This is a really good observation. In both 2014 and 2024 it seems that the Attack action is defined as an action that specifically involves what used to be called Weapon Attacks in 2014 (which were mutually exclusive from the category of attacks called "Spell Attacks").
However, I don't think that the Magic action is involved here either. In my opinion, we are talking about a particular action, as defined by the spell description, which is covered by this rule:
Both Shillelagh and Magic Stone involve taking the Attack action to make one or more attacks with the magic-infused weapons. Both use your spell attack modifier for the attack and add your spellcasting ability modifier to the damage.
Incorrect. It's going to be incredibly difficult to directly quote any portion of either of those spell descriptions and point to the part that says "Attack action". It's very important not to confuse the concept of "making an attack" with the action economy consuming activity that is called taking the "Attack action".
Throwing a stone at an enemy with the intent of harming that enemy is taking the Attack action using an improvised weapon and is absolutely something that any character can do in normal combat. Using a sling to attack is taking the Attack action with a simple ranged weapon.
Both of those things are true. And they are both irrelevant. Doing either of those things has absolutely nothing to do with what happens when you cast this spell. The damage would be different, the modifier would be different. Basically, the things that the spell actually does wouldn't be there at all.
If you pick up an object and throw it as an improvised weapon, you are just making an attack with a mundane weapon. In the 2014 rules that was described as a "weapon attack". In contrast, when you cast the Magic Stone spell, you are imbuing a stone with magic. As part of that same spell description, you can then make a spell attack with that stone by throwing it or hurling it at a creature in order to cause that creature to interact with the spell's magical effect. A 2014 "weapon attack" (not to be confused with attacking with a weapon) and a 2014 "spell attack" are mutually exclusive.
Spells only do exactly what they say. If a spell says that you can make an attack, that does not mean that you are taking the Attack action when you do. In fact, this is essentially never true unless somehow the spell description explicitly says that you are taking the Attack action.
In fact, it virtually always works the way that I have mentioned previously, which I will re-quote here:
Player characters and monsters can also do things not covered by these actions. Many class features and other abilities provide additional action options, and you can improvise other actions. When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the Dungeon Master tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of D20 Test you need to make, if any.
As written, technically the Magic Stone spell does not even require an action for you to be able to throw one of the stones -- you can just do it for free as part of the spell effect. Obviously that's not the intent and since there are three of them it would be overpowered and unbalanced for a cantrip to be able to deliver that much damage as a Bonus Action . . . but that just means that it's a badly worded spell and should have been modified via errata to include a phrase such as: "As an action, you or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles that is imbued with magic by throwing it or hurling it with a sling". But so far, no such errata have been made as far as I know. But even if it were written this way, it STILL would not be referring to an Attack action. It would be its own uniquely defined action as per the spell description.
I don't think it qualifies for Agonizing Blast. The problem with considering spells like these as spells "that deal damage" is that we're opening a can of worms here. Suddenly Magic Weapon is a damage dealing spell. Summon Fey is a damage dealing spell. Fabricate is a damage dealing spell. Teleport is a damage dealing spell. Polymorph is a damage dealing spell. Tenser's Transformation is a damage dealing spell. So what does it mean that a spell deals damage at this point?
Nah. You just read the spell descriptions and make the determination on a case-by-case basis. Most of your examples make no sense at all, and just because Magic Stone should be considered to be a damage dealing spell does not mean that any of those other spells should be -- there is no logical connection there. Magic Weapon is somewhat like Shillelagh which is not a damage dealing spell, and Fabricate, Teleport, Polymorph and Tenser's Transformation are not even remotely related to the concept of damage dealing. I can see where you were going with drawing a parallel to Summon Fey, but that also is pretty easily ruled to not be a damage dealing spell. No can of worms involved in this one.
I also think you can make a comparison to Lightning Arrow. You pre-cast Magic Stone, and then it just says you can make an attack without specifying that any kind of particular action is used for it, so you'd just take the action you'd normally use to make an attack, and then the spell triggers to replace the normal effects of the attack entirely with a spell attack (optionally with a weapon) that deals damage on hit, rather than being a normal weapon augmentation like shillelagh or magic weapon. Just like how lightning arrow deals a specified amount of lightning damage and an AoE on hit instead of a saying that the weapon's damage becomes X for the duration of the attack.
