So, using those “improvised weapons” require weapon attacks, which use the Attack action the same as any other weapon. Of course, those are “objects,” so I could see a DM calling for the use an object action instead.
Be careful, that is exactly the same argument for spell that make attacks to be made with the attack action. In fact that is the same as quin's argument, except weaker because their argument didn't involve doing the exact definition of the use an object action.
Do you have an argument for using an object to make an attack using attack action that doesn't also apply to casting a spell to make an attack using attack action?
If alchemist fire and acid weren't use an object action, they would be special actions granted by the object (same as produce flame's second attack or a class feature).
I’m not tracking you. Is Produce Flame an Improvised weapon? Does it preclude using your PB as part of the attack unless you have Tavern Brawler? Does the description of improvised weapons indicate spell effects are eligible? [Snip tangent] And if it would require the Attack action to wing a table leg at your PC, wouldn’t it also require the Attack action peg your PC in the dome with an empty vial, or flask? And if it would use the Attack action to throw an empty vial or flask…? Especially when the item specifies it is an “improvised weapon.” So if my 11th level fighter can throw three “improvised ranged weapons” using the Attack action, why couldn’t one of them be a vial of acid? Track?
RAW, acid and alchemist fire are objects who's descriptions say require an action to use and the effect when used is to make an attack as an improvised weapon. Just because the effect is to make an attack does not mean it uses the attack action. Just because the effect treats it as a weapon, does not mean the action to use the effect is the attack action.
If the item was intended to be used with extra attack, then instead of saying it requires an action, it would just say "this item can be used as an improvised ranged weapon by... when it is..."
The rules for improvised weapons deliberately leave a lot up to the DM. This is a weird case where an improvised weapon attack via the use an object action has a specific effect, but otherwise being used as an improvised weapon uses the default rules. Does it make sense? Not really. But it is the rule. Change it if you want, but be careful, not only does it slightly nerf thief, but it is a fine line between drawing and throwing a vial vs throwing a fireball that is already in your hand.
So, using those “improvised weapons” require weapon attacks, which use the Attack action the same as any other weapon. Of course, those are “objects,” so I could see a DM calling for the use an object action instead.
Be careful, that is exactly the same argument for spell that make attacks to be made with the attack action. In fact that is the same as quin's argument, except weaker because their argument didn't involve doing the exact definition of the use an object action.
Do you have an argument for using an object to make an attack using attack action that doesn't also apply to casting a spell to make an attack using attack action?
If alchemist fire and acid weren't use an object action, they would be special actions granted by the object (same as produce flame's second attack or a class feature).
I’m not tracking you. Is Produce Flame an Improvised weapon? Does it preclude using your PB as part of the attack unless you have Tavern Brawler? Does the description of improvised weapons indicate spell effects are eligible? [Snip tangent] And if it would require the Attack action to wing a table leg at your PC, wouldn’t it also require the Attack action peg your PC in the dome with an empty vial, or flask? And if it would use the Attack action to throw an empty vial or flask…? Especially when the item specifies it is an “improvised weapon.” So if my 11th level fighter can throw three “improvised ranged weapons” using the Attack action, why couldn’t one of them be a vial of acid? Track?
RAW, acid and alchemist fire are objects who's descriptions say require an action to use and the effect when used is to make an attack as an improvised weapon. Just because the effect is to make an attack does not mean it uses the attack action. Just because the effect treats it as a weapon, does not mean the action to use the effect is the attack action.
If the item was intended to be used with extra attack, then instead of saying it requires an action, it would just say "this item can be used as an improvised ranged weapon by... when it is..."
The rules for improvised weapons deliberately leave a lot up to the DM. This is a weird case where an improvised weapon attack via the use an object action has a specific effect, but otherwise being used as an improvised weapon uses the default rules. Does it make sense? Not really. But it is the rule. Change it if you want, but be careful, not only does it slightly nerf thief, but it is a fine line between drawing and throwing a vial vs throwing a fireball that is already in your hand.
A nerf to Thief?!? Really? When have you ever seen a Thief throw two alchemical things in a turn? Honestly, how often do people throw acid or alchemist’s fire? A flask of Alchemist’s Fire costs 50 bucks a pop, is wasted if you miss, and even if you hit round 1 with surprise, and the fight goes the average 4 rounds that creature took a total of 3d4 damage by the end of it. Considering that DOT is absolutely horrible in D&D, that means Alchemist’s Fire is right up there with the net for “most useless crap to use in a fight in 5e.” An Acid (vial) is 25 bucks and does a flat 2d6 on a hit, nada on a miss. So again, who’s tossin’ around vials of acid like that? Especially a Thief who could make better use pouring out the Acid and throwing the empty vial for sneak attack. I’m tryin’a make this stuff actually useful.
