The Magic Stone spell imbues pebbles and allows you to make ranged spell attacks to throw them. Pebbles not enchanted with this cantrip are obviously improvised weapons when thrown. My question is: can the pebbles still be counted as improvised weapons when enchanted with Magic Stone? Not asking if it's a weapon attack, but if it's a ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon.
The definition of improvised weapons reads: "an improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands". Are the pebbles still objects when enchanted with Magic Stone?
One argument I see against thrown Magic Stones as improvised weapons is the fact that they differ from "normal" improvised weapons in their damage (1d4 vs. 1d6 + mod) and range (20/60 vs. 60). However, is this not just a case of Specific Beats General? Are the range and damage rules on improvised weapons part of their definition, or can imbued pebbles override them while still remaining improvised weapons? The fact that the thrown range of Magic Stone mirrors the long range of normal improvised weapons indicates to me that this might be the case.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts! Are there any rules I might have missed? How would you rule this at your table?
Yes, but if used as one it will not use the magic.
They can either use it as an improvised weapon (which would be a ranged weapon attack) OR they can use the magic of the stone to throw it as a ranged spell attack (not weapon attack).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I would say that they are still improvised weapons in name. But in literally nothing else.
The rules treat them completely differently so nothing that would normally apply to them still applies here. In terms of rulings, was there a specific situation that you were thinking of?
I have also included a better answer than mine here for you to look at if you're interested.
Yes, but if used as one it will not use the magic.
They can either use it as an improvised weapon (which would be a ranged weapon attack) OR they can use the magic of the stone to throw it as a ranged spell attack (not weapon attack).
Again, I'm not asking if throwing a Magic Stone is a weapon attack, but if it's a ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon. One can make spell attacks with weapons: for example, the Magic Stone cantrip also lets you hurl pebbles with a sling, which makes it a ranged spell attack with a ranged weapon (allowing it to be used with Sneak Attack, for example).
Yes, but if used as one it will not use the magic.
They can either use it as an improvised weapon (which would be a ranged weapon attack) OR they can use the magic of the stone to throw it as a ranged spell attack (not weapon attack).
Again, I'm not asking if throwing a Magic Stone is a weapon attack, but if it's a ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon. One can make spell attacks with weapons: for example, the Magic Stone cantrip also lets you hurl pebbles with a sling, which makes it a ranged spell attack with a ranged weapon (allowing it to be used with Sneak Attack, for example).
No, a throw magic stone is not a “ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon.” It is just “a ranged spell attack.”
A magic stone used in conjunction with a sling however is a “ranged spell attack using a ranged weapon,” and therefore qualifies for interactions with both Sneak Attack and Sharpshooter.
The Magic Stone spell imbues pebbles and allows you to make ranged spell attacks to throw them. Pebbles not enchanted with this cantrip are obviously improvised weapons when thrown. My question is: can the pebbles still be counted as improvised weapons when enchanted with Magic Stone? Not asking if it's a weapon attack, but if it's a ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon.
The definition of improvised weapons reads: "an improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands". Are the pebbles still objects when enchanted with Magic Stone?
One argument I see against thrown Magic Stones as improvised weapons is the fact that they differ from "normal" improvised weapons in their damage (1d4 vs. 1d6 + mod) and range (20/60 vs. 60). However, is this not just a case of Specific Beats General? Are the range and damage rules on improvised weapons part of their definition, or can imbued pebbles override them while still remaining improvised weapons? The fact that the thrown range of Magic Stone mirrors the long range of normal improvised weapons indicates to me that this might be the case.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts! Are there any rules I might have missed? How would you rule this at your table?
Yes, but if used as one it will not use the magic.
They can either use it as an improvised weapon (which would be a ranged weapon attack) OR they can use the magic of the stone to throw it as a ranged spell attack (not weapon attack).
Again, I'm not asking if throwing a Magic Stone is a weapon attack, but if it's a ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon. One can make spell attacks with weapons: for example, the Magic Stone cantrip also lets you hurl pebbles with a sling, which makes it a ranged spell attack with a ranged weapon (allowing it to be used with Sneak Attack, for example).
Improvised weapons are curious because the dueling fighting style works while your off-hand is holding an improvised weapon, which means improvised weapons aren't weapons when you're not attacking with them. However, they are when you do attack with them, presumably; a famously under-specified rules block is what happens when you attack with a torch, but I think it's pretty clear you're making a weapon attack when you do (with an improvised weapon, namely your torch).
I would 100% rule throwing a Magic Stone is a ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon: the rock in question. Without the spell, I would be pretty rough on you for things like damage (I'm not giving you the full 1d4 for a pebble), but it's still an improvised weapon.
