Sage Advice: Sneak Attacks, Breath Weapons, and Magic Weapons

The month's Sage Advice column by WotC's Jeremy Crawford covers the rogue's sneak attacks, ability modifiers to use with attack roles, and answers the questions "does anti-magic field work on a dragon's breath weapon?" (no), and "do magic weapons automatically give you bonus to both attack and damage rolls?" (only if it says so in the description).

The Sage Advice Compendium PDF has been updated to include this information. You can read the current column here.

 

[Hriston]

Also, I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone the sage advice column we are discussing is in part a clarification of which ability modifier to use with attack and damage rolls, so I would think the passage I quoted from PHB p 194 is the most relevant in the book for the discussion at hand. It certainly mirrors what Jeremy Crawford says in his article.

 

[Faenor]

You don't mention that you are only talking about modifiers to the roll when you are using words from the section about that, whert Jeremy is very clear about that. Taking wording from a section that talks about the roll and using it to define ranged attacks or melee attacks is backwards.

Also, I don't see that you've addressed my point about how your table doesn't include using a melee weapon to make a ranged attack.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think Sage Advice/Errata for this edition is half-arsed. It needs to paint a complete picture, and it simply does not.

It should explain:

# how the rule worked before
# exactly why that was a problem
# how the rule works now
# why that is an improvement

Moreover, I consider that Sage tweets must be destroyed.

(Twitter is an exceptionally poor platform for something like Sage Advice.)

 

[spectacle]

I think Sage Advice/Errata for this edition is half-arsed. It needs to paint a complete picture, and it simply does not.

It should explain:

# how the rule worked before
# exactly why that was a problem
# how the rule works now
# why that is an improvement

Moreover, I consider that Sage tweets must be destroyed.

(Twitter is an exceptionally poor platform for something like Sage Advice.)

Sage advice is not errata. Sage advice never changes any rules, it only clarifies how the writers intended them to be read. Sometimes that may be different from how many or even most players have been using the rule, but it's never actually a change.

So your proposed format is not appropriate for sage advice.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sage advice is not errata. Sage advice never changes any rules, it only clarifies how the writers intended them to be read. Sometimes that may be different from how many or even most players have been using the rule, but it's never actually a change.

So your proposed format is not appropriate for sage advice.

If there's any format not appropriate for Sage Advice, it's the current one.

 

[spectacle]

If there's any format not appropriate for Sage Advice, it's the current one.

Maybe so, but yours is even worse.

 

[Faenor]

I think some people take 'clarify' to mean change. This may be because they believe their incorrect reading of the rules was equally valid. But a clarification is only an explanation of what those words mean in other words. So then people rules lawyer on the new words as if they are the rules. The original rules are still the rules, and any clarification needs to be read in the context of the original words and any misunderstanding of the new words needs to refer back to the original. Both the original wording and the 'in other words' are true, or have to be true statements in regards to how you apply the rule to your game play.

 

[jaelis]

If there's any format not appropriate for Sage Advice, it's the current one.

Why do you say that? It's the same Q&A format Sage Advice has used as long as I've been aware of it.

 

[Hriston]

You don't mention that you are only talking about modifiers to the roll when you are using words from the section about that, whert Jeremy is very clear about that.

I didn't think I had to be since that is what the article we're discussing is about. My chart was meant to be an aid to understanding the terms that both Crawford and the passage I quoted from the PHB are using.

Taking wording from a section that talks about the roll and using it to define ranged attacks or melee attacks is backwards.

I don't think so. To understand what Crawford is saying, you need know that there are only two types of ranged attack (ranged spell attack and ranged weapon attack) and two types of melee attack (melee weapon attack and melee spell attack). Ignoring the section of the rules that explains those things does nothing to further the discussion.

Also, I don't see that you've addressed my point about how your table doesn't include using a melee weapon to make a ranged attack.

Yes it does. That would be a ranged weapon attack because you're making a ranged attack and you're not casting a spell to do it. The table isn't designed to explain this, however, so I can see where you might have been unable to read it based on your own assumptions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Moreover, I consider that Sage tweets must be destroyed.

You can do that right now.

Just Unfollow Jeremy Crawford on Twitter.