But produce flame is already super useful, especially for characters without Darkvision. It’s a combo exploration/utility/combat multitasker Cantrip. The only reason more people don’t take it is the restricted spell lists.
I'm sorry if this got covered on page 2 I skipped over it but one of the things folks seem to have missed with a lot of this is that magic stone is a bonus action casting cantrip not a full action casting cantrip so all the discussion and comparisons to full action spell vs attack actions is moot. you can cast magic stone as a bonus action then using your attack action throw 1 (or more) stones and if you have an extra attack in that attack action you can again throw 1 (or more) stones. if you are throwing into a crowd you may want to ask the DM if you can roll to hit separately for each stone to see which ones hit and then roll randomly for who gets hit since they are likely to spread out.
I'm sorry if this got covered on page 2 I skipped over it but one of the things folks seem to have missed with a lot of this is that magic stone is a bonus action casting cantrip not a full action casting cantrip so all the discussion and comparisons to full action spell vs attack actions is moot.
No one's talking about the action to cast spells, but the action thereafter to attack with spell's effects.
I'm sorry if this got covered on page 2 I skipped over it but one of the things folks seem to have missed with a lot of this is that magic stone is a bonus action casting cantrip not a full action casting cantrip so all the discussion and comparisons to full action spell vs attack actions is moot. you can cast magic stone as a bonus action then using your attack action throw 1 (or more) stones and if you have an extra attack in that attack action you can again throw 1 (or more) stones. if you are throwing into a crowd you may want to ask the DM if you can roll to hit separately for each stone to see which ones hit and then roll randomly for who gets hit since they are likely to spread out.
We're trying to figure out if extra attack would be valid with magic stone. There isn't really another spell attack where it would be kosher.
It would be. If you have F5 or R5 so you have an extra attack in your attack action as I described above. If you caste a bonus action spell (magic stone) you still get your full action ( you can caste a 1 action spell but it must be a cantrip OR you can take your attacks (throw stone, throw stone)). Magic stone may be the only spell that takes full advantage of this action economy.
It would be. If you have F5 or R5 so you have an extra attack in your attack action as I described above. If you caste a bonus action spell (magic stone) you still get your full action ( you can caste a 1 action spell but it must be a cantrip OR you can take your attacks (throw stone, throw stone)). Magic stone may be the only spell that takes full advantage of this action economy.
You get to use your action, but you use your action to make a spell attack, not to take the attack action (which is required for extra attack).
I would contend that if you could use the stones in connection to the attack action, the spell would be worded like Shilleighlleighlleighheeehoo, changing the weapon's characteristics, not giving you a spell attack.
It would be. If you have F5 or R5 so you have an extra attack in your attack action as I described above. If you caste a bonus action spell (magic stone) you still get your full action ( you can caste a 1 action spell but it must be a cantrip OR you can take your attacks (throw stone, throw stone)). Magic stone may be the only spell that takes full advantage of this action economy.
The thread is discussing actions on subsequent rounds, ignoring the "bonus action" required to create the magic stones in the first place.
It would be. If you have F5 or R5 so you have an extra attack in your attack action as I described above. If you caste a bonus action spell (magic stone) you still get your full action ( you can caste a 1 action spell but it must be a cantrip OR you can take your attacks (throw stone, throw stone)). Magic stone may be the only spell that takes full advantage of this action economy.
You get to use your action, but you use your action to make a spell attack, not to take the attack action (which is required for extra attack).
I would contend that if you could use the stones in connection to the attack action, the spell would be worded like Shilleighlleighlleighheeehoo, changing the weapon's characteristics, not giving you a spell attack.
Magic Stone does not require an action to throw/sling the stone. Yes, it is a spell attack, but to throw the stone still requires the Attack action. And if you use a sling, it uses the Attack action to make a Ranged Spell Attack using a ranged weapon so it even qualifies for Sneak Attack and the added damage from Sharpshooter.
Yes, Magic Stone most definitely uses the Attack action, and can benefit from Extra Attacks.
Magicbstone basically just creates ammo for you to use later on...
But does it? It sounds like it creates a spell attack that a character can use once as their whole action. "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling."
It reads like an action created by the spell, not a use of the attack action.
Magicbstone basically just creates ammo for you to use later on...
But does it? It sounds like it creates a spell attack that a character can use once as their whole action. "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling."
It reads like an action created by the spell, not a use of the attack action.
