Why ever use Magic Stone?

[odigity]

Under what circumstances is it worth learning / using the Magic Stone cantrip from Elemental Evil?

It's only on the Druid and Warlock list, who already have Produce Flame and Eldritch Blast (respectively). So, what's the point?

[Naanomi]

Very few circumstances but...

1) It could conceivably matter for damage resistance sometimes
2) You can give them to other people, opening up potential for arming a peasant revolt (or a Sprite Familiar)
3) It opens up some fringe build potential for Magic Initiate (ever wanted to play a pure CHA based Rogue?)

[Temperjoke]

It depends on circumstances. As Naanomi mentioned, you can give them to other people. So you create 3 magic pebbles, toss one each to three different people, they each now have a magical attack against an enemy who might be immune to their other attacks. So that's 3 potential attacks for the cost of one of your attacks. Like I said, it all depends on your situation.

[odigity]

2) You can give them to other people, opening up potential for arming a peasant revolt

That could be fun if not for the object interaction limitations in the rules. You could use the free one to hand out one stone, your action to hand a second one, then wait till your next turn to hand the third. Doesn't seem like the best use of a spellcaster's time.

[D.U.P.A.]

Produce flame has a rather short range. While beyond certain range does not matter much, difference between 30 and 60 feet can be significant. Also you cannot ignore how many monsters have fire resistance and immunity. For Warlock I agree is quite pointless as long Eldritch blast is not banned or something. The cantrip as a whole is more important as a Magic initiate feat for some ranged support for classes like Paladin or Fighters to get some magic damage. But generally not for fully optimized builds.

[BW022]

Under what circumstances is it worth learning / using the Magic Stone cantrip from Elemental Evil?

It's only on the Druid and Warlock list, who already have Produce Flame and Eldritch Blast (respectively). So, what's the point?

Nature cleric may also want it, as you can get it via warlock ritual book or magic initiate -- which many monks or clerics may take for the shillelagh spell.

It has a few advantages...

1. It does more damage than produce flame, divine flame, or (starting) eldritch blast (1d6+3 averages 6.5 damage vs. 4.5 for produce flame or divine flame, or 5.5 for eldritch blast). It also tends to be more consistent. Until you take an invocation or reach 5th-level, it out damages them.

2. It has considerable more range and produce flame. Produce flame is limited to 30' thrown. That is already closing distance. You can throw the stone 60' and a sling has a 30'/120' range. For any non-elven druid... it is pretty much the only long ranged attack they get.

3. Lots of creatures are immune or have fire resistance -- even at relatively low-levels. Produce flame at higher levels really runs into the risk of running into something which they are completely immune to. Fire damage also runs risks of unintended consequences -- i.e. lighting the lab on fire.

4. You can give the stones to other party members. This is a cheap way to equip almost anyone with a magical ranged attack. Because it uses your spellcasting ability (not their attack) it is a good gift to anyone (even those with poor strength for thrown weapons or dexterity for slings). Rogues, rangers, fighters, barbarians, monks, etc. without magical ranged weapons could easily benefit from this. Those with slings can get multiple attacks in if they have it.

5. It is only a bonus action to make more. You could easily keep two other PCs fully going with magical attacks for the entire combat without missing any of your attacks.

6. It is useful in stealth builds -- or giving stones to stealth characters without magic ranged weapons. Produce flame gives away your position as does the noise of casting. You can throw or sling stones from darkness without giving away your position with casting. Likewise a rogue, monk, ranger, trickery cleric, etc. (without magical ranged weapons) can carry them for attacks from the dark.

7. You can get various bonus which you may not get on cantrips. A magic sling sacks as does archery style, sneak attack, hunter's mark, etc. which only apply to weapons. This is obviously good in say ranger, rogue, or monks which take dips in cleric (nature), druid, or warlock -- or who take the magic initiate caster feat.

8. For many shield wielders it is a great cantrip can be more convenient than other cantrips since it gives you the option of pre-casting the magic stones and then drawing a melee weapon.

9. If you use TWF... you can throw two stones (the second as a bonus action) or attack with a weapon and throw an off-hand stone.

10. The pebbles save weight in terms of normal sling bullets. They are easy to find, slings are cheap, etc. It is often a good way to conceal weapons for other party members to use.

11. If pre-cast, it provides some protection against silence and might be useful in silence-based builds.

Is eldritch blast (for that PC) likely better sure. For druids... it is probably your best ranged option and a good low-level party aid spell. Some other builds might want to pick it up.

[Naanomi]

That could be fun if not for the object interaction limitations in the rules. You could use the free one to hand out one stone, your action to hand a second one, then wait till your next turn to hand the third. Doesn't seem like the best use of a spellcaster's time.
They use their item interaction to pick them off the ground where I dropped them

[odigity]

It has a few advantages...

That's a great list, thanks.


They use their item interaction to pick them off the ground where I dropped them

Good point.

[Specter]

3 Warlocks and 9 commoners sure wreak havoc.

[RickAllison]

Very few circumstances but...

1) It could conceivably matter for damage resistance sometimes
2) You can give them to other people, opening up potential for arming a peasant revolt (or a Sprite Familiar)
3) It opens up some fringe build potential for Magic Initiate (ever wanted to play a pure CHA based Rogue?)

I was just coming in to mention number 3! A Rogue only needs 1 attack per round anyway, so that bonus action gives three turns of attacks before needing to recharge, and so this allows for almost pure Wisdom or Charisma Rogues, especially if they get heavy armor from a first level in fighter (Archery style) and 15 Strength.

Also works to a lesser effect with Fighters! Between Shillelagh and Magic Stone, you can have a Wisdom-based Fighter who is pretty dang effective.

[Belac93]

A Variant Human Revised Ranger Beastmaster only gets one attack per round, and apes can throw rocks...

[Naanomi]

A Variant Human Revised Ranger Beastmaster only gets one attack per round, and apes can throw rocks...
Rangers in general are a good Magic Initiate: Magic Stone target; they have great uses for Wisdom and Magic Stone (or Shillelagh or both) can reasonably cover offense while dumping Strength and Dexterity left at 14

[ES Curse]

Magic Stone, as cool as it sounds, is terrible because even when fired from a sling it counts as a ranged spell attack where firing one stone is a whole action, and cannot be modified with any weapon interactions such as Extra Attack. It also doesn't count as a ranged weapon attack, so Rouges don't get much use from it either.

[Socratov]

3 Warlocks and 9 commoners sure wreak havoc.

Remember the whole leomund's tiny hit is a foxhole turret discussion a couple of months ago? Well, the warlock finally has a way to resupply his commoners from within.

