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.
Since it hasn't been reprinted, you can still use it with the 2024 rules if you use the Expanded Rules option, which allows the use of old stuff which hasn't been reprinted and marked as Legacy. This was also confirmed by developer interviews, thee book itself is vague on this, but it does have some explicit references to using old content with the new core rules:
Blessed Strikes: "(If you get either option from a Cleric subclass in an older book, use only the option you choose for this feature)"
"Backgrounds and Species from Older Books
Backgrounds in older D&D books don’t include ability score adjustments. If you’re using a background from an older book, adjust your ability scores by increasing one score by 2 and a different one by 1, or increase three scores by 1. None of these increases can raise a score above 20.
Similarly, species in older books include ability score increases. If you’re using a species from an older book, ignore those increases and use only the ones given by your background.
Also, if the background you choose doesn’t provide a feat, you gain an Origin feat of your choice."
So, assuming your DM allows Expanded Rules as per the DnD Beyond character creator, it should still be a Warlock spell.
As for pact of the Tome, it says "...and they function as Warlock spells for you.", so that's a pretty open and shut case.
Does Shillelagh use "the normal rules for a weapon attack" though, if it lets you use your spellcasting mod instead of your STR mod?
I think that what he was getting at with this statement was the differences between what in 2014 was referred to as a "Weapon Attack" vs a "Spell Attack" when classified in various spell descriptions, features and monster stat blocks. The 2014 stat blocks would pretty much always make reference to "Melee Weapon Attack", "Ranged Weapon Attack", "Melee Spell Attack", and "Ranged Spell Attack". I have a feeling that the 2014 Monster Manual provided some definitions for these terms so if that's true and anyone wants to post those in this thread it might be helpful.
But the basic concept is that there is a distinction made between a creature being attacked by a weapon and a creature being attacked by a spell, or more precisely, by the magical effect that is created by a spell. Somewhat counterintuitively, an attack made with a magical weapon was classified as a "Weapon Attack", not a "Spell Attack". The damage dealt might be considered to be "magical damage" for the purposes of resistance to magical vs non-magical damage for each damage type, but that was still treated as different than being attacked by a magical effect, such as the effect created by the Shocking Grasp spell, or any other spell that refers to making a "Spell Attack".
Because Magic Stone uses that phrasing, "Spell Attack", what is happening with those attacks is mechanically different than what people might picture in their mind when they think of someone just picking up a rock and throwing it at someone. Like Shocking Grasp, the Magic Stone spell is specifying that the creature is getting attacked by and potentially hit by a magical effect, not a rock. Spells such as Shillelagh do not function in that way. Instead, that spell results in something that is mechanically more like making a "Weapon Attack" with a magical weapon, so no magical effect created by the spell is ever interacting with any target creature in that case.
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.
Since it hasn't been reprinted, you can still use it with the 2024 rules if you use the Expanded Rules option, which allows the use of old stuff which hasn't been reprinted and marked as Legacy. This was also confirmed by developer interviews, thee book itself is vague on this, but it does have some explicit references to using old content with the new core rules:
Blessed Strikes: "(If you get either option from a Cleric subclass in an older book, use only the option you choose for this feature)"
"Backgrounds and Species from Older Books
Backgrounds in older D&D books don’t include ability score adjustments. If you’re using a background from an older book, adjust your ability scores by increasing one score by 2 and a different one by 1, or increase three scores by 1. None of these increases can raise a score above 20.
Similarly, species in older books include ability score increases. If you’re using a species from an older book, ignore those increases and use only the ones given by your background.
Also, if the background you choose doesn’t provide a feat, you gain an Origin feat of your choice."
So, assuming your DM allows Expanded Rules as per the DnD Beyond character creator, it should still be a Warlock spell.
As for pact of the Tome, it says "...and they function as Warlock spells for you.", so that's a pretty open and shut case.
I don't know what backgrounds and origin feats have to do with anything.
However, I realized my mistake with Magic Stone and edited my previous response while you were posting. I had assumed that Magic Stone was still a PHB spell (I've been playing a long time and I think it moved out of the PHB in 4e but definitely by 5e). Magic Stone is a Warlock Cantrip and if it wasn't Pact of the Tome lets you treat it as one, but doesn't actually add it to the Warlock Spell List. It's a minor distinction and doesn't matter here, but if you didn't have your Tome, you could not cast the spells from a scroll.
Back on Topic, I don't see any reason why Agonizing Blast doesn't apply to magic stone, but I don't think it was intended. I would probably restrict it to the first damage roll at most.
I'm not, it was never popular except for people trying to exploit it because it technically qualifies for triggering Sharpshooter and Sneak Attack. Honestly, they should have done away with Shillelagh too and replaced it with True Strike or something similar. It is a complete oddball spell that isn't even very useful beyond tier 1 play, certainly not for a Druid (which is the only class that gets access to it) who would be much better served by picking up Thorn Whip. I feels like it exists for people to find a way to get it on other classes than to be a viable spell in itself.
(This is as someone who has played a character with both and enjoyed using them)
I don't know what backgrounds and origin feats have to do with anything.
They're just the clear-cut examples we have in the book itself of old content being used with the new rules that we have. Hopefully the DMG will be more explicit on it so we don't have to reference developer interviews.
Okay, but considering melee attacks with finesse, hex warrior and pact of the blade are still regular attacks
Those are all examples of other features or properties altering the "normal rules" for an attack
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Okay, but considering melee attacks with finesse, hex warrior and pact of the blade are still regular attacks
Those are all examples of other features or properties altering the "normal rules" for an attack
Yes. Exactly. Altering, not replacing. And thus way you resolve those attacks is by following by normal procedure for determining the outcome of the attack, which is to look up the damage dice property of the weapon and add the associated ability score bonus. As opposed to spell attacks, where you look for an on hit effect defined in the spell.
Okay, but considering melee attacks with finesse, hex warrior and pact of the blade are still regular attacks
Those are all examples of other features or properties altering the "normal rules" for an attack
Yes. Exactly. Altering, not replacing. And thus way you resolve those attacks is by following by normal procedure for determining the outcome of the attack, which is to look up the damage dice property of the weapon and add the associated ability score bonus. As opposed to spell attacks, where you look for an on hit effect defined in the spell.
This is the on-hit effect defined by the spell shillelagh:
you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon’s damage die becomes a d8. If the attack deals damage, it can be Force damage or the weapon’s normal damage type (your choice).
Your arguments really aren't making much sense here, sorry. You seem to have drawn an arbitrary line, and are scrambling to explain why one spell is one one side of it, but a different spell is on the other
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)
Where is the on hit effect described there? It describes how can alter the weapon attack roll, it describes how the properties of the weapon change, and it has a conditional effect on if the attack deals damage, but none of those on their own describe what happens when you hit with the attack.
To figure that out, you have to go through the rules on attack with weapons. 🤷♂️
Where is the on hit effect described there? It describes how can alter the weapon attack roll, it describes how the properties of the weapon change, and it has a conditional effect on if the attack deals damage, but none of those on their own describe what happens when you hit with the attack.
To figure that out, you have to go through the rules on attack with weapons. 🤷♂️
I guess when you are making up game terms to explain your argument, you can also change what they mean when you need to
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)
"When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage roll.
A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers."
The spell doesn't tell you to roll any dice for damage when you hit it an attack with it. It just says that the weapon's damage dice becomes whatever. In order to reference the weapon's damage dice for the attack, you have to be making a regular attack with the weapon. If the cantrip dealt damage on hit, it would say that it did so.
Where is the on hit effect described there? It describes how can alter the weapon attack roll, it describes how the properties of the weapon change, and it has a conditional effect on if the attack deals damage, but none of those on their own describe what happens when you hit with the attack.
To figure that out, you have to go through the rules on attack with weapons. 🤷♂️
I guess when you are making up game terms to explain your argument, you can also change what they mean when you need to
I think the argument is that Shillelagh doesn't deal damage, it modifies weapon damage. If the damage was already a d8, by default it wouldn't even do that, other than potentially change the type to force.