Nah. You just read the spell descriptions and make the determination on a case-by-case basis. Most of your examples make no sense at all, and just because Magic Stone should be considered to be a damage dealing spell does not mean that any of those other spells should be -- there is no logical connection there. Magic Weapon is somewhat like Shillelagh which is not a damage dealing spell, and Fabricate, Teleport, Polymorph and Tenser's Transformation are not even remotely related to the concept of damage dealing. I can see where you were going with drawing a parallel to Summon Fey, but that also is pretty easily ruled to not be a damage dealing spell. No can of worms involved in this one.
Oh, I'm not saying that any of those spells are damage dealing spells. Of course they're not. My examples make no sense at all? Of course they don't. That was the point. But a lot of the arguments here are on the lines of "The spell created something, that something was then later used to deal damage, therefore it's a damage dealing spell." Even if the thing that the spell created (or modified) is intended to be used to deal damage, that doesn't mean that the spell itself is dealing damage.
"But the spell even gives you a specific damage roll." Yes, and so does Teleport. "But the spell describes the kind of attack roll used, the modifier used, etc." Yes, and so does Summon Fey.
I also love your arguments. They can be reduced to "Those spells aren't damage dealing spells because...no." I wish WotC had that kind of clarity. We wouldn't be having this discussion if their rulings and descriptions were as clear and detailed as yours.
You need to define concepts, not just say "Well, obviously Teleport isn't a damage dealing spell. I mean, duh." Does Teleport deal damage? Absolutely. Is Teleport intended to deal damage? Is that the goal of the spell? Absolutely not. But what is the condition of Agonizing Blast? That they "deal damage". Not that their main goal was to deal damage, or that they're related to the concept of damage dealing. That all came from you. That's not what the book says.
Personally, I would allow a player to use Agonizing Blast with Magic Stone. I don't think there's any balance issue at all. That's not what I'm saying. But if we're discussing rules as written, then we need to use arguments based on the rules as written. Not our own personal opinion about what should count as a damage dealing spell or not.
Although the wording about what kind of action is needed to activate it is vague, it clearly states you make a spell attack and then has an on hit effect that deals damage while the spell is active.
Right, but that still doesn't actually tell you what type of action you need to use
If the argument is that shillelagh and magic stone require a Magic action to use and not an Attack action, then are you suggesting they are now magic items?
Magic [Action]
When you take the Magic action, you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action or use a feature or magic item that requires a Magic action to be activated.
And if so, does using other such 'magic weapons' (i.e. a normal weapon with the spell Magic Weapon on it, for instance) also require the Magic action? Because that's problematic in a whole host of ways
Just to be clear, I'm not convinced that the Attack/Magic action distinction is a good way to determine what should be considered a 'cantrip that deals damage'. But if that's what you're going with, understand where that can lead
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Although the wording about what kind of action is needed to activate it is vague, it clearly states you make a spell attack and then has an on hit effect that deals damage while the spell is active.
Right, but that still doesn't actually tell you what type of action you need to use
If the argument is that shillelagh and magic stone require a Magic action to use and not an Attack action, then are you suggesting they are now magic items?
Magic [Action]
When you take the Magic action, you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action or use a feature or magic item that requires a Magic action to be activated.
And if so, does using other such 'magic weapons' (i.e. a normal weapon with the spell Magic Weapon on it, for instance) also require the Magic action? Because that's problematic in a whole host of ways
Just to be clear, I'm not convinced that the Attack/Magic action distinction is a good way to determine what should be considered a 'cantrip that deals damage'. But if that's what you're going with, understand where that can lead
No, I'm arguing the opposite. The text you quoted was me arguing that it is a Cantrip that deals damage via an attack roll, based on a precast effect, similar to Produce Flame.
I later go on to argue that uses the attack action, but replaces the normal effects of the attack with a spell effect (a ranged spell attack (potentially with a weapon) that deals damage on hit), similar to how Lightning Arrow replaces the normal properties of the bow attack with it's lightning spell effect.
Shillelagh, Magic Weapon and Elemental Weapon all function fundamentally differently, because they talk about the properties of the object itself becoming something else, or letting you do use a particular stat instead of the normal one, but doesn't otherwise replace the normal weapon attack with a different effect.
My stance is therefore that Magic Stone works with both Extra Attack, Agonizing Blast, Repelling Blast, and any feature that requires an attack with a weapon (if you're using a sling).
