Shadow blade - Unsure. It uses the "on hit" wording, but it seems to be laid out more like just giving the stats of a weapon, and it might open the door for summoning spells being damaging spells? For consistency I'll have to say yes though. Flame blade - Yes. Hail of Thorns - Yes, it's a separate spell effect that's triggered by the attack. Searing Smite - Partly no. I'd lean towards the "extra" damage on the hit counting as modifying the weapon attack itself, and is therefore augmenting the weapon rather than being a separate spell effect? But I'd accept a ruling otherwise and the burning over time is definitely damage dealt by the spell. Holy/Elemental Weapon - No/maybe, same reasoning as above. Swift Quiver - No? Probably not? Though I can't think of any features it would matter for.
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) . . .
. . .
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).
Spells basically never work that way though. The only way that the Attack action could be involved in any way is if the spell description actually explicitly uses the phrase "Attack action" somewhere in its text. Otherwise, if the spell just describes making some sort of an attack, then that attack is just part of the spell effect. If that attack requires a separate action to execute (which is actually unclear in Magic Stone's description since it never says something like "As an action, you can . . .") then that action is just a uniquely defined action that functions exactly as described in the spell description -- it's not an Attack action or a Magic action unless the spell description says so.
For example, Chill Touch just says: "make a melee spell attack against a target within reach". That attack has nothing to do with an Attack action.
To get closer to the structure of the spell in question, the 2014 Produce Flame just says: "as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you. Make a ranged spell attack". This attack has nothing to do with an Attack action or a Magic action (which didn't exist back then). It's just a unique action that is defined by the spell description. This is similar to how monsters have unique actions that they can take that are defined in their stat block.
Because of this, features such as Extra Attack should not apply.
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.
This is wrong. The activity in question is described right there in the cantrip's description! Of course it's part of the cantrip. Everything in that portion of a spell description is part of the spell's effect. The cantrip itself is non-instantaneous. The activity in question can occur at any time that the magical effect remains active. That's how all non-instantaneous spells work.
If I cast Moonbeam on an empty space and then a half-minute later that beam interacts with a creature and causes damage to it -- that magical effect, which still exists, is still doing damage to a creature. The damage does not have to occur at the moment of the spell casting in order for it to be a spell that deals damage.
The spell also does not have to directly target a creature in order to deal damage. In this way, Magic Stone is very similar to Moonbeam or even Fireball, which is instantaneous. In the case of Fireball, you do not directly target any creatures -- you target a point in space. The resulting magical effect, which originates at that point in space, then spreads out from there to indirectly target creatures in the nearby area. The magical effect deals damage to those creatures. Therefore, Fireball is a spell that deals damage. Similarly, Magic Stone does not directly target any creatures. But they are indirectly targeted by virtue of the fact that the spell description describes a spell attack that is made against those creatures. If such creatures are affected by this spell attack (within the one-minute duration) then the magical effect that was created by Magic Stone deals damage to the creature. Therefore, Magic Stone is a spell that deals damage.
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.
Just to pick one, we can use Booming Blade as an example. This spell functions slightly differently than Magic Stone. Booming Blade is much more like Shillelagh for the purposes of this discussion. That spell targets "self" and just modifies the properties of the weapon that the spellcaster is holding, essentially turning it into a magic item weapon (sort of like a longsword +1 or whatever). The spell description then allows an attack to be made with that weapon. But, in general, if you just make an attack with a longsword +1 you aren't causing the creature that you hit to be affected by any sort of magical effect. You are just making an attack which in 2014 was classified as a "weapon attack" (as opposed to a "spell attack"), even though you are wielding a magical weapon. Even the potential resulting Thunder damage described in the Booming Blade description is just a result of being hit with this temporarily magical weapon (sort of like Flame-Tongue or whatever) -- it's not the spell's magical effect interacting with the creature.
In contrast, Magic Stone's spell description specifies a "spell attack", similar to Chill Touch or Produce Flame. The spell's magical effect is dealing damage to the creature when the stone which carries that magical effect comes into contact with it in a specific way. So, the Magic Stone spell deals damage.
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 . . .
All of this is wrong. The Attack action is never used. The spell description describes its own unique activity, which we are assuming requires an action, to make a "spell attack" against a creature. In 2014 terminology, this meant that the spell itself was attacking a creature -- or, in other words, an attack was being made with a magical effect, not with a weapon. Saying that this attack is not part of the cantrip makes no sense -- it's right there in the spell description. This attack does not benefit from Extra Attack for these reasons. It's a spell attack that's defined by the spell.
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.
No. Nothing in the Magic Stone spell description has anything to do with improvised weapons. It's important not to confuse the casting of this spell with the action of just picking up a rock and throwing it. The spell defines how it works and how much damage is dealt. The improvised weapon rules are irrelevant here.
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.
You can keep re-iterating this if you choose, but every time this is said it's just as wrong as the last time that it was said. Of course there is an attack that can be performed as part of the cantrip -- it's right there in the cantrip's description.
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.
No, mechanically Lightning Arrow works differently than Magic Stone. Lightning Arrow (2014) started with "The next time you make a ranged weapon attack during the spell’s duration", so that attack is initiated outside of the confines of the spell. That attack certain can be part of an Attack action which can then later use the Extra Attack feature.
Magic Stone doesn't work that way. Instead, it defines an action that can be taken within the spell description itself. As such, this attack cannot be taken as part of an Attack action, it is taken as part of the Magic Stone spell (sort of like Booming Blade in that particular way).
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.
. . .
You need to define concepts . . . Not our own personal opinion about what should count as a damage dealing spell or not.
None of this is personal opinion. The concepts are defined within a large block of rules under the heading "Damage and Healing" and also in the entire subsection under the heading "Casting Spells". Most of the relevant portions have already been quoted and explained previously in the thread and by your comments here it appears that you've missed the point.
It's not so much that something is created that later deals damage.
When you cast a spell, a magical effect is created at the specified creature, object, or location. The rest of the spell description will then typically go on to describe what happens if and when that magical effect interacts with a creature in the environment. If that magical effect deals damage to a creature, then the spell that created that magical effect is a spell that deals damage.
What does it mean to "deal damage"? We can look to the Damage and Healing section for some clarity on that:
Each weapon, spell, and damaging monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage dice, add any modifiers, and deal the damage to your target.
Besides actual spell targeting, what do the 2024 rules say about what can be considered to be a target?
A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon.
A spell such as Teleport really doesn't qualify within the above concepts. It happens to have this feature:
"Mishap. The spell’s unpredictable magic results in a difficult journey. Each teleporting creature (or the target object) takes 3d10 Force damage, and the DM rerolls on the table to see where you wind up (multiple mishaps can occur, dealing damage each time)."
