If the sling is your pact weapon, you're hitting with it even if it isn't a weapon attack and it is the ammunition hitting the target, not even the weapon. Same with using a pact weapon as an arcane focus. You do something with your weapon that results in a hit.
See, this is the problem. You keep subtly injecting your own bogus definitions of what constitutes as attacking with your weapon and then pretending that's what the RAW said. You can't knock a vase off a shelf with your pact weapon to start a Rube Goldberg machine to fires a crossbow and call that attacking with your pact weapon either.
Hey, you can use magic stone "with" a sling without using the sling in a weapon attack. Its just used "with" the magic stone.
Since that language is good enough, Im just following the logic of RAW.
The Arcane Focus in used in the Spell, the spell attack is part of the spell, so the weapon is used in the spell attack. Its not a Rube Goldberg Machine, its not even a whole extra step, its the same action.
There's just one problem with this hypothetical: magic stone doesn't have a material component cost, so a spell focus isn't applicable to it. At least not with druids and warlocks. Artificers do, but that's not part of this discussion.
If we're sticking to the warlock hypothetical, then Improved Pact Weapon is wholly irrelevant. As a spellcasting focus, It's not part of the casting of magic stone, and the focus itself doesn't add any bonus to attack and damage unless the focus says it does. The invocation, rather explicitly, only adds a +1 bonus to the weapon's attack and damage rolls. It doesn't matter if it's used to cast a spell with an attack roll or not. The bonus isn't applicable unless the weapon is dealing damage as a weapon. Having said that, an Improved Pact Weapon that is also a sling would allow the +1 bonus to transfer to the spell attack roll because the weapon is still being used, as a weapon, to attack. Or you could, if Improved Pact Weapon allowed for a sling, which it cannot create. You must already find a magical one.
For reference, here is the complete text for the Eldritch Invocation:
Improved Pact Weapon
Prerequisite: Pact of the Blade feature
You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact of the Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells. In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls. Finally, the weapon you conjure can be a shortbow, longbow, light crossbow, or heavy crossbow.
And if we're going to bring Artificers into this, then you have to go by the rules for its infusions.
Nope. It isn’t. Attacking with the stones IS an Action. Casting the spell is a bonus action. Between this and the other thread, I’m really getting the impression that you haven’t really read magic stone.
Nope. It isn’t. Attacking with the stones IS an Action. Casting the spell is a bonus action. Between this and the other thread, I’m really getting the impression that you haven’t really read magic stone.
No, with every other spell but magic missile and a handful of other spells that create another action for making the spell attack, casting the spell and the spell attack take place in the same action. Spells like magic stone are the exception.
Nope. It isn’t. Attacking with the stones IS an Action. Casting the spell is a bonus action. Between this and the other thread, I’m really getting the impression that you haven’t really read magic stone.
No, with every other spell but magic missile and a handful of other spells that create another action for making the spell attack, casting the spell and the spell attack take place in the same action. Spells like magic stone are the exception.
Well then re-read what I actually said. If you are using a focus to cast a spell with an attack roll, you are hitting with a spell, (and not the focus).
Nope. It isn’t. Attacking with the stones IS an Action. Casting the spell is a bonus action. Between this and the other thread, I’m really getting the impression that you haven’t really read magic stone.
No, with every other spell but magic missile and a handful of other spells that create another action for making the spell attack, casting the spell and the spell attack take place in the same action. Spells like magic stone are the exception.
Well then re-read what I actually said. If you are using a focus to cast a spell with an attack roll, you are hitting with a spell, (and not the focus).
reread the last 10 pages. Since the weapon doesn't have to actively be used in a weapon attack, but just "with" to apply to the spell attack, it counts.
reread the last 10 pages. Since the weapon doesn't have to actively be used in a weapon attack, but just "with" to apply to the spell attack, it counts.
I admit I was wrong on that count.
What? Since what? A weapon *does* have to be actively used in a weapon attack in order for that to count as an "attack with a weapon". That's what all those words mean.
