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.
No, it’s being treated as ammunition. So therefore it follows the rules of the weapon using it. Therefore it follows the rules for a sling, and a sling is subject to the Attack action. And the Attack action is subject to Extra Attack. Ipso facto, a magic stone is subject to Extra Attack, at least when used with a sling. (Thrown it might be subject to the restriction of the [Tooltip Not Found] action, that has not yet been discussed AFAIK.)
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.
Lets assume the bolded is a way of thinking about this. We know an attack has to be tied to some kind of action economy (action, bonus action, reaction, etc). It can't stand alone. So I must use one of those to make the attack. I know that spells can use the Cast a Spell Action, Ad Hoc actions, or The Attack action, for attacks depending on description of the spell. I know that for this spell, the Cast a Spell action can't work, because I'm not casting the spell when the attack occurs. I know for a fact that ad hoc actions doesn't work, because an ad hoc action only exists if the rule says it does (since there is no general rule for ad hoc actions). If there is no ad hoc action specified, then that option is invalid. Now lets look at the Attack Action. There is a general rule for that one! So it exists independently of a specific spell or effect. So now, we know that 1) the spell tells you you can make an attack. 2) it can't use the Cast a Spell action (since you aren't casting) or an ad hoc action (as none exist in this spell) and 3) the Attack Action allows you to make one attack (with exceptions for Extra Attack). So, 4) The attack action allows me to attack, and this spell tells me to make an attack. the two work together.
But beyond this, You want an agnostic review of the spell? here you go: All of the ways you can make the attack with magic stone:
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/sling it using that reaction. If you had a bonus action that allowed an attack, you could throw/sling it using that bonus action. If you had an action that allowed an attack, you could throw/sling it using that action. Now here is the kicker: All PCs have an action that allows an attack; The Attack Action.
And that action specifically allows multiple attacks with features like Extra Attack.
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
It doesnt have to, that rule exists independently of the spell and the spell doesn't otherwise conflict with the general rules for the attack action. Specific v. General only applies when there is an actual conflict.
2. The spell only expressly permits throwing one stone
...per attack. The attack action, with extra attack, allows multiple attacks, each with one stone. The rule is not in conflict.
So a better question is "do any weapons specify you can only attack once with them?"
any weapon with the Loading Property does, but I don't see why that (or your question) is relevant here, as the spell does not limit the number of stones expended per action, only per attack.
And that would be a "no." The Magic Stone is not being treated as a weapon in this spell.
It doesn't have to be. The attack action allows for spell attacks so long as they aren't included in another action. Again this is a moot point.
No extra attacks are a way of balancing the damage a pure martial character can do in a round compared to a pure magical one can do. As an example:A mage at level 6 can cast fireball 3 times over three rounds doing 8d6 damage each round (Ave: 25.5 damage/rd) a ranger without extra attacks but with 2 weapon fighting (and dual wielding) can do 1d8+1d6+SB(+3) or 11 damage, with extra attack and hunters mark in rnd 1 and holding concentration in rnds 2&3 does Rd 1: 1d8+1d6+3 x 2= 22 damage and RD 2&3 3(1d8+1d6+3)= 24 - balanced damage. The only reason I can see for allowing magic stone to get extra attacks is that it doesn’t scale as most other cantrips do so allowing the extra attacks allows it to scale. This is the underlying reason why most magical effects are full round actions- especially high damage ones.
Further, spells are written for spellcaster usage not MCers or partial casters (except for their specialized spells like hunters mark) and pure spellcaster gets an extra attack normally so the spells have to make note when they do ( yes they can make s second cantrip spell if their first is a bonus action that’s as close to extra attacks as they get without MCing.
Wrong for Produce Flame, you can toss it on the same turn you use to create it, as part of the wording.
"You can also attack with the flame, although doing so ends the spell. When you cast this spell, or as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you."
I vote to ignore this very inconsistent wording, and rule it as such:
- If you have the Extra Attack feature, and use it to cast a cantrip like Fire Bolt, you are not casting a 'Leveled Spell' which means it's just a magical attack that you know how to do very quickly, which means you can make a second attack with a similar cantrip. (Similar to how a fighter can use different weapons for their attack actions)
- If you are casting a 'Leveled Spell' (First level and up) you are taking the 'Cast a Spell' action, and are subject to those rules as normal. Because you need to actually remember the proper way to cast it, and to perform the desired components might take long enough to require a full action.
I refuse to continue listening to this game's vague rules. It causes tok many issues. (Ex: Casting a non-attacking cantrip, which isn't considered a proper spell in terms of levels, breaking Invisibility)
I vote to ignore this very inconsistent wording, and rule it as such:
- If you have the Extra Attack feature, and use it to cast a cantrip like Fire Bolt, you are not casting a 'Leveled Spell' which means it's just a magical attack that you know how to do very quickly, which means you can make a second attack with a similar cantrip. (Similar to how a fighter can use different weapons for their attack actions)
- If you are casting a 'Leveled Spell' (First level and up) you are taking the 'Cast a Spell' action, and are subject to those rules as normal. Because you need to actually remember the proper way to cast it, and to perform the desired components might take long enough to require a full action.
I refuse to continue listening to this game's vague rules. It causes tok many issues. (Ex: Casting a non-attacking cantrip, which isn't considered a proper spell in terms of levels, breaking Invisibility)
You can vote however you like, but you will still be incorrectly applying the rules. A cantrip is a spell, ergo you use your Cast Spell Action to cast it, not the Attack Action. They already scale up every five levels in any case, whether or not you choose to view them as "real" spells. The purpose of Extra Attack is clearly to allow for multiple weapon attacks unless you have a special case such as the Bladesinger feature that explicitly allows for a cantrip to be cast using one of the attacks.
I vote to ignore this very inconsistent wording, and rule it as such:
- If you have the Extra Attack feature, and use it to cast a cantrip like Fire Bolt, you are not casting a 'Leveled Spell' which means it's just a magical attack that you know how to do very quickly, which means you can make a second attack with a similar cantrip. (Similar to how a fighter can use different weapons for their attack actions)
By the rules spell casters are generally more powerful than martial characters and this change would make it almost compulsorary to be a spellcaster.
Making a one handed weapon attack (so you can use a shield) you will do 1d8+str (or dex) damage with a +4 modifier each hit will do an average of 8.5 damage (excluding crits)
An alternative melee cantrip would be shocking grasp at character level 5 that will do 2d8 damage which is 9 on average but also prevents the anemy taking reactions (a fairly powerful debuff). Rules as written this is compensated for by only casting shocking grasp once as an action with your change you could not only do more damage than with a weapon but prevent two enemies from making op attacks or counterspelling your friends levelled spell or carrying out their held action (or any of many other things)
When things like this come up I remind players of the old goose and gander saying - yes it’s more powerful for the player, but then the NPCs can do it too and it’s just as much more powerful in their hands - do they really want the opposing ranger/ sorceror Gish ( as an example) casting two 2d8 chill touches their way each round? That generally stops the discussion in its tracks because what is wanted really is for the PCs to have abilities the NPCs don’t.
When things like this come up I remind players of the old goose and gander saying - yes it’s more powerful for the player, but then the NPCs can do it too and it’s just as much more powerful in their hands
The goose always cast spells while not all ganders encountered do though so such comparison is far from being equally balanced.
When things like this come up I remind players of the old goose and gander saying - yes it’s more powerful for the player, but then the NPCs can do it too and it’s just as much more powerful in their hands - do they really want the opposing ranger/ sorceror Gish ( as an example) casting two 2d8 chill touches their way each round? That generally stops the discussion in its tracks because what is wanted really is for the PCs to have abilities the NPCs don’t.
NPCs aren't built using PC creation rules, and can already do this if the DM wants them to.
