Magic stone, what if I instead choose to take attack action

[Belier]

Hello, was wondering, you can make a ranged spell attack with the pebble, but what if I decide to take the attack action instead and use it like a magical arrow.

I know about the sage advice tweets on magic stone claiming it is a ranged spell attack made with a ranged weapon and stating that the wording used is important, but that wording is so vague that it must not be so important after all, thus I disagree with the game devs. They ain't calling it's sling range, nor are they calling if using it id an action. I know about officials answers stating that if you sling it, the range is the same as the sling wich make it yhe only spell attack with 2 range and I guess they don't call the action cost becaused they assumed the sling attack action cost. If it is using the sling properties in it's vagueness, I'm guessing it should have both the ranged weapon attack and ranged spell properties and I cross the line stating that the devs contradict their intends on their rulings.

Thus I felt like messing with the spell and I reiterate my beggining question, what if I instead decide to take the attack action with the peble and the sling, is it still magical?

[thrdeye]

Hello, was wondering, you can make a ranged spell attack with the pebble, but what if I decide to take the attack action instead and use it like a magical arrow.

You can't fire a pebble with a bow. Closest option would be a slingshot, which in terms of game mechanics would be the same as the sling mentioned in the spell.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but I did find a Sage Advice stating "An attack made with magic stone is a spell attack, even if you hurl the stone with a sling. The attack doesn't qualify for anything that requires a weapon attack, but it does work with a feature that requires a ranged weapon if you use a sling." Maybe that helps?

If you don't agree with the Sage Advice rulings (which have been consistent so far as I can tell) you can always ask your DM.

[Belier]

You can't fire a pebble with a bow. Closest option would be a slingshot, which in terms of game mechanics would be the same as the sling mentioned in the spell.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but I did find a Sage Advice stating "An attack made with magic stone is a spell attack, even if you hurl the stone with a sling. The attack doesn't qualify for anything that requires a weapon attack, but it does work with a feature that requires a ranged weapon if you use a sling." Maybe that helps?

If you don't agree with the Sage Advice rulings (which have been consistent so far as I can tell) you can always ask your DM.

I did not mean to throw the stone with the bow but to use the stone as ammunition for attack action like I shoot the arrow as ammunition with attack action.

One of the main reason I want to mess with the spell is because the official tweet about it says the wording is what's important.

The wording says: you or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles.

I want to emphasize on the wording can make. It does say I can do it but it does not say I have to. I could choose to make an attack action with the ammunition instead. What would be the result of it? To prevent this choice, the wording you say something like: when you or someone else use the pebble, you are making a ranged spell attack.

By saying you can make a spell attack, it implies I could choose to make something else with it.

Also, I've seen many people claim that volleyshot works with magic stone, to me it would imply that choosing the attack action with the pebble would be treated as damage goes, just like you treat the damage when used in a volley shot.

But if we go with what you said based kn official rulings and the result of attacking with the stone is a spell no matter what, does it imply that it is more like the use an object property? After all, you are imbuing 3 objects with magic to give them magical properties. With goodberry you are creating 10 magical object with magical properties, does using the object would be like use an object property? I see similarity with the goodberry and magic stone as they both give magical properties to objects. What about a thief with fast hand then, could he eat 2 goodberries? Could he shoot as second pebble as bonus action?

[Kadesh]

I did not mean to throw the stone with the bow but to use the stone as ammunition for attack action like I shoot the arrow as ammunition with attack action.

One of the main reason I want to mess with the spell is because the official tweet about it says the wording is what's important.

The wording says: you or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles.

I want to emphasize on the wording can make. It does say I can do it but it does not say I have to. I could choose to make an attack action with the ammunition instead. What would be the result of it? To prevent this choice, the wording you say something like: when you or someone else use the pebble, you are making a ranged spell attack.

By saying you can make a spell attack, it implies I could choose to make something else with it.

Also, I've seen many people claim that volleyshot works with magic stone, to me it would imply that choosing the attack action with the pebble would be treated as damage goes, just like you treat the damage when used in a volley shot.