Note that the definition of weapon attack is an attack with a weapon: an attack with a weapon is a weapon attack and a weapon attack is an attack with a weapon. Now, moving right along...
That is not entirely correct. An Unarmed Strike is most definitively “a melee weapon attack” and is also most definitively not “an attack with a weapon.”
I would say that they are still improvised weapons in name. But in literally nothing else.
The rules treat them completely differently so nothing that would normally apply to them still applies here. In terms of rulings, was there a specific situation that you were thinking of?
I have also included a better answer than mine here for you to look at if you're interested.
There is indeed a specific situation I'm thinking of, though it's a bit involved, so decided to only include the relevant question here. But here's the full context:
I'm playing a Fey Wanderer Ranger, giving me the Dreadful Strikes feature, which reads: "When you hit a creature with a weapon, you can deal an extra 1d4 psychic damage to the target".
I took the Druidic Warrior fighting style, allowing me to pick up Shillelagh and Magic Stone. Shillelagh definitely works with Dreadful Strikes, but for versatility I would love for Magic Stone to also work. Since I wear a shield, it's impractical to free my hands to use a sling, hence me asking about the thrown part of the cantrip.
According to Jeremy Crawford, improvised weapons are weapons in the moment they're used to attack. This is a narrow window, but hopefully "when you hit" is part of the attack, thus fulfilling that requirement for Dreadful Strikes.
So if throwing a Magic Stone is a ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon, and improvised weapons are weapons when you attack (including when you hit), then there might be an argument that it works with Dreadful Strikes.
Ultimately, it's quite a niche argument. It's less about optimizing for damage (this character is far from optimized), and more about giving me the versatility to switch between Shillelagh and Magic Stone without taking a big loss from choosing the latter.
I would say that they are still improvised weapons in name. But in literally nothing else.
The rules treat them completely differently so nothing that would normally apply to them still applies here. In terms of rulings, was there a specific situation that you were thinking of?
I have also included a better answer than mine here for you to look at if you're interested.
There is indeed a specific situation I'm thinking of, though it's a bit involved, so decided to only include the relevant question here. But here's the full context:
I'm playing a Fey Wanderer Ranger, giving me the Dreadful Strikes feature, which reads: "When you hit a creature with a weapon, you can deal an extra 1d4 psychic damage to the target".
I took the Druidic Warrior fighting style, allowing me to pick up Shillelagh and Magic Stone. Shillelagh definitely works with Dreadful Strikes, but for versatility I would love for Magic Stone to also work. Since I wear a shield, it's impractical to free my hands to use a sling, hence me asking about the thrown part of the cantrip.
According to Jeremy Crawford, improvised weapons are weapons in the moment they're used to attack. This is a narrow window, but hopefully "when you hit" is part of the attack, thus fulfilling that requirement for Dreadful Strikes.
So if throwing a Magic Stone is a ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon, and improvised weapons are weapons when you attack (including when you hit), then there might be an argument that it works with Dreadful Strikes.
Ultimately, it's quite a niche argument. It's less about optimizing for damage (this character is far from optimized), and more about giving me the versatility to switch between Shillelagh and Magic Stone without taking a big loss from choosing the latter.
Note that the definition of weapon attack is an attack with a weapon: an attack with a weapon is a weapon attack and a weapon attack is an attack with a weapon. Now, moving right along...
That is not entirely correct. An Unarmed Strike is most definitively “a melee weapon attack” and is also most definitively not “an attack with a weapon.”
Right. Specific beats general. Anything that is explicitly labeled as a weapon attack is also a weapon attack, even if it does not satisfy the normal definition.
I would say that they are still improvised weapons in name. But in literally nothing else.
The rules treat them completely differently so nothing that would normally apply to them still applies here. In terms of rulings, was there a specific situation that you were thinking of?
I have also included a better answer than mine here for you to look at if you're interested.
There is indeed a specific situation I'm thinking of, though it's a bit involved, so decided to only include the relevant question here. But here's the full context:
I'm playing a Fey Wanderer Ranger, giving me the Dreadful Strikes feature, which reads: "When you hit a creature with a weapon, you can deal an extra 1d4 psychic damage to the target".
I took the Druidic Warrior fighting style, allowing me to pick up Shillelagh and Magic Stone. Shillelagh definitely works with Dreadful Strikes, but for versatility I would love for Magic Stone to also work. Since I wear a shield, it's impractical to free my hands to use a sling, hence me asking about the thrown part of the cantrip.
