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.
The Sage Advice nor Sneak Attack make any exclusion of spell attacks so there's nothing to contradict. The advice mention it because it discuss spells making melee weapon attack specifically.
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.
The ruling does not say that, it says that the attacks being part of spells does not disqualify them from being sneak attacks.
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.
But what does "use a weapon" mean? My hexblade can use his hex weapon as an arcane focus for the somatic component of most spells. Can he then Eldritch Smite through Eldritch Blast?
Can a Paladin with their emblem on their sword and the firebolt cantrip from their race do the same? It is a spell attack that "uses a weapon."
This is why the core rules of spell attack vs weapon attack are operative even when they are not directly called to in the 2015 player handbook's original class feature descriptions.
Edit: also, one example isn't enough. That is circular logic, using your interpretation of Magic Stone as evidence for your interpretation of Magic Stone.
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.
But what does "use a weapon" mean? My hexblade can use his hex weapon as an arcane focus for the somatic component of most spells. Can he then Eldritch Smite through Eldritch Blast?
no…just no. That ability requires a hit with a weapon attack (from their pact weapon). “Weapon attack” is a subset of “attacks made with a weapon” they aren’t the same.
Can a Paladin with their emblem on their sword and the firebolt cantrip from their race do the same? It is a spell attack that "uses a weapon."
no, see above, divine smite requires a “weapon attack” too
This is why the core rules of spell attack vs weapon attack are operative even when they are not directly called to in the 2015 player handbook's original class feature descriptions.
You do realize that attacks exist that aren’t either of those right? It’s not exactly an either/or dichotomy, special versions exist all over the place
But what does "use a weapon" mean? My hexblade can use his hex weapon as an arcane focus for the somatic component of most spells. Can he then Eldritch Smite through Eldritch Blast?
Can a Paladin with their emblem on their sword and the firebolt cantrip from their race do the same? It is a spell attack that "uses a weapon."
This is why the core rules of spell attack vs weapon attack are operative even when they are not directly called to in the 2015 player handbook's original class feature descriptions.
Edit: also, one example isn't enough. That is circular logic, using your interpretation of Magic Stone as evidence for your interpretation of Magic Stone.
"use a weapon" would be anytime a game element mention it's delivered with a weapon.
Neither Eldritch Blast nor Fire Bolt mention it's delivered with a weapon.
It's not circular logic. Sneak Attack works with spell attack because it only mention attack. Nothing in Magic Stone prevent it from working with Sneak Attack so it does. So would any other spell attack delivered with a ranged or finesse weapon.
no…just no. That ability requires a hit with a weapon attack (from their pact weapon). “Weapon attack” is a subset of “attacks made with a weapon” they aren’t the same.
You "use" your weapon in the attack and it hits. Just based on the vague feature description, it works.
no, see above, divine smite requires a “weapon attack” too
The Paladin's smite is worded differently though to actually require a certain kind of attack, a melee weapon attack. It is precise language.
You do realize that attacks exist that aren’t either of those right? It’s not exactly an either/or dichotomy, special versions exist all over the place
Some explicit exceptions exist, but everything else does fall into those categories. An explicit exception to the rules is just another part of the rules (like the bladesinger's extra attack working with a cantrip now).
no…just no. That ability requires a hit with a weapon attack (from their pact weapon). “Weapon attack” is a subset of “attacks made with a weapon” they aren’t the same.
You "use" your weapon in the attack and it hits. Just based on the vague feature description, it works.
read that one again. It requires a hit with your pact weapon. That means explicitly an attack with the weapon, not a spell (which would not be a hit with the weapon, unless said spell granted or required an attack with a weapon, like MS, GFB, or BB)
no, see above, divine smite requires a “weapon attack” too
The Paladin's smite is worded differently though to actually require a certain kind of attack, a melee weapon attack. It is precise language.
so why did you use it as an example then, if you knew it was wrong?
You do realize that attacks exist that aren’t either of those right? It’s not exactly an either/or dichotomy, special versions exist all over the place
Some explicit exceptions exist, but everything else does fall into those categories. An explicit exception to the rules is just another part of the rules (like the bladesinger's extra attack working with a cantrip now).
