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
If it was ammunition or a thrown weapon, it would be a ranged weapon attack, not a spell attack.
Not necessarily (after all some spells do make you make spell attacks with weapons), but Icon's ammunition/thrown weapon argument is wrong.
I can't think of any spell that makes a spell attack with a weapon. The blade cantrips are melee weapon attacks with a spell effect attached (which is why they can smite/add martial dice/do sneak attack) and steel wind strike just uses the weapon as a component for a melee spell attack, not actually making any weapon attack. No spell attack through a weapon.
Edit: considering the the smite spells, they are on hit effects like the blade catrips, but separated out into a bonus action.
I can't think of any spell that makes a spell attack with a weapon.
maybe Steel Wind Strike but only maybe. I'm undecided on if that is even done with the weapon or if the weapon is just being "flourished". it's an odd one.
I can't think of any spell that makes a spell attack with a weapon.
maybe Steel Wind Strike but only maybe. I'm undecided on if that is even done with the weapon or if the weapon is just being "flourished". it's an odd one.
I mean, thematically I think it is totally being used. But mechanically, its just a component. You strike with your spell modifier.
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.
It doesn't explicitly say that it uses a specific type of action because the spell was published in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion, which was a free giveaway, and has never had ANY of its poorly written spells errataed!
True, but now we are left trying to parse it by what we do have. I admit it is poorly written, and I would DM it to use extra attack or otherwise honor creative uses by the players just per rule of cool.
But you're right to point out this is just a mental exercise since its part of a barely supported supplement.
It doesn't explicitly say that it uses a specific type of action because the spell was published in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion, which was a free giveaway, and has never had ANY of its poorly written spells errataed!
(Actually, I think some EEPC spells were errata'd when they were reprinted in XGtE.)
It isn't poorly written. It is meant to do what it says it says it does, be an attack. It doesn't necessarily have to be an attack action, a feature that makes an attack can also be used to throw the stone (as long as it doesn't specify weapon or melee attack).
You touch one to three pebbles and imbue them with magic. You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling. If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet. If someone else attacks with the pebble, that attacker adds your spellcasting ability modifier, not the attacker’s, to the attack roll. On a hit, the target takes bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Hit or miss, the spell then ends on the stone.
If you cast this spell again, the spell ends early on any pebbles still affected by it.
Oh neat. I didn't know it was in there too (downside of only having electric copies of things).
But it still isn't very clear. In a system that assumes the attack action is used for weapon attacks, and where spell attacks are otherwise always attached to an action spent casting a spell, it is one of the only spells in the game that makes an action of a spell attack detached from the casting.
Its weird, and I assume the only reason it hasn't been ruled on or clarified is because its such a weak cantrip with little to no room to exploit it.
Magic Stone is one of the most iconic spells in D&D right up there with Magic Missile, Burning Hands, and Fireball. It has always been an attack separate from the casting.
It doesn't explicitly say that it uses a specific type of action because the spell was published in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion, which was a free giveaway, and has never had ANY of its poorly written spells errataed!
(Actually, I think some EEPC spells were errata'd when they were reprinted in XGtE.)
Yup. You can find the changes in the Princes of the Apocalypse errata document (Elemental Evil Player's Companion is a free subset of PotA.) Some spells had substantial rewrites (see: Watery Sphere.) WotC doesn't release errata until it can be printed in a physical book, so including old content in new books gives them an opportunity to make changes.
Yeah, there is only the one optional case in the very spell we are discussing, which seems to mostly be fluff. Even if you use the sling the attack is still a spell attack rather than a weapon attack. The sling doesn't do anything but shorten the range. A DM can rule it allows for sneak attack with the sling, but clarifications on interactions with sneak attack say it requires a weapon attack, so a spell attack wouldn't work.
Yeah, there is only the one optional case in the very spell we are discussing, which seems to mostly be fluff. Even if you use the sling the attack is still a spell attack rather than a weapon attack. The sling doesn't do anything but shorten the range. A DM can rule it allows for sneak attack with the sling, but clarifications on interactions with sneak attack say it requires a weapon attack, so a spell attack wouldn't work.
Citation needed, the only clarification I could find was Jeremy Crawford explicitly stating that using magic stone with a sling qualified for sneak attack but using it without the sling did not.
But it still isn't very clear. In a system that assumes the attack action is used for weapon attacks, and where spell attacks are otherwise always attached to an action spent casting a spell, it is one of the only spells in the game that makes an action of a spell attack detached from the casting.
Its weird, and I assume the only reason it hasn't been ruled on or clarified is because its such a weak cantrip with little to no room to exploit it.
The system doesn't assume any of that. The attack action is for making attacks. If you have an attack available that doesn't require a different action, you use the attack action. Many monsters are able to make spell attacks without casting spells, there are even a few class features that do such as fathomless warlock's tentacle of the deeps. And there are several spells that make spell attacks detached from the cast a spell action such as spiritual weapon or flame blade.
Granted, magic stone is the only spell that creates an opportunity to make spell attacks with the attack action (doing all 3 at the same time). But everything you said in that first quoted paragraph has multiple examples throughout the entire system, and definitely are not assumptions of the system or anyone familiar with it.
Magic stone has been ruled on. In standard JC clarity. It hasn't been errata'd because it says what it is supposed to say.
Yeah, there is only the one optional case in the very spell we are discussing, which seems to mostly be fluff. Even if you use the sling the attack is still a spell attack rather than a weapon attack. The sling doesn't do anything but shorten the range. A DM can rule it allows for sneak attack with the sling, but clarifications on interactions with sneak attack say it requires a weapon attack, so a spell attack wouldn't work.
Citation needed, the only clarification I could find was Jeremy Crawford explicitly stating that using magic stone with a sling qualified for sneak attack but using it without the sling did not.
I've seen that same clarification from 6 years ago, and Crawford said he would allow it. Not that it is RAW or RAI.
The clarification on sneak attack requiring a weapon attack comes from the errata on booming blade/green flame blade:
"Third, these weapon attacks work with Sneak Attack if they fulfill the normal requirements for that feature. For example, if you have the Sneak Attack feature and cast greenflame blade with a finesse weapon, you can deal Sneak Attack damage to the target of the weapon attack if you have advantage on the attack roll and hit." https://media.dnd.wizards.com/upload/articles/SA_Compendium.pdf
It mostly comes down to how poorly attacks were defined early on and later clarifications of what is a melee weapon attack. The text of sneak attack wasn't written with melee weapon attacks in mind as an actual category (it just says it must "use" a finnesse or ranged weapon"), so the language is vague enough to let you do silly things, like get sneak attack from Steel Wind Strike or on any attack spell cast as a Hexblade using a hex weapon as an arcane focus. But clarifications have cut off vagueness.
Yeah, there is only the one optional case in the very spell we are discussing, which seems to mostly be fluff. Even if you use the sling the attack is still a spell attack rather than a weapon attack. The sling doesn't do anything but shorten the range. A DM can rule it allows for sneak attack with the sling, but clarifications on interactions with sneak attack say it requires a weapon attack, so a spell attack wouldn't work.
A sling has a range of 30/120. You could sling the stone up to twice as far as you could throw it.
Sneak attack does not require “a weapon attack,” at all:
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.
The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.
Sneak Attack merely requires that the attack “use a finesse or ranged weapon.” A sling is a ranged weapon. So slinging a magic stone is “a ranged spell attack made using a ranged weapon.” Therefore it also works with Sharpshooter:
You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. You gain the following benefits:
Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
IMO, the only screwy part about Magic Stone is that using a sling doesn’t grant a flat range of 120 feet.
The clarification on sneak attack requiring a weapon attack comes from the errata on booming blade/green flame blade:
"Third, these weapon attacks work with Sneak Attack if they fulfill the normal requirements for that feature. For example, if you have the Sneak Attack feature and cast greenflame blade with a finesse weapon, you can deal Sneak Attack damage to the target of the weapon attack if you have advantage on the attack roll and hit." https://media.dnd.wizards.com/upload/articles/SA_Compendium.pdf
The part you put in hold is only relevant to green-flame blade because that spell requires “a melee weapon attack,” not because Sneak Attack does.
IMO, the only screwy part about Magic Stone is that using a sling doesn’t grant a flat range of 120 feet.
Yup. Magic stone used to have a shorter range for throwing the stone in previous editions and slings used to have a longer range, so my guess is someone reasonably decided to increase the range to make magic stone more competitive with other cantrips, and someone else decided slings needed shorter range for...reasons...and no one took another look at the spell after both changes happened.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If it was ammunition or a thrown weapon, it would be a ranged weapon attack, not a spell attack.
Not necessarily (after all some spells do make you make spell attacks with weapons), but Icon's ammunition/thrown weapon argument is wrong.
Why don't you focus on the correct arguments against your point instead?
I can't think of any spell that makes a spell attack with a weapon. The blade cantrips are melee weapon attacks with a spell effect attached (which is why they can smite/add martial dice/do sneak attack) and steel wind strike just uses the weapon as a component for a melee spell attack, not actually making any weapon attack. No spell attack through a weapon.
Edit: considering the the smite spells, they are on hit effects like the blade catrips, but separated out into a bonus action.
I'll set aside the discussion with iconrising.
maybe Steel Wind Strike but only maybe. I'm undecided on if that is even done with the weapon or if the weapon is just being "flourished". it's an odd one.
I got quotes!
I mean, thematically I think it is totally being used. But mechanically, its just a component. You strike with your spell modifier.
I’d appreciate if you’re going to call me out like that that you’d at least give me the courtesy of telling me why…I thought this was rude
It doesn't explicitly say that it uses a specific type of action because the spell was published in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion, which was a free giveaway, and has never had ANY of its poorly written spells errataed!
Oh, sorry. Well the reason it is wrong is because the stones are not weapons nor ammunition and don't have any weapon properties like thrown.
True, but now we are left trying to parse it by what we do have. I admit it is poorly written, and I would DM it to use extra attack or otherwise honor creative uses by the players just per rule of cool.
But you're right to point out this is just a mental exercise since its part of a barely supported supplement.
(Actually, I think some EEPC spells were errata'd when they were reprinted in XGtE.)
It isn't poorly written. It is meant to do what it says it says it does, be an attack. It doesn't necessarily have to be an attack action, a feature that makes an attack can also be used to throw the stone (as long as it doesn't specify weapon or melee attack).
XGtE is hardly a "barely supported supplement".
First one pops into my mind is:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh neat. I didn't know it was in there too (downside of only having electric copies of things).
But it still isn't very clear. In a system that assumes the attack action is used for weapon attacks, and where spell attacks are otherwise always attached to an action spent casting a spell, it is one of the only spells in the game that makes an action of a spell attack detached from the casting.
Its weird, and I assume the only reason it hasn't been ruled on or clarified is because its such a weak cantrip with little to no room to exploit it.
Magic Stone is one of the most iconic spells in D&D right up there with Magic Missile, Burning Hands, and Fireball. It has always been an attack separate from the casting.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yup. You can find the changes in the Princes of the Apocalypse errata document (Elemental Evil Player's Companion is a free subset of PotA.) Some spells had substantial rewrites (see: Watery Sphere.) WotC doesn't release errata until it can be printed in a physical book, so including old content in new books gives them an opportunity to make changes.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Yeah, there is only the one optional case in the very spell we are discussing, which seems to mostly be fluff. Even if you use the sling the attack is still a spell attack rather than a weapon attack. The sling doesn't do anything but shorten the range. A DM can rule it allows for sneak attack with the sling, but clarifications on interactions with sneak attack say it requires a weapon attack, so a spell attack wouldn't work.
Citation needed, the only clarification I could find was Jeremy Crawford explicitly stating that using magic stone with a sling qualified for sneak attack but using it without the sling did not.
The system doesn't assume any of that. The attack action is for making attacks. If you have an attack available that doesn't require a different action, you use the attack action. Many monsters are able to make spell attacks without casting spells, there are even a few class features that do such as fathomless warlock's tentacle of the deeps. And there are several spells that make spell attacks detached from the cast a spell action such as spiritual weapon or flame blade.
Granted, magic stone is the only spell that creates an opportunity to make spell attacks with the attack action (doing all 3 at the same time). But everything you said in that first quoted paragraph has multiple examples throughout the entire system, and definitely are not assumptions of the system or anyone familiar with it.
Magic stone has been ruled on. In standard JC clarity. It hasn't been errata'd because it says what it is supposed to say.
I've seen that same clarification from 6 years ago, and Crawford said he would allow it. Not that it is RAW or RAI.
The clarification on sneak attack requiring a weapon attack comes from the errata on booming blade/green flame blade:
"Third, these weapon attacks work with Sneak Attack if they fulfill the normal requirements for that feature. For example, if you have the Sneak Attack feature and cast greenflame blade with a finesse weapon, you can deal Sneak Attack damage to the target of the weapon attack if you have advantage on the attack roll and hit."
https://media.dnd.wizards.com/upload/articles/SA_Compendium.pdf
It mostly comes down to how poorly attacks were defined early on and later clarifications of what is a melee weapon attack. The text of sneak attack wasn't written with melee weapon attacks in mind as an actual category (it just says it must "use" a finnesse or ranged weapon"), so the language is vague enough to let you do silly things, like get sneak attack from Steel Wind Strike or on any attack spell cast as a Hexblade using a hex weapon as an arcane focus. But clarifications have cut off vagueness.
A sling has a range of 30/120. You could sling the stone up to twice as far as you could throw it.
Sneak attack does not require “a weapon attack,” at all:
Sneak Attack merely requires that the attack “use a finesse or ranged weapon.” A sling is a ranged weapon. So slinging a magic stone is “a ranged spell attack made using a ranged weapon.” Therefore it also works with Sharpshooter:
IMO, the only screwy part about Magic Stone is that using a sling doesn’t grant a flat range of 120 feet.
The part you put in hold is only relevant to green-flame blade because that spell requires “a melee weapon attack,” not because Sneak Attack does.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yup. Magic stone used to have a shorter range for throwing the stone in previous editions and slings used to have a longer range, so my guess is someone reasonably decided to increase the range to make magic stone more competitive with other cantrips, and someone else decided slings needed shorter range for...reasons...and no one took another look at the spell after both changes happened.
The Forum Infestation (TM)