...then putting it in a sling will make it a lovely sling stone that doesnt trigger its activation properly remaining a stone, nothing more.
...
It doesnt say you can increase the range by dropping it, putting it in a catapult, in a sling shot or fire all three in one volley from a blunderbuss.
The description says "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling." So putting it in a sling does in fact trigger the effect, and of the four examples (dropping it, putting it in a catapult, putting it in a sling, and putting three in a blunderbuss), the sling is the only one that is specifically called out in the description (so the other 3 might require DM discretion).
The first version of Magic Stone that I can find, Magical Stone in 2nd edition, had a thrown range of 30 yards (90 ft) and a sling stone had a short range of 40 yards (120 ft). By 3.5 edition, the thrown stone had a range increment of 20’ vs 50’ of a sling. The decision to drastically cut the range of a sling by 5th edition and then later adding a modified Magic Stone spell as a cantrip in 5th edition may account for the range discrepancy.
The problem here with the range and my examples is you can see the issue but not the answer because there is a discrepancy. How do you as a DM want the science of your world to work? If you put it in a sling then it still has a range of 60' according to the spell but looks slightly cooler than throwing a stone. - so unless you can trigger it in other ways that your gameworld science makes sense of which allows tinkering with the spell effect? Any and every call you make can be either right or wrong. Its up to the DM what works and hopefully they will put some thought into why something works that way. When you have your baseline the rest slots into place a little easier.
I.C. - reread it - yup, your right about the sling range extension, my bad on that everyone! It does mention sling alone and doesnt mention removing the long range penalty which is odd applied to a spell attack. It makes it harder to make sense of where it fits within your world science. Good luck with that!
As written actually there is no range increase with the sling nor is it a finesse attack. You are not making a ranged weapon attack at all, it is simple a ranged spell attack with 60ft range that can be done with a sling as well as by hurling it.
We discussed earlier in this forum why the wording of it is as is and obviously it is just to prevent exploit by non-druids.
As written actually there is no range increase with the sling nor is it a finesse attack. You are not making a ranged weapon attack at all, it is simple a ranged spell attack with 60ft range that can be done with a sling as well as by hurling it.
Read the text again. The sentence that mentions the 60 foot range is specific to throwing it. There is no mention of range when hurling it with a sling, so the sling's range still applies.
Sneak Attack works with ranged weapons in addition to Finesse weapons. It also doesn't require that you use Dexterity.
Thats an SA that is devouring its own tail (if accurate) although a nice piece of 5th ed trivia, when is a spell attack not a spell attack? When its magic stone in a sling using a (possibly not the sling wielders) casters wisdom modifier to hit and damage.
“An attack made with magic stone is a spell attack, even if you hurl the stone with a sling. The attack doesn't qualify for anything that requires a weapon attack, but it does work with a feature that requires a ranged weapon if you use a sling. #DnD”
So a spell attack with a magic stone is in fact a spell attack.
Yes, this is what makes Magic Stone unappealing to my Archery fighting style ranger who just took a level of druid. “+2 to ranged weapon attacks” should apply when using a sling or throwing, even if the ammunition is magical. But the wording of the spell (“ranged spell attack”) seems intentionally written to rule out adding my ranged attacking bonus when hurling these particular stones. If allowed, it would make the damage comparable enough to my longbow that I would use it when called for. (1d8 for longbow vs 1d6 for MS, though magic stone is magical damage, so there’s appeal). But if the chances of successfully hitting are also lower because I can’t use my fighting style, MS loses its appeal and I’ll look elsewhere for magic damage.
You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons.
Here's the relevant part of Sneak Attack:
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.
Neither feature cares about what kind of attack roll you're making.
The attack is not being made with a weapon if you are using magic stone. It specifically states that it is a “ranged spell attack” not that it is both a ranged weapon attack and a ranged spell attack.
Basically the wording of the spell is wrong in that manner, but someone posted that SA stated it could be used in that way by a rogue.
The attack is not being made with a weapon if you are using magic stone. It specifically states that it is a “ranged spell attack” not that it is both a ranged weapon attack and a ranged spell attack.
Basically the wording of the spell is wrong in that manner, but someone posted that SA stated it could be used in that way by a rogue.
I feel like the spell needs an update.
Lol generally a forum thread dedicated to the interpretation of one spell is an indication an update/overhaul is "needed"
An attack with a ranged weapon is not the same as a ranged weapon attack.