According to Jeremy Crawford, improvised weapons are weapons in the moment they're used to attack. This is a narrow window, but hopefully "when you hit" is part of the attack, thus fulfilling that requirement for Dreadful Strikes.
So if throwing a Magic Stone is a ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon, and improvised weapons are weapons when you attack (including when you hit), then there might be an argument that it works with Dreadful Strikes.
Ultimately, it's quite a niche argument. It's less about optimizing for damage (this character is far from optimized), and more about giving me the versatility to switch between Shillelagh and Magic Stone without taking a big loss from choosing the latter.
Yes, Magic Stone works with Dreadful Strikes.
I would disagree. The stones aren't being used as weapons, they are being used as spells. The stones aren't really being used as weapons here in the sense that they utilise a spell attack not a weapon attack. As such they are not weapons at the time of use and Dreadful Strikes would not apply.
I say this because the way that the spell works when someone else attacks with the stones is that the attack roll doesn't rely on them, it relies on the caster - it is nothing to do with weapons in the mechanics (spell attacks, adding spellcasting ability modifier) so I would say that to call the use of the Magic Stone a weapon goes against the spell/weapon dichotomy.
But again, this is how I would rule at my table. The question is open enough that I'd leave it up to your own DM and just ask before the campaign starts.
I say this because the way that the spell works when someone else attacks with the stones is that the attack roll doesn't rely on them, it relies on the caster - it is nothing to do with weapons in the mechanics (spell attacks, adding spellcasting ability modifier) so I would say that to call the use of the Magic Stone a weapon goes against the spell/weapon dichotomy.
On the other hand, you add the proficiency bonus of the character throwing the stone to the attack roll.
This question has been asked multiple times in various contexts and every time there seems to be two camps:
1. Those who believe that it is against RAW to make a Spell Attack with a weapon. That is, whatever you are using to make the attack is definitely no longer a weapon (if it ever was) at the moment you make a Spell Attack. If it was a weapon, you'd make a Weapon Attack. Examples where this matter include spells such as Magic Stone, Thorn Whip, and Primal Savagery.
2. Those who believe that a weapon still counts as a weapon even if the rules call for a Spell Attack.
The two camps each have arguments that support their claims:
Camp 1 often points out how no effect that calls for a Spell Attack also mentions the use of a weapon in said attack (this is false, but often they provide their own definition of the word "weapon" which takes their claim from false to debatable) and that sticking to their definition is the simpler, more consistent way to read the rules (which is arguably true).
Camp 2 often points to how some effects that call for a Spell Attack do mention the use of a weapon (either explicitly or implicitly), how no rule says you can't make a Spell Attack with a weapon and how it logically doesn't make sense to say that e.g. a Magic Stone ceases to be a stone because it is temporarily imbued with magic.
Personally I often use camp 1's ruling at my table because it makes the game run smoother and more consistent, but in individual cases such as with Magic Stone I rule that it is indeed a weapon. Specifically Primal Savagery is an instance that puts a lot of pressure on camp 1, in my opinion. Natural Weapons are weapons according to RAW, and there are no explicit rules that mention that weapons cease to be weapons when an effect calls for a Spell Attack with said weapon.
An improvised weapon shouldn't qualify for any feature requiring a weapon. Whether it does at your table is an individual group's decision.
The whole idea of an Improvised Weapon needs re-iteration to just what that term means.
The book tells us two things. 1) If an item selected is near enough to an actual weapon, we allow that "improvised weapon" to work as if it were the weapon it resembles, meaning that you can call it whatever weapon it resembles as opposed to an improvised weapon. At the DM's discretion, of course. 2) If the selected item does not have any resemblance to an existing weapon, it does 1d4 damage and does not allow for a proficiency bonus, presumably.
A pebble that is a suitable match for a sling stone would not be an improvised weapon in my opinion, it would be a sling stone.
An improvised weapon shouldn't qualify for any feature requiring a weapon. Whether it does at your table is an individual group's decision.
The whole idea of an Improvised Weapon needs re-iteration to just what that term means.
The book tell us 2 things. 1) If an item selected is near enough to an actual weapon, we allow that "improvised weapon" to work as if it were the weapon it resembles, meaning that you can call it whatever weapon it resembles as opposed to an improvised weapon. At the DM's discretion, of course. 2) If the selected item does not have any resemblance to an existing weapon, it does 1d4 damage and does not allow for a proficiency bonus, presumably.
A pebble that is a suitable match for a sling stone would not be an improvised weapon in my opinion, it would be a sling stone.
A sling stone counts as ammunition, not as a weapon, no? What point are you trying to make with your distinction?
