You apply it during spell casting because it’s a spell attack, not an attack with a weapon
It is “a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon.” It’s a special, specific case of being both a spell attack, and an attack with a ranged weapon. It’s both. And it doesn’t matter whatever general rules you want to quote at me, because specific beats general.
If you wanna play the 'specific beats general' game, the specific description of how to make the attack with magic stone tells you that you are not making a general ranged weapon attack
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Magic stone is that specific in that it specifies a specific weapon that can be used to make the attack. And there’s other precedent too. Or would you say that an Arcane Trickster who casts green-flame blade with their rapier cannot use Sneak Attack too? That’s the case of a “melee weapon attack made with a spell” after all.
GFB (and BB) contain specific language telling you to make a normal melee attack, with all the effects that would normally apply -- including Sneak Attack etc
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects
If magic stone contained similar language regarding sling usage, this thread wouldn't exist
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You apply it during spell casting because it’s a spell attack, not an attack with a weapon
It is “a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon.” It’s a special, specific case of being both a spell attack, and an attack with a ranged weapon. It’s both. And it doesn’t matter whatever general rules you want to quote at me, because specific beats general.
If you wanna play the 'specific beats general' game, the specific description of how to make the attack with magic stone tells you that you are not making a general ranged weapon attack
You’re right, you aren’t making a General ranged weapon attack. It’s “a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon.” As I’ve said several times before.
Magic stone is that specific in that it specifies a specific weapon that can be used to make the attack. And there’s other precedent too. Or would you say that an Arcane Trickster who casts green-flame blade with their rapier cannot use Sneak Attack too? That’s the case of a “melee weapon attack made with a spell” after all.
GFB (and BB) contain specific language telling you to make a normal melee attack, with all the effects that would normally apply -- including Sneak Attack etc
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects
If magic stone contained similar language regarding sling usage, this thread wouldn't exist
It does:
You touch one to three pebbles and imbue them with magic. You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling. If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet. If someone else attacks with the pebble, that attacker adds your spellcasting ability modifier, not the attacker’s, to the attack roll. On a hit, the target takes bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Hit or miss, the spell then ends on the stone.
See.👆Since the only thing that changes if you make the attack using a sling is that you’ve made an attack “with a sling,” it needs no more language than that.
How can one rationally argue that an attack made “with a sling” is not actually an attack made “with a sling?!?” It baffles me. I’m baffled.
If you cast a spell attack with a staff, is it “an attack with a weapon”?
Yes. I will also add that I believe all of the magic staffs that have a +1 or better specify this applies to "attack rolls", not "weapon attack rolls". The staff of the Magi, Staff of Power, Staff of Skybender specifically state the bonus applies to spell attacks made with it.
If for example you use a +1 staff to cast Steel Wind Strike you would apply that +1 to the attack rolls and get a +1 damage to every enemy you hit.
You touch one to three pebbles and imbue them with magic. You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling. If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet. If someone else attacks with the pebble, that attacker adds your spellcasting ability modifier, not the attacker’s, to the attack roll. On a hit, the target takes bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Hit or miss, the spell then ends on the stone.
See.👆Since the only thing that changes if you make the attack using a sling is that you’ve made an attack “with a sling,” it needs no more language than that.
How can one rationally argue that an attack made “with a sling” is not actually an attack made “with a sling?!?” It baffles me. I’m baffled.
The thing here is, it doesn't say the sling actually changes anything. Its just flavor text with no mechanics mentioned. Its like wielding a weapon for Steel Wind Strike, the weapon doesn't actually do anything besides act as a material component. But in Magic Stone's case, the sling doesn't even do that much. Its just there.
This is like arguing that Spiritual Weapon creates a weapon you can hold and wield, or that Chill Touch ignores cover because the ghostly hand "appears in the square an enemy occupies." It might be assumptions you can try to make about the spell, but they don't say they can actually do that.
And for the hundredth time: an attack with a weapon is a weapon attack. Not a spell attack. The text would need to specifically say it was somehow both a weapon attack and a spell attack.
And for the hundredth time: an attack with a weapon is a weapon attack. Not a spell attack. The text would need to specifically say it was somehow both a weapon attack and a spell attack.
For the hundredth time, an attack with a weapon is not a weapon attack if specific spell text says that, for that spell, it's a spell attack. Trying to think of a good example of this, coming up blank. I'm sure you can think of something.
You're right: if the arcane focus says it gives specific bonuses to spell attacks, it does. But weapons that can coincidentally be arcane foci and have a bonus to hit for weapon attacks do not.
Spell attacks and weapon attacks do not mix. It has to be clearly stated, if such a lone exception was to exist.