NPCs can do all sorts of wild and crazy shenanigans.
When things like this come up I remind players of the old goose and gander saying - yes it’s more powerful for the player, but then the NPCs can do it too and it’s just as much more powerful in their hands - do they really want the opposing ranger/ sorceror Gish ( as an example) casting two 2d8 chill touches their way each round? That generally stops the discussion in its tracks because what is wanted really is for the PCs to have abilities the NPCs don’t.
NPCs aren't built using PC creation rules, and can already do this if the DM wants them to.
NPCs can do all sorts of wild and crazy shenanigans.
That reads like a poor argument.
If we're honestly going to take the position that the DM can do whatever they want, then the only logical conclusion is everything is for the players to "catch up" to the NPCs. This is a terrible mindset. Chiefly, because PCs aren't supposed to do that. But also, it's not immediately clear if everyone at the table thinks this way. The rules, as written, establish a social contract of sorts. It sets expectations for the players.
Having the conversation of "if you want to bend or break this rule, I get to also" is necessary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, it’s being treated as ammunition. So therefore it follows the rules of the weapon using it. Therefore it follows the rules for a sling, and a sling is subject to the Attack action. And the Attack action is subject to Extra Attack. Ipso facto, a magic stone is subject to Extra Attack, at least when used with a sling. (Thrown it might be subject to the restriction of the [Tooltip Not Found] action, that has not yet been discussed AFAIK.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Lets assume the bolded is a way of thinking about this. We know an attack has to be tied to some kind of action economy (action, bonus action, reaction, etc). It can't stand alone. So I must use one of those to make the attack. I know that spells can use the Cast a Spell Action, Ad Hoc actions, or The Attack action, for attacks depending on description of the spell. I know that for this spell, the Cast a Spell action can't work, because I'm not casting the spell when the attack occurs. I know for a fact that ad hoc actions doesn't work, because an ad hoc action only exists if the rule says it does (since there is no general rule for ad hoc actions). If there is no ad hoc action specified, then that option is invalid. Now lets look at the Attack Action. There is a general rule for that one! So it exists independently of a specific spell or effect. So now, we know that 1) the spell tells you you can make an attack. 2) it can't use the Cast a Spell action (since you aren't casting) or an ad hoc action (as none exist in this spell) and 3) the Attack Action allows you to make one attack (with exceptions for Extra Attack). So, 4) The attack action allows me to attack, and this spell tells me to make an attack. the two work together.
But beyond this, You want an agnostic review of the spell? here you go: All of the ways you can make the attack with magic stone:
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/sling it using that reaction. If you had a bonus action that allowed an attack, you could throw/sling it using that bonus action. If you had an action that allowed an attack, you could throw/sling it using that action. Now here is the kicker: All PCs have an action that allows an attack; The Attack Action.
And that action specifically allows multiple attacks with features like Extra Attack.
It doesnt have to, that rule exists independently of the spell and the spell doesn't otherwise conflict with the general rules for the attack action. Specific v. General only applies when there is an actual conflict.
...per attack. The attack action, with extra attack, allows multiple attacks, each with one stone. The rule is not in conflict.
any weapon with the Loading Property does, but I don't see why that (or your question) is relevant here, as the spell does not limit the number of stones expended per action, only per attack.
It doesn't have to be. The attack action allows for spell attacks so long as they aren't included in another action. Again this is a moot point.
No extra attacks are a way of balancing the damage a pure martial character can do in a round compared to a pure magical one can do. As an example:A mage at level 6 can cast fireball 3 times over three rounds doing 8d6 damage each round (Ave: 25.5 damage/rd) a ranger without extra attacks but with 2 weapon fighting (and dual wielding) can do 1d8+1d6+SB(+3) or 11 damage, with extra attack and hunters mark in rnd 1 and holding concentration in rnds 2&3 does Rd 1: 1d8+1d6+3 x 2= 22 damage and RD 2&3 3(1d8+1d6+3)= 24 - balanced damage. The only reason I can see for allowing magic stone to get extra attacks is that it doesn’t scale as most other cantrips do so allowing the extra attacks allows it to scale. This is the underlying reason why most magical effects are full round actions- especially high damage ones.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Further, spells are written for spellcaster usage not MCers or partial casters (except for their specialized spells like hunters mark) and pure spellcaster gets an extra attack normally so the spells have to make note when they do ( yes they can make s second cantrip spell if their first is a bonus action that’s as close to extra attacks as they get without MCing.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
What does this have to do with the rules?
As a reminder, the spell attack from Magic stone doesn't let you attack for any more than a weapon attack might.
And Bards, Warlocks, and Wizards all get extra attack as subclass abilities.
Wrong for Produce Flame, you can toss it on the same turn you use to create it, as part of the wording.
"You can also attack with the flame, although doing so ends the spell. When you cast this spell, or as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you."
I vote to ignore this very inconsistent wording, and rule it as such:
- If you have the Extra Attack feature, and use it to cast a cantrip like Fire Bolt, you are not casting a 'Leveled Spell' which means it's just a magical attack that you know how to do very quickly, which means you can make a second attack with a similar cantrip. (Similar to how a fighter can use different weapons for their attack actions)
- If you are casting a 'Leveled Spell' (First level and up) you are taking the 'Cast a Spell' action, and are subject to those rules as normal. Because you need to actually remember the proper way to cast it, and to perform the desired components might take long enough to require a full action.
I refuse to continue listening to this game's vague rules. It causes tok many issues. (Ex: Casting a non-attacking cantrip, which isn't considered a proper spell in terms of levels, breaking Invisibility)
You can vote however you like, but you will still be incorrectly applying the rules. A cantrip is a spell, ergo you use your Cast Spell Action to cast it, not the Attack Action. They already scale up every five levels in any case, whether or not you choose to view them as "real" spells. The purpose of Extra Attack is clearly to allow for multiple weapon attacks unless you have a special case such as the Bladesinger feature that explicitly allows for a cantrip to be cast using one of the attacks.
By the rules spell casters are generally more powerful than martial characters and this change would make it almost compulsorary to be a spellcaster.
Making a one handed weapon attack (so you can use a shield) you will do 1d8+str (or dex) damage with a +4 modifier each hit will do an average of 8.5 damage (excluding crits)
An alternative melee cantrip would be shocking grasp at character level 5 that will do 2d8 damage which is 9 on average but also prevents the anemy taking reactions (a fairly powerful debuff). Rules as written this is compensated for by only casting shocking grasp once as an action with your change you could not only do more damage than with a weapon but prevent two enemies from making op attacks or counterspelling your friends levelled spell or carrying out their held action (or any of many other things)
When things like this come up I remind players of the old goose and gander saying - yes it’s more powerful for the player, but then the NPCs can do it too and it’s just as much more powerful in their hands - do they really want the opposing ranger/ sorceror Gish ( as an example) casting two 2d8 chill touches their way each round? That generally stops the discussion in its tracks because what is wanted really is for the PCs to have abilities the NPCs don’t.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The goose always cast spells while not all ganders encountered do though so such comparison is far from being equally balanced.
If the goose does then the ganders do too, the egrets may not butt…
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
NPCs aren't built using PC creation rules, and can already do this if the DM wants them to.
NPCs can do all sorts of wild and crazy shenanigans.
I got quotes!
That reads like a poor argument.
If we're honestly going to take the position that the DM can do whatever they want, then the only logical conclusion is everything is for the players to "catch up" to the NPCs. This is a terrible mindset. Chiefly, because PCs aren't supposed to do that. But also, it's not immediately clear if everyone at the table thinks this way. The rules, as written, establish a social contract of sorts. It sets expectations for the players.
Having the conversation of "if you want to bend or break this rule, I get to also" is necessary.