DxJxChas a good point. The damage bonus applies to thrown weapons, not necessarily weapons with the thrown tag. Just like the second clause of Crossbow Expert applies to all ranged attacks, not just attacks made with a ranged weapon, the wording of the Thrown Weapon Fighting Style seems more widely applicable with the second sentence than with the first.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon.
In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll.
The first sentence deliberately uses the term "thrown property". This means only weapons with the thrown property benefit from this first feature.
The second sentence does not use the same verbiage. If they wanted the bonus damage to only apply to weapons with the thrown property they would have said as such. You will get this bonus damage any time you throw anything considered a weapon as an attack.
I've done a good amount of theory building around thrown weapons since Tasha's and I believe battlemaster fighter is the key.
Dart is the best choice for damage. Archery + Sharpshooter is a very powerful combo, and battlemaster gives a steady source of bonus action attacks thanks to quick toss.
Melee thrown weapons are better at control. Combining the new slasher or crusher feats with trip/push/goad maneuvers on ranged attacks makes for some awesome battlefield control options. You can also attack in melee with them for less damage which is strong.
The dart optimizes damage while melee options have tactical versatility. I would dip battlemaster on this ranger rock thrower to have crusher + pushing maneuver. Just batter people around the battlefield with random debris.
Not quite, he is specifying general items that are not weapons. His example is a random stone that the character picks up while walking down the road. The problem with this is that it is a slippery slope if you include improvised weapons - where do you draw the line before it just degenerates into chaos at the table? I mean if I can randomly just pick up and throw a rock and get the thrown weapon bonus then it should be fine to apply the bonus to other non weapon items simply because someone throws them right? What about if I bend down and pull my shoe off and yeet it at someone - should that get the style bonus? What about a deck of cards - do the edges suddenly become razor sharp and slice into creatures? What about my house keys? A bag of ball bearings or even a bedroll? The stone to be honest possibly could get the bonus, but then you have to give it to all other thrown items. I draw the line at improvised weapons because improvised weapons are treated as a separate category and have their own rules which includes rule for throwing them. Perhaps the dev's have worded it badly, but it seems to me at least, very clear that the thrown weapon fighting style should only apply to thrown weapons and not random improvised objects.
Even in the description quoted by Heironymus, the text says thrown weapon and not improvised thrown weapon, and given that it follows directly on from the first sentence it obviously suggests a weapon that has the thrown tag. I agree it doesn't explicitly say that but come on, it is obvious what the intention is. We are really splitting hairs here to say that the two sentences do not refer to actual thrown weapons.
Not quite, he is specifying general items that are not weapons. His example is a random stone that the character picks up while walking down the road. The problem with this is that it is a slippery slope if you include improvised weapons - where do you draw the line before it just degenerates into chaos at the table? I mean if I can randomly just pick up and throw a rock and get the thrown weapon bonus then it should be fine to apply the bonus to other non weapon items simply because someone throws them right? What about if I bend down and pull my shoe off and yeet it at someone - should that get the style bonus? What about a deck of cards - do the edges suddenly become razor sharp and slice into creatures? What about my house keys? A bag of ball bearings or even a bedroll? The stone to be honest possibly could get the bonus, but then you have to give it to all other thrown items. I draw the line at improvised weapons because improvised weapons are treated as a separate category and have their own rules which includes rule for throwing them. Perhaps the dev's have worded it badly, but it seems to me at least, very clear that the thrown weapon fighting style should only apply to thrown weapons and not random improvised objects.
Even in the description quoted by Heironymus, the text says thrown weapon and not improvised thrown weapon, and given that it follows directly on from the first sentence it obviously suggests a weapon that has the thrown tag. I agree it doesn't explicitly say that but come on, it is obvious what the intention is. We are really splitting hairs here to say that the two sentences do not refer to actual thrown weapons.
Items that are not meant to be weapons but are used as such are improvised weapons. Improvised weapons are still weapons and there are rules that cover their use.
An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
So no, it's not literally anything. Your slippery slope, in this case, is a fallacy. A shoe, a deck of cards, a bag of ball bearings, and a bedroll all seem to be things that can be held in one or two hands so yes they count as weapons. I don't think it ridiculous that someone who trained in the art of deadly throwing could add just a little bit of damage when they throw things like rocks and and even playing cards given that all the other rules are still followed. I don't think this was an oversight given other Feats that have a narrowly applied clause combined with a more generally applied clause.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
[Snip] I draw the line at improvised weapons because improvised weapons are treated as a separate category and have their own rules which includes rule for throwing them. Perhaps the dev's have worded it badly, but it seems to me at least, very clear that the thrown weapon fighting style should only apply to thrown weapons and not random improvised objects.
Cut part summary: If a rock as an improvised weapon is a weapon, should everything used as an improvised weapon be a weapon? Yes. Obviously. There is no slippery slope, everything the DM says does damage when you hit something with it (that isn't already classified as a weapon) is an improvised weapon, and thus a weapon. And if you throw one it is a thrown weapon (a weapon that you threw).
Even in the description quoted by Heironymus, the text says thrown weapon and not improvised thrown weapon, and given that it follows directly on from the first sentence it obviously suggests a weapon that has the thrown tag. I agree it doesn't explicitly say that but come on, it is obvious what the intention is. We are really splitting hairs here to say that the two sentences do not refer to actual thrown weapons.
Oh my god, you're right. It doesn't say thrown improvised weapon. It doesn't say thrown simple weapon or thrown martial weapon either. Either this sentence applies to everything generally refered to as a weapon or nothing at all.
I think I have found the answer to making my character a rock throwing, club swinging savage. On level 4 I choose Magic Initiate (druid). Then I can choose Magic Stone and another cantrip (can't decide between Primal Savagery, Shillelagh or Thorn Whip) and level 1 druid spell.
... If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
In my opinion the last reference is the most important argument to make when arguing FOR thrown weapon fighting to apply, to give an example. Say I have a hand crossbow on a character that has the tavern brawler feat and thrown weapon fighting, but I've ran out of bolts to fire it. I throw the hand crossbow at a target 15 feat away before continuing to fight with other weapons. At this point the ranged weapon would become an improvised thrown weapon. In my opinion the following damage should be dealt:
1d4+proficiency+thrown weapon fighting.
This is because when you take away the weapon type from "Improvised Thrown Weapon" you get "Thrown Weapon", thus thrown weapon fighting's damage bonus should apply:
...In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll.
However in the AGAINST camp the underwater fighting and two weapon fighting refer to thrown weapons ("weapon that is thrown" and "throw the weapon") as melee weapons that have the thrown property. The thrown weapon fighting style does the same in the first part of the style:
You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon...
This implied that thrown weapon fighting requires the thrown property because the damage bonus applies "in addition..."
By the language used I'm in the FOR camp. However if you plan to use this in a campaign take it up with your DM in a session 0, because it doesn't matter what any of us say if your DM won't allow it.
I think I have found the answer to making my character a rock throwing, club swinging savage. On level 4 I choose Magic Initiate (druid). Then I can choose Magic Stone and another cantrip (can't decide between Primal Savagery, Shillelagh or Thorn Whip) and level 1 druid spell.
Keep in mind that magic stone converts the stone into a ranged spell attack, so you can't use the extra attack feature to chuck 2-3 stones a turn. (even though allowing this would make it a better cantrip)
Keep in mind that magic stone converts the stone into a ranged spell attack, so you can't use the extra attack feature to chuck 2-3 stones a turn. (even though allowing this would make it a better cantrip
I really liked your breakdown, but this bit is false. Magic Stone scales with extra attack. The spell transforms three stones, and they can be thrown using your spellcasting modifier as a ranged spell attack. The spell does not have you make an attack roll as part of casting the spell. You make your attack actions separate from the casting, using the stones, and since there is nothing in the spell description to limit your attack actions with the stone to one a turn, you can benefit from extra attack if you have it. There is nothing in the rules to state that a spell attack takes your action and denies the ability to use Extra Attack. It's more that there are very few ways to make a spell attack outside of casting a spell. Magic Stone happens to be one of them.
I think the magic stone bit is brilliant when it comes to creating a rock chucking maniac, but that is truly some gray area-Twilight Zone levels of rules interaction with Thrown Weapon Style. You throw the stone, sure, but it's now magical and part of a spell attack, not a weapon attack. But it's still a stone you're throwing, and I'm in the camp that supports improvised thrown weapons getting a boost from the style. Rule of cool I'd allow it 100%, but I'm dubious about it working if you're trying to follow the letter of the law.
Can a spell with an attack roll be used as the attack in the Attack action or as part of the Extra Attack feature?
The short answer is no.... ....In summary, to make a spell attack, you have to first cast a spell or use a feature that creates the spell’s effect. A game feature, such as Extra Attack, that lets you make an attack doesn’t let you cast a spell unless it says it does.
You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles... ...If someone else attacks with the pebble, that attacker adds your spellcasting ability modifier, not the attacker’s, to the attack roll...
This completely revives a ranger with druidic warrior concept I gave up on. Thanks!
p.s. the second link seems to imply that archery would apply to magic stone when you use a sling, so thrown weapon mastery would apply when you throw it. Rule of thumb to see if a feature applies to magic stone:
"Ranged Attack" yes
"Weapon Attack" no
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
One could argue that a stone (imbued with magic or not) is similar to a sling bullet or ball bearing. Or that a brick is similar to a light hammer. I'd say that you could add proficiency if you use a sling, or have the Tavern Brawler feat when throwing as an improvised weapon.
Yeah the key thing about magic stone is that it's like goodberry. The two spells don't have any immediate damaging or healing effects when you cast them. They simply create the items. You then get to use those items at your leisure until the magic wears off. A druidic warrior Ranger with shillelagh and magic stone is an awesome build.
The whole magic stone + sling thing, while a popular idea, isn't actually supported by any mechanics. Magic stone states you make spell attacks with it, so you make spell attacks. If you want to flavor it as being thrown from a sling, fine, but mechanically the attack has a set range established by the spell and is a spell attack by nature. Archery specifically mentions ranged weapons and Thrown Weapon specifically mentions thrown weapons. A spell attack is explicitly not a weapon. So even though it is a stone that is being thrown, I'm almost 100% sure that magic stone attacks do not qualify for thrown weapon fighting. Unfortunate, and something I would hand wave as kosher in a heartbeat. I mean, if someone wants to be the best magic stone skipper in all the realms, why not let that dream come true.
The whole magic stone + sling thing, while a popular idea, isn't actually supported by any mechanics. Magic stone states you make spell attacks with it, so you make spell attacks. If you want to flavor it as being thrown from a sling, fine, but mechanically the attack has a set range established by the spell and is a spell attack by nature. Archery specifically mentions ranged weapons and Thrown Weapon specifically mentions thrown weapons. A spell attack is explicitly not a weapon. So even though it is a stone that is being thrown, I'm almost 100% sure that magic stone attacks do not qualify for thrown weapon fighting. Unfortunate, and something I would hand wave as kosher in a heartbeat. I mean, if someone wants to be the best magic stone skipper in all the realms, why not let that dream come true.
except for the part of the spell where it straight up states:
"You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling. If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet"
What exactly would make magic stone different from +1sling bullets? Mechanically the magic stones increase the damage die instead of the to hit and damage numbers. On that end it may be on the weaker side, however in either case it is nothing more then magical ammunition fired from a ranged weapon.
On top of that the sling itself states "Proficiency with a sling allows you to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll for any attack you make with it." This does't differentiate at all, it adds proficiency to 'the attack role for any attack'. A ranged spell attack is still an attack roll.
Simmilarily the archery fighting style states 'You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons.' Since you fire magic stone from your sling you are making an attack with a ranged weapon.
1d20+2 to hit with 1d6+proficiency+wisdom damage
I'd even go as far as say that sharpshooter applies. As that too just requires firing from a ranged weapon, which a sling is.
As for the non-sling usage, once you throw it does it become a spelll? If so then the extra attack feature doesn't aplly either. If it's an improvised throwing attack then extra attacks apply, as well as thrown weapon masters +2. In no case can the extra attacks apply but the thrown weapon damage can't.
The only limiting factor for throwing I can see is the 'drawing' of a weapon. You don't get to 'draw' magic stones as they don't have the 'thrown' property. So wouldn't it fall under the 'interact with an item' rules?
It depends on the dm. But since the cantrip doesn't scale with levels like any 'normal' cantrip, I'd allow it. The only scaling you get is trough action economy, where you get extra attacks at 5th level, and possibly the 11th level depending on subclass (though the 11th level feature is highly situational)
Plus magic stone doesn't say that throwing the stone is done as an action (as other spells that deal damage after initial casting do). You can throw something as an attack with the attack action, it just becomes a spell attack instead of a weapon attack from the spell's effect.
The real question here is whether we treat rocks as an intractable object as per object interaction rules. Or as ammunition as per any other ranged weapon.
From real life I can say I can comfortably hold 3 diametric thump sized rocks in my hand while scooting them into the world with the other hand. For a sling they would be ammunition. But when thrown, would it be allowed to attack 3 times with a rock?
