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." If the intent was to limit it to just a weapon attack, then it would say so. Like it does with the paladin's Divine Smite.
Divine Smite
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.
It's fine if you want to interpret Sneak Attack as only applying to weapon attacks and not a potential spell attack made with a weapon. As a DM, that is your prerogative. But it isn't RAW.
I guess you just got in, so you missed where I cited the official ruling that spells that use weapons only work with sneak attack if they include a weapon attack. If official rulings, written and published, are not "RAW," then that is my bad, Im mixing up RAI and RAW.
No, I've been here. I've seen you go on for several pages, confusing Sage Advice (a collection of rulings from the designers, outlining their intent) with errata (changes to the actual printed text for future reprintings).
You are interpreting that Sneak Attack must use a weapon attack, and cannot possibly use a spell attack, even though the text does not explicitly call for a weapon attack. The only requirement is that the attack utilizes a melee weapon with the finesse property or a ranged weapon. That said, technically, you can also have a ranged weapon with the finesse (i.e. the dart), but that distinction is meaningless in the context of this discussion.
And, to be clear, it's fine if you interpret or decide to rule that way when you run your games. The rules, as written, say what they're supposed to say. It's just a rules interaction that most tables won't come across. Just like how tables that don't have a rogue with the Thief roguish archetype won't find anyone throwing an acid vial as a bonus action. (BTW, Tavern Brawler lets them add their proficiency bonus to the attack roll, and they always add their Dexterity modifier to the damage roll.)
The majority of tables won't have to worry about it. But, for the few that do, knowing how these wordings interact merely open up new options. Can a druid use it like a ranged shillelagh? Sure thing! Can they pass them off to a rogue, who can then get Sneak Attack with magical ammunition that does magical bludgeoning damage? Why not? Can a halfling fighter get upwards of three attacks per round with them? So long as they're using a sling and have the transmuted bullets, the answer is "yes".
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?
Its just self-serving argumentation.
I'm only going to be answering parts if this reply that have not already been answered more than once:
I didn't use circular logic. I used the rules for sneak attack verbatim. Sneak attack works with slings. Magic stone can be an attack with a sling. That is 2 points with a straight line connecting them.
That weapons can't make spell attacks is your own assertion not made by the rules.
And other than those one and a half sentences, nothing you said in this post has been answered less than twice per page. Literally every point you just tried to make has been refuted a 6 or more times each since you started this thread to argue, and you have just been changing the argument to ignore them.
What does "a ranged spell attack with a weapon" mean though? If the weapon were used in the actual attack, it would just be a weapon attack. There is no counter example to this.
And all those other spells attacks made "with a weapon" come back up.
Let’s see…Magic Stone with a sling…ranged spell attack? Si. With a weapon? Si. Ranged spell attack with a weapon? Logical conclusion. Si
In that the rules are generally applicable and were not just made up for those spells, yes. But if you can find where in the Sage Advice Compendium it says "we made up special rules that only apply to the interaction of sneak attack and these 2 spells" I'd love to see it.
A spell using a weapon needs to make a weapon attack to proc sneak attack. I already cited it. You just don't like it and, since you can't pretend its an unofficial ruling anymore, want to pretend the ruling must depend on some concepts outside of existing rules.
I've been reading every post on every page, and I can't follow your alleged points. But here's what I've put together:
And nothing is being violated.
specific rules and rulings are not generally applicable, at all. General rules are generally applicable. The ruling in the SAC is not a general rule, it’s not even in the right place in the SAC if it were a general ruling (that would be the class features section under Rogue)
that’s not a rule. It’s not RAW, not RAI, and isn’t even in the SAC entry you seem to not be able to drop. That entry says a weapon attack can trigger sneak attack, it in no way says that only a weapon attack can.
it depends on the question being asked, which was about GFB
Ah, now you see, I gave you the link that would google "circular logic" for you. My bad, I thought you could use the link. I won't make that kind of assumption again.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.
You succinctly sum up the argument everyone keeps making.
My point is that the type of attack also matters. Its why spell attacks with weapons like Steel Wind Strike do not proc sneak attack, but spells that employ weapon attacks like booming blade do. As per official ruling, a weapon attack is required, not just that a weapon be present in some vague way.
Yeah except what we are saying is that A (magic stone works with these abilities) is true because of B (the RAW which does not limit those abilities to weapon attacks only), and you are saying that it is untrue because of 3 (unrelated SAC ruling that is both being misunderstood and is not applicable to A or B). We are saying that 3 isn’t applicable.
Oh, now you're getting disrespectful. Not cool, man, not cool.
Look, Sneak Attack doesn't explicitly call for a weapon attack. Just look at the wording.
See? All it says is, "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." If the intent was to limit it to just a weapon attack, then it would say so. Like it does with the paladin's Divine Smite.
It's fine if you want to interpret Sneak Attack as only applying to weapon attacks and not a potential spell attack made with a weapon. As a DM, that is your prerogative. But it isn't RAW.
