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.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

As far as the ranged/melee stuff, I'm not really sure what this article is trying to say. It definitely is more confusing than previous statements.

Before this article came out, this is how things had been clarified:

There are two types of weapon attacks:
1) Melee weapon attack
2) Ranged weapon attack

The way those statement are parsed is that they are "weapon attacks" that are either "melee" or "ranged." Nothing in those phrases directly references the nature of the weapon itself, because they aren't referring to weapons--the are referring to types of attacks. This is why a monk makes melee "weapon attacks", even though fists aren't considered weapons, because hitting something up close without using magic (which would be a melee "spell attack") is always a "weapon attack."

There are also two types of weapons.
1) Melee-weapons
2) Ranged-weapons

You can make a "melee-weapon attack", which is an attack with a melee-weapon.

So, "melee weapon attack" means a weapon attack made in melee. A "melee-weapon attack" means an attack made with a melee-weapon.

This is how it has been explained by Jeremy Crawford in the past.

The question is if he is still going with that interpretation, or doing something different with this Sage Advice--and if he is doing something different, what is it?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...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's all in the context.

Since that statement is all under the heading "Improvised Weapons," it is talking about when an object (even an object that happens to be a weapon already) is an improvised weapon. So when it says "uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property," it is saying, in context, that those are examples of improvised weapons.

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

I would say it is an improvised weapon. My saying that would also clarify that you wouldn't get a +2 bonus to this attack for having the Archery fighting style, since if I say this longbow is a ranged weapon despite being used as an improvised weapon that bonus would actually still apply.

..and if you throw a longsword then it is not a melee weapon at all.

Likewise, I would say this is an improvised weapon. My saying that would also clarify which bonuses do and don't apply so that there is no inconsistency of application concerning things which apply to a category of weapons.

 

[Hriston]

As far as the ranged/melee stuff, I'm not really sure what this article is trying to say. It definitely is more confusing than previous statements.

Before this article came out, this is how things had been clarified:

There are two types of weapon attacks:
1) Melee weapon attack
2) Ranged weapon attack

The way those statement are parsed is that they are "weapon attacks" that are either "melee" or "ranged." Nothing in those phrases directly references the nature of the weapon itself, because they aren't referring to weapons--the are referring to types of attacks. This is why a monk makes melee "weapon attacks", even though fists aren't considered weapons, because hitting something up close without using magic (which would be a melee "spell attack") is always a "weapon attack."

There are also two types of weapons.
1) Melee-weapons
2) Ranged-weapons

You can make a "melee-weapon attack", which is an attack with a melee-weapon.

So, "melee weapon attack" means a weapon attack made in melee. A "melee-weapon attack" means an attack made with a melee-weapon.

This is how it has been explained by Jeremy Crawford in the past.

The question is if he is still going with that interpretation, or doing something different with this Sage Advice--and if he is doing something different, what is it?

No difference, and there's nothing confusing about it. In fact, what you just said is exactly how he explains it in the article.

 

[jaelis]

As far as the ranged/melee stuff, I'm not really sure what this article is trying to say. It definitely is more confusing than previous statements.

Before this article came out, this is how things had been clarified:

There are two types of weapon attacks:
1) Melee weapon attack
2) Ranged weapon attack

The way those statement are parsed is that they are "weapon attacks" that are either "melee" or "ranged." Nothing in those phrases directly references the nature of the weapon itself, because they aren't referring to weapons--the are referring to types of attacks. This is why a monk makes melee "weapon attacks", even though fists aren't considered weapons, because hitting something up close without using magic (which would be a melee "spell attack") is always a "weapon attack."

There are also two types of weapons.
1) Melee-weapons
2) Ranged-weapons

You can make a "melee-weapon attack", which is an attack with a melee-weapon.

So, "melee weapon attack" means a weapon attack made in melee. A "melee-weapon attack" means an attack made with a melee-weapon.

This is how it has been explained by Jeremy Crawford in the past.

The question is if he is still going with that interpretation, or doing something different with this Sage Advice--and if he is doing something different, what is it?

I don't see that the latest post changes any of that. He's just laying out explicitly how ranged weapon and melee weapon attacks work, in terms of ability scores applied.

 

[Pauper]

The question is if he is still going with that interpretation, or doing something different with this Sage Advice--and if he is doing something different, what is it?

What seems to be happening is that Crawford is highlighting that the phrase 'melee attack' and 'ranged attack' by themselves are not game terms -- a character does not make a 'melee attack'. A character makes a melee weapon attack (with a melee weapon, a ranged weapon via the Improvised Weapon rules*, or with an unarmed strike -- which isn't a weapon), or a melee spell attack (with a spell). The presumption is thus that the type of attack determines which statistic you use for the attack and damage rolls, unless some other specific rule (such as finesse or two-weapon fighting) says otherwise.

* - This is why it's significant that Crawford notes that you add your proficiency bonus with a weapon with which you are proficient for melee weapon attacks and ranged weapon attacks. Most characters aren't proficient with improvised weapons, and thus some melee weapon attacks and ranged weapon attacks won't get the benefit of proficiency when made with an improvised weapon.

Based on the chart and the rules in the SRD, therefore, it's reasonable to rule that a character throwing a mace (a melee weapon without the Thrown property) would use Dexterity on the attack roll (since the attack is a ranged weapon attack), would not add proficiency (unless that character is proficient with improvised weapons), and would add Dexterity to the 1d4 damage roll (since the chart says you add your Dexterity modifier to the damage rolls of ranged weapon attacks).

Read 'ranged weapon attack' as 'ranged non-spell attack', and it might make more sense.

--
Pauper

 

[Hriston]

The truth of the matter is the four words in question: ranged, melee, weapon, and spell, are all modifying the word attack and are not directly related to each other. Of course the pairs melee/ranged and weapon/spell are mutually exclusive, so we end up with four distinct types of attack that each fall into two of the four broad categories of attack defined by these four words. There are rules that apply to each category individually.

 

[Hriston]

Perhaps this will help.

	Melee Attack	Ranged Attack
Spell Attack	Melee Spell Attack	Ranged Spell Attack
Weapon Attack	Melee Weapon Attack	Ranged Weapon Attack

There are general rules for each column and row. A specific rule, such as the thrown property, can create an exception.

 

[Faenor]

What about improvised?

 

[Faenor]

Aside from improvised, your table just isn't how it works because you can make a ranged attack with a melee weapon. There's the weapon type, and there's the kind of attack you make with it. You can make a ranged attack with a melee weapon if you throw it. It doesn't become a ranged weapon when you throw it, but it is a ranged attack. Its because weapon type and attack type are described in two different places in the PHB.

 

[Hriston]

What about improvised?

There is no improvised attack. You use an improvised weapon to make either a melee weapon attack or a ranged weapon attack.