Picking up a peedle stone to throw it would certainly fall under improvised weapon rules.
As for a Magic Stone, it doesn`t matter since the spell apecifically give you range, damage using your spellcasting ability modifier to attack and damage, which include proficiency bonus to the former.
An improvised weapon shouldn't qualify for any feature requiring a weapon. Whether it does at your table is an individual group's decision.
The whole idea of an Improvised Weapon needs re-iteration to just what that term means.
The book tell us 2 things. 1) If an item selected is near enough to an actual weapon, we allow that "improvised weapon" to work as if it were the weapon it resembles, meaning that you can call it whatever weapon it resembles as opposed to an improvised weapon. At the DM's discretion, of course. 2) If the selected item does not have any resemblance to an existing weapon, it does 1d4 damage and does not allow for a proficiency bonus, presumably.
A pebble that is a suitable match for a sling stone would not be an improvised weapon in my opinion, it would be a sling stone.
A sling stone counts as ammunition, not as a weapon, no? What point are you trying to make with your distinction?
Don't be pedantic. Obviously, a sling and a sling stone count as a weapon(as neither serves it's purpose without the other). As far as my point, a chair leg will be a club, a weapon. A heavy drumstick wielded by an angry drummer would not be a club, it would be an improvised weapon.
That isn't obvious and leads to some bad ideas specifically with all rocks then becoming weapons. Even if they are mechanically similar (1d4+str) attacks, they are some bad ideas.
Slings use bullets in 5e. What a sling bullet? Any answer to that question is off the page and therefore up for debate.
The Magic Stone spell imbues pebbles and allows you to make ranged spell attacks to throw them. Pebbles not enchanted with this cantrip are obviously improvised weapons when thrown. My question is: can the pebbles still be counted as improvised weapons when enchanted with Magic Stone? Not asking if it's a weapon attack, but if it's a ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon.
The definition of improvised weapons reads: "an improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands". Are the pebbles still objects when enchanted with Magic Stone?
One argument I see against thrown Magic Stones as improvised weapons is the fact that they differ from "normal" improvised weapons in their damage (1d4 vs. 1d6 + mod) and range (20/60 vs. 60). However, is this not just a case of Specific Beats General? Are the range and damage rules on improvised weapons part of their definition, or can imbued pebbles override them while still remaining improvised weapons? The fact that the thrown range of Magic Stone mirrors the long range of normal improvised weapons indicates to me that this might be the case.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts! Are there any rules I might have missed? How would you rule this at your table?
Yes, but if used as one it will not use the magic.
They can either use it as an improvised weapon (which would be a ranged weapon attack) OR they can use the magic of the stone to throw it as a ranged spell attack (not weapon attack).
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I would say that they are still improvised weapons in name. But in literally nothing else.
The rules treat them completely differently so nothing that would normally apply to them still applies here. In terms of rulings, was there a specific situation that you were thinking of?
I have also included a better answer than mine here for you to look at if you're interested.
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/98283/can-you-use-magic-weapon-spell-on-an-improvised-weapon
Chilling kinda vibe.
Again, I'm not asking if throwing a Magic Stone is a weapon attack, but if it's a ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon. One can make spell attacks with weapons: for example, the Magic Stone cantrip also lets you hurl pebbles with a sling, which makes it a ranged spell attack with a ranged weapon (allowing it to be used with Sneak Attack, for example).
No, a throw magic stone is not a “ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon.” It is just “a ranged spell attack.”
A magic stone used in conjunction with a sling however is a “ranged spell attack using a ranged weapon,” and therefore qualifies for interactions with both Sneak Attack and Sharpshooter.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Note that the definition of weapon attack is an attack with a weapon: an attack with a weapon is a weapon attack and a weapon attack is an attack with a weapon. Now, moving right along...
Improvised weapons are curious because the dueling fighting style works while your off-hand is holding an improvised weapon, which means improvised weapons aren't weapons when you're not attacking with them. However, they are when you do attack with them, presumably; a famously under-specified rules block is what happens when you attack with a torch, but I think it's pretty clear you're making a weapon attack when you do (with an improvised weapon, namely your torch).
I would 100% rule throwing a Magic Stone is a ranged spell attack with an improvised weapon: the rock in question. Without the spell, I would be pretty rough on you for things like damage (I'm not giving you the full 1d4 for a pebble), but it's still an improvised weapon.
