14
\$\begingroup\$

In the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (p. 136), the second paragraph of the Swashbuckler rogue's Rakish Audacity feature description reads:

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.

However, in Xanathar's Guide to Everything (p. 47), which reprints the Swashbuckler rogue subclass, the description of the Rakish Audacity feature reads:

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.

I can't find any acknowledgement of the text change; I'd imagine that one or the other would have been subject to errata that makes them have the same wording.

Which wording is correct?

EDIT: A continuation of the original question follows, which was based on incorrectly thinking that SCAG was printed after XGtE, and hence wondering if the SCAG text might be an intentional relaxation of the conditions the ability could be used in.

I'm assuming [the SCAG text is correct] since it was printed later, but would like a source.

Additionally, does the SCAG wording mean that the ability can be used with range attacks? I assume that RAI it should not, but I'm having a hard time interpreting "if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet" as meaning that the target must be within 5 feet.

\$\endgroup\$
9
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. You claim the two feature descriptions "disagree"... In what way? You should edit your question to indicate what specifically you're confused/unsure about. I'm also confused about your last question: "Additionally, does the SCAG wording mean that the ability can be used with range attacks?" The regular Sneak Attack feature can already be used on ranged attacks normally - are you just asking how this "additional way to use your Sneak Attack" interacts with that? \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Jan 4 at 1:10
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast The two features have different ramifications. One states that your target must be within 5 feet of you and that no other creatures can be. The other states that only your target can be within 5 feet of you; not that they must. I believe their question is whether that's correct: If you are 10 feet from somebody and nobody is next to you, have you fulfilled the requirement of having "no creature other than your target be within 5 feet of you"? \$\endgroup\$ Jan 4 at 1:16
  • 3
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2: I was hoping the querent would edit the question to clarify whether that's specifically what they were confused by (I don't know if the querent interpreted the feature descriptions as you did), or if there was something else about the different wording that confused them. \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Jan 4 at 1:32
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ Point of correction: SCAG was printed before XGtA, not after. XGtA is the most recent printing of the ability. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 4 at 3:40
18
\$\begingroup\$

Both are correct, as an official Errata correcting one or the other has not been released.

The Sword Coast Adventurers Guide (SCAG) was officially released in November 2015, while Xanathar's Guide to Everything (XGtA) was released November 2017, making the version in XGtA the most recent official version of the ability. A good number of DM's go with the "most recent printing" rule, or "Whichever book came out most recently is the new official version of the ability", but this is a house-rule, not an official stance as far as I'm aware.

Since there isn't a clear or specific rule that says which version is correct, the best advice I can give is "Ask your DM". I am surprised though, considering how Wizards went out of their way to make sure we knew that the Bladesinger's Extra Attack feature was changing in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Ahh, my mistake on publication order. The more exacting wording of XGtE makes sense now that I know the correct publication order, since it can now be interpreted as clarification of the earlier text. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5 at 3:46
3
\$\begingroup\$

Per the comment-linked Can swashbucklers sneak attack with disadvantage?, it has been Errata'd as of 2017-08-25:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/901116846207713281

Don't tell anyone, but this error has already been corrected in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

You cannot have disadvantage and sneak attack. Note that the original interpretation would allow several shenanigans including ranged sneak attack from 5ft, sneak attack with arbitrary weapons, ...

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you. can be interpreted as including "must not have disadvantage", which is separate from the "if you have advantage" option for gaining sneak attack. I see this more as a clarification of the wording, not an actual change. The XtGE wording is compatible with the previous wording, at least the way I'm reading them. (Agreed the SCAG wording was less clear and could be misinterpreted more easily.) \$\endgroup\$ Jan 4 at 23:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ "You don't need advantage on the Attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't Incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the Attack roll." Yeah, I can see that going either way, but my initial reading would be "You need advantage. You don't need advantage if <another enemy logic>. You don't need advantage if <swashbuckler logic which doesn't include disadvantage>". roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Rogue#toc_5 \$\endgroup\$
    – Cireo
    Jan 4 at 23:20
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Well, +1 just for pointing out Crawford's acknowledgement of the change, and the fact he describes it as a "correction", even though I don't think it really is. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 4 at 23:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @PeterCordes Technically, The SCAG's version of "You don't need advantage if" should read as entirely separate from the standard Sneak Attacks "You don't need advantage if" exception, meaning that you apply one or the other, rather than having to qualify for both, because if you had to qualify for both, then Rakish Audacity wouldn't be any better then the standard Sneak Attack. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5 at 13:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @RevenantBacon: Oh, I see. And therefore it needs to mention itself that you must not have disadvantage. So this is a real change in RAW for rules-lawyering purposes, although obviously not in what was intended. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 6 at 0:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .