How would you rule this?
A Rogue level dips or uses Magic Initiate to pick up the spell Magic Stone (Elemental Evil).
For referance, sneak attack says, "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon."
And Magic Stone says, "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 the Rogue puts the stone in a sling, I believe its obvious he used a ranged weapon (though the spell allowed a ranged spell attack), so I would be inclined to rule you could sneak with the stones via a sling. Agreed?
If the rogue instead throws the stones, does that change your opinion? I think i would still say that the stone is a weapon, and though throwing it uses a ranged spell attack, you could still gain sneak, but I could see ruling it a spell attack, not a weapon. Thoughts?
stevil wrote:
I agree with jaelis.
jaelis wrote:
stevil wrote:
The only requirement for sneak attack is that the attack use a finesse or ranged weapon. It doesn't limit you to weapon attacks or say that spell attacks aren't capable of sneak attacking.
This particular spell creates an exception to the usual spell casting rules. It states that you can use the spell with a sling to hurl the pebble you previously enchanted. You are in effect, using the sling to launch your ranged spell attack... or you can just throw the pebble yourself. The benefit here is clear. The spell directly states you use the sling to hurl the pebble. You're using the sling as a weapon to launch the spell.
Bottom line, yes, sneak attack would work with this spell because it creates a specific exception to the general rules and allows you to use a sling for the ranged spell attack. This in turn, allows you to trigger sneak attack because you're using a ranged weapon, the sling, for the attack.
Nice find.
So you'd say flame blade, mord's sword, shillelagh, spiritual weapon are all weapons and work with weapon feats, etc? Same argument seems to apply.
What's the wording of those spells vs the wording of Magic Stone? Magic stone specifically calls out you can use a sling to hurl the pebble you enchanted. Which then allows it to qualify for sneak attack since you're using a sling which is a ranged weapon.
Link the other spells and we can discuss.
For instance:
Spiritual Weapon
2nd-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 minute
You create a floating, spectral weapon within range that lasts for the duration or until you cast this spell again. When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon. On a hit, the target takes force damage equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the weapon up to 20 feet and repeat the attack against a creature within 5 feet of it.
The weapon can take whatever form you choose. Clerics of deities who are associated with a particular weapon (as St. Cuthbert is known for his mace and Thor for his hammer) make this spell’s effect resemble that weapon.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for every two slot levels above the 2nd.
I would allow it.
Your using a cantrip and a bonus action to avoid using Dex. So your basicly nerfing yourself. No reason to punish someone further.
mellored wrote:
It sounds like you could make a case for either side. I would rule that no it doesn't work. My reading of it is that since the sling attack is replaced by making an attack with the magic stone spell, it no longer counts as making an attack with a ranged weapon (the spell made the attack, not the weapon). Basically, you go to throw it and the second it leaves your hand, the magic takes over and directs the stone toward the intended target regardless of the energy behind it when you throw it.
Another reason for my ruling is that this seems like it could be abused and smacks of power gaming. By allowing a Rogue to use CHA for attacks, they could completely dump DEX as all Rogue abilities work even when wearing heavy armor.
jaelis wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
As far as I can see the main requirement for the maneuvers (amongst some rare others that require you to use a specific action) is that you make a "weapon attack". Spiritual weapon is a "melee spell attack". You can't trigger maneuvers off making a melee spell attack, that's like saying you can trigger a feature that requires you use an Attack Action when you actually used Bonus Action. No go. These are two dfiferent kinds of attacks.
jaelis wrote:
As far as I can see the main requirement for the maneuvers (amongst some rare others that require you to use a specific action) is that you make a "weapon attack". Spiritual weapon is a "melee spell attack". You can't trigger maneuvers off making a melee spell attack, that's like saying you can trigger a feature that requires you use an Attack Action when you actually used Bonus Action. No go. These are two dfiferent kinds of attacks.
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Nocteam's ruling (just playing Devil's Advocate) also allows Sneak Attack to be used if said sling is used to make a melee attack. It is still a ranged weapon, it just isn't being used that way. Also Archery Style and Sharpshooter. Though I think it is pretty clear that neither of those are RAI.
YMMV
Bumpo wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
The leaving the table comment was in response to the way you stated you would respond to someone. Cutting them off and not letting them speak or explain their point of view just to enforce yours, which btw is incorrect. I've played with DM's like that before. It's horrible. No communication, tyranical behavior.. Just don't.
