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.
I could be missing something, but the math doesn't even check out. The damage doesn't scale up for magic stone, so it's only ever 1d6 per stone. That's 3d6+15, or an average of ≈25. The 4d6 from Sneak Attack only adds another 14, so it's really more like 39-40 damage in one round. That's barely half of Bill's initial estimate. And the familiar can only grant advantage for the first attack, not all three.
20 levels to just to the damage of a CR 6 monster? And only with an effective range of 30 feet?
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.
Sorry if I missed some context. Yes, with those two spells you hit with the material component weapon. That weapon can also be used as a focus generally if you have a class or other ability that says so. But it actually can't be used as a focus for those particular spells, because the material component has a cost (even though it is the same weapon).
Basically, if you had a pact weapon you could use as a focus, but that didn't meet the value criteria for those spells, you could not use the pact weapon for that spell, because you can't use a focus and your weapon doesn't meet the criteria to be a material component.
But all of that aside, using the material component to make the attack is true for those spell only because the spell description says so. It is not a general use of foci or material components to actually make the attack, which is what Kronzy is trying to say
With magic stone, you don't need a focus or material components, so attacking with the transmuted stones does not use them either.
Icon, here is my reasoning for only getting one stone: You have a max of 3 actions in a round:
A) a bonus action ( in this case casting the magic stone spell) B) a reaction - has no impact on the spell so we can ignore it C) your action for that round either a weapon attack or a spell effect, weapon attacks get extra attacks for Barbarians, fighters, monks and rangers, spell attacks do not. The wording for magic stone specifically says it is a ranged spell attack and even if someone else is slinging the stone they use your spellcasting attack modifier not their weapon attack modifier. I read this as RAI= 1 attack. The only possibility I see here for a multiple attack is to cast it on 3 smaller stones and sling/throw all three as a grenade like attack and even that is iffy as it says A stone in the spell. RAW is just vague enough because your drawing from multiple different rules that don’t specifically address this issue which is why I was talking about considering game balance in my previous post. Yes there are monsters that do more damage in a single round but this a freaking cantrip it shouldn’t be doing 80+ points of damage under any circumstances so trying to twist the vagueness in the rules to allow it is counter to any sort of game balance and shouldn’t ( certainly wouldn’t in my campaign) be accepted under RAW or RAI.
Icon, here is my reasoning for only getting one stone: You have a max of 3 actions in a round:
A) a bonus action ( in this case casting the magic stone spell) B) a reaction - has no impact on the spell so we can ignore it C) your action for that round either a weapon attack or a spell effect, weapon attacks get extra attacks for Barbarians, fighters, monks and rangers, spell attacks do not
Ah, here is where you have gotten confused. The extra attack ability of those classes does not distinguish weapon attacks, it just says attacks with the attack action. Most spell attacks use the Cast a Spell action, or an action granted by the spell (and referenced in it's description). There is exactly one spell that doesn't do that though, and that spell is magic stone
From the Barbarian (the others are similar):
Extra Attack
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
See? no requirement for it being a weapon attack only. Its when you take the Attack Action.
Also, when you say you get your Action for a weapon attack or spell effect....that isn't true, you get an action for any action available to you to use as an Action. That can mean Casting a spell, taking the Attack action, Using an Object, or any other action specifically granted to you by a racial or class ability, a spell, a magic item, or anything else. magic stone does not grant an Action (it would have to say so specifically). It does grant you an item you can use with actions available to you (which could be your action, bonus action, or reaction, depending on when you want to throw/fire off the stone). If you use your action, it is the Attack Action you use, and if you use the Attack Action, and have Extra Attack, you can attack multiple times.
. The wording for magic stone specifically says it is a ranged spell attack and even if someone else is slinging the stone they use your spellcasting attack modifier not their weapon attack modifier. I read this as RAI= 1 attack. The only possibility I see here for a multiple attack is to cast it on 3 smaller stones and sling/throw all three as a grenade like attack and even that is iffy as it says A stone in the spell.
Ask yourself: What action am I using to sling the stone? Does the spell itself say it grants me an action to do so? No? then where might it tell me? (I'll give you a hint, its the Attack Action)
RAW is just vague enough because your drawing from multiple different rules that don’t specifically address this issue which is why I was talking about considering game balance in my previous post. Yes there are monsters that do more damage in a single round but this a freaking cantrip it shouldn’t be doing 80+ points of damage under any circumstances so trying to twist the vagueness in the rules to allow it is counter to any sort of game balance and shouldn’t ( certainly wouldn’t in my campaign) be accepted under RAW or RAI.
