Neither the attack action nor the extra attack feature limit the type of attack. So it can be a spell attack as long as a spell attack is available to you without requiring a specific kind of action.
TL;DR Yes, magic stone benefits from extra attack.
For most spell attacks the answer is "no". For example if you make a spell attack by casting fire bolt you are using the "cast a spell" action not the "attack" action and so it does not benefit from extra attack (except for blade singers who can use replace one of their attacks with a cantrip) (See Quote from SAC below
Magic stone is different because the spell was cast seperately to the throwing of the stone. I would have thought this means you can use extra attack. The only confusion comes when you compare this with the rulling on Disciple of life and goodberry. A life Cleric gives extra healing when they cast a spell and that also applies when a creature eats a goodberry created by them, this could be interpreted as meaning that the eating of the goodberry involves a spell being cast and the same could be applied to throwing a magic stone.
I would put this down ot DM call
Can a spell with an attack roll be used as the attack in the Attack action or as part of the Extra Attack feature?
The short answer is no.
As explained in the Player’s Handbook, you can take one action on your turn in combat, in addition to moving. You choose your action from the options available to everyone—options such as Attack, Cast a Spell, and Dash—or you choose from among the special actions you’ve gained from a class, a feat, or another source.
If you want to cast a spell on your turn, you take the Cast a Spell action. Doing so means you’re not taking the Attack action or any other action. It is true that a number of spells, such as fire bolt and ray of frost, involve making an attack, but you can’t make such an attack without first casting the spell that delivers it. In other words, just because something involves an attack doesn’t mean the Attack action is being used.
By extension, the Extra Attack feature (given by several classes, including the fighter and paladin) doesn’t let you cast extra attack spells. That feature specifically relies on the Attack action, not the Cast a Spell action or any other action.
In summary, to make a spell attack, you have to first cast a spell or use a feature that creates the spell’s effect. A game feature, such as Extra Attack, that lets you make an attack doesn’t let you cast a spell unless it says it does.
There are ways to cast a spell as part of an Attack action and ways to make an attack as part of the Cast a Spell action, be aware of which action you're actually taking. If you are taking the Attack action on your turn, extra attack applies, even if the attacks you make are spell attacks.
Some examples, magic stone and shadow blade both make use of the Attack action, magic stone makes spell attacks, shadow blade makes weapon attacks, either could benefit from extra attack. Booming blade uses the Cast a Spell action and flame blade creates its own action to use for attacks, neither can benefit from extra attack.
Short answer: yes you can throw multiple stones in 1 round
Longer answer: Magic stone is not an attacking cantrip. It's a cantrip that allows you to enchant some stones for 1 minute which can then be used during an attack action. You cast magic stone, as a bonus action once, you get 3 enchanted pebbles, which can be kept or handed over to somebody else. The spell involves no attacking at all, it just describes how using these pebbles works. If magic stone have you the possibility to attack on a bonus action, it would be wildly popular as a cantrip.
The attacks with this cantrip happen when you take the actual attack action and throw a rock, which definitely benefits from extra attack, since this would allow you to attack twice and hence throw 2 rocks. This is not up to the DM, this is just basic attacking rules.
Other cantrips don't get this because they scale with lvl. This one does not, it scales if you have extra attacks.
Magic stone is different because the spell was cast seperately to the throwing of the stone. I would have thought this means you can use extra attack. The only confusion comes when you compare this with the rulling on Disciple of life and goodberry. A life Cleric gives extra healing when they cast a spell and that also applies when a creature eats a goodberry created by them, this could be interpreted as meaning that the eating of the goodberry involves a spell being cast and the same could be applied to throwing a magic stone.
Disciple of life doesn't trigger on cast, it triggers on the healing. Similar to how extra attack doesn't apply to casting magic stone, but does apply to attacking with the stones.
Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature...
There are ways to cast a spell as part of an Attack action and ways to make an attack as part of the Cast a Spell action, be aware of which action you're actually taking. If you are taking the Attack action on your turn, extra attack applies, even if the attacks you make are spell attacks.
