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.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Correct, I would not have the Dueling fighting style provide bonus damage because an improvised ranged weapon - what a longsword becomes when you throw it - is not a melee weapon.

The reasoning being entirely that the feature is keyed to a category of weapon, and if not considering becoming an improvised weapon as changing that there are results that I find to be odd - like how if you consider a longbow a ranged weapon even when used as an improvised weapon to make a melee attack, the Archery fighting style would apply to that melee attack despite what I feel is clear intent not to benefit melee.

 

[jaelis]

The reasoning being entirely that the feature is keyed to a category of weapon, and if not considering becoming an improvised weapon as changing that there are results that I find to be odd - like how if you consider a longbow a ranged weapon even when used as an improvised weapon to make a melee attack, the Archery fighting style would apply to that melee attack despite what I feel is clear intent not to benefit melee.

Yes, and I would let the archery bonus apply. But I'm fine with that, because if you are a true master of the bow then I don't mind if you're good at using it even in unconventional ways. (And of course, even with that bonus, you would still be better off using a sword. You're just more competent at using a bow as an improvised weapon than a non-master-archer.)

I think the strongest point in my favor is that an object's nature shouldn't depend on what you are doing with it. Is the longsword still a melee weapon when it is lying on the ground? When it is in your scabbard?

I think the strongest argument against my reading is that its not entirely clear why you wouldn't apply your proficiency bonus in this kind of case. (Not that I think you should, it's just not made clear in the rules.)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Throwing a longsword...

While the language is somewhat ambiguous, I would say the "best" interpretation of the text would be that you use Dex with it.

However, I think that is neither the best way to actually run game, nor is it designer intent. My guess is that designer intent (and definitely how I'd run it) for throwing a longsword is:

Attack: Str mod (no proficiency); Damage: 1d8 + Str mod; Rang 20/60

Compare that to a hand axe, where you do add your proficiency. Or in other words, the rule could have just said that if you throw something without the thrown or finesse property, you use Strength but don't get your proficiency bonus.

When it comes to a longbow, I think the intent is that smacking someone with a longbow uses Str mod (and no proficiency).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think the strongest point in my favor is that an object's nature shouldn't depend on what you are doing with it. Is the longsword still a melee weapon when it is lying on the ground? When it is in your scabbard?

It doesn't depend on what you are doing with it - it depends on using it as something it is not intended to be used as.

 

[Hriston]

Dueling style damage bonus when throwing a melee weapon: No, you are not then wielding the weapon.

Dueling style damage bonus when hitting with the pommel of a longsword: Yes, why not?

Archery style bonus damage when making a melee attack with a bow: Yes, the bow is a ranged weapon and you are making an attack with it.

I don't believe a weapon becomes an improvised weapon when used in a way for which it wasn't intended. Any weapon is already an improvised weapon given that it is an "object you can wield in one or two hands," therefore it cannot become an improvised weapon, nor does it stop being the type of weapon it already is.

I don't see anything in the rules to suggest that a weapon's type is transmuted depending on what you do with it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Dueling style damage bonus when throwing a melee weapon: No, you are not then wielding the weapon.

That's a house rule, given the clarification found here: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/03/does-the-dueling-style-apply-to-a-thrown-melee-weapon/

I don't believe a weapon becomes an improvised weapon when used in a way for which it wasn't intended. Any weapon is already an improvised weapon given that it is an "object you can wield in one or two hands," therefore it cannot become an improvised weapon, nor does it stop being the type of weapon it already is.

I don't see anything in the rules to suggest that a weapon's type is transmuted depending on what you do with it.

You are taking the rules statement that you quote out of context. In context, that statement describes what, besides things that are already weapons, can be an improvised weapon.

Not only is there context showing that the statement isn't intended the way you are taking here, but it is followed soon after with "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon" which again shows that things that are already weapons are not always improvised weapons.

As for what in the rules suggests that a weapon's type is transmuted if used in a way it isn't designed for (which is distinctly different than being "transmuted depending on what you do with it") - If it weren't the case, then the phrase "If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property" would not be found under the heading "Improvised Weapons"

But it is, so said uses of weapons must be Improvised Weapons because that is how formatted information works.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

That's a house rule, given the clarification found here: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/03/does-the-dueling-style-apply-to-a-thrown-melee-weapon/

Thanks! I'd been wondering what the ruling was on that, since the text seems to imply that dueling style would work on a thrown hand axe (for instance). I think I asked on Twitter myself a while ago and got no response.

 

[Hriston]

To me, an interesting case to consider is the rock attack used by giants. Now I know that PCs operate under a slightly different set of assumptions from NPCs, but taking the Hill Giant as an example, it's clear this is a Ranged Weapon Attack that uses Strength. It's also clear the Hill Giant is proficient with rocks, which is not surprising considering that monsters are generally assumed to be proficient with their attacks. Theoretically, it could be the Hill Giant is proficient with improvised weapons, but I don't think that's what's going on here. Rather, it seems to me the rock is a weapon with which proficiency is available to Hill Giants, but is it a melee weapon or a ranged weapon?

The use of Strength would suggest the rock is a melee weapon with the thrown property, but no melee attack is listed for it. It could be that Hill Giants simply prefer their greatclubs for melee, saving their rocks for foes at range, but I don't think so.

I think rather that the rock is a ranged weapon with the finesse property, similar to the dart used by PCs. Hill Giants use Strength because they'd rather have +8 to hit and do 21 points of damage than have +2 to hit and do 15 points of damage (or the fictional equivalent).

If a PC were to pick up a suitably sized rock and throw it in imitation of the Hill Giants how would you adjudicate it?

Personally, I would start with the fact that for the PC proficiency with rocks is unavailable without a feat, so no proficiency bonus would apply. Secondly, I'd give the rock the finesse property so the PC could use a choice of Strength or Dex. Thirdly, the rock would do 1d10 bludgeoning, the damage of the Hill Giant's attack scaled down for a medium creature, 1d8 if the PC is small.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I would go an entirely different route with the whole rock situation. Starting with that I would acknowledge that the rock attack listed for giants is not in any way, shape, or form beholden to anything even resembling the rules that PCs are meant to adhere to; It is an entirely contrived attack given stats for no reasons other than "It feels right for giants to be dangerous when throwing rocks."

Then, the question of a PC throwing a rock. The standard improvised weapon rules work just fine for me (dexterity mod to the attack roll, 1d4 + dexterity mod bludgeoning damage, 20'/60' range). Any greater damage sought from PC usage of rocks would like fall entirely outside the normal attack rules and involve interaction with the environment (and as a result, include some reference to the improvising damage table from the DMG).

 

[Hriston]

That's a house rule, given the clarification found here: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/03/does-the-dueling-style-apply-to-a-thrown-melee-weapon/

Thanks for the clarification. I had misgivings when I wrote that, but was interpreting "wielding" in the sense of "holding and using". Using a looser definition, as Crawford has, seems more balanced with the other fighting styles, and I'll certainly adjudicate it that way in the future.

You are taking the rules statement that you quote out of context. In context, that statement describes what, besides things that are already weapons, can be an improvised weapon.

I don't think so. That statement clearly says that any wieldable object is part of the category of improvised weapons. Am I to believe that actual weapons are not objects?

Not only is there context showing that the statement isn't intended the way you are taking here, but it is followed soon after with "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon" which again shows that things that are already weapons are not always improvised weapons.

The existence of some improvised weapons that merely resemble actual weapons does not preclude other improvised weapons from actually being actual weapons.

As for what in the rules suggests that a weapon's type is transmuted if used in a way it isn't designed for (which is distinctly different than being "transmuted depending on what you do with it") - If it weren't the case, then the phrase "If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property" would not be found under the heading "Improvised Weapons"

That's only a problem if you consider actual weapons and improvised weapons to be mutually exclusive. I do not.

But it is, so said uses of weapons must be Improvised Weapons because that is how formatted information works.

Yes, I've been saying all along that they're improvised weapons. That doesn't mean they're no longer melee weapons or ranged weapons.