Magic stone lets you make an attack. This attack can be made with a weapon. This is specifically stated in the spell. Even though the spell does not say that the attack is a ranged weapon attack, it is an attack with a ranged weapon. Just think about it. How the hell can you think about a rock being chucked from a slingshot and say "this attack is made with absolutely no weapons whatsoever?"
Please point to the spot in the rules where it is stated that an attack is made with a ranged weapon only if it is a ranged weapon attack. Please.
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)
Ok, I'll cite this again since you must have honestly missed it:
What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon?
It means a melee attack with a weapon. 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 attack with a melee weapon.
So a an attack is with a weapon if it is a weapon attack.
Magic stone lets the player have 3 spell attacks to hand out, that can visually use a sling without explicitly qualifying it as a weapon attack.
A weapon being involved doesn't make it a weapon attack if it is a spell attack. They are mutually exclusive. That is how it works with Steel Wind Strike, not being treated as a weapon attack for the sake of sneak attack, smite, etc. That is also how it works for subclasses that can use a weapon as an arcane focus for spell attacks.
Its just a cantrip made for a free pdf supplement to a campaign, they weren't thinking about making it play well with a plethora of features and it shows. Although as I've stated: its not broken to just ignore the way they wrote it and let it work at our tables for the sake of fun, which Im all for.
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.
I am not talking about the spell text. I am talking about sharpshooter's text.
You are either not reading this, or willfully ignoring it, as it appears to me, by the constant derailment of the thread, to focus on your... "belief"
Its better to operate off of the facts provided instead of your beliefs. (is there an eloquent way to say this)
Would a Mod be willing to move all the off topic posts regarding specifically sharpshooter and Magic stone as the only topic, to this thread above from this current thread? Please and Thank You.
a. Sage Advice is RAI, not RAW. Its words hold no weight on the actual rules, they are just guidance.
b. Even if a "ranged weapon attack" is an attack with a ranged weapon, an "attack with a ranged weapon" is not necessarily a ranged weapon attack. That's a logical fallacy.
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)
Its official rulings, so RAW. I Guess you can argue its an explanation of what was only RAI before 2020, but after they released it it became RAW.
b. Even if a "ranged weapon attack" is an attack with a ranged weapon, an "attack with a ranged weapon" is not necessarily a ranged weapon attack. That's a logical fallacy.
You'd need to show where the equivalence is ever false. They give room for attacks that make an explicit exception to cover thrown weapons (which are ranged weapon attacks with melee weapons).
But there is no spell attack that claims this exception.
Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade replace the spell attack with a melee weapon attack. Shillelagh replaces the modifier used and damage dice of the weapon for melee weapon attacks.
They are explicit in how they interact with the weapon in its weapon attacks, but Magic Stone makes no claim about being anything but a spell attack.
Official rulings does not automatically mean RAW. It just means that they are rulings from officials at D&D. Sage Advice is not published, so not RAW. Anyways, it is written in a very un-rule-y way, so I'd bet if it were RAW there would be a whole lot of things you could prove that are obviously false (for example, Druids exploding when they wear metal armor).
That's not how equivalence works. Nothing says that they are equivalent, so they aren't. You don't have to prove that they aren't equivalent for them to not be equivalent.
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)
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.
I am not talking about the spell text. I am talking about sharpshooter's text.
You are either not reading this, or willfully ignoring it, as it appears to me, by the constant derailment of the thread, to focus on your... "belief"
Its better to operate off of the facts provided instead of your beliefs. (is there an eloquent way to say this)
Would a Mod be willing to move all the off topic posts regarding specifically sharpshooter and Magic stone as the only topic, to this thread above from this current thread? Please and Thank You.
I wouldn't call this off topic. It's about magic stone, and it very much pertains to its effectiveness.
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)
Im not sure what you mean by saying SAC isn't published. Its an officially published pdf. Do you mean it needs to be printed?
Also, it is official rulings, and refers to itself as rules in its publication.
When x means y, that is equivalence. They are the same thing, its defining a term with its correct definition. This sounds like some "depends on what the definition of is is" stuff.
Well it sounds like we're all pretty set in our opinions but it's good to know exactly where the lay of the land is and I will say that compendium link makes an excellent case for your side. If my DM wanted to rule that way I would be fine with it. But then I have ten more weird builds behind that one. Will post my head chopping elf next;) As to somebody's observation that it's all very illogical and hair-splitty... YEP. When they don't spell out answers to specific cases, we end up carrying Brian's sandal through the streets. This is what happens Larry.
Im not sure what you mean by saying SAC isn't published. Its an officially published pdf. Do you mean it needs to be printed?
Also, it is official rulings, and refers to itself as rules in its publication.
When x means y, that is equivalence. They are the same thing, its defining a term with its correct definition. This sounds like some "depends on what the definition of is is" stuff.
"X means y" is not equivalence. Equivalence means that two things are always and only true when the other thing is true. Even if x means y, y does not necessarily mean x. For example, take the statement "a square is a quadrilateral." This is the exact same syntax as your example, so according to your logic, a quadrilateral is a square. This is obviously not true, at least not by default. This points to a fallacy in your logic.
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)
It has been observed by a member of my group that if you have five druids with magic stone and wis 16, arm the good people of Dougan's Hole with slings and magic stones, stand apart in five groups, and ready your shots for when the chardalyn dragon comes into range you can ACTUALLY SAVE THE TEN TOWNS in Frostmaiden :D
This is obviously not true, at least not by default.
Then demonstrate how its is not true. Because every spell involving a weapon aside from Magic Stone follows this rule, spelling out the attack type if the weapon is "used" in the attack.
If you are going to claim its a fallacious equivelence, the burden of proof is on you to show it actually is. Otherwise you could be shouting "a brick wall is not a wall made of bricks!" like a mad man, and expect people to automatically believe you.
This is obviously not true, at least not by default.
Then demonstrate how its is not true. Because every spell involving a weapon aside from Magic Stone follows this rule, spelling out the attack type if the weapon is "used" in the attack.
If you are going to claim its a fallacious equivelence, the burden of proof is on you to show it actually is. Otherwise you could be shouting "a brick wall is not a wall made of bricks!" like a mad man, and expect people to automatically believe you.
This is obviously not true because both a rhombus and a triangle are both quadrilaterals. I am not saying that a brick wall is not a wall made of bricks, I am saying that a wall is not always a wall made of bricks.
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)
Great, fine, now do that for these rules in dnd 5e. A hypothetical alternate reality where this definition of a weapon attack isn't reciprocal isn't useful here, so give support to your idea.
If you use a +1 sling with magic stone you would add that to the stones 1d6+spellcasting right? because if so then it could have uses there, it would be a way to get a very high attack roll reliably at low levels without needing to reveal magic by throwing fire or similar, assuming a spellcasting modifier of +4 it will do 1d6+5 which is substantially better than 1d10 or even 1d12 on a longer range than the 1d12 cantrip, it is good at level 4 and lower due to the spellcasting modifier being added to the damage but at level 5 and above it becomes useless compared to things like fire bolt and eldritch blast which will now do 2d10 damage which is better than the 1d6+5. I think they should make it so that it adds a d6 at 5th 11th and 17th level, it would still not be as overpowered increases as most get since it will not double the damage at level 5 but it would make it still useful at niche roles at higher levels rather than useless.
I would read it that way as well, totally legal. You're not double dipping on anything just using the weapon bonus with your wis instead of dex. Anyway the real double dip is just throw magic arrows on a magic bow which is totally allowed. I like the observation that you can use it to hide your magical ability, while also getting a hit from a magic weapon which the stones count as. It's not entirely useless at high levels as you may come across sling of the tiny giant or other weird slings. And there's always conjuring a couple of dryads and handing them the stones to throw;)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Magic stone lets you make an attack. This attack can be made with a weapon. This is specifically stated in the spell. Even though the spell does not say that the attack is a ranged weapon attack, it is an attack with a ranged weapon. Just think about it. How the hell can you think about a rock being chucked from a slingshot and say "this attack is made with absolutely no weapons whatsoever?"
Please point to the spot in the rules where it is stated that an attack is made with a ranged weapon only if it is a ranged weapon attack. Please.
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)
Ok, I'll cite this again since you must have honestly missed it:
So a an attack is with a weapon if it is a weapon attack.
Magic stone lets the player have 3 spell attacks to hand out, that can visually use a sling without explicitly qualifying it as a weapon attack.
A weapon being involved doesn't make it a weapon attack if it is a spell attack. They are mutually exclusive. That is how it works with Steel Wind Strike, not being treated as a weapon attack for the sake of sneak attack, smite, etc. That is also how it works for subclasses that can use a weapon as an arcane focus for spell attacks.
Its just a cantrip made for a free pdf supplement to a campaign, they weren't thinking about making it play well with a plethora of features and it shows. Although as I've stated: its not broken to just ignore the way they wrote it and let it work at our tables for the sake of fun, which Im all for.
I am not talking about the spell text. I am talking about sharpshooter's text.
You are either not reading this, or willfully ignoring it, as it appears to me, by the constant derailment of the thread, to focus on your... "belief"
Its better to operate off of the facts provided instead of your beliefs. (is there an eloquent way to say this)
Edit:
Sharpshooter & Magic Stone discussion let's use this for that.
Edit2:
Would a Mod be willing to move all the off topic posts regarding specifically sharpshooter and Magic stone as the only topic, to this thread above from this current thread? Please and Thank You.
Blank
a. Sage Advice is RAI, not RAW. Its words hold no weight on the actual rules, they are just guidance.
b. Even if a "ranged weapon attack" is an attack with a ranged weapon, an "attack with a ranged weapon" is not necessarily a ranged weapon attack. That's a logical fallacy.
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)
"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium."
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
Its official rulings, so RAW. I Guess you can argue its an explanation of what was only RAI before 2020, but after they released it it became RAW.
You'd need to show where the equivalence is ever false. They give room for attacks that make an explicit exception to cover thrown weapons (which are ranged weapon attacks with melee weapons).
But there is no spell attack that claims this exception.
Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade replace the spell attack with a melee weapon attack. Shillelagh replaces the modifier used and damage dice of the weapon for melee weapon attacks.
They are explicit in how they interact with the weapon in its weapon attacks, but Magic Stone makes no claim about being anything but a spell attack.
Official rulings does not automatically mean RAW. It just means that they are rulings from officials at D&D. Sage Advice is not published, so not RAW. Anyways, it is written in a very un-rule-y way, so I'd bet if it were RAW there would be a whole lot of things you could prove that are obviously false (for example, Druids exploding when they wear metal armor).
That's not how equivalence works. Nothing says that they are equivalent, so they aren't. You don't have to prove that they aren't equivalent for them to not be equivalent.
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)
I wouldn't call this off topic. It's about magic stone, and it very much pertains to its effectiveness.
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)
Im not sure what you mean by saying SAC isn't published. Its an officially published pdf. Do you mean it needs to be printed?
Also, it is official rulings, and refers to itself as rules in its publication.
When x means y, that is equivalence. They are the same thing, its defining a term with its correct definition. This sounds like some "depends on what the definition of is is" stuff.
Well it sounds like we're all pretty set in our opinions but it's good to know exactly where the lay of the land is and I will say that compendium link makes an excellent case for your side. If my DM wanted to rule that way I would be fine with it. But then I have ten more weird builds behind that one. Will post my head chopping elf next;) As to somebody's observation that it's all very illogical and hair-splitty... YEP. When they don't spell out answers to specific cases, we end up carrying Brian's sandal through the streets. This is what happens Larry.
"X means y" is not equivalence. Equivalence means that two things are always and only true when the other thing is true. Even if x means y, y does not necessarily mean x. For example, take the statement "a square is a quadrilateral." This is the exact same syntax as your example, so according to your logic, a quadrilateral is a square. This is obviously not true, at least not by default. This points to a fallacy in your logic.
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)
It has been observed by a member of my group that if you have five druids with magic stone and wis 16, arm the good people of Dougan's Hole with slings and magic stones, stand apart in five groups, and ready your shots for when the chardalyn dragon comes into range you can ACTUALLY SAVE THE TEN TOWNS in Frostmaiden :D
Then demonstrate how its is not true. Because every spell involving a weapon aside from Magic Stone follows this rule, spelling out the attack type if the weapon is "used" in the attack.
If you are going to claim its a fallacious equivelence, the burden of proof is on you to show it actually is. Otherwise you could be shouting "a brick wall is not a wall made of bricks!" like a mad man, and expect people to automatically believe you.
This is obviously not true because both a rhombus and a triangle are both quadrilaterals. I am not saying that a brick wall is not a wall made of bricks, I am saying that a wall is not always a wall made of bricks.
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)
Great, fine, now do that for these rules in dnd 5e. A hypothetical alternate reality where this definition of a weapon attack isn't reciprocal isn't useful here, so give support to your idea.
You don't have to go looking for the PDF, it is available here on dndbeyond at https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium
If you use a +1 sling with magic stone you would add that to the stones 1d6+spellcasting right? because if so then it could have uses there, it would be a way to get a very high attack roll reliably at low levels without needing to reveal magic by throwing fire or similar, assuming a spellcasting modifier of +4 it will do 1d6+5 which is substantially better than 1d10 or even 1d12 on a longer range than the 1d12 cantrip, it is good at level 4 and lower due to the spellcasting modifier being added to the damage but at level 5 and above it becomes useless compared to things like fire bolt and eldritch blast which will now do 2d10 damage which is better than the 1d6+5. I think they should make it so that it adds a d6 at 5th 11th and 17th level, it would still not be as overpowered increases as most get since it will not double the damage at level 5 but it would make it still useful at niche roles at higher levels rather than useless.
Mitth'raw'nuruodo
I would read it that way as well, totally legal. You're not double dipping on anything just using the weapon bonus with your wis instead of dex. Anyway the real double dip is just throw magic arrows on a magic bow which is totally allowed. I like the observation that you can use it to hide your magical ability, while also getting a hit from a magic weapon which the stones count as. It's not entirely useless at high levels as you may come across sling of the tiny giant or other weird slings. And there's always conjuring a couple of dryads and handing them the stones to throw;)