You're missing the forest for the trees. I know Magic Stone doesn't involve making a weapon attack. At no point have I claimed that it does.
I'm saying that ordinarily attacking with a sling is a ranged weapon attack but in the specific case of Magic Stone allows for it to be a ranged spell attack that still is made using a weapon.
I stated the general cases of weapon attacks in order to state how Magic Stone is an exception to the general case. Because you're argument against the logic of Unarmed strikes not requiring a weapon are based on it being an explicit exception. Which is exactly what Magic Stone is!
It's an exception in that it allows you to make a ranged spell attack with a weapon. This satisfies the third bullet point of Sharpshooter. "Hurling a stone" with a sling is a ranged attack with a sling regardless of whether it's a spell attack or a weapon attack.
But at this point I recognize I am speaking to a wall. Have a lovely day, regardless.
While it's fun to argue about minutiae of rules, let's not forget why we do it: where is the HARM being caused by the interpretation you are against? All I see is that allowing this combo makes for a kind of cute move for a warlock or druid that is still inferior to eldritch blast. @Kronzypantz can you provide an example of a build with sharpshooter and magic stone that is not inferior to a dex based sharpshooter? Because I tried really hard and couldn't find one. You want your players to have fun making weird builds right?
Well I mention it since this is a thread people are voting on that may influence future rules design, and this is a borderline case. Most of us factor whether something breaks the game into our decisions fairly heavily when it comes to something this ambiguous, so I wouldn't call it off topic.
Maybe asking what a DM would rule isn’t totally off topic.
personally attacking me with a loaded question about whether I want my players to have fun… one you already see has been pre-emptively answered several times… that’s no bueno.
so please cut that out.
This thing is just a rules discussion, an interesting little semantics argument. It’s not worth personal attacks.
I'm saying that ordinarily attacking with a sling is a ranged weapon attack but in the specific case of Magic Stone allows for it to be a ranged spell attack that still is made using a weapon.
I understand wanting to rule it that way, but the spell doesn't use the language that makes that claim. We have several examples of spells doing so, and this doesn't cut it.
I stated the general cases of weapon attacks in order to state how Magic Stone is an exception to the general case. Because you're argument against the logic of Unarmed strikes not requiring a weapon are based on it being an explicit exception. Which is exactly what Magic Stone is!
Unarmed strikes are an explicit exception. Magic Stone is an implied one at best. It makes no claim about use of the weapon.
Its the same logic that keeps you from reading the option to throw it as turning it into a thrown improvised weapon. The spell attack keeps it from being that.
It's an exception in that it allows you to make a ranged spell attack with a weapon. This satisfies the third bullet point of Sharpshooter. "Hurling a stone" with a sling is a ranged attack with a sling regardless of whether it's a spell attack or a weapon attack.
I've posted many times now that the official ruling is that a weapon attack is an attack with a weapon. So if its an attack with a weapon, it can't be a magic attack... which is all that Magic Stone creates.
Im starting to realize no one has an actual response to that.
Fair enough. Are you sure you're not reflexively shutting down an outlier case because as a DM you reflexively assume if somebody is bothering to bring it to the table, they must have some ridiculous breaker build for it, because that's usually the case? Because if it's not gamebreaking then you don't really have a DM dog in that fight... and if you look at it from that totally neutral perspective you might think 'Meh, if they didn't want people to do this with sharpshooter, they should have worded that line the same as the other two lines right above it'? Maybe they really DIDN'T originally intend it but as you said, this is about RAW not RAI. To me these outlier cases that allow for weird things are one of the most fun parts of the game. I always think back to the original Street Fighter game, which accidentally allowed combinations of certain attacks. They regarded these as a minor bug until they discovered it was everyone's favorite part of the game. And I know that if people like something, DnD will be quick to canonize it and take the credit (which they deserve it's their game).
I've posted many times now that the official ruling is that a weapon attack is an attack with a weapon. So if its an attack with a weapon, it can't be a magic attack... which is all that Magic Stone creates.
Im starting to realize no one has an actual response to that.
The "actual response" to that is that it's false. With the information "x means y" and nothing else, it is false to assume that "y means x" unless proven to be correct. The burden of proof is not on us, it is on you.
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)
Fine. The fallacy is magic stone, which lets you make a spell attack with a ranged weapon. You cannot possibly say that hurling a stone with a sling is not using a sling.
