You don't use the stone to produce an effect. You aren't doing something with the stones to do anything but attack with them. If you are trying to justify making multiple attacks, or deny multiple attacks, ask if you can use extra attack with flame blade. Is using flame blade using an object, or making an attack?
Flame Blade tells you that you must “use an action” to make an attack; thus, you may NOT attack with it using Attack. If the flame blade is an object, there is a strong argument to be made that you attack with it using [Tooltip Not Found], but if the blade is not an object and instead a mere magical effect, than it is instead a unique special action (like Vampiric Touch).
Actually the wording of Magic Stone is of poor quality in some places, but the magic of the spell imbues anyone (or any living thing really) to be capable of making one attack with each of the stones once... if you have 2 or 3 and can make extra attacks or something I can see making the argument for getting to attack more than once with them in a single round (3d6+5 if the spellcasting ability is maxed out).
I think familiars... and even pet mice from the Urchin background can use these magic stones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
Actually the wording of Magic Stone is of poor quality in some places, but the magic of the spell imbues anyone (or any living thing really) to be capable of making one attack with each of the stones once... if you have 2 or 3 and can make extra attacks or something I can see making the argument for getting to attack more than once with them in a single round (3d6+5 if the spellcasting ability is maxed out).
I think familiars... and even pet mice from the Urchin background can use these magic stones.
The magic of the spell imbues the pebbles with the properties of "can be used to make an attack by throwing or slinging and has X range and does X damage." The spell does not effect creatures in anyway, and a creature must be able to make attacks and throw the Pebble in order to "make an attack by throwing".
I would say familiars and pet mice can't use the magic stones because of that.
Yeah familiars generally can’t attack. I see the loophole here because they are not taking the attack action, but the spell’s wording covers it anyway.
Yeah familiars generally can’t attack. I see the loophole here because they are not taking the attack action, but the spell’s wording covers it anyway.
But it doesn't. The spell doesn't grant an action, and even if it did, familiars can't attack. Period. It isn't limited to the attack action, they can't throw acid (use an object) either.
“A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal.”
Wait, are you saying this goes beyond “familiars can’t Attack”, and means they can never do anything that results in an attack roll? Even delivering touch attack spells?
If this is really a prohibition on attacking and not Attack, can familiars take the Attack action to do non-attack things, like grapple or shove?
Are you questioning whether “technically, you attack even though it isn’t an attack” is an attack? I think any reasonable person knows the answer to that.
Is a grapple attempt or a shove an attack? Neither involves an attack roll. Both can only be attempted using Attack.
Recall that the source material doesn’t actually have hyperlink green text. I’m just honestly asking what the intent of that sentence is, I’d always read it in my head as them not being able to take the Attack action or their special monster attack actions. I’d never considered that they also couldn’t use items to throw acid or deliver attack touch spells for you.
Familiars can't take the attack action but can take any other action, some cases may arise where a familiar is making an attack roll but did not get there by taking the attack action.
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
Bees is arguing (whether they realize it or not) that Familiars CAN take the Attack action, so long as they don’t attack with it and instead merely shove or grapple.
Never mind, grapples and shoves may not have attack rolls, but they’re still “special melee attacks.” Okay, that’s not as bad as I thought then... no attacks AND no Attack action, that’s tidy enough.
Yeah familiars generally can’t attack. I see the loophole here because they are not taking the attack action, but the spell’s wording covers it anyway.
But it doesn't. The spell doesn't grant an action, and even if it did, familiars can't attack. Period. It isn't limited to the attack action, they can't throw acid (use an object) either.
I am saying the spell’s wording prevents an attack whether by the attack action or otherwise.
Bees is arguing (whether they realize it or not) that Familiars CAN take the Attack action, so long as they don’t attack with it and instead merely shove or grapple.
Confusing.
No, I’m really not. And the fact that you misunderstood that is annoying. Grapple and shove, for example are in a section called “Melee Attacks,” both say that they are attack, and both require the attack action. They both, in fact use attack and attack in their wording. My point was that if they say they are an attack and/or an attack then they are an attack.
