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.
Monsters do all sorts of things that violate the action economy available to players (melee spell attacks unattached to casting a spell, legendary actions, multiattack, etc.), it is a poor analogy to point to them as the example.
And through rulings and errata, much is made about the distinction between melee weapon attacks. Just look at the whole mess over melee weapons vs melee weapon attacks attached to things like smite and unarmed strike. It has been a necessary clarification, otherwise you can do stupid things like use a hexblade's weapon as an arcane focus and still smite or use sneak attacks (if you also have that feature) for any attack spell that requires somatic or material components. Which is obviously not what is meant by "using a weapon" in the attack.
But that is what we would need to say is valid if we ignore the difference between spell attacks and melee weapon attacks.
Sneak attack does not require “a weapon attack,” at all:
If that were the case, a hexblade using their hex weapon as an arcane focus could eldritch smite through a spell like eldritch blast, because they used their weapon and the attack hit. Or if they had sneak attack, they could apply that to the damage roll for vampiric touch. Clarifications have made clear a weapon attack is necessary, not just the presence of a weapon as a component or the conveyer of a spell attack.
Sneak attack only works with the blade cantrips because it specifically involves a melee weapon attack.
Monsters do all sorts of things that violate the action economy available to players (melee spell attacks unattached to casting a spell, legendary actions, multiattack, etc.), it is a poor analogy to point to them as the example. And through rulings and errata, much is made about the distinction between melee weapon attacks.
And yet the fact remains the Attack action is not specific to weapon attacks, and neither is Sneak Attack.
Just look at the whole mess over melee weapons vs melee weapon attacks attached to things like smite and unarmed strike. It has been a necessary clarification, otherwise you can do stupid things like use a hexblade's weapon as an arcane focus and still smite or use sneak attacks (if you also have that feature) for any attack spell that requires somatic or material components. Which is obviously not what is meant by "using a weapon" in the attack.
Obviously. Because using your weapon as a focus for a spell that happens to involve an attack is not the same thing as attacking with your weapon.
Sneak attack does not require “a weapon attack,” at all:
If that were the case, a hexblade using their hex weapon as an arcane focus could eldritch smite through a spell like eldritch blast, because they used their weapon and the attack hit. Or if they had sneak attack, they could apply that to the damage roll for vampiric touch. Clarifications have made clear a weapon attack is necessary, not just the presence of a weapon as a component or the conveyer of a spell attack.
Sneak attack only works with the blade cantrips because it specifically involves a melee weapon attack.
They provided the actual text for you. Just read it. here is the relevant sentence in Sneak Attack:
The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
So the blade cantrips specifically work with sneak attack not because they're made with melee weapon attacks, but instead because they're an attack that uses a finesse or ranged weapon.Similarly, using a sling to fire your Magic Stone would also qualify, since you are making an attack that is using a ranged weapon.
Obviously. Because using your weapon as a focus for a spell that happens to involve an attack is not the same thing as attacking with your weapon.
Yeah, the difference comes down to the coding of melee weapon attack vs spell attack. Hence why you can smite through booming blade but not Steel Wind Strike.
You can decide to just arbitrate it however you wish at your table as the DM, but this is the system that WotC has tried to squeeze in.
They provided the actual text for you. Just read it. here is the relevant sentence in Sneak Attack:
And I cited errata as to why a weapon attack is necessary, not just using a weapon as a component or arcane focus.
So the blade cantrips specifically work with sneak attack not because they're made with melee weapon attacks, but instead because they're an attack that uses a finesse or ranged weapon.Similarly, using a sling to fire your Magic Stone would also qualify, since you are making an attack that is using a ranged weapon.
It requires a melee weapon attack, or a ranged weapon attack. The weapon cannot just be tangentially involved, it must be the source of the attack.
Again, this is because of weird interactions with other spell attacks that can potentially "use" a weapon, like smiting through a hexblade's hex weapon as an arcane focus for a spell or Steel Wind Strike and sneak attack.
They provided the actual text for you. Just read it. here is the relevant sentence in Sneak Attack:
And I cited errata as to why a weapon attack is necessary, not just using a weapon as a component or arcane focus.
So the blade cantrips specifically work with sneak attack not because they're made with melee weapon attacks, but instead because they're an attack that uses a finesse or ranged weapon.Similarly, using a sling to fire your Magic Stone would also qualify, since you are making an attack that is using a ranged weapon.
It requires a melee weapon attack, or a ranged weapon attack. The weapon cannot just be tangentially involved, it must be the source of the attack.
Again, this is because of weird interactions with other spell attacks that can potentially "use" a weapon, like smiting through a hexblade's hex weapon as an arcane focus for a spell or Steel Wind Strike and sneak attack.
That is categorically wrong. Just flat out, wrong. The stats you provided was to do with a completely different spell that also happened to specify it uses a weapon attack. If they had wanted to errata Sneak Attack to require “a weapon attack made using a finesse or ranged weapon,” they could have. They released strata for the 5e PHB^ twice in 2015, once in 2017, again in 2018x and then last year in 2020. They didn’t. Sneak Attack does not require “a weapon attack,” merely that the attacks use a finesse or ranged weapon. So they work with the blade cantrips, Magic Stone, and shadow blade.
Again, this is because of weird interactions with other spell attacks that can potentially "use" a weapon, like smiting through a hexblade's hex weapon as an arcane focus for a spell or Steel Wind Strike and sneak attack.
That would never work because it wouldn’t constitute an attack made with a weapon. That’s just a regular spell.
That would never work because it wouldn’t constitute an attack made with a weapon. That’s just a regular spell.
If we don't require the weapon to be used specifically in a melee weapon attack, then it would quite literally constitute an attack made with a weapon.
Just like having a sling involved in the spell attack for magic stone (despite it still being a spell attack independent of the weapon) being able to have a weapon involved as an arcane focus or component would permit other features to interact with the attack.
There needs to be a categorical (to use your words) reason, not just "I don't feel like it should work." Hence why rule clarifications tend to bring up distinctions of weapon attacks again and again.
That would never work because it wouldn’t constitute an attack made with a weapon. That’s just a regular spell.
If we don't require the weapon to be used specifically in a melee weapon attack, then it would quite literally constitute an attack made with a weapon.
Just like having a sling involved in the spell attack for magic stone (despite it still being a spell attack independent of the weapon) being able to have a weapon involved as an arcane focus or component would permit other features to interact with the attack.
There needs to be a categorical (to use your words) reason, not just "I don't feel like it should work." Hence why rule clarifications tend to bring up distinctions of weapon attacks again and again.
Steel Wind Strike only uses the weapon to cast the spell, as a component, not as the implement for delivering, or making, the attacks necessarily. For Sneak Attack: The attack must use a finesse or ranged weapon. Not the casting of the spell that grants an attack... but the attack itself must use the weapon. But. That doesn't mean it must be a weapon attack, only that the attack uses the weapon. A spell attack that uses a weapon qualifies for sneak attack. (if finesse or ranged weapon, anyway)
Steel Wind Strike only uses the weapon to cast the spell, as a component, not as the implement for delivering, or making, the attacks necessarily. For Sneak Attack: The attack must use a finesse or ranged weapon. Not the casting of the spell that grants an attack... but the attack itself must use the weapon. But. That doesn't mean it must be a weapon attack, only that the attack uses the weapon. A spell attack that uses a weapon qualifies for sneak attack. (if finesse or ranged weapon, anyway)
Again, if we are going to just go with the weapon just being "used" in connection to an attack, these things all become possible. A component is used in the spell that allows for the attack, therefore a weapon is "used in the attack."
An actual definition of that use in the attack (in a weapon attack, not just as a component or arcane focus) is necessary.
You are so close to understanding that, but you seem determined to buck the system the developers put in place in that regard for a niche cantrip.
That would never work because it wouldn’t constitute an attack made with a weapon. That’s just a regular spell.
If we don't require the weapon to be used specifically in a melee weapon attack, then it would quite literally constitute an attack made with a weapon.
Just like having a sling involved in the spell attack for magic stone (despite it still being a spell attack independent of the weapon) being able to have a weapon involved as an arcane focus or component would permit other features to interact with the attack.
There needs to be a categorical (to use your words) reason, not just "I don't feel like it should work." Hence why rule clarifications tend to bring up distinctions of weapon attacks again and again.
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.
Quite literally, if you just want to go by the text without any of the errata or clarifications specifying the weapon needs to be used in a weapon attack, then yes, that is exactly how sneak attack is worded. The weapon merely needs to be "used," with no specification about it being actually used in a melee attack.
That is why the distinction matters for magic stone too. You can have a sling involved; that doesn't make it a weapon attack.
That would never work because it wouldn’t constitute an attack made with a weapon. That’s just a regular spell.
If we don't require the weapon to be used specifically in a melee weapon attack, then it would quite literally constitute an attack made with a weapon.
Just like having a sling involved in the spell attack for magic stone (despite it still being a spell attack independent of the weapon) being able to have a weapon involved as an arcane focus or component would permit other features to interact with the attack.
There needs to be a categorical (to use your words) reason, not just "I don't feel like it should work." Hence why rule clarifications tend to bring up distinctions of weapon attacks again and again.
This instance does not make that distinction.
So you can use sneak attack with Steel Wind Strike, and Eldritch Smite with Eldritch Blast with your hex weapon as an arcane focus, and smite with primal savagery... at your table. As house rules.
That would never work because it wouldn’t constitute an attack made with a weapon. That’s just a regular spell.
If we don't require the weapon to be used specifically in a melee weapon attack, then it would quite literally constitute an attack made with a weapon.
Just like having a sling involved in the spell attack for magic stone (despite it still being a spell attack independent of the weapon) being able to have a weapon involved as an arcane focus or component would permit other features to interact with the attack.
There needs to be a categorical (to use your words) reason, not just "I don't feel like it should work." Hence why rule clarifications tend to bring up distinctions of weapon attacks again and again.
This instance does not make that distinction.
So you can use sneak attack with Steel Wind Strike, and Eldritch Smite with Eldritch Blast with your hex weapon as an arcane focus, and smite with primal savagery... at your table. As house rules.
No one has said those are eligible for sneak attack, because they're not.
It requires an attack. spell attack. melee attack. ranged attack. weapon attack. Any of these. just that it be an attack. AND that the attack is made using a finesse or a ranged weapon.
Claiming it requires a weapon attack is false. Claiming not requiring a weapon attack means it now allows it to work with Steel Wind Strike and etc is also false.
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.
Quite literally, if you just want to go by the text without any of the errata or clarifications specifying the weapon needs to be used in a weapon attack, then yes, that is exactly how sneak attack is worded. The weapon merely needs to be "used," with no specification about it being actually used in a melee attack.
That is why the distinction matters for magic stone too. You can have a sling involved; that doesn't make it a weapon attack.
Show me 1 single errata for Sneak Attack that specifies it must be a “weapon attack,” and not “a spell attack using a finesse or ranged weapon.” Show me one.
You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind. Choose up to five creatures you can see within range. Make a melee spell attack against each target. On a hit, a target takes 6d10 force damage.
You can then teleport to an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of one of the targets you hit or missed.
It never says you use the weapon as part of the attacks themselves, only in the casting. RAW, Sneak Attack cannot be used with Steel Wind Strike.
…and Eldritch Smite with Eldritch Blast with your hex weapon as an arcane focus…
The exact wording of Eldritch Smite is as follows:
Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.
If you cast eldritch blast, you didn’t hit them with the weapon, you hit them with the beams of eldritch energy. RAW, you cannot use Eldritch Smite with eldritch blast.
The exact wordings if Divine Smite and Primal Savagery are:
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.
You channel primal magic to cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack. Make a melee spell attack against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 acid damage. After you make the attack, your teeth or fingernails return to normal.
RAW, you cannot use Divine Smite with Primal Savagery.
This has nothing to do with houserules. This is RAW.
And RAW, a magic stone used with a sling is “a ranged spell attack made using a ranged weapon” and is therefore eligible for both Sneak Attack, and Sharpshooter.
You aren't "using" spell components to attack with a spell. You use components to cast a spell and attack with the spell. There is a degree of separation. You are making yet another incorrect assumption about the rules that fundamentally effects your understanding of those rules.
If you attack with magic stone using a sling, you attacked with the sling. No degree of separation.
Also, eldritch smite requires hitting with the weapon and divine smite requires a melee weapon attack. Neither are comparable to the wording of sneak attack and do not have any interactions similar to magic stone.