There are examples of "melee weapon attacks" that do not use a weapon (like unarmed strikes), and those also do not count as an "attack with a weapon" because there was no weapon involved.
Using a weapon as a focus to cast a spell *does not* mean that any resulting spell attacks made as part of that spell are an "attack with a weapon", because attacking with a weapon means to attack using a weapon as a weapon - not to attack while holding a weapon but in fact not using that weapon to attack at all.
If you are using a focus to cast a spell with an attack roll, you are hitting with a spell.
Works for Magic Stone though. Its the spell attack that is hitting, not a weapon attack.
Casting a spell is different from making a spell attack.
Its the same action.
The Way of the Sun Soul would like to have words with you.
Radiant Sun Bolt
Starting when you choose this tradition at 3rd level, you can hurl searing bolts of magical radiance.
You gain a new attack option that you can use with the Attack action. This special attack is a ranged spell attack with a range of 30 feet. You are proficient with it, and you add your Dexterity modifier to its attack and damage rolls. Its damage is radiant, and its damage die is a d4. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
When you take the Attack action on your turn and use this special attack as part of it, you can spend 1 ki point to make the special attack twice as a bonus action.
When you gain the Extra Attack feature, this special attack can be used for any of the attacks you make as part of the Attack action.
reread the last 10 pages. Since the weapon doesn't have to actively be used in a weapon attack, but just "with" to apply to the spell attack, it counts.
I admit I was wrong on that count.
What? Since what? A weapon *does* have to be actively used in a weapon attack in order for that to count as an "attack with a weapon". That's what all those words mean.
🤦♂️
If you cast magic stone as your bonus action, and then use your action to take the Attack with a sling to hurl one of the magic stones, then that constitutes “a ranged spell attack made using a ranged weapon.” Since it was “made using a ranged weapon,” it qualifies for combination with both Sneak Attack, and the third bullet point of Sharpshooter.
Sneak Attack
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. 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.
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.
The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.
Sharpshooter
Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
reread the last 10 pages. Since the weapon doesn't have to actively be used in a weapon attack, but just "with" to apply to the spell attack, it counts.
I admit I was wrong on that count.
What? Since what? A weapon *does* have to be actively used in a weapon attack in order for that to count as an "attack with a weapon". That's what all those words mean.
🤦♂️
If you cast magic stone as your bonus action, and then use your action to take the Attack with a sling to hurl one of the magic stones, then that constitutes “a ranged spell attack made using a ranged weapon.” Since it was “made using a ranged weapon,” it qualifies for combination with both Sneak Attack, and the third bullet point of Sharpshooter.
I know. We all know, except for the OP. My statement was not that Sneak Attack requires a "weapon attack", quite the opposite. It requires an attack with a weapon (of a specific type).
The OP was trying to claim that you can somehow make such an attack without "actively using a weapon". This is false.
We agree that a sling with a magic stone is a "ranged spell attack using a ranged weapon" and therefore qualifies for any rule triggered by an attack with such a weapon.
reread the last 10 pages. Since the weapon doesn't have to actively be used in a weapon attack, but just "with" to apply to the spell attack, it counts.
I admit I was wrong on that count.
What? Since what? A weapon *does* have to be actively used in a weapon attack in order for that to count as an "attack with a weapon". That's what all those words mean.
🤦♂️
If you cast magic stone as your bonus action, and then use your action to take the Attack with a sling to hurl one of the magic stones, then that constitutes “a ranged spell attack made using a ranged weapon.” Since it was “made using a ranged weapon,” it qualifies for combination with both Sneak Attack, and the third bullet point of Sharpshooter.
I know. We all know, except for the OP. My statement was not that Sneak Attack requires a "weapon attack", quite the opposite. It requires an attack with a weapon (of a specific type).
The OP was trying to claim that you can somehow make such an attack without "actively using a weapon". This is false.
We agree that a sling with a magic stone is a "ranged spell attack using a ranged weapon" and therefore qualifies for any rule triggered by an attack with such a weapon.
