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.

 

[Faenor]

If you use a ranged weapon for a melee attack, then it's an improvised weapon because there is no rules saying you can use it for that. Otoh, there is a rule addressing using a melee weapon to use a ranged attack.

 

[Hriston]

Versatile means str or dex bonus. It doesn't mean it can be used as a finesse weapon. Is there any difference? I don't know.

A finesse weapon is one that can be used with either strength or dexterity. You get to choose. Now I'm certainly not arguing with the notion that a thrown handaxe uses strength while a thrown dagger uses the ability score of your choice, so I'm not exactly sure how this supports the assertion you seem to have made that thrown objects without the thrown property ought to be using strength instead of dexterity. Perhaps you should elaborate.

 

[Jabborwacky]

So by this article's logic, a Sun Soul Monk loses Radiant Sun Bolt in an antimagic field, but can still throw kamehamehas and use its 17th level ability?

Hmmmm...Something's not adding up right...

It all comes down to D&D lore and the old-school inspirations for the monk class. In D&D, even perfectly ordinary things are magical, because magic suffuses reality and holds everything together like a law of physics. Even a dead magic zone still has magic in it. Back on topic, the presence of magic effects what kinds of living things can exist (dragons) and what they can naturally do (breath fire).

Monks are not so much wielders of magic as they are toddlers learning to walk: They watch a tiger hunting to give them a new perspective on motion, or a monkey interacting with other monkeys. Then they go through the motions of what they think it would be like to move or act that way, resulting in a group of people thinking in four dimensions to everyone else's three when it comes to muscle coordination.

I know this is going to shock people, so I'll put it in bold for greater effect. The great esoteric mystery of how monks shoot ki-blasts is: They know how to flex their muscles just right. Yup, if you asked uncle storm fist how to "fus ro dah" like a pro, he'll tell you to do a regiment of exercise complimented with pretending to be a monkey. Then after fifty or so squats (it takes some people longer than others) you, too, will know how to fus ro dah like uncle!

However, the elemental fist and sun soul monks are not inspired from the same source. Those abilities are like elemental bending in Avatar or ninjutsu in Naruto. They are techniques that involve building up magic like a spellcaster to create a magical effect. Meanwhile, the ki blast is kind of like a one-inch punch: It may take an extraordinary person to pull it off, but the effect can be easily explained in terms of normal physics (at least in the world of D&D where magic permeates everything).

 

[jaelis]

I am going with Crawford's original confirmation that a melee weapon remains a melee weapon even when used in a ranged attack, and thus a ranged weapon remains a ranged weapon even when used in a melee attack (this ruling adds clarity http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/19/dagger-archery/).

That's all I am saying - the category of weapon doesn't change to match the type of attack being made

On this we quite agree.

... all thrown melee weapons attack with strength ...

On this we disagree, and I think the Sage does not agree with your interpretation.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

On this we disagree, and I think the Sage does not agree with your interpretation.

You are cutting off an important part of my statement, which is actually "all thrown melee weapons attack with strength, unless they have the finesse property."

And if you disagree with that full statement that is fine, but if you want me to agree that you are correct in doing so, I ask that you find me a single melee weapon that 1) can be thrown, 2) uses dexterity for the attack roll, 3) doesn't have the finesse property, and 4) doesn't require you to invoke any portion of the improvised weapons rules.

 

[jaelis]

You are cutting off an important part of my statement, which is actually "all thrown melee weapons attack with strength, unless they have the finesse property."

And if you disagree with that full statement that is fine, but if you want me to agree that you are correct in doing so, I ask that you find me a single melee weapon that 1) can be thrown, 2) uses dexterity for the attack roll, 3) doesn't have the finesse property, and 4) doesn't require you to invoke any portion of the improvised weapons rules.

Why #4?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Why #4?

Because the improvised weapon rules are specifically what happens when you step outside the weapon rules, making them clearly labelled as an exception.

Thus a ranged attack made by throwing a melee weapon that is not normally thrown, such as a long sword, is not actually a thrown melee weapon, but is an improvised ranged weapon.

It was more expedient, and clear what conditions I would accept, to say "don't include improvised weapons" than it would have been to not mention improvised weapons, let you say something like "That's easy, a thrown longsword," and then feel like I was being unfair or moving the goal on you when I said "a thrown longsword is an improvised thrown weapon or an improvised ranged weapon, not a thrown melee weapon, and even the improvised weapon rules say that much."

 

[jaelis]

Thus a ranged attack made by throwing a melee weapon that is not normally thrown, such as a long sword, is not actually a thrown melee weapon, but is an improvised ranged weapon.

Now, we just agreed a few posts ago that a melee weapon remained a melee weapon, regardless of how it is used.

"a thrown longsword is an improvised thrown weapon or an improvised ranged weapon, not a thrown melee weapon, and even the improvised weapon rules say that much."

I don't see that the improvised weapon rules say that. Well, it does call it an improvised thrown weapon, but that doesn't imply that it is no longer a melee weapon.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Now, we just agreed a few posts ago that a melee weapon remained a melee weapon, regardless of how it is used.

Until the specific (and I thought obvious, so I hadn't mentioned it) exception of it becoming an improvised weapon, yes, we did agree.

I don't see that the improvised weapon rules say that. Well, it does call it an improvised thrown weapon, but that doesn't imply that it is no longer a melee weapon.

It implies exactly that because "improvised weapon" is a category of weapon, just like "melee weapon" and "ranged weapon."

 

[jaelis]

Well, I like your previous statement better, that a weapon is what it is regardless of how you use it.

And I'm not sure how your logic would let you interpret a statement like "If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage." It sounds like you'd say that if you use a longbow to make a melee attack then it is not a ranged weapon at all, and if you throw a longsword then it is not a melee weapon at all. That would make the sentence nonsensical since it is talking about things that don't exist.