Some examples, magic stone and shadow blade both make use of the Attack action, magic stone makes spell attacks, shadow blade makes weapon attacks, either could benefit from extra attack. Booming blade uses the Cast a Spell action and flame blade creates its own action to use for attacks, neither can benefit from extra attack.
See, that is where Im really unsure though. The attack action really makes it sound as though it involves a weapon attack, either melee, ranged, or unarmed. But a spell attack seems to be a wholly unique thing.
The only point of the distinction seems to be to cancel out the ability to count throwing the magic stone as an attack for extra attack. Otherwise, it would just be worded like Shilleiageighly. And Magic Stone specifies the caster or ally can throw one stone as a spell attack, which seems to forbid throwing more stones as part of the same action.
See, that is where Im really unsure though. The attack action really makes it sound as though it involves a weapon attack, either melee, ranged, or unarmed. But a spell attack seems to be a wholly unique thing.
It only does that because of the base expectation you (we) start with. We are all used to the attack action being a weapon attack and a spell attack being the cast a spell action. But if you focus on the actual text then the language is more allowing than so.
Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
Sure the first description is all about non-spells things but there is no actual requirement that it be a weapon attack. It just says "melee or ranged attack".
Ranged Attacks
When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many spells also involve making a ranged attack.
Range
You can make ranged attacks only against targets within a specified range.
If a ranged attack, such as one made with a spell, has a single range, you can't attack a target beyond this range.
Some ranged attacks, such as those made with a longbow or a shortbow, have two ranges. The smaller number is the normal range, and the larger number is the long range. Your attack roll has disadvantage when your target is beyond normal range, and you can't attack a target beyond the long range.
Ranged Attacks in Close Combat
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated.
And here all parts of the "Ranged Attack" section very clearly allows for spell attacks to be a ranged attack.
Of course all this still doesn't allow you to toss around Fireballs with the attack action as you still need to cast a spell for the Fireball to come into existence. However for Magic Stone the cast a spell action has to be done and over before you even have a chance to make the attack with one of the stones.
Of course all this still doesn't allow you to toss around Fireballs with the attack action as you still need to cast a spell for the Fireball to come into existence. However for Magic Stone the cast a spell action has to be done and over before you even have a chance to make the attack with one of the stones.
Fireball is a bad example since it isn't even an attack. Lets use Fire bolt instead.
Though it is a ranged attack, it requires casting the spell to make that attack, thus requiring the cast a spell action, thus not benefiting from extra attack which specifies attack action.
See, that is where Im really unsure though. The attack action really makes it sound as though it involves a weapon attack, either melee, ranged, or unarmed. But a spell attack seems to be a wholly unique thing.
It only does that because of the base expectation you (we) start with. We are all used to the attack action being a weapon attack and a spell attack being the cast a spell action. But if you focus on the actual text then the language is more allowing than so.
Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
Sure the first description is all about non-spells things but there is no actual requirement that it be a weapon attack. It just says "melee or ranged attack".
Ranged Attacks
When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many spells also involve making a ranged attack.
Range
You can make ranged attacks only against targets within a specified range.
If a ranged attack, such as one made with a spell, has a single range, you can't attack a target beyond this range.
Some ranged attacks, such as those made with a longbow or a shortbow, have two ranges. The smaller number is the normal range, and the larger number is the long range. Your attack roll has disadvantage when your target is beyond normal range, and you can't attack a target beyond the long range.
Ranged Attacks in Close Combat
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated.
And here all parts of the "Ranged Attack" section very clearly allows for spell attacks to be a ranged attack.
Of course all this still doesn't allow you to toss around Fireballs with the attack action as you still need to cast a spell for the Fireball to come into existence. However for Magic Stone the cast a spell action has to be done and over before you even have a chance to make the attack with one of the stones.
So I would ask why Magic Stone is worded differently from clearly worded analogs we know work with extra attack, namely Shadow Blade and Shilleigheighr1ly.
Why bother calling it a "spell attack" if they could have just left that part out to mechanically make the 3 stones ranged d6+the caster's mod Shilleighleightrilysclublies.
I can buy that there is an attack built into normal attack spells, but that is different from the attack action itself.
So I would ask why Magic Stone is worded differently from clearly worded analogs we know work with extra attack, namely Shadow Blade and Shilleigheighr1ly.
Why bother calling it a "spell attack" if they could have just left that part out to mechanically make the 3 stones ranged d6+the caster's mod Shilleighleightrilysclublies.
I can buy that there is an attack built into normal attack spells, but that is different from the attack action itself.
Magic Stone works like Produce Flame in terms of action economy on turns after the turn on which you cast it. If you have Extra Attack, you can chuck the Produce Flame attack and make a second attack (again, starting on turn 2, due to how Produce Flame works).
So I would ask why Magic Stone is worded differently from clearly worded analogs we know work with extra attack, namely Shadow Blade and Shilleigheighr1ly.
Why bother calling it a "spell attack" if they could have just left that part out to mechanically make the 3 stones ranged d6+the caster's mod Shilleighleightrilysclublies.
I can buy that there is an attack built into normal attack spells, but that is different from the attack action itself.
Magic Stone works like Produce Flame in terms of action economy on turns after the turn on which you cast it. If you have Extra Attack, you can chuck the Produce Flame attack and make a second attack (again, starting on turn 2, due to how Produce Flame works).
But even Produce Flame is clear that hurling the flame on another turn is an action attached to the spell like with Flame Blade, not a stand alone attack.
So I would ask why Magic Stone is worded differently from clearly worded analogs we know work with extra attack, namely Shadow Blade and Shilleigheighr1ly.
Why bother calling it a "spell attack" if they could have just left that part out to mechanically make the 3 stones ranged d6+the caster's mod Shilleighleightrilysclublies.
I can buy that there is an attack built into normal attack spells, but that is different from the attack action itself.
Magic Stone works like Produce Flame in terms of action economy on turns after the turn on which you cast it. If you have Extra Attack, you can chuck the Produce Flame attack and make a second attack (again, starting on turn 2, due to how Produce Flame works).
But even Produce Flame is clear that hurling the flame on another turn is an action attached to the spell like with Flame Blade, not a stand alone attack.
Yeah, produce flame is a bad example.
The reason is because WotC is inconsistent. One spell pretends to be a weapon, another doesn't but still uses attack action. This may be the only time it comes up with PCs, but it does with monsters all the time. A lich has a melee spell attack that it can use with an attack action or as an opportunity attack for example. (Granted monsters don't have "extra attack" and multiattack works completely differently, but) all these general rules around attacking and the attack action don't specify weapon for reasons like this.
So I would ask why Magic Stone is worded differently from clearly worded analogs we know work with extra attack, namely Shadow Blade and Shilleigheighr1ly.
Why bother calling it a "spell attack" if they could have just left that part out to mechanically make the 3 stones ranged d6+the caster's mod Shilleighleightrilysclublies.
I can buy that there is an attack built into normal attack spells, but that is different from the attack action itself.
Magic Stone works like Produce Flame in terms of action economy on turns after the turn on which you cast it. If you have Extra Attack, you can chuck the Produce Flame attack and make a second attack (again, starting on turn 2, due to how Produce Flame works).
Produce Flame says it uses your action to attack with it, so it will NOT be part of an Attack Action.
Magic Stone was written in the "Elemental Evil Player's Companion", so it does not use any sort of harmonised language that appears in many other spells - it doesn't specify how the attack can be performed.
So I would ask why Magic Stone is worded differently from clearly worded analogs we know work with extra attack, namely Shadow Blade and Shilleigheighr1ly.
Why bother calling it a "spell attack" if they could have just left that part out to mechanically make the 3 stones ranged d6+the caster's mod Shilleighleightrilysclublies.
I can buy that there is an attack built into normal attack spells, but that is different from the attack action itself.
Magic Stone works like Produce Flame in terms of action economy on turns after the turn on which you cast it. If you have Extra Attack, you can chuck the Produce Flame attack and make a second attack (again, starting on turn 2, due to how Produce Flame works).