That may seem illogical but that is what allows a sneak attack to be made with a Magic Stone from a sling. The attack roll is a ranged spell attack but the attack is made with a ranged weapon, the sling.
The attack is not being made with a weapon if you are using magic stone. It specifically states that it is a “ranged spell attack” not that it is both a ranged weapon attack and a ranged spell attack.
Basically the wording of the spell is wrong in that manner, but someone posted that SA stated it could be used in that way by a rogue.
I feel like the spell needs an update.
Not quite. It's a ranged spell attack, made with a ranged weapon. It is not a ranged weapon attack. They share common words, which I agree is confusing, but they are separate things. Sneak Attack and Archery trigger off of ranged weapons and not ranged weapon attacks, meaning that a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon count.
The Sage Advice backs up the base wording of the spell and features.
Edit: For example, the Thrown property on melee weapons allows you to make ranged weapon attacks, but they are not ranged weapons. Just another piece of evidence that shows how the system defines the two separately.
I heard a couple of ideas from the designers about "words as code" and the text of rules being only what is written. Those ideas really caught hold with me, and after hearing them (along with some people pointing out a few details of wording and how some things work) Magic Stone started to make a lot more sense.
The description that Conn_Eremon wrote makes perfect sense if you consider the text on the page as "words as code." You make a ranged spell attack with the stone (no matter how you choose to get it to the target), If you choose to use a sling, then you have made that ranged spell attack with a ranged weapon. From that, all of the rest that he wrote seems to follow. Interpreting this as a "ranged weapon attack" is incorrect because that phrase (which has specific rules associated with it) is not used in the spell, even if you think it makes "logical" sense that all attacks from range with a weapon should be "ranged weapon attacks."
Using the words on the page and interpreting them as "words as code" helped me to understand this spell.
Simply because the spell states that you can use it in a sling, and almost no one uses a sling because it's generally not a good weapon, I would allow (even if not necessarily RAW) all modifiers that normally affect a sling, with the exception of the proficiency and ability bonus (because the spell calls that out as well) to affect the magic stones. In such a world you could, lets say, use the Archery Fighting Style along with Sneak Attack and Sharpshooter to really hit it out of the park, assuming of course you took enough feats and class levels to get all those things together. That's just me though, and I totally get why people think otherwise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The description says "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling." So putting it in a sling does in fact trigger the effect, and of the four examples (dropping it, putting it in a catapult, putting it in a sling, and putting three in a blunderbuss), the sling is the only one that is specifically called out in the description (so the other 3 might require DM discretion).
The spell says you can use it with a sling. If there’s no benefit in doing this (is the added range) why even mention it?
The first version of Magic Stone that I can find, Magical Stone in 2nd edition, had a thrown range of 30 yards (90 ft) and a sling stone had a short range of 40 yards (120 ft). By 3.5 edition, the thrown stone had a range increment of 20’ vs 50’ of a sling. The decision to drastically cut the range of a sling by 5th edition and then later adding a modified Magic Stone spell as a cantrip in 5th edition may account for the range discrepancy.
The problem here with the range and my examples is you can see the issue but not the answer because there is a discrepancy. How do you as a DM want the science of your world to work? If you put it in a sling then it still has a range of 60' according to the spell but looks slightly cooler than throwing a stone. - so unless you can trigger it in other ways that your gameworld science makes sense of which allows tinkering with the spell effect? Any and every call you make can be either right or wrong. Its up to the DM what works and hopefully they will put some thought into why something works that way. When you have your baseline the rest slots into place a little easier.
You could benefit from Archery Fighting Style and Sneak Attack.
No, the range of 60 feet is specific to throwing it by hand. A sling would still use its normal range.
I.C. - reread it - yup, your right about the sling range extension, my bad on that everyone! It does mention sling alone and doesnt mention removing the long range penalty which is odd applied to a spell attack. It makes it harder to make sense of where it fits within your world science. Good luck with that!
As written actually there is no range increase with the sling nor is it a finesse attack. You are not making a ranged weapon attack at all, it is simple a ranged spell attack with 60ft range that can be done with a sling as well as by hurling it.
We discussed earlier in this forum why the wording of it is as is and obviously it is just to prevent exploit by non-druids.
Read the text again. The sentence that mentions the 60 foot range is specific to throwing it. There is no mention of range when hurling it with a sling, so the sling's range still applies.
Sneak Attack works with ranged weapons in addition to Finesse weapons. It also doesn't require that you use Dexterity.
I.C. surely the ranged weapon section cant allow sneak attack as magic stone is a ranged spell attack regardless?
From what i’ve read in Sage Advice, a Magic Stone from a sling can be used for sneak attack. A thrown Magic Stone cannot be used for sneak attack.
It is still a ranged spell attack when used with a sling but sling is a ranged weapon so it qualifies for sneak attack.
Thats an SA that is devouring its own tail (if accurate) although a nice piece of 5th ed trivia, when is a spell attack not a spell attack? When its magic stone in a sling using a (possibly not the sling wielders) casters wisdom modifier to hit and damage.
They are pretty clear in Sage Advice:
“An attack made with magic stone is a spell attack, even if you hurl the stone with a sling. The attack doesn't qualify for anything that requires a weapon attack, but it does work with a feature that requires a ranged weapon if you use a sling. #DnD”
So a spell attack with a magic stone is in fact a spell attack.
Yes, this is what makes Magic Stone unappealing to my Archery fighting style ranger who just took a level of druid. “+2 to ranged weapon attacks” should apply when using a sling or throwing, even if the ammunition is magical. But the wording of the spell (“ranged spell attack”) seems intentionally written to rule out adding my ranged attacking bonus when hurling these particular stones. If allowed, it would make the damage comparable enough to my longbow that I would use it when called for. (1d8 for longbow vs 1d6 for MS, though magic stone is magical damage, so there’s appeal). But if the chances of successfully hitting are also lower because I can’t use my fighting style, MS loses its appeal and I’ll look elsewhere for magic damage.
Here's Archery Fighting Style:
Here's the relevant part of Sneak Attack:
Neither feature cares about what kind of attack roll you're making.
The attack is not being made with a weapon if you are using magic stone. It specifically states that it is a “ranged spell attack” not that it is both a ranged weapon attack and a ranged spell attack.
Basically the wording of the spell is wrong in that manner, but someone posted that SA stated it could be used in that way by a rogue.
I feel like the spell needs an update.
Lol generally a forum thread dedicated to the interpretation of one spell is an indication an update/overhaul is "needed"
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
An attack with a ranged weapon is not the same as a ranged weapon attack.
That may seem illogical but that is what allows a sneak attack to be made with a Magic Stone from a sling. The attack roll is a ranged spell attack but the attack is made with a ranged weapon, the sling.
Not quite. It's a ranged spell attack, made with a ranged weapon. It is not a ranged weapon attack. They share common words, which I agree is confusing, but they are separate things. Sneak Attack and Archery trigger off of ranged weapons and not ranged weapon attacks, meaning that a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon count.
The Sage Advice backs up the base wording of the spell and features.
Edit: For example, the Thrown property on melee weapons allows you to make ranged weapon attacks, but they are not ranged weapons. Just another piece of evidence that shows how the system defines the two separately.
I heard a couple of ideas from the designers about "words as code" and the text of rules being only what is written. Those ideas really caught hold with me, and after hearing them (along with some people pointing out a few details of wording and how some things work) Magic Stone started to make a lot more sense.
The description that Conn_Eremon wrote makes perfect sense if you consider the text on the page as "words as code." You make a ranged spell attack with the stone (no matter how you choose to get it to the target), If you choose to use a sling, then you have made that ranged spell attack with a ranged weapon. From that, all of the rest that he wrote seems to follow. Interpreting this as a "ranged weapon attack" is incorrect because that phrase (which has specific rules associated with it) is not used in the spell, even if you think it makes "logical" sense that all attacks from range with a weapon should be "ranged weapon attacks."
Using the words on the page and interpreting them as "words as code" helped me to understand this spell.
Simply because the spell states that you can use it in a sling, and almost no one uses a sling because it's generally not a good weapon, I would allow (even if not necessarily RAW) all modifiers that normally affect a sling, with the exception of the proficiency and ability bonus (because the spell calls that out as well) to affect the magic stones. In such a world you could, lets say, use the Archery Fighting Style along with Sneak Attack and Sharpshooter to really hit it out of the park, assuming of course you took enough feats and class levels to get all those things together. That's just me though, and I totally get why people think otherwise.