The spell does 1d6+ a max of 5 per stone. This spell doesn't scale with level, so it is always 1d6 + a max of 5 per stone. adding sneak attack and a Charisma Bonus (not sure where you are getting that) is 4d6+5. So that becomes a total of 7d6 + 20, or 44 average damage, at level 20, with a highly specific set of builds. That build would be doing nearly as much damage with any ranged weapon at high levels. It's not overpowered.
I would argue that being able to extra attack with it is RAI, because it doesn't scale like most cantrips. If it did, that would hint that they only meant for it to be used once per action, but they didn't.
The Attack action is silent on whether the attack must be made with a weapon, so it doesn't care. All that matters is the character makes an attack, melee or ranged, weapon or spell. I get why people assume its limited to just weapon attacks, because examples of such are given, but it's a false assumption.
A monk who follows the Way of the Sun Soul and attacks with Radiant Sun Bolt, as part of their Attack, is making up to two ranged spell attacks. They can also spend Ki to make up to two more as a bonus action; in place of the attacks granted by their Flurry of Blows feature. And that came out six months aftermagic stone debuted in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion. So, if there was doubt beforehand, the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide erased any reasonable doubt.
These are fringe cases, I'll grant you that. In fact, they might be the only two in the entire game. But, by the sheer fact that they even exist, it is 100% possible for a spell attack to benefit from Extra Attack. And because a spell attack granted by magic stone is performable with a sling, it meets the weapon requirement for the rogue's Sneak Attack feature.
I take it as saying that unless it specifically says you can take more than 1 (ranged) spell attack action you can’t as the vast majority of (ranged) spell attack actions are full actions in and of themselves. I have hard copy of sword coast but not here so I’ll look that up later to see what it says. The lower levels of damage (sorry I screwed tat up) do suggest that more than 1 attack might be possible as does the possibility of a grenade like attack with all 3 stones at once. Again I recognize that it’s just vague enough right now to be interpreted either way and if a DM rules I can I’m certainly going to take advantage of the ruling even if I wouldn’t rule that way as a DM.
I take it as saying that unless it specifically says you can take more than 1 (ranged) spell attack action you can’t as the vast majority of (ranged) spell attack actions are full actions in and of themselves. I have hard copy of sword coast but not here so I’ll look that up later to see what it says. The lower levels of damage (sorry I screwed tat up) do suggest that more than 1 attack might be possible as does the possibility of a grenade like attack with all 3 stones at once. Again I recognize that it’s just vague enough right now to be interpreted either way and if a DM rules I can I’m certainly going to take advantage of the ruling even if I wouldn’t rule that way as a DM.
The rules are not required to repeat general rule information for each instance where that general rule information would be applicable (if only for the reason that the books would be 10x longer than they are now). Specifically calling something out is only required when that specific item would override the general rule information.
For example, most attacks listed in the game do not specifically call out you taking the Attack action to do so, because that is what the general rule information says you use for attacks (ie, its already covered). But, when an attack requires a different action, it is specifically called out. An example of this is crown of stars. That one is set up very similar to magic stone in that it allows an attack to be made using the spell that doesn't happen with the spells casting (which would use the Cast a Spell action). That spell specifically grants you a bonus action you can use to make the attack. It has to say this because otherwise, the game would default back to the general rules for attacks, which would be the Attack Action). Another one is produce flame. If you don't throw the flame during the casting of the spell (which would be part of the Cast a Spell action), it tells you you use your Action to do so. That is granting a Special Action to throw the flame, one that is not the Attack Action. If it didn't say specifically that you use your action, throwing the flame in that way would also qualify for extra attack.
Magic Stone does not say you use your action to throw or sling the stone, which means you can make the attack using any means you have available. You could, if you had a reaction that allowed an attack, throw it then. If you had a bonus action that allowed an attack, you could throw it then. If you had an action that allowed an attack, you could throw it then. Looking at the last of those, All PCs have an action that allows an attack; The Attack Action. And that action specifically allows multiple attacks with features like Extra Attack. Sneak Attack has different requirements, that is using a finesse or ranged weapon. So that is why it triggers when you use the sling, but not when you throw the stone.
I take it as saying that unless it specifically says you can take more than 1 (ranged) spell attack action you can’t as the vast majority of (ranged) spell attack actions are full actions in and of themselves. I have hard copy of sword coast but not here so I’ll look that up later to see what it says. The lower levels of damage (sorry I screwed tat up) do suggest that more than 1 attack might be possible as does the possibility of a grenade like attack with all 3 stones at once. Again I recognize that it’s just vague enough right now to be interpreted either way and if a DM rules I can I’m certainly going to take advantage of the ruling even if I wouldn’t rule that way as a DM.