Elemental Weapon isn't a cantrip so it's not a great example, but ignoring the cantrip requirement, would you say that adding +1d4 [element] damage counts as a spell that deals damage? What about the +1 damage from Magic Weapon? Would Fabricate used to create weapons be a "spell that deals damage"?
Restricting it back to cantrips, Shillelagh is a transmutation spell that changes a weapon. It does not deal damage, it changes the damage the weapon deals.
Strictly by RAW, I can't see how it should work with Agonizing Blast.
Magic Stone is more of a grey area, but using a spell attack, it is at least using the spell mechanics. I could see magic stone go either way, but not really with Shillelagh.
Personally my ruling until we get clarification will be to look at the cantrips in beyond. If under Attack/Save it says something other than none and the Damage/Effect lists a damage type I say it applies. It is unfortunate that kind of key system is not in the PH.
Personally my ruling until we get clarification will be to look at the cantrips in beyond. If under Attack/Save it says something other than none and the Damage/Effect lists a damage type I say it applies. It is unfortunate that kind of key system is not in the PH.
Honestly probably the best take I've seen so far. If the metatext says the effect is damage, it's a Cantrip that deals damage and works with Agonizing Blast. If the metatext lists the effect as damage and lists an attack under attack/save it's a Cantrip that deals damage via an attack roll and works with Repelling Blast.
Which means Shillelagh does work, which is not the call I would have made, but I'm not mad about it from a balance/gameplay perspective, I was just trying to be consistent in how I interpret the wording of the text.
Unfortunately that doesn't really resolve the extra attack question, since the attack happening is on a separate trigger to the initial casting, so we'll still have to play linguistics to resolve that question. Since it's so similar to Produce Flame but doesn't call out a bespoke action, I'm still leaning towards the trigger being similar to the 2014 smite/lightning arrow/hail of thorns spells and you can trigger it by through the attack action.
Elemental Weapon isn't a cantrip so it's not a great example, but ignoring the cantrip requirement, would you say that adding +1d4 [element] damage counts as a spell that deals damage? What about the +1 damage from Magic Weapon? Would Fabricate used to create weapons be a "spell that deals damage"?
Elemental Weapon, and Holy Weapon both have the "Damage" tag, they mention a damage roll in their spell descriptions, and have a damage type written in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore they are spells that deal damage.
Fabricate does not have the Damage tag, it does not mention a damage roll in the spell description, and has "Creation" written in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore it is not a spell that deals damage.
Magic Weapon does not have the Damage tag, only mentions the +1 magic in the spell description not an additional die to roll, and has "Buff" written in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore it is not a spell that deals damage.
Note that: Hunter's Mark has the Damage tag, mentions a damage roll in the spell description, and has damage types listed in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore is a spell that deals damage.
Shillelagh has the Damage tag, mentions a damage roll in the spell description, and has a damage type listed in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore is a spell that deals damage, and has "Melee" written in the "Attack/Save" slot.
Magic Stone has the Damage tag, mentions a damage roll in the spell description, and has a damage type listed in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore is a spell that deals damage and has "Ranged" written in the "Attack/Save" slot.
Produce Flame has the Damage tag, mentions a damage roll in the spell description, and has a damage type listed in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore is a spell that deals damage and has "Ranged" written in the "Attack/Save" slot.
Is the Damage tag required? True Strike lists Radiant under damage/effect but it doesn't have the Damage tag, only Foreknowledge. It also only lists Melee under attack/save even though it should as written work with a ranged weapon?
This is the Rules and Mechanics forum. We are supposed to be discussing what is written in the rules and how those rules work in the game. Discussing what may or may not be listed in a website database and basing your DM rulings on such data which does not exist in the game itself is just moving further and further away from an actual RAW discussion.
This is the Rules and Mechanics forum. We are supposed to be discussing what is written in the rules and how those rules work in the game. Discussing what may or may not be listed in a website database and basing your DM rulings on such data which does not exist in the game itself is just moving further and further away from an actual RAW discussion.
LOL, no. DnDBeyond is the official website of D&D, and literal readings of any text is beyond foolish. All text is written by people, and people make mistakes, the printed 2024 PHB is not more "correct" than the DnDBeyond version of it that has already fixed a ton of typos in the printed version.
Is the Damage tag required? True Strike lists Radiant under damage/effect but it doesn't have the Damage tag, only Foreknowledge. It also only lists Melee under attack/save even though it should as written work with a ranged weapon?
That's probably an error/oversight when they duplicated the old one to update it, the new True Strike has nothing to do with Foreknowledge but clearly deals damage. Both Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade have the Damage tag.
This is the Rules and Mechanics forum. We are supposed to be discussing what is written in the rules and how those rules work in the game. Discussing what may or may not be listed in a website database and basing your DM rulings on such data which does not exist in the game itself is just moving further and further away from an actual RAW discussion.
LOL, no. DnDBeyond is the official website of D&D, and literal readings of any text is beyond foolish. All text is written by people, and people make mistakes, the printed 2024 PHB is not more "correct" than the DnDBeyond version of it that has already fixed a ton of typos in the printed version.
I actually agree with up2ng on this one. The text of the books are the rules and that is all. How rules interact should be judged strictly on that text. Typos and other mistakes are addressed in errata and reprinting. The rules (as printed in the book) are always "correct" versions of the rules, since they are the rules. Sometimes there is room for disagreement or multiple views.
But any categorizations that the rules themselves don't make are not universal. Any single group is free to rule as they see fit, but users here shouldn't claim they have the "correct" interpretation based on anything but what the rules have to say on the topic. Tags in DDB are not even systematically applied, so I would be hesitant to trust them to base any universal statement on how rules work on those tags.
That is part of why I haven't thrown my hat into this conversation yet. I have an idea how I'd rule on stacking agonizing blast with various cantrips, but I'm not sure that it is solid enough in the actual text of the rules to be the universal answer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Since it hasn't been reprinted, you can still use it with the 2024 rules if you use the Expanded Rules option, which allows the use of old stuff which hasn't been reprinted and marked as Legacy. This was also confirmed by developer interviews, thee book itself is vague on this, but it does have some explicit references to using old content with the new core rules:
Blessed Strikes: "(If you get either option from a Cleric subclass in an older book, use only the option you choose for this feature)"
"Backgrounds and Species from Older Books
Backgrounds in older D&D books don’t include ability score adjustments. If you’re using a background from an older book, adjust your ability scores by increasing one score by 2 and a different one by 1, or increase three scores by 1. None of these increases can raise a score above 20.
Similarly, species in older books include ability score increases. If you’re using a species from an older book, ignore those increases and use only the ones given by your background.
Also, if the background you choose doesn’t provide a feat, you gain an Origin feat of your choice."
So, assuming your DM allows Expanded Rules as per the DnD Beyond character creator, it should still be a Warlock spell.
As for pact of the Tome, it says "...and they function as Warlock spells for you.", so that's a pretty open and shut case.
I think that what he was getting at with this statement was the differences between what in 2014 was referred to as a "Weapon Attack" vs a "Spell Attack" when classified in various spell descriptions, features and monster stat blocks. The 2014 stat blocks would pretty much always make reference to "Melee Weapon Attack", "Ranged Weapon Attack", "Melee Spell Attack", and "Ranged Spell Attack". I have a feeling that the 2014 Monster Manual provided some definitions for these terms so if that's true and anyone wants to post those in this thread it might be helpful.
But the basic concept is that there is a distinction made between a creature being attacked by a weapon and a creature being attacked by a spell, or more precisely, by the magical effect that is created by a spell. Somewhat counterintuitively, an attack made with a magical weapon was classified as a "Weapon Attack", not a "Spell Attack". The damage dealt might be considered to be "magical damage" for the purposes of resistance to magical vs non-magical damage for each damage type, but that was still treated as different than being attacked by a magical effect, such as the effect created by the Shocking Grasp spell, or any other spell that refers to making a "Spell Attack".