[Zalabim]

Magic Stone, as cool as it sounds, is terrible because even when fired from a sling it counts as a ranged spell attack where firing one stone is a whole action, and cannot be modified with any weapon interactions such as Extra Attack. It also doesn't count as a ranged weapon attack, so Rouges don't get much use from it either.

It doesn't take a whole action to throw or hurl a stone. It's just an attack. Also, if you hurl it from a sling, the sling is a ranged weapon, so rogues can use it to sneak attack.

[Arkhios]

Magic Stone, as cool as it sounds, is terrible because even when fired from a sling it counts as a ranged spell attack where firing one stone is a whole action, and cannot be modified with any weapon interactions such as Extra Attack. It also doesn't count as a ranged weapon attack, so Rouges don't get much use from it either.

Wrong. Nowhere in the rules does it say that if something is a spell attack it would mean you could only make one such attack as an Action; on the contrary, spell attacks are just attacks that use different modifiers for them than the usual strength or dexterity.

There are only 4 (or 2, depending how you look at it) categories of attacks:
Melee Weapon Attack, strength or dexterity (depends on weapon used).
Ranged Weapon Attack, strength or dexterity (depends on weapon used).
Melee Spell Attack, intelligence, wisdom, or charisma (depends on class).
Ranged Spell Attack, intelligence, wisdom, or charisma (depends on class).

The real question is where do you get the attack roll from. If a spell or effect says you must use an Action to make the attack (or make the attack as part of the casting/effect), then you can only attack once with an Action (unless, of course, the spell or effect says you make multiple attack rolls).
However, in the case of Magic Stone, you use the Attack Action (which is part of, but still different from an Action) to make the attack(s). However, instead of using your strength or dexterity modifier, you'll use wisdom modifier. In every other respect it's still an Attack Action. So, you can benefit from Extra Attack, if you have it.

[odigity]

I agree regarding Extra Attack, but doesn't the fact that it's a spell attack mean Sneak Attack wouldn't apply? That's specifically limited to weapon attacks.

As for Archery style, that only applies to "ranged weapons", which is why it applies to darts but not daggers, even though both are throwable. They don't define the weapon properties of "pebble" in the spell description, so it's unclear whether Archery would apply. (I would personally houserule that it does, like with darts, but I don't know if it's safe to rely on all GMs to rule the same.)

[Sir cryosin]

Can spellsniper double it's range.

[Socratov]

Can spellsniper double it's range.

Depends on wether or not the spell has a listed range that is not 'Self' of 'Touch'

[EvilAnagram]

That could be fun if not for the object interaction limitations in the rules. You could use the free one to hand out one stone, your action to hand a second one, then wait till your next turn to hand the third. Doesn't seem like the best use of a spellcaster's time.

...or you set a handful of stones on the ground, and everyone picks up their own.

[Arkhios]

I agree regarding Extra Attack, but doesn't the fact that it's a spell attack mean Sneak Attack wouldn't apply? That's specifically limited to weapon attacks.

As for Archery style, that only applies to "ranged weapons", which is why it applies to darts but not daggers, even though both are throwable. They don't define the weapon properties of "pebble" in the spell description, so it's unclear whether Archery would apply. (I would personally houserule that it does, like with darts, but I don't know if it's safe to rely on all GMs to rule the same.)

The pebbles can be shot using a sling, and sling is explicitly a "ranged weapon". Sneak attack only requires that you make the attack with a weapon that is a melee weapon which has finesse property or that the weapon is a ranged weapon.
Note, that with Magic Stone, you only replace the attack roll modifiers (which the spell attack modifiers are; the magic stone attack is not a spell attack, but it uses the caster's spell attack modifiers in place of the standard modifiers.)
So, yes. A rogue can make a sneak attack with the magic stone pebbles if he uses a sling to make the attack with because the sling is a ranged weapon. The only thing that's different is the which modifiers you apply on the attack roll.
Likewise, Archery style applies to the attack roll if made using a sling. Also, if the sling at hand happens to be magical, those effects apply as well.

[Vogonjeltz]

Can spellsniper double it's range.

Of the attack? If that isn't listed under the range heading, then no.

[odigity]

The pebbles can be shot using a sling, and sling is explicitly a "ranged weapon". Sneak attack only requires that you make the attack with a weapon that has either finesse property or that is a ranged weapon.
Note, that with Magic Stone, you only replace the attack roll modifiers (which the spell attack modifiers are; the magic stone attack is not a spell attack, but it uses the caster's spell attack modifiers in place of the standard modifiers.
So, yes. A rogue can make a sneak attack with the magic stone pebbles if he uses a sling to make the attack with because the sling is a ranged weapon. The only thing that's different is the which modifiers you apply on the attack roll.
Likewise, Archery style applies to the attack roll if made using a sling.

Yes, I know the sling is a ranged weapon. But what if you just throw it? (Note that part of my question was about the applicability of the Archery fighting style.)

Also, I'm still not convinced Sneak Attack would apply since it is a spell attack, not a weapon attack.

[R.Shackleford]

Nature cleric may also want it, as you can get it via warlock ritual book or magic initiate -- which many monks or clerics may take for the shillelagh spell.

It has a few advantages...

1. It does more damage than produce flame, divine flame, or (starting) eldritch blast (1d6+3 averages 6.5 damage vs. 4.5 for produce flame or divine flame, or 5.5 for eldritch blast). It also tends to be more consistent. Until you take an invocation or reach 5th-level, it out damages them.


It actually doesn't really out damage Sacred Flame.

If you attempt to attack a creature with cover, which is really easy to get in 5e (your allies provide cover for your enemies) then their AC/Dex save gets better.

If you are attacking a prone enemy, which can happen quite a bit with some groups, magic stone is at disadvantage.

Sacred Flame ignores cover and doesn't care if the enemy is prone.

So while the base numbers for magic stone (1d6 + 3) is bigger than sacred flame's (1d8), that doesn't tell the whole story.

Sacred Flame, when playing the game outside the white room, is one of the best damage dealing cantrips. :)

[Arkhios]

Yes, I know the sling is a ranged weapon. But what if you just throw it? (Note that part of my question was about the applicability of the Archery fighting style.)

Also, I'm still not convinced Sneak Attack would apply since it is a spell attack, not a weapon attack.

Thrown weapon is not a ranged weapon. Thrown is a weapon property that's only added to those that are also melee weapons.
When thrown, Archery does not apply, nor will you get sneak attack.
When hurled with a sling (a ranged weapon), Archery style does apply, and I'm pretty certain that sneak attack is intended to apply too, because you're using (again) a ranged weapon.