There is no such thing as a “spell attack action,” or a “weapon attack action.” There is only The Attack Action.
This isn’t vague at all. Hurling a Magic Stone requires the Attack, and if you have Extra Attack, you can hurl more than one magic stone as part of the same action.
If you picked up a regular rock off the ground and threw it it would require the Attack action, so why would a magic rock be any different?!? The spell does not say “as an action,” so it does not grant its own special action to throw the stones.
I take it as saying that unless it specifically says you can take more than 1 (ranged) spell attack action you can’t as the vast majority of (ranged) spell attack actions are full actions in and of themselves. I have hard copy of sword coast but not here so I’ll look that up later to see what it says. The lower levels of damage (sorry I screwed tat up) do suggest that more than 1 attack might be possible as does the possibility of a grenade like attack with all 3 stones at once. Again I recognize that it’s just vague enough right now to be interpreted either way and if a DM rules I can I’m certainly going to take advantage of the ruling even if I wouldn’t rule that way as a DM.
There is no such thing as a “spell attack action,” or a “weapon attack action.” There is only The Attack Action.
This isn’t vague at all. Hurling a Magic Stone requires the Attack, and if you have Extra Attack, you can hurl more than one magic stone as part of the same action.
If you picked up a regular rock off the ground and threw it it would require the Attack action, so why would a magic rock be any different?!? The spell does not say “as an action,” so it does not grant its own special action to throw the stones.
But there are spells that create ad hoc actions. Flame Blade, Sunbeam, and produce flame, for example.
Meanwhile, spells that can use the attack action make it clear by leaving you a weapon to use: Shadow Blade and shilleighly.
You are just assuming the stones are used as in the attack action, but the easier read is that Magic Stone is a like a Produce Flame cantrip that creates three spell attacks you can share.
But to your point, if you picked up a rock from the ground and threw it, it would be a weapon. It wouldn't be a spell attack that wouldn't necessarily even be empowered by your own spell casting. Something different than an enchanted weapon is going on here.
"For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, " is clear that you are using the attack action while "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling" isnt?
I guess I understand why you are confused if you think there is an appreciable difference between those as to which action you use.
I take it as saying that unless it specifically says you can take more than 1 (ranged) spell attack action you can’t as the vast majority of (ranged) spell attack actions are full actions in and of themselves. I have hard copy of sword coast but not here so I’ll look that up later to see what it says. The lower levels of damage (sorry I screwed tat up) do suggest that more than 1 attack might be possible as does the possibility of a grenade like attack with all 3 stones at once. Again I recognize that it’s just vague enough right now to be interpreted either way and if a DM rules I can I’m certainly going to take advantage of the ruling even if I wouldn’t rule that way as a DM.
There is no such thing as a “spell attack action,” or a “weapon attack action.” There is only The Attack Action.
This isn’t vague at all. Hurling a Magic Stone requires the Attack, and if you have Extra Attack, you can hurl more than one magic stone as part of the same action.
If you picked up a regular rock off the ground and threw it it would require the Attack action, so why would a magic rock be any different?!? The spell does not say “as an action,” so it does not grant its own special action to throw the stones.
But there are spells that create ad hoc actions. Flame Blade, Sunbeam, and produce flame, for example.
Yes. But this is what Sposta is saying in the bolded. Spells that create ad hoc actions tell you they are by stating something like "as an action, you..."
Meanwhile, spells that can use the attack action make it clear by leaving you a weapon to use: Shadow Blade and shilleighly.
I'm not sure how the actual wording of those spells is significantly different from Magic Stone, at least enough to cause you to doubt they work the same way.
You are just assuming the stones are used as in the attack action, but the easier read is that Magic Stone is a like a Produce Flame cantrip that creates three spell attacks you can share.
Easier Read? It is very easy to read those spells. One specifically says "as an action... you can..." and one does not. That is very easy to read and understand.
But to your point, if you picked up a rock from the ground and threw it, it would be a weapon. It wouldn't be a spell attack that wouldn't necessarily even be empowered by your own spell casting. Something different than an enchanted weapon is going on here.
Let me give you a hint...Spell and Weapon attacks are only distinct in other rules so far as other rules say they are. The Attack action does not care which is which. Neither does Extra Attack or Sneak Attack. All the attack action cares about is 1) is what you are doing an attack (requires a yes answer)? and 2) is there another action that you are being told to use instead (requires a No answer)? The answer for Magic stone is Yes and No respectively, so it works with the Attack action and is eligible for Extra Attack.