Does it, anywhere in the text of the spell, say it uses an action? If it did, that would read like an action created by the spell. It doesn’t say that though.
Spells do what they say they do. It says you make an attack, it does not say that attack is make with an action. Without that specific clause, you use the standard action for attacks, which is the Attack Action.
Magic Stone doesn't say it requires an action to attack with the stone. The Attack action works with attacks of all kind, including spell attacks, as long as that attack isn't the result of another action. If a game feature gives you a new attack but doesn't require a certain action to use it, you can assume the writers expect you to take the Attack action.
The opportunity attack rules allow spell attacks as well, but there's no PC races with a natural melee spell attack, so that's mainly relevant to monsters (e.g. the lich.)
"By extension, the Extra Attack feature (given by several classes, including the fighter and paladin) doesn’t let you cast extra attack spells. That feature specifically relies on the Attack action, not the Cast a Spell action or any other action.
In summary, to make a spell attack, you have to first cast a spell or use a feature that creates the spell’s effect. A game feature, such as Extra Attack, that lets you make an attack doesn't let you cast a spell unless it says it does."
Using the stone's new magic properties is a feature of the spell, not a generic attack option like with shilleighly.
That’s not talking about this kind of spell though. That’s talking about a spell like fire bolt where you make the attack as part of casting the spell. Magic stone is more like a spell like shadow blade, where you are making something you can use for attacks.
That’s not talking about this kind of spell though. That’s talking about a spell like fire bolt where you make the attack as part of casting the spell. Magic stone is more like a spell like shadow blade, where you are making something you can use for attacks.
But it specifically isn't like Shadow blade. That spell creates a weapon. Shilleighly changes a weapon's statistics.
But magic stone creates a spell attack that uses the stones as components. No spell attack in the whole rest of the game works with extra attack.
But magic stone creates a spell attack that uses the stones as components.
Not so. Components are only required to cast a spell, or special edge-cases like Contingency. But magic stone doesn’t even list the stones as components for the casting.
That’s not talking about this kind of spell though. That’s talking about a spell like fire bolt where you make the attack as part of casting the spell. Magic stone is more like a spell like shadow blade, where you are making something you can use for attacks.
But it specifically isn't like Shadow blade. That spell creates a weapon. Shilleighly changes a weapon's statistics.
But magic stone creates a spell attack that uses the stones as components. No spell attack in the whole rest of the game works with extra attack.
And magic stone creates ammunition or a thrown weapon, what’s your point?
It uses the stones as components to create the ammunition, you are no longer casting the spell by the time you throw or sling them
That’s not talking about this kind of spell though. That’s talking about a spell like fire bolt where you make the attack as part of casting the spell. Magic stone is more like a spell like shadow blade, where you are making something you can use for attacks.
But it specifically isn't like Shadow blade. That spell creates a weapon. Shilleighly changes a weapon's statistics.
But magic stone creates a spell attack that uses the stones as components. No spell attack in the whole rest of the game works with extra attack.
The only thing different is that it isn't a weapon. It still gives an attack option that doesn't require a special action, just like wielding a weapon does.
We have already covered other spell attacks in the game that work the same way as magic stone, but magic stone is the only one available to players without casting shapechange.
RAW, acid and alchemist fire are objects who's descriptions say require an action to use and the effect when used is to make an attack as an improvised weapon. Just because the effect is to make an attack does not mean it uses the attack action. Just because the effect treats it as a weapon, does not mean the action to use the effect is the attack action.
If the item was intended to be used with extra attack, then instead of saying it requires an action, it would just say "this item can be used as an improvised ranged weapon by... when it is..."
The rules for improvised weapons deliberately leave a lot up to the DM. This is a weird case where an improvised weapon attack via the use an object action has a specific effect, but otherwise being used as an improvised weapon uses the default rules. Does it make sense? Not really. But it is the rule. Change it if you want, but be careful, not only does it slightly nerf thief, but it is a fine line between drawing and throwing a vial vs throwing a fireball that is already in your hand.
A nerf to Thief?!? Really? When have you ever seen a Thief throw two alchemical things in a turn? Honestly, how often do people throw acid or alchemist’s fire? A flask of Alchemist’s Fire costs 50 bucks a pop, is wasted if you miss, and even if you hit round 1 with surprise, and the fight goes the average 4 rounds that creature took a total of 3d4 damage by the end of it. Considering that DOT is absolutely horrible in D&D, that means Alchemist’s Fire is right up there with the net for “most useless crap to use in a fight in 5e.” An Acid (vial) is 25 bucks and does a flat 2d6 on a hit, nada on a miss. So again, who’s tossin’ around vials of acid like that? Especially a Thief who could make better use pouring out the Acid and throwing the empty vial for sneak attack. I’m tryin’a make this stuff actually useful.