It's not even about weapon attack vs spell attack. The question is "Are you using a ranged weapon when making this attack?". In this specific spell, it specifically allows you to use a sling when making the attack with the pebble. So the answer to the question is YES. You are using a ranged weapon when you are making the attack, the sling, so sneak attack and anything else that requires a ranged weapon works as well. So you're not understanding what the discussion is actually about. I think you might simply be biased at this point so I won't waste more time trying to convince you to actually read what these things say.
Noctaem wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yes. Ice Knife is not a ranged weapon or a finesse weapon. It's a Ranged Spell Attack. Sneak attack and the other elements don't apply.
Magic Stone on the other hand creates a specific exception that allows you to make a Ranged Spell Attack with a ranged weapon, the sling. So sneak attack and the other elements do apply since the requirement for them to apply is making an attack with a ranged weapon. You are doing that by using the sling.
Noctaem wrote:
If you're attacking with the sling, do you need proficiency to add your prof bonus, then? But that seems to contradict the spell text.
Also, I don't really understand the difference between attacking with the sling in Magic Stone and attacking with the summoned weapon in Spiritual Weapon. In either case you are using a weapon to make a magical attack. What makes the sling different from the summoned weapon?
reddaemon wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
But the spell doesn't say that you use the sling to make the attack. It just says you use the sling to hurl the stone. I guess you just see hurl as synonomous with "attack" here.
Maybe coming at it another way: would you consider throwing the stone to be making an attack with an improvised weapon?
As for the proficiency question, I was thinking about it because you seem to say that if you're particularly skilled with the sling (from a feat or whatever) then you get the benefit of that. I wondered if you would then think that if you were unskilled with the sling you would take a penalty.
If it was a magic sling would you get the bonus?
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
We're just going to keep talking in circles on this. It all comes down to how you interpret the attack. Noctaem, you seem to interpret it as making a weapon attack with a spell attached to the ammunition, while I interpret it as a spell attack using ammunition. Something like this is too ambiguous to rule one way or the other. In any case I probably wouldn't care much if I was at a table and saw this, but I definitely wouldn't allow it as DM. Obscure exceptions in the rules really bother the hell out of me and I prefer consistency wherever possible.
Ambiguous rule. Up to the DM.
Saeviomagy wrote:
So it seems that though I Noctaem and a few others agree that the sling falls into the catagory of "using" a weapon, there's far from consenus.
Howevver, there is consenus that if you throw the stone, its not a weapon, and theirfor not sneak. Let me play devil's advocate.
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is close at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Ignoring the spell for a moment, if a rogue picks a hunk of rock off the floor and chucks it at an enemy, is it not a ranged attack with an improvised weapon? Would you deny the rogue sneak attack? But you would if 30 seconds ago his druid buddy imbued that rock with magic? Agreed its a ranged spell attack, but its being "used" with a weapon, all be it improvised.
stevil wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
I rule that magic stone is not a weapon (and thus not elegible for sneak attack) because it uses the caster's spellcasting ability modifier, not DEX.
If the caster gives the stone to someone else to throw or launch, it still uses the caster's ability modifier. The martial ability of the person who throws or launches the stone is not taken into account, so any martial abilities they have (like feats or sneak attack) are also not taken into account.
The same goes for spiritual weapon and mordenkainen's sword. You are making an attack using the caster's spellcasting ability modifier, not DEX or STR. Martial abilities do not apply.
Interesting discussion. As for me I like to keep it simple: A weapon attack is an attack made with a weapon, and a spell attack is an attack made with a spell. Since magic stone says you make a spell attack, you're attacking with a spell. Sneak attack needs a weapon so it only works on weapon attacks. Seems like the straightforward way to read it to me, but people should play it how they like.
jaelis wrote:
You are not attacking with a Sling. End of discussion. You are merely using a sling to give the spell extra distance. That is the ONLY impact using a sling has on the spell Magic Stones. It gives extra range (120ft vs 60ft normally). You are still making a spell attack, not with a weapon. Can't sneak with a spell.
RulesJD wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
You can sneak attack with lighting arrow.
I don't see why you couldn't sneak attack with the magic stone.
I also see no balance reason to not allow it. Since it's pretty much a nerf to avoid dex.
Has anyone tweeted?
mellored wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
I tweeted the following:
"Can you use Sneak Attack with Magic Stone when using a sling? You're using a ranged weapon, but making a spell attack."
Now I'm just waiting on a response.
mellored wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Anyone want to take bets on the answer to the tweet?
I'm going to get the answer is "no, you can't sneak attack"
guachi wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
You're claiming the range is not increased? I suppose you are right, the spell does not actually say what the range is when you use a sling, my apologies again. What would you say the range is when using a sling? I hadn't considered that to be in question.
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
This is a pretty minor issue and probably something that will come up very rarely if at all. Do we really need a twitter response for every little thing? I'd rather just chalk it up to different rulings from different DMs. Is a developer tweet really going to change how you run it anyway? It won't for me. Some things maybe, like where I can't decide which way I want to rule because both ways seem reasonable, but not something minor like this.
reddaemon wrote:
And I still don't have a response. Anyone else want to try?
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Yes I agree that Magic Stone is different. One might argue that those other spells set the precedent for how spells work with weapons though, and that MS is breaking that precedent 
I'd imagine Crawford will get to it when he gets to it, I don't think he's tweeted anything in the last couple days.
jaelis wrote:
To add my possibly unlistend to opinion on this site about this particular interaction (because I to am interested in playing a gambit style character who throws deadly rocks at things) lets look at the spell:
Magic Stone
Transmutation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 minute
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.
If you cast this spell again, the effect ends early on any unused stones
To me this effect replaces the conventional attacks with both slings and throwing the stone. It is a spell that requires an attack to activate it.
It says you make an RSA by throwing it or using a sling, which to me means that you are not making a RWA with the sling, you are making an RSA with the stone.
As sneak attacks to not apply to spell attacks they will not apply to magic stones projected by slings because when you roll the attack you are rolling a spell attack (not a weapon attack) because the spell substitutes the weapon's (be it a stone or a sling) properties for its own. For the same reason magic stone doesnt interact with the archery fighting style, or any ability that specifies an attack with a weapon of any sort.
This means you can dual wield magic stones without penalty because the rule that states you dont get to use your ability modifier on the damage of off hand weapon attacks doesnt apply to magic stone, but a champion fighters improved crit feature doenst work with it because regardless of weather you use a sling or not you make a ranged spell attack, not a weapon attack of any kind. Also it means that if you pass the stone to someone else they dont get to add their proficentcy bonus because your spell attack bonus replaces any normal to hit modifiers that person would apply.
It is sad that most of the martial characters abilities do not apply to magic stone but I think this was the intention. And the reason why the spell was worded in the way it was instead of in the way that shillelagh was
You necro'ed a thread as your first post to link the text of the spell and then make a bunch of false claims about it? Did you read the game elements you're talking about? They are listed in this very thread... Or how about reading this thread before posting? To go over some:
There's no replacing of the conventional attacks. You're using a spell to create ammunition which you can then throw or use a sling to launch as per the spell. However, you're still following the Making an Attack guidelines because you're making an attack using an attack roll (ranged spell attack). There's no such thing as "requiring an attack to activate it". That makes no sense.
jturn111 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Well I'll just reiterate: nowhere in the spell does it say you are attacking with a weapon, or even using a weapon to attack. (In fact it specifically says you attack with the pebble, which is not a weapon.)
It says you can hurl the pebble with a sling. If you're the DM and you think that sounds like you're attacking with the sling, then great. If you think it doesn't, also great. Just tell your players ahead of time.
Personsally, I think that if you use a sling to hurl something that isn't regular ammunition, then it would normally count as an improvised weapon attack. I'm also inclined to say that improvised weapon attacks don't count as weapon attacks for the purpose of triggering abilities like this.
Macv12 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Though I would argue that SA says the attack must "use" a weapon, and you're obviously using a sling as part of the overall process of making the attack, as an essential part of making it. (As opposed to putting your arcane focus in a sling and casting fireball, in which the sling is superfluous.) So I still see SA working.
Glad you came back to the thread...
Almost all of your points are 100% correct.... they just don't make the difference you think they do.
Nothing in the SA rules requires a 'randed weapon attack', they only require that you hit with an attack, and that you 'use a ranged weapon' (I am ignoring the 'finesse' parts for now)
jaelis wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Just to ask, would you let a player hurl a vial of acid with a sling? If so, would they get SA damage?
While there may be cases where this is true... do you really think *this* is such a case?