Sneak attack does not mention anything about spell attacks not applying. It only speaks about using specific types of weapon for sneak attack to work.

Quote from PHB: "The attack must use a finesse or ranged weapon" does not imply it has to be a weapon attack.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Yeup, another useless Cantrip.

Cantrip slots are rare and precious and when you have far better options, a cantrip like this becomes functionally useless.

[odigity]

Thrown weapon is not a ranged weapon. Thrown is a weapon property that's only added to those that are also melee weapons.

Incorrect. As I explained above, Dart is a thrown weapon that is listed in the Ranged Simple Weapons section.

This is the second time in a row that your answer was off because of not paying close enough attention to what I've already explained. Please read more carefully.

[Arkhios]

Incorrect. As I explained above, Dart is a thrown weapon that is listed in the Ranged Simple Weapons section.

This is the second time in a row that your answer was off because of not paying close enough attention to what I've already explained. Please read more carefully.

Right. It seems to be I rolled a natural 1 on my memory check.

However, that doesn't really change the fact which apply to whether you use a sling to hurl the magic stone pebbles or not. Read the sneak attack again.

[arrowed]

Regardless of Magic Stone's effectiveness, a Halfling should always be able to use random pebbles to murder things: oots#745 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0745.html).

[odigity]

Right. It seems to be I rolled a natural 1 on my memory check.

However, that doesn't really change the fact which apply to whether you use a sling to hurl the magic stone pebbles or not. Read the sneak attack again.

Arg. For the third time in a row, you are confusing things.

There are two separate issues:

1) Whether Sneak Attack applies, which depends on whether the magic stone attack counts as a weapon attack. I would say not, because the spell description explicitly says ranged spell attack.

2) Whether the Archery fighting style applies, which depends on whether the magic stone counts as a ranged weapon. I would say we lack sufficient information to reach consensus, and that it therefore falls to the GM, but if I were the GM, I would consider the stone comparable to a dart (a simple weapon intended solely for ranged attacks, rather than a melee weapon that happens to be throwable), and therefore allow Archery to apply.

[R.Shackleford]

Arg. For the third time in a row, you are confusing things.

There are two separate issues:

1) Whether Sneak Attack applies, which depends on whether the magic stone attack counts as a weapon attack. I would say not, because the spell description explicitly says ranged spell attack.

2) Whether the Archery fighting style applies, which depends on whether the magic stone counts as a ranged weapon. I would say we lack sufficient information to reach consensus, and that it therefore falls to the GM, but if I were the GM, I would consider the stone comparable to a dart (a simple weapon intended solely for ranged attacks, rather than a melee weapon that happens to be throwable), and therefore allow Archery to apply.

Neither sneak attack or fighting style works with magic stone because to attack with it, the attacker, makes a ranged spell attack.

You aren't making a weapon attack, you are making a spell attack.

It's like using flame blade.

Yay fiddly!

[Arkhios]

Arg. For the third time in a row, you are confusing things.

There are two separate issues:

1) Whether Sneak Attack applies, which depends on whether the magic stone attack counts as a weapon attack. I would say not, because the spell description explicitly says ranged spell attack.

2) Whether the Archery fighting style applies, which depends on whether the magic stone counts as a ranged weapon. I would say we lack sufficient information to reach consensus, and that it therefore falls to the GM, but if I were the GM, I would consider the stone comparable to a dart (a simple weapon intended solely for ranged attacks, rather than a melee weapon that happens to be throwable), and therefore allow Archery to apply.

I'm not confusing anything. It's you who refuses to see there is no real issue with either of them.

Magic Stone enchants common pebbles.
These pebbles can, rules as written, be thrown OR hurled using a sling (equals to attacking with a weapon).
Either way, you make the attack roll as a spell attack instead of a weapon attack.

I quoted word by word from sneak attack in my previous post. If you refuse to read the whole description of Sneak Attack again, I can't help you. It does not say you must make a melee weapon attack or ranged weapon attack. Sneak attack only requires that you hit with an attack and that attack be made with a type of weapon. It does NOT specify either weapon attack or spell attack.

On the matter of Archery style, yes, I can agree with your ruling.

[Zalabim]

If we're being literal:

Both archery fighting style and sneak attack work when you attack with a sling, a ranged weapon, even if you're hurling a magic stone with that sling.

Neither archery fighting style nor sneak attack work when you throw a magic stone since a magic stone isn't listed on any weapon table, isn't called a ranged weapon in its spell description, and isn't said to have the finesse property in its spell description.

It doesn't matter if you're making a weapon attack or a spell attack, only whether you're making an attack with a ranged weapon (or finesse for sneak attack).

[odigity]

Both archery fighting style and sneak attack work when you attack with a sling, a ranged weapon, even if you're hurling a magic stone with that sling.

I'm not convinced. The spell clearly says it counts as a ranged spell attack whether you throw it or hurl it with a sling, in which case neither Archery nor Sneak Attack would apply.

[JackPhoenix]

Neither sneak attack or fighting style works with magic stone because to attack with it, the attacker, makes a ranged spell attack.

You aren't making a weapon attack, you are making a spell attack.

It's like using flame blade.

Yay fiddly!

I think you should re-read the sneak attack text. It doesn't matter if you make weapon or spell attack, only if you make it with ranged weapon or melee weapon with finesse property. Magic Stone allows using sling (a ranged weapon) to make ranged spell attacks, it works perfectly fine with sneak attack.

Archery FS is the same, it only cares if the attack is made with ranged weapon, not if it's ranged weapon attack or ranged spell attack

[Naanomi]

Devs on twitter told me it works for anything that requires attacks, ranged attacks, attacks with weapons... but not weapon attacks or ranged weapon attacks.

Sneak attack and extra attack are in, but sadly some things are out... as is attacking with a (original) Beastmaster companion

[RickAllison]

Hooray, distinctions!!!

This divide confuses people because it is rather unintuitive. By RAW, someone whacking an enemy with a heavy crossbow or longbow as an improvised melee attack with a ranged (heavy) weapon then gets to add the -5/+10 from Sharpshooter, the same from GWM, Archery FS bonus and also add sneak attack damage.

It makes no sense in the strange and unintuitive corner cases, but has some valid logic otherwise.

[Citan]

Neither sneak attack or fighting style works with magic stone because to attack with it, the attacker, makes a ranged spell attack.

You aren't making a weapon attack, you are making a spell attack.

It's like using flame blade.

Yay fiddly!
Nop, Arkhios is right.

PHB, Sneak Attack:
"Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly
and exploit a foe’s distraction. 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."

Does not care if it is a weapon or spell attack.
Hence, if you use a sling with Magic Stone, by RAW it works, as well as Archery ("you gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons").

