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?
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?
Warlock Thristing/Devouring Blade wouldn't be applicable unless you bonded to a magical sling with pact of the blade.
If we compare the damage of a magical Sling using this to a magical Sling not using this the difference would be a 1d4 switched to a 1d10 at level 11. Let's compare to Eldritch Blast at the same levels.
So level 1 It's 1d6+CHA(3) ~6.5 vs 1d10 ~5.5
2: 1d6 + CHA(3) ~6.5 vs. 1d10+CHA (3,AB) ~8.5
4: 1d6 + CHA(4) ~7.5 vs. 1d10+CHA (4) ~ 9.5
5: 2*(1d8 + CHA(4) + Enc(1)) ~17 vs. 2*(1d10+CHA(4)) ~19
11: 2*(1d10 + CHA(4) + Enc(2)) ~24 vs 3*(1d10+CHA(4)) ~28.5
12: 3*(1d10 + CHA(5)+ Enc(2)) ~37.5 vs 3*(1d10+CHA(5)) ~31.5
17: 3*(1d12 + CHA(5) + Enc(3)) ~43.5 vs 4*(1d10+CHA(5)) ~42
Ok, the sling gets a bit more damage level 12+ assuming you get +1/+2/+3 magical weapons, but this is also lacking Hex, or another bonus action spell. With Magic Stone you're casting Magic Stone every 1~2 rounds which is a lost chance to hex or use some other form of Bonus Action. Naturally this all loses out to just using a Club/Quarterstaff with Shillelagh, and that can be boosted with PAM to get even higher numbers. So is this that powerful, no. Here is a PAM using Warlock with a standard 1d10 polearm vs Shillelagh for these same levels:
1: 1d10+CHA (3) ~8.5 vs 1d8+CHA(3) ~7.5
4: 1d4(PAM)+1d10+2*CHA(4) ~16 vs 1d4(PAM)+1d8+2*CHA(4) ~15
5: 1d4+2*1d10+3*(CHA(4) +Enc(1)) ~28.5 vs 1d4+2*1d10+3*(CHA(4) +Enc(1)) ~28.5
11: 1d4+2*1d10+3*(CHA(4) +Enc(2)) ~31.5 vs 1d4+2*1d12+3*(CHA(4) +Enc(2)) ~33.5
12: 1d4+3*1d10+4*(CHA(5) + Enc(2)) ~46.5 vs 1d4+3*1d12+4*(CHA(5) + Enc(2)) ~49.5
17: 1d4+3*1d10+4*(CHA(5) + Enc(3)) ~50.5 vs 1d4+3*2d6+4*(CHA(5) + Enc(3)) ~52
So if we are talking about cantrip damage, it's possible to make Shillelagh do far FAR more than Magic Stone can ever reach from a single warlock and it has essentially the same scaling, just 1 die higher and it goes 10 rounds from a single bonus action, instead of only 2 rounds at best.
Magic Stone really is just a way to give characters with low Dexterity a way to make attacks at 60 foot, but it's damage is already mediocre at best and then such characters are generally only going to be at 60 foot for how long? 1 round. It's a niche spell for niche instances, where closing the 60 foot gap isn't immediately available or doing so is giving up some tactical advantage (i.e. high ground). I don't think it breaks anything for magic stone to work the way I suggested and if anything it may in fact still be a little bit under powered.
Ok, the sling gets a bit more damage level 12+ assuming you get +1/+2/+3 magical weapons, but this is also lacking Hex, or another bonus action spell. With Magic Stone you're casting Magic Stone every 1~2 rounds which is a lost chance to hex or use some other form of Bonus Action.
Hex and Magic Stone aren't mutually exclusive, on the first round, maybe. You can make the argument for having Magic Stone cast ahead of the battle, depending on the scenario (I cast it before we enter the room, etc.) If you successfully make that case, every Magic Stone attack also benefits from Hex. If you hand them to a Ranger, it benefits from Hunter's Mark. If you are passing out magic rocks to the group (Pact of the Pez Dispenser), you won't have a bonus action to move Hex around, but if you keep all the rocks for yourself, it's manageable.