But if we go with what you said based kn official rulings and the result of attacking with the stone is a spell no matter what, does it imply that it is more like the use an object property? After all, you are imbuing 3 objects with magic to give them magical properties. With goodberry you are creating 10 magical object with magical properties, does using the object would be like use an object property? I see similarity with the goodberry and magic stone as they both give magical properties to objects. What about a thief with fast hand then, could he eat 2 goodberries? Could he shoot as second pebble as bonus action?

It implies nothing outside of its own ruling, otherwise it would be a general.

[Contrast]

It does say I can do it but it does not say I have to.

Reading the rules that way leads to madness. If you choose to throw or use a sling with the stone, you make a ranged spell attack. You are not obligated to throw or use a sling with the stone which is why they used the word can (compare to booming blade where it says you must make the attack or the spell fails - in this case casting the spell gives you the option to do something; you can now do it if you wish to do so but are not required to do so by the spell).

Edit - for clarity, I would definitely allow someone to use the pebbles to make multiple attacks, I just don't think your justification about the use of the word can has anything to do with why :smallbiggrin:

[NaughtyTiger]

I had trouble following your original question. So I will try to answer what i think you asked.

Crawford was asked explicitly about Magic Stone, but he answered crypticaly as usual...

"Attack Action" says "make one melee or ranged attack". It does not specify "weapon attack" so extra attack DOES work, but you must use SLING's range

Hunter's volley says "use your action to make ranged attack ... within your weapon's range" not ranged weapon attack. So it DOES work, but you must use SLING's range

@thrdeye: Sage advice rulings are regularly self-conflicting. I keep a list of crawford inconsistencies.

[thrdeye]

I did not mean to throw the stone with the bow but to use the stone as ammunition for attack action like I shoot the arrow as ammunition with attack action.

"Ammunition" is a weapon property. It's not something that applies to the Attack action directly; you need to use a weapon with the Ammunition property to make use of ammunition. RAW, and I believe RAI, if you don't use the ranged spell attack option as described in the spell then the result would be the same as attacking with a pebble that doesn't have Magic Stone cast on it.

I'd like to be a bit more helpful. What exactly are you trying to do? Are you trying to make use of Extra Attack? Can you give me a quick description of the character and how you would describe the action you're attempting in game, followed by what you hope the result to be?

By saying you can make a spell attack, it implies I could choose to make something else with it

Not really. If it said you must make the attack, you would be required to do so upon casting the spell. As another poster said, that interpretation of "can" applied generally would lead to some very strange conclusions.

But if we go with what you said based kn official rulings and the result of attacking with the stone is a spell no matter what, does it imply that it is more like the use an object property? After all, you are imbuing 3 objects with magic to give them magical properties. With goodberry you are creating 10 magical object with magical properties, does using the object would be like use an object property? I see similarity with the goodberry and magic stone as they both give magical properties to objects. What about a thief with fast hand then, could he eat 2 goodberries? Could he shoot as second pebble as bonus action?

Goodberry specifically requires an action to use, so RAW the thief could not use Fast Hand to do it with a bonus action, although a DM may allow it. Magic Stone doesn't specify, and I don't think there's an official ruling so the answer will be DM dependent. Is this what you're trying to do with the spell?

@thrdeye: Sage advice rulings are regularly self-conflicting. I keep a list of crawford inconsistencies.

That's assuming they're clear enough to answer the question in the first place. I agree with you 100% here. I was specifically referring to the Sage Advice answers I've seen about Magic Stone; they do appear to be consistent both internally and with each other.

[NaughtyTiger]

Goodberry specifically requires an action to use,

So does healer's feat. That is generally accepted as legit for healer rogue.

[Kadesh]

So does healer's feat. That is generally accepted as legit for healer rogue.

Why?

Thief Rogue doesn't get any special ability to Healer feat as a Bonus Action, if that's what you mean. It's an action, and it's not a "Use an Object" action either.

[Contrast]

It's an action, and it's not a "Use an Object" action either.

It seems like you're using an object to me, just in a new way unlocked by the feat (in the same way someone using the -5 +10 abilities are still making an attack action, just with additional qualifiers).