As I said, I’ve taken it literally. If the feature uses “attack” in the text, then it is some sort of attack whether you have spent an attack action on it or not.
I had forgotten shove and grapple were special attacks, despite having no attack rolls. They break the magic rule of “if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.” Which I acknowledged. Relax, you don’t always have to come out swinging for me.
Well, to explain a little more, I would say that any thing that requires an attack (again, green text or no) is not allowed for a familiar with a single exception: If the familiar is not actually attacking but instead delivering a touch spell with an attack roll for the familiar's caster. This is because delivering spells is specifically called out at the end of the relevant rule text and the familiar isn't making the attack; it is just delivering the spell.
Under Acid in the equipment section of the PHB. it starts off by saying you can use an action to splash or throw and later says make a ranged attack roll but this can also be argued that since it doesn't say attack action your familiar can do this using the Use an Object action.
Grapple and Shove are listed as taking the attack action to do them. Familiars cannot take the attack action.
Familiars can make attack rolls and deal damage through other means without taking the attack action.
There are not 2 types of attack action, one with green text and one without, there is just one type of attack action that covers every kind of attack made with it (melee, ranged, spell melee, spell ranged etc.) The green text just helps people look up the attack action right there in the post without having to search through rule books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
Under Acid in the equipment section of the PHB. it starts off by saying you can use an action to splash or throw and later says make a ranged attack roll but this can also be argued that since it doesn't say attack action your familiar can do this using the Use an Object action.
Grapple and Shove are listed as taking the attack action to do them. Familiars cannot take the attack action.
Familiars can make attack rolls and deal damage through other means without taking the attack action.
There are not 2 types of attack action, one with green text and one without, there is just one type of attack action that covers every kind of attack made with it (melee, ranged, spell melee, spell ranged etc.) The green text just helps people look up the attack action right there in the post without having to search through rule books.
The relevant text for familiars makes no mention of "attack action," only "attack." The text says the familiar cannot attack. That means what it says; if you are making attack rolls, that is as its nature part of some attack. That is not allowed for familiars by the text of the spell. It is in fact incorrect to state that a familiar can make attack rolls other than the single exemption made in the spell.
There are not 2 types of attack action, one with green text and one without, there is just one type of attack action that covers every kind of attack made with it (melee, ranged, spell melee, spell ranged etc.) The green text just helps people look up the attack action right there in the post without having to search through rule books.
Sorry but this simply isn't true. The Attack action is a specific action that allows you to make some sorts of attacks. But you do not attack with your spells through taking the Attack action, that is done via the [Tooltip Not Found] action. The rules clearly allow for an attack to be made through the use of several different actions, bonus actions or reactions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You don't use the stone to produce an effect. You aren't doing something with the stones to do anything but attack with them. If you are trying to justify making multiple attacks, or deny multiple attacks, ask if you can use extra attack with flame blade. Is using flame blade using an object, or making an attack?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Flame Blade tells you that you must “use an action” to make an attack; thus, you may NOT attack with it using Attack. If the flame blade is an object, there is a strong argument to be made that you attack with it using [Tooltip Not Found], but if the blade is not an object and instead a mere magical effect, than it is instead a unique special action (like Vampiric Touch).
No real similarity to Magic Stone. Shadow Blade has more in common with MS.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Actually the wording of Magic Stone is of poor quality in some places, but the magic of the spell imbues anyone (or any living thing really) to be capable of making one attack with each of the stones once... if you have 2 or 3 and can make extra attacks or something I can see making the argument for getting to attack more than once with them in a single round (3d6+5 if the spellcasting ability is maxed out).
I think familiars... and even pet mice from the Urchin background can use these magic stones.
The magic of the spell imbues the pebbles with the properties of "can be used to make an attack by throwing or slinging and has X range and does X damage." The spell does not effect creatures in anyway, and a creature must be able to make attacks and throw the Pebble in order to "make an attack by throwing".
I would say familiars and pet mice can't use the magic stones because of that.
I also assume you for the 1 in 3d6+15.
Yeah familiars generally can’t attack. I see the loophole here because they are not taking the attack action, but the spell’s wording covers it anyway.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
But it doesn't. The spell doesn't grant an action, and even if it did, familiars can't attack. Period. It isn't limited to the attack action, they can't throw acid (use an object) either.
“A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal.”
Wait, are you saying this goes beyond “familiars can’t Attack”, and means they can never do anything that results in an attack roll? Even delivering touch attack spells?
If this is really a prohibition on attacking and not Attack, can familiars take the Attack action to do non-attack things, like grapple or shove?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Are you questioning whether “technically, you attack even though it isn’t an attack” is an attack? I think any reasonable person knows the answer to that.
Is a grapple attempt or a shove an attack? Neither involves an attack roll. Both can only be attempted using Attack.
Recall that the source material doesn’t actually have hyperlink green text. I’m just honestly asking what the intent of that sentence is, I’d always read it in my head as them not being able to take the Attack action or their special monster attack actions. I’d never considered that they also couldn’t use items to throw acid or deliver attack touch spells for you.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Are you confused if an attack is an attack still?
I’ve always taken it literally. No attacks. Green text link or no.
Familiars can't take the attack action but can take any other action, some cases may arise where a familiar is making an attack roll but did not get there by taking the attack action.
Like the Magic Stone spell.
Brian, that’s how I used to read it.
Bees is arguing (whether they realize it or not) that Familiars CAN take the Attack action, so long as they don’t attack with it and instead merely shove or grapple.
Confusing.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Never mind, grapples and shoves may not have attack rolls, but they’re still “special melee attacks.” Okay, that’s not as bad as I thought then... no attacks AND no Attack action, that’s tidy enough.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am saying the spell’s wording prevents an attack whether by the attack action or otherwise.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
No, I’m really not. And the fact that you misunderstood that is annoying. Grapple and shove, for example are in a section called “Melee Attacks,” both say that they are attack, and both require the attack action. They both, in fact use attack and attack in their wording. My point was that if they say they are an attack and/or an attack then they are an attack.
As I said, I’ve taken it literally. If the feature uses “attack” in the text, then it is some sort of attack whether you have spent an attack action on it or not.
I had forgotten shove and grapple were special attacks, despite having no attack rolls. They break the magic rule of “if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.” Which I acknowledged. Relax, you don’t always have to come out swinging for me.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Well, to explain a little more, I would say that any thing that requires an attack (again, green text or no) is not allowed for a familiar with a single exception: If the familiar is not actually attacking but instead delivering a touch spell with an attack roll for the familiar's caster. This is because delivering spells is specifically called out at the end of the relevant rule text and the familiar isn't making the attack; it is just delivering the spell.
Under Acid in the equipment section of the PHB. it starts off by saying you can use an action to splash or throw and later says make a ranged attack roll but this can also be argued that since it doesn't say attack action your familiar can do this using the Use an Object action.
Grapple and Shove are listed as taking the attack action to do them. Familiars cannot take the attack action.
Familiars can make attack rolls and deal damage through other means without taking the attack action.
There are not 2 types of attack action, one with green text and one without, there is just one type of attack action that covers every kind of attack made with it (melee, ranged, spell melee, spell ranged etc.) The green text just helps people look up the attack action right there in the post without having to search through rule books.
The relevant text for familiars makes no mention of "attack action," only "attack." The text says the familiar cannot attack. That means what it says; if you are making attack rolls, that is as its nature part of some attack. That is not allowed for familiars by the text of the spell. It is in fact incorrect to state that a familiar can make attack rolls other than the single exemption made in the spell.
Sorry but this simply isn't true. The Attack action is a specific action that allows you to make some sorts of attacks. But you do not attack with your spells through taking the Attack action, that is done via the [Tooltip Not Found] action. The rules clearly allow for an attack to be made through the use of several different actions, bonus actions or reactions.