5. Magic Stone can stack with Sharpshooter *provided* you are proficient in "improvised weapons" for throwing them, or "slings" for using a sling. (sharp shooter says attack with ranged weapon, not make a ranged weapon attack)
...you're right about that too, there's a fun ranger/druid sharpshooter elven accuracy guardian of nature build in there for sure!
The tiny servant created by the spell is not the same as the tiny servant that is a construct and listed in the "monsters. "
As a DM, I would rule that the tiny servant created by the spell can't throw the magic stone.
The tiny servant created by the spell is, in fact, the same as the tiny servant that is a construct and listed in the "monsters."
There is absolutely no reason that the servant could not throw the stone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Imagine a charismatic warlock turning talentless rabble into peerless marksman by just handing them magical rocks and he can't exhaust his power as long as he has the stones to transmute
It doesn’t work with sharpshooter, RAW. Whether or not it’s thrown or slung, it’s still a ranged spell attack. Not a ranged weapon attack.
Totally fair for a DM to rule it differently at their table though, and maybe one dnd will just make it a ranged version of shilleighly.
"You or someone else CAN make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling"
this is RAI not RAW. RAW would read as "Whenever you or someone else attack with one of the pebbles either by hurling it or throwing it make a ranged spell attack"
If you want to go down the RAW vs RAI technicality road.
this is RAI not RAW. RAW would read as "Whenever you or someone else attack with one of the pebbles either by hurling it or throwing it make a ranged spell attack"
No my friend it literally says "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling."
So whoever has the stone can choose between using the spell attack or just not. Nothing in the text gives another option for any other kind of attack.
That is Raw and arguably RAI. If they intended it to be like ranged Shilleighly, they could word it that way. Instead, it just gives a spell attack. It does what it says and nothing else.
1. Magic stone, when fired from a sling, DOES work with both sharpshooter and sneak, because the wording for both abilities is 'an attack with a ranged weapon', not 'a ranged weapon attack'. Very fine splitting of hairs on terminology but it is supported by Crawford in Sage Advice here:
2. The spell description for Tiny Servant just gives a link to the monster stats in the spell text, it does not provide different stats, so yeah, they're the same.
You either make an attack with a weapon, or you attack via a spell. But they don't mix. There is no spell attack that qualifies for things like sneak attack, extra attack, etc.
2. I didn't say anything about tiny servant not being the same. I think it just works that you can give tiny servants the spell attack to use as per the text of the cantrip.
I hate to disagree, but the link I posted is a question to sage advice dated 2021, even though the reply they tacked to it is Crawford's original reply from 2015 saying it works. So I read that as them upholding that ruling as recently as 2021. It's unfortunate Sage Advice doesn't spell things out more clearly so that this kind of thing isn't a constant problem. I did a google search but I can't find anything else backing up your assertion that this has been retconned besides the link you provided, which is from 2018. So if somebody asked them the question in 2021 and they wanted the answer to be no, I can't see why they would post my link instead of yours. Your link from 2018 is accurate, however it is a case of Crawford being glib when he knew people might misunderstand. The text for sharpshooter states "Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage." It only said 'attack', it didn't specify weapon or spell, therefore it can be either. Sounds ridiculous but when they mean a weapon attack or spell attack specifically, they SAY weapon attack or spell attack. To my knowledge this is pretty much the only time it comes up. That said, when these borderline cases come up I figure the real correct answer is whatever makes the people at the table happy. If this was a gamebreaker, I'd say don't allow it. But I've played around with quite a few builds for it and they're all inferior or at best equal to a normal dex sharpshooter. The problem is limiting yourself to a sling means few other things stack on it, your bonus action's burnt, and your AC is low because you dumped dex. What it does do is let you pump Int or some other attribute you want a skill for like Investigation, and still have a sort of OK attack. But hey, if you can see a build that abuses it bad enough to be worth it, I'd love to see it.
Which is why it is LITERALLY RAI. Intended. Not as written, or it would LITERALLY spell it out specifically that it is only that. Or sharpshooter would LITERALLY spell out that it is only for WEAPON attacks.
