Please forgive me if this has been answered before. Hey, all, long time lurker, 43 years come September player. Quick question: Do the pebbles enchanted by the Magic Stone cantrip count as magical weapons for the purpose of damaging beings or objects that are either resistant or immune to non-magical weapons? I'm very inclined to say "yes" but I was wondering if there'd been an official pronouncement.
So it seems to me like the strict RAW reading is no because Magic Stone says the stones do bludgeoning damage, and does not say they count as magical weapons. However, given that the other cantrip, Shillelagh, does qualify a weapon as being magical it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to do the same with Magic Stone from a game balance perspective.
It's a magic stone. The stone is magical. The magic is within the stone, and the stone is within the magic. The stone can be used as a weapon. The stone is a weapon. The stone is magic and a weapon. The stone is a magic weapon. If you're doing a "strict RAW reading," you should probably take into account that the difference between magical and nonmagical attacks is never really stated in the rules, so I'd say your strict RAW reading would result in absolutely nothing doing magical damage. But if you do a slightly less strict RAW reading, I think you'll find that "magical" means "magical" and also that "magical" is mutually exclusive with "nonmagical."
I.e., yes. Magic stones are magical.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Thanks! Now I'm considering the impact of a group of two dozen townsfolk npcs backed up by a midrange warlock who, with a minute's notice, can deliver a maximum of 25d6+75 bludgeoning damage (78 average assuming half hit and average damage) against a single target...
Spells that deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage that don’t say “magical” are not magical.
it’s why attacks by Animate Object and Catapult aren’t magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance.
The spell is literally called magic stone, and you're trying to argue that the stone isn't magical. Seriously?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Thanks! Now I'm considering the impact of a group of two dozen townsfolk npcs backed up by a midrange warlock who, with a minute's notice, can deliver a maximum of 25d6+75 bludgeoning damage (78 average assuming half hit and average damage) against a single target...
That's pretty much the scenario that makes Magic Stone useful compared to a more straightforward damaging cantrip. It's a great way to weaponize otherwise useless NPCs, since the Magic Stone attack uses your stats, not theirs. A 90-year old grandma with a bad leg is just as deadly with your Magic Stone as you are.
I'm starting to realize now why OneD&D is pushing for the idea of there being a dedicated "Magic Action" that includes basically all spellcasting and a ton of other things to blatantly differentiate them from mundane actions.
Spells that deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage that don’t say “magical” are not magical.
it’s why attacks by Animate Object and Catapult aren’t magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance.
The spell is literally called magic stone, and you're trying to argue that the stone isn't magical. Seriously?
Just a word of warning, your reasoning could be used to argue that Chill Touch is a melee range spell that deals cold damage.
Only if you misunderstand my reasoning to a pretty significant degree. Melee spell attacks, cold damage, these are things that are pretty well defined by the game. What counts as a "nonmagical weapon," less so. If there were a rule saying that a specific word has to be used to overcome resistance to b/p/s from nonmagical weapons, and that word were not in the description of magic stone, then I wouldn't say it would overcome that resistance. No such rule exists. Due to that, we have to use common language definitions, with which we can infer that "nonmagical" means "not magical," and furthermore that "magical" means "magical."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
And find trap actually finds traps… oh wait, it doesn’t. There are a few spells that just don’t do what their name suggests.
Oh, gee golly you must be right. Here I was, thinking that casting magic stone on pebbles would imbue them with magic based on the name alone, but I'm a full 7 words into the spell's description and I haven't seen anything like that. I sincerely doubt that when I continue on to read the next four words or so, there will be something that reaffirms my point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Where is this rule written? Cause it sounds like it’s just an assumption.
spells only do what they say they do.
For example, we know the creatures summoned by conjure animals don’t overcome resistances, yet they are the result of a spell. That is an official ruling.
so is there some general rule or ruling that backs up your assumption?
Where is this rule written? Cause it sounds like it’s just an assumption.
spells only do what they say they do.
For example, we know the creatures summoned by conjure animals don’t overcome resistances, yet they are the result of a spell. That is an official ruling.
so is there some general rule or ruling that backs up your assumption?
I don't really like using Sage Advice rulings, but since apparently you can't believe that nonmagical and magical are mutually exclusive without Jeremy Crawford tweeting it at you, yes. There is an official ruling. Look at post #4 on this thread. Here, I can link it for you to make it easier.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I actually give zero credibility to sage advice in terms of Crawford’s tweets, because they are contradictory and not official rulings.
the actual compendium is official rulings though.
The issue here is that what you link determines if a feature is magical for purposes of being effected by anti-magic field, not for causing magic damage. By this logic, casting the light cantrip makes a weapon’s damage magical. Which might be cool homebrew, but isn’t how those rules work.