For the hundredth time, an attack with a weapon is not a weapon attack if specific spell text says that, for that spell, it's a spell attack. Trying to think of a good example of this, coming up blank. I'm sure you can think of something.
SAC is clear that the terms "weapon attack" and "attack with a weapon" mean the same thing.
And Magic Stone doesn't have any specific language saying its a spell attack and a weapon attack.
There is no example of another spell that works the way you want Magic Stone to work because every other similar spell is spelled out. Flame Arrow, GF Blade, Booming Blade, Shilleighly, etc.
You touch one to three pebbles and imbue them with magic. You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling. If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet. If someone else attacks with the pebble, that attacker adds your spellcasting ability modifier, not the attacker’s, to the attack roll. On a hit, the target takes bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Hit or miss, the spell then ends on the stone.
See.👆Since the only thing that changes if you make the attack using a sling is that you’ve made an attack “with a sling,” it needs no more language than that.
How can one rationally argue that an attack made “with a sling” is not actually an attack made “with a sling?!?” It baffles me. I’m baffled.
The thing here is, it doesn't say the sling actually changes anything. Its just flavor text with no mechanics mentioned. Its like wielding a weapon for Steel Wind Strike, the weapon doesn't actually do anything besides act as a material component. But in Magic Stone's case, the sling doesn't even do that much. Its just there.
This is like arguing that Spiritual Weapon creates a weapon you can hold and wield, or that Chill Touch ignores cover because the ghostly hand "appears in the square an enemy occupies." It might be assumptions you can try to make about the spell, but they don't say they can actually do that.
And for the hundredth time: an attack with a weapon is a weapon attack. Not a spell attack. The text would need to specifically say it was somehow both a weapon attack and a spell attack.
So you say using the sling doesn’t even change the range from 60 to 30/120?!? That’s it, I’m done. There’s no point.
SAC is clear that the terms "weapon attack" and "attack with a weapon" mean the same thing.
That’s 100% categorically incorrect. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
Funny, I said the exact same thing a handful of pages ago. I believe his response was something along the lines of "you have to prove that not all rectangles are squares."
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)
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 how does a ranged weapon attack mean a "ranged attack with a weapon" without it being reciprocal? People keep saying its not automatically so based on absolutely nothing. its the most basic tautology, if the two phrases aren't interchangeable then one can't define the other.
Not unless you can show how there can be something that is a "ranged attack with a weapon" that is outside a "ranged weapon attack." And nothing explicitly fits that description.
Yeah, you have to show a thing isn't equivalent to its definition... since that is literally the point of a definition.
You're the one making the wild claim that the two phrases don't define each other, but you won't bother to give any evidence how.
Can you point to something concrete that says this? You keep saying that your idea of a definition is an irrefutable point that nobody can match, when really it's impossible to say anything against it because it isn't saying anything itself. It's just your unbacked idea of how language works.
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)
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 how does a ranged weapon attack mean a "ranged attack with a weapon" without it being reciprocal? People keep saying its not automatically so based on absolutely nothing. its the most basic tautology, if the two phrases aren't interchangeable then one can't define the other.
Not unless you can show how there can be something that is a "ranged attack with a weapon" that is outside a "ranged weapon attack." And nothing explicitly fits that description.
You're right: if the arcane focus says it gives specific bonuses to spell attacks, it does. But weapons that can coincidentally be arcane foci and have a bonus to hit for weapon attacks do not.
attack made “with a sling?!?” It baffles me. I’m baffled.
Its like wielding a weapon for Steel Wind Strike, the weapon doesn't actually do anything besides act as a material component.
This is not ture.
The DMG says explicitly in the description of a +1 Weapon:
"You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon."
That would apply to any attack you make with it, Steel Wind Strike is an attack.
This is like arguing that Spiritual Weapon creates a weapon you can hold and wield, or that Chill Touch ignores cover because the ghostly hand "appears in the square an enemy occupies." It might be assumptions you can try to make about the spell, but they don't say they can actually do that.
The spiritual weapon spell specifically states that the weapon is spectral, so it can't be held.
For Chill Touch the hand appears in his space regardless, but you make the ranged attack to assail it with the chill of the grave. I dopn't get why cover would not apply, but if a player had a good logical reason why I would listen to him and consider it, I just don't get that from your comment or the description.
And for the hundredth time: an attack with a weapon is a weapon attack. Not a spell attack. The text would need to specifically say it was somehow both a weapon attack and a spell attack.
No it isn't. It is just an attack. Attacks can be spell attacks or weapon attacks.
I hope I don’t need to explain why name dropping a category of fallacy isn’t enough to validly accuse someone of using it?