Shillelagh, Magic Weapon and Elemental Weapon all function fundamentally differently, because they talk about the properties of the object itself becoming something else, or letting you do use a particular stat instead of the normal one, but doesn't otherwise replace the normal weapon attack with a different effect.
My stance is therefore that Magic Stone works with both Extra Attack, Agonizing Blast, Repelling Blast, and any feature that requires an attack with a weapon (if you're using a sling).
I have a hard time seeing what the difference is between Shillelagh and Magic Stone
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Shillelagh, Magic Weapon and Elemental Weapon all function fundamentally differently, because they talk about the properties of the object itself becoming something else, or letting you do use a particular stat instead of the normal one, but doesn't otherwise replace the normal weapon attack with a different effect.
My stance is therefore that Magic Stone works with both Extra Attack, Agonizing Blast, Repelling Blast, and any feature that requires an attack with a weapon (if you're using a sling).
I have a hard time seeing what the difference is between Shillelagh and Magic Stone
The difference is just what I said. Shillelagh alters the properties of the weapon by having them become something else, but otherwise you use it as normal. Magic Stone lets you do something else entirely once you activate the trigger of throwing or flinging it, making a spell attack that deals damage. The medium for the spell being an object doesn't make it the same.
Would you argue that Lightning Arrow is the same as Shillelagh? It uses an arrow shot by a bow to deliver its effect via an attack roll, is it therefore not a damaging spell?
Specifically, Magic Stone does NOT state how you can attack with the stones by using an action as part of the cantrip and so doing so is NOT part of the cantrip.
It does say that you can attack by throwing or flinging them, in between the parts where it says that the stones are infused and that the spell ends on the stone after the attack is done. How is that not part of the cantrip as much as the Produce Flame attacks are? Both are spell attacks that can only happen while the cantrip is active, using triggers separate from the casting of the cantrip itself, which refer to an on hit effect rather than modifying the stats of a(n improvised) weapon.
It says you can attack but it gives no action to which such an attack is attributed too. This is actually a major point of the spell, it relies on another action which is not part of the cantrip to throw the stone, in other words that action itself is not part of the cantrip. It's really a dead end.
Additionally, while they do not mention it, True Strike, Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade are all cantrip spell attacks but they are also not applicable too Agonizing Blast either, the attacks in those cantrips are made as part of the casting of the spell but the damage is made as part of the weapon attack. Arguable the additional effects of Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade might be applicable to Agonizing Blast, but the initial attacks of those cantrips are not.
The problem with magic stone is that you do use an attack action and the resulting damage is part of the attack action, not the cantrip. The cantrip modifies how that attack works but it (the attack) is still not part of that cantrip. This means that magic stone can benefit from Extra Attack, it can also benefit from being used with a magical sling, such as a +3 Sling. Using it with a Sling allows it to benefit from proficiency too the attack roll, it also allows adding the magical damage of the sling too the projectile.
Produce flames, the action to throw the flame is declared within the spell, this is a clear and obvious difference, it is an ACTION of the cantrip, as such Produce flames can not benefit from the effects of Extra Attack, nor can it benefit from proficiency from being used with a weapon to which you are proficient and additionally it can not benefit from the effects of a magical weapon, all things that Magic Stone CAN benefit from. Finally with magic stones, if somebody had the tavern brawler feat, I would allow them to treat throwing the stone as having proficiency too since it is an improvised weapon, meaning even when thrown it is possible to benefit from proficiency with Magic Stone.
All of this is likely the reason that Magic Stone does not scale to level, since it already has too much going for it but this means it's only useful at low levels and useless at high levels. I am sure you'll continue to argue against this and I can't be bothered to keep re-iterating the obvious point that no attack is performed as part of the magic stone cantrip, thus the cantrip is not one that causes damage. I am going to stop responding, I suspect many will rule it the way that I have.
If Magic Stone ever gets revised then it can be a subject to revisit but as I read the cantrip, it's not applicable to Agonizing Blast.
I can't be bothered to keep re-iterating the obvious point that no attack is performed as part of the magic stone cantrip.
That isn't obvious though. It calls far a spell attack that happens when you activate the trigger of throwing or flinging it (via the Attack action). That is the attack made by the cantrip, and the on hit damage is the effect of the cantrip, replacing the normal effects on the attack entirely instead of just modifying the weapon used to make the normal attack or letting you use your casting stats for that otherwise normal attack.
