[5E] Backstab for non-rogues

[Finarvyn]

Sort of. Let me explain.

I'm in a 5E game on Sundays at my local game store and had planned on playing a Wizard, except that no one wanted to play a Rogue so I decided to burn up some of my DM XP to gain an extra level and picked Rogue so that somone in the party could pick locks and the like. It does limit my ability to cast spells in the long run (those 300 XP invested end up keeping me a level behind everyone else as we get farther in the campaign since it takes more and more XP to level up, but that's for fodder for another thread...) but I thought it was worth it for party support.

One neat thing is the Rogue's ability to do a sneak attack, which grants and extra 1d6 damage from melee and/or missile attacks in certain situations. What I have found, sadly, is that it doesn't give that extra 1d6 damage for spells even if those spells require a melee and/or missile attack roll. At least, that's how our GM is interpreting the rules. (I know that some spells require saving throws, and I wouldn't try to apply the rule to those.)

What do you think? Is the GM reading the rules right, or should my Rogue-Wizard get to use sneak attack for those kinds of spells that require me to make attack rolls?

[bestialwarlust]

I would tend to agree with the GM on this. I wouldn't allow spells the ability to "backstab". As I understood it's the same as a prison shanking. Getting up close and personal and striking at a vital spot. Spells normally don't have that pinpoint accuracy,

[Vile Traveller]

I do allow missile "back-stabs" but only because I go by the principle that the target has to be unaware of the thief - sorry, rogue - so I would only allow spells that don't draw attention to the caster. In addition, it has to be an attack that can be aimed (again, my interpretation being that the extra damage comes from aiming at a vital spot) so a lot of spells would be disqualified. But I'm not opposed to the basic idea.

[Finarvyn]

Yeah, he allows me to use a shortbow and backstab with it, assuming I guess that I'm able to focus to hit a vital spot. That's why I thought he might allow me to do the same with a missile-attack rolled spell. If I have to roll to hit, why should it matter if it's a bow or a magic bolt.

Aug 30, 2015 7:30:18 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

I would tend to agree with the GM on this. I wouldn't allow spells the ability to "backstab". As I understood it's the same as a prison shanking. Getting up close and personal and striking at a vital spot. Spells normally don't have that pinpoint accuracy,

My mental image of the backstab matches yours -- in my OD&D games I've only allowed melee backstabs in the past.

[howandwhy99]

Aug 30, 2015 7:05:58 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

What do you think? Is the GM reading the rules right, or should my Rogue-Wizard get to use sneak attack for those kinds of spells that require me to make attack rolls?

Funnily enough, I'm playing a rogue (dark elf assassin) in a Saturday night 5e game. IIRC, Backstab in this edition requires advantage or an adjacent ally attacking the same foe, plus the attack must be ranged or finesse.

Since most spells are treated as weapons in this version I agree with you about the DM's call being suspect. However, the DM's call is final. As long as the ruling carries through the game, you should be able to play it as it applies to both you, the other PCs, and every NPC. Try and use that to your advantage instead.

It's something I don't care for in the newer versions, but you can play the rules lawyer game. Read through the rules for some declaration about spells being ranged weapons. Then show the DM.

[Dohojar]

I happened to to have my players handbook handy and I just read the sneak attack section. In the first paragraph it says:

"The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon".

A spell is not a finesse weapon nor is it a ranged weapon. It is a ranged spell attack. Your dm is right and I wouldn't allow it either.