Quote from Kronzypantz >>

 

The general rule is that attacks are ranged weapon attacks, melee weapon attacks, or spell attacks. Then things like unarmed strikes, thrown weapons, etc. are explicit exceptions to the rule. 

 There are melee/ranged spell attacks too. A weapon/spell is attack source while melee/ranged is attack type

Unarmed Strikes are not weapons yet performing an unarmed strike requires making a melee weapon attack. Ergo, just because something requires making a "________ weapon attack" does not mean that that attack is guaranteed to be made "with a weapon."

Reference: Basic Rules - Melee Attacks

Likewise just because a spell involves an attack doesn't guarantee that the attack must be a spell attack. Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade both involve making weapon attacks as part of casting a spell and make no spell attacks at all.

Further there are features that grant a spell attack outside of the casting of a spell such as the Radiant Sun Bolt of the Sun Soul Monk and the Archer option of the Stars Druid's Starry Form

What we can glean from all of the above is that a "weapon attack" doesn't guarantee that an attack is made "with a weapon" and a "spell attack" isn't necessarily always made "by a spell" we have plenty of examples of exceptions to conclude that Magic Stone is yet another exception case where one can make a "spell attack" "with a weapon" if the attacker chooses to use a sling to sling the stone.

Seeing as a sling is a ranged weapon that makes it a ranged spell attack with a ranged weapon. Thus the third bullet point (and only that bullet point) of Sharpshooter can apply to a magic stone slung from a sling.

Unarmed attacks and spells like booming blade are explicit exceptions to the rule.

Magic stone makes no such explicit exception. It doesn’t make any claims about weapon attacks/attacks with a ranged weapon. It’s actually explicit that it only creates a spell attack, nothing more.

Sneak attack: "The Attack must use a finesse or a Ranged weapon."
Sharpshooter: "Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with"

So according to Plaguescarred's post Crawford says the wording of sneak attack means it applies to magic stone. Since he wrote 5e I think that counts as RAI. The wording of sharpshooter looks pretty darn close to me, except you also need to be proficient. I wonder how much of people's opinion that it should be a no just comes from sharpshooter hate.

Quote from CthulhuHungers >>

So according to Plaguescarred's post Crawford says the wording of sneak attack means it applies to magic stone. 

 I also found another instance where the Dev answer about this specific subject. According to Crawford, a Magic Stone hurled with a sling never qualify for a ranged weapon attack, but it qualify for any feature that requires a weapon. Nothing going against RAW to me here.

@mikal768 Can you confirm whether Magic Stone is meant to be treated in any way as a weapon attack (i.e. Does Sharpshooter affect it?) or is it meant to be a ranged spell attack even when used from a sling?

@JeremyECrawford An attack made with magic stone is a spell attack, even if you hurl the stone with a sling. The attack doesn't qualify for anything that requires a weapon attack, but it does work with a feature that requires a ranged weapon if you use a sling.

My argument has been made a while ago based on what is written. We are just sharing opinions here and bringing one from the Dev on the subject is pertinent  its valued by some people since it can indicate intentions behind some rule interaction. 

Quote from Kronzypantz >>

Unarmed attacks and spells like booming blade are explicit exceptions to the rule.

Magic stone makes no such explicit exception. It doesn’t make any claims about weapon attacks/attacks with a ranged weapon. It’s actually explicit that it only creates a spell attack, nothing more.

 A sling is a ranged weapon that Magic Stone explicitly allows you to make a spell attack with.

That's more than enough for me to consider it an exception.

The only other requirement of the third bullet point is that attacker be proficient with the weapon. So anyone with sharpshooter and proficiency in slings or simple weapons would qualify while slinging a magic stone even if they weren't the one who cast the spell.

Quote from Beardsinger >>

Again basing your entire argument off tweets by some rando bloke that happened to be lucky at an interview when even his employer has explicitly stated his tweets are irrelevant and should not be considered rules interpretations is utterly pointless. It doesn’t matter who he is or what he tweeted. His opinion has no weight in the actual ruleset.

 There's someone basing their entire arguments off of their "beliefs" and you call out *this* as a bad way to base an entire argument? Feels strange to me.

The actual ruleset: *does not say that Sharpshooter and magic stone cannot work together* in no text anywhere of sharpshooter, or magic stone, does it say "sharpshooter does not work with spell attacks that are made using a ranged weapon. and in no text anywhere of magic stone does it say "the ranged spell attacks are made without a ranged weapon".

This is "logic" 101, equivalence 101, etc. Just because something says it can do 1 thing. doesn't mean it can't do the inverse. And vice verse, just because something cannot do 1 thing, doesn't mean it cannot do the inverse.

Sharpshooter's text is literally written out, for a long time, without an errata to fix it, the way it is. It is very clear and evident based on how it is written. RAW. That the Cover and disadvantage MUST be a ranged weapon attack. But the -5 to hit for +10 damage *need only be done from a ranged weapon*. makes no mention of has to be a weapon attack, while the other 2 specifically do.

Keep this in mind: The latest version of D&D to date, Dungeons & Dragons 5E was first made available in January 2012 and completely revolutionized the RPG by developing it through a public open playtest for the first time.

SINCE 2012!!!!! thats 11 years, and they have not errata'd that line of text to match the other 2. There's a reason for that.

Quote from Beardsinger >>

Again basing your entire argument off tweets by some rando bloke that happened to be lucky at an interview when even his employer has explicitly stated his tweets are irrelevant and should not be considered rules interpretations is utterly pointless. It doesn’t matter who he is or what he tweeted. His opinion has no weight in the actual ruleset.

Don't you dare try to tell us what you meant when you wrote that rule Crawford! WE the people of the forum shall decide what you meant! Get out of here! ...wait we need another book please come back.

No, Magic stone says the stone can be hurled with the sling. That isn’t the language for making an attack with the sling.

as with every other spell and ability, a phrase like “weapon attack” is necessary for overriding general rules. 

The attack involves the sling. The sling is facilitating the attack. Although the attack would be possible without the sling, the sling improves its effectiveness. The attack is not being made without the sling. The attack is being made with the sling. The sling is a ranged weapon. The attack is being made with a ranged weapon. The attack is not a ranged weapon attack, but it is an attack with a ranged weapon.

Quote from Kronzypantz >>

No, Magic stone says the stone can be hurled with the sling. That isn’t the language for making an attack with the sling.

as with every other spell and ability, a phrase like “weapon attack” is necessary for overriding general rules. 

...really? It's about the verb "hurl" that makes this a hang up for you? I'm a little flabbergasted here. Honestly, I think your standards here on language precision are much higher than WOTC's.

Like imagine if Magic Stone were instead called "Magic Arrow" and the spell was cast targeting arrows instead of stones, and the text read as follows:

"You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the arrows by throwing it or firing it from a bow."

Or loosing, shooting, flinging, or [insert appropriate synonym here].

Would you hold the same insistence that "It doesn't say 'weapon attack' so it's not an attack with a weapon?" Despite the very obvious fact that D&D models shooting an arrow from a bow as a ranged weapon attack?

Reference (PHB, Basic Rules): Ranged Attacks

When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many spells also involve making a ranged attack.

Hurling a stone from a sling is a natural language translation of "make a ranged attack with a sling." A sling is a weapon.
Under normal circumstances this means a ranged weapon attack.
Under the circumstances of Magic Stone this is a ranged spell attack.

In both sets of circumstances hurling a stone with a sling qualifies for the third bullet point of sharpshooter because it's a attack made with a sling (a ranged weapon).

Yeah, if it could be demonstrated that "weapon attack" is defined by "attack with a weapon" without the inverse being true, it wouldn't be perfect equivalence. 

However, you haven't shown that. So far, this can be a perfect equivalence, like "a square means a quadrilateral with 90 degree angles and equal lengths on each side." 

So far we have proof that a weapon attack is an attack with a weapon, and no evidence contradicting the claim these are truly equivalent.

In fact, the table categorizing all attacks as either melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, or spell attacks actively supports the idea that weapons and spell attacks do not mix. If the weapon is used, its stats determine the attack roll. If a spell is used, the spellcasting modifier determines the attack roll. And any attack or spell that messes with that general rule does so explicitly, as Fire Arrow, Shilleighly, and the Blade cantrips do. 

...really? It's about the verb "hurl" that makes this a hang up for you? I'm a little flabbergasted here. Honestly, I think your standards here on language precision are much higher than WOTC's.

Its the same logic you use when you decide throwing the stone by hand doesn't make it a improvised weapon attack that limits it to a 20 ft. range, lacks proficiency to the attack without Tavern Brawler, etc. 

The spell says it creates a spell attack (specific language) and that is it for attack types. 

As for higher language precision that WOTC, they had to clarify this after 6 years because they weren't exactly precise to begin with. But now they are being precise. 

"You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the arrows by throwing it or firing it from a bow."

If it said this, it would still be a ranged spell attack. Its the spell doing the attack, and is mutually exclusive from a weapon attack unless it spells out otherwise like Fire Arrow, Lighting Arrow, and every other such spell that mixes weapons and with magic. 

Why would this spell alone, out of all such spells, not need to use the same language? 

Would you hold the same insistence that "It doesn't say 'weapon attack' so it's not an attack with a weapon?" Despite the very obvious fact that D&D models shooting an arrow from a bow as a ranged weapon attack?

Because the general rule is that attacks made with weapons are weapon attacks using the stats of those weapons, and no clear case to the contrary exists without being explicit about being a weapon attack. 

When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many spells also involve making a ranged attack.

Its odd that your reading ignores the last sentence, and implies that spells like fire bolt are weapon attacks for "otherwise sending projectiles to strike a foe at a distance."

If this were all the rules said, it would be a fair reading. But as I keep pointing out, SAC gave an official ruling that an attack with a weapon is a weapon attack. Not a spell attack. 

 The sling is facilitating the attack.

If the sling is facilitating the attack, then we know how this ought to function. 

You use the attack action, then use dex and weapon proficiency to determine the attack roll modifiers, and the damage of the projectile is 1d4+dex mod non-magical bludgeoning damage. A sling with to hit bonuses could even increase the attack and damage rolls. 

But the attack isn't made with the sling. Its not worded like Shilleighly or Booming Blade, and that matters. They knew how to word it when they wrote it to make it do what you think it does (fire arrow is almost exactly the spell you want this to function as). And it isn't written that way. 

Although the attack would be possible without the sling, the sling improves its effectiveness.

The spell doesn't say the sling does anything. There is almost an implication it might change the range, but that isn't stated. 

Spells only do what they say and nothing more. 

The attack is being made with a ranged weapon.

It isn't, because an attack with a ranged weapon is a ranged weapon attack. Not a spell attack. 

Its the same logic you use to say throwing the stone isn't an improvised weapon attack: its because its a spell attack, just like hurling a fire bolt. 

Quote from Kronzypantz >>

Yeah, if it could be demonstrated that "weapon attack" is defined by "attack with a weapon" without the inverse being true, it wouldn't be perfect equivalence. 

However, you haven't shown that. So far, this can be a perfect equivalence, like "a square means a quadrilateral with 90 degree angles and equal lengths on each side." 

So far we have proof that a weapon attack is an attack with a weapon, and no evidence contradicting the claim these are truly equivalent.

In fact, the table categorizing all attacks as either melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon attacks, or spell attacks actively supports the idea that weapons and spell attacks do not mix. If the weapon is used, its stats determine the attack roll. If a spell is used, the spellcasting modifier determines the attack roll. And any attack or spell that messes with that general rule does so explicitly, as Fire Arrow, Shilleighly, and the Blade cantrips do. 

 

For the millionth goddamn time, that's not how logic works. Nothing says that they are equivalent, therefore they aren't. You don't have to prove that something is false if the something is never even implied. By your logic, the gods could be systematically proven to all be microscopic turtles, just because nothing in the rules says they aren't microscopic turtles.

Its stated as a tautology. X means y. That isn't just implication, its explicit equivalence. Otherwise, one term couldn't define the other at all. 

It could be imperfect equivalence as you point out with the comparison to squares and quadrilaterals. 

But what you are doing is saying squares and quadrilaterals aren't identical... without being able to state a single incongruency. 

So show how the statement "a weapon attack means an attack with a weapon" doesn't make an equivalence. If its a case of squares and quadrilaterals, state the incongruency. 

The unhelpful turtle/gods analogy demonstrates nothing, because we already have a tautology that is stated to be true by the game rules. 

If you are given the statement x means y and nothing else, it is a fallacious leap in logic to say that y means x, even if there is not any information that you have to disprove it. This is my point.