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.

 

[jaelis]

You can't. The only way to make a Melee Weapon Attack with a Ranged Weapon is to make an Improvised Melee Attack. The same goes for making a Ranged Weapon Attack with a Melee Weapon.

This assumes that an Improvised Melee Attack is not a type of Melee Weapon Attack. I haven't seen any basis for that distinction in the rules. And if it is different, then I don't know how to resolve an Improvised Melee Attack, like what stat do I add to attack and damage?

In addition, it ignores the existence of thrown melee weapons.

 

[seebs]

Oh, I'm sorry, that was someone else with the table.

But anyway, as soon as you say the rule makes an implication, then you are misunderstanding what rules are. The words of the rules are what's true. If the words don't say it, then it's not true.

Uh, no. That's not how rules work. Rules frequently imply things.

There are two different kinds of implication at issue. One is logically-implied in the sense that, "if both A and B are true, C follows logically", and if the rules say A and B, then C is also true. That kind definitely works in basically all rule systems. The other is connotational or gricean implication, where "you usually wouldn't say A unless B were true", and then if the rule says A, B may be "implied". And that's not totally reliable in rules interpretation, but it actually is true a lot of the time.

 

[seebs]

I agree with everything you say here except for the part where you say my table isn't how it works. My table doesn't make reference to weapon type, so most of what you say here is missing the point.

I don't think so. I think Feanor's right, in that since the *rules* reference weapon type rather than attack type, generally, a table that references attack type rather than weapon type is probably "not how it works".

 

[Noctem]

This assumes that an Improvised Melee Attack is not a type of Melee Weapon Attack. I haven't seen any basis for that distinction in the rules. And if it is different, then I don't know how to resolve an Improvised Melee Attack, like what stat do I add to attack and damage?

In addition, it ignores the existence of thrown melee weapons.

That's because thrown weapons have their own rules. The question wasn't about thrown melee weapons until you just brought it up. It was about making melee weapon attacks with Ranged Weapons and vice versa. Which isn't possible outside of Improvised Attacks. You're shifting the goal posts of the discussion.

 

[jaelis]

That's because thrown weapons have their own rules. The question wasn't about thrown melee weapons until you just brought it up. It was about making melee weapon attacks with Ranged Weapons and vice versa. Which isn't possible outside of Improvised Attacks. You're shifting the goal posts of the discussion.

The discussion is about making ranged weapon attacks with melee weapons. Which you can do, since a thrown melee weapon is a ranged weapon attack and it's a melee weapon.

Improvised attacks are also part of the discussion, since they can certainly involve melee or ranged weapons.

 

[Faenor]

read the words carefully and don't make up your own words to fill in. You make a ranged attack with a melee weapon. That's it. Stop there. Now, if you want to know what bonus to add to you ranged weapon attack, you read the section that describes that. But if you are using your melee weapon, the it is not a ranged weapon attack because it is not a ranged weapon. If it has the thrown property, then it stays the same weapon type. Otherwise it becomes An improvised weapon.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

[MENTION=6801315]Noctem[/MENTION], "Improvised attack" is not a term the rules use to my knowledge. The word "Improvised" doesn't actually appear, according to my ctrl+f of the basic player's rules, without being followed by either the word "weapon" or the words "thrown weapon."

Using an improvised weapon in an attack is either a Melee Weapon Attack (i.e. smacking a guy with a chair, or your longbow), or a Ranged Weapon Attack (i.e. throwing your longsword, alchemist's fire, or a brick at someone).

 

[Faenor]

It's neither a ranged weapon nor a melee weapon. It is an improvised weapon. You make a ranged attack or a melee attack with it, depending on the situation.

 

[jaelis]

It's neither a ranged weapon nor a melee weapon. It is an improvised weapon. You make a ranged attack or a melee attack with it, depending on the situation.

Are you specifically saying you make a "ranged attack" as opposed to a "ranged weapon attack", when you throw an improvised weapon? Because I don't think there are any rules for a generic "ranged attack."

Or are you saying that if you throw a longsword, it is no longer a melee weapon, but changes status to a third class, "improvised weapon"? And you make a ranged weapon attack with that improvised weapon? If so, I don't know anywhere that the rules or Sage directly contradicts that so I can't really argue against it. But it seem a bit convoluted to me. A longsword is listed in the equipment table as a melee weapon, I'd say that is what it is regardless of what situation it finds itself in.

 

[Noctem]

@Noctem, "Improvised attack" is not a term the rules use to my knowledge. The word "Improvised" doesn't actually appear, according to my ctrl+f of the basic player's rules, without being followed by either the word "weapon" or the words "thrown weapon."

Using an improvised weapon in an attack is either a Melee Weapon Attack (i.e. smacking a guy with a chair, or your longbow), or a Ranged Weapon Attack (i.e. throwing your longsword, alchemist's fire, or a brick at someone).

Fair enough but I feel that the context or the way it's being described is incorrect within the discussion of the thread, which is what I was trying to resolve. Apparently I didn't do a good job of it though hehe.