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.

I agree with you that specific beats general. That is how spells are able to break the rules when their text does something that isn't normally allowed. 

But Magic Stone doesn't make a specific exception. We have several spells that mix weapon attacks and spells that are extremely clear on this in claiming their exceptions to the rules, and Magic Stone doesn't do that. 

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.

The problem here is that the context is vague implication. Not explicit exception. Which in the larger context, is the necessary specificity to override the general rule. 

Like how Spiritual Weapon creates a weapon you cannot wield (because it doesn't say you can), and Chill Touch still needs line of sight despite not needing sight of the enemy (because it doesn't say it overrides that general rule explicitly). 

We know spell attacks are created by spells and not weapons. We are not told explicitly that the use of a sling here is the lone exception to that rule. Its vaguely implied by the fluff, like the other two examples I pointed out. Which isn't good enough to be RAW. 

And I'd argue, its not even RAI. The author also made Fire Arrow for that supplement. They knew how to write spell that uses weapon attacks to be 100% kosher with other features.

I used logic to prove how magic stone does say what you kept saying it doesn't, and now you're saying it doesn't matter because it's "too vague?" If you could kindly point me to the vague clause in the rules that says logic being used to prove something does not prove something, maybe you'd have a point. But now you're just making up rules, saying that how vague it is matters.

What a tough call.

On the poll above...

--- abstain.

Quote from MonteneroDomina >>

What a tough call.

 

On the poll above...

 

--- abstain.

 
I apologize for not listing that option. I respect your abstain.

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. 

 Well... I feel like several of us have responded to your point, but here is mine again:

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.

And here was your response:

Oh and here is the relevant passage kronzypantz is quoting:

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.

Quote from CthulhuHungers >>

I'm arguing it can be either a spell attack or a weapon attack

 I'd say magic stone  is a ranged spell attack wether hurled with a sling or not otherwise the spell would say so. So what it is;

Without sling: ranged spell attack

With sling: ranged spell attack with a ranged weapon

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Quote from CthulhuHungers >>

I'm arguing it can be either a spell attack or a weapon attack

 I'd say magic stone  is a ranged spell attack wether hurled with a sling or not otherwise the spell would say so. So what it is;

Without sling: ranged spell attack

With sling: ranged spell attack with a ranged weapon

I think Cthulhu's point is based off of the idea that the definition of a ranged weapon attack is an attack with a ranged weapon, as is said in the SAC. Like I said a while ago, there are a number of problems that pop up when you take the SAC as RAW.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Quote from CthulhuHungers >>

I'm arguing it can be either a spell attack or a weapon attack

 I'd say magic stone  is a ranged spell attack wether hurled with a sling or not otherwise the spell would say so. So what it is;

Without sling: ranged spell attack

With sling: ranged spell attack with a ranged weapon

 That is my personal read as well: magic stone with a sling is a ranged spell attack with a weapon. Sharpshooter as written says any attack with a weapon as the final part, by implication including spells like magic stone. This is backed up by Crawford saying sneak applies to magic stone, and the SA compendium does not apply in this case, kronzypantz is taking it out of context. But that's just my opinion.

So two things:

First, there is no attack in the whole game that is a magic attack with a weapon. It would need to be pretty explicit for Magic Stone to make this unicorn that otherwise doesn't exist. 

Second, as I've said before, SAC says an attack with a weapon is the definition of a weapon attack. If the attack is "with the sling," it can't be a magic attack... so you'd be using the stone as ammunition, which isn't what the spell says you can do. Spells like Fire Arrow are explicit if that is how they function. Magic Stone doesn't do this. 

Quote from Kronzypantz >>

If the attack is "with the sling," it can't be a magic attack...

 And yet magic stone  is a ranged spell attack hurled with a sling. This is a fact that can't be ignored regardless of interpretations.

Quote from Kronzypantz >>

First, there is no attack in the whole game that is a magic attack with a weapon. It would need to be pretty explicit for Magic Stone to make this unicorn that otherwise doesn't exist. 

Why would it have to be "pretty explicit?" Like I already said, I've proven that magic stone lets you make a spell attack with a ranged weapon. Why is that not good enough? What more does it take, and why?

As we've gone over, just using an attack in some way connected to a spell attack doesn't make it an attack with a weapon. 

Why ignore that SAC official ruling defines a weapon attack as an attack with a weapon (meaning that isn't the definition of a spell attack)? 

Why would it have to be "pretty explicit?"

That is how spells work. They only do what they explicitly say they do. 

Like I already said, I've proven that magic stone lets you make a spell attack with a ranged weapon.