No matter how many tangents, strawmen, or misquoted rules and advice you use, you will not change what a weapon is or what the attack action does.
Show me 1 single errata for Sneak Attack that specifies it must be a “weapon attack,” and not “a spell attack using a finesse or ranged weapon.” Show me one.
I'll cite errata again, specifically around these questions of spells that use weapons:
"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 green-flame 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."
Sneak attack requires as weapon attack. Not just that a finesses weapon be "used", but that it is the specific vehicle of the attack as a weapon attack.
You can pretend that errata doesn't exist, but its right there. Fulfillment of the normal rules for Sneak attack require it.
It never says you use the weapon as part of the attacks themselves, only in the casting. RAW, Sneak Attack cannot be used with Steel Wind Strike.
I can argue that Steel Wind Strike doesn't proc Sneak Attack because it doesn't involve a weapon attack. But you have no logic for saying so, since you dismiss that distinction.
If you decide that RAW Sneak Attack just "uses a finesse/ranged weapon in an attack,"... then Steel Wind Strike fulfills that requirement. This is why the distinction of of weapon attacks vs spell attacks matter. You want to kind of intuit that distinction in this example, while rejecting its consistent use.
RAW, you cannot use Divine Smite with Primal Savagery
Exactly. Because Primal Savagery is a spell attack, not a weapon attack, even if they can both be melee. But you keep saying that distinction doesn't exist or have any real bearing, so I don't see how you can agree with the ruling.
If the presence of a weapon in the spell attack is all that is needed, a cleric using their holy symbol on a weapon for the somatic component or a hexblade with their weapon can suddenly apply abilities like smite, sneak attack, etc. through this cantrip.
Because you don't want to apply the core rule distinctions consistently.
You aren't "using" spell components to attack with a spell. You use components to cast a spell and attack with the spell. There is a degree of separation. You are making yet another incorrect assumption about the rules that fundamentally effects your understanding of those rules.
If you attack with magic stone using a sling, you attacked with the sling. No degree of separation.
Also, eldritch smite requires hitting with the weapon and divine smite requires a melee weapon attack. Neither are comparable to the wording of sneak attack and do not have any interactions similar to magic stone.
No matter how many tangents, strawmen, or misquoted rules and advice you use, you will not change what a weapon is or what the attack action does.
You can't make the attack without the components. You are using them to enact the spell's effects, the attack being one of those effects. We need the distinction between attack types that is a part of the core rules to make it make sense.
If you attack with magic stone using a sling, you still are not making a weapon attack. It is a spell attack. It isn't ranged Shilleighly.
If you use a hex weapon in the somatic component of Eldritch blast and hit, you do indeed hit and with a weapon, RAW without consideration of the distinction between a weapon attack or spell attack. Just like magic stone, the attack is a spell attack and not a weapon attack, even if a weapon is optionally involved.
No matter how many times the distinction between spell attacks and weapon attacks just disappears in your estimation, they remain core rules to the game.
No one has said those are eligible for sneak attack, because they're not.
It requires an attack. spell attack. melee attack. ranged attack. weapon attack. Any of these. just that it be an attack. AND that the attack is made using a finesse or a ranged weapon.
I just explained that each of those scenarios fulfill those requirements if you do not distinguish between weapon and spell attacks where a weapon is present.
You can't say those things do not work with sneak attack and also that the very reasons they don't (distinctions between spell attacks and weapon attacks) doesn't matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Monsters do all sorts of things that violate the action economy available to players (melee spell attacks unattached to casting a spell, legendary actions, multiattack, etc.), it is a poor analogy to point to them as the example.
And through rulings and errata, much is made about the distinction between melee weapon attacks. Just look at the whole mess over melee weapons vs melee weapon attacks attached to things like smite and unarmed strike. It has been a necessary clarification, otherwise you can do stupid things like use a hexblade's weapon as an arcane focus and still smite or use sneak attacks (if you also have that feature) for any attack spell that requires somatic or material components. Which is obviously not what is meant by "using a weapon" in the attack.
But that is what we would need to say is valid if we ignore the difference between spell attacks and melee weapon attacks.
If that were the case, a hexblade using their hex weapon as an arcane focus could eldritch smite through a spell like eldritch blast, because they used their weapon and the attack hit. Or if they had sneak attack, they could apply that to the damage roll for vampiric touch. Clarifications have made clear a weapon attack is necessary, not just the presence of a weapon as a component or the conveyer of a spell attack.
Sneak attack only works with the blade cantrips because it specifically involves a melee weapon attack.
And yet the fact remains the Attack action is not specific to weapon attacks, and neither is Sneak Attack.
Obviously. Because using your weapon as a focus for a spell that happens to involve an attack is not the same thing as attacking with your weapon.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
They provided the actual text for you. Just read it. here is the relevant sentence in Sneak Attack:
So the blade cantrips specifically work with sneak attack not because they're made with melee weapon attacks, but instead because they're an attack that uses a finesse or ranged weapon.Similarly, using a sling to fire your Magic Stone would also qualify, since you are making an attack that is using a ranged weapon.
I got quotes!
Yeah, the difference comes down to the coding of melee weapon attack vs spell attack. Hence why you can smite through booming blade but not Steel Wind Strike.
You can decide to just arbitrate it however you wish at your table as the DM, but this is the system that WotC has tried to squeeze in.
And I cited errata as to why a weapon attack is necessary, not just using a weapon as a component or arcane focus.
It requires a melee weapon attack, or a ranged weapon attack. The weapon cannot just be tangentially involved, it must be the source of the attack.
Again, this is because of weird interactions with other spell attacks that can potentially "use" a weapon, like smiting through a hexblade's hex weapon as an arcane focus for a spell or Steel Wind Strike and sneak attack.
That is categorically incorrect. Both Sneak Attack and Sharpshooter work with Magic Stones when they are slung and not thrown.
That is categorically wrong. Just flat out, wrong. The stats you provided was to do with a completely different spell that also happened to specify it uses a weapon attack. If they had wanted to errata Sneak Attack to require “a weapon attack made using a finesse or ranged weapon,” they could have. They released strata for the 5e PHB^ twice in 2015, once in 2017, again in 2018x and then last year in 2020. They didn’t. Sneak Attack does not require “a weapon attack,” merely that the attacks use a finesse or ranged weapon. So they work with the blade cantrips, Magic Stone, and shadow blade.
^https://thinkdm.org/5e-errata/
That would never work because it wouldn’t constitute an attack made with a weapon. That’s just a regular spell.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If we don't require the weapon to be used specifically in a melee weapon attack, then it would quite literally constitute an attack made with a weapon.
Just like having a sling involved in the spell attack for magic stone (despite it still being a spell attack independent of the weapon) being able to have a weapon involved as an arcane focus or component would permit other features to interact with the attack.
There needs to be a categorical (to use your words) reason, not just "I don't feel like it should work." Hence why rule clarifications tend to bring up distinctions of weapon attacks again and again.
Steel Wind Strike only uses the weapon to cast the spell, as a component, not as the implement for delivering, or making, the attacks necessarily. For Sneak Attack: The attack must use a finesse or ranged weapon. Not the casting of the spell that grants an attack... but the attack itself must use the weapon. But. That doesn't mean it must be a weapon attack, only that the attack uses the weapon. A spell attack that uses a weapon qualifies for sneak attack. (if finesse or ranged weapon, anyway)
I got quotes!
Again, if we are going to just go with the weapon just being "used" in connection to an attack, these things all become possible. A component is used in the spell that allows for the attack, therefore a weapon is "used in the attack."
An actual definition of that use in the attack (in a weapon attack, not just as a component or arcane focus) is necessary.
You are so close to understanding that, but you seem determined to buck the system the developers put in place in that regard for a niche cantrip.
No, they don't, because that's not how Sneak Attack is worded.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
This instance does not make that distinction.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Quite literally, if you just want to go by the text without any of the errata or clarifications specifying the weapon needs to be used in a weapon attack, then yes, that is exactly how sneak attack is worded. The weapon merely needs to be "used," with no specification about it being actually used in a melee attack.
That is why the distinction matters for magic stone too. You can have a sling involved; that doesn't make it a weapon attack.
So you can use sneak attack with Steel Wind Strike, and Eldritch Smite with Eldritch Blast with your hex weapon as an arcane focus, and smite with primal savagery... at your table. As house rules.
