Sage Advice: Jeremy Crawford on Ability Checks & What They're Not

A new Sage Advice column has arrived. In this one, Jeremy Crawford discusses ability checks and spellcasting. Questions include whether attack rolls and saves are basically ability checks (no), whether the hex spell's target has disadvantage on attacks and saves which use the chosen ability (no), whether the bard's Jack of All Trades feature applies to attacks and saves (no), and whether an ability check to grapple or shove is an attack roll (no).

He goes on to answer questions on spellcasting limits, lines of sight, and cantrip scaling.

Find the article here.

​

 

[Smoo]

If you can justify a barbarian having a wizard level, you can justify them practicing with that single spell a lot.

This is a perfectly rational argument. I may concede this point.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's only absurd with a rigid, non-intelligent DM. I assure you that I'm perfectly capable of handling that situation in a rational manner.

The designer can tell me how to run my games all he wants, as can you. I reserve the right to not listen.

Of course. I never meant to suggest otherwise.

 

[Smoo]

Of course. I never meant to suggest otherwise.

FYI, I added an edit that you may have missed since you already replied. Where are you getting this conclusion that it would cast for "0d6" damage? Nowhere in the text of, say, firebolt does it require the caster to be 1st level. If you can cast it, it does its base damage. If you're arguing RAW then that's not W anywhere.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

FYI, I added an edit that you may have missed since you already replied. Where are you getting this conclusion that it would cast for "0d6" damage? Nowhere in the text of, say, firebolt does it require the caster to be 1st level. If you can cast it, it does its base damage. If you're arguing RAW then that's not W anywhere.

*shrug* Look, I told you, "It can't possibly be zero." And yes, I meant "base zero" for cantrip damage as well. You demanded that I explain my logic, and I did, because I saw you were new on the forums and thought that might be a genuine question. If you're just looking for someone to argue with you, to tell you that you aren't allowed to play the game the way you like it, I'm not that guy. In RAW the issue doesn't come up at all because there are no 0th level PCs, but if you want to say "Fire Bolt scales by caster level, and barbarians cast at 0th caster level, but the base 1d10 always applies," knock your self out.

Fire Bolt
Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object withinrange. Make a ranged spell attack against thetarget. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. Aflammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn’t beingworn or carried.This spell’s damage increases by 1d10 when you reach5th level (2d10), 11th level (3d10), and 17th level (4d10).

 

[Jester David]

You have to action surge a cantrip, not a regular spell, due to the bonus action spell.

Ah, true. I had forgotten that the bonus action spell limit would still apply to the second action.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Good article but nothing new, if you include tweets, but I suppose this article formalizes things more. I can see arguments for cantrip scaling going either way, I assume they went with character level for balance/usefulness reasons.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Good article but nothing new, if you include tweets, but I suppose this article formalizes things more. I can see arguments for cantrip scaling going either way, I assume they went with character level for balance/usefulness reasons.

I assume the article is more for the benefit of people who don't read tweets, and to eventually make it more searchable for people who google "5E cantrips scale by level?" as people link to that article.

 

[sidonunspa]

That's only absurd with a rigid, non-intelligent DM. I assure you that I'm perfectly capable of handling that situation in a rational manner.

The designer can tell me how to run my games all he wants, as can you. I reserve the right to not listen.

ETA: By the way, I'm not even sure where you're getting this 0d6 business. Nowhere in the text of, say, firebolt, does it say that it only does its damage at 1st level. If you can cast it, it does damage. So are you just pulling rules from the ether?

easy.. because they don't want an ability to be completely worthless at a higher level, a cantrip you give up your entire action for one pew pew... at 20th level doing 1d8 = a wasted feat...

one of the design choices was that all abilities are"worth it" all the way up to 20th... and that includes cantrips.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

On the cantrip issue, it's also possible to describe the increased damage with level not as a more powerful cantrip, but a more practiced caster being more effective at applying an unchanging spell effect.

 

[Sunseeker]

On the cantrip issue, it's also possible to describe the increased damage with level not as a more powerful cantrip, but a more practiced caster being more effective at applying an unchanging spell effect.

I like this rationalization more than others, though arguably there are a variety of ways "more practiced" could be played out be it more destructive, more accurate, more often (it's at will but consider perhaps not that they are casting one stronger beam, but are casting multiple beams combined).