Produce Flame says it uses your action to attack with it, so it will NOT be part of an Attack Action.
Magic Stone was written in the "Elemental Evil Player's Companion", so it does not use any sort of harmonised language that appears in many other spells - it doesn't specify how the attack can be performed.
D&D is full of spells that have unique effects and don't behave like any other spells. I wouldn't say that's a bad thing, it just means you have to actually read the spells and not assume you know how they work.
The specific reference to using your Action to make the attack. That means, that no matter how many extra attacks you have, it takes one Action to throw the flame. It is describing a special Action, not an attack or the Attack Action (if it did the former, it would not say you can use your action, if it did the latter, it would say you can use the Attack Action to throw the flame).
magic stone, in contrast, does not mention using an action to make the attack, and it is clearly not using the Cast a Spell (bonus)action because that bonus action has ceased when the attack is made. So the standard means of making the attack (the Attack Action) stands.
Basically, regarding attacks the extra attack ability and spells:
Extra attack does not specify weapon attacks only, so spell attacks are available for use, but only if they are Made with the Attack Action. Cast a Spell and Special Actions do not qualify.
If a spell has you make an attack where the timing of the attack is fully dictated by the spell, then the attack is part of the Cast a Spell Action (and unable to be used with extra attack). Examples of this are any instantaneous attack spell, and if you throw the flame of produce flame when you cast the spell per the description
If a spell has you make an attack where the timing of the attack is at your discretion (ie, anytime within the spells duration), and the attack is not mentioned as using your Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction to perform, the attack is performed using the standard means of making an attack (the Attack Action) and is eligible for use with extra attack. magic stone is an example of this.
If a spell has you make an attack where the timing of the attack is at your discretion (ie, anytime within the spells duration), but the attack is mentioned as using your Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction to perform, the attack is performed using a special Action/Bonus Action/Reaction granted by the spell. An example of this is produce flame (if you throw it on a later turn) or crown of stars
Specifically thinking of the magic stone cantrip
No, making a spell attack is not taking the attack action, which is required for extra attack.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Neither the attack action nor the extra attack feature limit the type of attack. So it can be a spell attack as long as a spell attack is available to you without requiring a specific kind of action.
TL;DR Yes, magic stone benefits from extra attack.
For most spell attacks the answer is "no". For example if you make a spell attack by casting fire bolt you are using the "cast a spell" action not the "attack" action and so it does not benefit from extra attack (except for blade singers who can use replace one of their attacks with a cantrip) (See Quote from SAC below
Magic stone is different because the spell was cast seperately to the throwing of the stone. I would have thought this means you can use extra attack. The only confusion comes when you compare this with the rulling on Disciple of life and goodberry. A life Cleric gives extra healing when they cast a spell and that also applies when a creature eats a goodberry created by them, this could be interpreted as meaning that the eating of the goodberry involves a spell being cast and the same could be applied to throwing a magic stone.
I would put this down ot DM call
There are ways to cast a spell as part of an Attack action and ways to make an attack as part of the Cast a Spell action, be aware of which action you're actually taking. If you are taking the Attack action on your turn, extra attack applies, even if the attacks you make are spell attacks.
Some examples, magic stone and shadow blade both make use of the Attack action, magic stone makes spell attacks, shadow blade makes weapon attacks, either could benefit from extra attack. Booming blade uses the Cast a Spell action and flame blade creates its own action to use for attacks, neither can benefit from extra attack.
Short answer: yes you can throw multiple stones in 1 round
Longer answer: Magic stone is not an attacking cantrip. It's a cantrip that allows you to enchant some stones for 1 minute which can then be used during an attack action. You cast magic stone, as a bonus action once, you get 3 enchanted pebbles, which can be kept or handed over to somebody else. The spell involves no attacking at all, it just describes how using these pebbles works. If magic stone have you the possibility to attack on a bonus action, it would be wildly popular as a cantrip.
The attacks with this cantrip happen when you take the actual attack action and throw a rock, which definitely benefits from extra attack, since this would allow you to attack twice and hence throw 2 rocks. This is not up to the DM, this is just basic attacking rules.
Other cantrips don't get this because they scale with lvl. This one does not, it scales if you have extra attacks.
Disciple of life doesn't trigger on cast, it triggers on the healing. Similar to how extra attack doesn't apply to casting magic stone, but does apply to attacking with the stones.
See, that is where Im really unsure though. The attack action really makes it sound as though it involves a weapon attack, either melee, ranged, or unarmed. But a spell attack seems to be a wholly unique thing.
The only point of the distinction seems to be to cancel out the ability to count throwing the magic stone as an attack for extra attack. Otherwise, it would just be worded like Shilleiageighly. And Magic Stone specifies the caster or ally can throw one stone as a spell attack, which seems to forbid throwing more stones as part of the same action.
It only does that because of the base expectation you (we) start with. We are all used to the attack action being a weapon attack and a spell attack being the cast a spell action. But if you focus on the actual text then the language is more allowing than so.
Sure the first description is all about non-spells things but there is no actual requirement that it be a weapon attack. It just says "melee or ranged attack".
And here all parts of the "Ranged Attack" section very clearly allows for spell attacks to be a ranged attack.
Of course all this still doesn't allow you to toss around Fireballs with the attack action as you still need to cast a spell for the Fireball to come into existence. However for Magic Stone the cast a spell action has to be done and over before you even have a chance to make the attack with one of the stones.
Fireball is a bad example since it isn't even an attack. Lets use Fire bolt instead.
Though it is a ranged attack, it requires casting the spell to make that attack, thus requiring the cast a spell action, thus not benefiting from extra attack which specifies attack action.
So I would ask why Magic Stone is worded differently from clearly worded analogs we know work with extra attack, namely Shadow Blade and Shilleigheighr1ly.
Why bother calling it a "spell attack" if they could have just left that part out to mechanically make the 3 stones ranged d6+the caster's mod Shilleighleightrilysclublies.
I can buy that there is an attack built into normal attack spells, but that is different from the attack action itself.
Magic Stone works like Produce Flame in terms of action economy on turns after the turn on which you cast it. If you have Extra Attack, you can chuck the Produce Flame attack and make a second attack (again, starting on turn 2, due to how Produce Flame works).
But even Produce Flame is clear that hurling the flame on another turn is an action attached to the spell like with Flame Blade, not a stand alone attack.
Yeah, produce flame is a bad example.
The reason is because WotC is inconsistent. One spell pretends to be a weapon, another doesn't but still uses attack action. This may be the only time it comes up with PCs, but it does with monsters all the time. A lich has a melee spell attack that it can use with an attack action or as an opportunity attack for example. (Granted monsters don't have "extra attack" and multiattack works completely differently, but) all these general rules around attacking and the attack action don't specify weapon for reasons like this.
Produce Flame says it uses your action to attack with it, so it will NOT be part of an Attack Action.
Magic Stone was written in the "Elemental Evil Player's Companion", so it does not use any sort of harmonised language that appears in many other spells - it doesn't specify how the attack can be performed.
That makes so much sense
D&D is full of spells that have unique effects and don't behave like any other spells. I wouldn't say that's a bad thing, it just means you have to actually read the spells and not assume you know how they work.
The attack action is the action you use to make an attack, unless otherwise specified. Attacking with Produce Flame constitutes an attack. What's confusing you?
The specific reference to using your Action to make the attack. That means, that no matter how many extra attacks you have, it takes one Action to throw the flame. It is describing a special Action, not an attack or the Attack Action (if it did the former, it would not say you can use your action, if it did the latter, it would say you can use the Attack Action to throw the flame).
magic stone, in contrast, does not mention using an action to make the attack, and it is clearly not using the Cast a Spell (bonus)action because that bonus action has ceased when the attack is made. So the standard means of making the attack (the Attack Action) stands.
Basically, regarding attacks the extra attack ability and spells:
Probably the part of the spell that says "as an action on a later turn."