Because Magic Stone uses that phrasing, "Spell Attack", what is happening with those attacks is mechanically different than what people might picture in their mind when they think of someone just picking up a rock and throwing it at someone. Like Shocking Grasp, the Magic Stone spell is specifying that the creature is getting attacked by and potentially hit by a magical effect, not a rock. Spells such as Shillelagh do not function in that way. Instead, that spell results in something that is mechanically more like making a "Weapon Attack" with a magical weapon, so no magical effect created by the spell is ever interacting with any target creature in that case.
I don't know what backgrounds and origin feats have to do with anything.
However, I realized my mistake with Magic Stone and edited my previous response while you were posting. I had assumed that Magic Stone was still a PHB spell (I've been playing a long time and I think it moved out of the PHB in 4e but definitely by 5e). Magic Stone is a Warlock Cantrip and if it wasn't Pact of the Tome lets you treat it as one, but doesn't actually add it to the Warlock Spell List. It's a minor distinction and doesn't matter here, but if you didn't have your Tome, you could not cast the spells from a scroll.
Back on Topic, I don't see any reason why Agonizing Blast doesn't apply to magic stone, but I don't think it was intended. I would probably restrict it to the first damage roll at most.
How to add Tooltips.
I'm not, it was never popular except for people trying to exploit it because it technically qualifies for triggering Sharpshooter and Sneak Attack. Honestly, they should have done away with Shillelagh too and replaced it with True Strike or something similar. It is a complete oddball spell that isn't even very useful beyond tier 1 play, certainly not for a Druid (which is the only class that gets access to it) who would be much better served by picking up Thorn Whip. I feels like it exists for people to find a way to get it on other classes than to be a viable spell in itself.
(This is as someone who has played a character with both and enjoyed using them)
They're just the clear-cut examples we have in the book itself of old content being used with the new rules that we have. Hopefully the DMG will be more explicit on it so we don't have to reference developer interviews.
Those are all examples of other features or properties altering the "normal rules" for an attack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes. Exactly. Altering, not replacing. And thus way you resolve those attacks is by following by normal procedure for determining the outcome of the attack, which is to look up the damage dice property of the weapon and add the associated ability score bonus. As opposed to spell attacks, where you look for an on hit effect defined in the spell.
This is the on-hit effect defined by the spell shillelagh:
Your arguments really aren't making much sense here, sorry. You seem to have drawn an arbitrary line, and are scrambling to explain why one spell is one one side of it, but a different spell is on the other
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)
Where is the on hit effect described there? It describes how can alter the weapon attack roll, it describes how the properties of the weapon change, and it has a conditional effect on if the attack deals damage, but none of those on their own describe what happens when you hit with the attack.
To figure that out, you have to go through the rules on attack with weapons. 🤷♂️
I guess when you are making up game terms to explain your argument, you can also change what they mean when you need to
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)
"When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll—to the damage roll.
A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers."
The spell doesn't tell you to roll any dice for damage when you hit it an attack with it. It just says that the weapon's damage dice becomes whatever. In order to reference the weapon's damage dice for the attack, you have to be making a regular attack with the weapon. If the cantrip dealt damage on hit, it would say that it did so.
I think the argument is that Shillelagh doesn't deal damage, it modifies weapon damage. If the damage was already a d8, by default it wouldn't even do that, other than potentially change the type to force.
Elemental Weapon isn't a cantrip so it's not a great example, but ignoring the cantrip requirement, would you say that adding +1d4 [element] damage counts as a spell that deals damage? What about the +1 damage from Magic Weapon? Would Fabricate used to create weapons be a "spell that deals damage"?
Restricting it back to cantrips, Shillelagh is a transmutation spell that changes a weapon. It does not deal damage, it changes the damage the weapon deals.
Strictly by RAW, I can't see how it should work with Agonizing Blast.
