As DnD Beyond is a WotC subsidiary and an officially endorsed tool, I'm happy to treat its metatext as WoG on this issue, unless we get actual WoG stating otherwise.
There are plenty of places where the implementation in D&DBeyond just simply isn't capable of presenting the rules the way the books describe them (and those have often been documented in this subforum), even though WotC has never come out and said it is incorrect. You're prepared to take those cases as actual rules as well?
I'd have to know what specific examples, but providing metatextual classifications for things that are ambiguous in the rules seems like a very different thing from not implementing functionality that's clearly spelled out in the rules, if you mean things like Agonizing Blast currently only being supported for Eldritch Blast in the current character builder?
I mean your example says enough. You trust DDB to add rules when you think they're adding it intentionally? Even when that additional info isn't provided by the rules and has no rule or even DDB site feature supporting or surrounding it? So DDB users get something that owners of the book do not, but whose functionality is entirely up to interpretation? On the other hand, if you think the difference between the book and the site is a mistake, you're willing to disregard it? Interesting take.
The shillelagh cantrip clearly doesn't do damage -- it changes the damage of a weapon for future attacks -- but is nonetheless marked with the damage tag. Shillelagh does not combine with agonizing blast, but the meta text would indicate that it does.
I mean your example says enough. You trust DDB to add rules when you think they're adding it intentionally? Even when that additional info isn't provided by the rules and has no rule or even DDB site feature supporting or surrounding it? So DDB users get something that owners of the book do not, but whose functionality is entirely up to interpretation? On the other hand, if you think the difference between the book and the site is a mistake, you're willing to disregard it? Interesting take.
The shillelagh cantrip clearly doesn't do damage -- it changes the damage of a weapon for future attacks -- but is nonetheless marked with the damage tag. Shillelagh does not combine with agonizing blast, but the meta text would indicate that it does.
I think the difference in the examples is pretty stark, not seeing that is as you put it a interesting take.
The difference is one without a distinction. Sure one is *assumed* intentional, and the other is not, but neither has any rules text supporting it.
I mean, my point was clear. Even the tags are frequently invalid sources for determining any rules interactions, even with them being intentional. almost obviously because they are not rules.
I've argued my stance on on what works and what does based on the details of the precise wording of the spells prior to the metatext approach was presented ad nauseam, in either case Magic Stone works, which was the original question. I don't really have a horse in the race with regards to shillelagh, but the metatext approach seemed like one that was generally agreeable as an outside source which adjudicated each spell individually in an unambiguous way. But since some people are disagreeing with that as well I think I'll just step back from the debate at this point, as a universally acceptable reading seems unobtainable.
You can prep it as a bonus action and then make two shots with a sling if you have the extra attack feature, the rules allow for this.
No, it doesn't. Attacking with a Magic Stone is a ranged spell attack, not a weapon or unarmed strike.
But the trigger for the spell attack occurring is throwing it or flinging it with a sling. In the absence of any other specified action to do so, like how how Produce Flame calls for a magic action, it's entirely sensible that you would do so in the way you would normally throw or fling something, by making a weapon attack. This would work with extra attack, and you could then replace the regular roll and result of the attack with the spell effect.
In the 2024 rules the terms weapon attack and spell attacks aren't used, in any case. The Attack action specifies "making an attack roll with a weapon", which hurling the stone from a sling definitely is. And since it's going by the Attack action, you would be able to do it twice with Extra Attack.
No, it doesn't. Attacking with a Magic Stone is a ranged spell attack, not a weapon or unarmed strike.
That is an irrelevant distinction you are trying to make. Attacking with a pebble from Magic Stone is not casting a spell nor does it say you need to use the Magic Action (but it might do so in future errata). It doesn't even give you a new unspecified action like some effects do (language that says that you "can as an action" do something) and thus the only option left is to use the Attack Action and thus the Extra Attack feature should apply if you have it.
Honestly this spell is one that needs Erreta, it's too different to anything else in a nonsensical way.
If I were to rewrite it, I'd rewrite it as Proficiency Bonus number of pebbles and that when you or an ally make a weapon attack with the pebble (either via throwing it or using it in a sling), the attack uses your spellcasting ability modifier for the attack and damage rolls instead of the attacker's normal attack ability modifier. The range of the attack is 60 foot. Then just up the damage at levels 5, 11 and 17 from 1d6 to 1d8, 1d10 and 1d12 respectively.
