Question: Is Swashbuckler's ability on SA really THAT important to have?

[samcifer]

So the other benefits of the Swashbuckler sub-class are good, but the one that keeps drawing my attention is the Rakish Audacity's effect that lets you do SA damage of you are the only creature within 5ft. of it.

My question is, just how important is it to have that ability? In my Wednesday group we're better at teamwork, but my every-other-Friday group is much less about teamwork (see my previous threads for examples of this).

As someone who hasn't played a rogue very much, just how hard is it on average to get SA damage for a rogue in combat?

[Vogie]

It really varies from table to table.

Some DMs are very stingy with "environmental advantage" - Someone is either using resources to generate advantage (for themselves or others), or they're not.

Others DMs use some variant of Flanking, where all you have to do to have generate said advantage is gang up on something, including things like facing, the "threatened squares", MMO-style aggro, or other similar mechanics

For example, I personally use a combination of flanking and facing I refer to as being able to "backstab" creatures (even though it can be used at range as well).

The Rakish Audacity feature allows the Rogue to just stroll up alone to a target in melee (presumably supported by archers, casters, or other ranged shenanigans) and still be able to sneak attack them... in the face... and then moonwalk away - basically like Drunken Master or Mobile feat Monks. It works regardless of the table or other rules, which is nice, and is similar to Inquisitive in that way.

[Wildarm]

Swashbuckler can basically get sneak attack almost all the time in melee. You either have an ally adjacent which gives you SA or you position yourself so that you are only adjacent to your target.

Combine that with fancy footwork and your bonus action dash base rogue ability and you can run in, stab and run out with little trouble.

Rogues in general should be getting sneak attack every round via:

- Bonus Action Hide, Move in cover, Ranged attack with advantage
- Ranged or Melee attack against an enemy engaged with one of your allies
- Swashbuckler makes it even easier. Run up to someone alone and stab them in the face. Look good while doing it.

[Amechra]

So the other benefits of the Swashbuckler sub-class are good, but the one that keeps drawing my attention is the Rakish Audacity's effect that lets you do SA damage of you are the only creature within 5ft. of it.

My question is, just how important is it to have that ability? In my Wednesday group we're better at teamwork, but my every-other-Friday group is much less about teamwork (see my previous threads for examples of this).

As someone who hasn't played a rogue very much, just how hard is it on average to get SA damage for a rogue in combat?

Theoretically, you can get it every turn if you're willing to play sniper (make your attack, then bonus action Hide to give yourself advantage on your next attack).

In practice, melee Rogues aren't going to get their damage off on the regular without investing in some feats (Shield Master comes to mind) or sticking really close to their allies. Swashbuckler (and Inquisitive) let you play melee Rogues that can reliably handle people the rest of the party aren't going after, which is pretty darn useful.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

So the other benefits of the Swashbuckler sub-class are good, but the one that keeps drawing my attention is the Rakish Audacity's effect that lets you do SA damage of you are the only creature within 5ft. of it.

My question is, just how important is it to have that ability? In my Wednesday group we're better at teamwork, but my every-other-Friday group is much less about teamwork (see my previous threads for examples of this).

As someone who hasn't played a rogue very much, just how hard is it on average to get SA damage for a rogue in combat?

As you noted, it isn't that hard if you work towards that goal as a team. I find that the Sneak Attack buff is for outlying circumstances and tactical flexibility for most who end up going Swashbuckler. Obviously it's much more valuable to those Rogues who don't receive the support from their team.

I think it's biggest purpose is to support the idea that a Swashbuckler is one of the most mobile Rogue builds in combat. You can slip in and out of groups of enemies much easier than many of your teammates, and without this bonus you'd often be choosing between getting to use Sneak Attack or getting to use your mobility well. The Swashbuckler gets the best of both worlds in this regard.

[MaxWilson]

As you noted, it isn't that hard if you work towards that goal as a team. I find that the Sneak Attack buff is for outlying circumstances and tactical flexibility for most who end up going Swashbuckler. Obviously it's much more valuable to those Rogues who don't receive the support from their team.

I think it's biggest purpose is to support the idea that a Swashbuckler is one of the most mobile Rogue builds in combat. You can slip in and out of groups of enemies much easier than many of your teammates, and without this bonus you'd often be choosing between getting to use Sneak Attack or getting to use your mobility well. The Swashbuckler gets the best of both worlds in this regard.

If you're using the SCAG Swashbuckler, it's also super-nice for getting sneak attack damage at range, on almost every hit. SCAG Swashbucklers are really nice snipers (either as pure Swash or Fighter/Swash). Xanathar's Swashbuckler doesn't get that benefit though, and frankly I'd probably never play a Xanathar's Swashbuckler for that reason--I'd just play a Scout with the Mobile feat instead.

[RingoBongo]

If you're using the SCAG Swashbuckler, it's also super-nice for getting sneak attack damage at range, on almost every hit. SCAG Swashbucklers are really nice snipers (either as pure Swash or Fighter/Swash). Xanathar's Swashbuckler doesn't get that benefit though, and frankly I'd probably never play a Xanathar's Swashbuckler for that reason--I'd just play a Scout with the Mobile feat instead.

Whoa! There is a difference between scag and xgte swashbuckler subclasses? Links, please...

[Nhorianscum]

So the other benefits of the Swashbuckler sub-class are good, but the one that keeps drawing my attention is the Rakish Audacity's effect that lets you do SA damage of you are the only creature within 5ft. of it.

My question is, just how important is it to have that ability? In my Wednesday group we're better at teamwork, but my every-other-Friday group is much less about teamwork (see my previous threads for examples of this).

As someone who hasn't played a rogue very much, just how hard is it on average to get SA damage for a rogue in combat?

When playing rouge I've never not been able to attack with SA damage.

[Wildarm]

Whoa! There is a difference between scag and xgte swashbuckler subclasses? Links, please...

Wording is a bit longer in XGTE but the effect should be the same in both class(AFAIK). As long as the target is the only creature within 5' and you don't have disadvantage(explicitly stated in XGTE but covered under general SA rules), you can sneak attack.

Would be interested as well if that is not the case.

[RickAllison]

Whoa! There is a difference between scag and xgte swashbuckler subclasses? Links, please...


In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you.


You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don’t need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.

So in the SCAG, you don't actually need to be near your target while XGtE's (aka post-errata) does have that restriction. Also you can't use a whip at 10-ft.

[samcifer]

Whoa! There is a difference between scag and xgte swashbuckler subclasses? Links, please...

SCAG: "...In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All other Rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you."

XGTE: "...You gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you."

So the Xanathar's version is more restrictive than the Sword Coast version because the SC version says within 5 feet of you while the Xanathar's version says within 5 feet of your target. The SC version seems easier to apply than the Xanathar's one.

[MaxWilson]

Whoa! There is a difference between scag and xgte swashbuckler subclasses? Links, please...

SCAG Swashbuckler, Rakish Audacity: Starting at 3rd level, your unmistakable confidence propels you into battle. You can add your Charisma modifier to your initiative rolls. In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you.

Xanathar's Swashbuckler, Rakish Audacity: Starting at 3rd level, your confidence propels you into battle. You can give yourself a bonus to your initiative rolls equal to your Charisma modifier. You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack: you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.

A SCAG Swashbuckler, standing alone, shooting at a target 100' away is eligible for sneak attack damage even if he doesn't have advantage, because no creatures other than the target are within 5' of him. A Xanathar's Swashbuckler only gets that benefit on creatures within 5' of him.

[RingoBongo]

Lol, what nonsense is this. Both are SRD, have same name, but with differences. Any other subclasses like this that I am unaware of?

[Contrast]

The main benefit I found was that as a rogue you're going to have a good dex which means you're got a reasonable chance of going at the head of the initiative order (particularly if you're also getting +Cha to init).

If there isn't suitable cover to hide behind or you're a melee style character that may leave you a bit stumped for sneak attack if no-one else has had a chance to move into melee yet unless you're a swashbuckler.

In later turns it can also free you up a bit (again particularly for melee rogues). While you could get sneak attack by attacking the thug whaling on the fighter what you really want to do is sneak attack the mage hanging out at the back of the melee that no-one else can easily get to but you can slip through by disengaging. Normally you might find it hard to get to and stab isolated opponents while still getting your sneak attack (which you need to make the endeavour worthwhile). Swashbucklers solve that problem neatly.

In summary - it'll occasionally help you sneak attack when you couldn't but its main use is increasing the number of possible targets you can sneak attack so you have more freedom to target the damage where you want it rather than just where it can go.

[JellyPooga]

Short answer to the title question: No

Long answer: Noooooooo

Sneak Attack is easy to get from a multitude of methods; adding one more isn't achieving much. It's probably one of the weaker Swashbuckler features, IMO. You don't even need great teamwork to get Sneak Attack with a non-Swashbuckler; just tag along with anyone else fighting in melee. The only time you'll ever really miss out on Sneak Attack is if you're the only melee combatant in the party, which is (let's face it) pretty unlikely and even then, if that's the case, your backline is likely going to get engaged in melee anyway.

[MaxWilson]

Lol, what nonsense is this. Both are SRD, have same name, but with differences. Any other subclasses like this that I am unaware of?

Nothing important that I know of. The Sun Soul's 11th level AoE is explicitly magical in Xanathar's but not in SCAG, so arguably only the SCAG version works inside of a Beholder's antimagic zone, but ultimately that would be a DM call anyway based on how they view ki.

[RickAllison]

Ultimately, it's a good ability to have, just not necessary. There will always be someone you can get Sneak Attack on, but this means you have more freedom to work.

[NNescio]

Lol, what nonsense is this. Both are SRD, have same name, but with differences. Any other subclasses like this that I am unaware of?


Nothing important that I know of. The Sun Soul's 11th level AoE is explicitly magical in Xanathar's but not in SCAG, so arguably only the SCAG version works inside of a Beholder's antimagic zone, but ultimately that would be a DM call anyway based on how they view ki.

XGtE acts as stealth-errata (consistent with how past editions handle reprints, as well as JC's comments), so the SCAG versions of the archetypes have been effectively replaced with their XGtE counterparts. Like the nerfing of EE spells.

[RingoBongo]

Nice tip! Thanks

[MaxWilson]

XGtE acts as stealth-errata (consistent with how past editions handle reprints, and JC also comments something along the lines of "Don't tell anyone, but this error has already been corrected in Xanathar's Guide to Everything"), so the SCAG versions of the archetypes have been effectively replaced with their XGtE counterparts. Like the nerfing of EE spells.

That's an interesting opinion but it's not one I share. Errata is what they issue when they change the text in the next printing, and SCAG's text has never been changed.

It's cool though if you want to disallow SCAG at your table. I disallow Ravnica.

[samcifer]

So it sounds as if the XG version is more restrictive to use than the SC version.

For reference, let's use this grid:

123
456
789


Say you have a foe in space 5 and you are on space 4. In the XG version, if there is a second foe in spaces 3, 6, or 9, but no other foes in spaces 1, 2, 7, or 8 you cannot get SA damage because a second foe is within 5 feet of the one in space 5. Only if there is no other enemy creatures in any of the other seven spaces do you get to apply SA.

In the SC version, as long as there is no other foes in spaces 1, 2, 7, or 8, you can still apply SA even if there is a second foe in spaces 3, 6, or 9 because there are no other foes within 5 feet of YOU.

This means that the XG version can't be used with any foes who have other adjacent foes. The SC version lacks this restriction.

[MaxWilson]

Say you have a foe in space 5 and you are on space 4. In the XG version, if there is a second foe in spaces 3, 6, or 9, but no other foes in spaces 1, 2, 7, or 8 you cannot get SA damage because a second foe is within 5 feet of the one in space 5. Only if there is no other enemy creatures in any of the other seven spaces do you get to apply SA.

No, Xanathar's does not care if there is another foe within 5' of your target, only within 5' of you.

[samcifer]

No, Xanathar's does not care if there is another foe within 5' of your target, only within 5' of you.

Ah, okay, I see it now. The wording of the SC version confused me a bit. still, you can't attack anyone other than your adjacent target to get SA this way. Someone above said you could do it to a foe 100' away, but that's not accurate.

[MadBear]

I'd definitely talk with the player. While I'm not currently playing one, the ability to reliably get sneak attack was a big draw to the class for me, and if it was arbitrarily taken, I'd be pretty pissed. Honestly, getting sneak attack as a melee rogue is already harder then the less risky and easier to get ranged counter part. Making their life more difficult doesn't really seem necessary.

[MaxWilson]

Ah, okay, I see it now. The wording of the SC version confused me a bit. still, you can't attack anyone other than your adjacent target to get SA this way. Someone above said you could do it to a foe 100' away, but that's not accurate.

SCAG Swashbuckler can do it to a foe 100' away.

Xanathar's Swashbuckler can't, because Xanathar's has an extra requirement: they have to be within 5' of you.

SCAG Swashbuckler, Rakish Audacity: Starting at 3rd level, your unmistakable confidence propels you into battle. You can add your Charisma modifier to your initiative rolls. In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you.

Xanathar's Swashbuckler, Rakish Audacity: Starting at 3rd level, your confidence propels you into battle. You can give yourself a bonus to your initiative rolls equal to your Charisma modifier. You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack: you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.

[samcifer]

SCAG Swashbuckler can do it to a foe 100' away.

Xanathar's Swashbuckler can't, because Xanathar's has an extra requirement: they have to be within 5' of you.

SCAG Swashbuckler, Rakish Audacity: Starting at 3rd level, your unmistakable confidence propels you into battle. You can add your Charisma modifier to your initiative rolls. In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you.

But to me, this sounds as if the target needs to be within 5 feet of you for the feature to be applicable.

[RickAllison]

But to me, this sounds as if the target needs to be within 5 feet of you for the feature to be applicable.

That was the intention (hence the change in XGtE), but that's not how the text parses. The text just doesn't disallow the use in melee, but doesn't require it.

[OldTrees1]

If a Rogue knows how to "Ready an attack for when a foe is next to an ally", then the Rogue can get a Sneak Attack 99.99% of the time. Usually, an ally is already in melee, or wants to get into melee, or an enemy wants to hit one of your allies with a melee attack. 5E loves sides coming together and punishes them if they try to separate.

Impatient Rogues (ones that must complete their attack on their turn) can get Sneak Attack more than 60% of the time.

Swashbuckler increases it to 99.999%.

[Luccan]

But to me, this sounds as if the target needs to be within 5 feet of you for the feature to be applicable.

Gonna have to agree. There's clearly an issue with how it is written, but to me it still reads that you have to be within 5ft of your target. As a DM I would definitely rule it that way. Seems more in line with the idea of a swashbuckler anyway.

[Keravath]

That was the intention (hence the change in XGtE), but that's not how the text parses. The text just doesn't disallow the use in melee, but doesn't require it.

Sorry. Can you please explain exactly how the SCAG version allows this to be applied to ranged attacks?

The text says:

"you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you"

I interpret this as saying that your target must be within 5' of you and that is the only creature that can be within 5' of you in order to enable the Swashbuckler ability.

if no creature, other than your target, is within 5' of you

Ah ... I think I see.

You are parsing this to mean that either your target is within 5' OR no creature is within 5' then you can land sneak attack. The only creature allowed within 5' of you is your target but your target is not required to be within 5' based on the wording to apply sneak attack.

I haven't read it that way in the past and I think that was not the intended interpretation as indicated by the clarification in the XGTE publication. However, I can see the source of ambiguity.

[N810]

Basically Swashbuckler frees up your bonus action for an extra attack, a cunning action, etc... :nale:

[samcifer]

Basically Swashbuckler frees up your bonus action for an extra attack, a cunning action, etc... :nale:

Which is another big draw of the subclass for me. Thinking more on this, I see that I'd only need CA for dashing or hiding, and if I don't need to do either, I can use my bonus action for a third attack if I dual wield. If I'm focused on melee combat, hiding won't really come up very much in combat and dashing would only be needed if I were wanting to cover a lot of distance to escape or reach someone, leaving me with my two main attacks until my next turn when I'd likely want to make 3 attacks once I'm in position.

[RickAllison]

First note that for this discussion, it doesn't matter what the intention behind SCAG's Rakish Audacity was because this is about the text difference between that and XGtE's. They (theoretically) have the same RAI, so it comes down to what the text actually says. So RAI here does not matter.


In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you.

Alright, logic time! We have a whole bunch of toggles we need to consider. With the base Sneak Attack, we have two subsets, the subset where we have advantage and the subset where we do not. All of the former subset allow for Sneak Attack for all rogues, while the latter is normally excluded except when you are flanking the target without having disadvantage. Swashbuckler changes the chart by adding a general inclusion when you don't have advantage, except when you have someone except the target within 5 feet of you, which then has an additional exclusion when the only creature fitting that criteria is the target. XGtE is like a soft errata, changing it by making it an inclusion under the RAI conditions. You can look at these images to see how this changes things; making it inclusive like SCAG makes it valid for all points except the ones outlined while making it an exclusive situation only allows it when the specific thing happens.

https://i.imgur.com/9ALt96N.png
https://i.imgur.com/DXHqphS.png
https://i.imgur.com/9dOObxL.png

[MaxWilson]

All of the former subset allow for Sneak Attack for all rogues, while the latter is normally excluded except when you are flanking the target without having disadvantage.

Semantic nitpick: a Rogue doesn't have to be flanking the target to get sneak attack without having advantage, he just needs an ally adjacent to the target. For a melee rogue this is basically equivalent to flanking, but for a rogue shooting arrows or sling bullets it's not flanking.

But yeah, I know what you meant.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

SCAG: "In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you."

I've never understood why people read this sentence to include ranged attacks...I mean, I do actually understand it. A lot of people want to squeeze every last loophole out of RAW. But seriously, in common parlance that sentence should very clearly be taken to mean that your target is the only creature within 5 ft. of you and is necessarily within 5 ft of you. Not to mention the subclass is called "Swashbuckler" implying a melee heavy combat style.

[Theodoxus]

Totally depends on your style. Do you like rushing into melee, picking off a loner and gicking them, but if you miss, being able to use your bonus action to try a second time? And still be able to dance out of their way without an opportunity attack (and without spending a feat to do so?) Then swashbuckler is great.

Do you like having the option where you can open up with a sneak attack in nearly any combat configuration? Then swashbuckler is great.

Would you rather be a sniper? Would you rather be a field medic? Would you rather take the high ground and attack with impunity? Other archetypes will probably be a better fit.

[RickAllison]

SCAG: "In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you."

I've never understood why people read this sentence to include ranged attacks...I mean, I do actually understand it. A lot of people want to squeeze every last loophole out of RAW. But seriously, in common parlance that sentence should very clearly be taken to mean that your target is the only creature within 5 ft. of you and is necessarily within 5 ft of you. Not to mention the subclass is called "Swashbuckler" implying a melee heavy combat style.

That's the kicker though, the fluff clearly points to that but the mechanics do not back it up. It's not a question of munchkinry, it's basic English and logic. SCAG Swashbuckler only excludes attacks when they have someone in the way, it does not require having the target nearby. That's why in XGtE, it received that very significant change in wording, because it was poorly written in SCAG.

If you are reading the actual sentence and think that it requires the target being within 5 feet of you to activate, I question your mastery of the language. It's clear what the intention is, but the actual text does not match up with that at all. And when the conversation is specifically about SCAG vs XGtE for this subclass, what the actual text says is very important. In fact, it's the only thing that matters. Because it's about two versions of RAW for the same RAI.

Edit: Plus when it comes to Swashbuckler, I picture a daring pirate who is comfortable using sword or pistol (or both!). Jack Sparrow or Errol Flynn who are just as comfortable going sword-to-sword as they are shooting someone across the deck. It's just troublesome with how the feature works to let it fly for ranged weapons as-is.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

That's the kicker though, the fluff clearly points to that but the mechanics do not back it up. It's not a question of munchkinry, it's basic English and logic. SCAG Swashbuckler only excludes attacks when they have someone in the way, it does not require having the target nearby. That's why in XGtE, it received that very significant change in wording, because it was poorly written in SCAG.

If you are reading the actual sentence and think that it requires the target being within 5 feet of you to activate, I question your mastery of the language. It's clear what the intention is, but the actual text does not match up with that at all. And when the conversation is specifically about SCAG vs XGtE for this subclass, what the actual text says is very important. In fact, it's the only thing that matters. Because it's about two versions of RAW for the same RAI.

Edit: Plus when it comes to Swashbuckler, I picture a daring pirate who is comfortable using sword or pistol (or both!). Jack Sparrow or Errol Flynn who are just as comfortable going sword-to-sword as they are shooting someone across the deck. It's just troublesome with how the feature works to let it fly for ranged weapons as-is.

I didn't say it requires that reading, just that the meaning should be very clear based on how the sentence is constructed. The argument for ranged application would be better served if the "other than your target" clause was set off by commas, but even then it's questionable. "...No creature other than your target" heavily implies that "your target" is subject to the condition that follows, namely being "withing five feet of you." Language is nuanced, and demanding that multiple rulebooks across all of 5e show the kind of perspicuity of language rarely found outside something like religious creeds seems a bit persnickety to me.

I'm not saying the sentence can't be read to include ranged attacks, I've just yet to encounter someone making a compelling grammatical argument for that reading taking precedent. The arguments I've heard more often go something like, "Well, it's hypothetically possible to read it this way even if it's not what the author intended, so that means it is definitely the better and more obvious reading." Haha, I don't even actually have a problem with the ruling that allows the ranged attacks to apply here. I just have an issue, albeit a bit of a pedantic one if I'm honest, with people demanding that they're reading the sentence in the more natural way and not just trying to open up a new possibility that might be a bit exploitative (and also fun). When we want to stretch the rules can't we just be honest about the motive?

[RickAllison]

I didn't say it requires that reading, just that the meaning should be very clear based on how the sentence is constructed. The argument for ranged application would be better served if the "other than your target" clause was set off by commas, but even then it's questionable. "...No creature other than your target" heavily implies that "your target" is subject to the condition that follows, namely being "withing five feet of you." Language is nuanced, and demanding that multiple rulebooks across all of 5e show the kind of perspicuity of language rarely found outside something like religious creeds seems a bit persnickety to me.

I'm not saying the sentence can't be read to include ranged attacks, I've just yet to encounter someone making a compelling grammatical argument for that reading taking precedent. The arguments I've heard more often go something like, "Well, it's hypothetically possible to read it this way even if it's not what the author intended, so that means it is definitely the better and more obvious reading." Haha, I don't even actually have a problem with the ruling that allows the ranged attacks to apply here. I just have an issue, albeit a bit of a pedantic one if I'm honest, with people demanding that they're reading the sentence in the more natural way and not just trying to open up a new possibility that might be a bit exploitative (and also fun). When we want to stretch the rules can't we just be honest about the motive?

"In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature, other than your target, is within 5 feet of you." That sounds like a great example for an English class of someone using unnecessary commas. And that comes from someone who uses a lot of commas. They do not change the meaning of the sentence at all, they just affect the rhythm. The sentence, taken in isolation, doesn't imply anything. It's a clear sentence. Implications only matter once you take everything else into consideration.

The precedence for the reading comes from the plain English reading of it. The only justification for it NOT including ranged attacks is the fluff surrounding the subclass. Nothing in the text for Rakish Audacity supports the limitation to melee weapons. It's not there. And forcing bias into it while contorting the text does not excuse the fact that it is just poorly written. The entire point of having a method of dispersing errata is so that mistakes like this can be corrected, and providing excuses is a disservice to other players.

[MaxWilson]

SCAG: "In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you."

I've never understood why people read this sentence to include ranged attacks...I mean, I do actually understand it. A lot of people want to squeeze every last loophole out of RAW. But seriously, in common parlance that sentence should very clearly be taken to mean that your target is the only creature within 5 ft. of you and is necessarily within 5 ft of you. Not to mention the subclass is called "Swashbuckler" implying a melee heavy combat style.

To me, it's because "you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack feature if no creature is within 5 feet of you" is overly harsh--it means you ONLY get Sneak Attack at range. So they added an additional exception to say "obviously, your target doesn't count either", but it's not a requirement.

That's what I would have meant if I had written it, so that's what I assume they meant by writing it that way, also therefore what a player would assume it means when they read it, so by the Principle of Least Surprise that's how it should work at my table.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

"In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature, other than your target, is within 5 feet of you." That sounds like a great example for an English class of someone using unnecessary commas. And that comes from someone who uses a lot of commas. They do not change the meaning of the sentence at all, they just affect the rhythm. The sentence, taken in isolation, doesn't imply anything. It's a clear sentence. Implications only matter once you take everything else into consideration.

The precedence for the reading comes from the plain English reading of it. The only justification for it NOT including ranged attacks is the fluff surrounding the subclass. Nothing in the text for Rakish Audacity supports the limitation to melee weapons. It's not there. And forcing bias into it while contorting the text does not excuse the fact that it is just poorly written. The entire point of having a method of dispersing errata is so that mistakes like this can be corrected, and providing excuses is a disservice to other players.


To me, it's because "you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack feature if no creature is within 5 feet of you" is overly harsh--it means you ONLY get Sneak Attack at range. So they added an additional exception to say "obviously, your target doesn't count either", but it's not a requirement.

That's what I would have meant if I had written it, so that's what I assume they meant by writing it that way, also therefore what a player would assume it means when they read it, so by the Principle of Least Surprise that's how it should work at my table.

So my whole argument is based on the idea that the phrase "other than" is typically used differently from something like "except for." The former is used typically used to convey the idea of "apart from" or "besides" and the latter "excluding" or "with exclusion of." So if it read, "no creature apart from your target" it would carry the same meaning, but if if read, "no creature except for your target," it would carry the meaning closer to what people think when they apply it to ranged attacks. One is saying, "no creatures in addition to your target," and one is saying, "no creatures with the exclusion of your target."

I think it's similar to how people commonly misuse the words "less" and "fewer." I do it frequently, but they do not mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably in most sentences.

[MaxWilson]

So my whole argument is based on the idea that the phrase "other than" is typically used differently from something like "except for." The former is used typically used to convey the idea of "apart from" or "besides" and the latter "excluding" or "with exclusion of." So if it read, "no creature apart from your target" it would carry the same meaning, but if if read, "no creature except for your target," it would carry the meaning closer to what people think when they apply it to ranged attacks. One is saying, "no creatures in addition to your target," and one is saying, "no creatures with the exclusion of your target."

I think it's similar to how people commonly misuse the words "less" and "fewer." I do it frequently, but they do not mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably in most sentences.

I think you're drawing a distinction where there is none in spoken or written English. I've never heard anyone suggest that "other than"/"apart from"/"besides" means something different than "except for"/"excluding"/"with exclusion of". For example, dictionary.com literally uses one to define the other: the entry for "apart from" is simply "other than : BESIDES, EXCEPT FOR" (emphasis mine), but you're saying that "apart from" and "except for" have different meanings.

I think whoever wrote the Swashbuckler was using "other than" in the common sense, and not with the specialized meaning of "including this but only this" that you're asserting here.

Definition of other than (Entry 1 of 2)
: with the exception of : EXCEPT FOR, BESIDES

Definition of other than (Entry 2 of 2)
: EXCEPT, BUT

Synonyms for other than

apart from, aside from, bar, barring, beside, besides, but, except (also excepting), except for, excluding, exclusive of, outside, outside of, save, saving

Ref: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/other%20than

[RickAllison]

This definitely seems like a case where you are making the right arguments from the wrong foundation. There is a difference between "except for" and "other than", and it is that "except for" creates a hard line of exclusion for the object.

"In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you."
"In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature except for your target is within 5 feet of you."

In this case, excluding the object just makes the sentence not really work. It doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, but it makes it clunky. "Less" and "fewer" is actually a good analogy; much like with those two, if you switched "other than" and "except for", your audience would realize what you are saying, but it sounds (and is) incorrect.

Incidentally, we could also substitute in "besides", "aside from", "excepting", and I'd gather several more synonyms without changing sentence.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I think whoever wrote the Swashbuckler was using "other than" in the common sense, and not with the specialized meaning of "including this but only this" that you're asserting here.

I'd argue that Xanathar's is pretty good proof that they were using that way, actually.

[RickAllison]

I'd argue that Xanathar's is pretty good proof that they were using that way, actually.

I'd argue that Xanathar's is pretty good proof that they realized that SCAG's wording was screwy and needed to be errata'd :smalltongue:

[MaxWilson]

I'd argue that Xanathar's is pretty good proof that they realized that SCAG's wording was screwy and needed to be errata'd :smalltongue:


This. Not just the wording though--I don't think whoever at Green Ronin wrote the Swashbuckler even thought about ranged weapons, they were just automatically assuming rapiers. Then when WotC wrote their own Swashbuckler for Xanathar's, they were like, "We like the concept but we want it to be a melee specialist, and technically this one isn't. We'll split it into the melee Swashbuckler and the ranged Inquisitive."

That's the impression I get, but in any case WotC clearly recognized that the SCAG wording allowed archery.

[bid]

So my whole argument is based on the idea that the phrase "other than" is typically used differently from something like "except for." The former is used typically used to convey the idea of "apart from" or "besides" and the latter "excluding" or "with exclusion of." So if it read, "no creature apart from your target" it would carry the same meaning, but if if read, "no creature except for your target," it would carry the meaning closer to what people think when they apply it to ranged attacks. One is saying, "no creatures in addition to your target," and one is saying, "no creatures with the exclusion of your target."
I've always taken "did other than X" as the same as "X may have done", not "X must have done".

"Have you taken any aircraft other than commercial ones?" does not assume you've flown AA before.