Eldritch blast with sneak attack.

[Sarck]

Nevermind, I agree with Gloombunny. It says you need to be using a weapon from the dagger, crossbow, or sling weapon group. It does not say "implement". If it were to say simply using a dagger, crossbow, or sling, then that'd be cool. But no, it's saying a weapon, therefore the dagger needs to be used like a weapon. Which it is clearly not, as the power does not include the "Weapon" descriptor.

Edit: You do not need to ranged basic attack with Eldritch Blast for it to count as an attack that could potentially use Sneak Attack. I have no idea where you got that idea from. However, Eldritch Blast is invalid for the reasons Gloombunny and I stated.

 

[BendBars/LiftGates]

I also don't think you can do this. I don't think the rules explicitly allow sneak attacking with an Eldritch Blast, and I don't think it's a very convincing claim that the rules intend for this to be allowed. While an Eldritch Blast is a ranged basic attack, it is clearly not a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling.

But, if your DM is okay with it, then go for it. Personally, I'd be wary of letting a player do this. Both are strikers, but a warlock is balanced against the rogue's damage-dealing power with the assumption that a rogue can deal sneak attack damage and the warlock can deal curse damage.

 

[icarusfallz]

And this is just a cheap attempt to get around he rules. People love to bend them, to fit their own needs.

Holding a dagger is NOT the same as using it. You could get your sneak attack by stabbing with it, because stabbing with it is what the rules mean when they say you are "using" or "Wielding".

It's like the Bag o' Rats all over again.

 

[ff6shadow]

I'd allow it. He's only getting Sneak Attack once per encounter anways.

 

[Entropi]

>...i purchase a Pact blade at 680G

That's 680 gold + 10-40%.

Looks otherwise solid, by a strictly pedantic reading of the rules. Is it in the spirit of the rules? Was it intended? Meh, not so sure. But I'd probably allow it.

The rules don't state that Use = Stab. They should say what they mean and mean what they say. In this case, if it had of meant Stab, it should have said Stab. It said Use. Could mean 'use to attack'. Could mean 'use to channel a spell'. After all, he's not 'just holding' the dagger. He is using it - just not to stab with.

 

[Terwox]

I'd just let a warlock/rogue sneak attack with it whether they had a pact blade or not.

They're a warlock/rogue. Alternatively, you could have been a warlock/ranger, and just gotten hunter's quarry without any problems, for an extra 2d6 (assuming you hit twice) instead of 1d6 once under specific circumstances...

 

[icarusfallz]

The rules also don't say "Using an implement". When A pactblade is being used as an implement, it is not a weapon. That's why rods can't be used as weapons, to stop people from trying to stack things that should not be.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I'd allow it because it's once per encounter and does not seem to be overpowered.

It is unclear RAW if it is allowable or not, depending on how strictly you read them.

 

[Gloombunny]

I'd allow it because it's once per encounter and does not seem to be overpowered.

It is unclear RAW if it is allowable or not, depending on how strictly you read them.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[N0Man]

It doesn't work that way... You have to be using a legal weapon, with a power that uses the weapon keyword, in order to sneak attack.

Now if your DM wants to allow it, that's fine, but it's not the RAI, and it's a twisting and loose interpretation of RAW.

However, it would be legal to multiclass into Ranger for extra damage. There's nothing in the rules to prevent that.

Just change the fluff of the ability to represent something similar to a Sneak Attack and your golden. You'll get the same damage (though spread over your current turn and your next turn), and you don't have to come across as a rules weasel with your gaming group.