Honestly this spell is one that needs Erreta, it's too different to anything else in a nonsensical way.
If I were to rewrite it, I'd rewrite it as Proficiency Bonus number of pebbles and that when you or an ally make a weapon attack with the pebble (either via throwing it or using it in a sling), the attack uses your spellcasting ability modifier for the attack and damage rolls instead of the attacker's normal attack ability modifier. The range of the attack is 60 foot. Then just up the damage at levels 5, 11 and 17 from 1d6 to 1d8, 1d10 and 1d12 respectively.
I like your wording. Clearly specifying that it's a Weapon Attack would be great, just so it's ruled without ambiguity.
No, it doesn't. Attacking with a Magic Stone is a ranged spell attack, not a weapon or unarmed strike.
That is an irrelevant distinction you are trying to make. Attacking with a pebble from Magic Stone is not casting a spell nor does it say you need to use the Magic Action (but it might do so in future errata). It doesn't even give you a new unspecified action like some effects do (language that says that you "can as an action" do something) and thus the only option left is to use the Attack Action and thus the Extra Attack feature should apply if you have it.
The Attack Action is required to benefit from Extra Attacks. The Attack Action only allows for Weapon Attacks and Unarmed Strikes. Attacking with a Magic Stone is "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect." This is not allowed under the Attack Action. A Magic Action, however, is used to "Cast a spell, use a magic item, or use a magical feature."
In the 2014 rules, the Magic Action was simply the Cast a Spell Action, so it might be natural to assume (on the reader and the writer's side) that an Attack Action would be used. However, the Cast a Spell Action is replaced with the Magic Action that now encompasses broader, explicit scope. Since, the spell does not specify an Action, the Magic Action is the most appropriate Action under the 2024 rules, even though "as an Action" is a perfectly reasonable default. It might be changed or clarified in a future errata or update.
Honestly this spell is one that needs Erreta, it's too different to anything else in a nonsensical way.
If I were to rewrite it, I'd rewrite it as Proficiency Bonus number of pebbles and that when you or an ally make a weapon attack with the pebble (either via throwing it or using it in a sling), the attack uses your spellcasting ability modifier for the attack and damage rolls instead of the attacker's normal attack ability modifier. The range of the attack is 60 foot. Then just up the damage at levels 5, 11 and 17 from 1d6 to 1d8, 1d10 and 1d12 respectively.
I feel that the double scaling is problematic and underwhelming since you are casting the spell and you or your allies are using a second action to attack with them.
Assuming a Warlock because of the thread.
At level 1, that's 2 x 1d6 + CHA
At level 5. that's 3 x 1d8 + CHA
At level 9, that's 4 x 1d8 + CHA
At level 11, that's 4 x 1d10 + CHA
At level 13, that's 5 x 1d10 + CHA
At level 17, that's 6 x 1d12 + CHA
If you subscribe to the position that it's an Attack Action and Extra Attack applies, that's a lot for a Cantrip (but you and your allies are expending actions). If you using them yourself, you could potentially make 2 attacks (3 if Devouring Blade makes a comeback) per round.
If you believe that a Magic or other non-Attack Action is used, it's underwhelming and also breaks with Cantrip scaling patterns needlessly (in my opinion).
I feel like maybe 3 or 4 stones that deal 2d6 damage and scale up by +1d6 at 5, 11, and 17. The spell should specify the action required to attack with them. Would that be okay?
As DnD Beyond is a WotC subsidiary and an officially endorsed tool, I'm happy to treat its metatext as WoG on this issue, unless we get actual WoG stating otherwise.
There are plenty of places where the implementation in D&DBeyond just simply isn't capable of presenting the rules the way the books describe them (and those have often been documented in this subforum), even though WotC has never come out and said it is incorrect. You're prepared to take those cases as actual rules as well?
I'd have to know what specific examples, but providing metatextual classifications for things that are ambiguous in the rules seems like a very different thing from not implementing functionality that's clearly spelled out in the rules, if you mean things like Agonizing Blast currently only being supported for Eldritch Blast in the current character builder?
I mean your example says enough. You trust DDB to add rules when you think they're adding it intentionally? Even when that additional info isn't provided by the rules and has no rule or even DDB site feature supporting or surrounding it? So DDB users get something that owners of the book do not, but whose functionality is entirely up to interpretation? On the other hand, if you think the difference between the book and the site is a mistake, you're willing to disregard it? Interesting take.
The shillelagh cantrip clearly doesn't do damage -- it changes the damage of a weapon for future attacks -- but is nonetheless marked with the damage tag. Shillelagh does not combine with agonizing blast, but the meta text would indicate that it does.
I think the difference in the examples is pretty stark, not seeing that is as you put it a interesting take.
The difference is one without a distinction. Sure one is *assumed* intentional, and the other is not, but neither has any rules text supporting it.
I mean, my point was clear. Even the tags are frequently invalid sources for determining any rules interactions, even with them being intentional. almost obviously because they are not rules.
I've argued my stance on on what works and what does based on the details of the precise wording of the spells prior to the metatext approach was presented ad nauseam, in either case Magic Stone works, which was the original question. I don't really have a horse in the race with regards to shillelagh, but the metatext approach seemed like one that was generally agreeable as an outside source which adjudicated each spell individually in an unambiguous way. But since some people are disagreeing with that as well I think I'll just step back from the debate at this point, as a universally acceptable reading seems unobtainable.
You can prep it as a bonus action and then make two shots with a sling if you have the extra attack feature, the rules allow for this.
No, it doesn't. Attacking with a Magic Stone is a ranged spell attack, not a weapon or unarmed strike.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
But the trigger
But the trigger for the spell attack occurring is throwing it or flinging it with a sling. In the absence of any other specified action to do so, like how how Produce Flame calls for a magic action, it's entirely sensible that you would do so in the way you would normally throw or fling something, by making a weapon attack. This would work with extra attack, and you could then replace the regular roll and result of the attack with the spell effect.
In the 2024 rules the terms weapon attack and spell attacks aren't used, in any case. The Attack action specifies "making an attack roll with a weapon", which hurling the stone from a sling definitely is. And since it's going by the Attack action, you would be able to do it twice with Extra Attack.
That is an irrelevant distinction you are trying to make. Attacking with a pebble from Magic Stone is not casting a spell nor does it say you need to use the Magic Action (but it might do so in future errata). It doesn't even give you a new unspecified action like some effects do (language that says that you "can as an action" do something) and thus the only option left is to use the Attack Action and thus the Extra Attack feature should apply if you have it.
Honestly this spell is one that needs Erreta, it's too different to anything else in a nonsensical way.
If I were to rewrite it, I'd rewrite it as Proficiency Bonus number of pebbles and that when you or an ally make a weapon attack with the pebble (either via throwing it or using it in a sling), the attack uses your spellcasting ability modifier for the attack and damage rolls instead of the attacker's normal attack ability modifier. The range of the attack is 60 foot. Then just up the damage at levels 5, 11 and 17 from 1d6 to 1d8, 1d10 and 1d12 respectively.
I like your wording. Clearly specifying that it's a Weapon Attack would be great, just so it's ruled without ambiguity.
The Attack Action is required to benefit from Extra Attacks. The Attack Action only allows for Weapon Attacks and Unarmed Strikes. Attacking with a Magic Stone is "A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect." This is not allowed under the Attack Action. A Magic Action, however, is used to "Cast a spell, use a magic item, or use a magical feature."
In the 2014 rules, the Magic Action was simply the Cast a Spell Action, so it might be natural to assume (on the reader and the writer's side) that an Attack Action would be used. However, the Cast a Spell Action is replaced with the Magic Action that now encompasses broader, explicit scope. Since, the spell does not specify an Action, the Magic Action is the most appropriate Action under the 2024 rules, even though "as an Action" is a perfectly reasonable default. It might be changed or clarified in a future errata or update.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I feel that the double scaling is problematic and underwhelming since you are casting the spell and you or your allies are using a second action to attack with them.
Assuming a Warlock because of the thread.
If you subscribe to the position that it's an Attack Action and Extra Attack applies, that's a lot for a Cantrip (but you and your allies are expending actions). If you using them yourself, you could potentially make 2 attacks (3 if Devouring Blade makes a comeback) per round.
If you believe that a Magic or other non-Attack Action is used, it's underwhelming and also breaks with Cantrip scaling patterns needlessly (in my opinion).
I feel like maybe 3 or 4 stones that deal 2d6 damage and scale up by +1d6 at 5, 11, and 17. The spell should specify the action required to attack with them. Would that be okay?
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.