That is not entirely correct. An Unarmed Strike is most definitively “a melee weapon attack” and is also most definitively not “an attack with a weapon.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is indeed a specific situation I'm thinking of, though it's a bit involved, so decided to only include the relevant question here. But here's the full context:
Ultimately, it's quite a niche argument. It's less about optimizing for damage (this character is far from optimized), and more about giving me the versatility to switch between Shillelagh and Magic Stone without taking a big loss from choosing the latter.
Yes, Magic Stone works with Dreadful Strikes.
Right. Specific beats general. Anything that is explicitly labeled as a weapon attack is also a weapon attack, even if it does not satisfy the normal definition.
You can use an unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack without a weapon, because of a rule saying so, despite the previously linked rule defining a melee weapon attack as a melee attack with a weapon. Apologies for leaving that out, you're quite correct.
An improvised weapon shouldn't qualify for any feature requiring a weapon. Whether it does at your table is an individual group's decision.
I would disagree. The stones aren't being used as weapons, they are being used as spells. The stones aren't really being used as weapons here in the sense that they utilise a spell attack not a weapon attack. As such they are not weapons at the time of use and Dreadful Strikes would not apply.
I say this because the way that the spell works when someone else attacks with the stones is that the attack roll doesn't rely on them, it relies on the caster - it is nothing to do with weapons in the mechanics (spell attacks, adding spellcasting ability modifier) so I would say that to call the use of the Magic Stone a weapon goes against the spell/weapon dichotomy.
But again, this is how I would rule at my table. The question is open enough that I'd leave it up to your own DM and just ask before the campaign starts.
Chilling kinda vibe.
On the other hand, you add the proficiency bonus of the character throwing the stone to the attack roll.
Or do you…?
This question has been asked multiple times in various contexts and every time there seems to be two camps:
1. Those who believe that it is against RAW to make a Spell Attack with a weapon. That is, whatever you are using to make the attack is definitely no longer a weapon (if it ever was) at the moment you make a Spell Attack. If it was a weapon, you'd make a Weapon Attack. Examples where this matter include spells such as Magic Stone, Thorn Whip, and Primal Savagery.
2. Those who believe that a weapon still counts as a weapon even if the rules call for a Spell Attack.
The two camps each have arguments that support their claims:
Camp 1 often points out how no effect that calls for a Spell Attack also mentions the use of a weapon in said attack (this is false, but often they provide their own definition of the word "weapon" which takes their claim from false to debatable) and that sticking to their definition is the simpler, more consistent way to read the rules (which is arguably true).
Camp 2 often points to how some effects that call for a Spell Attack do mention the use of a weapon (either explicitly or implicitly), how no rule says you can't make a Spell Attack with a weapon and how it logically doesn't make sense to say that e.g. a Magic Stone ceases to be a stone because it is temporarily imbued with magic.
Personally I often use camp 1's ruling at my table because it makes the game run smoother and more consistent, but in individual cases such as with Magic Stone I rule that it is indeed a weapon. Specifically Primal Savagery is an instance that puts a lot of pressure on camp 1, in my opinion. Natural Weapons are weapons according to RAW, and there are no explicit rules that mention that weapons cease to be weapons when an effect calls for a Spell Attack with said weapon.
The whole idea of an Improvised Weapon needs re-iteration to just what that term means.
The book tells us two things. 1) If an item selected is near enough to an actual weapon, we allow that "improvised weapon" to work as if it were the weapon it resembles, meaning that you can call it whatever weapon it resembles as opposed to an improvised weapon. At the DM's discretion, of course. 2) If the selected item does not have any resemblance to an existing weapon, it does 1d4 damage and does not allow for a proficiency bonus, presumably.
A pebble that is a suitable match for a sling stone would not be an improvised weapon in my opinion, it would be a sling stone.
A sling stone counts as ammunition, not as a weapon, no? What point are you trying to make with your distinction?
Picking up a peedle stone to throw it would certainly fall under improvised weapon rules.
As for a Magic Stone, it doesn`t matter since the spell apecifically give you range, damage using your spellcasting ability modifier to attack and damage, which include proficiency bonus to the former.
Don't be pedantic. Obviously, a sling and a sling stone count as a weapon(as neither serves it's purpose without the other). As far as my point, a chair leg will be a club, a weapon. A heavy drumstick wielded by an angry drummer would not be a club, it would be an improvised weapon.
That isn't obvious and leads to some bad ideas specifically with all rocks then becoming weapons. Even if they are mechanically similar (1d4+str) attacks, they are some bad ideas.
Slings use bullets in 5e. What a sling bullet? Any answer to that question is off the page and therefore up for debate.
Ammunitions are listed under adventuring gear table, not weapon table. They are sold seperatly and thus not part of the weapon.