I take it as saying that unless it specifically says you can take more than 1 (ranged) spell attack action you can’t as the vast majority of (ranged) spell attack actions are full actions in and of themselves. I have hard copy of sword coast but not here so I’ll look that up later to see what it says. The lower levels of damage (sorry I screwed tat up) do suggest that more than 1 attack might be possible as does the possibility of a grenade like attack with all 3 stones at once. Again I recognize that it’s just vague enough right now to be interpreted either way and if a DM rules I can I’m certainly going to take advantage of the ruling even if I wouldn’t rule that way as a DM.
There is no such thing as a “spell attack action,” or a “weapon attack action.” There is only The Attack Action.
This isn’t vague at all. Hurling a Magic Stone requires the Attack, and if you have Extra Attack, you can hurl more than one magic stone as part of the same action.
If you picked up a regular rock off the ground and threw it it would require the Attack action, so why would a magic rock be any different?!? The spell does not say “as an action,” so it does not grant its own special action to throw the stones.
But there are spells that create ad hoc actions. Flame Blade, Sunbeam, and produce flame, for example.
Meanwhile, spells that can use the attack action make it clear by leaving you a weapon to use: Shadow Blade and shilleighly.
You are just assuming the stones are used as in the attack action, but the easier read is that Magic Stone is a like a Produce Flame cantrip that creates three spell attacks you can share.
But to your point, if you picked up a rock from the ground and threw it, it would be a weapon. It wouldn't be a spell attack that wouldn't necessarily even be empowered by your own spell casting. Something different than an enchanted weapon is going on here.
Incorrect. Produce flame includes the phrase “as an action,” and magic stone does not. The easiest read (without inventing 🐴💩 that doesn’t exist) is that Produce Flame creates its own special action for the spell attack, but that Magic Stone does not. Again, you keep thinking there is a single definitive answer that applies to all spells. What you are not realizing is that each spell is unique and governed by its own description.
This from magic stone: “You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling.” No it doesn’t say ranged spell attack action just ranged spell attack. Then it specifies using one stone only. I know of no other ranged spell attack that allows multiple attacks without specifically saying so ( that doesn’t mean there aren’t any) as such (to me) that suggests that even the grenade like attack I suggested is not possible . I’m not really trying to argue with you since it’s fairly obvious we see the rules as saying various different things and as the PH rules were written before the spell and the situation we are talking about arose they don’t quite cover it specifically. If I’m playing in your campaign I’ll happily play by your rules but I expect the same of you in return.
I take it as saying that unless it specifically says you can take more than 1 (ranged) spell attack action you can’t as the vast majority of (ranged) spell attack actions are full actions in and of themselves. I have hard copy of sword coast but not here so I’ll look that up later to see what it says. The lower levels of damage (sorry I screwed tat up) do suggest that more than 1 attack might be possible as does the possibility of a grenade like attack with all 3 stones at once. Again I recognize that it’s just vague enough right now to be interpreted either way and if a DM rules I can I’m certainly going to take advantage of the ruling even if I wouldn’t rule that way as a DM.
There is no such thing as a “spell attack action,” or a “weapon attack action.” There is only The Attack Action.
This isn’t vague at all. Hurling a Magic Stone requires the Attack, and if you have Extra Attack, you can hurl more than one magic stone as part of the same action.
If you picked up a regular rock off the ground and threw it it would require the Attack action, so why would a magic rock be any different?!? The spell does not say “as an action,” so it does not grant its own special action to throw the stones.
But there are spells that create ad hoc actions. Flame Blade, Sunbeam, and produce flame, for example.
Meanwhile, spells that can use the attack action make it clear by leaving you a weapon to use: Shadow Blade and shilleighly.
You are just assuming the stones are used as in the attack action, but the easier read is that Magic Stone is a like a Produce Flame cantrip that creates three spell attacks you can share.
But to your point, if you picked up a rock from the ground and threw it, it would be a weapon. It wouldn't be a spell attack that wouldn't necessarily even be empowered by your own spell casting. Something different than an enchanted weapon is going on here.
Incorrect. Produce flame includes the phrase “as an action,” and magic stone does not. The easiest read (without inventing 🐴💩 that doesn’t exist) is that Produce Flame creates its own special action for the spell attack, but that Magic Stone does not. Again, you keep thinking there is a single definitive answer that applies to all spells. What you are not realizing is that each spell is unique and governed by its own description.