Again, if you want to decide the Sage Advice Compendium isn't RAW, then we are just discussing totally different rules; the ones that exist and the cherry picked ones you want to consider official. So there is no point in us discussing it.
I guess you just got in, so you missed where I cited the official ruling that spells that use weapons only work with sneak attack if they include a weapon attack. If official rulings, written and published, are not "RAW," then that is my bad, Im mixing up RAI and RAW.
I’m not saying that (though it is, by it’s own definition, rulings, not rules). I’m saying the ruling you are using to defend your position is not applicable to the discussion occurring because 1) it is not a general ruling, 2) it isn’t about the spell in question and 3) the ruling in question is an inclusive statement about weapon attacks (rather than an exclusive one) that does not state a requirement, only an option
For real? it doesn't even look like Kronzy even read the SAC entry.
What does that say? Does it say that it changes the normal requirements for the feature? Because the normal requirements do not prohibit the attack from being a spell attack.
A ranged spell attack would be any effect that called for a ranged spell attack that can use a weapon. If that weapon is finesse or ranged, Sneak Attack will apply, like Magic Stone's ranged spell attack delivered with a sling.
1 exemple is enought. Magic Stone and any other game element that would use a weapon or spell attack that can be delieved with a finesse or ranged weapon. But if you refute Magic Stone, i don't see why you wouldn't refute any other we could find so it's not worth it.
I see this now as either Kronzy can either 1) accept this ruling isn’t applicable and go back to the actual rules for Sneak Attack, or 2) continue saying the ruling is applicable but recognizing that the ruling actually allows it since it points back to the original rule as you have pointed out.
or 3) ignore this in a futile attempt to avoid being wrong
The ruling says nothing of the sort. The ruling says that these particular spells use weapon attacks instead of spell attacks, with the associated bonus for those attacks. It also says that those weapon attacks are eligible for sneak attack if they meet the requirements for sneak attack. Nowhere does it say that sneak attack requires a weapon attack, only an attack with a weapon.
Ok, lets take this point by point
1. You say its not a general ruling. I would point out that no such distinction exists. All the rulings are made according to existing rules. We are allowed to go off the reservation at our tables for the sake of what is fun (I've already said I would just let magic stones work with all these features and consider making the damage scale like other cantrips). But there is no place where a different set of rules become operative. Its all one set.
2. This goes back to point one.
3. On this point I am actually a bit perplexed. The ruling says the blade cantrips work with sneak attack because, aside from all the other requirements, it makes a weapon attack. Now that seems pretty exclusive of non-weapon attacks. And as we have discussed, there is no example or explicit rule that contradicts that.
Just a straight reading of the Sneak Attack description lays out the broader, vaguer version of the rule, but this ruling makes clear what "an attack with a weapon" means; a weapon attack.
I think it comes down to a philosophical disagreement on the place of rulings and the rules. I see rulings as exacting applications of the rules, and therefore showing core rules at work. You see them as distinct from the core rules.
I would only add that for an official ruling to be distinct from the core rules in its application would be for it to become errata and a part of the core rules anyways. Like the errata on shield master that seems to otherwise violates the other rules on when actions and bonus actions can be taken.
I got quotes!
No, I've been here. I've seen you go on for several pages, confusing Sage Advice (a collection of rulings from the designers, outlining their intent) with errata (changes to the actual printed text for future reprintings).
You are interpreting that Sneak Attack must use a weapon attack, and cannot possibly use a spell attack, even though the text does not explicitly call for a weapon attack. The only requirement is that the attack utilizes a melee weapon with the finesse property or a ranged weapon. That said, technically, you can also have a ranged weapon with the finesse (i.e. the dart), but that distinction is meaningless in the context of this discussion.
And, to be clear, it's fine if you interpret or decide to rule that way when you run your games. The rules, as written, say what they're supposed to say. It's just a rules interaction that most tables won't come across. Just like how tables that don't have a rogue with the Thief roguish archetype won't find anyone throwing an acid vial as a bonus action. (BTW, Tavern Brawler lets them add their proficiency bonus to the attack roll, and they always add their Dexterity modifier to the damage roll.)
The majority of tables won't have to worry about it. But, for the few that do, knowing how these wordings interact merely open up new options. Can a druid use it like a ranged shillelagh? Sure thing! Can they pass them off to a rogue, who can then get Sneak Attack with magical ammunition that does magical bludgeoning damage? Why not? Can a halfling fighter get upwards of three attacks per round with them? So long as they're using a sling and have the transmuted bullets, the answer is "yes".
I'm only going to be answering parts if this reply that have not already been answered more than once:
And other than those one and a half sentences, nothing you said in this post has been answered less than twice per page. Literally every point you just tried to make has been refuted a 6 or more times each since you started this thread to argue, and you have just been changing the argument to ignore them.