When they wrote “without actively using the weapon,” they meant “without making a weapon attack.” They cannot separate those two concepts and realize one not only can, but must “actively use the weapon to make a spell attack.” This has taken 11 pages just to get this far. Don’t confuse them, it may cause a backslide.
So we are onto page 11 now 😳 first I’ve changed my opinion from pages ago after rereading the rules several times - you only get 1 attack with magic stone not the extra attacks if you want my reasoning ask and I’ll give it in a separate post.
2nd - I understand the OP’s (and others) desire to get the extra attacks and sneak attack damage, as a player I always want to do the most damage I can, BUT as a DM part of my job is to keep the game balanced so “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” and that means that if a PC can do it so can an NPC so what does that look like? L20 BBEG: Warlock 1 (to cast the spell)/ Fighter 11 ( to get 3 attacks to match the 3 stones possible)/rogue 8 (to max sneak attack damage),Stats: Con 20, Ch 20 to max HP and SAB - with a flying familiar to provide the help action to give advantage on ranged attacks to get sneak attack. So he hits you all 3 times for: attack 1: 5d6 (cantrip damage)+4d6 (sneak attack damage)+5 (charisma bonus damage) for an average of 36.5 damage + 2nd attack: 5d6+5 (22.5) damage + 3rd attack: 5d6+5 (22.5) damage = 81.5 damage in 1 round from the BBEG.
OR
as RAI reads 1 attack, no sneak attack damage for 22.5 average damage. Which would you rather be on the receiving end of?
the RAW are just vague enough that we have spent 10.5 pages arguing them with no obvious end in sight but game balance hopefully gives us an answer.
Why correct it if it isn't controversial? Most will assume it is a weapon attack as it would happen, not interact with any character features, and be a memorable moment without complication.
To be in line with attack type standard. Errata serve exactly for this purpose. While the element works fine, RAW it doesn't trigger any game element that require a spell/weapon/melee/ranged attack specifically. Looking at other type of trap, hazard or vehicule, they normally mention it. This one clearly should have been a melee weapon attack.
I think you are over-estimating the design teams particularity. It makes no difference to the game if that one trap's attack is not clarified as a weapon attack.
For Pact Weapon and other Weapon Spellcasting Focus, a good rule of thumb to know if the attack is delivered through itas a weapon or focus is to verify where the proficiency bonus is from. If its from weapon proficiency bonus then its weapon-delivered, if it's from Spellcasting then it's focus delivered.
So we are onto page 11 now 😳 first I’ve changed my opinion from pages ago after rereading the rules several times - you only get 1 attack with magic stone not the extra attacks if you want my reasoning ask and I’ll give it in a separate post.
If the below isn't your reasoning, please elaborate.
2nd - I understand the OP’s (and others) desire to get the extra attacks and sneak attack damage, as a player I always want to do the most damage I can, BUT as a DM part of my job is to keep the game balanced so “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” and that means that if a PC can do it so can an NPC so what does that look like? L20 BBEG: Warlock 1 (to cast the spell)/ Fighter 11 ( to get 3 attacks to match the 3 stones possible)/rogue 8 (to max sneak attack damage),Stats: Con 20, Ch 20 to max HP and SAB - with a flying familiar to provide the help action to give advantage on ranged attacks to get sneak attack. So he hits you all 3 times for: attack 1: 5d6 (cantrip damage)+4d6 (sneak attack damage)+5 (charisma bonus damage) for an average of 36.5 damage + 2nd attack: 5d6+5 (22.5) damage + 3rd attack: 5d6+5 (22.5) damage = 81.5 damage in 1 round from the BBEG.
So? Look at the DMG Chapter 9. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/dungeon-masters-workshop#MonsterStatisticsbyChallengeRating 81.5 damage a round is equivilant to a CR 13 creature. That's basically beholder damage. It sounds like a lot, but it really isn't; many creatures outstrip that (for example, your adult red dragon (CR 17) deals average 126 damage with it's breath attack, plus with legendary actions can deal an extra 51 damage with its tail that round, and even without its breath weapon deals average 56 damage + the 51 from its tail.