There are a lot of exceptions, unarmed strikes being a big one
The Paladin's smite is worded differently though to actually require a certain kind of attack, a melee weapon attack. It is precise language.
Divine Smihe requires a melee weapon attack and the use of a weapon as well. Unarmed Strike doesn't work with it for exemple, despite being a melee weapon attack since it isn't a weapon.
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.
But what does "use a weapon" mean? My hexblade can use his hex weapon as an arcane focus for the somatic component of most spells. Can he then Eldritch Smite through Eldritch Blast?
Can a Paladin with their emblem on their sword and the firebolt cantrip from their race do the same? It is a spell attack that "uses a weapon."
This is why the core rules of spell attack vs weapon attack are operative even when they are not directly called to in the 2015 player handbook's original class feature descriptions.
Edit: also, one example isn't enough. That is circular logic, using your interpretation of Magic Stone as evidence for your interpretation of Magic Stone.
Eldritch Smite requires the target to be hit with the warlock's pact weapon. Since, in your hypothetical, eldritch blast is being used, instead, Eldritch Smite does not apply. And fire bolt doesn't have a material component, so the sword is wholly irrelevant to the attack. This isn't hard. You just have to read.
There is no circular logic, here. These are two things interacting together. The spell magic stone can be used to transmute magical ammunition for a sling. Much in the same way that shillelagh transmutes a club or quarterstaff. Both are cast with a Bonus Action. Both allow for attacks with a weapon. Both are compatible with Extra Attack. And magic stone, despite being used for a ranged spell attack, can still meet all the verbatim requirements for Sneak Attack.
Yes. As long as that attack is available to be made with the attack action and doesn't depend on another action to be made, nothing about the attack action or extra attack exclude spell attacks from being used (neither do a few other features so read the rules closely).
Magic stone might be the only example of this available to players without using the shapechange spell.
I hope that helps you figure out anything you didn't know, OP. And if only 1 person is arguing against everyone else, that person is probably wrong so try not to let their arguments confuse you.
Yes. As long as that attack is available to be made with the attack action and doesn't depend on another action to be made, nothing about the attack action or extra attack exclude spell attacks from being used (neither do a few other features so read the rules closely).
Magic stone might be the only example of this available to players without using the shapechange spell.
Totally.
I hope that helps you figure out anything you didn't know, OP. And if only 1 person is arguing against everyone else, that person is probably wrong so try not to let their arguments confuse you.
This is a fallacy. 100% false. A single person can be correct when in a room filled with flat earthers, for example. Just because someone is the lone holdout on a position doesn't make them wrong. Facts don't care about popularity. They just are true or not, regardless how many people know them.
Yes. As long as that attack is available to be made with the attack action and doesn't depend on another action to be made, nothing about the attack action or extra attack exclude spell attacks from being used (neither do a few other features so read the rules closely).
Magic stone might be the only example of this available to players without using the shapechange spell.
Totally.
I hope that helps you figure out anything you didn't know, OP. And if only 1 person is arguing against everyone else, that person is probably wrong so try not to let their arguments confuse you.
This is a fallacy. 100% false. A single person can be correct when in a room filled with flat earthers, for example. Just because someone is the lone holdout on a position doesn't make them wrong. Facts don't care about popularity. They just are true or not, regardless how many people know them.
Not to start something but with this forum and these participants, this is closer to a lone flat-earther in a room with a bunch of globe-earthers (I originally wanted to say astrophysicists, but thought that might be thinking too highly of ourselves). In the context of this thread, Dx is right
Is this the point where we discuss how the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature does interact with spells?
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
What's the question? It lets you cast a cantrip with the Attack action instead of the Cast A Spell action, but most rules that interact with spellcasting don't actually care what action you're using to perform the casting. The only thing that's dubious about it is that they didn't specify the cantrip has to have a casting time of 1 action.
You do realize that attacks exist that aren’t either of those right? It’s not exactly an either/or dichotomy, special versions exist all over the place
Some explicit exceptions exist, but everything else does fall into those categories. An explicit exception to the rules is just another part of the rules (like the bladesinger's extra attack working with a cantrip now).
There are a lot of exceptions, unarmed strikes being a big one
Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, they are not attacks with weapons. I am not actually aware of any attacks that aren't either spell attacks or weapon attacks.
You do realize that attacks exist that aren’t either of those right? It’s not exactly an either/or dichotomy, special versions exist all over the place
Some explicit exceptions exist, but everything else does fall into those categories. An explicit exception to the rules is just another part of the rules (like the bladesinger's extra attack working with a cantrip now).
There are a lot of exceptions, unarmed strikes being a big one
Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, they are not attacks with weapons. I am not actually aware of any attacks that aren't either spell attacks or weapon attacks.
There are none.
So all attacks fit within one of 4 categories: melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee spell attack, ranged spell attack.
Almost completely unrelated to that, an attack can be "made with a weapon" or with no weapon, and that weapon might have is own properties which could trigger further abilities or effects (like finesse or ranged for Sneak Attack). That then gives us 8 possible sub-categories. Here are some examples:
1 Melee Weapon Attack - With a Weapon: a normal sword attack, the attack made with Booming Blade using a mace, an attack with Shillelagh or Shadow Blade.
2 Melee Weapon Attack - Without a Weapon: an unarmed strike, hitting with some improvised object.
3 Ranged Weapon Attack - With a Weapon: shooting a crossbow, throwing a dagger, the attacks granted by the spell Swift Quiver.
4 Ranged Weapon Attack - Without a Weapon: splashing an Acid Vial, chucking a random object.
5 Melee Spell Attack - With a Weapon: no examples I can think of.
6 Melee Spell Attack - Without a Weapon: most melee spell attacks like Shocking Grasp or the attacks granted by Flame Blade.
7 Ranged Spell Attack - With a Weapon: Magic Stone when fired from a sling (no other examples exist)
8 Ranged Spell Attack - Without a Weapon: most every ranged spell like Eldritch Blast or Fire bolt, also Magic Stone when thrown by hand.
So Sneak attack can only work with attacks from categories 1, 3, 5 and 7 - and only if the weapon is ranged or finesse. Magic Stone is the only example we have of category 7, so it is inherently unusual.
The OP's issue here is that they do not recognise the existence of these 8 sub-categories, and they think that only the four I listed first exist. They are then reading rules and rulings that relate to Weapon Attacks, and are thinking that these apply to "attacks with a weapon" and vice versa.
There are a lot of exceptions, unarmed strikes being a big one
Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, they are not attacks with weapons. I am not actually aware of any attacks that aren't either spell attacks or weapon attacks.
There are none.
I seem to recall there was a special action of a pet, class feature, spell, or item, something, that had a typo not specifying if it was a spell or weapon attack. Can't remember what it was or if it got errata'd.
It doesn't explicitly say that it uses a specific type of action because the spell was published in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion, which was a free giveaway, and has never had ANY of its poorly written spells errataed!
(Actually, I think some EEPC spells were errata'd when they were reprinted in XGtE.)
Yup. You can find the changes in the Princes of the Apocalypse errata document (Elemental Evil Player's Companion is a free subset of PotA.) Some spells had substantial rewrites (see: Watery Sphere.) WotC doesn't release errata until it can be printed in a physical book, so including old content in new books gives them an opportunity to make changes.
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.
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).''
Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, they are not attacks with weapons. I am not actually aware of any attacks that aren't either spell attacks or weapon attacks.
There are none.
This is false - Plaguescarred correctly gave an excellent example. Unless a trap specifies otherwise, it is neither a weapon attack nor a spell attack, even if it makes an attack, although of course this may be a rules error in practice, like with any other rule.
Note that "weapon attack" is not defined in any rules source other than the SAC. I know there are people on this forum with Views on that, so to avoid getting sidetracked, let's be clear: outside of the SAC, "weapon attack" has no definition and it means what your DM wants it to mean, and we can't have a meaningful conversation about its RAW definition, which it hasn't got. The SAC definition, regardless of what you think of it, is an attack made with a weapon or an attack made with an unarmed strike (this latter rule is in the PHB, not just the SAC). An attack made with a trap is neither - so for example, the Bear Trap in Xanathar's is neither, RAW. Hence, it is not a weapon attack.