The real question here is whether we treat rocks as an intractable object as per object interaction rules. Or as ammunition as per any other ranged weapon.
From real life I can say I can comfortably hold 3 diametric thump sized rocks in my hand while scooting them into the world with the other hand. For a sling they would be ammunition. But when thrown, would it be allowed to attack 3 times with a rock?
Why wouldn't we use item interaction rules? And spell specifically says they can be used as ammo. I'm not sure what you are even trying to say with this post.
You throw them by hand or by sling. You can do that a number of times as you could with non-magic rocks (which is the number of attacks you have).
Improvised weapons rules.... drop a piano or even a 2 ton boulder on someone and it only does 1d4, because, er, play-balance? And yet that is RAW....
Actually, you are omitting a lot from the improvised weapons rule. Even when holding a table leg the DM could change the die:
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
So the DM not changing a hurled piano damage to something like 2d12 is on the DM, and you should challenge this in a play session.
Improvised weapons rules.... drop a piano or even a 2 ton boulder on someone and it only does 1d4, because, er, play-balance? And yet that is RAW....
Actually, you are omitting a lot from the improvised weapons rule. Even when holding a table leg the DM could change the die:
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
So the DM not changing a hurled piano damage to something like 2d12 is on the DM, and you should challenge this in a play session.
Well the closest weapon is a club, and clubs do not have the thrown property so even if you deemed it equivalent to a massive club, then this rule kicks in: "throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage."
In the first part the improvised weapon states "An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin." I'd argue that a piano doesn't qualify as you don't wield it by swinging it around by holding 1 leg of the piano. Also because 2d12 is probably more damage then 1d4+proficiency.
Any DM that actually makes you roll a d4+proficiency for throwing a piano on someone's head is sapping some serious fun.
Improvised weapons rules.... drop a piano or even a 2 ton boulder on someone and it only does 1d4, because, er, play-balance? And yet that is RAW....
That isn't RAW, because that is not wielding as a weapon. That would use the Improvised damage table.
If the character is throwing it or even just aiming it, how is it not an improvised weapon?
If you are strong enough to chuck half a ton or more as an improvised weapon then the DM should make an exception for a giant (assuming the various buffs it took to get that strong don't already add a bunch of bonuses to the attack).
If you are aiming/timing the drop of said item, that is closer to a trap, but could be compared to a siege weapon. Either way, different rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
DxJxC has a good point. The damage bonus applies to thrown weapons, not necessarily weapons with the thrown tag. Just like the second clause of Crossbow Expert applies to all ranged attacks, not just attacks made with a ranged weapon, the wording of the Thrown Weapon Fighting Style seems more widely applicable with the second sentence than with the first.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Thrown Weapon Style:
The first sentence deliberately uses the term "thrown property". This means only weapons with the thrown property benefit from this first feature.
The second sentence does not use the same verbiage. If they wanted the bonus damage to only apply to weapons with the thrown property they would have said as such. You will get this bonus damage any time you throw anything considered a weapon as an attack.
I've done a good amount of theory building around thrown weapons since Tasha's and I believe battlemaster fighter is the key.
The dart optimizes damage while melee options have tactical versatility. I would dip battlemaster on this ranger rock thrower to have crusher + pushing maneuver. Just batter people around the battlefield with random debris.
Not quite, he is specifying general items that are not weapons. His example is a random stone that the character picks up while walking down the road. The problem with this is that it is a slippery slope if you include improvised weapons - where do you draw the line before it just degenerates into chaos at the table? I mean if I can randomly just pick up and throw a rock and get the thrown weapon bonus then it should be fine to apply the bonus to other non weapon items simply because someone throws them right? What about if I bend down and pull my shoe off and yeet it at someone - should that get the style bonus? What about a deck of cards - do the edges suddenly become razor sharp and slice into creatures? What about my house keys? A bag of ball bearings or even a bedroll? The stone to be honest possibly could get the bonus, but then you have to give it to all other thrown items. I draw the line at improvised weapons because improvised weapons are treated as a separate category and have their own rules which includes rule for throwing them. Perhaps the dev's have worded it badly, but it seems to me at least, very clear that the thrown weapon fighting style should only apply to thrown weapons and not random improvised objects.
Even in the description quoted by Heironymus, the text says thrown weapon and not improvised thrown weapon, and given that it follows directly on from the first sentence it obviously suggests a weapon that has the thrown tag. I agree it doesn't explicitly say that but come on, it is obvious what the intention is. We are really splitting hairs here to say that the two sentences do not refer to actual thrown weapons.
Items that are not meant to be weapons but are used as such are improvised weapons. Improvised weapons are still weapons and there are rules that cover their use.
So no, it's not literally anything. Your slippery slope, in this case, is a fallacy. A shoe, a deck of cards, a bag of ball bearings, and a bedroll all seem to be things that can be held in one or two hands so yes they count as weapons. I don't think it ridiculous that someone who trained in the art of deadly throwing could add just a little bit of damage when they throw things like rocks and and even playing cards given that all the other rules are still followed. I don't think this was an oversight given other Feats that have a narrowly applied clause combined with a more generally applied clause.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Cut part summary: If a rock as an improvised weapon is a weapon, should everything used as an improvised weapon be a weapon? Yes. Obviously. There is no slippery slope, everything the DM says does damage when you hit something with it (that isn't already classified as a weapon) is an improvised weapon, and thus a weapon. And if you throw one it is a thrown weapon (a weapon that you threw).
Oh my god, you're right. It doesn't say thrown improvised weapon. It doesn't say thrown simple weapon or thrown martial weapon either. Either this sentence applies to everything generally refered to as a weapon or nothing at all.
I think I have found the answer to making my character a rock throwing, club swinging savage. On level 4 I choose Magic Initiate (druid). Then I can choose Magic Stone and another cantrip (can't decide between Primal Savagery, Shillelagh or Thorn Whip) and level 1 druid spell.
When you look up the term "thrown weapon" you get some references:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#UnderwaterCombat
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#TwoWeaponFighting
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/equipment#ImprovisedWeapons
In my opinion the last reference is the most important argument to make when arguing FOR thrown weapon fighting to apply, to give an example. Say I have a hand crossbow on a character that has the tavern brawler feat and thrown weapon fighting, but I've ran out of bolts to fire it. I throw the hand crossbow at a target 15 feat away before continuing to fight with other weapons. At this point the ranged weapon would become an improvised thrown weapon. In my opinion the following damage should be dealt:
This is because when you take away the weapon type from "Improvised Thrown Weapon" you get "Thrown Weapon", thus thrown weapon fighting's damage bonus should apply:
However in the AGAINST camp the underwater fighting and two weapon fighting refer to thrown weapons ("weapon that is thrown" and "throw the weapon") as melee weapons that have the thrown property. The thrown weapon fighting style does the same in the first part of the style:
This implied that thrown weapon fighting requires the thrown property because the damage bonus applies "in addition..."
By the language used I'm in the FOR camp. However if you plan to use this in a campaign take it up with your DM in a session 0, because it doesn't matter what any of us say if your DM won't allow it.
Keep in mind that magic stone converts the stone into a ranged spell attack, so you can't use the extra attack feature to chuck 2-3 stones a turn. (even though allowing this would make it a better cantrip)
I really liked your breakdown, but this bit is false. Magic Stone scales with extra attack. The spell transforms three stones, and they can be thrown using your spellcasting modifier as a ranged spell attack. The spell does not have you make an attack roll as part of casting the spell. You make your attack actions separate from the casting, using the stones, and since there is nothing in the spell description to limit your attack actions with the stone to one a turn, you can benefit from extra attack if you have it. There is nothing in the rules to state that a spell attack takes your action and denies the ability to use Extra Attack. It's more that there are very few ways to make a spell attack outside of casting a spell. Magic Stone happens to be one of them.
I think the magic stone bit is brilliant when it comes to creating a rock chucking maniac, but that is truly some gray area-Twilight Zone levels of rules interaction with Thrown Weapon Style. You throw the stone, sure, but it's now magical and part of a spell attack, not a weapon attack. But it's still a stone you're throwing, and I'm in the camp that supports improvised thrown weapons getting a boost from the style. Rule of cool I'd allow it 100%, but I'm dubious about it working if you're trying to follow the letter of the law.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA154
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/magic-stone
I don't know why the sage advise and rules have to be so roundabout on the topic. After a bit more searching I see the errors of my ways:
This completely revives a ranger with druidic warrior concept I gave up on. Thanks!
p.s. the second link seems to imply that archery would apply to magic stone when you use a sling, so thrown weapon mastery would apply when you throw it. Rule of thumb to see if a feature applies to magic stone:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/equipment#ImprovisedWeapons
One could argue that a stone (imbued with magic or not) is similar to a sling bullet or ball bearing. Or that a brick is similar to a light hammer. I'd say that you could add proficiency if you use a sling, or have the Tavern Brawler feat when throwing as an improvised weapon.
It's really up to the DM though *shrugs*
Yeah the key thing about magic stone is that it's like goodberry. The two spells don't have any immediate damaging or healing effects when you cast them. They simply create the items. You then get to use those items at your leisure until the magic wears off. A druidic warrior Ranger with shillelagh and magic stone is an awesome build.
The whole magic stone + sling thing, while a popular idea, isn't actually supported by any mechanics. Magic stone states you make spell attacks with it, so you make spell attacks. If you want to flavor it as being thrown from a sling, fine, but mechanically the attack has a set range established by the spell and is a spell attack by nature. Archery specifically mentions ranged weapons and Thrown Weapon specifically mentions thrown weapons. A spell attack is explicitly not a weapon. So even though it is a stone that is being thrown, I'm almost 100% sure that magic stone attacks do not qualify for thrown weapon fighting. Unfortunate, and something I would hand wave as kosher in a heartbeat. I mean, if someone wants to be the best magic stone skipper in all the realms, why not let that dream come true.
except for the part of the spell where it straight up states:
"You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling. If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet"
What exactly would make magic stone different from +1sling bullets? Mechanically the magic stones increase the damage die instead of the to hit and damage numbers. On that end it may be on the weaker side, however in either case it is nothing more then magical ammunition fired from a ranged weapon.
On top of that the sling itself states "Proficiency with a sling allows you to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll for any attack you make with it." This does't differentiate at all, it adds proficiency to 'the attack role for any attack'. A ranged spell attack is still an attack roll.
Simmilarily the archery fighting style states 'You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons.' Since you fire magic stone from your sling you are making an attack with a ranged weapon.
1d20+2 to hit with 1d6+proficiency+wisdom damage
I'd even go as far as say that sharpshooter applies. As that too just requires firing from a ranged weapon, which a sling is.
As for the non-sling usage, once you throw it does it become a spelll? If so then the extra attack feature doesn't aplly either. If it's an improvised throwing attack then extra attacks apply, as well as thrown weapon masters +2. In no case can the extra attacks apply but the thrown weapon damage can't.
The only limiting factor for throwing I can see is the 'drawing' of a weapon. You don't get to 'draw' magic stones as they don't have the 'thrown' property. So wouldn't it fall under the 'interact with an item' rules?
LOL. *smacks head against wall*
Yep sling stuff. Still though. When THROWN, It's a spell attack. not a weapon attack. I could see it going either way.
(Phone editing sucks)
It depends on the dm. But since the cantrip doesn't scale with levels like any 'normal' cantrip, I'd allow it. The only scaling you get is trough action economy, where you get extra attacks at 5th level, and possibly the 11th level depending on subclass (though the 11th level feature is highly situational)
Plus magic stone doesn't say that throwing the stone is done as an action (as other spells that deal damage after initial casting do). You can throw something as an attack with the attack action, it just becomes a spell attack instead of a weapon attack from the spell's effect.
The real question here is whether we treat rocks as an intractable object as per object interaction rules. Or as ammunition as per any other ranged weapon.
From real life I can say I can comfortably hold 3 diametric thump sized rocks in my hand while scooting them into the world with the other hand. For a sling they would be ammunition. But when thrown, would it be allowed to attack 3 times with a rock?
Why wouldn't we use item interaction rules? And spell specifically says they can be used as ammo. I'm not sure what you are even trying to say with this post.
You throw them by hand or by sling. You can do that a number of times as you could with non-magic rocks (which is the number of attacks you have).
Actually, you are omitting a lot from the improvised weapons rule. Even when holding a table leg the DM could change the die:
So the DM not changing a hurled piano damage to something like 2d12 is on the DM, and you should challenge this in a play session.
In the first part the improvised weapon states "An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin." I'd argue that a piano doesn't qualify as you don't wield it by swinging it around by holding 1 leg of the piano. Also because 2d12 is probably more damage then 1d4+proficiency.
Any DM that actually makes you roll a d4+proficiency for throwing a piano on someone's head is sapping some serious fun.
That isn't RAW, because that is not wielding as a weapon. That would use the Improvised damage table.
If you are strong enough to chuck half a ton or more as an improvised weapon then the DM should make an exception for a giant (assuming the various buffs it took to get that strong don't already add a bunch of bonuses to the attack).
If you are aiming/timing the drop of said item, that is closer to a trap, but could be compared to a siege weapon. Either way, different rules.