D&D 5E Sneak Attack with spells?

[Vince_Snetterton]

Well, no... in your game perhaps the balance would not be maintained and it'd be a bad idea. But it's kind of silly to make grand statements about the general D&D populace when you have no idea how they actually run their games.

Heck... most of the time most people on these boards can never agree on what the RAW actually is and they all interpret the language used to present the rules differently anyway. Which means everyone is running the game in such a wide range of so-called "RAW" that no one can state with any accuracy what is and isn't true in D&D anyways.

I find worrying about RAW to be a fool's errand. And I find worrying about other people's RAW to be even more foolish.

There is no "my RAW", and "other's people RAW". There is only one.

 

[Mordhau]

Sigh...read those cantrips again. Notice the M component. Then get back to us.

I don't know what point you think you're making because you won't say but it certainly sounds inconsequential.

I can't for the life of me see what balance issues would be caused by my arcane trickster sneak attacking with a ray of frost rather than a shortbow.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

I don't know what point you think you're making because you won't say but it certainly sounds inconsequential.

Shrug.....you want to screw up the game mechanics at your table, I can't stop you. Eventually, you would run into a DM that will set you straight about those particular cantrips, right quick. But....even though this is a necro'ed thread, it was based in a RAW question, so I am going to have to shoot you down before you spread misinformation to anyone who reads your comments.

Since you won't read the spells, I will point out the M component is an actual weapon with a value of at least 1 SP. That means that an actual weapon has to be used to proc Booming Blade. Because a weapon is actually used, then if the weapon is finesse, it can be also used in a Sneak Attack. But under no circumstances can spells be used for Sneak Attack, other than ones that involve an actual weapon.

 

[hbarsquared]

Don't forget damage type. Sneak attack damage is of the same type as the weapon that makes the attack.

So, a rogue with chill touch, eldritch blast, fire bolt, and/or ray of frost (I know they're from different spell lists, but feasible through feats/multiclassing), can deal several d6 of sneak attack damage of the necrotic, force, fire, or cold types. And switch between them whenever they want.

I don't think the extra die or two of the cantrip matters, but the sneak attack damage type does. And that's if you've already house-ruled to allow cantrips. If you open it up to any "ranged spell attack," then your rogue cam essentially select from any damage type, any time.

 

[Mordhau]

Shrug.....you want to screw up the game mechanics at your table, I can't stop you. Eventually, you would run into a DM that will set you straight about those particular cantrips, right quick. But....even though this is a necro'ed thread, it was based in a RAW question, so I am going to have to shoot you down before you spread misinformation to anyone who reads your comments.

Since you won't read the spells, I will point out the M component is an actual weapon with a value of at least 1 SP. That means that an actual weapon has to be used to proc Booming Blade. Because a weapon is actually used, then if the weapon is finesse, it can be also used in a Sneak Attack. But under no circumstances can spells be used for Sneak Attack, other than ones that involve an actual weapon.

Oh so you're saying it isn't currently rules legal to use a spell to do a sneak attack?

I would have assumed everyone knew that. I certainly didn't claim otherwise. I just said that it wouldn't hurt game balance to allow it. I would have thought that was obvious?

And please, try and make an effort to respond to posts less obnoxiously. This is the second time today you've responsed to me with unwarranted and unnecessary condenscension.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Don't forget damage type. Sneak attack damage is of the same type as the weapon that makes the attack.

So, a rogue with chill touch, eldritch blast, fire bolt, and/or ray of frost (I know they're from different spell lists, but feasible through feats/multiclassing), can deal several d6 of sneak attack damage of the necrotic, force, fire, or cold types. And switch between them whenever they want.

I don't think the extra die or two of the cantrip matters, but the sneak attack damage type does. And that's if you've already house-ruled to allow cantrips. If you open it up to any "ranged spell attack," then your rogue cam essentially select from any damage type, any time.

I have previously in this thread provided the math why allowing cantrips proc'ing Sneak Attack will break a game. I did not even bother to go over one huge other factor. Say it is a cantrip like EB, or a spell like Scorching Ray, where multiple attacks are rolled by an attacker.

Let's say our attacker has a +9 to hit, against an AC of 20, which means a 50% chance to hit. OK, that means that Sneak Attack also triggers 50% of the time, on a successful hit,

But presto chango, now say, with Scorching Ray, there are 3 separate attacks rolled (more with higher level spell). Suddenly, the chances of Sneak Attack triggering jump to 87.5%, from 50%.

There is one reason, and one reason only, that a player would push this kind of change to RAW, and it is not because it is "cool".

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Oh so you're saying it isn't currently rules legal to use a spell to do a sneak attack?

I would have assumed everyone knew that. I certainly didn't claim otherwise. I just said that it wouldn't hurt game balance to allow it. I would have thought that was obvious?

And please, try and make an effort to respond to posts less obnoxiously. This is the second time today you've responsed to me with unwarranted and unnecessary condenscension.

If you are interpreting this as condescension, that is only from your side. I am merely replying to someone who tells me my post is inconsequential. Oh, and altering the original post that triggered my response after I posted is a nice touch.

 

[Mordhau]

Scorching Ray is not a cantrip.

 

[Maxperson]

Not a fan of the slowly tightening noose on Rogue options.

As far as I can tell the restrictions are all flavor restrictions, so I allow SA on anything that makes an attack roll.

But aren't rogues the ones that most often end up in tightening nooses?

 

[Mordhau]

If you are interpreting this as condescension, that is only from your side. I am merely replying to someone who tells me my post is inconsequential.

Ok goodbye!