A spell can be governed by its own description and still not work with other features, like the attack action and extra attack.
If we are just going agnostic on this compared to other spells, then the spell doesn't say it uses the attack action either, so its a total toss up as to whether its an ad hoc action or the attack action.
This from magic stone: “You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling.” No it doesn’t say ranged spell attack action just ranged spell attack. Then it specifies using one stone only. I know of no other ranged spell attack that allows multiple attacks without specifically saying so ( that doesn’t mean there aren’t any) as such (to me) that suggests that even the grenade like attack I suggested is not possible . I’m not really trying to argue with you since it’s fairly obvious we see the rules as saying various different things and as the PH rules were written before the spell and the situation we are talking about arose they don’t quite cover it specifically. If I’m playing in your campaign I’ll happily play by your rules but I expect the same of you in return.
So your argument is that the spell doesn't tell you that you can make more than one attack with it, you don't think that extra attack applies? Do any weapons tell you that you can make more than one attack with them?
A spell can be governed by its own description and still not work with other features, like the attack action and extra attack.
If we are just going agnostic on this compared to other spells, then the spell doesn't say it uses the attack action either, so its a total toss up as to whether its an ad hoc action or the attack action.
Remember that spells do what they tell you that they do. Does the spell tell you that it is its own ad hoc action? That is what they're saying: if the spell says "as an action" that means it is an ad hoc action. If it doesn't say that then nothing would suggest that.
This from magic stone: “You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling.” No it doesn’t say ranged spell attack action just ranged spell attack. Then it specifies using one stone only
...per attack. Its the Extra Attack function that allows multiple stones, because you get multiple attacks. And the fact that the spell omits the word "action" is exactly our point.
. I know of no other ranged spell attack that allows multiple attacks without specifically saying so ( that doesn’t mean there aren’t any) as such (to me) that suggests that even the grenade like attack I suggested is not possible
Every spell does something different from other spells. That's the point, each one is an individual rule. but, they do rely on general rules. One of the general rules is that you use the attack action to make attacks with your action (except when they fall under another action). There is no other action the attacks from Magic Stone could fall under (at least not inherent to the spell description), so they are made by default with the attack action.
Also, I haven't addressed this in my previous replies to you, but yes, your "grenade" attack is not possible, at least not without Extra Attack, and even then it would be 1 stone per attack roll, just flavored to be a "grenade"
. I’m not really trying to argue with you since it’s fairly obvious we see the rules as saying various different things and as the PH rules were written before the spell and the situation we are talking about arose they don’t quite cover it specifically. If I’m playing in your campaign I’ll happily play by your rules but I expect the same of you in return.
Of course a DM can rule any way they want at their table. But the issue here is not a debate over an unclear rule. The rule is clear as day, you just don't want to accept it.
This from magic stone: “You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling.” No it doesn’t say ranged spell attack action just ranged spell attack. Then it specifies using one stone only. I know of no other ranged spell attack that allows multiple attacks without specifically saying so ( that doesn’t mean there aren’t any) as such (to me) that suggests that even the grenade like attack I suggested is not possible . I’m not really trying to argue with you since it’s fairly obvious we see the rules as saying various different things and as the PH rules were written before the spell and the situation we are talking about arose they don’t quite cover it specifically. If I’m playing in your campaign I’ll happily play by your rules but I expect the same of you in return.
So your argument is that the spell doesn't tell you that you can make more than one attack with it, you don't think that extra attack applies? Do any weapons tell you that you can make more than one attack with them?
Their argument is better summed up in these 2 points:
1. The spell doesn't say throwing the stone uses the attack action
2. The spell only expressly permits throwing one stone
So a better question is "do any weapons specify you can only attack once with them?" And that would be a "no." The Magic Stone is not being treated as a weapon in this spell.
I take it as saying that unless it specifically says you can take more than 1 (ranged) spell attack action you can’t as the vast majority of (ranged) spell attack actions are full actions in and of themselves. I have hard copy of sword coast but not here so I’ll look that up later to see what it says. The lower levels of damage (sorry I screwed tat up) do suggest that more than 1 attack might be possible as does the possibility of a grenade like attack with all 3 stones at once. Again I recognize that it’s just vague enough right now to be interpreted either way and if a DM rules I can I’m certainly going to take advantage of the ruling even if I wouldn’t rule that way as a DM.
There is no such thing as a “spell attack action,” or a “weapon attack action.” There is only The Attack Action.
