Back when I started 5e I understood RAW as 30/120 myself until someone in these DDB forums made such compelling arguments for the flat 120 that they legitimately changed my mind on the subject. (Don’t ask me who it was, it was 2 years ago.) So I freely admit that when I posted about the flat 120 in August of last year, I did believe it was RAW at the time.
I dont find it a compelling argument that because Magic Stone use a pebble that can normally be thrown to 20/30 but the spell range is 30, it means Magic Stone eliminate long range disadvantage in favor of single range unit It's an assumption. Spells often have arbitrary range and they do what they say they do so if they wanted the sling to ignore long range disadvantage to have a single range they would have said so. It's basically the rule of Specific Beat General and for it to beat a general rule, the specific one must be spelled out in the first place, not assumed while unwritten.
Back when I started 5e I understood RAW as 30/120 myself until someone in these DDB forums made such compelling arguments for the flat 120 that they legitimately changed my mind on the subject. (Don’t ask me who it was, it was 2 years ago.) So I freely admit that when I posted about the flat 120 in August of last year, I did believe it was RAW at the time.
I dont find it a compelling argument that because Magic Stone use a pebble that can normally be thrown to 20/30 but the spell range is 30, it means Magic Stone eliminate long range disadvantage in favor of single range unit It's an assumption. Spells often have arbitrary range and they do what they say they do so if they wanted the sling to ignore long range disadvantage to have a single range they would have said so. It's basically the rule of Specific Beat General and for it to beat a general rule, the specific one must be spelled out in the first place, not assumed while unwritten.
Uhhh… the range increments for thrown improvised weapons (like pebbles) are 20(60) [not 20(30)], and the spell attack range for chucking a Magic Stone is 60 ft. [not 30]. I don’t find your comment very compelling since you flubbed the one exact thing we’re discussing. Especially considering that it has been expressly stated in at least half of the posts in this thread. 😉 👍
In addition, I said the person who made the case to me was compelling. Go find that threat and read that person’s posts before passing judgement on how compelling their argument was. (It is only fair to judge someone else on their merits, not mine. Ne?
Uhhh… the range increments for thrown improvised weapons (like pebbles) are 20(60) [not 20(30)], and the spell attack range for chucking a Magic Stone is 60 ft. [not 30]. I don’t find your comment very compelling since you flubbed the one exact thing we’re discussing. Especially considering that it has been expressly stated in at least half of the posts in this thread. 😉 👍
In addition, I said the person who made the case to me was compelling. Go find that threat and read that person’s posts before passing judgement on how compelling their argument was. (It is only fair to judge someone else on their merits, not mine. Ne?
Sorry i meant range 60. Argument is the same though there is no such thing as Assumption beat General 😉
I dont need to go find the Reddit thread that make compelling assumption on what the spell Magic Stone does, since it's not RAW !
I’m also in the camp that with a sling, Magic Stone becomes 30/120 range, not a flat 120, and down from it’s thrown flat 60.
I agree that it is a ranged spell attack made “with a ranged weapon,” but not a ranged weapon attack.
I think this the correct, RAW interpretation.
But the 30/120 range just doesn't sit right. I don't like that using a sling makes it go less far when a sling's whole purpose is to increase distance. I find the logic behind the argument for a flat 120 range quite satisfying as well, so I'm inclined to lean that direction for multiple reasons despite RAW.
Uhhh… the range increments for thrown improvised weapons (like pebbles) are 20(60) [not 20(30)], and the spell attack range for chucking a Magic Stone is 60 ft. [not 30]. I don’t find your comment very compelling since you flubbed the one exact thing we’re discussing. Especially considering that it has been expressly stated in at least half of the posts in this thread. 😉 👍
In addition, I said the person who made the case to me was compelling. Go find that threat and read that person’s posts before passing judgement on how compelling their argument was. (It is only fair to judge someone else on their merits, not mine. Ne?
Sorry i meant range 60. Argument is the same though there is no such thing as Assumption beat General 😉
I dont need to go find the Reddit thread that make compelling assumption on what the spell Magic Stone does, since it's not RAW !