Also, since Magic Stone description does not precise that using the pebbles in this way would require a specific action, it means you use them with your usual ways of getting attacks.

Where I think the problem is, is that this "silence" of Magic Stone in what type of action you use makes an implicit reference to the Attack action (and other means to get an attack through bonus action).

And, if you see the text of Attack, PHB:
"With this action, you make one melee or ranged
attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules
that govern attacks."
And everything else explains how to resolve an attack, whether a spell attack or a weapon attack.
Otherwise said, by RAW, they never told "Attack = weapon attack(s)". Maybe they thought it was unnecessary, because any and every "spell attack" was specified in a spell, including the type of action taken, so at the time the Attack action could only apply to weapon attacks. Or they did it on purpose to "keep the door open" (I doubt that though).

So, by RAW, Magic Stone description creates a corner case where you can make spell attacks with your Attack action. But only this Attack action AFAIK.

I agree it's not simple, nor intuitive, because we tend to think that "if I use a weapon then it must mean I make a weapon attack".
But both Magic Stone and the recent "weapon cantrips" from SCAG tend to make that frontier very blurry.

To note, while the same logic could in principle be applied to other ways to get attacks, none work with Magic Stone in fact AFAIK because they specify requirements invalidating the Magic Stone: Crossbow Expert specifies hand crossbow, two-weapon fighting requires melee weapons, Horde Breaker or Haste specify weapon attack, Swift Quiver I'm not totally sure but I'd say no (would be a bad combination anyways ^^)...
So it's already fairly limitative.

Also, Magic Stone was imo clearly thought out to work in a similar way to weapon attack. A stretch of my part: they put the cumbersome limitation of 3 pebbles to avoid cheese with Sharpshooter players and such, and stated "spell attack" to avoid stack with some spells buffing weapon attacks.
So I think it's RAI as well, but that's my opinion. ;)

[dropbear8mybaby]

Does not care if it is a weapon or spell attack.

Yes it does. It says it... in what YOU highlighted. A weapon is a weapon, a spell is a spell. Sneak Attack requires a weapon attack. Magic Stone requires a spell attack. They are not the same thing.


You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling.
It doesn't matter that it's a stone being hurled by a sling, it's still a ranged SPELL attack and not a ranged WEAPON attack.

Pretty clear so I don't see why there's argument over this.

How is this even a debate?

[Citan]

Yes it does. It says it... in what YOU highlighted. A weapon is a weapon, a spell is a spell. Sneak Attack requires a weapon attack. Magic Stone requires a spell attack. They are not the same thing.


It doesn't matter that it's a stone being hurled by a sling, it's still a ranged SPELL attack and not a ranged WEAPON attack.

Pretty clear so I don't see why there's argument over this.

How is this even a debate?
You know, if there is a debate, it's maybe because you don't actually have "innate knowledge".

As you would expect, I think you are the one reversing, because you quoted only what you liked.

1. Sneak Attack: "an ATTACK"... MADE... WITH A RANGED WEAPON. Read well: not "a weapon attack". Just "an attack".

2. Sling is a ranged weapon.

3. Magic Stone allows you to throw pebbles with a sling, substituting modifier.

= You made an ATTACK with a RANGED WEAPON, hence validating Sneak Attack. The fact that Magic Stone states it is a "spell" attack is irrelevant for the Sneak Attack.

You are blinded by what I said in my above post: because so far Attack was only ever usable with weapon attacks, we made it granted that Attack = weapon attacks.
And in the same way, we consider that "use a weapon = make a weapon attack".
But nowhere in the PHB are such relations written in stone.

EDIT: Also, check above, seems Naanomi had an "official" answer from devs. So much for your argument. ;)
@Naanomi: by the way, if you have the tweet url, could you provide it plz? Would help as reference.

[dropbear8mybaby]

= You made an ATTACK with a RANGED WEAPON, hence validating Sneak Attack. The fact that Magic Stone states it is a "spell" attack is irrelevant for the Sneak Attack.

Oh my god. People will pervert and twist anything to get what they want. That is some seriously messed up thinking and extreme justification.

I hope I never have to play in the same game as you.

[RickAllison]

Oh my god. People will pervert and twist anything to get what they want. That is some seriously messed up thinking and extreme justification.

I hope I never have to play in the same game as you.

Dude, that is literally how the game is designed. It is not twisting, it is an intentional distinction made by the developers.

For example, they made it so that Sharpshooter's range and cover bonuses apply to all those ranged weapon attacks, but only dedicated ranged weapons (so no handaxes and such) can get the -5/+10.

You don't have to like the fact, but it was an intentional design and your caustic reply changes nothing about it. You are entirely wrong.

[dropbear8mybaby]

For example, they made it so that Sharpshooter's range and cover bonuses apply to all those ranged weapon attacks, but only dedicated ranged weapons (so no handaxes and such) can get the -5/+10.

This is completely unrelated to Magic Stone. More twisting.

[tkuremento]

This is completely unrelated to Magic Stone. More twisting.

If they want "ranged weapon attack" then they literally say that in the book. In the case of Sneak Attack, they only say it uses a ranged weapon. cough http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/12/magic-stone-sneak-attack/ cough

[Arkhios]

Oh my god. People will pervert and twist anything to get what they want. That is some seriously messed up thinking and extreme justification.

I hope I never have to play in the same game as you.

Don't you worry. I doubt you'd even survive here up north in the first place to game with me; the weather is clearly veeeery different than there Down Under... :smallwink:


If they want "ranged weapon attack" then they literally say that in the book. In the case of Sneak Attack, they only say it uses a ranged weapon. cough http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/12/magic-stone-sneak-attack/ cough

@dropbear8mybaby: Think about it. Why make a distinction between talking about "melee/ranged WEAPON attacks" and "melee/ranged <NULL> attacks" SEPARATELY if it didn't mean anything?
Besides, it's not only in this case. The phenomenon repeats itself throughout the rule books.

[Citan]

Oh my god. People will pervert and twist anything to get what they want. That is some seriously messed up thinking and extreme justification.

I hope I never have to play in the same game as you.
You are perfectly right. I mean, it's not as if everyone agrees that, unintuitive as may be, the second perk of Crossbow Expert (no disadvantage on ranged attacks when enemy in 5 feet) also applies to ranged SPELL attacks, in spite of the name of the feat (explaining why Blaster Locks often make it a feat of choice).

Meaning using the exact same logic we are using here in case of SA+MS.

Oh wait!!! (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/16/crossbow-expert-ranged-spell/)

If knowing how to accurately read and combine logical rules written in natural language is a way of messed up thinking...
Then I'm really proud of being messed up. o/

[Maxilian]

Yes, I know the sling is a ranged weapon. But what if you just throw it? (Note that part of my question was about the applicability of the Archery fighting style.)

Also, I'm still not convinced Sneak Attack would apply since it is a spell attack, not a weapon attack.

If used with a Sling, it becomes a Ranged weapon attack (Its still a Spell attack though)

[Naanomi]

If used with a Sling, it becomes a Ranged weapon attack (Its still a Spell attack though)
Nope, it is not a ranged weapon attack but it is an attack with a ranged weapon

[Maxilian]

Yes it does. It says it... in what YOU highlighted. A weapon is a weapon, a spell is a spell. Sneak Attack requires a weapon attack. Magic Stone requires a spell attack. They are not the same thing.


It doesn't matter that it's a stone being hurled by a sling, it's still a ranged SPELL attack and not a ranged WEAPON attack.

Pretty clear so I don't see why there's argument over this.

How is this even a debate?


Well its true, SA requires an attack with a Weapon but not a weapon attack, that's why it does apply to Magic Stone, caues Magic Stone is not a Weapon attack, is a Spell Attack, but is still an Attack with a Ranged Weapon (If using Sling)

[Maxilian]

Nope, it is not a ranged weapon attack but it is an attack with a ranged weapon

Yes, you're right, my bad, but that's what i meant, its not a ranged weapon attack, but if used with a sling, is an attack with a Ranged Weapon

[RickAllison]

Yes, you're right, my bad, but that's what i meant, its not a ranged weapon attack, but if used with a sling, is an attack with a Ranged Weapon

Exactly! I put up a thread a while back on if there were any exploits to watch out for wig the nature of this being a spell attack with a melee weapon. The only thing we could come up with was the ability to use the casting stat for SneK Attack or with Sharpshooter. You know, the point of the spell :smallbiggrin:

[D.U.P.A.]

I mean, what is the point of hurling with a sling then? Why bother having a weapon if you can throw with a hand? I think developers intentionaly wrote in such ambiguous way.

[Maxilian]

Exactly! I put up a thread a while back on if there were any exploits to watch out for wig the nature of this being a spell attack with a melee weapon. The only thing we could come up with was the ability to use the casting stat for SneK Attack or with Sharpshooter. You know, the point of the spell :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, i made a Vuman Fighter based on CHA with this cantrip, is quite fun, the only problem is the limitation of 3 rocks (You will most likely have to use your BA for this in almost all your turns after you get Extra Attack)

Note: It also work with the UA Close Quarters Shooter Fighting Style

[odigity]

Yes it does. It says it... in what YOU highlighted. A weapon is a weapon, a spell is a spell. Sneak Attack requires a weapon attack. Magic Stone requires a spell attack. They are not the same thing.


It doesn't matter that it's a stone being hurled by a sling, it's still a ranged SPELL attack and not a ranged WEAPON attack.

Pretty clear so I don't see why there's argument over this.

How is this even a debate?

That's what I've been wondering for days, now. Thanks for jumping in -- I was done after the third time repeating myself. :)

[odigity]

I mean, what is the point of hurling with a sling then? Why bother having a weapon if you can throw with a hand? I think developers intentionaly wrote in such ambiguous way.

Sling has a 30'/120' range. Magic Stone has a 60' range when thrown. That's why.

[tkuremento]

That's what I've been wondering for days, now. Thanks for jumping in -- I was done after the third time repeating myself. :)

Because of the wording,

"Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. 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.

You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll."

In other places in the book, when they want an attack to be a weapon attack and not a spell attack, they specifically say "weapon attack," "ranged weapon attack," or "melee weapon attack." Those are nowhere to be seen in Sneak Attack.

And you know, Crawford (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/12/magic-stone-sneak-attack/) weighing in and saying it would work.

[Arkhios]

Magic Stone is essentially same as Magic Weapon.

Both spells make ordinary items less mundane.

Dirty pebbles on the dungeon floor might not seem threatening one bit, but a druid or a warlock can enhance them to make them much more dangerous in the right hands.

Ordinary weapons are dangerous already, sure, but against a ghost, for example, a mundane sword isn't of much use. A Magic Weapon enhances the sword, and suddenly the ghost is in greater danger.

Likewise casting Magic Weapon on arrows makes them more powerful, even though they're only ammunition.

The exact means as how these spells enhance their predetermined targets might differ, but they do have that one thing in common: enhancing items.

[odigity]

And you know, Crawford (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/12/magic-stone-sneak-attack/) weighing in and saying it would work.

Thanks for the link. Glad we have an answer.

[tkuremento]

Thanks for the link. Glad we have an answer.

I posted it earlier as well but no one seemed to pay attention to it

[tkuremento]

Magic Stone is essentially same as Magic Weapon.

Both spells make ordinary items less mundane.

Dirty pebbles on the dungeon floor might not seem threatening one bit, but a druid or a warlock can enhance them to make them much more dangerous in the right hands.

Ordinary weapons are dangerous already, sure, but against a ghost, for example, a mundane sword isn't of much use. A Magic Weapon enhances the sword, and suddenly the ghost is in greater danger.

Likewise casting Magic Weapon on arrows makes them more powerful, even though they're only ammunition.

The exact means as how these spells enhance their predetermined targets might differ, but they do have that one thing in common: enhancing items.

Magic Weapon still uses a weapon attack for sure. Magic Stone says "You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling." It still seems to be a ranged spell attack regardless, but if you use the sling you are using a ranged weapon. As such, that is what allows it to be used in Sneak Attack.

[Arkhios]

Magic Weapon still uses a weapon attack for sure.

Yes, it does, but it's very similar in essence.

[StarStuff]

Our warlock would drop Magic Stones next to our necromancer's zombies in Castle Ravenloft.

Then he would grab a creature with Telekinesis and have the zombies stone him to death.

[grell]

Our warlock would drop Magic Stones next to our necromancer's zombies in Castle Ravenloft.

Then he would grab a creature with Telekinesis and have the zombies stone him to death.


That's beautiful. Not to mention a great RP moment.

"All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "Jehovah. "

Now I want to see someone run a Zombie angry mob with pitchforks and torches. :)

Some poor paladin being held aloft while undead villagers surround him.

[CursedRhubarb]

Likewise casting Magic Weapon on arrows makes them more powerful, even though they're only ammunition.

Wouldn't this be of more use on the bow itself rather than the arrows since non magic ammo shot from a magic bow becomes magic and would make them +1/+2/+3 magic arrows while the spell lasts and you wouldn't have to cast it for each shot?

