Cantrips - Ranged Weapons? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 ProphetSword Mar 03, 2015 9:11:48	Something came up in a conversation on another forum, and I'm seeking a rule clarification. I'm aware that some cantrips are ranged, and that they are ranged attacks, but are they ranged weapons? Because, I was under the impression that "ranged weapons" were a particular subset of weapons listed in the equipment section. This question comes up because someone proposed that a multiclassed fighter/wizard would be able to select the archery bonus under fighter (which grants +2 to hit with ranged weapons) and apply it to their wizard cantrips. That doesn't seem right to me, but I'm not 100% sure. Any thoughts?
#2 mellored Mar 03, 2015 9:17:06	they are not weapons of any kind. though you can still allow it if you want.
#3 jaelis Mar 03, 2015 9:53:18	Maybe if you throw your shillelagh
#4 QwertyAzerty Mar 03, 2015 10:46:41	By Raw spell attack are NOT weapon attack, so they do not benefit from Archery, they do not benefit from sneak attack, they do not benefit from the fighter champion improved ciritcal ability. You are right, all the weapon are listed un the weapon table in the equipment section. But like Mellored said, if you are playing a home game, nothing stop the DM from allowig it, it would not be very over powered, would offer more synergy between some class that usually didn't had great synergy, so it open more options.
#5 RealSeolfor Mar 03, 2015 11:10:28	If you do allow it to a multiclass, I'd house rule that the ranged spell attack is delivered via a traditional ranged weapon/ammo I.e. In above example the fighter wizard gets the archery style attack bonus as his Fire bolt is fired through the crossbow (very much like Shillelagh, it changes arrow/bolt into the Cantrip and changes DEX attack bonus to INT bonus). And like Shillelagh I'd tax this benefit with a Bonus action every turn its used, Ofcourse it wouldn't apply bonus to damage without appropriate class feature like 'Potent Cantrip'.
#6 Kalani Mar 03, 2015 11:46:50	ProphetSword wrote:
#7 jeff0 Mar 03, 2015 14:09:29	jaelis wrote:
#8 jaelis Mar 04, 2015 4:33:10	That and the fact that shillelagh specifies melee attacks
#9 Eggnogfool Mar 04, 2015 5:37:24	Is there a reference for unarmed strikes being melee weapon attacks? I assume you don't consider them wielded?
#10 mellored Mar 04, 2015 6:13:01	Eggnogfool wrote:
#11 Kalani Mar 04, 2015 9:33:00	There are two types of attack in the game - Weapon attacks and Spell attacks. Unarmed Strikes Unarmed strikes are considered melee weapon attacks, much like claws, bites, tentacles, etc. You do not wield unarmed strikes. In fact, unless you are a monk - you can only make an unarmed strike if you are wielding no weapons, by a strict reading of the rules. Common sense however, should allow someone to make an unarmed strike if they have at least one free hand (or are a monk, who can make them with any part of their body)....Some DMs may not even require a free hand (allowing you to strike with headbutt, knee, kick, etc) - as it is not abusable (see below). Regarding Two-weapon Fighting You cannot make unarmed strikes while TWF as unarmed strikes are neither light weapons, nor are they wielded in the hand (you do not wield your unarmed strike, you just have it). Some players/DMs incorrectly believe that the Dual Wielder feat will allow you to TWF using unarmed strikes. However, while dual-wielder removes the light weapon requirement from TWF, it still requires that you wield a melee weapon in each hand. As you do not wield unarmed strikes, nor are they held in the hand - you cannot use two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes even if you have the DW feat, by a strict reading of the RAW. Allowing characters with DW to TWF using unarmed strikes is a fair houserule however - esp. considering the opportunity cost (feats are precious).
#12 lawrencehoy Mar 04, 2015 8:11:45	Kalani wrote:
#13 jaelis Mar 04, 2015 8:37:22	Except that you mean light rather than finesse.
#14 strider13x Mar 04, 2015 8:51:42	I consider making a fist "wielding" so I would allow DW feat to grant the bonus action with unarmed strike (like you said, they spent a feat so why not?) To the OP, if the spell cast using the bow as the spell focus then I may allow it. Again, specific resources were spent so give the players their fun! If they dont have a focus then no, it does say weapon attack after all.
#15 Kalani Mar 04, 2015 9:44:54	jaelis wrote:
#16 jonathonhawke Mar 04, 2015 9:56:27	Except that the TWF rule references light weapons, not finesse weapons.
#17 Kalani Mar 04, 2015 10:31:25	jonathonhawke wrote:
#18 Oraibi Mar 22, 2015 22:15:23	Counting ranged cantrips as ranged weapons is a bad idea for a house rule if someone is going to multiclass into rogue, or just be an arcane trickster. Because cantrip damage already scales, so adding sneak attack damage onto that will be overpowered.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

ProphetSword

Mar 03, 2015 9:11:48

Something came up in a conversation on another forum, and I'm seeking a rule clarification.