Magic Stone is more of a grey area, but using a spell attack, it is at least using the spell mechanics. I could see magic stone go either way, but not really with Shillelagh.
How to add Tooltips.
Personally my ruling until we get clarification will be to look at the cantrips in beyond. If under Attack/Save it says something other than none and the Damage/Effect lists a damage type I say it applies. It is unfortunate that kind of key system is not in the PH.
Honestly probably the best take I've seen so far. If the metatext says the effect is damage, it's a Cantrip that deals damage and works with Agonizing Blast. If the metatext lists the effect as damage and lists an attack under attack/save it's a Cantrip that deals damage via an attack roll and works with Repelling Blast.
Which means Shillelagh does work, which is not the call I would have made, but I'm not mad about it from a balance/gameplay perspective, I was just trying to be consistent in how I interpret the wording of the text.
Unfortunately that doesn't really resolve the extra attack question, since the attack happening is on a separate trigger to the initial casting, so we'll still have to play linguistics to resolve that question. Since it's so similar to Produce Flame but doesn't call out a bespoke action, I'm still leaning towards the trigger being similar to the 2014 smite/lightning arrow/hail of thorns spells and you can trigger it by through the attack action.
Elemental Weapon, and Holy Weapon both have the "Damage" tag, they mention a damage roll in their spell descriptions, and have a damage type written in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore they are spells that deal damage.
Fabricate does not have the Damage tag, it does not mention a damage roll in the spell description, and has "Creation" written in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore it is not a spell that deals damage.
Magic Weapon does not have the Damage tag, only mentions the +1 magic in the spell description not an additional die to roll, and has "Buff" written in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore it is not a spell that deals damage.
Note that: Hunter's Mark has the Damage tag, mentions a damage roll in the spell description, and has damage types listed in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore is a spell that deals damage.
Shillelagh has the Damage tag, mentions a damage roll in the spell description, and has a damage type listed in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore is a spell that deals damage, and has "Melee" written in the "Attack/Save" slot.
Magic Stone has the Damage tag, mentions a damage roll in the spell description, and has a damage type listed in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore is a spell that deals damage and has "Ranged" written in the "Attack/Save" slot.
Produce Flame has the Damage tag, mentions a damage roll in the spell description, and has a damage type listed in the "Damage/Effect" slot. Therefore is a spell that deals damage and has "Ranged" written in the "Attack/Save" slot.
Is the Damage tag required? True Strike lists Radiant under damage/effect but it doesn't have the Damage tag, only Foreknowledge. It also only lists Melee under attack/save even though it should as written work with a ranged weapon?
This is the Rules and Mechanics forum. We are supposed to be discussing what is written in the rules and how those rules work in the game. Discussing what may or may not be listed in a website database and basing your DM rulings on such data which does not exist in the game itself is just moving further and further away from an actual RAW discussion.
LOL, no. DnDBeyond is the official website of D&D, and literal readings of any text is beyond foolish. All text is written by people, and people make mistakes, the printed 2024 PHB is not more "correct" than the DnDBeyond version of it that has already fixed a ton of typos in the printed version.
That's probably an error/oversight when they duplicated the old one to update it, the new True Strike has nothing to do with Foreknowledge but clearly deals damage. Both Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade have the Damage tag.
I actually agree with up2ng on this one. The text of the books are the rules and that is all. How rules interact should be judged strictly on that text. Typos and other mistakes are addressed in errata and reprinting. The rules (as printed in the book) are always "correct" versions of the rules, since they are the rules. Sometimes there is room for disagreement or multiple views.
But any categorizations that the rules themselves don't make are not universal. Any single group is free to rule as they see fit, but users here shouldn't claim they have the "correct" interpretation based on anything but what the rules have to say on the topic. Tags in DDB are not even systematically applied, so I would be hesitant to trust them to base any universal statement on how rules work on those tags.
That is part of why I haven't thrown my hat into this conversation yet. I have an idea how I'd rule on stacking agonizing blast with various cantrips, but I'm not sure that it is solid enough in the actual text of the rules to be the universal answer.