Naturally this all loses out to just using a Club/Quarterstaff with Shillelagh, and that can be boosted with PAM to get even higher numbers. So is this that powerful, no. Here is a PAM using Warlock with a standard 1d10 polearm vs Shillelagh for these same levels:
<SNIP>
So if we are talking about cantrip damage, it's possible to make Shillelagh do far FAR more than Magic Stone can ever reach from a single warlock and it has essentially the same scaling, just 1 die higher and it goes 10 rounds from a single bonus action, instead of only 2 rounds at best.
If you're going to bolster Shillelagh with an exceptionally strong feat (not necessarily invalid), you could at least pair Magic Stone with Crusher. Pairing it with Repelling Blast would, in my opinion, requires tenuous logic that I don't think will hold up to a rules update/errata so let's ignore it. Handing the stones to a level 9+ Fighter would allow them to pair Crusher with the Push mastery on a sling to trigger fall damage and the prone condition.
Still, on the Warlock themself Crusher adds 1 to 3 (Maximum 2 without legacy invocations) 5 foot pushes in any direction. As an aside, if you push them up on a hit, do the fall after each hit or after all the hits? If it's after all the hits, Crusher can add 1d6 falling damage and the prone condition once per round if 2-3 attacks hit. Alternatively, the push effect from Crusher could knock an opponent through a Spike Growth or off a cliff.
So, I don't think it's fair to compare a Cantrip on its own to a Cantrip with complementary feat.
I'll keep this one a bit shorter. Not going to worry about specific weapons, naturally legendary weapons break the game later on.
A spell like magic stone with a duration of one minute is not good for the whole "cast a room before", since the cast is so soon, your DM will be entitled to ambush you repeatedly as upcoming encounter foes hear you casting before entering the room, let alone trying to launch an ambush yourself. Casting it 1st round loses Hex, assuming thirsting blade at 5, you need to cast Magic Stone on the 1st turn, the 2nd turn and 4th turn. With the changes I suggest (PB stones), it'd go to 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc turns at level 9, then at level 12 with devouring blade it would be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th... then 13 it would be 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th.. and finally at 17th level 1st, 3rd, 5th.
Admittedly I compared Magic Stone vs Shillelagh but Crusher is not going to close that gap much, more so if the warlock then gets weapon mastery (feat/multiclass/etc) Quarterstaff gets topple which can be. However even without the feat. Shillelagh is 1 BA cast per minute and a higher damage die, so it'll always do more DPR anyway. However given PAM does exist, it's still by far a greater option.
I'll keep this one a bit shorter. Not going to worry about specific weapons, naturally legendary weapons break the game later on.
You mean a Hoopak? It's as legendary as a longsword. It's a traditional Kender weapon. I'm sure magical versions exist, but this is mundane. It's basically a staff sling but with a sharp point at the bottom; it's a spear that you can't throw with a sling on the other end of it. The basic sling is a "shepherd's sling".
A spell like magic stone with a duration of one minute is not good for the whole "cast a room before", since the cast is so soon, your DM will be entitled to ambush you repeatedly as upcoming encounter foes hear you casting before entering the room, let alone trying to launch an ambush yourself.
If your GM insists on removing the option to surprise or automatically surprising you because you are casting a spell while someone else opens the door, get a new GM. Even 30+ feet away from the closed door should be sufficient to maintain surprise and maintain most of the 10 rounds of duration.
Admittedly I compared Magic Stone vs Shillelagh but Crusher is not going to close that gap much, more so if the warlock then gets weapon mastery (feat/multiclass/etc) Quarterstaff gets topple which can be. However even without the feat. Shillelagh is 1 BA cast per minute and a higher damage die, so it'll always do more DPR anyway. However given PAM does exist, it's still by far a greater option.
You keep adding extra investments, now a second feat or multiclassing, in order pull Shillelagh ahead.