I’m also in the camp that with a sling, Magic Stone becomes 30/120 range, not a flat 120, and down from it’s thrown flat 60.
I agree that it is a ranged spell attack made “with a ranged weapon,” but not a ranged weapon attack.
I think this the correct, RAW interpretation.
But the 30/120 range just doesn't sit right. I don't like that using a sling makes it go less far when a sling's whole purpose is to increase distance. I find the logic behind the argument for a flat 120 range quite satisfying as well, so I'm inclined to lean that direction for multiple reasons despite RAW.
I do agree that 120 is almost certainly RAI. I just don’t see how RAW, “you can use a sling” means something complicated like “you can use part of a sling’s rules, but only the parts that are beneficial to you.” I’d really prefer an errata rather than just ignoring the RAW, but at the table I’d be fine calling it 120.
Uhhh… the range increments for thrown improvised weapons (like pebbles) are 20(60) [not 20(30)], and the spell attack range for chucking a Magic Stone is 60 ft. [not 30]. I don’t find your comment very compelling since you flubbed the one exact thing we’re discussing. Especially considering that it has been expressly stated in at least half of the posts in this thread. 😉 👍
In addition, I said the person who made the case to me was compelling. Go find that threat and read that person’s posts before passing judgement on how compelling their argument was. (It is only fair to judge someone else on their merits, not mine. Ne?
Sorry i meant range 60. Argument is the same though there is no such thing as Assumption beat General 😉
I dont need to go find the Reddit thread that make compelling assumption on what the spell Magic Stone does, since it's not RAW !
Again, I'm not seeing Sposta argue that 120 is RAW. Only that it's most probably RAI -- which you haven't argued against. Are you sure the two of you aren't in agreement?
By definition, a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon is a ranged weapon attack, because a) you made it with a weapon and b) it was a ranged attack.
By definition, a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon is a ranged weapon attack, because a) you made it with a weapon and b) it was a ranged attack.
In general, sure. But magic stone specifically says that it's a spell attack, and specific beats general.
By definition, a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon is a ranged weapon attack, because a) you made it with a weapon and b) it was a ranged attack.
That statement does not really apply, given the context of the question it was replying to. The game rules do not allow for an attack to be both a spell attack and a weapon attack. You would not know what ability score to make the attack with if that were the case. As such, just as with a thrown magic stone being a spell attack instead of an (improvised) weapon attack, using a sling to fire a magic stone is also a spell attack instead of the weapon attack it would normally be. The specific of the spell overrides the general.
EDIT: Basically, one can validly say that a hurled magic stone shot with a sling was an attack made with a weapon (which allows +X slings to apply their bonus), but it is not a weapon attack because the spell states it is a spell attack.
By definition, a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon is a ranged weapon attack, because a) you made it with a weapon and b) it was a ranged attack.
In general, sure. But magic stone specifically says that it's a spell attack, and specific beats general.
Specific doesn't beat general when there's nothing to beat. No rule in the game states that a ranged weapon attack ceases to be a ranged weapon attack when it becomes a ranged spell attack.
Magic stone from a sling is a ranged weapon attack and a ranged spell attack, because the general rules I just provided ensure it is a ranged weapon attack, the text of magic stone says it is a ranged spell attack, and there is simply no rule stating that an attack can't be both.
That statement does not really apply, given the context of the question it was replying to. The game rules do not allow for an attack to be both a spell attack and a weapon attack.
Citation, please.
You would not know what ability score to make the attack with if that were the case.
Magic Stone is extremely clear about this[1], so that's false. You use the spellcaster's spellcasting ability modifier. Further, even if you were right, this confusion of ability modifiers is insufficient to reach your conclusion. The PHB unequivocally states that you throw a longsword with dexterity and it also unequivocally states you do so with strength. The resulting inability to by RAW pick an ability score modifier for the attack roll doesn't mean when you throw a longsword it ceases to be a ranged weapon attack made with a melee weapon, because those other rules are quite clear.
As such, just as with a thrown magic stone being a spell attack instead of an (improvised) weapon attack, using a sling to fire a magic stone is also a spell attack instead of the weapon attack it would normally be. The specific of the spell overrides the general.
Specific doesn't override general when there's nothing to override. Magic Stone doesn't say the attack is a spell attack instead of a weapon attack, it says it is a spell attack. Barring a rule actually stating the attack can't be both, if one rule says it's weapon and another says it's spell, then it's both weapon and spell.
[1] Ok, no it isn't, but not in the way you mean. There's no question you add the caster's spellcasting ability modifier to the attack roll, and there's no question you don't add the slinger's spellcasting ability modifier, because specific beats general, so what the spell says goes. What might cause an issue is that the PHB p194 and p14 rules - the ones that contradict each other about thrown longswords - never state you can only use one modifier (and indeed, UA Dhampirs and in-game Devotion Paladins absolutely do use two modifiers) on an attack roll, but they do assume it in their phrasing. I suspect that, just like longsword throwing, ultimately you need your DM to make a house rule for magic stone as to whether it's SAM + slinger DEX or just SAM. I would houserule it's just SAM, every time.
By definition, a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon is a ranged weapon attack, because a) you made it with a weapon and b) it was a ranged attack.
In general, sure. But magic stone specifically says that it's a spell attack, and specific beats general.
Specific doesn't beat general when there's nothing to beat. No rule in the game states that a ranged weapon attack ceases to be a ranged weapon attack when it becomes a ranged spell attack.
Magic stone from a sling is a ranged weapon attack and a ranged spell attack, because the general rules I just provided ensure it is a ranged weapon attack, the text of magic stone says it is a ranged spell attack, and there is simply no rule stating that an attack can't be both.
There's no rule that explicitly says an attack can't be both because the idea is fundamentally incoherent, and the designers expect a modicum of sense from their audience.
Luckily for the sake of this discussion, however, the rules on attack rolls make it clear that spell attacks and weapon attacks are disjoint:
Ability Modifier. The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or thrown property break this rule.
Some spells also require an attack roll. The ability modifier used for a spell attack depends on the spellcasting ability of the spellcaster, as explained in chapter 10.
Now, if you want to rule that magic stone attacks add both the attacker's DEX modifier and the caster's spellcasting ability modifier to their attack and damage rolls, you know what? You do you. That'd be consistent, at least.
Magic Stone is extremely clear about this[1], so that's false. You use the spellcaster's spellcasting ability modifier. Further, even if you were right, this confusion of ability modifiers is insufficient to reach your conclusion. The PHB unequivocally states that you throw a longsword with dexterity and it also unequivocally states you do so with strength. The resulting inability to by RAW pick an ability score modifier for the attack roll doesn't mean when you throw a longsword it ceases to be a ranged weapon attack made with a melee weapon, because those other rules are quite clear.
I'm not sure how you read that about longswords. I suspect you are not overriding a general rule with a specific one.
Specific doesn't override general when there's nothing to override. Magic Stone doesn't say the attack is a spell attack instead of a weapon attack, it says it is a spell attack. Barring a rule actually stating the attack can't be both, if one rule says it's weapon and another says it's spell, then it's both weapon and spell.
So you're saying any attack with a magic stone ends up as both a weapon and spell attack? No. Just as melee and ranged attacks are mutually exclusive, so are spell and weapon attacks.
[1] Ok, no it isn't, but not in the way you mean. There's no question you add the caster's spellcasting ability modifier to the attack roll, and there's no question you don't add the slinger's spellcasting ability modifier, because specific beats general, so what the spell says goes. What might cause an issue is that the PHB p194 and p14 rules - the ones that contradict each other about thrown longswords - never state you can only use one modifier (and indeed, UA Dhampirs and in-game Devotion Paladins absolutely do use two modifiers) on an attack roll, but they do assume it in their phrasing. I suspect that, just like longsword throwing, ultimately you need your DM to make a house rule for magic stone as to whether it's SAM + slinger DEX or just SAM. I would houserule it's just SAM, every time.
Okay, I *think* you're saying that the Weapons section on p14 is in conflict the Attack Rolls section on p194. I would interpret p14 as giving the bare minimum information to a person creating a character and will naturally be less authoritative than p194. In any case, the Sage Advice answers that both of us cited clarify for ability score application, p194 is the one that matters -- no DM house rule necessary.
Uhhh… the range increments for thrown improvised weapons (like pebbles) are 20(60) [not 20(30)], and the spell attack range for chucking a Magic Stone is 60 ft. [not 30]. I don’t find your comment very compelling since you flubbed the one exact thing we’re discussing. Especially considering that it has been expressly stated in at least half of the posts in this thread. 😉 👍
In addition, I said the person who made the case to me was compelling. Go find that threat and read that person’s posts before passing judgement on how compelling their argument was. (It is only fair to judge someone else on their merits, not mine. Ne?
Sorry i meant range 60. Argument is the same though there is no such thing as Assumption beat General 😉
I dont need to go find the Reddit thread that make compelling assumption on what the spell Magic Stone does, since it's not RAW !
Again, I'm not seeing Sposta argue that 120 is RAW. Only that it's most probably RAI -- which you haven't argued against. Are you sure the two of you aren't in agreement?
I provided RAI from the Dev, saying use sling range. So we know it's not RAI, nor RAW.
By definition, a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon is a ranged weapon attack, because a) you made it with a weapon and b) it was a ranged attack.
In general, sure. But magic stone specifically says that it's a spell attack, and specific beats general.
Specific doesn't beat general when there's nothing to beat. No rule in the game states that a ranged weapon attack ceases to be a ranged weapon attack when it becomes a ranged spell attack.
Magic stone from a sling is a ranged weapon attack and a ranged spell attack, because the general rules I just provided ensure it is a ranged weapon attack, the text of magic stone says it is a ranged spell attack, and there is simply no rule stating that an attack can't be both.
The spell let you either throw or hurl a rock, which are normally (improvised) ranged weapon attack, but specifically say it's ranged spell attack. As i said, i don't think an attack can be both spell and weapon. Sage Advice Compendium also classify them seperatly by Attack type and further explain that if a spell expects you to make a spell attack, the spell’s description says so, which Magic Stone does;
How do I know which ability modifier to use with an attack roll and its damage roll? The Player’s Handbook specifies which ability modifier to use with an attack roll (p. 194) and which one to use with the corresponding damage roll (p. 196). Here’s a summary:
Uhhh… the range increments for thrown improvised weapons (like pebbles) are 20(60) [not 20(30)], and the spell attack range for chucking a Magic Stone is 60 ft. [not 30]. I don’t find your comment very compelling since you flubbed the one exact thing we’re discussing. Especially considering that it has been expressly stated in at least half of the posts in this thread. 😉 👍
In addition, I said the person who made the case to me was compelling. Go find that threat and read that person’s posts before passing judgement on how compelling their argument was. (It is only fair to judge someone else on their merits, not mine. Ne?
Sorry i meant range 60. Argument is the same though there is no such thing as Assumption beat General 😉
I dont need to go find the Reddit thread that make compelling assumption on what the spell Magic Stone does, since it's not RAW !
Again, I'm not seeing Sposta argue that 120 is RAW. Only that it's most probably RAI -- which you haven't argued against. Are you sure the two of you aren't in agreement?
I provided RAI from the Dev, saying use sling range. So we know it's not RAI, nor RAW.
Mearls' answers are pretty far from authoritative on RAI...
I wouldn't say that. Mearls was co-Lead Designer with Crawford for 5th edition, AND lead designer of 4th edition, AND some kinda high-up in the twilight years of 3.5 while 4E was being developed. Crawford still doesn't have the same history of lead design responsibility over a continuity of editions that Mearls did, even if Crawford outlasted him after 2019. When Mearls gives a ruling, its with a good context of where the rule was in 3, where it went in 4, and why it changed in 5. Crawford on the other hand doesn't seem to always even have a good context for what ruling he gave last year... but sniping aside, any qualification that Crawford has for 5E design prior to 2019, Mearls has that + an extra edition or two of context. Maybe he's the "expert" on new stuff from the last three years, but for 5E core, Mearls knows as much or more.
I dont find it a compelling argument that because Magic Stone use a pebble that can normally be thrown to 20/30 but the spell range is 30, it means Magic Stone eliminate long range disadvantage in favor of single range unit It's an assumption. Spells often have arbitrary range and they do what they say they do so if they wanted the sling to ignore long range disadvantage to have a single range they would have said so. It's basically the rule of Specific Beat General and for it to beat a general rule, the specific one must be spelled out in the first place, not assumed while unwritten.
I’m also in the camp that with a sling, Magic Stone becomes 30/120 range, not a flat 120, and down from it’s thrown flat 60.
I agree that it is a ranged spell attack made “with a ranged weapon,” but not a ranged weapon attack.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Uhhh… the range increments for thrown improvised weapons (like pebbles) are 20(60) [not 20(30)], and the spell attack range for chucking a Magic Stone is 60 ft. [not 30]. I don’t find your comment very compelling since you flubbed the one exact thing we’re discussing. Especially considering that it has been expressly stated in at least half of the posts in this thread. 😉 👍
In addition, I said the person who made the case to me was compelling. Go find that threat and read that person’s posts before passing judgement on how compelling their argument was. (It is only fair to judge someone else on their merits, not mine. Ne?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sorry i meant range 60. Argument is the same though there is no such thing as Assumption beat General 😉
I dont need to go find the Reddit thread that make compelling assumption on what the spell Magic Stone does, since it's not RAW !
I think this the correct, RAW interpretation.
But the 30/120 range just doesn't sit right. I don't like that using a sling makes it go less far when a sling's whole purpose is to increase distance. I find the logic behind the argument for a flat 120 range quite satisfying as well, so I'm inclined to lean that direction for multiple reasons despite RAW.
I did explicitly state just two posts ago that it was a DDB user in these very forums who made the case to me who changed my mind. So no reddit required!
🍾 🎇 📖 Reading is Fundamental!! 📚 🎆 🎉
😁
If you search my username together with the name of this spell you just might even be able to find it fairly quickly.
I hope that helps.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I do agree that 120 is almost certainly RAI. I just don’t see how RAW, “you can use a sling” means something complicated like “you can use part of a sling’s rules, but only the parts that are beneficial to you.” I’d really prefer an errata rather than just ignoring the RAW, but at the table I’d be fine calling it 120.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Again, I'm not seeing Sposta argue that 120 is RAW. Only that it's most probably RAI -- which you haven't argued against. Are you sure the two of you aren't in agreement?
By definition, a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon is a ranged weapon attack, because a) you made it with a weapon and b) it was a ranged attack.
In general, sure. But magic stone specifically says that it's a spell attack, and specific beats general.
That statement does not really apply, given the context of the question it was replying to. The game rules do not allow for an attack to be both a spell attack and a weapon attack. You would not know what ability score to make the attack with if that were the case. As such, just as with a thrown magic stone being a spell attack instead of an (improvised) weapon attack, using a sling to fire a magic stone is also a spell attack instead of the weapon attack it would normally be. The specific of the spell overrides the general.
EDIT: Basically, one can validly say that a hurled magic stone shot with a sling was an attack made with a weapon (which allows +X slings to apply their bonus), but it is not a weapon attack because the spell states it is a spell attack.
Specific doesn't beat general when there's nothing to beat. No rule in the game states that a ranged weapon attack ceases to be a ranged weapon attack when it becomes a ranged spell attack.
Magic stone from a sling is a ranged weapon attack and a ranged spell attack, because the general rules I just provided ensure it is a ranged weapon attack, the text of magic stone says it is a ranged spell attack, and there is simply no rule stating that an attack can't be both.
Citation, please.
Magic Stone is extremely clear about this[1], so that's false. You use the spellcaster's spellcasting ability modifier. Further, even if you were right, this confusion of ability modifiers is insufficient to reach your conclusion. The PHB unequivocally states that you throw a longsword with dexterity and it also unequivocally states you do so with strength. The resulting inability to by RAW pick an ability score modifier for the attack roll doesn't mean when you throw a longsword it ceases to be a ranged weapon attack made with a melee weapon, because those other rules are quite clear.
Specific doesn't override general when there's nothing to override. Magic Stone doesn't say the attack is a spell attack instead of a weapon attack, it says it is a spell attack. Barring a rule actually stating the attack can't be both, if one rule says it's weapon and another says it's spell, then it's both weapon and spell.
[1] Ok, no it isn't, but not in the way you mean. There's no question you add the caster's spellcasting ability modifier to the attack roll, and there's no question you don't add the slinger's spellcasting ability modifier, because specific beats general, so what the spell says goes. What might cause an issue is that the PHB p194 and p14 rules - the ones that contradict each other about thrown longswords - never state you can only use one modifier (and indeed, UA Dhampirs and in-game Devotion Paladins absolutely do use two modifiers) on an attack roll, but they do assume it in their phrasing. I suspect that, just like longsword throwing, ultimately you need your DM to make a house rule for magic stone as to whether it's SAM + slinger DEX or just SAM. I would houserule it's just SAM, every time.
There's no rule that explicitly says an attack can't be both because the idea is fundamentally incoherent, and the designers expect a modicum of sense from their audience.
Luckily for the sake of this discussion, however, the rules on attack rolls make it clear that spell attacks and weapon attacks are disjoint:
Now, if you want to rule that magic stone attacks add both the attacker's DEX modifier and the caster's spellcasting ability modifier to their attack and damage rolls, you know what? You do you. That'd be consistent, at least.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA129
I'm not sure how you read that about longswords. I suspect you are not overriding a general rule with a specific one.
So you're saying any attack with a magic stone ends up as both a weapon and spell attack? No. Just as melee and ranged attacks are mutually exclusive, so are spell and weapon attacks.
Okay, I *think* you're saying that the Weapons section on p14 is in conflict the Attack Rolls section on p194. I would interpret p14 as giving the bare minimum information to a person creating a character and will naturally be less authoritative than p194. In any case, the Sage Advice answers that both of us cited clarify for ability score application, p194 is the one that matters -- no DM house rule necessary.
I provided RAI from the Dev, saying use sling range. So we know it's not RAI, nor RAW.
The spell let you either throw or hurl a rock, which are normally (improvised) ranged weapon attack, but specifically say it's ranged spell attack. As i said, i don't think an attack can be both spell and weapon. Sage Advice Compendium also classify them seperatly by Attack type and further explain that if a spell expects you to make a spell attack, the spell’s description says so, which Magic Stone does;
How do I know which ability modifier to use with an attack roll and its damage roll? The Player’s Handbook specifies which ability modifier to use with an attack roll (p. 194) and which one to use with the corresponding damage roll (p. 196). Here’s a summary:
Attack Type Attack Roll Damage Roll
Melee weapon attack Strength mod.* Strength mod.
Ranged weapon attack Dexterity mod.* Dexterity mod.
Spell attack Spellcasting ability mod.** Depends on effect
......If a spell expects you to make a spell attack, the spell’s description says so.
Mearls' answers are pretty far from authoritative on RAI...
I wouldn't say that. Mearls was co-Lead Designer with Crawford for 5th edition, AND lead designer of 4th edition, AND some kinda high-up in the twilight years of 3.5 while 4E was being developed. Crawford still doesn't have the same history of lead design responsibility over a continuity of editions that Mearls did, even if Crawford outlasted him after 2019. When Mearls gives a ruling, its with a good context of where the rule was in 3, where it went in 4, and why it changed in 5. Crawford on the other hand doesn't seem to always even have a good context for what ruling he gave last year... but sniping aside, any qualification that Crawford has for 5E design prior to 2019, Mearls has that + an extra edition or two of context. Maybe he's the "expert" on new stuff from the last three years, but for 5E core, Mearls knows as much or more.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Mike Mearls was working in R&D. Unless someone else from R&D comes correct his ruling, i see no reason to believe this is not intended.