Please forgive me if this has been answered before. Hey, all, long time lurker, 43 years come September player. Quick question: Do the pebbles enchanted by the Magic Stone cantrip count as magical weapons for the purpose of damaging beings or objects that are either resistant or immune to non-magical weapons? I'm very inclined to say "yes" but I was wondering if there'd been an official pronouncement.
I didn't find anything that immediately jumped out as an answer to this in the Sage Advice Compendium.
It is definitely a magical effect and a rock enchanted with Magic Stone would be affected my an anti-magic zone. See https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA224
However, the cantrip Shillelagh specifically states that the weapon it enchants is considered magical while Magic Stone does not. The Sage Advice Compendium also answers the question that summons still do their normal damage type unless a spell says otherwise: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA174
So it seems to me like the strict RAW reading is no because Magic Stone says the stones do bludgeoning damage, and does not say they count as magical weapons. However, given that the other cantrip, Shillelagh, does qualify a weapon as being magical it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to do the same with Magic Stone from a game balance perspective.
It's a magic stone. The stone is magical. The magic is within the stone, and the stone is within the magic. The stone can be used as a weapon. The stone is a weapon. The stone is magic and a weapon. The stone is a magic weapon. If you're doing a "strict RAW reading," you should probably take into account that the difference between magical and nonmagical attacks is never really stated in the rules, so I'd say your strict RAW reading would result in absolutely nothing doing magical damage. But if you do a slightly less strict RAW reading, I think you'll find that "magical" means "magical" and also that "magical" is mutually exclusive with "nonmagical."
I.e., yes. Magic stones are magical.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The answer is in that SAC post you linked to.
The attacks allowed by Magic Stone are spell attacks so yes, the damage would bypass resistance to non-magical attacks.
Thanks! Now I'm considering the impact of a group of two dozen townsfolk npcs backed up by a midrange warlock who, with a minute's notice, can deliver a maximum of 25d6+75 bludgeoning damage (78 average assuming half hit and average damage) against a single target...
Spells that deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage that don’t say “magical” are not magical.
it’s why attacks by Animate Object and Catapult aren’t magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance.
The spell is literally called magic stone, and you're trying to argue that the stone isn't magical. Seriously?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
That's pretty much the scenario that makes Magic Stone useful compared to a more straightforward damaging cantrip. It's a great way to weaponize otherwise useless NPCs, since the Magic Stone attack uses your stats, not theirs. A 90-year old grandma with a bad leg is just as deadly with your Magic Stone as you are.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Just a word of warning, your reasoning could be used to argue that Chill Touch is a melee range spell that deals cold damage.
I'm starting to realize now why OneD&D is pushing for the idea of there being a dedicated "Magic Action" that includes basically all spellcasting and a ton of other things to blatantly differentiate them from mundane actions.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Only if you misunderstand my reasoning to a pretty significant degree. Melee spell attacks, cold damage, these are things that are pretty well defined by the game. What counts as a "nonmagical weapon," less so. If there were a rule saying that a specific word has to be used to overcome resistance to b/p/s from nonmagical weapons, and that word were not in the description of magic stone, then I wouldn't say it would overcome that resistance. No such rule exists. Due to that, we have to use common language definitions, with which we can infer that "nonmagical" means "not magical," and furthermore that "magical" means "magical."
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
And find trap actually finds traps… oh wait, it doesn’t. There are a few spells that just don’t do what their name suggests.
That is categorically incorrect. All spells are automatically by their very nature magical sources of damage.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh, gee golly you must be right. Here I was, thinking that casting magic stone on pebbles would imbue them with magic based on the name alone, but I'm a full 7 words into the spell's description and I haven't seen anything like that. I sincerely doubt that when I continue on to read the next four words or so, there will be something that reaffirms my point.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Update: I just read the next four words, I'm in utter shock.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Where is this rule written? Cause it sounds like it’s just an assumption.
spells only do what they say they do.
For example, we know the creatures summoned by conjure animals don’t overcome resistances, yet they are the result of a spell. That is an official ruling.
so is there some general rule or ruling that backs up your assumption?
I don't really like using Sage Advice rulings, but since apparently you can't believe that nonmagical and magical are mutually exclusive without Jeremy Crawford tweeting it at you, yes. There is an official ruling. Look at post #4 on this thread. Here, I can link it for you to make it easier.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Something is magic if it says it is, and all spells are by default “magic.” They are “magic spells” after all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I actually give zero credibility to sage advice in terms of Crawford’s tweets, because they are contradictory and not official rulings.
the actual compendium is official rulings though.
The issue here is that what you link determines if a feature is magical for purposes of being effected by anti-magic field, not for causing magic damage. By this logic, casting the light cantrip makes a weapon’s damage magical. Which might be cool homebrew, but isn’t how those rules work.
Ok, so if I cast light on my staff it overcomes resistance to non-magic attacks?
No. That status must be asserted in the spell/damage description.