So yes Magic Stone is a cantrip that deal damage via an attack roll, and because the trigger for that attack happening is throwing or flinging the thing, you can benefit from Extra attack on it just like you can with Lightning Arrow.
Shillelagh, Magic Weapon and Elemental Weapon all function fundamentally differently, because they talk about the properties of the object itself becoming something else, or letting you do use a particular stat instead of the normal one, but doesn't otherwise replace the normal weapon attack with a different effect.
My stance is therefore that Magic Stone works with both Extra Attack, Agonizing Blast, Repelling Blast, and any feature that requires an attack with a weapon (if you're using a sling).
I have a hard time seeing what the difference is between Shillelagh and Magic Stone
The difference is just what I said. Shillelagh alters the properties of the weapon by having them become something else, but otherwise you use it as normal. Magic Stone lets you do something else entirely once you activate the trigger of throwing or flinging it, making a spell attack that deals damage. The medium for the spell being an object doesn't make it the same.
Would you argue that Lightning Arrow is the same as Shillelagh? It uses an arrow shot by a bow to deliver its effect via an attack roll, is it therefore not a damaging spell?
2024 Lightning Arrow is a 3rd-level bonus action spell which you cast after making an attack, not before, so it's completely irrelevant to the discussion
So you're hinging it on the "ranged spell attack" language in Magic Stone, essentially. If it contains that language, it's a cantrip that deals damage; if it doesn't, it's not
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
you can benefit from Extra attack on it just like you can with Lightning Arrow.
You absolutely cannot use Extra Attack on 2024 Lightning Arrow (or even 2014 Lightning Arrow, for that matter). You really should stop using that as an example
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I... uh.. what? I'm not sure how you could reach that conclusion?
The 2014 Lightning Arrow is pre-cast, the 2024 Lighting Arrow is cast in response, in either case it piggy-backs off of a normal attack and replaces the effect of that particular attack. If that attack was taken as part of the attack action, why would it not benefit from extra attack?
Oh, wait, do you think I'm saying you can use extra attack to get the lightning arrow damage twice from the same cast? That's not my point. 2014 Lighting Arrow replaces your next ranged weapon attack with its spell effect. If that attack came from the attack action, the first arrow would get replaced, and then you'd fire a second regular arrow as normal since you took the attack action.
Similarly, Magic Stone lets you replace one attack with a spell effect by throwing or flinging the stone, but it lets you do it up to three separate times. So if you have extra attack, you could take the attack action, fling a stone, get the spell effect, and then either fling another stone and get the spell effect again, or make a normal attack with a weapon.
Oh, wait, do you think I'm saying you can use extra attack to get the lightning arrow damage twice from the same cast? That's not my point. 2014 Lighting Arrow replaces your next ranged weapon attack with its spell effect. If that attack came from the attack action, the first arrow would get replaced, and then you'd fire a second regular arrow as normal since you took the attack action.
Of course that's what I thought. Why else would you say you can "benefit" from Extra Attack?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Of course that's what I thought. Why else would you say you can "benefit" from Extra Attack?
Because I'm trying to draw a parallel to how you can have a weapon attack that is replaced with a spell effect, and still make another attack if the triggering attack was taken as part of the attack action. It seemed fairly obvious in context, I haven't seen anyone try to argue that extra attack lets you throw the same singular magic stone twice. In both cases you obviously can't, the spell ends after the spell effect, hit or miss. But the attack being replaced with a spell effect doesn't prevent Extra attacks from happening like normal.
2024 Lightning Arrow is a 3rd-level bonus action spell which you cast after making an attack, not before, so it's completely irrelevant to the discussion
So you're hinging it on the "ranged spell attack" language in Magic Stone, essentially. If it contains that language, it's a cantrip that deals damage; if it doesn't, it's not
2014 Lighting Arrow happens before, so that is a relevant parallel.
But kinda, yeah. I think the on hit part is the more pertinent part for Agonizing Blast, since I would also call 2014 lightning arrow a damaging spell even though it's triggered off of a weapon attack rather than a spell attack, for example.
2024 True Strike and Shillelagh on the other hand modifies the normal damage die and attack roll of the attack, and then lets you use it as a normal magic weapon, instead of being an on hit effect created by the spell that happens instead of the normal effects of the weapon attack.
I'm not sure if the extra damage True Strike adds to the attack at higher levels makes it a cantrip that deals damage, but I would lean towards no, and that also being a modification of the weapon for the purpose of the attack? But I might be convinced otherwise.
Shillelagh, Magic Weapon and Elemental Weapon all function fundamentally differently, because they talk about the properties of the object itself becoming something else, or letting you do use a particular stat instead of the normal one, but doesn't otherwise replace the normal weapon attack with a different effect.
My stance is therefore that Magic Stone works with both Extra Attack, Agonizing Blast, Repelling Blast, and any feature that requires an attack with a weapon (if you're using a sling).
I have a hard time seeing what the difference is between Shillelagh and Magic Stone
The difference is just what I said. Shillelagh alters the properties of the weapon by having them become something else, but otherwise you use it as normal. Magic Stone lets you do something else entirely once you activate the trigger of throwing or flinging it, making a spell attack that deals damage. The medium for the spell being an object doesn't make it the same.
Would you argue that Lightning Arrow is the same as Shillelagh? It uses an arrow shot by a bow to deliver its effect via an attack roll, is it therefore not a damaging spell?
Beyond just Lightning Arrow there are:
Shadowblade - conjures a weapon as a bonus action that you then make attacks with using the Attack action using your Str/Dex Flameblade - conjures a weapon as a bonus action that you then make attacks with using a Magic to make a melee spell attack (2024) Hail of Thorns - uses a bonus action to adds damage to a ranged weapon attack that is made with the Attack action Searing Smite - uses a bonus action to add fire damage to a melee weapon attack that is made with the Attack action, as well as on going fire damage at the start of the target's turn Holy/Elemental Weapon - causes a target weapon to deal extra damage on attacks made with the Attack action Swift Quiver - causes you to make 2 weapon attacks as part of casting the spell and as a BA for all turns while the spell persists, and magically conjures ammunition (that deals non-magical damage).
Which of these count as "damage dealing spells"?
If you follow my rule: "if there is a damage roll mentioned in the spell, it is a damage dealing spell and that damage roll is the damage of the spell." It is simple:
Shadowblade - damage dealing spell, all damage dealt by the weapon is damage of the spell Flameblade - damage dealing spell, all damage dealt by the weapon is damage of the spell Lightning Arrow - damage dealing spell, all lightning damage is damage of the spell not the weapon attack. Hail of Thorns - damage dealing spell, the added damage & AoE damage is the damage of the spell, the damage from the weapon is not. Searing Smite - damage dealing spell, the added damage & damage over time is the damage of the spell, the damage from the weapon is not. Holy/Elemental Weapon - damage dealing spell, the added elemental/radiant damage is the damage of the spell, the damage from the weapon is not. Swift Quiver - non-damage dealing spell, no damage mentioned in the spell, the damage from the weapon attacks are due to the weapon not the spell.
I'd have to take a closer look at the specific wordings of all those spells, like I mentioned with the True Strike example, I could potentially go either way with some of those. It's lean towards anything using the "weapon attacks made with it deal an extra" wording being augmentations rather than spell damage, but I won't die on that hill.
How'd you fall on each of Magic Stone, Shillelagh, True Strike, Green Flame Blade, and Booming Blade then?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Incorrect. It's going to be incredibly difficult to directly quote any portion of either of those spell descriptions and point to the part that says "Attack action". It's very important not to confuse the concept of "making an attack" with the action economy consuming activity that is called taking the "Attack action".
Both of those things are true. And they are both irrelevant. Doing either of those things has absolutely nothing to do with what happens when you cast this spell. The damage would be different, the modifier would be different. Basically, the things that the spell actually does wouldn't be there at all.
If you pick up an object and throw it as an improvised weapon, you are just making an attack with a mundane weapon. In the 2014 rules that was described as a "weapon attack". In contrast, when you cast the Magic Stone spell, you are imbuing a stone with magic. As part of that same spell description, you can then make a spell attack with that stone by throwing it or hurling it at a creature in order to cause that creature to interact with the spell's magical effect. A 2014 "weapon attack" (not to be confused with attacking with a weapon) and a 2014 "spell attack" are mutually exclusive.