I'm aware that some cantrips are ranged, and that they are ranged attacks, but are they ranged weapons? Because, I was under the impression that "ranged weapons" were a particular subset of weapons listed in the equipment section.

This question comes up because someone proposed that a multiclassed fighter/wizard would be able to select the archery bonus under fighter (which grants +2 to hit with ranged weapons) and apply it to their wizard cantrips. That doesn't seem right to me, but I'm not 100% sure.

Any thoughts?

mellored

Mar 03, 2015 9:17:06

they are not weapons of any kind.
though you can still allow it if you want.

jaelis

Mar 03, 2015 9:53:18

Maybe if you throw your shillelagh

QwertyAzerty

Mar 03, 2015 10:46:41

By Raw spell attack are NOT weapon attack, so they do not benefit from Archery, they do not benefit from sneak attack, they do not benefit from the fighter champion improved ciritcal ability.

You are right, all the weapon are listed un the weapon table in the equipment section.

But like Mellored said, if you are playing a home game, nothing stop the DM from allowig it, it would not be very over powered, would offer more synergy between some class that usually didn't had great synergy, so it open more options.

RealSeolfor

Mar 03, 2015 11:10:28

If you do allow it to a multiclass, I'd house rule that the ranged spell attack is delivered via a traditional ranged weapon/ammo I.e. In above example the fighter wizard gets the archery style attack bonus as his Fire bolt is fired through the crossbow (very much like Shillelagh, it changes arrow/bolt into the Cantrip and changes DEX attack bonus to INT bonus). And like Shillelagh I'd tax this benefit with a Bonus action every turn its used,

Ofcourse it wouldn't apply bonus to damage without appropriate class feature like 'Potent Cantrip'.

Kalani

Mar 03, 2015 11:46:50

ProphetSword wrote:

jeff0

Mar 03, 2015 14:09:29

jaelis wrote:

jaelis

Mar 04, 2015 4:33:10

That and the fact that shillelagh specifies melee attacks

Eggnogfool

Mar 04, 2015 5:37:24

Is there a reference for unarmed strikes being melee weapon attacks? I assume you don't consider them wielded?

#10

mellored

Mar 04, 2015 6:13:01

Eggnogfool wrote:

#11

Kalani

Mar 04, 2015 9:33:00

There are two types of attack in the game - Weapon attacks and Spell attacks.

Unarmed Strikes

Unarmed strikes are considered melee weapon attacks, much like claws, bites, tentacles, etc.
You do not wield unarmed strikes. In fact, unless you are a monk - you can only make an unarmed strike if you are wielding no weapons, by a strict reading of the rules.
Common sense however, should allow someone to make an unarmed strike if they have at least one free hand (or are a monk, who can make them with any part of their body)....Some DMs may not even require a free hand (allowing you to strike with headbutt, knee, kick, etc) - as it is not abusable (see below).

Regarding Two-weapon Fighting

You cannot make unarmed strikes while TWF as unarmed strikes are neither light weapons, nor are they wielded in the hand (you do not wield your unarmed strike, you just have it).
Some players/DMs incorrectly believe that the Dual Wielder feat will allow you to TWF using unarmed strikes.
However, while dual-wielder removes the light weapon requirement from TWF, it still requires that you wield a melee weapon in each hand.
As you do not wield unarmed strikes, nor are they held in the hand - you cannot use two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes even if you have the DW feat, by a strict reading of the RAW.
Allowing characters with DW to TWF using unarmed strikes is a fair houserule however - esp. considering the opportunity cost (feats are precious).

#12

lawrencehoy

Mar 04, 2015 8:11:45

Kalani wrote:

#13

jaelis

Mar 04, 2015 8:37:22

Except that you mean light rather than finesse.

#14

strider13x

Mar 04, 2015 8:51:42

I consider making a fist "wielding" so I would allow DW feat to grant the bonus action with unarmed strike (like you said, they spent a feat so why not?)

To the OP, if the spell cast using the bow as the spell focus then I may allow it. Again, specific resources were spent so give the players their fun! If they dont have a focus then no, it does say weapon attack after all.

#15

Kalani

Mar 04, 2015 9:44:54

jaelis wrote:

#16

jonathonhawke

Mar 04, 2015 9:56:27

Except that the TWF rule references light weapons, not finesse weapons.

#17

Kalani

Mar 04, 2015 10:31:25

jonathonhawke wrote:

#18

Oraibi

Mar 22, 2015 22:15:23

Counting ranged cantrips as ranged weapons is a bad idea for a house rule if someone is going to multiclass into rogue, or just be an arcane trickster.

Because cantrip damage already scales, so adding sneak attack damage onto that will be overpowered.