[RickAllison]

Wouldn't this be of more use on the bow itself rather than the arrows since non magic ammo shot from a magic bow becomes magic and would make them +1/+2/+3 magic arrows while the spell lasts and you wouldn't have to cast it for each shot?

But this way you can use it with your magic bow!!

[Arkhios]

Wouldn't this be of more use on the bow itself rather than the arrows since non magic ammo shot from a magic bow becomes magic and would make them +1/+2/+3 magic arrows while the spell lasts and you wouldn't have to cast it for each shot?

That was hardly the point. Anyway, it seems I didn't remember correctly how Magic Weapon was written in 5th edition. They've actually removed the retard option (of older editions) of enhancing ammunition separately since a magic weapon bestows the effect on ammunition anyway. I think I have mixed a few spells with each other. The other spell that I can't recall right now would've enhanced maybe 12 ammunition with one casting, so it won't take one casting per shot.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Magic Stone gives martials an option that no true martial really has access to.

Magical weapon damage.

The barbarian, fighter, and rogue (when used as a pure martial) has no way to overcome resistance or immunity to magic damage. This gives them a way to stay effective in those fights.

Outside of that, this cantrip is meh at the very best. Rogues may be able to use it but they have no need for it, a dagger will key off their str or dex and deal a whole 1 point less on average... And the Rogue, when not using a stone, can still make OA sneak attacks.

[wilhelmdubdub]

Arg. For the third time in a row, you are confusing things.

There are two separate issues:

1) Whether Sneak Attack applies, which depends on whether the magic stone attack counts as a weapon attack. I would say not, because the spell description explicitly says ranged spell attack.

2) Whether the Archery fighting style applies, which depends on whether the magic stone counts as a ranged weapon. I would say we lack sufficient information to reach consensus, and that it therefore falls to the GM, but if I were the GM, I would consider the stone comparable to a dart (a simple weapon intended solely for ranged attacks, rather than a melee weapon that happens to be throwable), and therefore allow Archery to apply.

Maybe out of a sling it would?

[Maxilian]

Magic Stone gives martials an option that no true martial really has access to.

Magical weapon damage.

The barbarian, fighter, and rogue (when used as a pure martial) has no way to overcome resistance or immunity to magic damage. This gives them a way to stay effective in those fights.

Outside of that, this cantrip is meh at the very best. Rogues may be able to use it but they have no need for it, a dagger will key off their str or dex and deal a whole 1 point less on average... And the Rogue, when not using a stone, can still make OA sneak attacks.

IMHO the most interesting thing that you can do with it, is make a character less MAD (basing it around CHA, sadly this would be more of an option if it didnt had the limit to 3 stones)

[Naanomi]

Maybe out of a sling it would?
Yes to both Archery and Sneak Attack if a sling is used, but no if not; because they don't require weapon attacks, just 'attacks with weapons'

[wilhelmdubdub]

If we're being literal:

Both archery fighting style and sneak attack work when you attack with a sling, a ranged weapon, even if you're hurling a magic stone with that sling.

Neither archery fighting style nor sneak attack work when you throw a magic stone since a magic stone isn't listed on any weapon table, isn't called a ranged weapon in its spell description, and isn't said to have the finesse property in its spell description.

It doesn't matter if you're making a weapon attack or a spell attack, only whether you're making an attack with a ranged weapon (or finesse for sneak attack).

I agree it's like using a magic arrow or a shillelagh

[Herobizkit]

I agree it's like using a magic arrow or a shillelaghBy the strict reading of the rules, it's not, which really irritates me.

Magic stone implies magic, but the wording of Shillelagh states: "The weapon also becomes magical, if it isn’t already."

This wording is not included in the Magic Stone description despite the spell being called Magic Stone.

Given the guideline of specific v. general rules, this implies that the Magic Stone stones are not themselves magical. They can be thrown by a sling (which is non-magical) or hurled BY magic (but does not make the attack a 'magical' one; it remains non-magical bludgeoning).

If you were to telekinetically hurl, let's say, a sheep at someone, would it inflict 1d6 magic (psionic?) sheep damage that can bypass Resistance?

It's real strict grammar-play, but is it true?

[Zalabim]

By the strict reading of the rules, it's not, which really irritates me.

Magic stone implies magic, but the wording of Shillelagh states: "The weapon also becomes magical, if it isn’t already."

This wording is not included in the Magic Stone description despite the spell being called Magic Stone.

Given the guideline of specific v. general rules, this implies that the Magic Stone stones are not themselves magical. They can be thrown by a sling (which is non-magical) or hurled BY magic (but does not make the attack a 'magical' one; it remains non-magical bludgeoning).

If you were to telekinetically hurl, let's say, a sheep at someone, would it inflict 1d6 magic (psionic?) sheep damage that can bypass Resistance?

It's real strict grammar-play, but is it true?

From the current errata for the MM, a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source. So it depends on whether you believe an attack with a magic stone is delivered by a spell.

[Segev]

While I tend to give Crawford's responses no particular weight, in this case his random dart-throwing has actually hit upon a ruling that is consistent with what's written.

There is a distinction between "a weapon attack" (which is a defined game term and, counterintuitively, doesn't always require a "weapon" in the traditional sense since "natural weapons" are often "weapon attacks") and "an attack" that happens to be made with a weapon.

If it just has to be an attack made with a weapon, it doesn't matter if it's a spell attack or not. Spell attacks can be made with weapons: we have an example in this very thread over which the contention lies.

I will call this out for emphasis: nobody is denying that you can use a sling - a weapon, defined to be such by the game's own terms - to make a ranged attack with a magic stone. Said ranged attack is, explicitly, a spell attack. Therefore, you can make spell attacks with weapons. Or, at the VERY least, you can make this one specific spell attack with a weapon.

Sneak attack requires you to make an attack with a ranged or finesse weapon.

It nowhere references "a weapon attack."

These are distinct game terms.

While you might find the distinction a bit confusing, it is (perhaps ironically) intuitively consistent, since from the perspective of "what's really happening," all the rogue is doing is making the same sling attack he normally would, but with enchanted ammo. Why that would prevent him from attacking with greater precision is unclear, so the fact that the rules allow him to use the same increased precision for greater damage either way is intuitively sensible.

[R.Shackleford]

IMHO the most interesting thing that you can do with it, is make a character less MAD (basing it around CHA, sadly this would be more of an option if it didnt had the limit to 3 stones)

Seems like we should just have a ffea that let's you pick a physical or mental score (maybe except con) and all of your attack rolls may be based off that score instead of the feature's original score (you also get a +1 to your selected score)

Your saving throws may not be based off from Strength but it would be cool to see a Goliath Wizard throwing spells harder to make them hit easier.

Grknor the Sorcerer casts firebolt, a mote of fire appears in his hand and Grknor throws it at an enemy. 1d20 + (5) Str + (3) Prof for the attack roll and 2d10 fire damage.

Grknor casts fireball with a DC of 8 + (2) Int + (3) Prof (13).

[Maxilian]

Seems like we should just have a ffea that let's you pick a physical or mental score (maybe except con) and all of your attack rolls may be based off that score instead of the feature's original score (you also get a +1 to your selected score)


I would love to but i can also see why this may be troublesome, also why not CON? I mean... Fire Genasi can already use a cantrip based on CON (only for hit though, no Mod to the damage, hope there would be a way, you could, make it CON and CHA based, but i see no point on that, just make it CHA if you were going to do that)

[tkuremento]

The best part is if you use a sling normally without Magic Stone and have extra attack, you can move between attacks because you are using weapon attacks. However if you DO use Magic Stone, you can't move between attacks because they are spell attacks.

"If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks."

[Maxilian]

The best part is if you use a sling normally without Magic Stone and have extra attack, you can move between attacks because you are using weapon attacks. However if you DO use Magic Stone, you can't move between attacks because they are spell attacks.

"If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks."

That sounds... weird, and maybe not intended, but oks

[tkuremento]

The best part is if you use a sling normally without Magic Stone and have extra attack, you can move between attacks because you are using weapon attacks. However if you DO use Magic Stone, you can't move between attacks because they are spell attacks.

"If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks."


That sounds... weird, and maybe not intended, but oks

Probably not, but also it is kind of funny. Tiny magical rocks prevent you from moving between attacks if you want to take more than one attack, but you can move just fine after and just fine before.

[Sir cryosin]

It say you imbued them with magic. Implying Thay are magical attack.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I would love to but i can also see why this may be troublesome, also why not CON? I mean... Fire Genasi can already use a cantrip based on CON (only for hit though, no Mod to the damage, hope there would be a way, you could, make it CON and CHA based, but i see no point on that, just make it CHA if you were going to do that)

4e actually had this for basic attacks (attack and damage).

Typically people see Con as too powerful but really it wouldn't hurt anything as the most powerful things in the game are saves.

Quirky Attacker
Prerequisites: one ability score from your class's MC list must be 13 or higher.

Select an ability score. Anytime you make an attack roll, you may use the selected ability score modifier in place of the original. Whenever you roll damage on an attack that adds a ability score modifier, you may add your selected ability score modifier instead.

Additionally the ability score of choice is increased by +1

===


Variant Human would probably be used way more often. I can't count how many times people have asked me for a reason for them to have a Fighter or Barbarian with high mental scores. Now you could make a Barbarian with high Cha that uses a fear based fighting style, much like Elan using a Pun based fighting style, and could mix things up a bit.

[tkuremento]

4e actually had this for basic attacks (attack and damage).

Typically people see Con as too powerful but really it wouldn't hurt anything as the most powerful things in the game are saves.

Quirky Attacker
Prerequisites: one ability score from your class's MC list must be 13 or higher.

Select an ability score. Anytime you make an attack roll, you may use the selected ability score modifier in place of the original. Whenever you roll damage on an attack that adds a ability score modifier, you may add your selected ability score modifier instead.

Additionally the ability score of choice is increased by +1

===


Variant Human would probably be used way more often. I can't count how many times people have asked me for a reason for them to have a Fighter or Barbarian with high mental scores. Now you could make a Barbarian with high Cha that uses a fear based fighting style, much like Elan using a Pun based fighting style, and could mix things up a bit.

Even without the +1 it feels really strong for certain choices. Anything that already gets bonuses like a Bladelock or some of the Cleric or Paladin archetypes that are based off the class' preferred stat suddenly makes them hit harder. It could even make more classes SAD.

EDIT: The Cleric thing was actually Wisdom to cantrips, though a lot of the domains get +1d8 on damage as is.

Second EDIT (Sorry): It also slightly negates finesse in the sense that any weapon could suddenly use DEX. Sure finesse will still be needed for an ability or feature that requires finesse.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Even without the +1 it feels really strong for certain choices. Anything that already gets bonuses like a Bladelock or some of the Cleric or Paladin archetypes that are based off the class' preferred stat suddenly makes them hit harder. It could even make more classes SAD.

EDIT: The Cleric thing was actually Wisdom to cantrips, though a lot of the domains get +1d8 on damage as is.

Second EDIT (Sorry): It also slightly negates finesse in the sense that any weapon could suddenly use DEX. Sure finesse will still be needed for an ability or feature that requires finesse.

Not really.

Damage is the weakest thing you can really do to effect the world around your characters. And you aren't really gaining MORE damage, just coming from a different source.

A Cleric that takes this is no different from a cleric who picks up shillelagh and magic stone.

A Barbarian who takes this (it would need to count as the original type of attack) would do no more damage as a barbarian without it.

Hell, warlocks can already add Cha to EB and Weapon damage, and they get to do it on top of the weapon damage that they already do.

What it does give you, is the option to have mental ability scores matter for martials. You get to take away the MADNESS of martials. You get to be Sherlock Holmes (RDJ version) without sucking at the one thing you can do.

I'm not a fan of the ability score system that 5e uses, I don't like how ridged it makes characters. If a player wants to play a Intelligence or Charisma based Cleric, I see no reason to deny that at a core rule. If someone wants to use Puns to supplement their attack and damage (causing enemies to screw up in defending) then I see no reason why a Bard can do that but not a Fighter.

And besides, this only works on attacks, which is the least broken thing about 5e.

[tkuremento]

Not really.

Damage is the weakest thing you can really do to effect the world around your characters. And you aren't really gaining MORE damage, just coming from a different source.

A Cleric that takes this is no different from a cleric who picks up shillelagh and magic stone.

A Barbarian who takes this (it would need to count as the original type of attack) would do no more damage as a barbarian without it.

Hell, warlocks can already add Cha to EB and Weapon damage, and they get to do it on top of the weapon damage that they already do.

What it does give you, is the option to have mental ability scores matter for martials. You get to take away the MADNESS of martials. You get to be Sherlock Holmes (RDJ version) without sucking at the one thing you can do.

I'm not a fan of the ability score system that 5e uses, I don't like how ridged it makes characters. If a player wants to play a Intelligence or Charisma based Cleric, I see no reason to deny that at a core rule. If someone wants to use Puns to supplement their attack and damage (causing enemies to screw up in defending) then I see no reason why a Bard can do that but not a Fighter.