Such creatures are not targets of the teleport spell. They are not victims of an attack roll, they are not forced to make a saving throw by an effect and they are not selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon. There is no actual spell effect anywhere in the environment that interacts with these creatures to cause damage. This is just damage that is happening to the creature as a result of a difficult journey -- the instantaneous magical effect is long gone by then. The spell is not dealing damage.
In contrast, Magic Stone meets all of these criteria. When the spell is cast, a magical effect is created on a pebble. That effect is ongoing for 1 minute, during which time it would travel along with the pebble. The spell description describes a couple of methods of moving this pebble in such a way that this magical effect interacts with a target creature. These methods are specifically described as making a "spell attack". Thus, on a hit, it's the magical effect, not the pebble, which is causing the bludgeoning damage. After all, "pebbles" are typically quite small and might be expected to do no damage at all when thrown at someone normally. Who knows? Perhaps if they were fired out of a gun, they would do piercing damage, but that's not what we're talking about here.
The point is, based on everything we know about how the game works as described above, Magic Stone is a spell that deals damage.
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.
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) . . .
. . .
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).
Spells basically never work that way though. The only way that the Attack action could be involved in any way is if the spell description actually explicitly uses the phrase "Attack action" somewhere in its text.
Lightning Arrow does though, as you address below. It just requires at attack to be made, and could also conceivably apply to other regular weapon attacks not made with the Attack action, like the War Cleric's War Priest feature. All the 2014 smite spells and 2014 Hail of Thorns also function this way, where you pre-cast it and then the trigger for the spell effect occurring is making a regular weapon attack, so there's hardly a lack of precedent for this interpretation.
Magic Stone doesn't work that way. Instead, it defines an action that can be taken within the spell description itself. As such, this attack cannot be taken as part of an Attack action, it is taken as part of the Magic Stone spell (sort of like Booming Blade in that particular way).
It doesn't define any action though. It just describe the triggering activities, throwing and hurling, which would normally be done through a weapon attack. Given all the above-mentioned precedent for regular attacks triggering pre-cast spell effect, there doesn't seem to be much reason to think this would be an entirely novel action. The spell effect replacing both the attack roll and the effect of the attack instead of just the effect is unusual, but not enough to to merit concluding that throwing the stone or flinging it from a sling to trigger the spell effect could be an entirely different type of action from throwing an improvised weapon or flinging a bullet from a sling.
Shadow blade - Unsure. It uses the "on hit" wording, but it seems to be laid out more like just giving the stats of a weapon, and it might open the door for summoning spells being damaging spells? For consistency I'll have to say yes though. Flame blade - Yes. Hail of Thorns - Yes, it's a separate spell effect that's triggered by the attack. Searing Smite - Partly no. I'd lean towards the "extra" damage on the hit counting as modifying the weapon attack itself, and is therefore augmenting the weapon rather than being a separate spell effect? But I'd accept a ruling otherwise and the burning over time is definitely damage dealt by the spell. Holy/Elemental Weapon - No/maybe, same reasoning as above. Swift Quiver - No? Probably not? Though I can't think of any features it would matter for.
Shadow Blade -- No. This is more like Shillelagh. It modifies a weapon, potentially creating a magical weapon that you can then later make "weapon attacks" with. Such attacks are not the spell dealing damage.
Flame Blade -- Yes. "You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade." This non-instantaneous spell deals damage when this action is taken.
Hail of Thorns -- Yes. This one is tricky because it has a range of self, so the magical effect is initially created at the spellcaster's location. But, like Magic Stone, it's a non-instantaneous duration magical effect that travels with the ammunition and subsequently interacts with a target creature by dealing damage to it. Mechanically, it's slightly different than Magic Stone since the effect itself is not attacking the target via a spell attack -- instead, it sort of activates at the target creature's location when that creature is hit by a normal attack. But it's still a magical effect that "this spell creates" at that location. This spell deals damage.
Searing Smite -- Yes. By virtue of the fact that the creature who was hit is ignited in flames "until the spell ends", there is clearly a magical effect interacting with that creature which is capable of dealing damage to that creature. This spell deals damage.
----------
This is actually causing me to re-think my initial thoughts about Booming Blade, due to exactly how the extra Thunder damage gets applied to that creature -- perhaps that's less of a "flame-tongue" type interaction and is instead actually a magical effect from the spell that persists for 1 round that is interacting with the creature that potentially deals damage to that creature.
----------
Holy / Elemental Weapon -- No. Attacking with a magic weapon is not the same as a spell dealing damage. In the 2014 rules this was pretty clearly differentiated. Wielding a magic weapon was still a "weapon attack" and not a "spell attack". These spells create a magic weapon. These spells do not deal damage.
Swift Quiver -- No. This spell increases your ammunition supply and your action economy. There is no magical effect in the environment that is interacting with any creatures to deal damage to them. This spell does not deal damage.
Lightning Arrow -- No. This one is pretty difficult, and I expect most people to disagree with this. Intuitively, it sure seems like a damage dealing spell. But really, this spell is just modifying the ammunition itself when a normal ranged weapon attack (not a spell attack) is being made against a target creature. The damage amount and the damage type are modified, but this is more akin to just attacking with a magic weapon than a spell that is attacking and/or dealing damage to a creature. Even the subsequent saving throw damage could be interpreted to be more like a "flame-tongue" type property of the weapon rather than being caused by the existence of an ongoing magical effect in that area. Perhaps controversially, this spell does not deal damage.
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.
Since this has come up a few times, it's worth pointing something out about this as well.
Going by what was posted in the original post of this thread, Agonizing Blast doesn't care about which parts of a spell might apply, and which don't:
Agonizing Blast
Prerequisite: Level 2+ Warlock, a Warlock Cantrip That Deals Damage
Choose one of your known Warlock cantrips that deals damage. You can add your Charisma modifier to that spell’s damage rolls.
It only cares if the cantrip deals damage. Either the cantrip deals damage or it doesn't. For a spell like Booming Blade, if you determine that the extra Thunder damage is caused by a magical effect that was created by the spell, then the spell deals damage. Therefore, you can add your Charisma modifier to that spell's damage rolls. So, whatever you determine the spell's damage rolls to be, you can add your Charisma modifier to them unconditionally.
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.