Spell attack also has no definition, so spell attack usually boils down to "an attack is a spell attack if and only if you're told it's a spell attack" (because that's how the rules usually work - a wossname is only a thingy if you're told it's a thingy). That's why we don't need to have any sort of discussion about the melee weapon attack made as part of Booming Blade or Green-flame blade being a spell attack or not - it's not defined as an attack made with a spell, so there's simply no source of rules confusion. Since Bear Traps don't claim to be a spell attack at any point, they're not considered spell attacks.
So all attacks fit within one of 4 categories: melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee spell attack, ranged spell attack.
Well, I just went through how an attack can be neither a weapon attack nor a spell attack. It's also the case that there's no rule saying an attack can't be both, but the only case I know of where this matters is Magic Stone, the only source in the game of something that tells you to make a spell attack with a weapon, which by definition qualifies as a spell attack and a weapon attack simultaneously.
Melee vs ranged is a separate discussion:
Melee attacks are either any attack whose range is defined by your reach or they work like spell attacks, where an attack is melee if and only if you're told it is, and melee attack implies reach, instead of reach implying melee attack. If anyone knows of RAW clarifying which it is, I'm keen on reading it (and I accept SAC as RAW, for the record).
If you want to subcategorise attacks further, you can:
Since a weapon attack is an attack made with a weapon, and weapons in the weapons table are typed, you can subcategorise accordingly, giving you:
An attack made with a melee weapon, which by definition is a weapon attack made with a melee weapon. For example, attacking someone with a [item]dagger[/dart].
An attack made with a ranged weapon, which by definition is a weapon attack made with a ranged weapon. For example, attacking someone with a dart.
Note that some weapons are intrinsically unclear on this, typically improvised ones, because improvised weapons have no rules for typing them. Here are some examples from the PHB; this list is not exhaustive:
Acid (vial), holy water, torch (weapon attacks where you can't tell if it's a ranged weapon or a melee weapon, and the attack deals damage on hit)
Alchemist's fire and oil (weapon attacks where you can't tell if it's a ranged weapon or a melee weapon, and the attack has no listed rules for dealing damage on hit)
So the possibilities are myriad, but many don't come up - for example, we've never been told to make a ranged melee attack, so we don't need to try and figure out what the heck that would mean. Here's every possibility with a real example I know of:
Not a spell attack, not a weapon attack, not a melee attack, not a ranged attack: Bear Trap, Xanathar's
Spell attack, not a weapon attack, melee attack, not a ranged attack: Shocking Grasp
Spell attack, not a weapon attack, not a melee attack, ranged attack: Fire Bolt
Not a spell attack, weapon attack with a melee weapon, melee attack, not a ranged attack: Stabbing someone with a dagger.
Not a spell attack, weapon attack with a melee weapon, not a melee attack, ranged attack: Throwing a dagger at someone.
Not a spell attack, weapon attack with a ranged weapon, melee attack, not a ranged attack: Stabbing someone with a dart.
Not a spell attack, weapon attack with a ranged weapon, not a melee attack, ranged attack: Throwing a dart at someone.
Not a spell attack, weapon attack with a weapon which is not listed as melee or ranged, melee attack, not a ranged attack: hitting someone in melee with a torch.
Not a spell attack, weapon attack with a weapon which is not listed as melee or ranged, not a melee attack, ranged attack: hitting someone with a thrown flask of oil/fire or a thrown vial of acid/holy water.
Spell attack, weapon attack with a ranged weapon, not a melee attack, ranged attack: Firing a magic stone from a sling.
Special mention: a DM could decide a thrown rock is an improvised weapon, i.e. that when you throw a magic stone, it's still an attack made with a weapon. That would get you this:
Spell attack, weapon attack with a weapon which is not listed as melee or ranged, not a melee attack, ranged attack: Throwing a magic stone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Sage Advice nor Sneak Attack make any exclusion of spell attacks so there's nothing to contradict. The advice mention it because it discuss spells making melee weapon attack specifically.
The ruling does not say that, it says that the attacks being part of spells does not disqualify them from being sneak attacks.
But what does "use a weapon" mean? My hexblade can use his hex weapon as an arcane focus for the somatic component of most spells. Can he then Eldritch Smite through Eldritch Blast?
Can a Paladin with their emblem on their sword and the firebolt cantrip from their race do the same? It is a spell attack that "uses a weapon."
This is why the core rules of spell attack vs weapon attack are operative even when they are not directly called to in the 2015 player handbook's original class feature descriptions.
Edit: also, one example isn't enough. That is circular logic, using your interpretation of Magic Stone as evidence for your interpretation of Magic Stone.
no…just no. That ability requires a hit with a weapon attack (from their pact weapon). “Weapon attack” is a subset of “attacks made with a weapon” they aren’t the same.
no, see above, divine smite requires a “weapon attack” too
You do realize that attacks exist that aren’t either of those right? It’s not exactly an either/or dichotomy, special versions exist all over the place
"use a weapon" would be anytime a game element mention it's delivered with a weapon.
Neither Eldritch Blast nor Fire Bolt mention it's delivered with a weapon.
It's not circular logic. Sneak Attack works with spell attack because it only mention attack. Nothing in Magic Stone prevent it from working with Sneak Attack so it does. So would any other spell attack delivered with a ranged or finesse weapon.
You "use" your weapon in the attack and it hits. Just based on the vague feature description, it works.
The Paladin's smite is worded differently though to actually require a certain kind of attack, a melee weapon attack. It is precise language.
Some explicit exceptions exist, but everything else does fall into those categories. An explicit exception to the rules is just another part of the rules (like the bladesinger's extra attack working with a cantrip now).
read that one again. It requires a hit with your pact weapon. That means explicitly an attack with the weapon, not a spell (which would not be a hit with the weapon, unless said spell granted or required an attack with a weapon, like MS, GFB, or BB)
so why did you use it as an example then, if you knew it was wrong?
There are a lot of exceptions, unarmed strikes being a big one
Divine Smihe requires a melee weapon attack and the use of a weapon as well. Unarmed Strike doesn't work with it for exemple, despite being a melee weapon attack since it isn't a weapon.
Eldritch Smite requires the target to be hit with the warlock's pact weapon. Since, in your hypothetical, eldritch blast is being used, instead, Eldritch Smite does not apply. And fire bolt doesn't have a material component, so the sword is wholly irrelevant to the attack. This isn't hard. You just have to read.
There is no circular logic, here. These are two things interacting together. The spell magic stone can be used to transmute magical ammunition for a sling. Much in the same way that shillelagh transmutes a club or quarterstaff. Both are cast with a Bonus Action. Both allow for attacks with a weapon. Both are compatible with Extra Attack. And magic stone, despite being used for a ranged spell attack, can still meet all the verbatim requirements for Sneak Attack.
I'm going to go back to the root of this discussion then drop it.
"Can a spell attack benefit from Extra Attack?"
Yes. As long as that attack is available to be made with the attack action and doesn't depend on another action to be made, nothing about the attack action or extra attack exclude spell attacks from being used (neither do a few other features so read the rules closely).
Magic stone might be the only example of this available to players without using the shapechange spell.
I hope that helps you figure out anything you didn't know, OP. And if only 1 person is arguing against everyone else, that person is probably wrong so try not to let their arguments confuse you.
Totally.
This is a fallacy. 100% false. A single person can be correct when in a room filled with flat earthers, for example. Just because someone is the lone holdout on a position doesn't make them wrong. Facts don't care about popularity. They just are true or not, regardless how many people know them.
I got quotes!
Not to start something but with this forum and these participants, this is closer to a lone flat-earther in a room with a bunch of globe-earthers (I originally wanted to say astrophysicists, but thought that might be thinking too highly of ourselves). In the context of this thread, Dx is right
Is this the point where we discuss how the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature does interact with spells?
I got quotes!
What's the question? It lets you cast a cantrip with the Attack action instead of the Cast A Spell action, but most rules that interact with spellcasting don't actually care what action you're using to perform the casting. The only thing that's dubious about it is that they didn't specify the cantrip has to have a casting time of 1 action.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, they are not attacks with weapons. I am not actually aware of any attacks that aren't either spell attacks or weapon attacks.
There are none.
So all attacks fit within one of 4 categories: melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee spell attack, ranged spell attack.
Almost completely unrelated to that, an attack can be "made with a weapon" or with no weapon, and that weapon might have is own properties which could trigger further abilities or effects (like finesse or ranged for Sneak Attack). That then gives us 8 possible sub-categories. Here are some examples:
1 Melee Weapon Attack - With a Weapon: a normal sword attack, the attack made with Booming Blade using a mace, an attack with Shillelagh or Shadow Blade.
2 Melee Weapon Attack - Without a Weapon: an unarmed strike, hitting with some improvised object.
3 Ranged Weapon Attack - With a Weapon: shooting a crossbow, throwing a dagger, the attacks granted by the spell Swift Quiver.
4 Ranged Weapon Attack - Without a Weapon: splashing an Acid Vial, chucking a random object.
5 Melee Spell Attack - With a Weapon: no examples I can think of.
6 Melee Spell Attack - Without a Weapon: most melee spell attacks like Shocking Grasp or the attacks granted by Flame Blade.
7 Ranged Spell Attack - With a Weapon: Magic Stone when fired from a sling (no other examples exist)
8 Ranged Spell Attack - Without a Weapon: most every ranged spell like Eldritch Blast or Fire bolt, also Magic Stone when thrown by hand.
So Sneak attack can only work with attacks from categories 1, 3, 5 and 7 - and only if the weapon is ranged or finesse. Magic Stone is the only example we have of category 7, so it is inherently unusual.
The OP's issue here is that they do not recognise the existence of these 8 sub-categories, and they think that only the four I listed first exist. They are then reading rules and rulings that relate to Weapon Attacks, and are thinking that these apply to "attacks with a weapon" and vice versa.
I seem to recall there was a special action of a pet, class feature, spell, or item, something, that had a typo not specifying if it was a spell or weapon attack. Can't remember what it was or if it got errata'd.
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.
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).''
This is false - Plaguescarred correctly gave an excellent example. Unless a trap specifies otherwise, it is neither a weapon attack nor a spell attack, even if it makes an attack, although of course this may be a rules error in practice, like with any other rule.
Note that "weapon attack" is not defined in any rules source other than the SAC. I know there are people on this forum with Views on that, so to avoid getting sidetracked, let's be clear: outside of the SAC, "weapon attack" has no definition and it means what your DM wants it to mean, and we can't have a meaningful conversation about its RAW definition, which it hasn't got. The SAC definition, regardless of what you think of it, is an attack made with a weapon or an attack made with an unarmed strike (this latter rule is in the PHB, not just the SAC). An attack made with a trap is neither - so for example, the Bear Trap in Xanathar's is neither, RAW. Hence, it is not a weapon attack.
Spell attack also has no definition, so spell attack usually boils down to "an attack is a spell attack if and only if you're told it's a spell attack" (because that's how the rules usually work - a wossname is only a thingy if you're told it's a thingy). That's why we don't need to have any sort of discussion about the melee weapon attack made as part of Booming Blade or Green-flame blade being a spell attack or not - it's not defined as an attack made with a spell, so there's simply no source of rules confusion. Since Bear Traps don't claim to be a spell attack at any point, they're not considered spell attacks.
Well, I just went through how an attack can be neither a weapon attack nor a spell attack. It's also the case that there's no rule saying an attack can't be both, but the only case I know of where this matters is Magic Stone, the only source in the game of something that tells you to make a spell attack with a weapon, which by definition qualifies as a spell attack and a weapon attack simultaneously.
Melee vs ranged is a separate discussion:
Melee attacks are either any attack whose range is defined by your reach or they work like spell attacks, where an attack is melee if and only if you're told it is, and melee attack implies reach, instead of reach implying melee attack. If anyone knows of RAW clarifying which it is, I'm keen on reading it (and I accept SAC as RAW, for the record).
Ranged attacks are similarly either any attack relying on sending projectiles to strike a target or an attack you're told is ranged and being ranged implies projectiles, where I'm not aware of any RAW clarity.
If you want to subcategorise attacks further, you can:
So the possibilities are myriad, but many don't come up - for example, we've never been told to make a ranged melee attack, so we don't need to try and figure out what the heck that would mean. Here's every possibility with a real example I know of: