Sneak Attack Shenanigans: RAW or Not?

[Nagog]

Question for all you fine folks out there: Sneak Attack (at least on DnD Beyond, idk how up to date on Errata they are) is described as requiring:


Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.


I noticed that it doesn't specify a Ranged/Finesse weapon attack, just that it has to be use a Finesse or Ranged Weapon. Which leads me to wonder: If my Arcane Trickster had a dagger that they use as an Arcane Focus, and picked up Inflict Wounds (typically through a feat), could I cast Inflict Wounds and have it proc Sneak Attack (provided of course I have Advantage)? Because it is:

1) Hitting with an Attack
2) using a Finesse/Ranged weapon

Is this real? If so, why hasn't it been heavily exploited by RogueLocks? (through taking the Shadow Touched feat)?

[PhantomSoul]

If the question is RAW, that seems to stretch words so far beyond reasonable intentions for them that I'd have to say it's really clearly not RAW. (Plus whether you can really say the spell focus is "used for the attack" is pretty open for suspicion too.)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Inflict Wounds doesn't use the focus to attack them, you make a melee spell attack, no weapon involved. On a very related note, Inflict Wounds doesn't have a material component, meaning it requires no focus to begin with.

It doesn't work.

[Battlebooze]

I don't think so. Sneak attacking with Booming blade or Green-Flame Blade allows sneak attacks because you need to make a melee attack as part of the casting and that attack does damage. IE you stab someone with your dagger and then the spell effect happens if you hit.

Inflict Wounds allows you to make a melee spell attack. You aren't stabbing your target with the dagger you are using as a spell focus, you are using the dagger to guide the magic of the spell.

[MrCharlie]

Battlebooze has it right. There are a couple shenanagins you can pull off with sneak attack-namely, sneak attacking on booming/greenflame blade, sneak attacking as a reaction, and sneak attacking while using strength (or intelligence, or charisma) as long as the weapon is finesse or ranged. These typically come up in multiclasses, and you can get some insanely complicated multiclasses that exploit some or all of them. But no using weapon foci to make sneak attacks-it's no longer "using" the weapon in the attack anymore, at least not in the sense the game is talking about.

[Greywander]

I think this does mean you can use a crossbow as an improvised melee weapon and still get Sneak Attack, though.

[heavyfuel]

I think this does mean you can use a crossbow as an improvised melee weapon and still get Sneak Attack, though.

Also means that Barb/Rogues get to SA with Reckless Assault (assuming they use Str for the attack)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Also means that Barb/Rogues get to SA with Reckless Assault (assuming they use Str for the attack)

What ability modifier you use has nothing to do SA, all you need is a melee weapon with Finesse. The Finesse or Ranged requirement doesn't go away even if they have advantage.

STRogue grapplers is something I've wanted to try out.

[Chronic]

What ability modifier you use has nothing to do SA, all you need is a melee weapon with Finesse. The Finesse or Ranged requirement doesn't go away even if they have advantage.

STRogue grapplers is something I've wanted to try out.

One of my friend is doing that in my game, it's fairly cool. He did had to pick a fighter level or 2 for a better armor and shield.

[heavyfuel]

What ability modifier you use has nothing to do SA

Correct, but it does have to do with Reckless Attack, which requires you to use Str.

[Lunali]

I think this does mean you can use a crossbow as an improvised melee weapon and still get Sneak Attack, though.

When you use a ranged weapon for a melee attack you're making an attack with an improvised melee weapon rather than a ranged weapon. Even if you managed to convince me that that's the RAW, you'd never get me to actually grant the bonus damage.

[Greywander]

When you use a ranged weapon for a melee attack you're making an attack with an improvised melee weapon rather than a ranged weapon. Even if you managed to convince me that that's the RAW, you'd never get me to actually grant the bonus damage.
Would you agree that it's more reasonable to allow Sneak Attacks with something like a longsword? I honestly don't know why Sneak Attacks are so restrictive, hasn't WotC heard of saps/blackjacks before? Or sucker punches? Don't tell me you can't make sneak attacks with brute force weapons.

On the topic of the OP, I do wish there was some way to apply at least partial Sneak Attack damage to a spell attack, but I can see why they don't. The sheer number of spells available would make it difficult to properly balance.

[Lunali]

Would you agree that it's more reasonable to allow Sneak Attacks with something like a longsword? I honestly don't know why Sneak Attacks are so restrictive, hasn't WotC heard of saps/blackjacks before? Or sucker punches? Don't tell me you can't make sneak attacks with brute force weapons.

More reasonable, yes, but I still wouldn't allow longsword. Saps/blackjacks, on the other hand, I include in my games, d6 bludgeoning damage, finesse, can't do lethal damage, but that's entirely house rule.

[Tanarii]

On the topic of the OP, I do wish there was some way to apply at least partial Sneak Attack damage to a spell attack, but I can see why they don't. The sheer number of spells available would make it difficult to properly balance.
That would allow cantrip scaling damage combined with Rogues.

I mean, can you imagine how busted it would be if the devs were silly enough to create a cantrip that used a weapon attack and had scaling damage?

[Lunali]

That would allow cantrip scaling damage combined with Rogues.

I mean, can you imagine how busted it would be if the devs were silly enough to create a cantrip that used a weapon attack and had scaling damage?

And just imagine if they made a subclass that could just decide to have that cantrip without any multiclass or feat shenanigans.

[Greywander]

To be fair, Arcane Trickster existed before Booming Blade.

[Tanarii]

To be fair, Arcane Trickster existed before Booming Blade.

Which is why they should have known better.

[PhantomSoul]

Which is why they should have known better.

Bah, the reason you make new content is to sell books, not to go back to yesterday's news! Always move ahead; past content doesn't exist!

[Greywander]

TBH, I'm fine with BB. It will do more damage than an unbuffed Extra Attack, but most martial classes get damage buffs (e.g. fighter's 3rd and 4th attack, paladin's Improved Divine Smite). BB is only a buff to classes that don't get Extra Attack, which usually means non-martial classes. It makes a lot more melee/gish builds viable. In other words, BB merely increases your options, it doesn't actually make many existing options stronger. The only notable exception is the rogue, as it's the only martial class not to get Extra Attack. Melee clerics also benefit, but I'd argue that caster clerics were more optimal anyway, so BB just makes melee clerics competitive with caster clerics. (BB also isn't on the cleric list, so melee clerics need to jump through an extra hoop.)

Also, I still use the SCAG version of BB, as I don't think Tasha's version fixed anything (and may have made a few things worse). If you want to fix BB, make it a touch spell that targets the weapon, then allows you to make one attack with that weapon. No more twinning, no more replacing the weapon with a spell focus, no need for Spell Sniper to use it with reach weapons.

As for saps, I'd treat them as clubs. My point was that sneak attacks with clubs make sense and are seen a lot in fiction, so the finesse weapon requirement doesn't really make sense. I could see if they banned heavy weapons from working with Sneak Attack, similar to monk weapons.

I can see the logic behind treating a crossbow as an improvised weapon and thus not a ranged weapon. Honestly, that one could go either way. It seems to fit the spirit of the rules for the crossbow to not qualify for Sneak Attack when used as an improvised weapon, but I'm less certain about the letter of the rules.

[JackPhoenix]

On the topic of the OP, I do wish there was some way to apply at least partial Sneak Attack damage to a spell attack, but I can see why they don't. The sheer number of spells available would make it difficult to properly balance.

You can apply all Sneak Attack damage to a spell attack if you make the spell attack with a ranged weapon, i.e. Magic Stone shot from a sling.

[Xetheral]

I can see the logic behind treating a crossbow as an improvised weapon and thus not a ranged weapon. Honestly, that one could go either way. It seems to fit the spirit of the rules for the crossbow to not qualify for Sneak Attack when used as an improvised weapon, but I'm less certain about the letter of the rules.

If a DM rules that a particular improvised weapon is ranged rather than melee (if they classify it at all--the question of whether improvised weapons are necessarily melee/ranged or forbidden from being either is notoriously controversial) you can totally sneak attack with it. This can be fun on a Thief rogue, sneak attacking with vials of acid as a bonus action.

[Silpharon]

Getting back to the OP. I'm thinking this is RAW for an attack spell with a material component. Witch Bolt for instance has a bolt of lightning come from your spellcasting focus (a dagger). It does use a material component in the attack, and that component can be the dagger.

I can't see how this isn't RAW when you're "using" a dagger as part of the attack. Is this RAI? Probably not at the time of writing it, but the authors may not now disagree either. The authors could have explicitly stopped this by requiring it to be a weapon attack, but they didn't.

Edit: I replaced chromatic orb with witch bolt to avoid confusion, thanks ProsecutorGodot

[ProsecutorGodot]

Getting back to the OP. I'm thinking this is RAW for an attack spell with a material component. Chromatic Orb for instance has a ball of energy "hurled" from your spellcasting focus (a dagger). It does use a material component in the attack, and that component can be the dagger.

The component for Chromatic Orb cannot be a dagger, it has a specified cost.

[Avonar]

I can't see how this isn't RAW when you're "using" a dagger as part of the attack. Is this RAI? Probably not at the time of writing it, but the authors may not now disagree either. The authors could have explicitly stopped this by requiring it to be a weapon attack, but they didn't.

Somehow I doubt them not including the phrase "weapon attack" in the sneak attack description, where they specifically describe making an attack with a weapon, means they are in favour of spell sneak attacks.

[Silpharon]

The component for Chromatic Orb cannot be a dagger, it has a specified cost.
I think you just need to have the component with cost on your person, but can still use the focus in your hand. Still, just replace Chromatic Orb with Witch Bolt and my argument still stands.

Somehow I doubt them not including the phrase "weapon attack" in the sneak attack description, where they specifically describe making an attack with a weapon, means they are in favour of spell sneak attacks.
I dare not refute the inerrant PHB, which uses the phrase "weapon attack" many other places but not here.

[MrCharlie]

Getting back to the OP. I'm thinking this is RAW for an attack spell with a material component. Witch Bolt for instance has a bolt of lightning come from your spellcasting focus (a dagger). It does use a material component in the attack, and that component can be the dagger.

I can't see how this isn't RAW when you're "using" a dagger as part of the attack. Is this RAI? Probably not at the time of writing it, but the authors may not now disagree either. The authors could have explicitly stopped this by requiring it to be a weapon attack, but they didn't.

Edit: I replaced chromatic orb with witch bolt to avoid confusion, thanks ProsecutorGodot
Using it to cast and using it to attack are different things. You aren't attacking with the dagger, you are using the dagger to cast witch bolt. You are only attacking with witch bolt. Otherwise you're attacking with ginger, a bell pepper, and a bit of salt with various spells, and spell combat resembles seasoning a ham.

[Silpharon]

Using it to cast and using it to attack are different things. You aren't attacking with the dagger, you are using the dagger to cast witch bolt. You are only attacking with witch bolt. Otherwise you're attacking with ginger, a bell pepper, and a bit of salt with various spells, and spell combat resembles seasoning a ham.

Yeah I get where you're coming from, that's a rational argument. I still think it's vague whether the attack "used" a component of the casting. A wizard could say he used his wand to cast a spell that attacked a foe, or he could also rightly say he used his wand in the process of attacking his foe.

Taking a step back. If an Arcane Trickster pointed his dagger at a foe and shot a bolt of lightning out of it, I'd say the dagger was used in the attack. If pedantics prevent that, it's kind of a bummer for what seems a reasonable action for an Arcane Trickster.

[Gignere]

Just sneak attack with Shadowblade, boom you sneak attacked with a spell.

[Silpharon]

Just sneak attack with Shadowblade, boom you sneak attacked with a spell.
You used a spell to make a weapon and then did a weapon attack. That works but how is it relevant?

[PhantomSoul]

You used a spell to make a weapon and then did a weapon attack. That works but how is it relevant?

I interpreted as (grin-worthy) sass :)

[Silpharon]

I interpreted as (grin-worthy) sass :)
Haha, and I'm the sucker who responded. :D