D&D 5E Sneak Attack with spells?

[Plaguescarred]

If no character ever drop to 0 once in a while, it's a game with low dangerosity. If on the other hand they frequently do, it's much grittier play. And there's middle ground somewhere. One way or another is fine as long as everyone is on the same page regarding gamestyle. The only issue i could see is if this wasn't properly communicated before game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Wrong on both accounts. First you are severely nerfing the character damaging you, especially if it takes away sneak attack. Assuming he still gets sneak attack you are cutting his damage output by about 25% and that starts the turn after you down the familiar. If they don't get SA you are cutting it by well over 70% depending on what tier you are in.

So you are stopping someone from damaging you.

Second you are taking that enemy out of the fight completely.

Saying you should only and exclusively attack the character damaging your is like saying when someone is shooting you IRL that you should try to punch him instead of trying to take his gun away and stop him from shooting you. In some limited cases that might be smart, but not in most cases.



I think this depends on the situation as well. Not killing a player in tier 2+ means he or she will almost always be brought back in the fight. As DM in a fight I will target downed players and I think that is what most would do IRL if their goal was to kill someone.

As a player a lot of the DMs I play with do not do this.

Again IRL you just knocked someone to the ground. You are confident that he is going to get back up and start attacking you again shortly. Usually you finish him off if you can.

That is where the distinction lies between a game where the DM is fighting the players using the monsters, or where the DM is roleplaying the monsters who are fighting the characters.

While most monsters will be aware that the small flapping thing is making it a little easier for the character to hit them, they may not be fully aware of the sneak attack mechanics that the character uses.

Likewise while some monsters might be willing to be injured to strike an opponent that is downed and no longer a current threat, most will engage the current threats trying to kill them, in the hopes of beating them and thus living.

I believe there is only 1 familiar that has this feature and as I said several turns ago, that does make the Owl somewhat more survivable in combat, but that is a unique case.

Nonetheless: my point stands: Most of the characters who use this tactic will have owl familiars.

Also an Owl is still going to die pretty regularly out of combat unless you banish him and if you do there is a high action cost to summoning him again in combat.

I don't believe that they are significantly more fragile than any other wizard familiar.

 

[Mordhau]

No it isn't and Crawford clarified it in Sage Advice I believe.

That is no guide to intention. Crawford's rulings are basically just legal advice.

That's where at, technical parsing of words in a game that is supposed to be based on natural language.

 

[Maxperson]

God I hate the whole concept of RAW. I've never seen anyone apply this, nor would I apply it myself. It doesn't make any sense and it's based off rules text that predates these kinds of cantrips anyway.

It makes perfect sense. You only get one action. The list of actions is in the PHB. If you use the cast a spell action, then you cannot take the attack action. To attack with the off hand, you must use the attack action. Basically it takes too much concentration/effort to cast the spell to also be able to attack with the off hand. I personally would not allow it to be done.

That said, I would not be upset by your house rule, either. I can see where the argument can be made to allow it to happen since you are making an attack as part of the cast a spell action and the off hand attack is a bonus action.

I'd like to know, though, how attacking with two weapons gives the rogue advantage. I haven't had a rogue yet in my games, so this hasn't come up.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

That is no guide to intention. Crawford's rulings are basically just legal advice.

That's where at, technical parsing of words in a game that is supposed to be based on natural language.

Even without Crawford's clarification, I'm not aware of any games that allowed off-hand attacks after casting a spell, such as with Green Flame Blade or similar, outside of a specific rule allowing it.

 

[Mordhau]

It makes perfect sense. You only get one action. The list of actions is in the PHB. If you use the cast a spell action, then you cannot take the attack action. To attack with the off hand, you must use the attack action. Basically it takes too much concentration/effort to cast the spell to also be able to attack with the off hand. I personally would not allow it to be done.

Attacking with an off-hand weapon is really complicated, but running away, withdrawing, or hiding are perfectly simple things that don't interfere with spellcasting one bit.

Perfectly intuitive.

 

[Maxperson]

Attacking with an off-hand weapon is really complicated, but running away, withdrawing, or hiding are perfectly simple things that don't interfere with spellcasting one bit.

Perfectly intuitive.

How do you run hiding in combat? You can't hide from something that can see you clearly, and it doesn't make sense to me that the creature can see you run behind the rocks, and then somehow be surprised enough for you to get advantage when you pop back out. It knows where you are, so you are only out of sight, you aren't really hidden.

I see rogues get sneak attack reliably by attack things that another party member is also attacking in melee.

 

[Dausuul]

I'd like to know, though, how attacking with two weapons gives the rogue advantage. I haven't had a rogue yet in my games, so this hasn't come up.

It doesn't, but it's functionally similar: You get to make two attack rolls, and if either one hits, you land your Sneak Attack.

(It's better than advantage in some ways; you have the potential to double your base damage. On the other hand, you don't get Sneak Attack automatically, so you have to pick a target with an ally next to it. Of course, if you can arrange to get advantage on your two-weapon attack, it's the best of both worlds.)

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn't, but it's functionally similar: You get to make two attack rolls, and if either one hits, you land your Sneak Attack.

(It's better than advantage in some ways; you have the potential to double your base damage. On the other hand, you don't get Sneak Attack automatically, so you have to pick a target with an ally next to it. Of course, if you can arrange to get advantage on your two-weapon attack, it's the best of both worlds.)

Thanks. The way folks were talking about it, it sounded like you needed advantage OR use two weapons. When you really need both or two weapons and the ally.

 

[ECMO3]

That is where the distinction lies between a game where the DM is fighting the players using the monsters, or where the DM is roleplaying the monsters who are fighting the characters.

While most monsters will be aware that the small flapping thing is making it a little easier for the character to hit them, they may not be fully aware of the sneak attack mechanics that the character uses.

This is complete nonsense, they know they are being distracted and the enemy is hitting them for vital damage, a lot more than his dagger typically would.

Reverse the situation and as DM describe in game what is happening to the players. Do you think they won't understand what is going on?

Likewise while some monsters might be willing to be injured to strike an opponent that is downed and no longer a current threat, most will engage the current threats trying to kill them, in the hopes of beating them and thus living.

They can't beat them as long as they live. Everyone needs to die in order for the monsters to win. If you refuse to actually kill someone that will never happen.

They are a current threat until they are dead that is the problem. IRL this happens all the time in shootings where shooters (both police and criminals) shoot people that are down multiple times before they move on to others.

I don't believe that they are significantly more fragile than any other wizard familiar.

An owl is significantly more fragile than an Gelatenous Ice Cube and marginally more fragile than a few others like a Tressym. But to your point, they are all fragile and will be killed by all sorts of things in tier 2, both in combat and out of combat.

Flyby or no flyby a familiar engaging in combat is going to die often. As I noted an Owl is a bit more survivable because of flyby, but a fireball is still going to kill him, save or not, while the cat that stayed 80 foot down the hall and waited until the fight was over will still be alive ..... until someone springs the trap on the alter and the poision gas that does 1d4 to everyone in the room kills him.