And besides, this only works on attacks, which is the least broken thing about 5e.

Why have a system at all, why not just create everything yourself and wear tutus and eat candy

On a more serious note though, most of the stats make sense. A wizard studies and needs intellect, a bard is the entertainer and needs to be charismatic, a barbarian can duke it out for a long time and needs constitution, a druid (and ranger) hone in on nature and need to be wise toward and with it, and a monk...well I mean wisdom makes sense but I can't really explain why, my brain is having a mental block.

Beyond that though, yea cleric could be some int and some wis, I don't even understand Paladin as Cha, or Warlock and Sorcerer as Cha. Oh also I left out Fighter and Rogue because those two are obvious that they would focus on Str/Dex/Con, heck a Barb really didn't need its own thing either.

The thing is though, there is nothing stopping you from putting 10 in Wis and 16 in Int as a Cleric, you could still have a fun time and still be badass. Oh and the only time I find a martial mad is if they want non-finesse but also don't have heavy armor, and it is so easy to start off with a level of fighter to get that, even cleric and paladin can get it.

[R.Shackleford]

Why have a system at all, why not just create everything yourself and wear tutus and eat candy

On a more serious note though, most of the stats make sense. A wizard studies and needs intellect, a bard is the entertainer and needs to be charismatic, a barbarian can duke it out for a long time and needs constitution, a druid (and ranger) hone in on nature and need to be wise toward and with it, and a monk...well I mean wisdom makes sense but I can't really explain why, my brain is having a mental block.

Beyond that though, yea cleric could be some int and some wis, I don't even understand Paladin as Cha, or Warlock and Sorcerer as Cha. Oh also I left out Fighter and Rogue because those two are obvious that they would focus on Str/Dex/Con, heck a Barb really didn't need its own thing either.

The thing is though, there is nothing stopping you from putting 10 in Wis and 16 in Int as a Cleric, you could still have a fun time and still be badass. Oh and the only time I find a martial mad is if they want non-finesse but also don't have heavy armor, and it is so easy to start off with a level of fighter to get that, even cleric and paladin can get it.

If I have a magical ball of fire, or a magic stone, why doesn't my strength play any part of the attack when I throw it?

I mean, at the very least Dex should be involved.

They allow mental stats for aiming magic, even when magic is a physical object like thing, so why not actual physical objects?

It isn't being consistent.

Either make all attack rolls str/dex or all attack rolls to be any ability score (str, dex, int, wis, cha).

"Because it's magic" is a weak argument I hear a lot which means absolutely nothing.

[Citan]

Why have a system at all, why not just create everything yourself and wear tutus and eat candy

On a more serious note though, most of the stats make sense. A wizard studies and needs intellect, a bard is the entertainer and needs to be charismatic, a barbarian can duke it out for a long time and needs constitution, a druid (and ranger) hone in on nature and need to be wise toward and with it, and a monk...well I mean wisdom makes sense but I can't really explain why, my brain is having a mental block.

Beyond that though, yea cleric could be some int and some wis, I don't even understand Paladin as Cha, or Warlock and Sorcerer as Cha. Oh also I left out Fighter and Rogue because those two are obvious that they would focus on Str/Dex/Con, heck a Barb really didn't need its own thing either.

The thing is though, there is nothing stopping you from putting 10 in Wis and 16 in Int as a Cleric, you could still have a fun time and still be badass. Oh and the only time I find a martial mad is if they want non-finesse but also don't have heavy armor, and it is so easy to start off with a level of fighter to get that, even cleric and paladin can get it.
For the Monk, it's probably because they took on the idea of oriental Monks, who can tame their inner self and raise their external perception in order to make their body commune with environing nature (see the image of a man in a buddha pose, with birds and squirrels sitting on and around him).

CHA for Paladin can be explained easily: he strives to respect and make respect a set of values, and in most cases, the manner of making other respect include verbal persuasion instead of just bashing skulls. So he has to be charismatic.

Sorcerer and Warlock are thougher nuts indeed.
I'd be inclined to say that the stat choice was made by default:
Sorcerer could not rely on INT since it's his inner, innate force developing. So he is not really studying/memorizing anything, just learning to control this particular aspect of his body. For the same reason, it couldn't be WIS because WIS is really biaised towards the use and control of external energy, which goes directly against the fluff. So... Only CHA left.

Warlock is the same: his power comes not from studying, nor from nature, it's a power coming from "outside" the world, so no INT nor WIS fit.

Still, you could make a case for the CHA-based. While the description of PHB limit CHA to "social interactions", it could be viewed as a mesure of your raw mental power (as in confidence, self-reliance, willpower). Of the 3 mental stats, it's the most fitting. So...

For Sorcerer, being the fact that you get a surge of power in your body forces you to concentrate on taming it to avoid any sudden and hurtful unleash: using your willpower to control yourself.

For Warlock, it could be that you develop your willpower in order to keep your own consciousness and mind and resist to the incredibly powerful force that lends you its power, at the price of trying to make you a mindless slave at every instant.

For both, this constant "inner" fight would help them develop a great confidence in themselves, making them feeling they can tackle anything in turn, thus... Being charismatic. ;)

[Millstone85]

For Warlock, it could be that you develop your willpower in order to keep your own consciousness and mind and resist to the incredibly powerful force that lends you its power, at the price of trying to make you a mindless slave at every instant.My interpretation is that every use of "pact" magic is to some degree a social interaction with the otherworldly patron, with additional bargaining and flatteries. I know it doesn't really work with the idea that the deal is made once, or once a level, and the power is in you thereafter.

[tkuremento]

If I have a magical ball of fire, or a magic stone, why doesn't my strength play any part of the attack when I throw it?

I mean, at the very least Dex should be involved.

They allow mental stats for aiming magic, even when magic is a physical object like thing, so why not actual physical objects?

It isn't being consistent.

Either make all attack rolls str/dex or all attack rolls to be any ability score (str, dex, int, wis, cha).

"Because it's magic" is a weak argument I hear a lot which means absolutely nothing.

It isn't like you hold onto the fireball and throw it, when created it is aimed and shot pretty much right then and there. Also the stones are magical, so magic trumps all else in those regards. And what do you mean it is a weak argument? This is {expletive}ing magic, it is exploiting the SUPERNATURAL! You know, things beyond nature, things that generally don't make sense when compared to logic.

[JellyPooga]

If you were to telekinetically hurl, let's say, a sheep at someone, would it inflict 1d6 magic (psionic?) sheep damage that can bypass Resistance?

Whether it's magical or not is moot point; AFAIK, *nothing* resists or is immune to sheep damage, making this a powerful option. :smalltongue: