I want to scream (Gambit frustration)

[Avigor]

Recently watched the Tulok (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1mi-RB4Yp0) vid with its Gambit build that revolved around Kensei Monk with 1-level dips into each Bard, Rogue, and Fighter) and I've got to say...

I'm starting to think the designers of Magic Stone absolutely HATED the idea of anyone playing Gambit in D&D.

Seriously, this should be easy. Bonus Action Magic Stone, any of various class features to enhance your damage with your new temporary magic weapons that use Charisma akin to Shillelagh (Kensei does look like a possibility but it's not the only way by far; also if you actually want Cha-Shillelagh for your staff you'll need Tomelock or an insanely cool DM letting you break MI), badda bing badda boom. But no, they were so convinced that magical sneak attack at level 1 was so broken that they had to RAW it to make the pebbles NEVER count as weapon attacks, period, locking out 90% of all damage enhancement options (there's what, a Cleric feature/ACF or two that can boost cantrips with Wisdom or a single die of Radiant damage that at least often specify Cleric cantrips only, but nadda for Cha?).

Not to specify that they are an exception to Sneak Attack, not to specify that they couldn't be shared (wouldn't eliminate the issue but would slightly limit the options), not to specify that somehow enemies are never surprised when they are hit by one or that they are never affected by advantage (and presumably toss in disadvantage as well so they're like a great equalizer when in disadvantageous positions), not even just saying that they do the specified damage with the casting stat but are not magic until a certain level (if ever), but that they are not weapons, they are basically a time-delayed, sharable, one-shot spell attack that uses an attack action to deliver (and even that is poorly worded, it doesn't say you throw it as part of an attack action, it just says you throw it, so even the applicability of Extra Attack could be rules-lawyered against).

🙈 (where's a good face-wall emoji when you need one?)

Sorry just needed to rant...

[Kane0]

Yeah the system can handle things pretty ass-backwards sometimes. But hey, we can always tweak rules to suit as long the DM is cool with it!

What did you need done? I'm sure we can figure something that isn't any more unbalanced than 5e already gives us to work with!

[HPisBS]

I've always been a little off-put by how certain cantrips, like Magic Stone, break the convention of scaling with your character level.


Yeah the system can handle things pretty ass-backwards sometimes. But hey, we can always tweak rules to suit as long the DM is cool with it!

What did you need done? I'm sure we can figure something that isn't any more unbalanced than 5e already gives us to work with!

So how about adding:

"At higher levels: Starting at 5th level, if you wield these pebbles yourself, you may choose to do so with ranged weapon attacks instead of spell attacks. Either way, you use your spellcasting ability modifier for the attack and damage rolls. The number of pebbles you can use this spell on increases by 1 at 11th level (4 pebbles), and again at 17th level (5 pebbles)."

That should be a small enough buff to avoid being at all OP....

[HPisBS]

"At higher levels: Starting at 5th level, if you wield these pebbles yourself, you may choose to do so with ranged weapon attacks instead of spell attacks. Either way, you use your spellcasting ability modifier for the attack and damage rolls. The number of pebbles you can use this spell on increases by 1 at 11th level (4 pebbles), and again at 17th level (5 pebbles)."

So... does anyone else think this would be appropriate / balanced?

Is the you may choose spell attack or weapon attack part even necessary to be used with Extra Attack?


(I'm considering compiling all of my preferred RAW modifications into one place, and I'm unsure whether this still needs work or not.)

[DwarfFighter]

Gambit is that Marvel Comics card wizard guy, right?

-DF

[loki_ragnarock]

Gambit is that Marvel Comics card wizard guy, right?

-DF

What better character to introduce a MtG crossover?

[BarneyBent]

Sneak attack doesn't require a weapon attack. It requires an attack with a ranged or finesse weapon.

Magic Stone with a sling is an attack with a ranged weapon and therefore lets you Sneak Attack. AFAIK it's the only way you can make a spell attack with a weapon.

[CapnWildefyr]

Sneak attack doesn't require a weapon attack. It requires an attack with a ranged or finesse weapon.

Magic Stone with a sling is an attack with a ranged weapon and therefore lets you Sneak Attack. AFAIK it's the only way you can make a spell attack with a weapon.

But the spell reads (bolding is mine):


You touch one to three pebbles and imbue them with magic. You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling. If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet. If someone else attacks with the pebble, that attacker adds your spellcasting ability modifier, not the attacker’s, to the attack roll. On a hit, the target takes bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Hit or miss, the spell then ends on the stone.

If you cast this spell again, the spell ends early on any pebbles still affected by it.


Don't think you can in general sneak attack with it just because you use a sling, since it's a spell attack.

Seems like what you need is a homebrew spell similar to magic stone, like 'Shock Rock.' Basically, magic stone but instead of using ranged spell attack modifier, use Dex, and instead of stone, use any object that otherwise doesn't do damage on its own (so, no darts, daggers, grenades, and therefore it has to be small -- weighing no more than a few ounces maybe). Change the damage type to lightning, and no one else can use them, and you have to throw (no slings), but otherwise keep it the same as magic stone. So, with this spell, the magic thingie is now a thrown weapon. you can even state that in the spell. Like acid splash and others, add 'This spell’s damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).'

Haven't thought out if this could be abused too much yet...

[stoutstien]

But the spell reads (bolding is mine):


Don't think you can in general sneak attack with it just because you use a sling, since it's a spell attack.

Seems like what you need is a homebrew spell similar to magic stone, like 'Shock Rock.' Basically, magic stone but instead of using ranged spell attack modifier, use Dex, and instead of stone, use any object that otherwise doesn't do damage on its own (so, no darts, daggers, grenades, and therefore it has to be small -- weighing no more than a few ounces maybe). Change the damage type to lightning, and no one else can use them, and you have to throw (no slings), but otherwise keep it the same as magic stone. So, with this spell, the magic thingie is now a thrown weapon. you can even state that in the spell. Like acid splash and others, add 'This spell’s damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).'

Haven't thought out if this could be abused too much yet...

Nothing about sneak attack prevents it from working with a spell attack as long as the use a ranged/finesse weapon condition is met.

[msfnc]

Nothing about sneak attack prevents it from working with a spell attack as long as the use a ranged/finesse weapon condition is met.

How can a spell attack also be a weapon attack? They are mutually exclusive.

[Kane0]

How can a spell attack also be a weapon attack? They are mutually exclusive.

If you could somehow make a spell attack using a weapon, like some sort of variation on the SCAG cantrips.

Yeah it's weird. Probably easier to come up with a feat or something that just lets you use Sneak Attack with Spell Attacks.

Edit: Just going with a variant of Magic Stone is also viable, have enchanted stones (cards in this case) make a ranged weapon attack using your choice of Dex or Casting stat and whatever ranges while also counting as a magic weapon for the purposes of damage resistance.

[JackPhoenix]

How can a spell attack also be a weapon attack? They are mutually exclusive.

They are, but again, sneak attack doesn't require a weapon attack. You can make weapon attacks without using a weapon (unarmed strike) and you can make spell attacks using a weapon (Magic Stone shot from a sling).

[Dork_Forge]

So... does anyone else think this would be appropriate / balanced?

Is the you may choose spell attack or weapon attack part even necessary to be used with Extra Attack?


(I'm considering compiling all of my preferred RAW modifications into one place, and I'm unsure whether this still needs work or not.)

Magic Stone doesn't scale like other cantrips because it adds caster mod to damage by default, it's already ahead compared to other cantrips and has some scaling built in with advancing the casting mod. There's no need to make it any better at 5th level, maybe going into Tier 3, but then again it's niche benefit that doesn't help Druids anyway, just helps the build.

If homebrew fixes were going to apply here I'd just rewrite EB to make it throwing cards instead, it already scaled with additional attacks, which suits Gambit's style just fine.

[Avonar]

They are, but again, sneak attack doesn't require a weapon attack. You can make weapon attacks without using a weapon (unarmed strike) and you can make spell attacks using a weapon (Magic Stone shot from a sling).

My argument would be that the Magic Stone is not actually a weapon. It's just an enchanted rock. Now I will admit that by adding in the fact that you can use a sling for no mechanical difference it makes things real weird, but because if you just threw it I don't see it qualifying for sneak attack, I wouldn't allow sneak attack regardless potentially.

Then again I've never DM'd a game where someone's wanted to take Magic Stone so that might change?

[quindraco]

Recently watched the Tulok (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1mi-RB4Yp0) vid with its Gambit build that revolved around Kensei Monk with 1-level dips into each Bard, Rogue, and Fighter) and I've got to say...

I'm starting to think the designers of Magic Stone absolutely HATED the idea of anyone playing Gambit in D&D.

Seriously, this should be easy. Bonus Action Magic Stone, any of various class features to enhance your damage with your new temporary magic weapons that use Charisma akin to Shillelagh (Kensei does look like a possibility but it's not the only way by far; also if you actually want Cha-Shillelagh for your staff you'll need Tomelock or an insanely cool DM letting you break MI), badda bing badda boom. But no, they were so convinced that magical sneak attack at level 1 was so broken that they had to RAW it to make the pebbles NEVER count as weapon attacks, period, locking out 90% of all damage enhancement options (there's what, a Cleric feature/ACF or two that can boost cantrips with Wisdom or a single die of Radiant damage that at least often specify Cleric cantrips only, but nadda for Cha?).

Not to specify that they are an exception to Sneak Attack, not to specify that they couldn't be shared (wouldn't eliminate the issue but would slightly limit the options), not to specify that somehow enemies are never surprised when they are hit by one or that they are never affected by advantage (and presumably toss in disadvantage as well so they're like a great equalizer when in disadvantageous positions), not even just saying that they do the specified damage with the casting stat but are not magic until a certain level (if ever), but that they are not weapons, they are basically a time-delayed, sharable, one-shot spell attack that uses an attack action to deliver (and even that is poorly worded, it doesn't say you throw it as part of an attack action, it just says you throw it, so even the applicability of Extra Attack could be rules-lawyered against).

🙈 (where's a good face-wall emoji when you need one?)

Sorry just needed to rant...

Is there something stopping you from making Gambit without using Magic Stone? Am I missing something?

Make an Artificer/Warlock with a Returning Pact Weapon and you have an infinite ammo thrown magic weapon on someone with a legit excuse to chase Charisma, which I'm gathering is what you want.

[JackPhoenix]

My argument would be that the Magic Stone is not actually a weapon. It's just an enchanted rock. Now I will admit that by adding in the fact that you can use a sling for no mechanical difference it makes things real weird, but because if you just threw it I don't see it qualifying for sneak attack, I wouldn't allow sneak attack regardless potentially.

Then again I've never DM'd a game where someone's wanted to take Magic Stone so that might change?

Magic Stone is indeed just a rock and not a weapon, or an improvised weapon at best, if you want to use it that way instead of doing what the spell says (but why would you?). Sling is a ranged weapon, and thus qualifies for sneak attack, and whether the rock is a weapon or not is irrelevant, as it serves as ammunition in that case.

[DwarfFighter]

Sneak attack doesn't require a weapon attack. It requires an attack with a ranged or finesse weapon.

Magic Stone with a sling is an attack with a ranged weapon and therefore lets you Sneak Attack. AFAIK it's the only way you can make a spell attack with a weapon.

Firebolt and Magic Stone are both ranged spell attacks, and no-one is pushing sneak attacks for firebolt. :) If you are arguing that the Magic Stone with a sling is a "ranged spell weapon attack", that sounds like something that doesn't exist anywhere else...

-DF

[DwarfFighter]

I'm starting to think the designers of Magic Stone absolutely HATED the idea of anyone playing Gambit in D&D.


I don't see how the designers could be expected to even have considered Gambit, a character from a different setting and belonging to a different intellectual property, for anything.

Why use Magic Stone instead of Magic Missiles? Why should Sneak Attack be the go-to damage enhancer? Sure, it adds a bunch of extra d6's to damage, but the way those are achieved is by attacking with advantage (most readily achieved by the Rogue being sneaky and avoiding attention before he strikes, or if the target is already fighting another character, presumably your ally. None of the sneaky and ally thing seems to fit with the flamboyant lone-wolf character as documented in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009).

-DF

[CapnWildefyr]

Firebolt and Magic Stone are both ranged spell attacks, and no-one is pushing sneak attacks for firebolt. :) If you are arguing that the Magic Stone with a sling is a "ranged spell weapon attack", that sounds like something that doesn't exist anywhere else...

-DF


I don't see how the designers could be expected to even have considered Gambit, a character from a different setting and belonging to a different intellectual property, for anything.

Why use Magic Stone instead of Magic Missiles? Why should Sneak Attack be the go-to damage enhancer? Sure, it adds a bunch of extra d6's to damage, but the way those are achieved is by attacking with advantage (most readily achieved by the Rogue being sneaky and avoiding attention before he strikes, or if the target is already fighting another character, presumably your ally. None of the sneaky and ally thing seems to fit with the flamboyant lone-wolf character as documented in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009).

-DF

Agreed. Which is why I suggested a homebrew cantrip, keeps to the character theme. You can nerf the cantrip for scaling or whatever, the point is fix it by making a new cantrip that allows the build without going much past that in terms of power.

Also, a guy throwing playing cards is not quite the same as a guy trying to load a card in a sling. Not even sure it would work - having trouble visualizing that. Maybe with Fred Flintstone cards?

[Valmark]

Firebolt and Magic Stone are both ranged spell attacks, and no-one is pushing sneak attacks for firebolt. :) If you are arguing that the Magic Stone with a sling is a "ranged spell weapon attack", that sounds like something that doesn't exist anywhere else...

-DF

Thing is, you can't use Firebolt with a ranged or finesse weapon so it has nothing to do with Magic Stone or Sneak Attack.

And Sneak Attack doesn't need a weapon attack, so I don't see what adding weapon to ranged spell attack has to do with it either. Using a weapon and making a weapon attack are two different things (you can make a weapon attack without using a weapon, for example).

[Imbalance]

Gambit is the wrong mutant. Play Banshee if you want to scream.

[stoutstien]

Could make gambit with an artificer seeing how all their spells are cast with material components that you have to touch. Can still use magic stone as well. cheese it up by stacking repeating shot and EAF for some high attack bonuses.

[CapnWildefyr]

Thing is, you can't use Firebolt with a ranged or finesse weapon so it has nothing to do with Magic Stone or Sneak Attack.

And Sneak Attack doesn't need a weapon attack, so I don't see what adding weapon to ranged spell attack has to do with it either. Using a weapon and making a weapon attack are two different things (you can make a weapon attack without using a weapon, for example).

Sneak attack states you need to be making a finesse or ranged weapon attack. "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." It doesn't mention spells. I didn't see an errata on this, possible I missed one. The old Sage Advice compendium also states that a monk's OA strike cannot be used with sneak attack, either. Must be a finesse or ranged weapon.

Also, the spell specifically states that it is a ranged spell attack using the caster's mods, even from a sling, and even if you give the pebble to someone else. (FYI I put the whole spell descr. in my 1st post.) If the spell didn't specifically call out 'ranged spell attack,' I'd agree with you, I mean, makes sense, but it says what it says.

[stoutstien]

Sneak attack states you need to be making a finesse or ranged weapon attack. "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." It doesn't mention spells. I didn't see an errata on this, possible I missed one. The old Sage Advice compendium also states that a monk's OA strike cannot be used with sneak attack, either. Must be a finesse or ranged weapon.

Also, the spell specifically states that it is a ranged spell attack using the caster's mods, even from a sling, and even if you give the pebble to someone else. (FYI I put the whole spell descr. in my 1st post.) If the spell didn't specifically call out 'ranged spell attack,' I'd agree with you, I mean, makes sense, but it says what it says.

You keep changing the order of the words in the SA rules which is very important when it comes to distinguishing different types of attacks. Sneak attack needs to use a ranged or finesse weapon. It never distinguishes the attack must be made with that weapon. It seems incredibly pedantic but the rules get really funky here.

In reality the only reason they added the line in magic Stone so it could be used with a sling is so a rogue could sneak attack with it.

[JackPhoenix]

Sneak attack states you need to be making a finesse or ranged weapon attack. "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." It doesn't mention spells.

Again, "weapon attacks" and "attacks with a weapon" are two different things in the rules. Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks even though they are not attacks with a weapon, Magic Stone shot from a sling is an attack with a weapon, even though it's a spell attack.


The old Sage Advice compendium also states that a monk's OA strike cannot be used with sneak attack, either. Must be a finesse or ranged weapon.

Indeed. Monk's unarmed strike is not an attack with a weapon (ranged, finesse or otherwise), even though it's a weapon attack.


Also, the spell specifically states that it is a ranged spell attack using the caster's mods, even from a sling, and even if you give the pebble to someone else. (FYI I put the whole spell descr. in my 1st post.) If the spell didn't specifically call out 'ranged spell attack,' I'd agree with you, I mean, makes sense, but it says what it says.

Doesn't matter for sneak attack.

Blame WotC from using confusing terminology, but the use is consistent.

[Valmark]

Sneak attack states you need to be making a finesse or ranged weapon attack. "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." It doesn't mention spells. I didn't see an errata on this, possible I missed one. The old Sage Advice compendium also states that a monk's OA strike cannot be used with sneak attack, either. Must be a finesse or ranged weapon.

Also, the spell specifically states that it is a ranged spell attack using the caster's mods, even from a sling, and even if you give the pebble to someone else. (FYI I put the whole spell descr. in my 1st post.) If the spell didn't specifically call out 'ranged spell attack,' I'd agree with you, I mean, makes sense, but it says what it says.

Like the others said, using a ranged weapon doesn't mean making a ranged weapon attack- and the text never says to make a ranged weapon attack, only to use a ranged weapon.

Yes, unarmed strikes cannot trigger sneak attacks because those don't use a ranged or finesse weapon. Using a sling to hurl a magic stone does though.

It's important to clear this up- a ranged weapon attack is a defined term in d&d 5e. You can't substitute it to 'ranged weapon'. It's simply not the same thing.

One is a type of attack. The other is an object (or a part of a creature in case of natural weapons. Specifying this because some effects do make a distinction). Sneak Attack requires the object but makes no mention of the type of attack.

[CapnWildefyr]

You keep changing the order of the words in the SA rules which is very important when it comes to distinguishing different types of attacks. Sneak attack needs to use a ranged or finesse weapon. It never distinguishes the attack must be made with that weapon. It seems incredibly pedantic but the rules get really funky here.

In reality the only reason they added the line in magic Stone so it could be used with a sling is so a rogue could sneak attack with it.

I don't think I was changing the order of the words... but...see below...


Again, "weapon attacks" and "attacks with a weapon" are two different things in the rules. Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks even though they are not attacks with a weapon, Magic Stone shot from a sling is an attack with a weapon, even though it's a spell attack.

Blame WotC from using confusing terminology, but the use is consistent.

After re-reading this for the 75th time, I can see how it can be read as you state. I don't read it that way, because I read in context of sentences in a paragraph building on each other, however that doesn't mean that other readings are wrong just because NIH (not invented here). Frankly I prefer magic stone working for SA anyway. :smallwink:

I wonder if part of game design for TTRPGs is deliberately vague wording, just to cause continued, (sometimes heated) discussions? :smallconfused: (I was going to put that in sarcasm blue, but I'm not sure I'm joking.)

FWIW I'd still create a new cantrip in this case, just because it would fit the character theme better - explosive radiant or lightning damage instead of B.

[J-H]

Doesn't Gambit basically just throw playing cards charged with exploding force energy?
Sounds like a refluffed Eldritch Blast to me.

[DwarfFighter]

Sneak attack needs to use a ranged or finesse weapon. It never distinguishes the attack must be made with that weapon. It seems incredibly pedantic but the rules get really funky here.

If you only look at the part of the Sneak Attack rules that limit the use, it is true that it doesn't say "attack".

But if you look at the rules that enables the use, that part does specify "attack".

-DF

[Valmark]

If you only look at the part of the Sneak Attack rules that limit the use, it is true that it doesn't say "attack".

But if you look at the rules that enables the use, that part does specify "attack".

-DF

Yes, but only attack. It never says weapon attack.

[DwarfFighter]

Yes, but only attack. It never says weapon attack.

Since we are doing a pedantic: it enables Sneak Attack for attack in general, then limits to ranged and finesse weapons. In sum: ranged weapon attacks and finesse weapon attacks melee weapon attacks with finesse melee weapons.

[Valmark]

Since we are doing a pedantic: it enables Sneak Attack for attack in general, then limits to ranged and finesse weapons. In sum: ranged weapon attacks and finesse weapon attacks.

No.

If it was ranged weapon attacks then I could throw a long sword as an improvised weapon and trigger a sneak attack. It's attacks using a ranged weapon.

Finesse weapon attacks don't even exist. It'd have to be "Weapon attacks with a finesse weapon".

[DwarfFighter]

No.

If it was ranged weapon attacks then I could throw a long sword as an improvised weapon and trigger a sneak attack. It's attacks using a ranged weapon.

Finesse weapon attacks don't even exist. It'd have to be "Weapon attacks with a finesse weapon".

You are addressing the absurdity of a thrown long sword counting as a ranged weapon attack, making the Sneak Attack applicable to the attack. That doesn't invalidate the text of the Sneak Attack. Equally absurd is using a longbow as an melee weapon and also benefit from Sneak Attack. The problem is perhaps with improvised weapons, not with Sneak Attack.

You are correct, the "finesse weapon attack" should be a "melee weapon attack with a finesse weapon", the former is imprecise short-hand.

I think it is fair to say that weapon attacks and spell attacks are mutually exclusive, as are ranged attacks and melee attacks. It would thus follow that Magic Stone with a sling is a ranged spell attack as stated in the description of the spell, and not a ranged spell weapon attack, which is an artificial construct derived from the notion that the spell description cannot override the nature of a sling weapon.

-DF

[Valmark]

You are addressing the absurdity of a thrown long sword counting as a ranged weapon attack, making the Sneak Attack applicable to the attack. That doesn't invalidate the text of the Sneak Attack. Equally absurd is using a longbow as an melee weapon and also benefit from Sneak Attack. The problem is perhaps with improvised weapons, not with Sneak Attack.

You are correct, the "finesse weapon attack" should be a "melee weapon attack with a finesse weapon", the former is imprecise short-hand.

I think it is fair to say that weapon attacks and spell attacks are mutually exclusive, as are ranged attacks and melee attacks. It would thus follow that Magic Stone with a sling is a ranged spell attack as stated in the description of the spell, and not a ranged spell weapon attack, which is an artificial construct derived from the notion that the spell description cannot override the nature of a sling weapon.

-DF

I wasn't addressing an absurdity, I was pointing out why they are different.

Yes, weapon and spell attacks are mutually exclusive, so are ranged and melee attacks.

Again, Sneak Attack doesn't ask for weapon attacks, so such a distinction is meaningless.
You keep pointing out 'weapon attacks' which are an entirely different thing from 'using a weapon'. At least in the 5e ruleset.

If it's easier to understand take a javelin. If it was 'ranged weapon attacks' you could sneak attack with it, but it's not. It's 'attacks with a ranged weapon', which means javelins don't qualify (this should be less absurd if that's an issue).

[DwarfFighter]

I wasn't addressing an absurdity, I was pointing out why they are different.

Yes, weapon and spell attacks are mutually exclusive, so are ranged and melee attacks.

Again, Sneak Attack doesn't ask for weapon attacks, so such a distinction is meaningless.
You keep pointing out 'weapon attacks' which are an entirely different thing from 'using a weapon'. At least in the 5e ruleset.

If it's easier to understand take a javelin. If it was 'ranged weapon attacks' you could sneak attack with it, but it's not. It's 'attacks with a ranged weapon', which means javelins don't qualify (this should be less absurd if that's an issue).

I get what you mean, I think.

Saying "ranged weapon attack" is incorrect, since not all ranged weapon attacks are made with weapons in the ranged weapons category, the javelin being an example of a mele weapon category weapon that is used for a ranged weapon attack.

Let me try again:

The sneak Attack rules enables Sneak Attack for attack in general, then limits to ranged weapons and finesse weapons. In sum: weapon attacks, with weapons that are in the ranged weapons category, or have the finesse weapon property. But certainly not spell attacks.

-DF

[Valmark]

I get what you mean, I think.

Saying "ranged weapon attack" is incorrect, since not all ranged weapon attacks are made with weapons in the ranged weapons category, the javelin being an example of a mele weapon category weapon that is used for a ranged weapon attack.

Let me try again:

The sneak Attack rules enables Sneak Attack for attack in general, then limits to ranged weapons and finesse weapons. In sum: weapon attacks, with weapons that are in the ranged weapons category, or have the finesse weapon property. But certainly not spell attacks.

-DF

Agreed on the first paragraph- not agreeing on the second.

Don't get me wrong- most of the time if you attack using a weapon you're making a weapon attack. As such you can say that Sneak Attack tipically procs on weapon attacks.
Homewever saying that you need to 'attack using a ranged weapon' means that you could even make a spell attack, as long as it uses a ranged weapon.

Case in point: Attacking with a Magic Stone using a sling. You're making a spell attack using a weapon.
There's even a mechanical difference between throwing a MS by hand or by using the sling so it does matter wether you use it or not- normally the MS has a range of 60 feet, with a sling it has a range of 30/120, provoking disadvantage beyond 30 feet.

Something else that applies to this distinction would be Sharpshooter- if you attacked normally with a sling (ranged weapon attack) you would ignore the disadvantage while attacking between 31 and 120 feet, homewever if you used a MS (ranged spell attack) Sharpshooter wouldn't make you ignore disadvantage because it requires a ranged weapon attack and not an attack with a ranged weapon. Meanwhile Sneak Attack doesn't require a ranged weapon attack but instead an attack with a ranged weapon, and as such allows Magic Stone to join in.

Ironically, the last bullet from Sharpshooter (-5 to hit/+10 damage) doesn't require a ranged weapon attack but an attack with a ranged weapon.
I don't actually know if it's ironic but I do find it amusing.

[Hytheter]

God, what an infuriating post. Seeing all those technicalities laid out at once like that makes me want to scream. Why couldn't they use more clear and consistent terminology?

[Valmark]

God, what an infuriating post. Seeing all those technicalities laid out at once like that makes me want to scream. Why couldn't they use more clear and consistent terminology?

Agreed- the books could have had clearer wording in several parts.

Although internet discussions wouldn't be quite as fun.

[CapnWildefyr]

Agreed- the books could have had clearer wording in several parts.

Although internet discussions wouldn't be quite as fun.

Even if they wrote an encyclopedia for every entry (which we all agree would be fun and very interesting), still different people will read it differently, and the same person might read it differently at different times.

Personally I'm with DF, and at my table I'd argue that magic stone is not technically allowed for a sneak attack, and then I might allow it anyway because I think it's stupid not to and it's not overpowering if allowed. But the thing is, I see how it can be read differently than I read it. As a DM I would do my thing, but I also don't believe you're wrong in doing your thing and reading it differently, splitting a different hair, so to speak. The nature of language is that sometimes there are two valid interpretations.

You know, the DnD lore says Elvish is supposed to be subtle, with many shades of meaning. Thank God the rules in are English. This is bad enough. :)

[Waterdeep Merch]

Reading discussions like this makes me wish I took a background that granted bonus languages. I'd like to see what bizarre technical language inconsistencies translate to. It might help settle a lot of arguments.

[HPisBS]

Reading discussions like this makes me wish I took a background that granted bonus languages. I'd like to see what bizarre technical language inconsistencies translate to. It might help settle a lot of arguments.

I only half-assed my Cloistered Scholar training. I never reached full proficiency in Spanish or Japanese.

[CapnWildefyr]

I only half-assed my Cloistered Scholar training. I never reached full proficiency in Spanish or Japanese.

There are online translators these days. Maybe this one, for Klingon, can help with the PHB.:
https://www.translator.eu/english/klingon/translation/
:smallcool:

More seriously, but still off-topic: IME if it's confusing in English, it's way worse when translated, regardless of language, without a lot of time being spent fixing it. Esp. into Japanese, Chinese, etc.