Spells only do exactly what they say. If a spell says that you can make an attack, that does not mean that you are taking the Attack action when you do. In fact, this is essentially never true unless somehow the spell description explicitly says that you are taking the Attack action.
In fact, it virtually always works the way that I have mentioned previously, which I will re-quote here:
As written, technically the Magic Stone spell does not even require an action for you to be able to throw one of the stones -- you can just do it for free as part of the spell effect. Obviously that's not the intent and since there are three of them it would be overpowered and unbalanced for a cantrip to be able to deliver that much damage as a Bonus Action . . . but that just means that it's a badly worded spell and should have been modified via errata to include a phrase such as: "As an action, you or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles that is imbued with magic by throwing it or hurling it with a sling". But so far, no such errata have been made as far as I know. But even if it were written this way, it STILL would not be referring to an Attack action. It would be its own uniquely defined action as per the spell description.
I don't think it qualifies for Agonizing Blast. The problem with considering spells like these as spells "that deal damage" is that we're opening a can of worms here. Suddenly Magic Weapon is a damage dealing spell. Summon Fey is a damage dealing spell. Fabricate is a damage dealing spell. Teleport is a damage dealing spell. Polymorph is a damage dealing spell. Tenser's Transformation is a damage dealing spell. So what does it mean that a spell deals damage at this point?
Nah. You just read the spell descriptions and make the determination on a case-by-case basis. Most of your examples make no sense at all, and just because Magic Stone should be considered to be a damage dealing spell does not mean that any of those other spells should be -- there is no logical connection there. Magic Weapon is somewhat like Shillelagh which is not a damage dealing spell, and Fabricate, Teleport, Polymorph and Tenser's Transformation are not even remotely related to the concept of damage dealing. I can see where you were going with drawing a parallel to Summon Fey, but that also is pretty easily ruled to not be a damage dealing spell. No can of worms involved in this one.
I also think you can make a comparison to Lightning Arrow. You pre-cast Magic Stone, and then it just says you can make an attack without specifying that any kind of particular action is used for it, so you'd just take the action you'd normally use to make an attack, and then the spell triggers to replace the normal effects of the attack entirely with a spell attack (optionally with a weapon) that deals damage on hit, rather than being a normal weapon augmentation like shillelagh or magic weapon. Just like how lightning arrow deals a specified amount of lightning damage and an AoE on hit instead of a saying that the weapon's damage becomes X for the duration of the attack.
Oh, I'm not saying that any of those spells are damage dealing spells. Of course they're not. My examples make no sense at all? Of course they don't. That was the point. But a lot of the arguments here are on the lines of "The spell created something, that something was then later used to deal damage, therefore it's a damage dealing spell." Even if the thing that the spell created (or modified) is intended to be used to deal damage, that doesn't mean that the spell itself is dealing damage.
"But the spell even gives you a specific damage roll." Yes, and so does Teleport. "But the spell describes the kind of attack roll used, the modifier used, etc." Yes, and so does Summon Fey.
I also love your arguments. They can be reduced to "Those spells aren't damage dealing spells because...no." I wish WotC had that kind of clarity. We wouldn't be having this discussion if their rulings and descriptions were as clear and detailed as yours.
You need to define concepts, not just say "Well, obviously Teleport isn't a damage dealing spell. I mean, duh." Does Teleport deal damage? Absolutely. Is Teleport intended to deal damage? Is that the goal of the spell? Absolutely not. But what is the condition of Agonizing Blast? That they "deal damage". Not that their main goal was to deal damage, or that they're related to the concept of damage dealing. That all came from you. That's not what the book says.
Personally, I would allow a player to use Agonizing Blast with Magic Stone. I don't think there's any balance issue at all. That's not what I'm saying. But if we're discussing rules as written, then we need to use arguments based on the rules as written. Not our own personal opinion about what should count as a damage dealing spell or not.
Right, but that still doesn't actually tell you what type of action you need to use
If the argument is that shillelagh and magic stone require a Magic action to use and not an Attack action, then are you suggesting they are now magic items?
And if so, does using other such 'magic weapons' (i.e. a normal weapon with the spell Magic Weapon on it, for instance) also require the Magic action? Because that's problematic in a whole host of ways
Just to be clear, I'm not convinced that the Attack/Magic action distinction is a good way to determine what should be considered a 'cantrip that deals damage'. But if that's what you're going with, understand where that can lead
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No, I'm arguing the opposite. The text you quoted was me arguing that it is a Cantrip that deals damage via an attack roll, based on a precast effect, similar to Produce Flame.
