It is an area affect. P204: Spells such as burning hands and cone of cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once. Chain Lightning affects multiple creatures at once. It just has an atypical area of effect that doesn't conform exactly to the typical areas of effect listed on 204 and 205. The area of effect is one target and three other targets within 30ft of target 1.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Uncanny Dodge (Rogue)
- Thread starter maritimo80
- Start date
Read the rest of my post, in which I specifically call out invisibility as an example of where I think the "fuzzy" approach makes more sense.
Yes, I think it's fuzzy; and yes, I would rule that invisible dragonborn become visible when using their breath weapons. "Fuzzy" just means there is no hard and clear definition of where the line falls, so as DM I need to rule on a case by case basis. On breath weapons, I rule "it counts." On the spectrum of "very attack-like" to "not very attack-like," a breath weapon is a fair way toward the "attack-like" end.
Consider on the other hand a balor's fire aura. If you're within 5 feet of a balor, you fry at the start of its turn. Does that constitute an attack for purposes of breaking invisibility? Tough call. I'd probably rule "It doesn't count," on the grounds that the balor can't force people to take damage from the aura--it can move next to them, but they can move away on their turn before the damage triggers. If the aura triggered at the end of the balor's turn, that would nudge me toward "it counts," though I'd still have to give it some thought.
What if you set fire to a barrel of oil using a torch? Is that an attack? What if you tip the barrel over so that oil pours out and surrounds a creature, then set it on fire? What if you didn't know the creature was there when you did it? (Maybe you're not the only invisible person around...)
As I say, I prefer the fuzzy approach here, but I would not criticize a DM who chose to apply the bright-line "attack rolls only" definition to invisibility. I don't immediately see a way to abuse such a ruling; IIRC, dragonborn breath weapons aren't usable at will.
Here's the exchange:
[MENTION=80739]dorian[/MENTION]Hart [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls If a rogue sneak attacks, and before he goes again gets an attack from fighter's Commander's Strike, can he sneak attack again?
[MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls [MENTION=80739]dorian[/MENTION]Hart believe sneak attack is usable only on the rogue's turn
...
[MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls [MENTION=80739]dorian[/MENTION]Hart [MENTION=43039]KEvIn[/MENTION]Kulp pinned down by cat...can't reach PHB... But 1/turn would make it usable w/off turn attacks
[MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls [MENTION=80739]dorian[/MENTION]Hart [MENTION=43039]KEvIn[/MENTION]Kulp intent would be to avoid stacking with multiple attacks via multi classing
The way I read this is, Mearls was making the call from memory. He recalled (wrongly) that the PHB said usable only on the rogue's turn. For whatever reason, we can't see PirateCat's comment (I have never really grokked Twitter), but presumably PirateCat was quoting the PHB at him. Mearls then replied that if PirateCat was correct, you could use it on off turn attacks, and the main intent of the rule was that you shouldn't be able to stack Extra Attack with Sneak Attack.
Always important to remember that Mike Mearls is a fallible human being. He does not have the PHB memorized and every detail at his fingertips.
Uller
Adventurer
It's pretty clearly targeted. If someone is standing between the caster and the target, he/she will not be effected, unlike with lightning bolt or a dragon's breath weapon.
That's where I got it from.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?368534-Once-per-turn&highlight=Sneak+Attack
Here is the thread where Piratecat confirms that Mearls confirmed Sneak Attack is usable on another's turn. Makes sense too. Otherwise the rogue is going to fall behind other classes on damage quite often given he has no means to spike his damage. No Action Surge, No Smite, no nifty spells like the Ranger and Paladin to bonus action do extra damage. All the rogue has is his Sneak Attack. I completely understand not allowing it with multiple attacks. That would be too much. But allowing it with a reaction on another's turn limits it to two maximum sneak attacks in a round at the cost of a reaction, which limits the rogue's defensive options. It's opportunity cost. Use reaction for offense or keep it for defense.
Otherwise, the rogue would fall behind on damage at higher levels quite substantially, especially so in the hardest of fights. An action surging Great Weapon Fighter with a bless can dish some crazy damage as can a paladin smiting all out. A raging barbarian can take hits like no one else literally doubling his hit points while raging and still dealing amazing damage. Rogue getting an extra sneak attack with a reaction is small potatoes in the overall scheme of martial damage dealing.
Rogue is supposed to be a premiere damage dealer. I figure the person that wrote Sneak Attack had to have a way to get another in a round for the occasional damage boost. Otherwise rogue would be a middle of the pack at best damage dealer with less defense than his martial counterparts.
hawkeyefan
Legend
I think the important factor here is that it allows a Dex save for half damage rather than the secondary bolt has a specific target.
Uller
Adventurer
The primary bolt is targeted too. Evasion pretty specifically says it is for area effects. I agree that the designers probably intended it to be as the crunchy bit says and is for any effect that allows a dex save for half. But then they added that bit of color at the beginning. My point is, it's pretty easy to get off the rails when you limit your decisions as a DM to rules text and not to the plain meaning of words.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Read the post you replied to, which was edited WELL before your reply. You must have hit reply early, and then left it waiting to finish your response or something? (I edited at 11:45, you posted at 12:19...more than a half hour later).
hawkeyefan
Legend
Sure, and I get that. Each group should play it how they want. I personally will only allow UD against attacks that require an attack roll, and Evasion against any effect that allows a Dex save. I just think that's how it was intended to be, based on the wording in the book regarding attacks and effects that require saves, and also on how the more liberal interpretation of UD would render Evasion almost an afterthought.