RAI not RAW.
Nothing anyone says is going to change your mind on this, so...
@CthuluHungers
I could learn from how you eloquently state things.
Which is why it is LITERALLY RAI. Intended. Not as written, or it would LITERALLY spell it out specifically that it is only that. Or sharpshooter would LITERALLY spell out that it is only for WEAPON attacks.
RAI not RAW.
Nothing anyone says is going to change your mind on this, so I'm leaving it as this.
@CthuluHungers
I could learn from how you eloquently state things.
Sharpshooter
Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half and three-quarters cover.
Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
This we all know. notice....
1. "attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls"
2. "Your Ranged weapon attacks ignore half and three-quarters cover."
3. Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose...."
Sharpshooter range SPECIFICALLY states weapon attack. Sharpshooter ignoring cover SPECIFICALLY states weapon attack. The Bonus damage at a -5 to hit DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY state ranged weapon attack.
The bonus damage to sharpshooter applies. The others do not. The others do not by RAW and RAI. The damage, Well, you kinda feel like since they already specifically worded it the one way for the other 2 parts of the feat, that they would have worded it the same way if they wanted the same thing for the other.
This comes from a misunderstanding about “weapon attacks” vs “attacks with a weapon.”
If you assume they are different things, you can read the rules literally to allow things like this with magic stone. But misreading the rules is not “rules as written.”
whether on not an attack qualifies as “with a weapon” comes down to it being a weapon attack using the weapon’s stats.
or as the sage advice compendium puts it:
“Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon. Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” (with a hyphen) if we meant an at- tack with a melee weapon.”
I suppose you could argue that is RAI rather than RAW because they didn’t define it clearly, but it’s RAW now that they officially added the compendium to the rules.
magic stone says it is a spell attack, not an attack with a ranged weapon (which would be a ranged weapon attack).
The spell only does what it says, and nothing says you can forgoe the spell attack to use the magic stone as ammunition in a weapon attack (at least not while benefiting from the spell).
I'm still not convinced though. They mention several spells by name but not magic stone. I'm arguing it can be either a spell attack or a weapon attack... sneak and sharpshooter don't specify what kind of attack it has to be, only that a weapon must be involved. If their use of the term 'with a weapon' automatically makes it a 'weapon attack', then by the same logic magic stone is also a weapon attack because it's 'with a sling'. Even though the spell states it is a spell attack - the spell says that because it was written before the compendium. If we take your interpretation of the compendium it is still a spell attack but now it's ALSO a weapon attack because of what the compendium says. This sentence I find misleading: "Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks." Sounds almost like it applies to spells but they're talking about unarmed attacks as they clarify in the next sentence: "For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack". But that's just my interpretation - if they want to actually call out magic stone specifically I'll totally go with it, until then I'll enjoy what appears to me to be a deliberate and very modest gift to the three rogue druids somewhere out there.
Oh yeah, I don’t think it’d be ridiculous at all to just let players have this. It’s the ruling at my table for fun’s sake.
But specificity rests on the spell, not general rules. The spell doesn’t say the stone can do a ranged attack with a weapon. It doesn’t do anything more than it says, which is give a spell attack.
Oh yeah, I don’t think it’d be ridiculous at all to just let players have this. It’s the ruling at my table for fun’s sake.
But specificity rests on the spell, not general rules. The spell doesn’t say the stone can do a ranged attack with a weapon. It doesn’t do anything more than it says, which is give a spell attack.
And sharpshooter doesn’t do anything more than it says, which is “an attack with a ranged weapon” which is any attack. Spell or weapon. Provided it is ranged. ::shrug::
And an attack with a ranged weapon is a ranged weapon attack. Not a spell attack. So it’s all pretty clear.
*sigh*
just lime *like* a melee attack with a weapon is a weapon melee attack and not a spell attack like with booming blade? Green flame blade? "so its all pretty clear"
Green flame and booming blade state a specific exception in that they says to make a melee weapon attack. Not a spell attack.
Magic Sone doesn’t do that.
Im sorry if I responded in the same tone as you. Trying to keep It brief because I don’t believe you read the longer comments leading up to this. Or even the spell text.
5. Magic Stone can stack with Sharpshooter *provided* you are proficient in "improvised weapons" for throwing them, or "slings" for using a sling. (sharp shooter says attack with ranged weapon, not make a ranged weapon attack)
...you're right about that too, there's a fun ranger/druid sharpshooter elven accuracy guardian of nature build in there for sure!
It doesn’t work with sharpshooter, RAW. Whether or not it’s thrown or slung, it’s still a ranged spell attack. Not a ranged weapon attack.
Totally fair for a DM to rule it differently at their table though, and maybe one dnd will just make it a ranged version of shilleighly.
The tiny servant created by the spell is not the same as the tiny servant that is a construct and listed in the "monsters. "
As a DM, I would rule that the tiny servant created by the spell can't throw the magic stone.
The tiny servant created by the spell is, in fact, the same as the tiny servant that is a construct and listed in the "monsters."
There is absolutely no reason that the servant could not throw the stone.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Imagine a charismatic warlock turning talentless rabble into peerless marksman by just handing them magical rocks and he can't exhaust his power as long as he has the stones to transmute
"You or someone else CAN make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling"
this is RAI not RAW. RAW would read as "Whenever you or someone else attack with one of the pebbles either by hurling it or throwing it make a ranged spell attack"
If you want to go down the RAW vs RAI technicality road.
Blank
No my friend it literally says "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling."
So whoever has the stone can choose between using the spell attack or just not. Nothing in the text gives another option for any other kind of attack.
That is Raw and arguably RAI. If they intended it to be like ranged Shilleighly, they could word it that way. Instead, it just gives a spell attack. It does what it says and nothing else.
1. Magic stone, when fired from a sling, DOES work with both sharpshooter and sneak, because the wording for both abilities is 'an attack with a ranged weapon', not 'a ranged weapon attack'. Very fine splitting of hairs on terminology but it is supported by Crawford in Sage Advice here:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/magic-stone-sneak-attack/
2. The spell description for Tiny Servant just gives a link to the monster stats in the spell text, it does not provide different stats, so yeah, they're the same.
1. He ended up retconning that opinion, as he did with a lot of stuff from that time. Long story short, there is no such thing as a spell attack with a weapon: https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-i-understand-it-correctly-there-are-weapon-attacks-and-there-are-spell-attacks/
You either make an attack with a weapon, or you attack via a spell. But they don't mix. There is no spell attack that qualifies for things like sneak attack, extra attack, etc.
2. I didn't say anything about tiny servant not being the same. I think it just works that you can give tiny servants the spell attack to use as per the text of the cantrip.
I hate to disagree, but the link I posted is a question to sage advice dated 2021, even though the reply they tacked to it is Crawford's original reply from 2015 saying it works. So I read that as them upholding that ruling as recently as 2021. It's unfortunate Sage Advice doesn't spell things out more clearly so that this kind of thing isn't a constant problem. I did a google search but I can't find anything else backing up your assertion that this has been retconned besides the link you provided, which is from 2018. So if somebody asked them the question in 2021 and they wanted the answer to be no, I can't see why they would post my link instead of yours. Your link from 2018 is accurate, however it is a case of Crawford being glib when he knew people might misunderstand. The text for sharpshooter states "Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage." It only said 'attack', it didn't specify weapon or spell, therefore it can be either. Sounds ridiculous but when they mean a weapon attack or spell attack specifically, they SAY weapon attack or spell attack. To my knowledge this is pretty much the only time it comes up. That said, when these borderline cases come up I figure the real correct answer is whatever makes the people at the table happy. If this was a gamebreaker, I'd say don't allow it. But I've played around with quite a few builds for it and they're all inferior or at best equal to a normal dex sharpshooter. The problem is limiting yourself to a sling means few other things stack on it, your bonus action's burnt, and your AC is low because you dumped dex. What it does do is let you pump Int or some other attribute you want a skill for like Investigation, and still have a sort of OK attack. But hey, if you can see a build that abuses it bad enough to be worth it, I'd love to see it.
@Kronzypants
Yes it LITERALLY says: ...........
Which is why it is LITERALLY RAI. Intended. Not as written, or it would LITERALLY spell it out specifically that it is only that. Or sharpshooter would LITERALLY spell out that it is only for WEAPON attacks.
RAI not RAW.
Nothing anyone says is going to change your mind on this, so...
@CthuluHungers
I could learn from how you eloquently state things.
Blank
Sharpshooter
This we all know. notice....
1. "attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls"
2. "Your Ranged weapon attacks ignore half and three-quarters cover."
3. Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose...."
Sharpshooter range SPECIFICALLY states weapon attack. Sharpshooter ignoring cover SPECIFICALLY states weapon attack. The Bonus damage at a -5 to hit DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY state ranged weapon attack.
The bonus damage to sharpshooter applies. The others do not. The others do not by RAW and RAI. The damage, Well, you kinda feel like since they already specifically worded it the one way for the other 2 parts of the feat, that they would have worded it the same way if they wanted the same thing for the other.
RAI. not RAW.
Blank
Lol hey thanks man! Alcoholics Anonymous did wonders for my ability to talk to people :D
This comes from a misunderstanding about “weapon attacks” vs “attacks with a weapon.”
If you assume they are different things, you can read the rules literally to allow things like this with magic stone. But misreading the rules is not “rules as written.”
whether on not an attack qualifies as “with a weapon” comes down to it being a weapon attack using the weapon’s stats.
or as the sage advice compendium puts it:
“Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon.
Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” (with a hyphen) if we meant an at- tack with a melee weapon.”
I suppose you could argue that is RAI rather than RAW because they didn’t define it clearly, but it’s RAW now that they officially added the compendium to the rules.
magic stone says it is a spell attack, not an attack with a ranged weapon (which would be a ranged weapon attack).
The spell only does what it says, and nothing says you can forgoe the spell attack to use the magic stone as ammunition in a weapon attack (at least not while benefiting from the spell).
That's a pretty nice resource, here's a link if anybody wants to read it...
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
I'm still not convinced though. They mention several spells by name but not magic stone. I'm arguing it can be either a spell attack or a weapon attack... sneak and sharpshooter don't specify what kind of attack it has to be, only that a weapon must be involved. If their use of the term 'with a weapon' automatically makes it a 'weapon attack', then by the same logic magic stone is also a weapon attack because it's 'with a sling'. Even though the spell states it is a spell attack - the spell says that because it was written before the compendium. If we take your interpretation of the compendium it is still a spell attack but now it's ALSO a weapon attack because of what the compendium says. This sentence I find misleading:
"Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks." Sounds almost like it applies to spells but they're talking about unarmed attacks as they clarify in the next sentence: "For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack". But that's just my interpretation - if they want to actually call out magic stone specifically I'll totally go with it, until then I'll enjoy what appears to me to be a deliberate and very modest gift to the three rogue druids somewhere out there.
Oh yeah, I don’t think it’d be ridiculous at all to just let players have this. It’s the ruling at my table for fun’s sake.
But specificity rests on the spell, not general rules. The spell doesn’t say the stone can do a ranged attack with a weapon. It doesn’t do anything more than it says, which is give a spell attack.
And sharpshooter doesn’t do anything more than it says, which is “an attack with a ranged weapon” which is any attack. Spell or weapon. Provided it is ranged. ::shrug::
Blank
And an attack with a ranged weapon is a ranged weapon attack. Not a spell attack. So it’s all pretty clear.
*sigh*
just
lime*like* a melee attack with a weapon is a weapon melee attack and not a spell attack like with booming blade? Green flame blade? "so its all pretty clear"Stop being condescending.
Blank
Green flame and booming blade state a specific exception in that they says to make a melee weapon attack. Not a spell attack.
Magic Sone doesn’t do that.
Im sorry if I responded in the same tone as you. Trying to keep It brief because I don’t believe you read the longer comments leading up to this. Or even the spell text.