OR
as RAI reads 1 attack, no sneak attack damage for 22.5 average damage. Which would you rather be on the receiving end of?
the RAW are just vague enough that we have spent 10.5 pages arguing them with no obvious end in sight but game balance hopefully gives us an answer.
The problem is it isn't vague; it's 1-2 people deliberately ignoring how the rules work and refusing to accept it when literally everyone else is telling them they are wrong. Just because a thread goes on for a while does not mean that there is any new information or an "unclear" result. The rules in this case are clear.
For Pact Weapon and other Weapon Spellcasting Focus, a good rule of thumb to know if the attack is delivered through itas a weapon or focus is to verify where the proficiency bonus is from. If its from weapon proficiency bonus then its weapon-delivered, if it's from Spellcasting then it's focus delivered.
I think the issue is that you don't hit with a focus when you cast the spell, you hit with the spell itself. The focus channels the spell, but nothing about the spell says that you are making the attack with anything other than the spell itself, not the focus, not your hand (for touch spells), not anything other than the spell.
For Pact Weapon and other Weapon Spellcasting Focus, a good rule of thumb to know if the attack is delivered through itas a weapon or focus is to verify where the proficiency bonus is from. If its from weapon proficiency bonus then its weapon-delivered, if it's from Spellcasting then it's focus delivered.
I think the issue is that you don't hit with a focus when you cast the spell, you hit with the spell itself. The focus channels the spell, but nothing about the spell says that you are making the attack with anything other than the spell itself, not the focus, not your hand (for touch spells), not anything other than the spell.
With hit with the weapon from the spell component of Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade for exemple.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Works for Magic Stone though. Its the spell attack that is hitting, not a weapon attack.
There's just one problem with this hypothetical: magic stone doesn't have a material component cost, so a spell focus isn't applicable to it. At least not with druids and warlocks. Artificers do, but that's not part of this discussion.
If we're sticking to the warlock hypothetical, then Improved Pact Weapon is wholly irrelevant. As a spellcasting focus, It's not part of the casting of magic stone, and the focus itself doesn't add any bonus to attack and damage unless the focus says it does. The invocation, rather explicitly, only adds a +1 bonus to the weapon's attack and damage rolls. It doesn't matter if it's used to cast a spell with an attack roll or not. The bonus isn't applicable unless the weapon is dealing damage as a weapon. Having said that, an Improved Pact Weapon that is also a sling would allow the +1 bonus to transfer to the spell attack roll because the weapon is still being used, as a weapon, to attack. Or you could, if Improved Pact Weapon allowed for a sling, which it cannot create. You must already find a magical one.
For reference, here is the complete text for the Eldritch Invocation:
And if we're going to bring Artificers into this, then you have to go by the rules for its infusions.
Casting a spell is different from making a spell attack.
Its the same action.
Nope. It isn’t. Attacking with the stones IS an Action. Casting the spell is a bonus action. Between this and the other thread, I’m really getting the impression that you haven’t really read magic stone.
No, with every other spell but magic missile and a handful of other spells that create another action for making the spell attack, casting the spell and the spell attack take place in the same action. Spells like magic stone are the exception.
Well then re-read what I actually said. If you are using a focus to cast a spell with an attack roll, you are hitting with a spell, (and not the focus).
reread the last 10 pages. Since the weapon doesn't have to actively be used in a weapon attack, but just "with" to apply to the spell attack, it counts.
I admit I was wrong on that count.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What? Since what? A weapon *does* have to be actively used in a weapon attack in order for that to count as an "attack with a weapon". That's what all those words mean.
There are examples of "melee weapon attacks" that do not use a weapon (like unarmed strikes), and those also do not count as an "attack with a weapon" because there was no weapon involved.
Using a weapon as a focus to cast a spell *does not* mean that any resulting spell attacks made as part of that spell are an "attack with a weapon", because attacking with a weapon means to attack using a weapon as a weapon - not to attack while holding a weapon but in fact not using that weapon to attack at all.