But as the designers have said "[E]very attack is either a weapon attack or a spell attack...This distinction is built into the core [design of the game]." https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/951903089564336128
No one has said those are eligible for sneak attack, because they're not.
It requires an attack. spell attack. melee attack. ranged attack. weapon attack. Any of these. just that it be an attack. AND that the attack is made using a finesse or a ranged weapon.
Claiming it requires a weapon attack is false. Claiming not requiring a weapon attack means it now allows it to work with Steel Wind Strike and etc is also false.
I got quotes!
Show me 1 single errata for Sneak Attack that specifies it must be a “weapon attack,” and not “a spell attack using a finesse or ranged weapon.” Show me one.
The exact wording of steel wind strike is as follows:
It never says you use the weapon as part of the attacks themselves, only in the casting. RAW, Sneak Attack cannot be used with Steel Wind Strike.
The exact wording of Eldritch Smite is as follows:
If you cast eldritch blast, you didn’t hit them with the weapon, you hit them with the beams of eldritch energy. RAW, you cannot use Eldritch Smite with eldritch blast.
The exact wordings if Divine Smite and Primal Savagery are:
RAW, you cannot use Divine Smite with Primal Savagery.
This has nothing to do with houserules. This is RAW.
And RAW, a magic stone used with a sling is “a ranged spell attack made using a ranged weapon” and is therefore eligible for both Sneak Attack, and Sharpshooter.
Again, that distinction is irrelevant in this case.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You aren't "using" spell components to attack with a spell. You use components to cast a spell and attack with the spell. There is a degree of separation. You are making yet another incorrect assumption about the rules that fundamentally effects your understanding of those rules.
If you attack with magic stone using a sling, you attacked with the sling. No degree of separation.
Also, eldritch smite requires hitting with the weapon and divine smite requires a melee weapon attack. Neither are comparable to the wording of sneak attack and do not have any interactions similar to magic stone.
No matter how many tangents, strawmen, or misquoted rules and advice you use, you will not change what a weapon is or what the attack action does.
I'll cite errata again, specifically around these questions of spells that use weapons:
"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 green-flame 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."
Sneak attack requires as weapon attack. Not just that a finesses weapon be "used", but that it is the specific vehicle of the attack as a weapon attack.
You can pretend that errata doesn't exist, but its right there. Fulfillment of the normal rules for Sneak attack require it.
I can argue that Steel Wind Strike doesn't proc Sneak Attack because it doesn't involve a weapon attack. But you have no logic for saying so, since you dismiss that distinction.
If you decide that RAW Sneak Attack just "uses a finesse/ranged weapon in an attack,"... then Steel Wind Strike fulfills that requirement. This is why the distinction of of weapon attacks vs spell attacks matter. You want to kind of intuit that distinction in this example, while rejecting its consistent use.
Exactly. Because Primal Savagery is a spell attack, not a weapon attack, even if they can both be melee. But you keep saying that distinction doesn't exist or have any real bearing, so I don't see how you can agree with the ruling.
If the presence of a weapon in the spell attack is all that is needed, a cleric using their holy symbol on a weapon for the somatic component or a hexblade with their weapon can suddenly apply abilities like smite, sneak attack, etc. through this cantrip.
Because you don't want to apply the core rule distinctions consistently.
You can't make the attack without the components. You are using them to enact the spell's effects, the attack being one of those effects. We need the distinction between attack types that is a part of the core rules to make it make sense.
If you attack with magic stone using a sling, you still are not making a weapon attack. It is a spell attack. It isn't ranged Shilleighly.
If you use a hex weapon in the somatic component of Eldritch blast and hit, you do indeed hit and with a weapon, RAW without consideration of the distinction between a weapon attack or spell attack. Just like magic stone, the attack is a spell attack and not a weapon attack, even if a weapon is optionally involved.
No matter how many times the distinction between spell attacks and weapon attacks just disappears in your estimation, they remain core rules to the game.
I just explained that each of those scenarios fulfill those requirements if you do not distinguish between weapon and spell attacks where a weapon is present.
You can't say those things do not work with sneak attack and also that the very reasons they don't (distinctions between spell attacks and weapon attacks) doesn't matter.