Just to pick one, we can use Booming Blade as an example. This spell functions slightly differently than Magic Stone. Booming Blade is much more like Shillelagh for the purposes of this discussion. That spell targets "self" and just modifies the properties of the weapon that the spellcaster is holding, essentially turning it into a magic item weapon (sort of like a longsword +1 or whatever). The spell description then allows an attack to be made with that weapon. But, in general, if you just make an attack with a longsword +1 you aren't causing the creature that you hit to be affected by any sort of magical effect. You are just making an attack which in 2014 was classified as a "weapon attack" (as opposed to a "spell attack"), even though you are wielding a magical weapon. Even the potential resulting Thunder damage described in the Booming Blade description is just a result of being hit with this temporarily magical weapon (sort of like Flame-Tongue or whatever) -- it's not the spell's magical effect interacting with the creature.
In contrast, Magic Stone's spell description specifies a "spell attack", similar to Chill Touch or Produce Flame. The spell's magical effect is dealing damage to the creature when the stone which carries that magical effect comes into contact with it in a specific way. So, the Magic Stone spell deals damage.
All of this I do agree with. 2024 muddied this up a bit, but under 2014 rules at least, True Strike, GFB and BB are all weapon attacks with a spell and a weapon, not spell attacks.
I still maintain that the trigger for the Magic Stone magical effect can be making an attack though, like the smite spells and hail of thorns/lightning arrow, rather than a bespoke action, and the magical effect then subsequently replaces both the attack roll and the effect of the attack.
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?
Magic Stone and Shillelagh are both damage dealing spells equivalent to Shadowblade and Flameblade in that they create a magical weapon defined in the spell that you can then make attacks with.
True Strike, GFB, BB are like the Smite spells and Hail of Thorns. The weapon attack is not magical and not the "damage of the spell" but the added damage is the damage of the spell and makes them damage dealing cantrips. The only annoying one is True Strike because it can change the damage type of the weapon to radiant without altering the damage roll, so it's possible the weapon damage is also part of the spell, but IMO this spell is RAI meant to work like GFB/BB so would rule it the same as those for consistency.
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) . . .
. . .
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).
Spells basically never work that way though. The only way that the Attack action could be involved in any way is if the spell description actually explicitly uses the phrase "Attack action" somewhere in its text. Otherwise, if the spell just describes making some sort of an attack, then that attack is just part of the spell effect. If that attack requires a separate action to execute (which is actually unclear in Magic Stone's description since it never says something like "As an action, you can . . .") then that action is just a uniquely defined action that functions exactly as described in the spell description -- it's not an Attack action or a Magic action unless the spell description says so.
For example, Chill Touch just says: "make a melee spell attack against a target within reach". That attack has nothing to do with an Attack action.
To get closer to the structure of the spell in question, the 2014 Produce Flame just says: "as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you. Make a ranged spell attack". This attack has nothing to do with an Attack action or a Magic action (which didn't exist back then). It's just a unique action that is defined by the spell description. This is similar to how monsters have unique actions that they can take that are defined in their stat block.
Because of this, features such as Extra Attack should not apply.
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.
This is wrong. The activity in question is described right there in the cantrip's description! Of course it's part of the cantrip. Everything in that portion of a spell description is part of the spell's effect. The cantrip itself is non-instantaneous. The activity in question can occur at any time that the magical effect remains active. That's how all non-instantaneous spells work.
If I cast Moonbeam on an empty space and then a half-minute later that beam interacts with a creature and causes damage to it -- that magical effect, which still exists, is still doing damage to a creature. The damage does not have to occur at the moment of the spell casting in order for it to be a spell that deals damage.
The spell also does not have to directly target a creature in order to deal damage. In this way, Magic Stone is very similar to Moonbeam or even Fireball, which is instantaneous. In the case of Fireball, you do not directly target any creatures -- you target a point in space. The resulting magical effect, which originates at that point in space, then spreads out from there to indirectly target creatures in the nearby area. The magical effect deals damage to those creatures. Therefore, Fireball is a spell that deals damage. Similarly, Magic Stone does not directly target any creatures. But they are indirectly targeted by virtue of the fact that the spell description describes a spell attack that is made against those creatures. If such creatures are affected by this spell attack (within the one-minute duration) then the magical effect that was created by Magic Stone deals damage to the creature. Therefore, Magic Stone is a spell that deals damage.
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.
Just to pick one, we can use Booming Blade as an example. This spell functions slightly differently than Magic Stone. Booming Blade is much more like Shillelagh for the purposes of this discussion. That spell targets "self" and just modifies the properties of the weapon that the spellcaster is holding, essentially turning it into a magic item weapon (sort of like a longsword +1 or whatever). The spell description then allows an attack to be made with that weapon. But, in general, if you just make an attack with a longsword +1 you aren't causing the creature that you hit to be affected by any sort of magical effect. You are just making an attack which in 2014 was classified as a "weapon attack" (as opposed to a "spell attack"), even though you are wielding a magical weapon. Even the potential resulting Thunder damage described in the Booming Blade description is just a result of being hit with this temporarily magical weapon (sort of like Flame-Tongue or whatever) -- it's not the spell's magical effect interacting with the creature.
In contrast, Magic Stone's spell description specifies a "spell attack", similar to Chill Touch or Produce Flame. The spell's magical effect is dealing damage to the creature when the stone which carries that magical effect comes into contact with it in a specific way. So, the Magic Stone spell deals damage.
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 . . .
All of this is wrong. The Attack action is never used. The spell description describes its own unique activity, which we are assuming requires an action, to make a "spell attack" against a creature. In 2014 terminology, this meant that the spell itself was attacking a creature -- or, in other words, an attack was being made with a magical effect, not with a weapon. Saying that this attack is not part of the cantrip makes no sense -- it's right there in the spell description. This attack does not benefit from Extra Attack for these reasons. It's a spell attack that's defined by the spell.
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.
No. Nothing in the Magic Stone spell description has anything to do with improvised weapons. It's important not to confuse the casting of this spell with the action of just picking up a rock and throwing it. The spell defines how it works and how much damage is dealt. The improvised weapon rules are irrelevant here.
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.
You can keep re-iterating this if you choose, but every time this is said it's just as wrong as the last time that it was said. Of course there is an attack that can be performed as part of the cantrip -- it's right there in the cantrip's description.
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.
No, mechanically Lightning Arrow works differently than Magic Stone. Lightning Arrow (2014) started with "The next time you make a ranged weapon attack during the spell’s duration", so that attack is initiated outside of the confines of the spell. That attack certain can be part of an Attack action which can then later use the Extra Attack feature.
Magic Stone doesn't work that way. Instead, it defines an action that can be taken within the spell description itself. As such, this attack cannot be taken as part of an Attack action, it is taken as part of the Magic Stone spell (sort of like Booming Blade in that particular way).
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.
. . .
You need to define concepts . . . Not our own personal opinion about what should count as a damage dealing spell or not.
None of this is personal opinion. The concepts are defined within a large block of rules under the heading "Damage and Healing" and also in the entire subsection under the heading "Casting Spells". Most of the relevant portions have already been quoted and explained previously in the thread and by your comments here it appears that you've missed the point.
It's not so much that something is created that later deals damage.
When you cast a spell, a magical effect is created at the specified creature, object, or location. The rest of the spell description will then typically go on to describe what happens if and when that magical effect interacts with a creature in the environment. If that magical effect deals damage to a creature, then the spell that created that magical effect is a spell that deals damage.
What does it mean to "deal damage"? We can look to the Damage and Healing section for some clarity on that:
Each weapon, spell, and damaging monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage dice, add any modifiers, and deal the damage to your target.
Besides actual spell targeting, what do the 2024 rules say about what can be considered to be a target?
A target is the creature or object targeted by an attack roll, forced to make a saving throw by an effect, or selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon.
A spell such as Teleport really doesn't qualify within the above concepts. It happens to have this feature:
"Mishap. The spell’s unpredictable magic results in a difficult journey. Each teleporting creature (or the target object) takes 3d10 Force damage, and the DM rerolls on the table to see where you wind up (multiple mishaps can occur, dealing damage each time)."
Such creatures are not targets of the teleport spell. They are not victims of an attack roll, they are not forced to make a saving throw by an effect and they are not selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon. There is no actual spell effect anywhere in the environment that interacts with these creatures to cause damage. This is just damage that is happening to the creature as a result of a difficult journey -- the instantaneous magical effect is long gone by then. The spell is not dealing damage.
In contrast, Magic Stone meets all of these criteria. When the spell is cast, a magical effect is created on a pebble. That effect is ongoing for 1 minute, during which time it would travel along with the pebble. The spell description describes a couple of methods of moving this pebble in such a way that this magical effect interacts with a target creature. These methods are specifically described as making a "spell attack". Thus, on a hit, it's the magical effect, not the pebble, which is causing the bludgeoning damage. After all, "pebbles" are typically quite small and might be expected to do no damage at all when thrown at someone normally. Who knows? Perhaps if they were fired out of a gun, they would do piercing damage, but that's not what we're talking about here.
The point is, based on everything we know about how the game works as described above, Magic Stone is a spell that deals damage.
So when you choose which creatures will teleport when you cast Teleport, that doesn't count as "selected to receive the effects of a spell"? You're literally doing that! What's the effect of the spell? It makes creatures teleport. How do you know which creatures teleport when you cast the spell? You select them. If you read this quote and your conclusion is that Teleport either doesn't target or that its targets don't receive the effects of a spell, then I don't know if reading the entire book to you would make any difference.
And how long do you think it takes for Teleport's effect to happen? "the instantaneous magical effect is long gone by then" What? Long gone? This is all happening instantly. Otherwise you could argue that Fire Bolt doesn't deal damage because the instantaneous magical effect is to hurl a mote of fire at someone or something. Then the mote of fire flies through the air, all the way to the target, and by the time it reaches it, the magical effect that created and hurled the mote is long gone. What are you talking about?
And just to be clear, I'm not saying Teleport should count as a damage dealing spell. Of course not. But you're arbitrarily choosing what counts and what doesn't, and using a different criteria to judge each spell. So Teleport doesn't deal damage. Okay, then what does? Where does that 3d10 Force damage come from? Right, "This is just damage that is happening to the creature as a result of a difficult journey". So Fire Bolt doesn't deal damage, the damage is dealt by the mote of fire created by the spell, not by the spell itself. Again, what? The only reason why that more of fire exists is because Fire Bolt created it, so the spell dealt the damage. The only reason that whole difficult journey even happened is because of the Teleport spell. The spell caused the whole effect to happen, so the spell dealt the damage. Or we can say "well, the mote of fire doesn't actually deal damage, it's the burns caused by the fire that deal the damage." I know how ridiculous these explanations sound, I'm not saying that's how it works. But this is basically what you're doing with some spells because to you it doesn't feel like they deal damage.
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.
That's the same for Lightning Arrow. Lightning arrow replaces the damage of the arrow with the damage of the spell by transforming the arrow into a bolt of lightning, which is the same as Shillelagh which replaces the damage of your club with the damage of the spell.
Tenser's Transformation is equivalent to Holy Weapon or Smite spells in terms of dealing damage as it adds 2d12 damage to weapon attacks though it applies to all weapons not a specific weapon. It is a damage dealing spell.
Draconic Transformation is also a damage dealing spell since the spell gives you a breath weapon with defined damage roll.
Dragon's Breath likewise is a damage dealing spell despite it only giving you the ability to use an action to deal damage on later turns.
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.
That's the same for Lightning Arrow. Lightning arrow replaces the damage of the arrow with the damage of the spell by transforming the arrow into a bolt of lightning, which is the same as Shillelagh which replaces the damage of your club with the damage of the spell.
I disagree, I still think there's a material difference between Shillelagh saying the damage die stat of the object becomes something and then letting you resolve that through the normal rules for a weapon attack, and Lightning Arrow and Magic Stone replacing the normal effects of the attack with an on hit effect that does damage. One modifies the properties of the object, the other replaces the attack (or its outcome) entirely with a magical effect.
So when you choose which creatures will teleport when you cast Teleport, that doesn't count as "selected to receive the effects of a spell"? You're literally doing that! What's the effect of the spell? It makes creatures teleport. How do you know which creatures teleport when you cast the spell? You select them. If you read this quote and your conclusion is that Teleport either doesn't target or that its targets don't receive the effects of a spell, then I don't know if reading the entire book to you would make any difference.
And how long do you think it takes for Teleport's effect to happen? "the instantaneous magical effect is long gone by then" What? Long gone? This is all happening instantly. Otherwise you could argue that Fire Bolt doesn't deal damage because the instantaneous magical effect is to hurl a mote of fire at someone or something. Then the mote of fire flies through the air, all the way to the target, and by the time it reaches it, the magical effect that created and hurled the mote is long gone. What are you talking about?