The Way of the Sun Soul would like to have words with you.
🤦♂️
If you cast magic stone as your bonus action, and then use your action to take the Attack with a sling to hurl one of the magic stones, then that constitutes “a ranged spell attack made using a ranged weapon.” Since it was “made using a ranged weapon,” it qualifies for combination with both Sneak Attack, and the third bullet point of Sharpshooter.
Neither instance requires “a weapon attack,” simply “an attack with/using a” weapon.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I know. We all know, except for the OP. My statement was not that Sneak Attack requires a "weapon attack", quite the opposite. It requires an attack with a weapon (of a specific type).
The OP was trying to claim that you can somehow make such an attack without "actively using a weapon". This is false.
We agree that a sling with a magic stone is a "ranged spell attack using a ranged weapon" and therefore qualifies for any rule triggered by an attack with such a weapon.
When they wrote “without actively using the weapon,” they meant “without making a weapon attack.” They cannot separate those two concepts and realize one not only can, but must “actively use the weapon to make a spell attack.” This has taken 11 pages just to get this far. Don’t confuse them, it may cause a backslide.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So we are onto page 11 now 😳
first I’ve changed my opinion from pages ago after rereading the rules several times - you only get 1 attack with magic stone not the extra attacks if you want my reasoning ask and I’ll give it in a separate post.
2nd - I understand the OP’s (and others) desire to get the extra attacks and sneak attack damage, as a player I always want to do the most damage I can, BUT as a DM part of my job is to keep the game balanced so “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” and that means that if a PC can do it so can an NPC so what does that look like? L20 BBEG: Warlock 1 (to cast the spell)/ Fighter 11 ( to get 3 attacks to match the 3 stones possible)/rogue 8 (to max sneak attack damage),Stats: Con 20, Ch 20 to max HP and SAB - with a flying familiar to provide the help action to give advantage on ranged attacks to get sneak attack. So he hits you all 3 times for: attack 1: 5d6 (cantrip damage)+4d6 (sneak attack damage)+5 (charisma bonus damage) for an average of 36.5 damage + 2nd attack: 5d6+5 (22.5) damage + 3rd attack: 5d6+5 (22.5) damage = 81.5 damage in 1 round from the BBEG.
OR
as RAI reads 1 attack, no sneak attack damage for 22.5 average damage. Which would you rather be on the receiving end of?
the RAW are just vague enough that we have spent 10.5 pages arguing them with no obvious end in sight but game balance hopefully gives us an answer.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I'm not it does make a difference RAW.
For Pact Weapon and other Weapon Spellcasting Focus, a good rule of thumb to know if the attack is delivered through itas a weapon or focus is to verify where the proficiency bonus is from. If its from weapon proficiency bonus then its weapon-delivered, if it's from Spellcasting then it's focus delivered.
If the below isn't your reasoning, please elaborate.
So? Look at the DMG Chapter 9. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/dungeon-masters-workshop#MonsterStatisticsbyChallengeRating 81.5 damage a round is equivilant to a CR 13 creature. That's basically beholder damage. It sounds like a lot, but it really isn't; many creatures outstrip that (for example, your adult red dragon (CR 17) deals average 126 damage with it's breath attack, plus with legendary actions can deal an extra 51 damage with its tail that round, and even without its breath weapon deals average 56 damage + the 51 from its tail.
The problem is it isn't vague; it's 1-2 people deliberately ignoring how the rules work and refusing to accept it when literally everyone else is telling them they are wrong. Just because a thread goes on for a while does not mean that there is any new information or an "unclear" result. The rules in this case are clear.
I think the issue is that you don't hit with a focus when you cast the spell, you hit with the spell itself. The focus channels the spell, but nothing about the spell says that you are making the attack with anything other than the spell itself, not the focus, not your hand (for touch spells), not anything other than the spell.
With hit with the weapon from the spell component of Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade for exemple.