Crits on Spell Damage?

[the_brazenburn]

This post does exactly what the title says:

Can you deal double damage if you roll a nat 20 on a spell attack roll?

[Eragon123]

I'll keep this nice and short: yes.

[History_buff]

This post does exactly what the title says:

Can you deal double damage if you roll a nat 20 on a spell attack roll?

Yes. That simple.

[Naanomi]

But not for spells that require a saving throw (instead of a roll to hit)

[ImproperJustice]

Huh.
Imagining a Champion with High Charisma and Warlock Dip to spam Eldritch Blasts with a high crit rate.
I think there was a Raven Queen invocation that let you heal allies on crits.

I must try this at some point.

[Joe the Rat]

The Champion's Improved Crit only applies to weapon attacks. Magic stone might work, but not EB.

[Naanomi]

An assassin auto-crit works well with eldritch blast though

[Easy_Lee]

An assassin auto-crit works well with eldritch blast though

Also with Magic Stone delivered via sling.

[suplee215]

I kind of want to play a kobold not bladepact hexblade warlock just due to it. Assuming pact tactics give advantage on spells you can do a lot.

[The_Jette]

An assassin auto-crit works well with eldritch blast though

Since EB creates multiple beams as you level up, instead of just increasing damage... would you only get an auto-crit on one of the beams, or each individual one?

[Easy_Lee]

I kind of want to play a kobold not bladepact hexblade warlock just due to it. Assuming pact tactics give advantage on spells you can do a lot.

You could theoretically take crossbow expert on a kobold chain pact warlock, keep your familiar on your shoulder, and cast EB in melee range with advantage.

[Mikal]

Also with Magic Stone delivered via sling.

Actually Magic Stone thrown or slinged is still a ranged spell attack, not a weapon attack, so Champion wouldn't work there either.

[Naanomi]

Actually Magic Stone thrown or slinged is still a ranged spell attack, not a weapon attack, so Champion wouldn't work there either.
But it is an attack with a ranged weapon; so sneak attack applies if you have it

[Mikal]

But it is an attack with a ranged weapon; so sneak attack applies if you have it

Are you sure? Sharpshooter, Sneak Attack, et al shouldn't. The spell description doesn't talk about weapon attack or damage at all, just a ranged spell attack.

It's more Firebolt than Green Flame Blade in that regard.

[Easy_Lee]

Are you sure? Sharpshooter, Sneak Attack, et al shouldn't. The spell description doesn't talk about weapon attack or damage at all, just a ranged spell attack.

It's more Firebolt than Green Flame Blade in that regard.

It's one of those debatable things. Magic stones can be thrown with a sling which is a ranged weapon. That technically qualifies for sneak attack and champion improved critical since the sling is a "ranged weapon", even though it's being used to make a ranged spell attack. It's more like the ranged version of shillelagh than an attack spell.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

I was wondering if i cast chaos bolt on a crit would it do 4d8+2d6 instead of 2d8+1d6?

[Mikal]

It's one of those debatable things. Magic stones can be thrown with a sling which is a ranged weapon. That technically qualifies for sneak attack and champion improved critical since the sling is a "ranged weapon", even though it's being used to make a ranged spell attack. It's more like the ranged version of shillelagh than an attack spell.

But you aren't making a ranged weapon attack even when using the sling, it's just a delivery system. If the spell itself didn't specify ranged spell attack I'd potentially agree with you, but that, combined with the fact that it replaces regular bullet damage with the spells damage (which is equal to the damage when throwing it) indicates it's not meant to be a weapon attack at all.

I originally thought like that, but the descriptions on the spells are disparate enough to make me think that, while it does act as a ranged version of Shillelagh, it doesn't get the bonuses that spell has vis a vis feat interaction for weapons such as PAM.

The different descriptions specifically being that MS says "ranged spell attack" while Shillelagh says "For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon", specifically mentioning that it affects the weapon, whereas MS only does so to say you can use a sling to fling the stones if you don't want to do it by hand.


I was wondering if i cast chaos bolt on a crit would it do 4d8+2d6 instead of 2d8+1d6?

It should. And yes, that means it'd be less likely for it to jump to someone else. But hey, that's what you get for casting chaos bolt.

[samcifer]

What happens if the target botches (nat 1) the saving throw against your spell that does damage, though?

[the_brazenburn]

What happens if the target botches (nat 1) the saving throw against your spell that does damage, though?


I guess I'd deal them double damage. Just as I'd deal them no damage if they nat 20'd it.

[Mikal]

What happens if the target botches (nat 1) the saving throw against your spell that does damage, though?

The same thing that happens if they rolled a 2 on the saving throw and the saving throw was a failure. I.E. full damage.
That is of course, if the 1 actually causes a failure, so the only automatic effects are for attack rolls. Everything else can still fail on a 20 or succeed on a 1, since my understanding is that there are no auto fails and auto saves in 5e from what I've read.

[Easy_Lee]

But you aren't making a ranged weapon attack even when using the sling, it's just a delivery system. If the spell itself didn't specify ranged spell attack I'd potentially agree with you, but that, combined with the fact that it replaces regular bullet damage with the spells damage (which is equal to the damage when throwing it) indicates it's not meant to be a weapon attack at all.

I originally thought like that, but the descriptions on the spells are disparate enough to make me think that, while it does act as a ranged version of Shillelagh, it doesn't get the bonuses that spell has vis a vis feat interaction for weapons such as PAM.

The different descriptions specifically being that MS says "ranged spell attack" while Shillelagh says "For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon", specifically mentioning that it affects the weapon, whereas MS only does so to say you can use a sling to fling the stones if you don't want to do it by hand.

Sneak attack doesn't require that you make a weapon attack. It requires that you make an attack using a finesse weapon or a ranged weapon, which you did if you hurl a stone from a sling. Improved Critical has slightly different wording, using the term "weapon attacks." You could draw that distinction if you really wanted to.

More important than the above, to me, is that Magic Stone as a "weapon attack" is balanced and opens the door to ranged wisdom-based fighters, rogues, and rangers. That creates variety, which is a good thing. There ought to be more abilities in the game that create this kind of variety.

[the_brazenburn]

The same thing that happens if they rolled a 2 on the saving throw and the saving throw was a failure. I.E. full damage.
That is of course, if the 1 actually causes a failure, so the only automatic effects are for attack rolls. Everything else can still fail on a 20 or succeed on a 1, since my understanding is that there are no auto fails and auto saves in 5e from what I've read.

True, but it's one of the most common house rules.

[Mikal]

Sneak attack doesn't require that you make a weapon attack. It requires that you make an attack using a finesse weapon or a ranged weapon, which you did if you hurl a stone from a sling. Improved Critical has slightly different wording, using the term "weapon attacks." You could draw that distinction if you really wanted to.

You're not making an attack using a ranged weapon, because that's a ranged weapon attack. This is a ranged spell attack, which is separate. Much like how Steel Wind Strike is a melee spell attack despite you having a melee weapon in hand which "delivers" the attack, so modifiers such as GWM and the weapons abilities do not factor into it.


More important than the above, to me, is that Magic Stone as a "weapon attack" is balanced and opens the door to ranged wisdom-based fighters, rogues, and rangers. That creates variety, which is a good thing. There ought to be more abilities in the game that create this kind of variety.

That's an entirely separate discussion that I happen to agree with, but from a RAW perspective Magic Stone doesn't actually create a weapon attack, it's a ranged spell attack and only things that would apply to RSA's would apply to it.


True, but it's one of the most common house rules.

Yes, it is, unfortunately. I was just replying back from a RAW perspective though, not a house rule one.

[Beelzebubba]

I guess I'd deal them double damage. Just as I'd deal them no damage if they nat 20'd it.

Yep, 5e is quite easy to house rule. But that's a house rule all the same.

[Easy_Lee]

You're not making an attack using a ranged weapon, because that's a ranged weapon attack. This is a ranged spell attack, which is separate. Much like how Steel Wind Strike is a melee spell attack despite you having a melee weapon in hand which "delivers" the attack, so modifiers such as GWM and the weapons abilities do not factor into it.



That's an entirely separate discussion that I happen to agree with, but from a RAW perspective Magic Stone doesn't actually create a weapon attack, it's a ranged spell attack and only things that would apply to RSA's would apply to it.

The RAW is unclear on whether a ranged weapon can be used to make a ranged spell attack. Magic Stone specifically says it can be launched with a sling. There is no "right" or "RAW" answer to this debate. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

[Beelzebubba]

More important than the above, to me, is that Magic Stone as a "weapon attack" is balanced and opens the door to ranged wisdom-based fighters, rogues, and rangers. That creates variety, which is a good thing. There ought to be more abilities in the game that create this kind of variety.

I'm keen to house-rule it like a 'finesse' weapon - if my Druid threw it with Spell Sniper, it'd be double range and super accurate, but if he gave it to a sling-wielding marital with Sharpshooter I'd allow that to work too.

But, if you put a gun to my head and said 'what's your RAI' I'd say it's a Spell Sniper weapon, since the bonuses are derived from a Spell Attack attribute, i.e. Wis/Int/Cha, and not a physical one like a bow.

It is a weird hybrid, and they definitely should have clarified it more, but it's not 'Pixie T-Rex Club' broken or anything.

[Naanomi]

Crawford and Mearls have both come down on the ‘you can sneak attack with it’ side when questioned

[Mikal]

Crawford and Mearls have both come down on the ‘you can sneak attack with it’ side when questioned

You have a link for that?


The RAW is unclear on whether a ranged weapon can be used to make a ranged spell attack. Magic Stone specifically says it can be launched with a sling. There is no "right" or "RAW" answer to this debate. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

I would say the RAW is very clear in this case. Ranged weapon attacks with magic weapons and magic ammunition are still ranged weapon attacks, and that weapon attacks using substituted stats (i.e. Shillelagh, Hex Warrior) are still considered to be weapon attacks, and not spell attacks, whereas magic stone is considered a ranged spell attack, and is specifically called out as such.

Even Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade specifically say you make a melee attack as part of the spell, not a melee spell attack like with Shocking Grasp.

[Aett_Thorn]

Can we all just agree that based on the past few days' conversations, that Magic Stones is a really, really poorly worded spell?

[Mikal]

Can we all just agree that based on the past few days' conversations, that Magic Stones is a really, really poorly worded spell?

More "this edition is about rulings, not rules" style replies in 5... 4...

(But yes. Yes it is.)

[Chronicler]

You have a link for that?

I'm personally on the fence regarding Magic Stone, but Crawford seems to be okay with sneak attacking with it using a sling.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/12/magic-stone-sneak-attack/

[Mikal]

I'm personally on the fence regarding Magic Stone, but Crawford seems to be okay with sneak attacking with it using a sling.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/12/magic-stone-sneak-attack/

Well he said as a DM, so that sounds less "official ruling" vs. "in my game".

[Easy_Lee]

Well he said as a DM, so that sounds less "official ruling" vs. "in my game".

I don't think the term "official ruling" really applies. Crawford said he would rule it a certain way - I think that means what it seems to mean. Don't forget that rulings, not rules is the expectation this generation. The official ruling is whatever your DM decides, for better or for worse.

It's frustrating to me that 5e is like that. DMs could change things in past editions by houseruling. In this edition, a DM can say X works in a particular way, and the players don't know whether that's his ruling, his interpretation, Crawford's ruling, Mearls' ruling, what the text actually says, or otherwise. I don't remember this being as common a thing in 3.5e, but maybe I just didn't see it.

[Mikal]

It's frustrating to me that 5e is like that. DMs could change things in past editions by houseruling. In this edition, a DM can say X works in a particular way, and the players don't know whether that's his ruling, his interpretation, Crawford's ruling, Mearls' ruling, what the text actually says, or otherwise. I don't remember this being as common a thing in 3.5e, but maybe I just didn't see it.

Same for me honestly. Also smacks of laziness on the developers part.

[Aett_Thorn]

Same for me honestly. Also smacks of laziness on the developers part.

Agreed. It just seems to be their fallback (and the fallback argument for some on this board as well) that just allows them to get away with bad writing. Well, this spell is poorly written, but we just wanted to give the DMs some flexibility.

Ummm...no, you just created a poorly written spell.

[Sigreid]

Agreed. It just seems to be their fallback (and the fallback argument for some on this board as well) that just allows them to get away with bad writing. Well, this spell is poorly written, but we just wanted to give the DMs some flexibility.

Ummm...no, you just created a poorly written spell.

Yep. I'm one of the ones on this board who only plays with friends at one table, so the rules being open to reasonable DM interpretation works in my favor.

[the_brazenburn]

Yep. I'm one of the ones on this board who only plays with friends at one table, so the rules being open to reasonable DM interpretation works in my favor.

Same here. That's probably why I have so many house rules that don't work RAW.

[Sigreid]

Same here. That's probably why I have so many house rules that don't work RAW.

Of course that also means all I need to do to resolve simulacra loops and such is to look at the player and say "Don't be a @#$%".

[Aett_Thorn]

Yep. I'm one of the ones on this board who only plays with friends at one table, so the rules being open to reasonable DM interpretation works in my favor.

Oh, I hear ya. I'm only in one campaign right now, with a group of friends. We do a lot more rulings than rules, but try to keep each other honest. But there really are just some spots where we just have to scratch our heads and just let the DM make the call because we honestly don't know which way to read something is right.

However, I can't imagine how tough it would be for someone that does AL a bunch to go back and forth in different rulings on the same spell or rule just because there's a lack of clarity.

[Sigreid]

Oh, I hear ya. I'm only in one campaign right now, with a group of friends. We do a lot more rulings than rules, but try to keep each other honest. But there really are just some spots where we just have to scratch our heads and just let the DM make the call because we honestly don't know which way to read something is right.

However, I can't imagine how tough it would be for someone that does AL a bunch to go back and forth in different rulings on the same spell or rule just because there's a lack of clarity.

I'm really not convinced D&D had ever been an ideal game for an AL style format. I'd probably want to use Runrquest, Rollmaster or GURPS for that.

[Easy_Lee]

Of course that also means all I need to do to resolve simulacra loops and such is to look at the player and say "Don't be a @#$%".

That's my policy on just about any "X is broken" argument. I've never seen a DM allow something that was truly broken in a campaign shattering way. And I've seldom seen players actually try to ruin each other's fun; it happens, but it's not the norm.

As a result, the question "is X broken" can't be answered in a general sense this edition. DMs can and do adjust things on the fly, and most players are not trying to break the game in the first place.