Edit - Sage Advice agrees for what its worth

[Belier]

"

I'd like to be a bit more helpful. What exactly are you trying to do? Are you trying to make use of Extra Attack? Can you give me a quick description of the character and how you would describe the action you're attempting in game, followed by what you hope the result to be?

Thank you for discussing the topic. What I am trying to do is to discuss about the vagueness of the spell and the official answers about it that keep getting it vague and seems to sometimes contradict themselves with it. They said the wording is what's important but they keep it so vague that it is kind of annoying.

Magic stone is a cantrip I do like but I also dislike it's vagueness because if I try to make it a focal point in an AL game, which is official gaming, many DM will differ on what could be done with it to a point some dm will make it underwhelming while others will leave it be and it would not even be more effective than what many other tgings could do and in my opinion it is bad design for the moments you play an official game because you never know if a dm will let you play it decently or ruin the concept.

Do you think it would be possible to center a build on it without having to go with sneak attack to be viable in an AL game? If it was not so vague I guess it could be cool for character concepts.

[Kadesh]

There isn't a vagueness apart from willing misinterpretation, from what I can see? The spell tells you what you can do with it. Wanting to do things that the spell doesn't allow you to do so is your DM's ruling territory. The pebble is no more magical than casting Light on a Quarterstaff makes it a Magical Quarterstaff.

[Belier]

There isn't a vagueness apart from willing misinterpretation, from what I can see? The spell tells you what you can do with it. Wanting to do things that the spell doesn't allow you to do so is your DM's ruling territory. The pebble is no more magical than casting Light on a Quarterstaff makes it a Magical Quarterstaff.

Isn't it called magic stone?

[Kadesh]

Isn't it called magic stone?

It could be called Steve for all the effect that has.

[Belier]

It could be called Steve for all the effect that has.

Any way I do get your point. To you you have to use the magical property of the object to get the magical effect, else it would only make a normal non magical attack with 1d4 damage.

Would you relate it to use object?

[Kadesh]

Any way I do get your point. To you you have to use the magical property of the object to get the magical effect, else it would only make a normal non magical attack with 1d4 damage.

Would you relate it to use object?

No, I'd relate it to the effects listed on page 160 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything, and leave any further adjudication to the DM, such as those under page 147 of the Players Handbook for Improvised Weapons rules; it states that an Improvised Weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such - in other words, 1d4 bludgeoning damage. This means that the DM is arbitrator of whether the stone is considered magical for this purpose, and whether it uses the casters spellcasting ability modifier, and whether it deals 1d6+casters spellcasting ability modifier for damage. This depends on whether the DM interprets "hurls with a sling" to be the same thing as "thrown" (note that a sling is not a thrown weapon, nor is a sling bullet).

What the rules say you can do is explicit. It can be thrown, or it can be hurled with a sling, and if thrown it can be done with improved damage dice and using the Spellcasting ability modifiers instead, and is counted as making a ranged spell attack. How you, or your DM choose to read the thrown or hurled with a sling to refer to being thrown as being distinct from being hurled with a sling, and whether the effects when thrown also affect when being hurled with a sling is between your table.

[Belier]

No, I'd relate it to the effects listed on page 160 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything, and leave any further adjudication to the DM, such as those under page 147 of the Players Handbook for Improvised Weapons rules; it states that an Improvised Weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such - in other words, 1d4 bludgeoning damage. This means that the DM is arbitrator of whether the stone is considered magical for this purpose, and whether it uses the casters spellcasting ability modifier, and whether it deals 1d6+casters spellcasting ability modifier for damage. This depends on whether the DM interprets "hurls with a sling" to be the same thing as "thrown" (note that a sling is not a thrown weapon, nor is a sling bullet).

What the rules say you can do is explicit. It can be thrown, or it can be hurled with a sling, and if thrown it can be done with improved damage dice and using the Spellcasting ability modifiers instead, and is counted as making a ranged spell attack. How you, or your DM choose to read the thrown or hurled with a sling to refer to being thrown as being distinct from being hurled with a sling, and whether the effects when thrown also affect when being hurled with a sling is between your table.

And that's exactling why as written this spell is bad design when you want to attend an AL game you will face many different DM that will all rule it differently because it could be considered RAI a ranged weapon attack since it is made with a sling. At home it's simple, ask the dm. He'll wonder if it's breaking the game, since it is not, he will probly say yes. On structured play however, you cannot be so forgiving with RAW and this spell is so vague than sone DM would destroy some completely cool concept. How can an attack made with a weapon not being a weapon attack is beyond me. The concept is cool, like shooting magic with a gun in final fantasy tactic, but to me, the fact that it lacks the wording for sling range and action cost and they say officialy as clarification that it has sling range, is an action but keep it vague as to is it a weapon attack is beyond me because it will destroy the fun of some players in structured play that have a cool concept when the dm calls it.

[Kadesh]

How exactly is the "cool concept destroyed"? Just refluff throwing it as using the sling.

[thrdeye]

Do you think it would be possible to center a build on it without having to go with sneak attack to be viable in an AL game? If it was not so vague I guess it could be cool for character concepts.

I don't think that would be a good idea. Now that I've thought about it, outside of AL I personally wouldn't have an issue with allowing a Thief to use Fast Hands to make a bonus action attack with Magic Stone, especially if he was the one who made the investment in getting the spell in the first place. An extra 1d6 + spell mod damage isn't game breaking, especially when the rogue is giving up the other potential uses for his bonus action. However, it doesn't appear to be RAW and your experience with AL DMs will be inconsistent at best.

It's also mechanically weak. A Rogue without Sneak Attack is like a Barbarian without Rage or a Sorcerer without Metamagic. You'd be neglecting a core class feature for a damage gain that won't be nearly enough to compensate, while also giving up the defensive uses a Rogue has for his bonus action. If you want a ranged bonus action attack for your Rogue, you'd be better off with the Crossbow Expert feat and a one handed crossbow. If you don't want to use Sneak Attack, you're better off with another class altogether. If you just want a viable sling using character concept, you're going to have to take every boost you can get including Sneak Attack and, if I were you, some Ranger levels for Hunter's Mark, Colossus Slayer, the Archery fighting style and perhaps Extra Attack. That's going to be a much better option for you than Magic Stone.

I wish you the best of luck. You don't see many sling builds in 5e.

[NaughtyTiger]

The text of magic stone:
Bonus action
Make a ranged spell attack with one of up to three pebbles you touch by throwing it or using a sling.
If thrown, a pebble has a range of 60 feet.
(If sling, normal sling range)[not in text, but RAI]

The interpretation is:
bonus action to cast the spell creating 3 magic stones.
A stone can be used to make a ranged spell attack.

Extra attack specifies "ranged attack". yes
Hunter Volley specifies "ranged attack". yes
Sneak attack: yes if with sling, no if thrown
Archery style: yes if with sling.

It is very easy to get confused. The spell is poorly worded, and crawford pretends he is yoda when asked.

Please consider that sarcasm is not helpful when the OP is not native English speaker.

[Garfunion]

I want to contribute to the discussion but I’m not sure what the OP is trying to do with the magic stone spell.

To me the spelling isn’t vague. I can as the caster, make a ranged spell attack or I can give the stones to someone else who can make an attack with my spellcasting modifier.

•Can• only applies to whom is making an attack with the stones.

[Belier]

The text of magic stone:
Bonus action
Make a ranged spell attack with one of up to three pebbles you touch by throwing it or using a sling.
If thrown, a pebble has a range of 60 feet.
(If sling, normal sling range)[not in text, but RAI]

The interpretation is:
bonus action to cast the spell creating 3 magic stones.
A stone can be used to make a ranged spell attack.

Extra attack specifies "ranged attack". yes
Hunter Volley specifies "ranged attack". yes
Sneak attack: yes if with sling, no if thrown
Archery style: yes if with sling.

It is very easy to get confused. The spell is poorly worded, and crawford pretends he is yoda when asked.

Please consider that sarcasm is not helpful when the OP is not native English speaker.

Thank you for noticing and be nice about the fact that I ain't a native english speaker. French forums are so-so.

I'd like to make a build centered on ranger/monk and wish the spell was better defined in it's wording because I want it to be consistent in steuctured gameplay. I don't have a group and all I can afford is AL games.

If it was clarified that it also count as a weapon attack, horde breaker could work too and hails of thorns could work too. Being a kensei sling/quarterstaff would be nice too.

Just one thing however, extra attack clearly states it require the attack action.

[Garfunion]

Thank you for noticing and be nice about the fact that I ain't a native english speaker. French forums are so-so.

I'd like to make a build centered on ranger/monk and wish the spell was better defined in it's wording because I want it to be consistent in steuctured gameplay. I don't have a group and all I can afford is AL games.

If it was clarified that it also count as a weapon attack, horde breaker could work too and hails of thorns could work too. Being a kensei sling/quarterstaff would be nice too.

If this helps. Your Kensei weapon’s damage can use your unarmed damage and your weapon is treated as magical. This would mean magic stone becomes a worthless cantrip for you.

[thrdeye]

If it was clarified that it also count as a weapon attack, horde breaker could work too and hails of thorns could work too. Being a kensei sling/quarterstaff would be nice too.

I haven't made enough posts to create links, but here's Crawford's Sage Advice ruling: "An attack made with magic stone is a spell attack, even if you hurl the stone with a sling. The attack doesn't qualify for anything that requires a weapon attack, but it does work with a feature that requires a ranged weapon if you use a sling." Unfortunately, Horde Breaker won't work because it specifically requires a weapon attack. It does seem like it would work with some Kensei features, like Kensei Shot which requires a ranged attack with a kensei weapon (although even there you might stumble upon a DM who interprets that as "ranged weapon attack").

Ultimately, if you're looking for a spell whose effects will be interpreted consistently in AL, Magic Stone is going to cause you nothing but trouble. I would strongly encourage you to seek out a local group outside of AL. You might even be able to find one by making a more straightforward character for AL, then asking around with the people you meet there. Many DMs will be sympathetic to what you're trying to do, unfortunately AL doesn't give them the ability to reinterpret or bend the rules in your favor.

[Belier]

If this helps. Your Kensei weapon’s damage can use your unarmed damage and your weapon is treated as magical. This would mean magic stone becomes a worthless cantrip for you.

Yes that is true, however the break point I was focusing on is at level 5

[Belier]

I haven't made enough posts to create links, but here's Crawford's Sage Advice ruling: "An attack made with magic stone is a spell attack, even if you hurl the stone with a sling. The attack doesn't qualify for anything that requires a weapon attack, but it does work with a feature that requires a ranged weapon if you use a sling." Unfortunately, Horde Breaker won't work because it specifically requires a weapon attack. It does seem like it would work with some Kensei features, like Kensei Shot which requires a ranged attack with a kensei weapon (although even there you might stumble upon a DM who interprets that as "ranged weapon attack").

Ultimately, if you're looking for a spell whose effects will be interpreted consistently in AL, Magic Stone is going to cause you nothing but trouble. I would strongly encourage you to seek out a local group outside of AL. You might even be able to find one by making a more straightforward character for AL, then asking around with the people you meet there. Many DMs will be sympathetic to what you're trying to do, unfortunately AL doesn't give them the ability to reinterpret or bend the rules in your favor.

I know about AL, which is why I havent make one yet.

Concerning the tweets however, in another answer crawford said it is a spell attack that you make with a sling. To me it seems he vaguely contradict himself because the sling is in the simple ranged weapon table and making an attack with one imply a ranged weapon attack qualifiing it for both ranged spell and ranged weapon.

If sneak attack require a ranged weapon, and works with magic stone, well you are making an attack with a ranged weapon after all and making an attack with a ranged weapon should qualify it for a ranged weapon attack even if it is a ranged spell attack.

[Tanarii]

Definitely poorly written.

It says to make a ranged spell attack, but doesn't say you do it using the Attack Action. That's what would be required for Extra Attack to work the ranged spell attack to get more than one

And unfortunately "ranged spell attack", or even just "ranged attack" more generally, doesn't automatically imply the Attack Action. You can take the Cast a Spell Action to get them, or Use an Object Action, or by using the unnamed Actions for magic item actions, etc.

I haven't had anyone use this so far IMC, but off the cuff, I'd probably provisionally rule that it is its own Action if thrown, but using it with a sling is taking the Attack action. So it'd work with Extra attack if you used the shorter (without-disadvantage) range of 30.

[thrdeye]

I know about AL, which is why I havent make one yet.

Concerning the tweets however, in another answer crawford said it is a spell attack that you make with a sling. To me it seems he vaguely contradict himself because the sling is in the simple ranged weapon table and making an attack with one imply a ranged weapon attack qualifiing it for both ranged spell and ranged weapon.

If sneak attack require a ranged weapon, and works with magic stone, well you are making an attack with a ranged weapon after all and making an attack with a ranged weapon should qualify it for a ranged weapon attack even if it is a ranged spell attack.

Sneak attack works because because it requires an attack with a finesse or ranged weapon. Therefore, any attack, not just a "ranged weapon attack" which is a term with a specific meaning, qualifies for sneak attack so long as it uses a finesse or ranged weapon. Using Magic Stone with a sling is a ranged spell attack that uses a ranged weapon. This qualifies because it is an attack with a ranged weapon, not because it is a ranged weapon attack. These are different terms that have been clearly defined as such by the makers of the game. I understand it can be confusing, especially to a non-native English speaker, but that doesn't make the two equivalent.

Please understand, it's not me or anyone else on this board you have to convince. I, and I assume some others on this board, would rule in your favor if we had the authority to do so. We do not have this authority. The official rules have already been determined and nobody here, to the best of my knowledge, has any authority to change them. No argument you can make here about how things should work will change how things do work. All we can tell you is what the official rules are, and what your options are for playing the game with the rules as you understand them.

Again, I wish you the best of luck.

[Belier]

Sneak attack works because because it requires an attack with a finesse or ranged weapon. Therefore, any attack, not just a "ranged weapon attack" which is a term with a specific meaning, qualifies for sneak attack so long as it uses a finesse or ranged weapon. Using Magic Stone with a sling is a ranged spell attack that uses a ranged weapon. This qualifies because it is an attack with a ranged weapon, not because it is a ranged weapon attack. These are different terms that have been clearly defined as such by the makers of the game. I understand it can be confusing, especially to a non-native English speaker, but that doesn't make the two equivalent.

Please understand, it's not me or anyone else on this board you have to convince. I, and I assume some others on this board, would rule in your favor if we had the authority to do so. We do not have this authority. The official rules have already been determined and nobody here, to the best of my knowledge, has any authority to change them. No argument you can make here about how things should work will change how things do work. All we can tell you is what the official rules are, and what your options are for playing the game with the rules as you understand them.

Again, I wish you the best of luck.

I agree with you, it's just that since they have rules for organized play through AL they should fix how these spells are written. Structured play ask for structured rules and not any dm will seek sage advice and tweets for designers intend and will otherwise make some builds/spell inconsistent. I guess it's a bit of frustration on my part to wish to be able to consistantly be able to use some stuff in AL but as they are weirdly/poorly written it's just better to forget about it and focus on what is safer. Heck even hide/familiars get nerfed/buffed depending from the dm and they are more clearly written. Dnd 5 should be fun and it is, but the fact that we have to look so specificly to some wording is a hindrance to get fun and something that should be corrected by devs in the next editions or updates, just because they have structured play called AL.

As another mentionned, I guess I should find a group to play home dnd since it's unlikely that a build based on magic stone will be refused completely if we talk about it, however, I have bad experience with home games also, with people not coming to play and games being canceled and AL have shown itselve to be the best alternative atm.

[NaughtyTiger]

It says to make a ranged spell attack, but doesn't say you do it using the Attack Action. That's what would be required for Extra Attack to work the ranged spell attack to get more than one. And unfortunately "ranged spell attack", or even just "ranged attack" more generally, doesn't automatically imply the Attack Action.

"Attack Action: With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack."

Ranged attack is explicitly the Attack Action.