I'd agree, if SAC was never published. Before that, it was a valid interpretation of RAW that an attack "with a weapon" could be any attack made with a weapon in any way involved. 

But SAC is official ruling now, it is RAW that this isn't the case. 

You'd need to show how that definition of "an attack with a weapon" can work now that "attack with a weapon" has been used to define a weapon attack. 

In other words, WotC says "a square means 2 d figure with four equal sides and 90 degree angles" but you are arguing that there exists something else that can be "a 2d figure with four equal sides and 90 degree angles," which would need proving. 

Just reciting the same argument that worked pre-2020 doesn't do anything. 

Quote from Kronzypantz >>

Why would it have to be "pretty explicit?"

That is how spells work. They only do what they explicitly say they do. 

Like I already said, I've proven that magic stone lets you make a spell attack with a ranged weapon.

I'd agree, if SAC was never published. Before that, it was a valid interpretation of RAW that an attack "with a weapon" could be any attack made with a weapon in any way involved. 

But SAC is official ruling now, it is RAW that this isn't the case. 

You'd need to show how that definition of "an attack with a weapon" can work now that "attack with a weapon" has been used to define a weapon attack. 

In other words, WotC says "a square means 2 d figure with four equal sides and 90 degree angles" but you are arguing that there exists something else that can be "a 2d figure with four equal sides and 90 degree angles," which would need proving. 

Just reciting the same argument that worked pre-2020 doesn't do anything. 

My non-square 2d figure with four equal sides and 90 degree angles is magic stone. It lets you make a spell attack with a weapon, as I have proven already. This is the proof that the statement you keep relying on so damn much is not equivalent. Why is that not enough proof for you? What form do you think this proof would take?

And spells do not only do what they explicitly say they do. For example, creation says that it creates materials, but at no point does it say that said materials are able to be seen, touched, moved, or used in any way. Nonetheless, we can infer, even though the spell does not explicitly say it, that you can interact with the materials created by creation. We do this by applying logic to find what is not in the text, but is part of the spell anyways- which is exactly what I did with magic stone.

Magic Stone doesn’t say it violates general rules to be both a spell attack and a weapon attack. It’s that simple.

An attack with a weapon has been clarified as meaning a weapon attack, mutually exclusive with a spell attack.

And creation does only what it says: it makes material. nothing in its text gives the materials it creates some special feature like invisibility or intangibility. It’s silly to imply that not specifying they don’t have those extra traits means the spell isn’t clear. 

You can read whatever you want into the meaning of the text of Magic Stone. That doesn’t make it Rules as Written if you choose to ignore other existing rules, like what the definition of “an attack with a weapon” is for other features like sneak attack to apply. 

Quote from Kronzypantz >>

Magic Stone doesn’t say it violates general rules to be both a spell attack and a weapon attack. It’s that simple.

An attack with a weapon has been clarified as meaning a weapon attack, mutually exclusive with a spell attack.

And creation does only what it says: it makes material. nothing in its text gives the materials it creates some special feature like invisibility or intangibility. It’s silly to imply that not specifying they don’t have those extra traits means the spell isn’t clear. 

You can read whatever you want into the meaning of the text of Magic Stone. That doesn’t make it Rules as Written if you choose to ignore other existing rules, like what the definition of “an attack with a weapon” is for other features like sneak attack to apply. 

An attack with a weapon has not been clarified as meaning a weapon attack. You keep saying that, but its equivalence is nonexistent. You say it should be equivalent because it is not said that it is not equivalent, but that is not how rules work. You say that I have to prove that it is not equivalent with an example of how it is not equivalent, but now that I have given an example of how it is not equivalent, you use the rule that I am disproving to disprove my proof. That is illogical.

I can use logic to find meaning outside of the exact wording of Magic Stone. That is Rules as Written, because it is based off of the written rules. If you are trying to claim that words cannot have implications, then words do not have any meaning at all, and Rules is Written means literally nothing.

I say it’s equivalent because one is the given definition of the other. If they weren’t equivalent, they could not say one “means” the other. Not rocket surgery. 

Vague implications you want to fill in the blanks on are not RAW. The standard for explicit exceptions to the rules is the standard of all spells.

Quote from Kronzypantz >>

Vague implications you want to fill in the blanks on are not RAW. The standard for explicit exceptions to the rules is the standard of all spells.

 I'd argue that the implication wasn't vague, but whatever. Just point me to the rule that says this.

You want a rule specifying that rules only do what they say they do? 

What is this fascination with proving a negative?