Can you give even one other possible antecedent to the consequent? In other words, even one explicit case where an attack with a weapon isn’t a weapon attack?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you wanna play the 'specific beats general' game, the specific description of how to make the attack with magic stone tells you that you are not making a general ranged weapon attack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
GFB (and BB) contain specific language telling you to make a normal melee attack, with all the effects that would normally apply -- including Sneak Attack etc
If magic stone contained similar language regarding sling usage, this thread wouldn't exist
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You’re right, you aren’t making a General ranged weapon attack. It’s “a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon.” As I’ve said several times before.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It does:
See.👆Since the only thing that changes if you make the attack using a sling is that you’ve made an attack “with a sling,” it needs no more language than that.
How can one rationally argue that an attack made “with a sling” is not actually an attack made “with a sling?!?” It baffles me. I’m baffled.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes. I will also add that I believe all of the magic staffs that have a +1 or better specify this applies to "attack rolls", not "weapon attack rolls". The staff of the Magi, Staff of Power, Staff of Skybender specifically state the bonus applies to spell attacks made with it.
If for example you use a +1 staff to cast Steel Wind Strike you would apply that +1 to the attack rolls and get a +1 damage to every enemy you hit.
The thing here is, it doesn't say the sling actually changes anything. Its just flavor text with no mechanics mentioned. Its like wielding a weapon for Steel Wind Strike, the weapon doesn't actually do anything besides act as a material component. But in Magic Stone's case, the sling doesn't even do that much. Its just there.
This is like arguing that Spiritual Weapon creates a weapon you can hold and wield, or that Chill Touch ignores cover because the ghostly hand "appears in the square an enemy occupies." It might be assumptions you can try to make about the spell, but they don't say they can actually do that.
And for the hundredth time: an attack with a weapon is a weapon attack. Not a spell attack. The text would need to specifically say it was somehow both a weapon attack and a spell attack.
For the hundredth time, an attack with a weapon is not a weapon attack if specific spell text says that, for that spell, it's a spell attack. Trying to think of a good example of this, coming up blank. I'm sure you can think of something.
You're right: if the arcane focus says it gives specific bonuses to spell attacks, it does. But weapons that can coincidentally be arcane foci and have a bonus to hit for weapon attacks do not.
Spell attacks and weapon attacks do not mix. It has to be clearly stated, if such a lone exception was to exist.
SAC is clear that the terms "weapon attack" and "attack with a weapon" mean the same thing.
And Magic Stone doesn't have any specific language saying its a spell attack and a weapon attack.
There is no example of another spell that works the way you want Magic Stone to work because every other similar spell is spelled out. Flame Arrow, GF Blade, Booming Blade, Shilleighly, etc.
So you say using the sling doesn’t even change the range from 60 to 30/120?!? That’s it, I’m done. There’s no point.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That’s 100% categorically incorrect. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If weapon attack meant an attack with a weapon, paladins could use Divine Smite with unarmed strike, and we know they can't.
Funny, I said the exact same thing a handful of pages ago. I believe his response was something along the lines of "you have to prove that not all rectangles are squares."
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)
So how does a ranged weapon attack mean a "ranged attack with a weapon" without it being reciprocal? People keep saying its not automatically so based on absolutely nothing. its the most basic tautology, if the two phrases aren't interchangeable then one can't define the other.
Not unless you can show how there can be something that is a "ranged attack with a weapon" that is outside a "ranged weapon attack." And nothing explicitly fits that description.
Unarmed strikes are an explicit exception in the rules. You know this, so why bring it up?
Yeah, you have to show a thing isn't equivalent to its definition... since that is literally the point of a definition.
You're the one making the wild claim that the two phrases don't define each other, but you won't bother to give any evidence how.
Can you point to something concrete that says this? You keep saying that your idea of a definition is an irrefutable point that nobody can match, when really it's impossible to say anything against it because it isn't saying anything itself. It's just your unbacked idea of how language works.
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)
We’re not saying it “based on absolutely nothing.” We’re saying it based on this: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent). Your entire premise is literally based on a well known logical fallacy.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is not ture.
The DMG says explicitly in the description of a +1 Weapon:
"You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon."
That would apply to any attack you make with it, Steel Wind Strike is an attack.
The spiritual weapon spell specifically states that the weapon is spectral, so it can't be held.
For Chill Touch the hand appears in his space regardless, but you make the ranged attack to assail it with the chill of the grave. I dopn't get why cover would not apply, but if a player had a good logical reason why I would listen to him and consider it, I just don't get that from your comment or the description.
No it isn't. It is just an attack. Attacks can be spell attacks or weapon attacks.
I hope I don’t need to explain why name dropping a category of fallacy isn’t enough to validly accuse someone of using it?
Can you give even one other possible antecedent to the consequent? In other words, even one explicit case where an attack with a weapon isn’t a weapon attack?