I later go on to argue that uses the attack action, but replaces the normal effects of the attack with a spell effect (a ranged spell attack (potentially with a weapon) that deals damage on hit), similar to how Lightning Arrow replaces the normal properties of the bow attack with it's lightning spell effect.
Shillelagh, Magic Weapon and Elemental Weapon all function fundamentally differently, because they talk about the properties of the object itself becoming something else, or letting you do use a particular stat instead of the normal one, but doesn't otherwise replace the normal weapon attack with a different effect.
My stance is therefore that Magic Stone works with both Extra Attack, Agonizing Blast, Repelling Blast, and any feature that requires an attack with a weapon (if you're using a sling).
I have a hard time seeing what the difference is between Shillelagh and Magic Stone
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The difference is just what I said. Shillelagh alters the properties of the weapon by having them become something else, but otherwise you use it as normal. Magic Stone lets you do something else entirely once you activate the trigger of throwing or flinging it, making a spell attack that deals damage. The medium for the spell being an object doesn't make it the same.
Would you argue that Lightning Arrow is the same as Shillelagh? It uses an arrow shot by a bow to deliver its effect via an attack roll, is it therefore not a damaging spell?
It says you can attack but it gives no action to which such an attack is attributed too. This is actually a major point of the spell, it relies on another action which is not part of the cantrip to throw the stone, in other words that action itself is not part of the cantrip. It's really a dead end.
Additionally, while they do not mention it, True Strike, Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade are all cantrip spell attacks but they are also not applicable too Agonizing Blast either, the attacks in those cantrips are made as part of the casting of the spell but the damage is made as part of the weapon attack. Arguable the additional effects of Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade might be applicable to Agonizing Blast, but the initial attacks of those cantrips are not.
The problem with magic stone is that you do use an attack action and the resulting damage is part of the attack action, not the cantrip. The cantrip modifies how that attack works but it (the attack) is still not part of that cantrip. This means that magic stone can benefit from Extra Attack, it can also benefit from being used with a magical sling, such as a +3 Sling. Using it with a Sling allows it to benefit from proficiency too the attack roll, it also allows adding the magical damage of the sling too the projectile.
Produce flames, the action to throw the flame is declared within the spell, this is a clear and obvious difference, it is an ACTION of the cantrip, as such Produce flames can not benefit from the effects of Extra Attack, nor can it benefit from proficiency from being used with a weapon to which you are proficient and additionally it can not benefit from the effects of a magical weapon, all things that Magic Stone CAN benefit from. Finally with magic stones, if somebody had the tavern brawler feat, I would allow them to treat throwing the stone as having proficiency too since it is an improvised weapon, meaning even when thrown it is possible to benefit from proficiency with Magic Stone.
All of this is likely the reason that Magic Stone does not scale to level, since it already has too much going for it but this means it's only useful at low levels and useless at high levels. I am sure you'll continue to argue against this and I can't be bothered to keep re-iterating the obvious point that no attack is performed as part of the magic stone cantrip, thus the cantrip is not one that causes damage. I am going to stop responding, I suspect many will rule it the way that I have.
If Magic Stone ever gets revised then it can be a subject to revisit but as I read the cantrip, it's not applicable to Agonizing Blast.
That isn't obvious though. It calls far a spell attack that happens when you activate the trigger of throwing or flinging it (via the Attack action). That is the attack made by the cantrip, and the on hit damage is the effect of the cantrip, replacing the normal effects on the attack entirely instead of just modifying the weapon used to make the normal attack or letting you use your casting stats for that otherwise normal attack.
So yes Magic Stone is a cantrip that deal damage via an attack roll, and because the trigger for that attack happening is throwing or flinging the thing, you can benefit from Extra attack on it just like you can with Lightning Arrow.
2024 Lightning Arrow is a 3rd-level bonus action spell which you cast after making an attack, not before, so it's completely irrelevant to the discussion
So you're hinging it on the "ranged spell attack" language in Magic Stone, essentially. If it contains that language, it's a cantrip that deals damage; if it doesn't, it's not
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You absolutely cannot use Extra Attack on 2024 Lightning Arrow (or even 2014 Lightning Arrow, for that matter). You really should stop using that as an example
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I... uh.. what? I'm not sure how you could reach that conclusion?
The 2014 Lightning Arrow is pre-cast, the 2024 Lighting Arrow is cast in response, in either case it piggy-backs off of a normal attack and replaces the effect of that particular attack. If that attack was taken as part of the attack action, why would it not benefit from extra attack?
Oh, wait, do you think I'm saying you can use extra attack to get the lightning arrow damage twice from the same cast? That's not my point. 2014 Lighting Arrow replaces your next ranged weapon attack with its spell effect. If that attack came from the attack action, the first arrow would get replaced, and then you'd fire a second regular arrow as normal since you took the attack action.
Similarly, Magic Stone lets you replace one attack with a spell effect by throwing or flinging the stone, but it lets you do it up to three separate times. So if you have extra attack, you could take the attack action, fling a stone, get the spell effect, and then either fling another stone and get the spell effect again, or make a normal attack with a weapon.
Of course that's what I thought. Why else would you say you can "benefit" from Extra Attack?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Because I'm trying to draw a parallel to how you can have a weapon attack that is replaced with a spell effect, and still make another attack if the triggering attack was taken as part of the attack action. It seemed fairly obvious in context, I haven't seen anyone try to argue that extra attack lets you throw the same singular magic stone twice. In both cases you obviously can't, the spell ends after the spell effect, hit or miss. But the attack being replaced with a spell effect doesn't prevent Extra attacks from happening like normal.
Apologies for the confusion though.
2014 Lighting Arrow happens before, so that is a relevant parallel.
But kinda, yeah. I think the on hit part is the more pertinent part for Agonizing Blast, since I would also call 2014 lightning arrow a damaging spell even though it's triggered off of a weapon attack rather than a spell attack, for example.
2024 True Strike and Shillelagh on the other hand modifies the normal damage die and attack roll of the attack, and then lets you use it as a normal magic weapon, instead of being an on hit effect created by the spell that happens instead of the normal effects of the weapon attack.
I'm not sure if the extra damage True Strike adds to the attack at higher levels makes it a cantrip that deals damage, but I would lean towards no, and that also being a modification of the weapon for the purpose of the attack? But I might be convinced otherwise.
Beyond just Lightning Arrow there are:
Shadowblade - conjures a weapon as a bonus action that you then make attacks with using the Attack action using your Str/Dex
Flameblade - conjures a weapon as a bonus action that you then make attacks with using a Magic to make a melee spell attack (2024)
Hail of Thorns - uses a bonus action to adds damage to a ranged weapon attack that is made with the Attack action
Searing Smite - uses a bonus action to add fire damage to a melee weapon attack that is made with the Attack action, as well as on going fire damage at the start of the target's turn
Holy/Elemental Weapon - causes a target weapon to deal extra damage on attacks made with the Attack action
Swift Quiver - causes you to make 2 weapon attacks as part of casting the spell and as a BA for all turns while the spell persists, and magically conjures ammunition (that deals non-magical damage).
Which of these count as "damage dealing spells"?
If you follow my rule: "if there is a damage roll mentioned in the spell, it is a damage dealing spell and that damage roll is the damage of the spell." It is simple:
Shadowblade - damage dealing spell, all damage dealt by the weapon is damage of the spell
Flameblade - damage dealing spell, all damage dealt by the weapon is damage of the spell
Lightning Arrow - damage dealing spell, all lightning damage is damage of the spell not the weapon attack.
Hail of Thorns - damage dealing spell, the added damage & AoE damage is the damage of the spell, the damage from the weapon is not.
Searing Smite - damage dealing spell, the added damage & damage over time is the damage of the spell, the damage from the weapon is not.
Holy/Elemental Weapon - damage dealing spell, the added elemental/radiant damage is the damage of the spell, the damage from the weapon is not.
Swift Quiver - non-damage dealing spell, no damage mentioned in the spell, the damage from the weapon attacks are due to the weapon not the spell.
I'd have to take a closer look at the specific wordings of all those spells, like I mentioned with the True Strike example, I could potentially go either way with some of those. It's lean towards anything using the "weapon attacks made with it deal an extra" wording being augmentations rather than spell damage, but I won't die on that hill.
How'd you fall on each of Magic Stone, Shillelagh, True Strike, Green Flame Blade, and Booming Blade then?