Paul Farquhar
Legend
I believe it is correct that clerics get no attack roll cantrips. Magic Stone used to be a cleric spell in earlier editions.
D&D 5E Wizard archetype needed!
That is a good point. Hopeful WotC corrects that. Are there any Druid Cantrips with an attack roll?
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Yes: Thorn Whip, Produce Flame, Primal Savagery.
Yes.
No. The spell does not require an attack roll; it allows one. The primary function is to emulate the Light spell (not on the Druid's list), but it can be used as an attack.
Yes. This is in XGTE.
The absence of attack cantrips for clerics (and ranged attack cantrips for Druids) is one of my personal dislikes, but it was a choice they made and so far they have stuck with it. The wording of the feat allows them to make changes in the future.
Also, the Magic Domain allowed a Cleric to make attack rolls (not relevant for the Feat, though).
Paul Farquhar
Legend
It's rather splitting hairs - would you rule that Produce Flame cannot get it's ranged doubled with Spell Sniper because you can choose not to attack with it? In my experience, it's usually used as an attack, because someone else has Light.
The wording of the feat is wonky anyway, since it specifically says "You learn one cantrip that requires and attack roll. Choose the cantrip from the [cleric] spell list". Which is impossible.
Last edited:
I think that's clear, yes.
The feat is not intended for Clerics and Druids. It can be used by them in limited circumstances (High Elf Cleric, for example). In the same way, a Wizard can take the feat and learn Shocking Grasp, even though the cantrip cannot benefit from the other features of the Feat.
Yup, but it leaves room for them to add more, as they did with Primal Savagery.
As I said, I don't like the choice, but I think they've been rather consistent with the implementation.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Okay, excessively literal interpretation of loose wording is a valid interpretation of the rules, but there is absolutely nothing to suggest the feat "is not intended for clerics or druids". Given that the feat description specifically mentions clerics and druids, I don't see anything to that would give the slightest reason to suppose that it isn't intended for them. Clerics get higher level spells that have attack rolls, e.g. Guiding Light.
Personally, I don't think it would break anything to rule that it applies to any attack of the Ranged Spell Attack type.
True enough -- perhaps it would be better to say that Clerics get a substantially reduced benefit from the spell compared to bards, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards.
[
Personally, I agree, and it wouldn't break it to have it apply to attack cantrips with saves. But I do not believe that is what is intended.
We can disagree.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
I agree that any "Ranged Spell Attack" is not what was originally intended, but if a Sun Soul monk went to the trouble of picking up the feat to use with Radiant Sun Bolt I would be inclined to allow it.
However, I believe it is the original intent that it works with Produce Flame. You can cast it as an attack, and if you do so an attack roll is required. The fact that it can also be used as a light source is irrelevant.
Similar Threads