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)
Fine. The fallacy is magic stone, which lets you make a spell attack with a ranged weapon. You cannot possibly say that hurling a stone with a sling is not using a sling.
Sure I can. Same way you can say throwing the stone with your hands doesn't turn it into also being an improvised thrown weapon for the sake of things like rage damage.
Aside from the rules saying an attack with a weapon is the meaning of a weapon attack, whereas Magic Stone only creates a spell attack.
Fine. The fallacy is magic stone, which lets you make a spell attack with a ranged weapon. You cannot possibly say that hurling a stone with a sling is not using a sling.
Sure I can. Same way you can say throwing the stone with your hands doesn't turn it into also being an improvised thrown weapon for the sake of things like rage damage.
Aside from the rules saying an attack with a weapon is the meaning of a weapon attack, whereas Magic Stone only creates a spell attack.
Rage damage doesn't work because the stone doesn't use Strength. If the only criteria for rage damage were "something you throw with your hands," then rage damage would absolutely apply.
I am forbidden from using slings. If I chuck a stone at you with a sling, I am breaching that forbiddance. It doesn't matter how magical the stone is, I am using the sling. You just said "no," without using the tiny amount of brain power necessary to figure out that chucking a rock with a sling is using a sling to chuck a rock. If you want your argument to have any credit, you'll have to elaborate on how the hell chucking a rock with a sling is not using a sling to chuck a rock.
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)
Spiritual Weapon creates a weapon you can't wield, Chill Touch makes a hand appear in a target's space without a need for sight but still requires a line of sight like you're throwing a rock, Eldritch blast can shoot people but not the broad side of a castle.
There are all kinds of things we'd like to assume the fluff in spells can do, but that they don't do RAW because it isn't stated.
Just like how Magic Stone doesn't state it actually makes an attack with a weapon. Which would be a Weapon attack, not a spell attack.
This is the pertinent sentence: "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling."
Let's cut down the irrelevant parts: "a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by hurling it with a sling."
A sling is a weapon. Therefore: "a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by hurling it with a weapon."
Hurling with something is undeniably using said something. Therefore: "a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by using it with a weapon."
"To do x by using y" can be grammatically replaced with "to do x with y." Therefore: "a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles with a weapon."
A ranged spell attack is a ranged attack. Therefore: "a ranged attack with one of the pebbles with a weapon."
A ranged attack with a pebble is undeniably a ranged attack. Therefore: "a ranged attack with a weapon"
A ranged attack with a weapon? That looks familiar. I wonder why...
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)
Magic stone allows a sling to be used with the stone to attack.
“You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling.“
sharpshooter allows for accuracy sacrifice for bigger damage if using a ranged weapon you’re proficient with.
“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.“
every parameter for those can be complied with. The parameter for this bullet of the Sharpshooter feat for type of attack made is broad. It says “attack” 3 separate times without any additional qualifiers like other features sometimes add. “Attack” covers all attack types. Proficiency with the ranged weapon being used is a parameter and is easily achieved. The last parameter is using a ranged weapon with the attack. Generally ranged weapons are used to deliver “ranged weapon attacks” but magic stone cantrip contains an exclusion to be able to use the sling.
The degree to which use of the sling to deliver the ranged spell attack is further proven by the spell giving range of the thrown option to 60 ft, which means that the range is somehow different if using the sling. The range of the sling isn’t specified to use a different range than the slings generally listed range and so that would probably apply. Minimum range of 30ft means it suffers close but maximum range is extended to 120ft is my interpretation.
since the 1st and 2nd bullet of sharpshooter actually specify ranged weapon attacks, they don’t extend the range of the sling being used in conjunction with this spell or bypass cover.
Regarding X=Y Sharpshooter doesn't refer to ''ranged-weapon attack'' in any of it's bullets but refers to an ''attack with a ranged weapon'' in the last one, and even if it said it, it woundl't exclude the possibility of making a ranged spell attack with a sling since it still qualify.
Still foggy on why "x=y" doesn't mean "y=x", while you also say "hurling a stone = an attack with a weapon.
One is an exact definition from the game devs, the other is how you want to read it even after they gave a clarification.
Equivalence is not the right model for relating "weapon attack" and "attack with a weapon." Because equivalence ignores context.
It's not "X = Y" but "if X then Y."
X = Y implies Y = X.
But "if X then Y" doesn't necessarily imply "if Y then X."
(Note: I'm not even entirely sold on "if X then Y" as an accurate model here but if you're going to reduce language nuance down to a mathematical model let it at least be one that doesn't automatically assume the symmetric property.)
Likewise saying that "hurling a stone" = "an attack with a weapon" also ignores context so equivalence isn't the best way to model it.
Multiple different contexts changes what "hurling a stone" means for the mechanics of the game.
A: If a creature "hurls a stone" then it makes a ranged weapon attack treating the stone as an improvised weapon. B: If a creature "hurls a stone" from a sling then it makes a ranged weapon attack. C: If a creature "hurls a stone" under the effect of Magic Stone then it makes a ranged spell attack based on the text of Magic Stone. D: If a creature "hurls a stone" from a sling under the effect of Magic Stone then it makes a ranged spell based on the text of Magic Stone.
For A: "attack with a weapon" is false.* For B: "attack with a weapon" is true because the attack is made with a sling and a sling is a weapon. For C: "attack with a weapon" is false. For D: "attack with a weapon" is true because the attack is made with a sling and a sling is a weapon.
*Or true, it depends on DM ruling. Improvised weapon rules are all about doing weapon things with non-weapons so it can be a grey area. Grey areas are partly why DMs exist, after all.
Notice for all of those the question of "is it an attack with a weapon" boils down to "was a weapon used to perform the attack?"
Sure, but SAC made the official ruling that a weapon attack is an attack with a weapon. So an attack with a weapon is the definition of a weapon attack.
the terms are interchangeable, so there is no difference between what the third bullet point of sharpshooter and the first and second requires: a ranged weapon attack (aka an attack with a ranged weapon).
But Magic Stone is a spell attack, not a weapon attack.
continuing to distinguish a weapon attack from an attack with a weapon is just ignoring the rules as written. It’s not a valid argument.
Sure, but SAC made the official ruling that a weapon attack is an attack with a weapon. So an attack with a weapon is the definition of a weapon attack.
the terms are interchangeable, so there is no difference between what the third bullet point of sharpshooter and the first and second requires: a ranged weapon attack (aka an attack with a ranged weapon).
But Magic Stone is a spell attack, not a weapon attack.
continuing to distinguish a weapon attack from an attack with a weapon is just ignoring the rules as written. It’s not a valid argument.
And so it seems to me that you're electing to ignore context. Because to you that SAC statement overrides all specific cases to the contrary. But that's not how the rules work. In D&D specific beats general, and that SAC statement is a very general ruling.
So the context must ALWAYS be considered, never ignored.
In a vacuum I'd agree with you that "weapon attack" with no other context will always mean "attack with a weapon." And, in a vacuum, a "spell attack" is not an "attack with a weapon."
But if the context seems to say otherwise, and in the case of magic stone it definitely seems to to me, I'mma keep considering the context more important than a general ruling in the SAC.
You're missing the forest for the trees. I know Magic Stone doesn't involve making a weapon attack. At no point have I claimed that it does.
I'm saying that ordinarily attacking with a sling is a ranged weapon attack but in the specific case of Magic Stone allows for it to be a ranged spell attack that still is made using a weapon.
I stated the general cases of weapon attacks in order to state how Magic Stone is an exception to the general case. Because you're argument against the logic of Unarmed strikes not requiring a weapon are based on it being an explicit exception. Which is exactly what Magic Stone is!
It's an exception in that it allows you to make a ranged spell attack with a weapon. This satisfies the third bullet point of Sharpshooter.
"Hurling a stone" with a sling is a ranged attack with a sling regardless of whether it's a spell attack or a weapon attack.
But at this point I recognize I am speaking to a wall. Have a lovely day, regardless.
While it's fun to argue about minutiae of rules, let's not forget why we do it: where is the HARM being caused by the interpretation you are against? All I see is that allowing this combo makes for a kind of cute move for a warlock or druid that is still inferior to eldritch blast. @Kronzypantz can you provide an example of a build with sharpshooter and magic stone that is not inferior to a dex based sharpshooter? Because I tried really hard and couldn't find one. You want your players to have fun making weird builds right?
I’ve said it wouldn’t be broken and I’d allow it at my table for the sake of fun multiple times. It’s just not RAW.
stop derailing
Well I mention it since this is a thread people are voting on that may influence future rules design, and this is a borderline case. Most of us factor whether something breaks the game into our decisions fairly heavily when it comes to something this ambiguous, so I wouldn't call it off topic.
Maybe asking what a DM would rule isn’t totally off topic.
personally attacking me with a loaded question about whether I want my players to have fun… one you already see has been pre-emptively answered several times… that’s no bueno.
so please cut that out.
This thing is just a rules discussion, an interesting little semantics argument. It’s not worth personal attacks.
I understand wanting to rule it that way, but the spell doesn't use the language that makes that claim. We have several examples of spells doing so, and this doesn't cut it.
Unarmed strikes are an explicit exception. Magic Stone is an implied one at best. It makes no claim about use of the weapon.
Its the same logic that keeps you from reading the option to throw it as turning it into a thrown improvised weapon. The spell attack keeps it from being that.
I've posted many times now that the official ruling is that a weapon attack is an attack with a weapon. So if its an attack with a weapon, it can't be a magic attack... which is all that Magic Stone creates.
Im starting to realize no one has an actual response to that.
Fair enough. Are you sure you're not reflexively shutting down an outlier case because as a DM you reflexively assume if somebody is bothering to bring it to the table, they must have some ridiculous breaker build for it, because that's usually the case? Because if it's not gamebreaking then you don't really have a DM dog in that fight... and if you look at it from that totally neutral perspective you might think 'Meh, if they didn't want people to do this with sharpshooter, they should have worded that line the same as the other two lines right above it'? Maybe they really DIDN'T originally intend it but as you said, this is about RAW not RAI. To me these outlier cases that allow for weird things are one of the most fun parts of the game. I always think back to the original Street Fighter game, which accidentally allowed combinations of certain attacks. They regarded these as a minor bug until they discovered it was everyone's favorite part of the game. And I know that if people like something, DnD will be quick to canonize it and take the credit (which they deserve it's their game).
The "actual response" to that is that it's false. With the information "x means y" and nothing else, it is false to assume that "y means x" unless proven to be correct. The burden of proof is not on us, it is on you.
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)
If you say its not a valid tautology, then show the fallacy.
I don't need to prove a thing is its stated definition. That is prima facia true unless shown otherwise.
Fine. The fallacy is magic stone, which lets you make a spell attack with a ranged weapon. You cannot possibly say that hurling a stone with a sling is not using a sling.
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)
Sure I can. Same way you can say throwing the stone with your hands doesn't turn it into also being an improvised thrown weapon for the sake of things like rage damage.
Aside from the rules saying an attack with a weapon is the meaning of a weapon attack, whereas Magic Stone only creates a spell attack.
Rage damage doesn't work because the stone doesn't use Strength. If the only criteria for rage damage were "something you throw with your hands," then rage damage would absolutely apply.
I am forbidden from using slings. If I chuck a stone at you with a sling, I am breaching that forbiddance. It doesn't matter how magical the stone is, I am using the sling. You just said "no," without using the tiny amount of brain power necessary to figure out that chucking a rock with a sling is using a sling to chuck a rock. If you want your argument to have any credit, you'll have to elaborate on how the hell chucking a rock with a sling is not using a sling to chuck a rock.
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)
Spiritual Weapon creates a weapon you can't wield, Chill Touch makes a hand appear in a target's space without a need for sight but still requires a line of sight like you're throwing a rock, Eldritch blast can shoot people but not the broad side of a castle.
There are all kinds of things we'd like to assume the fluff in spells can do, but that they don't do RAW because it isn't stated.
Just like how Magic Stone doesn't state it actually makes an attack with a weapon. Which would be a Weapon attack, not a spell attack.
This is the pertinent sentence:
"You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling."
Let's cut down the irrelevant parts:
"a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by hurling it with a sling."
A sling is a weapon. Therefore:
"a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by hurling it with a weapon."
Hurling with something is undeniably using said something. Therefore:
"a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by using it with a weapon."
"To do x by using y" can be grammatically replaced with "to do x with y." Therefore:
"a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles with a weapon."
A ranged spell attack is a ranged attack. Therefore:
"a ranged attack with one of the pebbles with a weapon."
A ranged attack with a pebble is undeniably a ranged attack. Therefore:
"a ranged attack with a weapon"
A ranged attack with a weapon? That looks familiar. I wonder why...
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)
Yes.
Magic stone allows a sling to be used with the stone to attack.
“You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling.“
sharpshooter allows for accuracy sacrifice for bigger damage if using a ranged weapon you’re proficient with.
“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.“
every parameter for those can be complied with. The parameter for this bullet of the Sharpshooter feat for type of attack made is broad. It says “attack” 3 separate times without any additional qualifiers like other features sometimes add. “Attack” covers all attack types. Proficiency with the ranged weapon being used is a parameter and is easily achieved. The last parameter is using a ranged weapon with the attack. Generally ranged weapons are used to deliver “ranged weapon attacks” but magic stone cantrip contains an exclusion to be able to use the sling.
The degree to which use of the sling to deliver the ranged spell attack is further proven by the spell giving range of the thrown option to 60 ft, which means that the range is somehow different if using the sling. The range of the sling isn’t specified to use a different range than the slings generally listed range and so that would probably apply. Minimum range of 30ft means it suffers close but maximum range is extended to 120ft is my interpretation.
since the 1st and 2nd bullet of sharpshooter actually specify ranged weapon attacks, they don’t extend the range of the sling being used in conjunction with this spell or bypass cover.
Still foggy on why "x=y" doesn't mean "y=x", while you also say "hurling a stone = an attack with a weapon.
One is an exact definition from the game devs, the other is how you want to read it even after they gave a clarification.
Regarding X=Y Sharpshooter doesn't refer to ''ranged-weapon attack'' in any of it's bullets but refers to an ''attack with a ranged weapon'' in the last one, and even if it said it, it woundl't exclude the possibility of making a ranged spell attack with a sling since it still qualify.
Equivalence is not the right model for relating "weapon attack" and "attack with a weapon." Because equivalence ignores context.
It's not "X = Y" but "if X then Y."
X = Y implies Y = X.
But "if X then Y" doesn't necessarily imply "if Y then X."
(Note: I'm not even entirely sold on "if X then Y" as an accurate model here but if you're going to reduce language nuance down to a mathematical model let it at least be one that doesn't automatically assume the symmetric property.)
Likewise saying that "hurling a stone" = "an attack with a weapon" also ignores context so equivalence isn't the best way to model it.
Multiple different contexts changes what "hurling a stone" means for the mechanics of the game.
A: If a creature "hurls a stone" then it makes a ranged weapon attack treating the stone as an improvised weapon.
B: If a creature "hurls a stone" from a sling then it makes a ranged weapon attack.
C: If a creature "hurls a stone" under the effect of Magic Stone then it makes a ranged spell attack based on the text of Magic Stone.
D: If a creature "hurls a stone" from a sling under the effect of Magic Stone then it makes a ranged spell based on the text of Magic Stone.
For A: "attack with a weapon" is false.*
For B: "attack with a weapon" is true because the attack is made with a sling and a sling is a weapon.
For C: "attack with a weapon" is false.
For D: "attack with a weapon" is true because the attack is made with a sling and a sling is a weapon.
*Or true, it depends on DM ruling. Improvised weapon rules are all about doing weapon things with non-weapons so it can be a grey area. Grey areas are partly why DMs exist, after all.
Notice for all of those the question of "is it an attack with a weapon" boils down to "was a weapon used to perform the attack?"
Sure, but SAC made the official ruling that a weapon attack is an attack with a weapon. So an attack with a weapon is the definition of a weapon attack.
the terms are interchangeable, so there is no difference between what the third bullet point of sharpshooter and the first and second requires: a ranged weapon attack (aka an attack with a ranged weapon).
But Magic Stone is a spell attack, not a weapon attack.
continuing to distinguish a weapon attack from an attack with a weapon is just ignoring the rules as written. It’s not a valid argument.
And so it seems to me that you're electing to ignore context. Because to you that SAC statement overrides all specific cases to the contrary. But that's not how the rules work. In D&D specific beats general, and that SAC statement is a very general ruling.
So the context must ALWAYS be considered, never ignored.
In a vacuum I'd agree with you that "weapon attack" with no other context will always mean "attack with a weapon."
And, in a vacuum, a "spell attack" is not an "attack with a weapon."
But if the context seems to say otherwise, and in the case of magic stone it definitely seems to to me, I'mma keep considering the context more important than a general ruling in the SAC.