And just to be clear, I'm not saying Teleport should count as a damage dealing spell. Of course not. But you're arbitrarily choosing what counts and what doesn't, and using a different criteria to judge each spell. So Teleport doesn't deal damage. Okay, then what does? Where does that 3d10 Force damage come from? Right, "This is just damage that is happening to the creature as a result of a difficult journey". So Fire Bolt doesn't deal damage, the damage is dealt by the mote of fire created by the spell, not by the spell itself. Again, what? The only reason why that more of fire exists is because Fire Bolt created it, so the spell dealt the damage. The only reason that whole difficult journey even happened is because of the Teleport spell. The spell caused the whole effect to happen, so the spell dealt the damage. Or we can say "well, the mote of fire doesn't actually deal damage, it's the burns caused by the fire that deal the damage." I know how ridiculous these explanations sound, I'm not saying that's how it works. But this is basically what you're doing with some spells because to you it doesn't feel like they deal damage.
You are misunderstanding what is going on here. Yes, the Teleport spell requires you to select targets for the spell. But this spell doesn't deal damage to any targets. You said it yourself. What's the effect of the spell? It makes creatures teleport. That's it. That's what the magical effect actually does when it interacts with the target creatures while that magical effect actually exists for an instantaneous amount of time. Whatever happens as an outcome of that teleportation is not directly caused by any interaction between the spell's magical effect and any target creature.
Saying that Teleport deals damage is analogous to saying that the Gust of Wind spell deals damage because when I cast it I can push a creature off of a cliff. They then fall hundreds of feet down onto a hard stone floor and take falling damage as a result of the fall. But the Gust of Wind spell didn't deal that damage. The actual magical effect that was created by the Gust of Wind spell only interacts with the creature by pushing it. That magical effect doesn't have anything to do with falling damage. It just doesn't.
On the other hand, Fire Bolt is a terrible example if you understand anything about the mechanics of spellcasting. In the case of Fire Bolt, the creature is the target of the spell and it's also the target of the resulting magical effect that is created by the spell. When you cast a spell and that spell "travels" from the spellcaster to the spell target (along a clear path), that is just part of the targeting process -- this is not factored in to the "duration" of the spell. The duration of the spell has to do with the duration of the magical effect that is created AT the spell target:
A spell’s range indicates how far from the spellcaster the spell’s effect can originate
A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists after it is cast.
. . .
Instantaneous. An instantaneous duration means the spell’s magic appears only for a moment and then disappears.
A typical spell requires the caster to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell’s description says whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or something else.
In the case of Fire Bolt, you pick a target creature. You cast your instantaneous spell at that creature and the resulting magical effect originates (appears) AT that creature (regardless of what the flavor text might say about what it looks like when this happens). That magical effect targets that creature according to the 2024 definition for a target. There is a direct interaction between the spell's magical effect and the target creature which causes damage. Therefore, the Fire Bolt spell deals damage.
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.
That's the same for Lightning Arrow. Lightning arrow replaces the damage of the arrow with the damage of the spell by transforming the arrow into a bolt of lightning, which is the same as Shillelagh which replaces the damage of your club with the damage of the spell.
I disagree, I still think there's a material difference between Shillelagh saying the damage die stat of the object becomes something and then letting you resolve that through the normal rules for a weapon attack, and Lightning Arrow and Magic Stone replacing the normal effects of the attack with an on hit effect that does damage. One modifies the properties of the object, the other replaces the attack (or its outcome) entirely with a magical effect.
Does Shillelagh use "the normal rules for a weapon attack" though, if it lets you use your spellcasting mod instead of your STR mod?
This is mainly why I'd like to find a mechanical distinction that I'm comfortable with, to distinguish between what qualifying/doesn't qualify for Agonizing Blast etc. Relying on a descriptive difference instead just means people will draw the line in different places
Magic Action vs Attack Action is one option. The cantrip affecting any element of the damage roll (stat used for mod, damage type, damage die) would be another
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)
How about, you can't use Agonizing Blast with Magic Stone because Magic Stone is not a Warlock Cantrip that you know.
Warlocks are on the list of classes that can learn Magic Stone, so it is a Warlock cantrip. Also even if it wasn't you could make any cantrip a warlock cantrip through Pact of the Tome.
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.
That's the same for Lightning Arrow. Lightning arrow replaces the damage of the arrow with the damage of the spell by transforming the arrow into a bolt of lightning, which is the same as Shillelagh which replaces the damage of your club with the damage of the spell.
I disagree, I still think there's a material difference between Shillelagh saying the damage die stat of the object becomes something and then letting you resolve that through the normal rules for a weapon attack, and Lightning Arrow and Magic Stone replacing the normal effects of the attack with an on hit effect that does damage. One modifies the properties of the object, the other replaces the attack (or its outcome) entirely with a magical effect.
Does Shillelagh use "the normal rules for a weapon attack" though, if it lets you use your spellcasting mod instead of your STR mod?
Yes. It says that the damage die of the weapon becomes something else, It's still a melee weapon attack where you refer to the properties of the weapon to determine the damage it does, instead of replacing the outcome of the attack whole cloth with a spell effect. It doesn't refer to any special conditions under which you make attacks or any on hit/triggered spell effects as the result of the attacks, so they're not spell attacks. Being able to use your casting stat is best read to also be a property the weapon is modified with, similar to gaining finesse.
Spell attack (the ability used is determined by the spellcaster’s spellcasting feature, as explained in chapter 7)
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)
Okay, but considering melee attacks with finesse, hex warrior and pact of the blade are still regular attacks instead of spell attacks, exceptions to that exists. The important point is that it doesn't refer to anything unusual happening when the attack with the weapon hits, which means that the way you resolve the attack is by referring to these part of the rules that talk about what happens when you normally hit with an attack with a weapon:
"When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage roll."
"Damage. The table lists the amount of damage a weapon deals when an attacker hits with it as well as the type of that damage." (In this instance modified by the spell, since specific beats general.).
Conversely, the damage caused my Magic Stone is not determined by referring to the properties of the object as you would for a normal attack with a weapon, instead the object is the medium for the spell effect, and you determine the outcome of the spell attack by referring to the spelled out on hit effect, which also happens to be a damage roll.
How about, you can't use Agonizing Blast with Magic Stone because Magic Stone is not a Warlock Cantrip that you know.
Warlocks are on the list of classes that can learn Magic Stone, so it is a Warlock cantrip. Also even if it wasn't you could make any cantrip a warlock cantrip through Pact of the Tome.
It's not a Warlock Cantrip in 2024. Are we talking about 2014? Also, Pact of the Tome lets you count two cantrips from any list as prepared, but doesn't add it to the Warlock list.
Some features, like the Strixhaven backgrounds and the subclasses add spells to your class list, but I think they only do so with leveled spells. Other features, like Magic Initiate let you cast a spell with your spell slots, but don't add leveled spells or cantrips to your class list.
EDIT: Magic Stone isn't a PHB cantrip so it's not affected by the Warlock list update (at least until they update the spell). I am shocked that it's not a core spell. Disregard the comments about it not being a Warlock Cantrip; it is. However, the other points about Pact of the Tome and spell lists are still valid.
Looking closer at the wordings, my call would be
Shadow blade - Unsure. It uses the "on hit" wording, but it seems to be laid out more like just giving the stats of a weapon, and it might open the door for summoning spells being damaging spells? For consistency I'll have to say yes though.
Flame blade - Yes.
Hail of Thorns - Yes, it's a separate spell effect that's triggered by the attack.
Searing Smite - Partly no. I'd lean towards the "extra" damage on the hit counting as modifying the weapon attack itself, and is therefore augmenting the weapon rather than being a separate spell effect? But I'd accept a ruling otherwise and the burning over time is definitely damage dealt by the spell.
Holy/Elemental Weapon - No/maybe, same reasoning as above.
Swift Quiver - No? Probably not? Though I can't think of any features it would matter for.
Spells basically never work that way though. The only way that the Attack action could be involved in any way is if the spell description actually explicitly uses the phrase "Attack action" somewhere in its text. Otherwise, if the spell just describes making some sort of an attack, then that attack is just part of the spell effect. If that attack requires a separate action to execute (which is actually unclear in Magic Stone's description since it never says something like "As an action, you can . . .") then that action is just a uniquely defined action that functions exactly as described in the spell description -- it's not an Attack action or a Magic action unless the spell description says so.
For example, Chill Touch just says: "make a melee spell attack against a target within reach". That attack has nothing to do with an Attack action.
To get closer to the structure of the spell in question, the 2014 Produce Flame just says: "as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you. Make a ranged spell attack". This attack has nothing to do with an Attack action or a Magic action (which didn't exist back then). It's just a unique action that is defined by the spell description. This is similar to how monsters have unique actions that they can take that are defined in their stat block.
Because of this, features such as Extra Attack should not apply.
This is wrong. The activity in question is described right there in the cantrip's description! Of course it's part of the cantrip. Everything in that portion of a spell description is part of the spell's effect. The cantrip itself is non-instantaneous. The activity in question can occur at any time that the magical effect remains active. That's how all non-instantaneous spells work.
If I cast Moonbeam on an empty space and then a half-minute later that beam interacts with a creature and causes damage to it -- that magical effect, which still exists, is still doing damage to a creature. The damage does not have to occur at the moment of the spell casting in order for it to be a spell that deals damage.
The spell also does not have to directly target a creature in order to deal damage. In this way, Magic Stone is very similar to Moonbeam or even Fireball, which is instantaneous. In the case of Fireball, you do not directly target any creatures -- you target a point in space. The resulting magical effect, which originates at that point in space, then spreads out from there to indirectly target creatures in the nearby area. The magical effect deals damage to those creatures. Therefore, Fireball is a spell that deals damage. Similarly, Magic Stone does not directly target any creatures. But they are indirectly targeted by virtue of the fact that the spell description describes a spell attack that is made against those creatures. If such creatures are affected by this spell attack (within the one-minute duration) then the magical effect that was created by Magic Stone deals damage to the creature. Therefore, Magic Stone is a spell that deals damage.
Just to pick one, we can use Booming Blade as an example. This spell functions slightly differently than Magic Stone. Booming Blade is much more like Shillelagh for the purposes of this discussion. That spell targets "self" and just modifies the properties of the weapon that the spellcaster is holding, essentially turning it into a magic item weapon (sort of like a longsword +1 or whatever). The spell description then allows an attack to be made with that weapon. But, in general, if you just make an attack with a longsword +1 you aren't causing the creature that you hit to be affected by any sort of magical effect. You are just making an attack which in 2014 was classified as a "weapon attack" (as opposed to a "spell attack"), even though you are wielding a magical weapon. Even the potential resulting Thunder damage described in the Booming Blade description is just a result of being hit with this temporarily magical weapon (sort of like Flame-Tongue or whatever) -- it's not the spell's magical effect interacting with the creature.
In contrast, Magic Stone's spell description specifies a "spell attack", similar to Chill Touch or Produce Flame. The spell's magical effect is dealing damage to the creature when the stone which carries that magical effect comes into contact with it in a specific way. So, the Magic Stone spell deals damage.
All of this is wrong. The Attack action is never used. The spell description describes its own unique activity, which we are assuming requires an action, to make a "spell attack" against a creature. In 2014 terminology, this meant that the spell itself was attacking a creature -- or, in other words, an attack was being made with a magical effect, not with a weapon. Saying that this attack is not part of the cantrip makes no sense -- it's right there in the spell description. This attack does not benefit from Extra Attack for these reasons. It's a spell attack that's defined by the spell.
No. Nothing in the Magic Stone spell description has anything to do with improvised weapons. It's important not to confuse the casting of this spell with the action of just picking up a rock and throwing it. The spell defines how it works and how much damage is dealt. The improvised weapon rules are irrelevant here.
You can keep re-iterating this if you choose, but every time this is said it's just as wrong as the last time that it was said. Of course there is an attack that can be performed as part of the cantrip -- it's right there in the cantrip's description.
No, mechanically Lightning Arrow works differently than Magic Stone. Lightning Arrow (2014) started with "The next time you make a ranged weapon attack during the spell’s duration", so that attack is initiated outside of the confines of the spell. That attack certain can be part of an Attack action which can then later use the Extra Attack feature.
Magic Stone doesn't work that way. Instead, it defines an action that can be taken within the spell description itself. As such, this attack cannot be taken as part of an Attack action, it is taken as part of the Magic Stone spell (sort of like Booming Blade in that particular way).
None of this is personal opinion. The concepts are defined within a large block of rules under the heading "Damage and Healing" and also in the entire subsection under the heading "Casting Spells". Most of the relevant portions have already been quoted and explained previously in the thread and by your comments here it appears that you've missed the point.
It's not so much that something is created that later deals damage.
When you cast a spell, a magical effect is created at the specified creature, object, or location. The rest of the spell description will then typically go on to describe what happens if and when that magical effect interacts with a creature in the environment. If that magical effect deals damage to a creature, then the spell that created that magical effect is a spell that deals damage.
What does it mean to "deal damage"? We can look to the Damage and Healing section for some clarity on that:
Besides actual spell targeting, what do the 2024 rules say about what can be considered to be a target?
A spell such as Teleport really doesn't qualify within the above concepts. It happens to have this feature:
"Mishap. The spell’s unpredictable magic results in a difficult journey. Each teleporting creature (or the target object) takes 3d10 Force damage, and the DM rerolls on the table to see where you wind up (multiple mishaps can occur, dealing damage each time)."