But produce flame is already super useful, especially for characters without Darkvision. It’s a combo exploration/utility/combat multitasker Cantrip. The only reason more people don’t take it is the restricted spell lists.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm sorry if this got covered on page 2 I skipped over it but one of the things folks seem to have missed with a lot of this is that magic stone is a bonus action casting cantrip not a full action casting cantrip so all the discussion and comparisons to full action spell vs attack actions is moot. you can cast magic stone as a bonus action then using your attack action throw 1 (or more) stones and if you have an extra attack in that attack action you can again throw 1 (or more) stones.
if you are throwing into a crowd you may want to ask the DM if you can roll to hit separately for each stone to see which ones hit and then roll randomly for who gets hit since they are likely to spread out.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
No one's talking about the action to cast spells, but the action thereafter to attack with spell's effects.
We're trying to figure out if extra attack would be valid with magic stone. There isn't really another spell attack where it would be kosher.
It would be. If you have F5 or R5 so you have an extra attack in your attack action as I described above. If you caste a bonus action spell (magic stone) you still get your full action ( you can caste a 1 action spell but it must be a cantrip OR you can take your attacks (throw stone, throw stone)). Magic stone may be the only spell that takes full advantage of this action economy.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
You get to use your action, but you use your action to make a spell attack, not to take the attack action (which is required for extra attack).
I would contend that if you could use the stones in connection to the attack action, the spell would be worded like Shilleighlleighlleighheeehoo, changing the weapon's characteristics, not giving you a spell attack.
The thread is discussing actions on subsequent rounds, ignoring the "bonus action" required to create the magic stones in the first place.
Magic Stone does not require an action to throw/sling the stone. Yes, it is a spell attack, but to throw the stone still requires the Attack action. And if you use a sling, it uses the Attack action to make a Ranged Spell Attack using a ranged weapon so it even qualifies for Sneak Attack and the added damage from Sharpshooter.
Yes, Magic Stone most definitely uses the Attack action, and can benefit from Extra Attacks.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Magicbstone basically just creates ammo for you to use later on...
But does it? It sounds like it creates a spell attack that a character can use once as their whole action. "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling."
It reads like an action created by the spell, not a use of the attack action.
Does it, anywhere in the text of the spell, say it uses an action? If it did, that would read like an action created by the spell. It doesn’t say that though.
Spells do what they say they do. It says you make an attack, it does not say that attack is make with an action. Without that specific clause, you use the standard action for attacks, which is the Attack Action.
Magic Stone doesn't say it requires an action to attack with the stone. The Attack action works with attacks of all kind, including spell attacks, as long as that attack isn't the result of another action. If a game feature gives you a new attack but doesn't require a certain action to use it, you can assume the writers expect you to take the Attack action.
The opportunity attack rules allow spell attacks as well, but there's no PC races with a natural melee spell attack, so that's mainly relevant to monsters (e.g. the lich.)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
So I found this from a sage advice article:https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-spellcasting
"By extension, the Extra Attack feature (given by several classes, including the fighter and paladin) doesn’t let you cast extra attack spells. That feature specifically relies on the Attack action, not the Cast a Spell action or any other action.
In summary, to make a spell attack, you have to first cast a spell or use a feature that creates the spell’s effect. A game feature, such as Extra Attack, that lets you make an attack doesn't let you cast a spell unless it says it does."
Using the stone's new magic properties is a feature of the spell, not a generic attack option like with shilleighly.
That’s not talking about this kind of spell though. That’s talking about a spell like fire bolt where you make the attack as part of casting the spell. Magic stone is more like a spell like shadow blade, where you are making something you can use for attacks.
But it specifically isn't like Shadow blade. That spell creates a weapon. Shilleighly changes a weapon's statistics.
But magic stone creates a spell attack that uses the stones as components. No spell attack in the whole rest of the game works with extra attack.
But that isn't something inherent to spell attacks or extra attacks. That is only because most spell attacks are made as part of casting a spell.
Not so. Components are only required to cast a spell, or special edge-cases like Contingency. But magic stone doesn’t even list the stones as components for the casting.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And magic stone creates ammunition or a thrown weapon, what’s your point?
It uses the stones as components to create the ammunition, you are no longer casting the spell by the time you throw or sling them
The only thing different is that it isn't a weapon. It still gives an attack option that doesn't require a special action, just like wielding a weapon does.
We have already covered other spell attacks in the game that work the same way as magic stone, but magic stone is the only one available to players without casting shapechange.