Arcane Trickster question

[Svata]

It doesn't matter much in my case, as my DM has ruled I can, but I was wondering what tye official ruling was on getting Sneak Attack damage on spells. Can youdo it or not? Specifically ranged spells, but in general is ok, too. Also, for bonus points, would you allow it or not?

[Yorrin]

RAW no, since it requires a finesse weapon or ranged weapon and spells are not weapons in the technical sense.

At my table? Still no. While I might consider it for a player who was lagging behind it would set a bad precedent for those who are more optimally minded.

[EvilAnagram]

Yorrin has it. Blasting away with a fireball strikes me as being powerful enough without stacking sneak attack dice on top.

[Svata]

Well, arcane tricksters wouldn't get fireball till lv 16...

[Jlooney]

I'd rule it ok but only on spells that require an attack roll like scorching Ray. Never on a aoe spell or one that allows a save.

[Fwiffo86]

I'd rule it ok but only on spells that require an attack roll like scorching Ray. Never on a aoe spell or one that allows a save.

I would consider this as well. However, the AT has little options for damage dealing spells, being significantly limited to either damage dealing cantrips or 1-2 swap outs that don't fall into Illusion/enchantment. This goes a long way to reigning in the potential abuse.

[Shining Wrath]

The point of sneak attack dice, fluff wise, is that you can hit them where it hurts because you've caught them flat footed. If you want to say it matters that they didn't realize you were about to cast on them it implies that being able to respond to the attack by parrying or dodging or interposing a piece of armor would have reduced the damage of the attack.

So if a player really wanted AT sneak attack dice for spells, the trade might be that the attack roll is now against the target's full AC rather than touch AC. In a sense, you are "calling your shot" with the spell and hitting them in a tender spot. This also implies that spells with no attack roll, e.g., Fireball and other AoE spells, can't get surprise dice.

[Fwiffo86]

So if a player really wanted AT sneak attack dice for spells, the trade might be that the attack roll is now against the target's full AC rather than touch AC. In a sense, you are "calling your shot" with the spell and hitting them in a tender spot. This also implies that spells with no attack roll, e.g., Fireball and other AoE spells, can't get surprise dice.

Flatfooted, Touch AC, etc. is no longer a mechanic. But I understand your point.

[HugeC]

I've considered house-ruling that spells with attack rolls allow sneak attacks, but I'm a little leery of certain combos. Say, a rogue with a warlock 2 dip for Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast. That's a max of 4 attacks to get a sneak attack off in, as opposed to just 1 or 2 with a straight rogue. I dunno...

[Tiber]

While my table doesn't allow it, as a DM I could see getting sneak attacks with cantrips as being balanced, damage wise. For comparison, Ray of Frost does 1d8, and slows the target for a turn, whereas a longbow does 1d8+dex, and a rogue will probably have a better chance to hit with the bow.

[Shadow]

I've considered house-ruling that spells with attack rolls allow sneak attacks, but I'm a little leery of certain combos. Say, a rogue with a warlock 2 dip for Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast. That's a max of 4 attacks to get a sneak attack off in, as opposed to just 1 or 2 with a straight rogue. I dunno...

You could simply rule that arcane tricksters can only sneak attack with wizard cantrips that require an attack roll. That would exclude eldritch blast.

[Person_Man]

In addition to the Warlock problem, Sorcerer 6 can also add Cha bonus to damage on cantrips, and Eldrtich Knight Fighter 7 can use a cantrip + 1 attack (plus Action Surge).

Another option is to give Arcane Tricksters Ranger/Paladin spell progression, limited to a small number of DM approved spells known. That would give you more of a reason to play one, without breaking the basic damage math.

[Easy_Lee]

Why not just allow the rogue to make sneak attacks at range with mage hand legerdemain? Hand could carry a dagger and go stab somebody. That fixes the scaling cantrip problem and better fits the archetype's theme.

[Myzz]

If your just allowing for Arcane Trickster... which I'm Ok with they need Int, Dex and then Cha to use Eldritch Blast anyways... So, I'd say go ahead and let them use EB if they wanted to push that much into 3 stats they are paying the price elsewhere to do more dmg? Realistically its not more anyways... any finesse or ranged weapon can be upgraded to magic to increase dmg, and can have poison put on it to increase dmg, so a endritch blast with aganozing on it would be comperable not necesarily more.

Of course, you'd have to decide on whether ONLY Arcane Tricksters get to do this, and if so What makes them Arcane Trickster? as in how many levels? Highest character level? SO you dont have a Lock17/Rogue 3 dip for adding sneak attack die to his EB... OR just a pure Arcane trickster (no multiclassing)?

Personally I like the anyone can use it with cantrips that require a spell attack idea. Cantrips are supposed to be quick, easy, second nature spells. Or even Cantrips and using an Arcane Focus... The extra damage would be significant at lowerr levels, but not so much at later levels.

Sneak attack no longer feals like "Sneak Attack", more like finding and exploiting weaknesses , which I dont see why a person trainined in sneak attack would NOT be able to exploit using a spell.

just my 2cp,
Myzz

[Person_Man]

Why not just allow the rogue to make sneak attacks at range with mage hand legerdemain? Hand could carry a dagger and go stab somebody. That fixes the scaling cantrip problem and better fits the archetype's theme.

That's a very cool idea. I would totally allow it.