Such creatures are not targets of the teleport spell. They are not victims of an attack roll, they are not forced to make a saving throw by an effect and they are not selected to receive the effects of a spell or another phenomenon. There is no actual spell effect anywhere in the environment that interacts with these creatures to cause damage. This is just damage that is happening to the creature as a result of a difficult journey -- the instantaneous magical effect is long gone by then. The spell is not dealing damage.
In contrast, Magic Stone meets all of these criteria. When the spell is cast, a magical effect is created on a pebble. That effect is ongoing for 1 minute, during which time it would travel along with the pebble. The spell description describes a couple of methods of moving this pebble in such a way that this magical effect interacts with a target creature. These methods are specifically described as making a "spell attack". Thus, on a hit, it's the magical effect, not the pebble, which is causing the bludgeoning damage. After all, "pebbles" are typically quite small and might be expected to do no damage at all when thrown at someone normally. Who knows? Perhaps if they were fired out of a gun, they would do piercing damage, but that's not what we're talking about here.
The point is, based on everything we know about how the game works as described above, Magic Stone is a spell that deals damage.
It's also how I see it.
Lightning Arrow does though, as you address below. It just requires at attack to be made, and could also conceivably apply to other regular weapon attacks not made with the Attack action, like the War Cleric's War Priest feature. All the 2014 smite spells and 2014 Hail of Thorns also function this way, where you pre-cast it and then the trigger for the spell effect occurring is making a regular weapon attack, so there's hardly a lack of precedent for this interpretation.
It doesn't define any action though. It just describe the triggering activities, throwing and hurling, which would normally be done through a weapon attack. Given all the above-mentioned precedent for regular attacks triggering pre-cast spell effect, there doesn't seem to be much reason to think this would be an entirely novel action. The spell effect replacing both the attack roll and the effect of the attack instead of just the effect is unusual, but not enough to to merit concluding that throwing the stone or flinging it from a sling to trigger the spell effect could be an entirely different type of action from throwing an improvised weapon or flinging a bullet from a sling.
Shadow Blade -- No. This is more like Shillelagh. It modifies a weapon, potentially creating a magical weapon that you can then later make "weapon attacks" with. Such attacks are not the spell dealing damage.
Flame Blade -- Yes. "You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade." This non-instantaneous spell deals damage when this action is taken.
Hail of Thorns -- Yes. This one is tricky because it has a range of self, so the magical effect is initially created at the spellcaster's location. But, like Magic Stone, it's a non-instantaneous duration magical effect that travels with the ammunition and subsequently interacts with a target creature by dealing damage to it. Mechanically, it's slightly different than Magic Stone since the effect itself is not attacking the target via a spell attack -- instead, it sort of activates at the target creature's location when that creature is hit by a normal attack. But it's still a magical effect that "this spell creates" at that location. This spell deals damage.
Searing Smite -- Yes. By virtue of the fact that the creature who was hit is ignited in flames "until the spell ends", there is clearly a magical effect interacting with that creature which is capable of dealing damage to that creature. This spell deals damage.
----------
This is actually causing me to re-think my initial thoughts about Booming Blade, due to exactly how the extra Thunder damage gets applied to that creature -- perhaps that's less of a "flame-tongue" type interaction and is instead actually a magical effect from the spell that persists for 1 round that is interacting with the creature that potentially deals damage to that creature.
----------
Holy / Elemental Weapon -- No. Attacking with a magic weapon is not the same as a spell dealing damage. In the 2014 rules this was pretty clearly differentiated. Wielding a magic weapon was still a "weapon attack" and not a "spell attack". These spells create a magic weapon. These spells do not deal damage.
Swift Quiver -- No. This spell increases your ammunition supply and your action economy. There is no magical effect in the environment that is interacting with any creatures to deal damage to them. This spell does not deal damage.
Lightning Arrow -- No. This one is pretty difficult, and I expect most people to disagree with this. Intuitively, it sure seems like a damage dealing spell. But really, this spell is just modifying the ammunition itself when a normal ranged weapon attack (not a spell attack) is being made against a target creature. The damage amount and the damage type are modified, but this is more akin to just attacking with a magic weapon than a spell that is attacking and/or dealing damage to a creature. Even the subsequent saving throw damage could be interpreted to be more like a "flame-tongue" type property of the weapon rather than being caused by the existence of an ongoing magical effect in that area. Perhaps controversially, this spell does not deal damage.
Since this has come up a few times, it's worth pointing something out about this as well.
Going by what was posted in the original post of this thread, Agonizing Blast doesn't care about which parts of a spell might apply, and which don't:
It only cares if the cantrip deals damage. Either the cantrip deals damage or it doesn't. For a spell like Booming Blade, if you determine that the extra Thunder damage is caused by a magical effect that was created by the spell, then the spell deals damage. Therefore, you can add your Charisma modifier to that spell's damage rolls. So, whatever you determine the spell's damage rolls to be, you can add your Charisma modifier to them unconditionally.
All of this I do agree with. 2024 muddied this up a bit, but under 2014 rules at least, True Strike, GFB and BB are all weapon attacks with a spell and a weapon, not spell attacks.
I still maintain that the trigger for the Magic Stone magical effect can be making an attack though, like the smite spells and hail of thorns/lightning arrow, rather than a bespoke action, and the magical effect then subsequently replaces both the attack roll and the effect of the attack.
Magic Stone and Shillelagh are both damage dealing spells equivalent to Shadowblade and Flameblade in that they create a magical weapon defined in the spell that you can then make attacks with.
True Strike, GFB, BB are like the Smite spells and Hail of Thorns. The weapon attack is not magical and not the "damage of the spell" but the added damage is the damage of the spell and makes them damage dealing cantrips. The only annoying one is True Strike because it can change the damage type of the weapon to radiant without altering the damage roll, so it's possible the weapon damage is also part of the spell, but IMO this spell is RAI meant to work like GFB/BB so would rule it the same as those for consistency.
So when you choose which creatures will teleport when you cast Teleport, that doesn't count as "selected to receive the effects of a spell"? You're literally doing that! What's the effect of the spell? It makes creatures teleport. How do you know which creatures teleport when you cast the spell? You select them. If you read this quote and your conclusion is that Teleport either doesn't target or that its targets don't receive the effects of a spell, then I don't know if reading the entire book to you would make any difference.
And how long do you think it takes for Teleport's effect to happen? "the instantaneous magical effect is long gone by then" What? Long gone? This is all happening instantly. Otherwise you could argue that Fire Bolt doesn't deal damage because the instantaneous magical effect is to hurl a mote of fire at someone or something. Then the mote of fire flies through the air, all the way to the target, and by the time it reaches it, the magical effect that created and hurled the mote is long gone. What are you talking about?
And just to be clear, I'm not saying Teleport should count as a damage dealing spell. Of course not. But you're arbitrarily choosing what counts and what doesn't, and using a different criteria to judge each spell. So Teleport doesn't deal damage. Okay, then what does? Where does that 3d10 Force damage come from? Right, "This is just damage that is happening to the creature as a result of a difficult journey". So Fire Bolt doesn't deal damage, the damage is dealt by the mote of fire created by the spell, not by the spell itself. Again, what? The only reason why that more of fire exists is because Fire Bolt created it, so the spell dealt the damage. The only reason that whole difficult journey even happened is because of the Teleport spell. The spell caused the whole effect to happen, so the spell dealt the damage. Or we can say "well, the mote of fire doesn't actually deal damage, it's the burns caused by the fire that deal the damage." I know how ridiculous these explanations sound, I'm not saying that's how it works. But this is basically what you're doing with some spells because to you it doesn't feel like they deal damage.
That's the same for Lightning Arrow. Lightning arrow replaces the damage of the arrow with the damage of the spell by transforming the arrow into a bolt of lightning, which is the same as Shillelagh which replaces the damage of your club with the damage of the spell.
Tenser's Transformation is equivalent to Holy Weapon or Smite spells in terms of dealing damage as it adds 2d12 damage to weapon attacks though it applies to all weapons not a specific weapon. It is a damage dealing spell.
Draconic Transformation is also a damage dealing spell since the spell gives you a breath weapon with defined damage roll.
Dragon's Breath likewise is a damage dealing spell despite it only giving you the ability to use an action to deal damage on later turns.
I disagree, I still think there's a material difference between Shillelagh saying the damage die stat of the object becomes something and then letting you resolve that through the normal rules for a weapon attack, and Lightning Arrow and Magic Stone replacing the normal effects of the attack with an on hit effect that does damage. One modifies the properties of the object, the other replaces the attack (or its outcome) entirely with a magical effect.
You are misunderstanding what is going on here. Yes, the Teleport spell requires you to select targets for the spell. But this spell doesn't deal damage to any targets. You said it yourself. What's the effect of the spell? It makes creatures teleport. That's it. That's what the magical effect actually does when it interacts with the target creatures while that magical effect actually exists for an instantaneous amount of time. Whatever happens as an outcome of that teleportation is not directly caused by any interaction between the spell's magical effect and any target creature.
Saying that Teleport deals damage is analogous to saying that the Gust of Wind spell deals damage because when I cast it I can push a creature off of a cliff. They then fall hundreds of feet down onto a hard stone floor and take falling damage as a result of the fall. But the Gust of Wind spell didn't deal that damage. The actual magical effect that was created by the Gust of Wind spell only interacts with the creature by pushing it. That magical effect doesn't have anything to do with falling damage. It just doesn't.
On the other hand, Fire Bolt is a terrible example if you understand anything about the mechanics of spellcasting. In the case of Fire Bolt, the creature is the target of the spell and it's also the target of the resulting magical effect that is created by the spell. When you cast a spell and that spell "travels" from the spellcaster to the spell target (along a clear path), that is just part of the targeting process -- this is not factored in to the "duration" of the spell. The duration of the spell has to do with the duration of the magical effect that is created AT the spell target:
In the case of Fire Bolt, you pick a target creature. You cast your instantaneous spell at that creature and the resulting magical effect originates (appears) AT that creature (regardless of what the flavor text might say about what it looks like when this happens). That magical effect targets that creature according to the 2024 definition for a target. There is a direct interaction between the spell's magical effect and the target creature which causes damage. Therefore, the Fire Bolt spell deals damage.
How about, you can't use Agonizing Blast with Magic Stone because Magic Stone is not a Warlock Cantrip that you know.
How to add Tooltips.
Does Shillelagh use "the normal rules for a weapon attack" though, if it lets you use your spellcasting mod instead of your STR mod?
This is mainly why I'd like to find a mechanical distinction that I'm comfortable with, to distinguish between what qualifying/doesn't qualify for Agonizing Blast etc. Relying on a descriptive difference instead just means people will draw the line in different places
Magic Action vs Attack Action is one option. The cantrip affecting any element of the damage roll (stat used for mod, damage type, damage die) would be another
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)
Warlocks are on the list of classes that can learn Magic Stone, so it is a Warlock cantrip. Also even if it wasn't you could make any cantrip a warlock cantrip through Pact of the Tome.
Yes. It says that the damage die of the weapon becomes something else, It's still a melee weapon attack where you refer to the properties of the weapon to determine the damage it does, instead of replacing the outcome of the attack whole cloth with a spell effect. It doesn't refer to any special conditions under which you make attacks or any on hit/triggered spell effects as the result of the attacks, so they're not spell attacks. Being able to use your casting stat is best read to also be a property the weapon is modified with, similar to gaining finesse.
This chart says otherwise. The "normal rules" for a melee weapon attack use STR
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)
Okay, but considering melee attacks with finesse, hex warrior and pact of the blade are still regular attacks instead of spell attacks, exceptions to that exists. The important point is that it doesn't refer to anything unusual happening when the attack with the weapon hits, which means that the way you resolve the attack is by referring to these part of the rules that talk about what happens when you normally hit with an attack with a weapon:
"When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage roll."
"Damage. The table lists the amount of damage a weapon deals when an attacker hits with it as well as the type of that damage." (In this instance modified by the spell, since specific beats general.).
Conversely, the damage caused my Magic Stone is not determined by referring to the properties of the object as you would for a normal attack with a weapon, instead the object is the medium for the spell effect, and you determine the outcome of the spell attack by referring to the spelled out on hit effect, which also happens to be a damage roll.
Page 8 "Exceptions Supersede General Rules".
Shillelagh is an exception to the above general rule.
How to add Tooltips.
It's not a Warlock Cantrip in 2024. Are we talking about 2014? Also, Pact of the Tome lets you count two cantrips from any list as prepared, but doesn't add it to the Warlock list.
Some features, like the Strixhaven backgrounds and the subclasses add spells to your class list, but I think they only do so with leveled spells. Other features, like Magic Initiate let you cast a spell with your spell slots, but don't add leveled spells or cantrips to your class list.
EDIT: Magic Stone isn't a PHB cantrip so it's not affected by the Warlock list update (at least until they update the spell). I am shocked that it's not a core spell. Disregard the comments about it not being a Warlock Cantrip; it is. However, the other points about Pact of the Tome and spell lists are still valid.
How to add Tooltips.