D&D 5E Sneak Attack with spells?

[darjr]

I remember him. Any idea why he left?

I do not. @Mouseferatu

 

[Vaalingrade]

But aren't rogues the ones that most often end up in tightening nooses?

Not anymore. The garrote hasn't even been things since 3.0!

 

[Mordhau]

Yep. I forgot the dex bonus to damage. It's 13(4.5x2 +4) to 11, so slightly more damage to single targets. You still have to be right next to the enemy, though, so it's much more dangerous to use than firebolt.

Edit: Also, if you crit with the firebolt you are doing 2d10 more damage, instead of 1d8. That just gets more pronounces at higher levels.

No it's 2d10 vs 2d8. All dice are multiplied.

 

[Horwath]

I have previously in this thread provided the math why allowing cantrips proc'ing Sneak Attack will break a game. I did not even bother to go over one huge other factor. Say it is a cantrip like EB, or a spell like Scorching Ray, where multiple attacks are rolled by an attacker.

Let's say our attacker has a +9 to hit, against an AC of 20, which means a 50% chance to hit. OK, that means that Sneak Attack also triggers 50% of the time, on a successful hit,

But presto chango, now say, with Scorching Ray, there are 3 separate attacks rolled (more with higher level spell). Suddenly, the chances of Sneak Attack triggering jump to 87.5%, from 50%.

There is one reason, and one reason only, that a player would push this kind of change to RAW, and it is not because it is "cool".

If sneak attack on cantrips(or any spell that is) will break your game, then I suggest that you ban Wizards, Bards and Clerics from your game. Possibly Druids and Paladins also.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't know what the confusion is about, you can quite explicitly Sneak Attack with Green Flame Blade/Booming Blade, provided that the weapon you're using to do so is finesse. Yes, it has the potential to unbalance your game, but it's legal RAW. No, it wouldn't work for any other spell, unless the spell is explicitly a weapon attack with a ranged/finesse weapon (so, a Shadow Blade would work, but something like Firebolt or Steel Wind Strike wouldn't).

 

[clearstream]

I think I'm sad. Am I reading correctly that a multiclassed rogue/caster (or arcane trickster) can't sneak attack with a ray? Since SA specifies finesse or ranged weapon?

I'm hoping I've missed something, but I fear not...

For one game session in mid-tier 2 we forgot the rule and played it that sneak attack could be used with cantrips that had a range. We quickly found that the problem is - as others have pointed out - that stacking the auto-scaling of cantrips with sneak attack for rogues is a bad idea.

It makes arcane trickster overshadow other subclasses (even more). Possible exception, soul blade, and soul blades don't scale... further implying that it is by design that sneak attack can't be used with cantrips.

 

[Mordhau]

For one game session in mid-tier 2 we forgot the rule and played it that sneak attack could be used with cantrips that had a range. We quickly found that the problem is - as others have pointed out - that stacking the auto-scaling of cantrips with sneak attack for rogues is a bad idea.

It makes arcane trickster overshadow other subclasses (even more). Possible exception, soul blade, and soul blades don't scale... further implying that it is by design that sneak attack can't be used with cantrips.

I think that's true. But then they went and allowed it with melee cantrips anyway.

Arcane Tricksters do overshadow other rogues. However, they don't overshadow other classes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There is no "my RAW", and "other's people RAW". There is only one.

Heh heh... oh yes. And that's why there was a single thread written when the game was first released back in 2014 that explained how the Stealth rules worked, and there's not been a single discussion or argument about RAW here on the boards about it ever since.

In truth, when you have rules written in naturalistic language you never get a single interpretation of how things are written, because everyone's reading comprehension is different. And people have spent thousands upon thousands of hours trying to convince others that their interpretation was "correct". So trying to double down on what you see is RAW is a pointless endeavor because some people just aren't going to believe you.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

I don't know what the confusion is about, you can quite explicitly Sneak Attack with Green Flame Blade/Booming Blade, provided that the weapon you're using to do so is finesse. Yes, it has the potential to unbalance your game, but it's legal RAW. No, it wouldn't work for any other spell, unless the spell is explicitly a weapon attack with a ranged/finesse weapon (so, a Shadow Blade would work, but something like Firebolt or Steel Wind Strike wouldn't).

Yes, you have it nailed. That is as precise an explanation as there is. There is a reason that the wording of Shadow Blade describes the weapon as having the Finesse feature. But there are some in this thread that can't accept that limitation on their Rogue and want to break the rules, then try to justify their actions.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, you have it nailed. That is as precise an explanation as there is. There is a reason that the wording of Shadow Blade describes the weapon as having the Finesse feature. But there are some in this thread that can't accept that limitation on their Rogue and want to break the rules, then try to justify their actions.

From the 5e DMG.

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

There are some in this thread that can't accept that the rules are not a limitation and that 5e is designed to be tinkered with and changed to suit the needs and desires of the DM/Group.