Crusher provides a different benefit than raw damage. Topple requires a save which will be dicey. Crusher is automatic. With Polearm Master, Pole Strike is always competing with Hex's Bonus Action and Reactive Strike only applies if someone enters your reach and not afterwards. If you are casting Hex and closing for the attack, what exactly is Polearm Master doing for you? If Magic Stone requiring a Bonus Action is a drawback for a Warlock because of Hex, the same drawback exists for Polearm Master except with Magic Stone, you might go a round without needing to use the Bonus Action.
Now, Shillelagh can also trigger Crusher, as long as you don't change the damage type. However, the question regarding when falling happens (at the end of each attack or after all attacks have resolved) still applies.
I'll keep this one a bit shorter. Not going to worry about specific weapons, naturally legendary weapons break the game later on.
You mean a Hoopak? It's as legendary as a longsword. It's a traditional Kender weapon. I'm sure magical versions exist, but this is mundane. It's basically a staff sling but with a sharp point at the bottom; it's a spear that you can't throw with a sling on the other end of it. The basic sling is a "shepherd's sling".
I meant, there is no need to break down into every potential option for slings and quarterstaves. We can just stick with basic sling and quarterstaff for the comparison.
A spell like magic stone with a duration of one minute is not good for the whole "cast a room before", since the cast is so soon, your DM will be entitled to ambush you repeatedly as upcoming encounter foes hear you casting before entering the room, let alone trying to launch an ambush yourself.
If your GM insists on removing the option to surprise or automatically surprising you because you are casting a spell while someone else opens the door, get a new GM. Even 30+ feet away from the closed door should be sufficient to maintain surprise and maintain most of the 10 rounds of duration.
If every dungeon is a building with doors at every corner, then it's also an issue. Not all dungeons are the same, and spells are components for a reason, if the GM is handwaving these things every time, that is down to them but it's not how the rules have these things going down. Ultimately the whole "cast it before the battle" isn't applicable every time and the limited number of pebbles would heavily interfere with a class like Warlock when using spells like Hex.
Admittedly I compared Magic Stone vs Shillelagh but Crusher is not going to close that gap much, more so if the warlock then gets weapon mastery (feat/multiclass/etc) Quarterstaff gets topple which can be. However even without the feat. Shillelagh is 1 BA cast per minute and a higher damage die, so it'll always do more DPR anyway. However given PAM does exist, it's still by far a greater option.
You keep adding extra investments, now a second feat or multiclassing, in order pull Shillelagh ahead.
Crusher provides a different benefit than raw damage. Topple requires a save which will be dicey. Crusher is automatic. With Polearm Master, Pole Strike is always competing with Hex's Bonus Action and Reactive Strike only applies if someone enters your reach and not afterwards. If you are casting Hex and closing for the attack, what exactly is Polearm Master doing for you? If Magic Stone requiring a Bonus Action is a drawback for a Warlock because of Hex, the same drawback exists for Polearm Master except with Magic Stone, you might go a round without needing to use the Bonus Action.
Now, Shillelagh can also trigger Crusher, as long as you don't change the damage type. However, the question regarding when falling happens (at the end of each attack or after all attacks have resolved) still applies.
Crusher's 5 foot push is automatic 1 per turn, so long as the creature is not two sizes or more larger than you. Crusher's advantage is automatic on Critical but that is not a reliable way of getting advantage, there are other ways to get advantage which can be better from other classes and generally would not want to be relying on a Warlock for doing this. On top of this, PAM also gives an additional reaction, one that can trigger far easier than opportunity attacks normally would.
With Polearm Master, you wouldn't use Hex, you'd use spirit shroud which comes online at level 5, so no need to be burning Bonus Actions. Using a sling, you don't want to be getting into that close else you could get caught since if anything got within 5 foot, you've now got disadvantage and have to get away in one form or another. Of course if you did want to guarantee it as a warlock... there is Eldritch Smite, sure you gotta attack once first and is now limited to huge monsters, but that is more reliable against anything that isn't larger than Huge.
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.
Warlock Thristing/Devouring Blade wouldn't be applicable unless you bonded to a magical sling with pact of the blade.
If we compare the damage of a magical Sling using this to a magical Sling not using this the difference would be a 1d4 switched to a 1d10 at level 11. Let's compare to Eldritch Blast at the same levels.
So level 1 It's 1d6+CHA(3) ~6.5 vs 1d10 ~5.5
2: 1d6 + CHA(3) ~6.5 vs. 1d10+CHA (3,AB) ~8.5
4: 1d6 + CHA(4) ~7.5 vs. 1d10+CHA (4) ~ 9.5
5: 2*(1d8 + CHA(4) + Enc(1)) ~17 vs. 2*(1d10+CHA(4)) ~19
11: 2*(1d10 + CHA(4) + Enc(2)) ~24 vs 3*(1d10+CHA(4)) ~28.5
12: 3*(1d10 + CHA(5)+ Enc(2)) ~37.5 vs 3*(1d10+CHA(5)) ~31.5
17: 3*(1d12 + CHA(5) + Enc(3)) ~43.5 vs 4*(1d10+CHA(5)) ~42
Ok, the sling gets a bit more damage level 12+ assuming you get +1/+2/+3 magical weapons, but this is also lacking Hex, or another bonus action spell. With Magic Stone you're casting Magic Stone every 1~2 rounds which is a lost chance to hex or use some other form of Bonus Action. Naturally this all loses out to just using a Club/Quarterstaff with Shillelagh, and that can be boosted with PAM to get even higher numbers. So is this that powerful, no. Here is a PAM using Warlock with a standard 1d10 polearm vs Shillelagh for these same levels:
1: 1d10+CHA (3) ~8.5 vs 1d8+CHA(3) ~7.5
4: 1d4(PAM)+1d10+2*CHA(4) ~16 vs 1d4(PAM)+1d8+2*CHA(4) ~15
5: 1d4+2*1d10+3*(CHA(4) +Enc(1)) ~28.5 vs 1d4+2*1d10+3*(CHA(4) +Enc(1)) ~28.5
11: 1d4+2*1d10+3*(CHA(4) +Enc(2)) ~31.5 vs 1d4+2*1d12+3*(CHA(4) +Enc(2)) ~33.5
12: 1d4+3*1d10+4*(CHA(5) + Enc(2)) ~46.5 vs 1d4+3*1d12+4*(CHA(5) + Enc(2)) ~49.5
17: 1d4+3*1d10+4*(CHA(5) + Enc(3)) ~50.5 vs 1d4+3*2d6+4*(CHA(5) + Enc(3)) ~52
So if we are talking about cantrip damage, it's possible to make Shillelagh do far FAR more than Magic Stone can ever reach from a single warlock and it has essentially the same scaling, just 1 die higher and it goes 10 rounds from a single bonus action, instead of only 2 rounds at best.
Magic Stone really is just a way to give characters with low Dexterity a way to make attacks at 60 foot, but it's damage is already mediocre at best and then such characters are generally only going to be at 60 foot for how long? 1 round. It's a niche spell for niche instances, where closing the 60 foot gap isn't immediately available or doing so is giving up some tactical advantage (i.e. high ground). I don't think it breaks anything for magic stone to work the way I suggested and if anything it may in fact still be a little bit under powered.
Or summoned a Hoopack (Dragonlance), it's a martial melee weapon that can be used as a sling.
Hex and Magic Stone aren't mutually exclusive, on the first round, maybe. You can make the argument for having Magic Stone cast ahead of the battle, depending on the scenario (I cast it before we enter the room, etc.) If you successfully make that case, every Magic Stone attack also benefits from Hex. If you hand them to a Ranger, it benefits from Hunter's Mark. If you are passing out magic rocks to the group (Pact of the Pez Dispenser), you won't have a bonus action to move Hex around, but if you keep all the rocks for yourself, it's manageable.
If you're going to bolster Shillelagh with an exceptionally strong feat (not necessarily invalid), you could at least pair Magic Stone with Crusher. Pairing it with Repelling Blast would, in my opinion, requires tenuous logic that I don't think will hold up to a rules update/errata so let's ignore it. Handing the stones to a level 9+ Fighter would allow them to pair Crusher with the Push mastery on a sling to trigger fall damage and the prone condition.
Still, on the Warlock themself Crusher adds 1 to 3 (Maximum 2 without legacy invocations) 5 foot pushes in any direction. As an aside, if you push them up on a hit, do the fall after each hit or after all the hits? If it's after all the hits, Crusher can add 1d6 falling damage and the prone condition once per round if 2-3 attacks hit. Alternatively, the push effect from Crusher could knock an opponent through a Spike Growth or off a cliff.
So, I don't think it's fair to compare a Cantrip on its own to a Cantrip with complementary feat.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I'll keep this one a bit shorter. Not going to worry about specific weapons, naturally legendary weapons break the game later on.
A spell like magic stone with a duration of one minute is not good for the whole "cast a room before", since the cast is so soon, your DM will be entitled to ambush you repeatedly as upcoming encounter foes hear you casting before entering the room, let alone trying to launch an ambush yourself. Casting it 1st round loses Hex, assuming thirsting blade at 5, you need to cast Magic Stone on the 1st turn, the 2nd turn and 4th turn. With the changes I suggest (PB stones), it'd go to 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc turns at level 9, then at level 12 with devouring blade it would be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th... then 13 it would be 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th.. and finally at 17th level 1st, 3rd, 5th.
Admittedly I compared Magic Stone vs Shillelagh but Crusher is not going to close that gap much, more so if the warlock then gets weapon mastery (feat/multiclass/etc) Quarterstaff gets topple which can be. However even without the feat. Shillelagh is 1 BA cast per minute and a higher damage die, so it'll always do more DPR anyway. However given PAM does exist, it's still by far a greater option.
You mean a Hoopak? It's as legendary as a longsword. It's a traditional Kender weapon. I'm sure magical versions exist, but this is mundane. It's basically a staff sling but with a sharp point at the bottom; it's a spear that you can't throw with a sling on the other end of it. The basic sling is a "shepherd's sling".
If your GM insists on removing the option to surprise or automatically surprising you because you are casting a spell while someone else opens the door, get a new GM. Even 30+ feet away from the closed door should be sufficient to maintain surprise and maintain most of the 10 rounds of duration.
You keep adding extra investments, now a second feat or multiclassing, in order pull Shillelagh ahead.
Crusher provides a different benefit than raw damage. Topple requires a save which will be dicey. Crusher is automatic. With Polearm Master, Pole Strike is always competing with Hex's Bonus Action and Reactive Strike only applies if someone enters your reach and not afterwards. If you are casting Hex and closing for the attack, what exactly is Polearm Master doing for you? If Magic Stone requiring a Bonus Action is a drawback for a Warlock because of Hex, the same drawback exists for Polearm Master except with Magic Stone, you might go a round without needing to use the Bonus Action.
Now, Shillelagh can also trigger Crusher, as long as you don't change the damage type. However, the question regarding when falling happens (at the end of each attack or after all attacks have resolved) still applies.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I meant, there is no need to break down into every potential option for slings and quarterstaves. We can just stick with basic sling and quarterstaff for the comparison.
If every dungeon is a building with doors at every corner, then it's also an issue. Not all dungeons are the same, and spells are components for a reason, if the GM is handwaving these things every time, that is down to them but it's not how the rules have these things going down. Ultimately the whole "cast it before the battle" isn't applicable every time and the limited number of pebbles would heavily interfere with a class like Warlock when using spells like Hex.
Crusher's 5 foot push is automatic 1 per turn, so long as the creature is not two sizes or more larger than you. Crusher's advantage is automatic on Critical but that is not a reliable way of getting advantage, there are other ways to get advantage which can be better from other classes and generally would not want to be relying on a Warlock for doing this. On top of this, PAM also gives an additional reaction, one that can trigger far easier than opportunity attacks normally would.
With Polearm Master, you wouldn't use Hex, you'd use spirit shroud which comes online at level 5, so no need to be burning Bonus Actions. Using a sling, you don't want to be getting into that close else you could get caught since if anything got within 5 foot, you've now got disadvantage and have to get away in one form or another. Of course if you did want to guarantee it as a warlock... there is Eldritch Smite, sure you gotta attack once first and is now limited to huge monsters, but that is more reliable against anything that isn't larger than Huge.