Arcane Trickster...

[DracoKnight]

Would the forum allow an Arcane Trickster to get Sneak Attack on spells?

[Callin]

They honestly dont need it. Besides they dont get many spells that deal damage.

[DracoKnight]

They honestly dont need it. Besides they dont get many spells that deal damage.

They get 2 cantrips of their choice and at certain levels they get spells from any school of magic. This is why I ask.

[Warwick]

Per RAW, the answer is no, since spells are not finesse or ranged weapons.

[JNAProductions]

I'd say no. Cantrips already scale well for damage, adding Sneak Attack on top is excessive. And any damaging spell is already better than (or should be better than) your normal attacks.

[Easy_Lee]

Not spells, no. Basic cantrips scale higher than individual attacks, and shocking grasp + SA is serious damage. On the other hand, you could create an AT-only cantrip that performs a basic attack and can apply SA, and I'd be cool with that. Better yet, just use Mage Hand Legerdemain to stab your distant foe with a carried dagger.

[EvanescentHero]

Not spells, no. Basic cantrips scale higher than individual attacks, and shocking grasp + SA is serious damage. On the other hand, you could create an AT-only cantrip that performs a basic attack and can apply SA, and I'd be cool with that. Better yet, just use Mage Hand Legerdemain to stab your distant foe with a carried dagger.

Pretty sure you can't use Mage Hand to make attacks.

[Easy_Lee]

Pretty sure you can't use Mage Hand to make attacks.

Not by RAW, but I'd allow it.

[Flashy]

Not by RAW, but I'd allow it.

Agreed. That's hardly unreasonable. It's across the board worse than just shooting someone with a normal ranged weapon.

[MrStabby]

Not spells, no. Basic cantrips scale higher than individual attacks, and shocking grasp + SA is serious damage. On the other hand, you could create an AT-only cantrip that performs a basic attack and can apply SA, and I'd be cool with that. Better yet, just use Mage Hand Legerdemain to stab your distant foe with a carried dagger.

Yeah, shocking grasp giving advantage vs metal armour - increasing crit chance - scaled cantrip damage and freeing up a bonus action as you wont need it to disengage is pretty good. Too good I think.

[Ashrym]

They could in playtesting and WotC deliberately took out cantrip sneak attacking because they felt it gave rogues too much damage compared to weapon using rogues. We had rogues picking up cantrips in order to get that bigger attack option.

I think arcane ambush covers sneak attack spells well enough because the weapon vs spell attack was valid and it's an arcane trickster, not an arcane blaster. ;-)

[EvanescentHero]

Not by RAW, but I'd allow it.

I thought it was straight-up disallowed, not simply unmentioned.

[PoeticDwarf]

Would the forum allow an Arcane Trickster to get Sneak Attack on spells?

A spell is NOT a ranged weapon or finesse weapon

[SharkForce]

and suddenly a 2-level warlock splash becomes mandatory for a rogue (and anyone who doesn't take arcane trickster is severely nerfing themselves if you limit this to that archetype), and is also the highest-DPR build in the game at pretty much all levels, at range, and with barely any resource cost whatsoever.

heck, even without agonizing blast, magic initiate in warlock would still be worthwhile for the 4 chances to hit with a higher base die than any rogue weapon, and apply their sneak attack.

[Ashrym]

Assassins can crit with cantrips from surprise (but not add sneak attack). A person might try a valor bard 14, assassin 4, warlock 2 and pick up eldritch blast as a magical secret to make it a bard spell.

That gives a pretty decent attack cantrip from stealth and allows the bonus action attack for a small additional sneak attack because of battle magic.

It's not something I have tried or given much thought, but if a high damage attack cantrip / magical rogue is the concept that might be a way to go. The sneak attack damage would be lower and the bigger damage bonus is only on surprise but battlemagic and more spell power would be pretty solid.

[MeeposFire]

Assassins can crit with cantrips from surprise (but not add sneak attack). A person might try a valor bard 14, assassin 4, warlock 2 and pick up eldritch blast as a magical secret to make it a bard spell.

That gives a pretty decent attack cantrip from stealth and allows the bonus action attack for a small additional sneak attack because of battle magic.

It's not something I have tried or given much thought, but if a high damage attack cantrip / magical rogue is the concept that might be a way to go. The sneak attack damage would be lower and the bigger damage bonus is only on surprise but battlemagic and more spell power would be pretty solid.

If you really want to do the weapon attack and cast spell thing and you are planning on using a cantrip it is probably better to go EK rather than bard. You get the cantrip+attack at level 7 which is much earlier and you can add more rogue levels to boot. SPlash two levels of warlock to get a great cantrip attack and you are set.

THe cost for the better damage is the relative lack of spells.

[Ashrym]

If you really want to do the weapon attack and cast spell thing and you are planning on using a cantrip it is probably better to go EK rather than bard. You get the cantrip+attack at level 7 which is much earlier and you can add more rogue levels to boot. SPlash two levels of warlock to get a great cantrip attack and you are set.

THe cost for the better damage is the relative lack of spells.

Weaker spell ability.

Going for reliable talent might be worth it, plus some other rogue abilities and an action surge, but I see 2nd-level spells vs 7th-level spells. I would prefer the better spells. Battlemagic also works with other spells, and not just cantrips.

I was also looking at an arcane trickster feel and EK spells don't match while bard spells can.

[DivisibleByZero]

Our table allows the following:

An Arcane Trickster may apply sneak attack damage with any Wizard cantrip that requires a Ranged attack roll, but if he does so, the cantrip does not scale with levels and occurs as if he cast it as a 1st level caster, regardless of his level.

So basically, the AT must choose whether to scale the cantrip's damage, or to not scale it and apply sneak attack.
This makes it similar to shooting a short bow, but with the loss of Mod to damage.
Only allowing Wizard cantrips to sneak attack blocks Eldritch Blast shenanigans with multiple attack rolls.
Only allowing ranged attack rolls blocks Shocking Grasp interaction shenanigans.
Not allowing the cantrip's damage to scale with sneak attack keeps damage dice where they were supposed to be.
Allowing the cantrip to be cast normally without sneak attack grants the AT a mediocre damage ability when sneak attack isn't an option.

This all keeps the feel of an AT where we think it should be, without breaking anything.

[DracoKnight]

Our table allows the following:

An Arcane Trickster may apply sneak attack damage with any Wizard cantrip that requires a Ranged attack roll, but if he does so, the cantrip does not scale with levels and occurs as if he cast it as a 1st level caster, regardless of his level.

So basically, the AT must choose whether to scale the cantrip's damage, or to not scale it and apply sneak attack.
This makes it similar to shooting a short bow, but with the loss of Mod to damage.
Only allowing Wizard cantrips to sneak attack blocks Eldritch Blast shenanigans with multiple attack rolls.
Only allowing ranged attack rolls blocks Shocking Grasp interaction shenanigans.
Not allowing the cantrip's damage to scale with sneak attack keeps damage dice where they were supposed to be.
Allowing the cantrip to be cast normally without sneak attack grants the AT a mediocre damage ability when sneak attack isn't an option.

This all keeps the feel of an AT where we think it should be, without breaking anything.

Thank you. This is honestly the most helpful thing so far.

[Easy_Lee]

Our table allows the following:

An Arcane Trickster may apply sneak attack damage with any Wizard cantrip that requires a Ranged attack roll, but if he does so, the cantrip does not scale with levels and occurs as if he cast it as a 1st level caster, regardless of his level.

So basically, the AT must choose whether to scale the cantrip's damage, or to not scale it and apply sneak attack.
This makes it similar to shooting a short bow, but with the loss of Mod to damage.
Only allowing Wizard cantrips to sneak attack blocks Eldritch Blast shenanigans with multiple attack rolls.
Only allowing ranged attack rolls blocks Shocking Grasp interaction shenanigans.
Not allowing the cantrip's damage to scale with sneak attack keeps damage dice where they were supposed to be.
Allowing the cantrip to be cast normally without sneak attack grants the AT a mediocre damage ability when sneak attack isn't an option.

This all keeps the feel of an AT where we think it should be, without breaking anything.

This works fine. 1d10+mod is the strongest any cantrip can get, no higher than a heavy xbow, but allows for some nifty stuff like a shocking sneak attack.

[EvanescentHero]

This works fine. 1d10+mod is the strongest any cantrip can get, no higher than a heavy xbow, but allows for some nifty stuff like a shocking sneak attack.

Poison Spray does a d12, but really, it hardly matters.

[SharkForce]

Poison Spray does a d12, but really, it hardly matters.

poison spray also is not an attack roll.

[Easy_Lee]

poison spray also is not an attack roll.

Right, it's a save (more reliable than an attack at early levels) so I figured it was out.

[Ashrym]

Right, it's a save (more reliable than an attack at early levels) so I figured it was out.

A monster with no save bonuses fails the save 60% of the time with loss as bonuses go up. Save proficiency isn't common but CON bonus is.

Hitting 13 AC orcs isn't exactly less reliable with the same ability score bonus at 65% accuracy. Of course, orcs have +3 CON bonus so weapons are much more reliable than saves at a 45% failure rate on those saves.

It depends on the monster. Hobgoblins and bugbears have better armor, goblins often have shields for AC 15 at 55% weapon accuracy. Most low level monsters have 13 AC or less: orcs, kobolds, sahuagan, skeletons, zombies, troglogytes, bandits, and wolves as examples.

Generally, attack rolls are more reliable, lot less, at early levels.

The arcane trickster, per the topic, attacks with advantage from stealth for more benefit, when applicable.

[Easy_Lee]

A monster with no save bonuses fails the save 60% of the time with loss as bonuses go up. Save proficiency isn't common but CON bonus is.

Hitting 13 AC orcs isn't exactly less reliable with the same ability score bonus at 65% accuracy. Of course, orcs have +3 CON bonus so weapons are much more reliable than saves at a 45% failure rate on those saves.

It depends on the monster. Hobgoblins and bugbears have better armor, goblins often have shields for AC 15 at 55% weapon accuracy. Most low level monsters have 13 AC or less: orcs, kobolds, sahuagan, skeletons, zombies, troglogytes, bandits, and wolves as examples.

Generally, attack rolls are more reliable, lot less, at early levels.

The arcane trickster, per the topic, attacks with advantage from stealth for more benefit, when applicable.

AC fluctuates a lot at low levels. Just taking a look at various beasts, we see that even at CR 1, AC is all over the place. Some even go up as high as 16+. Hitting 16 with a +5 bonus is only successful 50% of the time. But saves are (fairly) consistent across low level monsters. You don't see more than a few points difference. And even those +3 CON saves still fail half the time.

So it depends, but being able to choose is a benefit. Regardless, I'd rather dual wield or use crossbow expert and just attack whatever's near an ally. Two attacks are more dependable than one save. I also love the hell out of polearm rogues, but that's sadly not a thing (yet at least).

[EvanescentHero]

poison spray also is not an attack roll.

Oh, that's right. Nevermind then!

[Ashrym]

AC fluctuates a lot at low levels. Just taking a look at various beasts, we see that even at CR 1, AC is all over the place. Some even go up as high as 16+. Hitting 16 with a +5 bonus is only successful 50% of the time. But saves are (fairly) consistent across low level monsters. You don't see more than a few points difference. And even those +3 CON saves still fail half the time.

Range doesn't indicate what's common. Take another look. Most of those low level monsters are 13 AC and worse; a few get higher.

Claiming that saves are more reliable at low levels was an assertion that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[SharkForce]

Range doesn't indicate what's common. Take another look. Most of those low level monsters are 13 AC and worse; a few get higher.

Claiming that saves are more reliable at low levels was an assertion that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

unless of course, you're able to consistently target bad saves only. but i don't think anyone really has the spell selection to pull that off at low levels, and you can never pull it off using only cantrips at all as far as i'm aware.

which is all beside the point. the house rule that was posted requires a cantrip that uses a ranged attack roll, which is why i pointed out that poison spray uses a save anyways. it isn't suitable no matter whether it is reliable or not.

[Easy_Lee]

Range doesn't indicate what's common. Take another look. Most of those low level monsters are 13 AC and worse; a few get higher.

Claiming that saves are more reliable at low levels was an assertion that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Reliable - consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted.

If AC fluctuates, then attacking it is unreliable, as in inconsistent and not something you can always trust. If saves fluctuate less, and you still have a 50% chance of success even when they're high, then attacking them is more reliable. This is not a debate, it is a fact. And like I said, since you can make more attacks in a round than cast cantrips, I would still go with TWF or crossbow expert.

[Ashrym]

unless of course, you're able to consistently target bad saves only. but i don't think anyone really has the spell selection to pull that off at low levels, and you can never pull it off using only cantrips at all as far as i'm aware.

My example was targeting the bad save. That's why the first save failure percentage didn't include any bonus and demonstrated no superior reliability in landing an attack at those levels. Targeting weak saves becomes more reliable as DC's increase.

I was responding to an inaccurate assessment of saves vs attack rolls because it was inaccurate. Attacks are generally a higher accuracy at low levels.

I realize poison spray doesn't apply to sneak attack, but the question in the OP was if it should, at least as I read it.


Reliable - consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted.

If AC fluctuates, then attacking it is unreliable, as in inconsistent and not something you can always trust. If saves fluctuate less, and you still have a 50% chance of success even when they're high, then attacking them is more reliable. This is not a debate, it is a fact. And like I said, since you can make more attacks in a round than cast cantrips, I would still go with TWF or crossbow expert.

Saves fluctuate too because not all ability scores are equal, some have proficiency while others don't, and different spells target different saves.

If you are stating more control over avoiding a high defensive save then I agree with that. It doesn't take that long and save or suck AoE can make ground pretty fast. Attack rolls don't get a choice against defense so yup, agree on that.