Spell Sniper on a Cleric

[Master O'Laughs]

In response to a recent thread about a Tempest Cleric and getting booming blade on them, I noted you could do it with the feat spell sniper and this would allow you to use booming blade at reach. I was curious though, while the cantrip is great on a cleric, spell sniper seems very underwhelming. It would work on booming blade and guided bolt from what I can gather.

Have I missed something, or is it really not worth it to use booming blade with a polearm on a cleric?

[Tanarii]

Pretty sure you cannot select Booming Blade or Greenflame Blade with Spell Sniper. Neither has an attack roll. They let you do a melee attack instead. That doesn't mean the attack roll for the melee attack is an attack roll for the spell.

For example, Wand of the War Mage or Rod of the Pact Keeper would not apply to the melee attack's attack roll with these two cantrips.

[DivisibleByZero]

Pretty sure you cannot select Booming Blade or Greenflame Blade with Spell Sniper. Neither has an attack roll. They let you do a melee attack instead. That doesn't mean the attack roll for the melee attack is an attack roll for the spell.

This one is going to come down to individual DMs.
Some will decide that the spell itself has no attack roll, and that the spell is channeled through a weapon, and that the weapon attack is not actually part of the spell itself.
Some will decide that the weapon attack is indeed a part of the spell.
Each DM will decide on his or her own, and without official ruling neither is wrong.

[Biggstick]

Pretty sure you cannot select Booming Blade or Greenflame Blade with Spell Sniper. Neither has an attack roll. They let you do a melee attack instead. That doesn't mean the attack roll for the melee attack is an attack roll for the spell.

For example, Wand of the War Mage or Rod of the Pact Keeper would not apply to the melee attack's attack roll with these two cantrips.

From the PHB, Spell Sniper has this as the text of it's third feature.

"You learn one cantrip that requires an attack roll. Choose the cantrip from the....etc etc."

Both Greenflame Blade and Booming Blade require an attack roll. You can't cast the spell without making an attack roll. It's simply not possible to cast either spell without an attack roll. In my mind this would mean GFB and BB require an attack roll.

SCAG text on GFB:

"As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails. etc etc."

I would see that text as confirming that the cantrip requires an attack roll.

[Master O'Laughs]

So let's assume, per sage advice, Spell Sniper allows one to use booming blade with a reach weapon and either through the feat itself or some other mean, the cleric has access to booming blade.

The bigger question I have is whether or not it is worth the feat?

Thinking about it, the feat itself, does not apply to many spells, besides booming blade or guiding bolt. Everything else for Cleric seems either a saving throw or touch attack.

[Tanarii]

So let's assume, per sage advice, Spell Sniper allows one to use booming blade with a reach weapon and either through the feat itself or some other mean, the cleric has access to booming blade. Id be interested in seeing that sage advice. I couldn't find it.


The bigger question I have is whether or not it is worth the feat?

Thinking about it, the feat itself, does not apply to many spells, besides booming blade or guiding bolt. Everything else for Cleric seems either a saving throw or touch attack.
IMO probably better off taking Magic Initiate and getting both booming blade and Greenflame blade.

[Willie the Duck]

I would see that text as confirming that the cantrip requires an attack roll.

Or, "technically," it is the melee attack that requires the attack roll, so it doesn't count. While some grammar twister will undoubtedly come by with the 'true' answer, I think it's safe to say that it is relatively debatable (and more debatable once you shift to Rules As Intended). The SCAG-attack-cantrips are add-ons invented after the PHB, they don't mesh seamlessly to the system any more than eldritch glaive did to the "attack" or "weapon" feats in 3e. If they wanted to, they should have included a nice box text next to them with "how do these spells interact with the rest of the system" information, clearing up this and other things (like did they intend for you not to be able to use your other hand to fight 2-weaponed or not). But they have a policy of Rulings not rules, so it is unneeded.

As to the OP question, I would say that this would be very expensive (feat-wise) for what you get.

[DivisibleByZero]

Id be interested in seeing that sage advice. I couldn't find it.

You couldn't find it because it doesn't exist. Hence the "let's assume" part. It was an hypothetical question.
Edit: my mistake. Apparently that has been answered in an official capacity. But still, any DM that doesn't follow Twitter action or sageadvice or does a ton of research won't know about it, and will rule as he or she feels fit. And those rulings will change from table to table.

[Master O'Laughs]

Id be interested in seeing that sage advice. I couldn't find it.


IMO probably better off taking Magic Initiate and getting both booming blade and Greenflame blade.

Here it is. It appears to be a twitter response posted on the website. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/10/does-spell-sniper-feat-grant-10-ft-range-to-touch-spells/

[Master O'Laughs]

I am not saying it allows booming blade to be selected at this point, but Jeremy Crawford states it does allow the cantrip to be used with a reach weapon.

[Tanarii]

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about the use with polearms. That does make Spell Sniper more useful to a particularly melee oriented Cleric. It's expensive feat-wise, but if you're going to invest in Str and PAM and maybe GWM anyway, might be worth it . Especially on a variant human. You'll be a one-trick pony ... except, you won't, because you're still a full caster Cleric as well. Albeit one with a Wis 14 or 16, which may limit your offensive spell choices.

(Edit: let's just drop the question of if you can or can't take BB, given you view it as a tangent to the main topic.)

[Biggstick]

Or, "technically," it is the melee attack that requires the attack roll, so it doesn't count. While some grammar twister will undoubtedly come by with the 'true' answer, I think it's safe to say that it is relatively debatable (and more debatable once you shift to Rules As Intended). The SCAG-attack-cantrips are add-ons invented after the PHB, they don't mesh seamlessly to the system any more than eldritch glaive did to the "attack" or "weapon" feats in 3e. If they wanted to, they should have included a nice box text next to them with "how do these spells interact with the rest of the system" information, clearing up this and other things (like did they intend for you not to be able to use your other hand to fight 2-weaponed or not). But they have a policy of Rulings not rules, so it is unneeded.

As to the OP question, I would say that this would be very expensive (feat-wise) for what you get.

Eldritch Blast text: A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage. (extra text regarding additional spell beams upon leveling)

Firebolt text: You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried. (extra text regarding additional damage upon leveling)

Both of these spells would be spells that I assume are potential choices for someone choosing Spell Sniper. Nowhere in there text does it say that one needs to make an attack roll. They simply state, "make a ranged spell attack.

The text from Spell Sniper only requires that the cantrip you choose to make an attack roll. It doesn't specify that the attack roll must be a spell attack.

I would say it's difficult for the Devs to think of every situation in which Players might try to adapt new material to what they already know. That's why they have Sage Advice for questions that can't be answered or agreed upon by the community.

[Willie the Duck]

I do not see how your response addresses my point. Spell Sniper has this as the text of it's third feature: "You learn one cantrip that requires an attack roll." I made mention that one could argue that the cantrips Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade do not require an attack roll. They require you to "make a melee attack," and it is the attack that requires you to make an attack roll. Thus, still debatable, which was my primary point.

And again, instead of closing every possible loophole (which has worked so well in the past :smallbiggrin:), they instituted a rulings-not-rules mentality, but also as you mention have the Sage Advice.

[Drackolus]

I would think magic initiate for the added familiar eould be much stronger. Unless your dm is mean to them.

[Biggstick]

I do not see how your response addresses my point. Spell Sniper has this as the text of it's third feature: "You learn one cantrip that requires an attack roll." I made mention that one could argue that the cantrips Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade do not require an attack roll. They require you to "make a melee attack," and it is the attack that requires you to make an attack roll. Thus, still debatable, which was my primary point.

And again, instead of closing every possible loophole (which has worked so well in the past :smallbiggrin:), they instituted a rulings-not-rules mentality, but also as you mention have the Sage Advice.

With that logic, Firebolt and Eldritch Blast do not require an attack roll, they require a ranged spell attack.

This ranged spell attack is what requires the PC to make an attack roll.

I'm simply using your own logic regarding the wording. Upon initially looking at the spells GFB and BB, I can understand how you might be confused. But I've plainly laid out how the wording of Firebolt, Eldritch Blast, GFB, and BB all fall sufficiently within the requirements of the Spell Sniper feat.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm simply using your own logic regarding the wording. Upon initially looking at the spells GFB and BB, I can understand how you might be confused. But I've plainly laid out how the wording of Firebolt, Eldritch Blast, GFB, and BB all fall sufficiently within the requirements of the Spell Sniper feat.

I'm not confused in the slightest. I'm saying that it is debatable. Which is why the rulings not rules paradigm is in effect.

[coredump]

I'm not confused in the slightest. I'm saying that it is debatable. Which is why the rulings not rules paradigm is in effect.

Its only debateable in the sense that anyone can debate anything


If you cast the cantrip, are you required to make an attack roll? Then the cantrip, by definition, requires an attack roll.

[Willie the Duck]

Its only debateable in the sense that anyone can debate anything


If you cast the cantrip, are you required to make an attack roll? Then the cantrip, by definition, requires an attack roll.

No, whether or not the downstream consequence of an eventual attack roll qualify as part of the cantrip is literally the point up for contention. What you are doing is begging the question. You are assuming that your case has been proven and using it as its' own support. I think Divisible had it right-

Some will decide that the spell itself has no attack roll, and that the spell is channeled through a weapon, and that the weapon attack is not actually part of the spell itself.
Some will decide that the weapon attack is indeed a part of the spell.
And I'm not seeing you or Biggstick actually back up an argument to the counter. Perhaps you see it as so obvious that it is hard to actually come up with a defense of your position, but then I would just call that an undefended position.

Now Mearls clarified it. But if it was inarguable, it wouldn't need clarification.

Suffice to say, it doesn't matter. Mearls has clarified, and OP says it doesn't matter what the truth is, he wants to know our opinions on the basis that it is the case.

In which case I still agree-BB or GFB on a polearm is that start of a really feat-heavy and expensive way to make a good martial character.

[Biggstick]

No, whether or not the downstream consequence of an eventual attack roll qualify as part of the cantrip is literally the point up for contention. What you are doing is begging the question. You are assuming that your case has been proven and using it as its' own support. I think Divisible had it right-

And I'm not seeing you or Biggstick actually back up an argument to the counter. Perhaps you see it as so obvious that it is hard to actually come up with a defense of your position, but then I would just call that an undefended position.

Now Mearls clarified it. But if it was inarguable, it wouldn't need clarification.

Suffice to say, it doesn't matter. Mearls has clarified, and OP says it doesn't matter what the truth is, he wants to know our opinions on the basis that it is the case.

In which case I still agree-BB or GFB on a polearm is that start of a really feat-heavy and expensive way to make a good martial character.

You're still disregarding what I presented earlier regarding Firebolt and Eldritch Blast. Neither of those spells say that you make an attack roll in the text of the spell. They only say make a ranged spell attack. Now these are spells that i would assume i can choose when I take the Spell Sniper feat. But if we look to your logic regarding the reading of the feat, we can't take either Firebolt or Eldritch Blast.

I don't know how you're fighting this point so hard when it's been presented so very clearly to you that Firebolt, Eldritch Blast, BB, and GFB all have the necessary verbiage within their spell description to qualify for being taken with the Spell Sniper feat.

[Biggstick]

In regards to the OP, i still think using Spell Sniper to pick up BB is a solid choice. Use a Whip instead of a Polearm, that way you can still use a Shield. Using a Whip with BB (from the Spell Sniper feat) means you only have to be within 10' of the enemy to hit them. This means you can step away from most medium sized creatures and force movement from them if they want to hit you with a melee attack.

[Master O'Laughs]

In regards to the OP, i still think using Spell Sniper to pick up BB is a solid choice. Use a Whip instead of a Polearm, that way you can still use a Shield. Using a Whip with BB (from the Spell Sniper feat) means you only have to be within 10' of the enemy to hit them. This means you can step away from most medium sized creatures and force movement from them if they want to hit you with a melee attack.

Wow, I feel like the whip is a weapon that is not given a lot of thought but on a cleric with BB or GFB it is really nice considering your main damage would come from the cantrip and divine strike itself. Thanks for the input.

It allows you to keep up your defense with a shield and also keeps you from the feat intensive trap of going PM and potentially GWM.

[Mortis_Elrod]

No, whether or not the downstream consequence of an eventual attack roll qualify as part of the cantrip is literally the point up for contention. What you are doing is begging the question. You are assuming that your case has been proven and using it as its' own support. I think Divisible had it right-

And I'm not seeing you or Biggstick actually back up an argument to the counter. Perhaps you see it as so obvious that it is hard to actually come up with a defense of your position, but then I would just call that an undefended position.

Now Mearls clarified it. But if it was inarguable, it wouldn't need clarification.

Suffice to say, it doesn't matter. Mearls has clarified, and OP says it doesn't matter what the truth is, he wants to know our opinions on the basis that it is the case.

In which case I still agree-BB or GFB on a polearm is that start of a really feat-heavy and expensive way to make a good martial character.

By your definition Spell Sniper does not give any at all. Not a single one. all the cantrips are either 'make X spell attack' or require saving throw and thus 'do not require an attack roll'. The only benefit that the feat gives you is 'Your ranged spell attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover'

Seems like you are being ridiculous here.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Wow, I feel like the whip is a weapon that is not given a lot of thought but on a cleric with BB or GFB it is really nice considering your main damage would come from the cantrip and divine strike itself. Thanks for the input.

It allows you to keep up your defense with a shield and also keeps you from the feat intensive trap of going PM and potentially GWM.

Yes, the ole 'dager on a rope' trick. I've seen it done in many ways but making it on fire or with an ear splitting crack! is a nice variation.

[Master O'Laughs]

Ooooo, that is giving me ideas for a personality. Give him a latin machismo personality and make him "the world's most interesting cleric"

[McNinja]

No, whether or not the downstream consequence of an eventual attack roll qualify as part of the cantrip is literally the point up for contention. What you are doing is begging the question. You are assuming that your case has been proven and using it as its' own support. I think Divisible had it right-

And I'm not seeing you or Biggstick actually back up an argument to the counter. Perhaps you see it as so obvious that it is hard to actually come up with a defense of your position, but then I would just call that an undefended position.

Now Mearls clarified it. But if it was inarguable, it wouldn't need clarification.

Suffice to say, it doesn't matter. Mearls has clarified, and OP says it doesn't matter what the truth is, he wants to know our opinions on the basis that it is the case.

In which case I still agree-BB or GFB on a polearm is that start of a really feat-heavy and expensive way to make a good martial character.

In order to use Booming Blade, you need to make an attack roll. There's no way around it. If you want to cast the cantrip, you need to make an attack roll.