This isn’t vague at all. Hurling a Magic Stone requires the Attack, and if you have Extra Attack, you can hurl more than one magic stone as part of the same action.
If you picked up a regular rock off the ground and threw it it would require the Attack action, so why would a magic rock be any different?!? The spell does not say “as an action,” so it does not grant its own special action to throw the stones.
But there are spells that create ad hoc actions. Flame Blade, Sunbeam, and produce flame, for example.
Meanwhile, spells that can use the attack action make it clear by leaving you a weapon to use: Shadow Blade and shilleighly.
You are just assuming the stones are used as in the attack action, but the easier read is that Magic Stone is a like a Produce Flame cantrip that creates three spell attacks you can share.
But to your point, if you picked up a rock from the ground and threw it, it would be a weapon. It wouldn't be a spell attack that wouldn't necessarily even be empowered by your own spell casting. Something different than an enchanted weapon is going on here.
Incorrect. Produce flame includes the phrase “as an action,” and magic stone does not. The easiest read (without inventing 🐴💩 that doesn’t exist) is that Produce Flame creates its own special action for the spell attack, but that Magic Stone does not. Again, you keep thinking there is a single definitive answer that applies to all spells. What you are not realizing is that each spell is unique and governed by its own description.
A spell can be governed by its own description and still not work with other features, like the attack action and extra attack.
If we are just going agnostic on this compared to other spells, then the spell doesn't say it uses the attack action either, so its a total toss up as to whether its an ad hoc action or the attack action.
Incorrect. If it granted/required it’s own “ad hoc” action, then it would include the phrase “as an action,” which it does not. Therefore it must require one of the other actions, and the only two options would be [Tooltip Not Found], or Attack. I could entertain an argument for Use an Object, but it is most definitively not an ad hoc action.
Agreed. I'd love to know why, as well.
I could be missing something, but the math doesn't even check out. The damage doesn't scale up for magic stone, so it's only ever 1d6 per stone. That's 3d6+15, or an average of ≈25. The 4d6 from Sneak Attack only adds another 14, so it's really more like 39-40 damage in one round. That's barely half of Bill's initial estimate. And the familiar can only grant advantage for the first attack, not all three.
20 levels to just to the damage of a CR 6 monster? And only with an effective range of 30 feet?
Sorry if I missed some context. Yes, with those two spells you hit with the material component weapon. That weapon can also be used as a focus generally if you have a class or other ability that says so. But it actually can't be used as a focus for those particular spells, because the material component has a cost (even though it is the same weapon).
Basically, if you had a pact weapon you could use as a focus, but that didn't meet the value criteria for those spells, you could not use the pact weapon for that spell, because you can't use a focus and your weapon doesn't meet the criteria to be a material component.
But all of that aside, using the material component to make the attack is true for those spell only because the spell description says so. It is not a general use of foci or material components to actually make the attack, which is what Kronzy is trying to say
With magic stone, you don't need a focus or material components, so attacking with the transmuted stones does not use them either.
Icon, here is my reasoning for only getting one stone: You have a max of 3 actions in a round:
A) a bonus action ( in this case casting the magic stone spell)
B) a reaction - has no impact on the spell so we can ignore it
C) your action for that round either a weapon attack or a spell effect, weapon attacks get extra attacks for Barbarians, fighters, monks and rangers, spell attacks do not. The wording for magic stone specifically says it is a ranged spell attack and even if someone else is slinging the stone they use your spellcasting attack modifier not their weapon attack modifier. I read this as RAI= 1 attack. The only possibility I see here for a multiple attack is to cast it on 3 smaller stones and sling/throw all three as a grenade like attack and even that is iffy as it says A stone in the spell.
RAW is just vague enough because your drawing from multiple different rules that don’t specifically address this issue which is why I was talking about considering game balance in my previous post. Yes there are monsters that do more damage in a single round but this a freaking cantrip it shouldn’t be doing 80+ points of damage under any circumstances so trying to twist the vagueness in the rules to allow it is counter to any sort of game balance and shouldn’t ( certainly wouldn’t in my campaign) be accepted under RAW or RAI.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Ah, here is where you have gotten confused. The extra attack ability of those classes does not distinguish weapon attacks, it just says attacks with the attack action. Most spell attacks use the Cast a Spell action, or an action granted by the spell (and referenced in it's description). There is exactly one spell that doesn't do that though, and that spell is magic stone
From the Barbarian (the others are similar):
Extra Attack
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
See? no requirement for it being a weapon attack only. Its when you take the Attack Action.
Also, when you say you get your Action for a weapon attack or spell effect....that isn't true, you get an action for any action available to you to use as an Action. That can mean Casting a spell, taking the Attack action, Using an Object, or any other action specifically granted to you by a racial or class ability, a spell, a magic item, or anything else. magic stone does not grant an Action (it would have to say so specifically). It does grant you an item you can use with actions available to you (which could be your action, bonus action, or reaction, depending on when you want to throw/fire off the stone). If you use your action, it is the Attack Action you use, and if you use the Attack Action, and have Extra Attack, you can attack multiple times.
Ask yourself: What action am I using to sling the stone? Does the spell itself say it grants me an action to do so? No? then where might it tell me? (I'll give you a hint, its the Attack Action)
The spell does 1d6+ a max of 5 per stone. This spell doesn't scale with level, so it is always 1d6 + a max of 5 per stone. adding sneak attack and a Charisma Bonus (not sure where you are getting that) is 4d6+5. So that becomes a total of 7d6 + 20, or 44 average damage, at level 20, with a highly specific set of builds. That build would be doing nearly as much damage with any ranged weapon at high levels. It's not overpowered.
I would argue that being able to extra attack with it is RAI, because it doesn't scale like most cantrips. If it did, that would hint that they only meant for it to be used once per action, but they didn't.
The Attack action is silent on whether the attack must be made with a weapon, so it doesn't care. All that matters is the character makes an attack, melee or ranged, weapon or spell. I get why people assume its limited to just weapon attacks, because examples of such are given, but it's a false assumption.
A monk who follows the Way of the Sun Soul and attacks with Radiant Sun Bolt, as part of their Attack, is making up to two ranged spell attacks. They can also spend Ki to make up to two more as a bonus action; in place of the attacks granted by their Flurry of Blows feature. And that came out six months after magic stone debuted in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion. So, if there was doubt beforehand, the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide erased any reasonable doubt.
These are fringe cases, I'll grant you that. In fact, they might be the only two in the entire game. But, by the sheer fact that they even exist, it is 100% possible for a spell attack to benefit from Extra Attack. And because a spell attack granted by magic stone is performable with a sling, it meets the weapon requirement for the rogue's Sneak Attack feature.
I take it as saying that unless it specifically says you can take more than 1 (ranged) spell attack action you can’t as the vast majority of (ranged) spell attack actions are full actions in and of themselves. I have hard copy of sword coast but not here so I’ll look that up later to see what it says. The lower levels of damage (sorry I screwed tat up) do suggest that more than 1 attack might be possible as does the possibility of a grenade like attack with all 3 stones at once. Again I recognize that it’s just vague enough right now to be interpreted either way and if a DM rules I can I’m certainly going to take advantage of the ruling even if I wouldn’t rule that way as a DM.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The rules are not required to repeat general rule information for each instance where that general rule information would be applicable (if only for the reason that the books would be 10x longer than they are now). Specifically calling something out is only required when that specific item would override the general rule information.
For example, most attacks listed in the game do not specifically call out you taking the Attack action to do so, because that is what the general rule information says you use for attacks (ie, its already covered). But, when an attack requires a different action, it is specifically called out. An example of this is crown of stars. That one is set up very similar to magic stone in that it allows an attack to be made using the spell that doesn't happen with the spells casting (which would use the Cast a Spell action). That spell specifically grants you a bonus action you can use to make the attack. It has to say this because otherwise, the game would default back to the general rules for attacks, which would be the Attack Action). Another one is produce flame. If you don't throw the flame during the casting of the spell (which would be part of the Cast a Spell action), it tells you you use your Action to do so. That is granting a Special Action to throw the flame, one that is not the Attack Action. If it didn't say specifically that you use your action, throwing the flame in that way would also qualify for extra attack.
Magic Stone does not say you use your action to throw or sling the stone, which means you can make the attack using any means you have available. You could, if you had a reaction that allowed an attack, throw it then. If you had a bonus action that allowed an attack, you could throw it then. If you had an action that allowed an attack, you could throw it then. Looking at the last of those, All PCs have an action that allows an attack; The Attack Action. And that action specifically allows multiple attacks with features like Extra Attack. Sneak Attack has different requirements, that is using a finesse or ranged weapon. So that is why it triggers when you use the sling, but not when you throw the stone.
There is no such thing as a “spell attack action,” or a “weapon attack action.” There is only The Attack Action.
This isn’t vague at all. Hurling a Magic Stone requires the Attack, and if you have Extra Attack, you can hurl more than one magic stone as part of the same action.
If you picked up a regular rock off the ground and threw it it would require the Attack action, so why would a magic rock be any different?!? The spell does not say “as an action,” so it does not grant its own special action to throw the stones.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
But there are spells that create ad hoc actions. Flame Blade, Sunbeam, and produce flame, for example.
Meanwhile, spells that can use the attack action make it clear by leaving you a weapon to use: Shadow Blade and shilleighly.
You are just assuming the stones are used as in the attack action, but the easier read is that Magic Stone is a like a Produce Flame cantrip that creates three spell attacks you can share.
But to your point, if you picked up a rock from the ground and threw it, it would be a weapon. It wouldn't be a spell attack that wouldn't necessarily even be empowered by your own spell casting. Something different than an enchanted weapon is going on here.
"For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, " is clear that you are using the attack action while "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling" isnt?
I guess I understand why you are confused if you think there is an appreciable difference between those as to which action you use.
Yes. But this is what Sposta is saying in the bolded. Spells that create ad hoc actions tell you they are by stating something like "as an action, you..."
I'm not sure how the actual wording of those spells is significantly different from Magic Stone, at least enough to cause you to doubt they work the same way.
Easier Read? It is very easy to read those spells. One specifically says "as an action... you can..." and one does not. That is very easy to read and understand.
Let me give you a hint...Spell and Weapon attacks are only distinct in other rules so far as other rules say they are. The Attack action does not care which is which. Neither does Extra Attack or Sneak Attack. All the attack action cares about is 1) is what you are doing an attack (requires a yes answer)? and 2) is there another action that you are being told to use instead (requires a No answer)? The answer for Magic stone is Yes and No respectively, so it works with the Attack action and is eligible for Extra Attack.
Incorrect. Produce flame includes the phrase “as an action,” and magic stone does not. The easiest read (without inventing 🐴💩 that doesn’t exist) is that Produce Flame creates its own special action for the spell attack, but that Magic Stone does not. Again, you keep thinking there is a single definitive answer that applies to all spells. What you are not realizing is that each spell is unique and governed by its own description.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This from magic stone: “You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling.” No it doesn’t say ranged spell attack action just ranged spell attack. Then it specifies using one stone only. I know of no other ranged spell attack that allows multiple attacks without specifically saying so ( that doesn’t mean there aren’t any) as such (to me) that suggests that even the grenade like attack I suggested is not possible . I’m not really trying to argue with you since it’s fairly obvious we see the rules as saying various different things and as the PH rules were written before the spell and the situation we are talking about arose they don’t quite cover it specifically. If I’m playing in your campaign I’ll happily play by your rules but I expect the same of you in return.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
A spell can be governed by its own description and still not work with other features, like the attack action and extra attack.
If we are just going agnostic on this compared to other spells, then the spell doesn't say it uses the attack action either, so its a total toss up as to whether its an ad hoc action or the attack action.
So your argument is that the spell doesn't tell you that you can make more than one attack with it, you don't think that extra attack applies? Do any weapons tell you that you can make more than one attack with them?
Remember that spells do what they tell you that they do. Does the spell tell you that it is its own ad hoc action? That is what they're saying: if the spell says "as an action" that means it is an ad hoc action. If it doesn't say that then nothing would suggest that.
...per attack. Its the Extra Attack function that allows multiple stones, because you get multiple attacks. And the fact that the spell omits the word "action" is exactly our point.
Every spell does something different from other spells. That's the point, each one is an individual rule. but, they do rely on general rules. One of the general rules is that you use the attack action to make attacks with your action (except when they fall under another action). There is no other action the attacks from Magic Stone could fall under (at least not inherent to the spell description), so they are made by default with the attack action.
Also, I haven't addressed this in my previous replies to you, but yes, your "grenade" attack is not possible, at least not without Extra Attack, and even then it would be 1 stone per attack roll, just flavored to be a "grenade"
Of course a DM can rule any way they want at their table. But the issue here is not a debate over an unclear rule. The rule is clear as day, you just don't want to accept it.
Their argument is better summed up in these 2 points:
1. The spell doesn't say throwing the stone uses the attack action
2. The spell only expressly permits throwing one stone
So a better question is "do any weapons specify you can only attack once with them?" And that would be a "no." The Magic Stone is not being treated as a weapon in this spell.
Incorrect. If it granted/required it’s own “ad hoc” action, then it would include the phrase “as an action,” which it does not. Therefore it must require one of the other actions, and the only two options would be [Tooltip Not Found], or Attack. I could entertain an argument for Use an Object, but it is most definitively not an ad hoc action.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting