Magic Stone useful?

[Galithar]

Magic Stone allows you to imbue 1-3 pebbles with magic. This allows a ranged spell attack that deals 1d6+spell casting mod damage. If you pass these to someone else it maintains the use of your spellcasting modifier instead of the attackers for the attack and damage.

Now my understanding is RAW it looks like this

Attack:1d20+proficiency+casters spell casting modifier
Damage: 1d6+casters spell casting modifier

It's already partially usable in some nice moments to get a Wis based attack. Though this rarely is better than simply using your action to cast a directly damaging cantrip, especially since it never scales.

What if the calculations looked like this though?

Attack: 1d20 + attackers proficiency + spellcasters modifier + attacker's Dex

Damage: 1d6 + Spellcasters Mod + Attackers Dex mod.

Would this be too strong? Still weak? Just an interesting but not really needed homebrew because I like to mane things more complicated than needed?

[stoutstien]

It really doesn't need a buff. It's a spell that scales based on available actions rather than the caster's level. Not to mention that it's damage doesn't really fall off until after level 11.

[Galithar]

It really doesn't need a buff. It's a spell that scales based on available actions rather than the caster's level. Not to mention that it's damage doesn't really fall off until after level 11.

You mean if you're playing a fighter it doesn't fall off until then. If you're a Druid with one attack it falls off at level 5. 1d6+4 and your first bonus action isn't exactly competitive with 2d10, or even 2d6 with a rider.

[Naanomi]

It is a good (if niche) tools like shillelagh for opening up WIS/CHA focused combatants (especially rogues, though I have used it with rangers and fighters before as well)

[stoutstien]

You mean if you're playing a fighter it doesn't fall off until then. If you're a Druid with one attack it falls off at level 5. 1d6+4 and your first bonus action isn't exactly competitive with 2d10, or even 2d6 with a rider.

It's almost even with a d8 cantrip. Trading ~1 damage on average for more consistent output. Sometimes you will really need to take something out and rolling a few 1s or 2s is frustrating where the MS has a much higher minimal damage.

Don't forget artificer get MS as well. They can pump out some good numbers using it combined with long lasting minions or even to give their SD a ranged weapon for pesky flying foes.

[Galithar]

It's almost even with a d8 cantrip. Trading ~1 damage on average for more consistent output. Sometimes you will really need to take something out and rolling a few 1s or 2s is frustrating where the MS has a much higher minimal damage.

Don't forget artificer get MS as well. They can pump out some good numbers using it combined with long lasting minions or even to give their SD a ranged weapon for pesky flying foes.

Except those d8 cantrips have riders. Magic stones "rider" is that it also consumes your bonus action. I will give it is pretty good in tier 1 for spellcasters. Outside of that there is always a superior option.

Even on an Artificer with Extra attack it's not great because you're giving up a bonus action. An artillerist can use that to deal an additional 2d8 damage. A Battlesmith can have the defender deal 1d8+proficiency. (And also has a int based attack to start) Without needing turn one to setup. An alchemist doesn't get extra attack or a minion. And an Armorer MIGHT get minimal use if they don't have a better bonus action since their baked in ones are more limited, except they already have an int based attack in the integrated weapon and have little use for a Magic Stone stand in.

I get that it has limited use to give spellcasting modifier attacks to some builds, but 95+% of the time their is a superior alternative available to you. Either in pure numbers, riders, or action economy. This is not a GOOD use. It is a niche that is easily filled by a million other things.

Edit: A rogue multiclass can't even make use of it because it makes a spell attack and therefore doesn't trigger sneak attack that requires a finesse or ranged WEAPON. Though I could see someone making an exception for the sling. Its a ranged weapon, it just isn't making a weapon attack. Flaky, but the rules are written poorly enough I might let it slide at my table.

[Naanomi]

I get that it has limited use to give spellcasting modifier attacks to some builds, but 95+% of the time their is a superior alternative available to you. Either in pure numbers, riders, or action economy. This is not a GOOD use. It is a niche that is easily filled by a million other things.
I would suggest that rogues especially can be made to have functional use of Magic Stone; sneak attacking with WIS (for a maximized perception Inquisitive perhaps) or CHA (for a disguise master Assassin perhaps) without obvious alternative beyond ‘spending more ASI on two attack stats’ or ‘just living with a 16 stat’. And it absolutely works, it is an attack with a ranged weapon (a sling); even if it isn’t a ranged weapon attack... which is all sneak attack cares about

[Galithar]

I would suggest that rogues especially can be made to have functional use of Magic Stone; sneak attacking with WIS (for a maximized perception Inquisitive perhaps) or CHA (for a disguise master Assassin perhaps) without obvious alternative beyond ‘spending more ASI on two attack stats’ or ‘just living with a 16 stat’

See the edit on my previous post. I don't believe RAW it works. Even if you disagree with my interpretation a spell made to facilitate a non-spellcasting class doing something seems asinine to me if it has no other purpose.

[Naanomi]

Oh I don’t think it was *made* to do that... just that it is one of the best uses of an otherwise niche spell (equipping non-adventuring allies probably being the other)

And, for what it is worth,
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/12/magic-stone-sneak-attack/

[diplomancer]

Best use is if you can get minions. Either by regular hiring, or through spells like Tiny Servants/Animate Dead. Works best if your DM interprets the "general ongoing commands" that you can give to your minions favourably; then it's almost overpowered.

[airless_wing]

Optimal? No. Useful? Absolutely!

My dreams druid has it (I wanted a break from Thorn Whipping), and it was a really useful tool for the party. Our paladin didnt really have any ranged options, so instead of wading into an Entangle, I could hand him Magic stones to plink away at whatever creatures were trapped in there.
Its a helpful supplement to aid to non-ranged party members, and really doesnt drop off compared to other offensive cantrips till lvl 11.
1d6 + (3-4) isnt really that different from 2d6. And in my time was a druid, i generally wanted to keep enemies AWAY from me, so the rider effects of thorn whip often was at ends with many of my battlefield controll apells.

[stoutstien]

Except those d8 cantrips have riders. Magic stones "rider" is that it also consumes your bonus action. I will give it is pretty good in tier 1 for spellcasters. Outside of that there is always a superior option.

Even on an Artificer with Extra attack it's not great because you're giving up a bonus action. An artillerist can use that to deal an additional 2d8 damage. A Battlesmith can have the defender deal 1d8+proficiency. (And also has a int based attack to start) Without needing turn one to setup. An alchemist doesn't get extra attack or a minion. And an Armorer MIGHT get minimal use if they don't have a better bonus action since their baked in ones are more limited, except they already have an int based attack in the integrated weapon and have little use for a Magic Stone stand in.

I get that it has limited use to give spellcasting modifier attacks to some builds, but 95+% of the time their is a superior alternative available to you. Either in pure numbers, riders, or action economy. This is not a GOOD use. It is a niche that is easily filled by a million other things.

Edit: A rogue multiclass can't even make use of it because it makes a spell attack and therefore doesn't trigger sneak attack that requires a finesse or ranged WEAPON. Though I could see someone making an exception for the sling. Its a ranged weapon, it just isn't making a weapon attack. Flaky, but the rules are written poorly enough I might let it slide at my table.

The point was to give the SD a ranged attack. 1d6+ mod is better than zero even with a set up turn. If you have a familiar you could have it ride the SD and constantly refill the hopper.

As for the rouge and sneak attack, if a sling is used they would get sneak attack even if they use a rock imbued with magic Stone. The rules are badly written but there's no conflict here. It says the attack must [b]use[\b] a finesse or ranged weapon. It doesn't specify the attack action is needed hence why rogues can SA with BB.

The rider of magic stone is the fact you can cheaply weaponize commoners or anyone else you find. Unskilled hirelings are cheaper than the food it would take to feed them for a day for some reason.

[JackalTornMoons]

Upcast Tiny Servant with a 4th level spell slot to get 3 buddies. Tell them to pick up any stones you drop and throw them at the closest hostile target.

Now every BA you can cast Magic Stone and just drop them on the ground.

3d6+15 w/ just a BA is pretty solid 👍

[Gignere]

Upcast Tiny Servant with a 4th level spell slot to get 3 buddies. Tell them to pick up any stones you drop and throw them at the closest hostile target.

Now every BA you can cast Magic Stone and just drop them on the ground.

3d6+15 w/ just a BA is pretty solid 👍

{scrubbed}

[Silpharon]

If you're playing MoT, Two Birds Sling can rock with Magic Stone. If you're a Grassland Druid with Haste (or can get haste some other way) you can get 4 hits per turn with 2 stones. This assumes there are two nearby enemies and you hit on the first, but still. Not a damage build, but could still be interesting for a wisdom ranged attack (of which there are very few, and I believe this is the only option for a wisdom attack from a ranged weapon).

[JackPhoenix]

Unskilled hirelings are cheaper than the food it would take to feed them for a day for some reason.

That's because you feed them the expensive stuff. Instead of travel rations, just buy a sack of flour, get some water and make (or get them to make) some flatbread.

[Galithar]

Upcast Tiny Servant with a 4th level spell slot to get 3 buddies. Tell them to pick up any stones you drop and throw them at the closest hostile target.

Now every BA you can cast Magic Stone and just drop them on the ground.

3d6+15 w/ just a BA is pretty solid 👍

Not quite with just a BA though since you're spending a 4th level spell, and a spell known (which may be irrelevant if you'd take it anyways), and a bonus action on a separate turn to direct them (though this can be done out of combat). All while having a single AoE during setup negate everything. Not useless, but all of these "well its good if X happen perfectly" are so contrived. If I'm using a 4th level slot there are probably better things to use it on than this. So again I say. It fits a niche, sure, that doesn't make it good. It just makes it better than True Strike



If you're playing MoT, Two Birds Sling can rock with Magic Stone. If you're a Grassland Druid with Haste (or can get haste some other way) you can get 4 hits per turn with 2 stones. This assumes there are two nearby enemies and you hit on the first, but still. Not a damage build, but could still be interesting for a wisdom ranged attack (of which there are very few, and I believe this is the only option for a wisdom attack from a ranged weapon).

It's arguable that the spell ends as soon as the stone hits the first target. But regardless this strategy requires a specific magic item AND a third level concentration spell that causes you to miss a turn if lost. How do you all not see that not one of these makes the cantrip good?

Also since some seem to think I just want to buff the spell, I'm actually perfectly okay with its level of uselessness. I would never take it for anything other than RP. There are already perfectly acceptable cantrips available to the Druid (and Wizard and Artificer) that don't require Magic Stone to be worth anything. EDIT to finish thought: This was just an exercise to prompt some thought on homebrew balance. All it accomplished so far was cementing that Magic Stone is a slightly under par damage cantrip with no redeeming rider. Still valuable for me though. You all have given me a few situations I hadn't thought of, and while I don't agree that they make the cantrip good it is ALWAYS good to get new perspectives and strategies.

[stoutstien]

That's because you feed them the expensive stuff. Instead of travel rations, just buy a cask of flour, get some water and make (or get them to make) some flatbread.

Hey. My disposable workforce at least gets a pizza party.

[JackalTornMoons]

Not quite with just a BA though since you're spending a 4th level spell, and a spell known (which may be irrelevant if you'd take it anyways), and a bonus action on a separate turn to direct them (though this can be done out of combat). All while having a single AoE during setup negate everything. Not useless, but all of these "well its good if X happen perfectly" are so contrived. If I'm using a 4th level slot there are probably better things to use it on than this. So again I say. It fits a niche, sure, that doesn't make it good. It just makes it better than True Strike

Certainly not of great use on a wizard but I think it’s pretty solid for an Artificer.

[dreast]

My homebrew nixie uses it (because, you know, rivers, stones...).

Since she has the same charm-a-humanoid ability as the dryad, and has multiattack to throw two of them herself, that means she can pass one off to an enchanted commoner drone and get full use out of the spell every turn in combat.

It boosts her to CR 2, is very thematic, and presents a dilemma to the heroes... take out the bewitched stooge, or put up with him?

Not every spell is for the PCs, you know.

[dreast]

My homebrew nixie uses it (because, you know, rivers, stones...).

Since she has the same charm-a-humanoid ability as the dryad, and has multiattack to throw two of them herself, that means she can pass one off to an enchanted commoner drone and get full use out of the spell every turn in combat.

It boosts her to CR 2, is very thematic, and presents a dilemma to the heroes... take out the bewitched stooge, or put up with him?

Not every spell is for the PCs, you know.

I just realized, druids get Conjure Woodland Beings as a 4th level spell. Important thing about fey: they have hands and can throw rocks (and the player gets to pick the number). So, throw in produce flames and you can do spell attacks totaling 3d6 + 3*Wis modifier, plus the 2+ d8’s of produce flame, for an average of 34.5ish damage a round at 20 Wisdom, for a 4th level spell slot w/concentration, using your bonus action and your action, with a single fey of up to CR1/2 or five fey of up to CR 1/4 to spare, at level 7. (18 Wis gets you 31.5ish.)

Against a single target, that’s not terrible offensive output for “the healer.”

*assuming conjure woodland beings is precast.
**and the DM doesn’t give you/roll blink dogs.

Alternatively, a level 6 Lore Bard could always grab Animate Dead and let skeletons hang back and lob stones. A lot more flexible that way.

***I just realized the group I’m DMing has a bard, a druid, AND a necromancer. This spell may get cast a LOT in my campaign.

[ff7hero]

I just realized, druids get Conjure Woodland Beings as a 4th level spell. Important thing about fey: they have hands and can throw rocks (and the player gets to pick the number). So, throw in produce flames and you can do spell attacks totaling 3d6 + 3*Wis modifier, plus the 2+ d8’s of produce flame, for an average of 34.5ish damage a round at 20 Wisdom, for a 4th level spell slot w/concentration, using your bonus action and your action, with a single fey of up to CR1/2 or five fey of up to CR 1/4 to spare, at level 7. (18 Wis gets you 31.5ish.)

Against a single target, that’s not terrible offensive output for “the healer.”

*assuming conjure woodland beings is precast.
**and the DM doesn’t give you/roll blink dogs.

Alternatively, a level 6 Lore Bard could always grab Animate Dead and let skeletons hang back and lob stones. A lot more flexible that way.

***I just realized the group I’m DMing has a bard, a druid, AND a necromancer. This spell may get cast a LOT in my campaign.

I've kind of always wanted to build a Warlock Necromancer and Tomelock seems like a natural fit for shenanigans like this.

[Talionis]

Finding a way to get Haste can help. Also the magic stones can be given to minions etc helping them to stay relevant.

[Naanomi]

I've kind of always wanted to build a Warlock Necromancer and Tomelock seems like a natural fit for shenanigans like this.
Or, I suppose, a Wizard Necromancer with Artificer Initiate now

[diplomancer]

Finding a way to get Haste can help. Also the magic stones can be given to minions etc helping them to stay relevant.

Technically, you probably can't throw a Magic Stone with the Haste Attack Action, but I'm pretty sure most DMs won't sweat it. But yes for the minions, that's how you get good use of the spell.

[Silpharon]

Technically, you probably can't throw a Magic Stone with the Haste Attack Action, but I'm pretty sure most DMs won't sweat it. But yes for the minions, that's how you get good use of the spell.

Unless the reading of "(one weapon attack only)" is taken as "you can take the attack action, and of the attacks made, only one can be a weapon attack". In that case, you actually could do an extra attack with magic stone during haste!

I don't personally think that's the correct interpretation, in which case you would be right.

[diplomancer]

Unless the reading of "(one weapon attack only)" is taken as "you can take the attack action, and of the attacks made, only one can be a weapon attack". In that case, you actually could do an extra attack with magic stone during haste!

I don't personally think that's the correct interpretation, in which case you would be right.

Or throw 3 Magic Stones all at once if you are fighter 11!
Yes, RAW, but definitely not RAI.

[Naanomi]

Or throw 3 Magic Stones all at once if you are fighter 11!
Yes, RAW, but definitely not RAI.
Perhaps a Max charisma Lightfoot Halfling Purple Dragon Knight

[KorvinStarmast]

It really doesn't need a buff. It's how a party of 4 kills a werewolf; fighter / Barbarian grapples, the other three throw magic rocks at it. Heal fighter / Barbarian as needed. :smallbiggrin: (Yes, white room analysis).

That's because you feed them the expensive stuff. Instead of travel rations, just buy a sack of flour, get some water and make (or get them to make) some flatbread. Add some salt and you get a recipe for hardtack. :smallwink: Soldiers in the Civil War lived off of that stuff. Great article on it here (http://www.americantable.org/2013/06/civil-war-recipe-hardtack-1861/). I got to do an overland march with only hardtack, water, coffee, and "bacon" (beef jerkey that we'd made the day before, over a smokey fire) for a day years ago. Educational trip, that was. I'll see if I can find the article where one of the Union generals observes that you'll be playing with fire, morale wise, if you do not get the soldiers their hardtack, bacon, and coffee. (I think the bacon was a lot more like modern day salt pork, though).
Recipe from the link:

2 cups flour
1/2 tablespoon salt (optional) {no, it is not Optional! KS}
1/2 to 3/4 cup water

Preheat oven to 250 degrees F. Combine flour with salt in a mixing bowl. Add water and mix with hands until the dough comes together. Roll out on a table to about 1/3 inch thickness. Use a knife to cut 3×3 squares from the dough. Place on baking sheet, and use a dowel (see note above) to make 16 evenly-spaced holes in each square. Bake for at least four hours, turning over once half-way through baking. Cool on a rack in a dry room. One of the guys in our group made it, and that looks like the recipe he handed to us for our info. We had the holes in it, and everything.

[Willie the Duck]

To the OP: Yes, Magic Stone is a decidedly niche combat cantrip. Much like Shillelagh, it may well have been intended as a tier 1 benefit (the notion that you should never make a permanent selection that may someday be less-than-useful doesn't seem to be a design specific to which the developers adhered). If you and your group are not finding any valid uses for it, perhaps it would be fine to have it scale like Produce Flame or Primal Savagery -- but then do something like make it one stone, or the attack is singular regardless of whether you have extra attack, such that a high-Wisdom Fighter or hunter Ranger can't launch 2, 3, or 4 (1d6+wis) x tier pebbles. However, I think the spell, as-is, is a worthwhile spell:

It is an early way to have access to a magic weapon (for enemies with resistances and immunities)
It is a tier 1 boost (and not all spells need to upscale with tiers)
It is a weapon attack (which can be important. For instance, a character with Alert feat can attack an opponent in darkness or a Fog Cloud with a weapon, but not a combat cantrip or the like)
you can attach riders like Sneak Attack or Sharpshooter and such that you cannot do with spells
It can be handed off to allies (bonus action to cast, you can still act)

[Galithar]

It is an early way to have access to a magic weapon (for enemies with resistances and immunities)
It is a tier 1 boost (and not all spells need to upscale with tiers)
It is a weapon attack (which can be important. For instance, a character with Alert feat can attack an opponent in darkness or a Fog Cloud with a weapon, but not a combat cantrip or the like)
you can attach riders like Sneak Attack or Sharpshooter and such that you cannot do with spells
It can be handed off to allies (bonus action to cast, you can still act)


1. Minor benefit that is really only useful in tier 1. After that the other cantrips are superior. Only time this is worth anything is in conjuction with your last point though.
2. It is not a weapon attack. It is a ranged spell attack that can potentially be made with a weapon. Also any cantrip with an attack roll can target an unseen creature. Only the saving throw cantrips specify the target must be seen.
3. As a spell attack it is exempt from bullets 1 & 2 of Sharpshooter as they apply to your ranged weapon attacks, but could benefit from the -5/+10 because that third bullet only requires an attack with a ranged weapon. As stated before it is very rare to have a circumstance where a rogue sneak attacking with a sling is beneficial, see your point 1 for the only time that is true.
4. Yes, it can. It's usually not an optimum use of your bonus action, but if you're on a build that doesn't have a better one and you don't want to cast a leveled spell this turn, sure.

I understand every niche use of magic stone there is. Pointing them out over and over doesn't make any of them any better. Also I will again state I have no interest in changing it. The game is full of bad spells. It was a small theorycrafting exercise.

[Willie the Duck]

2. It is not a weapon attack. It is a ranged spell attack that can potentially be made with a weapon. Also any cantrip with an attack roll can target an unseen creature. Only the saving throw cantrips specify the target must be seen.
Hmm. It looks like you are right. I overgeneralized a trend and did not corroborate (also I misremembered that using a sling did not make it a weapon attack). I acknowledge this error. I could have sworn we just had a thing where someone needed magic stone because it could hit things inside a fog cloud.


I understand every niche use of magic stone there is. Pointing them out over and over doesn't make any of them any better.
You created a thread on the subject, and now people are responding. That's rational and reasonable of them. Yes, honestly people have an amazing ability to want to add their two cents to a conversation, even though the point has already been made, but that is a universal truth of forums.


Also I will again state I have no interest in changing it.
You specifically asked "What if the calculations looked like this though?" and "Would this be too strong? Still weak?" That is you proposing a homebrew change to the spell. People are responding with alternate ideas, which is again perfectly reasonable. what is the problem?

[Segev]

It seems to me that magic stone is best for characters with low-level allies. A druid leading three peasants in defending a section of wall against attacking orcs could bonus action three magic stones to give them spell attacks using his probably superior casting stat to hit, and then cast a damage cantrip of his own as his normal action.

It might also be decent for a low-level character with an unusually good stat to help out a higher-level ally who has good proficiency; I think you use the attacker's proficiency, anyway. If you use the caster's, then the peasants really benefit even more from a high-level druid ally, who now has a bonus-action damage cantrip that keeps up up to at least level 11.

[Silpharon]

I think a lot of what holds Magic Stone back is the fact that it's a spell attack even when launched from a sling. I don't believe there is a single way to get wisdom based ranged weapon attacks in 5e (I expect to be corrected if I'm wrong here). There are plenty of ranged spell attacks and melee weapon attacks (even with extra reach), but no ranged weapon attacks.

[stoutstien]

I think a lot of what holds Magic Stone back is the fact that it's a spell attack even when launched from a sling. I don't believe there is a single way to get wisdom based ranged weapon attacks in 5e (I expect to be corrected if I'm wrong here). There are plenty of ranged spell attacks and melee weapon attacks (even with extra reach), but no ranged weapon attacks.
Monks can get ranged weapon attacks keying off wisdom a few different ways.

[Naanomi]

Monks can get ranged weapon attacks keying off wisdom a few different ways.
... How? Astral Self is only for unarmed attacks, and everything else seems to just make things 'monk weapons' that can use DEX

[stoutstien]

... How? Astral Self is only for unarmed attacks, and everything else seems to just make things 'monk weapons' that can use DEX

Disregard. What I get from thinking about 3 different editions at once.

[Silpharon]

Disregard. What I get from thinking about 3 different editions at once.

Yeah I keep thinking there's a way, but there's not.

Stars druid, nope
Sun soul monk, nope
Astral self monk, nope
Eldritch Claw Tattoo, nope
Improvised weapon throwing a Shillelagh, maybe? But how useful is that... Maybe alongside Eldritch Knight Weapon Bond and the Tavern Brawler feat? That's an expensive bonus action economy...
Edit: nope that doesn't work either:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/956963278093078528?s=20

[Galithar]

Hmm. It looks like you are right. I overgeneralized a trend and did not corroborate (also I misremembered that using a sling did not make it a weapon attack). I acknowledge this error. I could have sworn we just had a thing where someone needed magic stone because it could hit things inside a fog cloud.


You created a thread on the subject, and now people are responding. That's rational and reasonable of them. Yes, honestly people have an amazing ability to want to add their two cents to a conversation, even though the point has already been made, but that is a universal truth of forums.


You specifically asked "What if the calculations looked like this though?" and "Would this be too strong? Still weak?" That is you proposing a homebrew change to the spell. People are responding with alternate ideas, which is again perfectly reasonable. what is the problem?

Mostly that no one has commented a single thing about the proposed change. "It's really good as it is" is technically a pseudo answer, but it isn't addressing the change at all. Also, I say again it was a theory crafting exercise. I'm not trying to find a modification to actually use. I was just spit balling randomly.

I've found plenty of issues with my proposed change, yet not a single poster has even acknowledged them in a post. And no, not a single person has responded with an "alternate idea" unless you count repeating that it's a niche spell and implying I just don't understand it is an alternate idea. Alternate uses of a spell that I proposed a change to are not equivalent to alternate ideas to, or even arguments against, my proposed change. Though why I'm explaining this is beyond me. I already figured out what I think the issues are with the proposed change and its definitely that it would be too powerful of a change. Now I'm just responding to people based on what they are discussing without really trying to build on my original thought.

Edit: but what frustrated me the most (not anymore, I'm just enjoying the discussing on vanilla Magic Stone now.) Is that I asked the question "What if the calculations looked like this though?" And not a single person (appolgies if someone did and I missed it) has actually said anything about how the spell would function with the proposed change. Which the amusing part is: A lot of the "well you can do x to get the most out of it [even though it's still suboptimal compared to y]" would actually benefit and potentially become optimal choices with the changes.


It seems to me that magic stone is best for characters with low-level allies. A druid leading three peasants in defending a section of wall against attacking orcs could bonus action three magic stones to give them spell attacks using his probably superior casting stat to hit, and then cast a damage cantrip of his own as his normal action.

It might also be decent for a low-level character with an unusually good stat to help out a higher-level ally who has good proficiency; I think you use the attacker's proficiency, anyway. If you use the caster's, then the peasants really benefit even more from a high-level druid ally, who now has a bonus-action damage cantrip that keeps up up to at least level 11.

1. As I've said repeatedly none of this is optimal. I get that not every spell needs to be optimal, but that is what this discussion was SUPPOSED to be about. Improving a suboptimal cantrip and seeing what it would look like in use. Maybe I just wasn't explicit enough in my intention in my OP. So its probably on me that the conversation never touched what I intended it to.

2. I can't think of a situation where a high-level Druid would be optimal by not casting a leveled spell while defending from a wall. However it is actually completely reasonable for even a high-level druid to pass off what are essentially +5 sling bullets to even a high level fighter (because its an overturned use of bonus action with my proposed change. It becomes even more disgusting if you allow a high level rogue to sneak attack with them)

3. I believe the attacker should use their own proficiency for the attack roll. The spell makes no mention of replacing it, just that they use your casting stat modifier.

4. The peasants would benefit much more (as in be more likely to live) if you just used your action to cast a leveled spell. At least you acknowledged that the caster would be relegated to an action cantrip though. Most people seem to talk about this as a great use of your bonus action without acknowledging that you can't do much with your action once you do this.


I think a lot of what holds Magic Stone back is the fact that it's a spell attack even when launched from a sling. I don't believe there is a single way to get wisdom based ranged weapon attacks in 5e (I expect to be corrected if I'm wrong here). There are plenty of ranged spell attacks and melee weapon attacks (even with extra reach), but no ranged weapon attacks.

While it's true that it is always a spell attack I'm not sure that really holds it back much. There is very little that would apply to a ranged weapon attack that doesn't apply to a ranged spell attack. The exception is obviously sharpshooter. The spellcasting equivalent is spellsniper. But not all of that even applies. You aren't casting the spell when you make the attack roll so your range isn't doubled, so you only get to ignore cover.

Is there something I'm missing that simply allowing it to be a magical weapon attack would improve the spell greatly, or even slightly?

[diplomancer]

Hmm, I know it's not RAW, but probably one of the reasons I like the cantrip so much is the way my usual DM houseruled the bonus action spell + cantrip limitation. He houserules that as long either the bonus action or the action is used to cast a cantrip, it's alright, you just can't cast two leveled spells. That considerably improves magic stone (and shillelagh)

[Silpharon]

Is there something I'm missing that simply allowing it to be a magical weapon attack would improve the spell greatly, or even slightly?

Yeah, there's a lot of synergy with most of the attack centric subclass buffs. Not relevant unless you're multiclassing, but considering magic stone is so weak because it expects use with extra attack, I think this is reasonable. I tried building a ranged fighter around Magic Stone a while back and it just didn't work due to the spell attack issue. Here's a short list, I'm sure there's more:

Fighter Battle Master Maneuvers
Fighter Psi Warrior Psionic Strike
Fighter Samurai Fighting Spirit
Ranger Horizon Walker skills
Ranger Gloomstalker Dread Ambusher
Ranger Hunter skills
Ranger Monster Slayer Slayer's Prey
Bard Valor Battle Magic
Cleric Divine Strike

And spells that exclude use of Magic Stone since it's a spell attack (I'm sure there's more):

Hunter's Mark
Divine Favor
Zephyr Strike
Branding Smite
Haste
Lightning Arrow
Banishing Smite
Holy Weapon
Tenser's Transformation

[Segev]

1. As I've said repeatedly none of this is optimal. I get that not every spell needs to be optimal, but that is what this discussion was SUPPOSED to be about. Improving a suboptimal cantrip and seeing what it would look like in use. Maybe I just wasn't explicit enough in my intention in my OP. So its probably on me that the conversation never touched what I intended it to. I didn't say it was good. I said that was a way to make it useful.

This is damning with faint praise, if anything.

I'm getting a bit of mixed signals: do you want to talk about house rules and homebrew ideas to make it a better spell? Or do you not want to? I feel like I've seen you say both, now. I could be mistaken about it, or misparsing something, so could you please clarify precisely what it is you want out of this? I would enjoy coming up with ways to improve the spell, but I don't know if that's what you're looking for or not.


4. The peasants would benefit much more (as in be more likely to live) if you just used your action to cast a leveled spell. At least you acknowledged that the caster would be relegated to an action cantrip though. Most people seem to talk about this as a great use of your bonus action without acknowledging that you can't do much with your action once you do this.Call lightning is an option. If you've already cast it, you can keep using it as your action.

Again, this isn't making magic stones great, or even good. Just...useful enough to not be a complete waste of your cantrip known.




While it's true that it is always a spell attack I'm not sure that really holds it back much. There is very little that would apply to a ranged weapon attack that doesn't apply to a ranged spell attack. The exception is obviously sharpshooter.Sneak Attack. The idea of enchanting magic rocks suggests - at least to me - that it's the sort of thing you'd do to hand off to a rogue for the bonus damage to stack. But since it's a spell attack, you can't use it with it. Sneak Attack has to be used with a finesse or ranged weapon. (Maybe the rocks count as ranged weapons even though there's no weapon attack made?)


Is there something I'm missing that simply allowing it to be a magical weapon attack would improve the spell greatly, or even slightly?"Slightly," at least, because it could work with things non-casters have to improve their attacks.

Another way to improve it would be to remove the clause about ending on stones you've previously cast it on if you cast it again. An ability to stockpile some would at least increase the niche uses. (It remains niche-useful only, though.)

I think one of its biggest illusory advantages is that it does 1d6+your spellcasting modifier in damage. This means that it is adding a flat damage boost to itself, something that only eldritch blast gets to do, and that with an Invocation. The trouble is, you can still only fire them one per attack, and so it's no better than a low-level eldritch blast even as you level up, despite enchanting multiple stones at once.

It doesn't scale with level, but has the illusion of being "already scaled" because it enchants up to three stones! Except...since you can't throw them any faster than you could cast (say) produce flame, it's actually still no better than a first level power. The multi-stone enchantment is almost worthless. Not entirely, but almost. A multiclassed fighter/druid or fighter/artificer maybe could find a use for it if he frequently wants to split his attacks up, but fighter/warlock would do it better at that point.

Maybe if, at 5th level, you gained the ability to attack with a stone as an action or a bonus action? That would give you a "cycle" of round 1: cast magic stone as a bonus action, throw one as an action. Round 2: bonus action throw a stone, action throw a stone.

Still not good compared to eldritch blast just giving you two beams, or any other damage cantrip just giving you a second die for the action taken to cast it.

If animal friendship were a little more reliable in terms of what you can get your animal friends to do, and in letting you find what you want (e.g. monkeys), you could get 3 monkeys or the like as allies instead of those hypothetical peasants, but even then, you're still just managing tier 3 cantrip damage with three vulnerable minions and the investment of your bonus action and probably a third level spell slot (or three first level ones). Maybe 2, if you want just two minions and to spend your own action throwing the third stone.

[Galithar]

snip...


Segev, to clarify because I feel I have not been clear on this. I am not looking to change the spell for my table, but I am looking to discuss ways it could change. In other words I'm looking at the theory of possible homebrews without the intention to ever implement them. Meaning I don't need to find balance. I was just here to discuss ideas.

Call Lightning mixed with allies to throw the stones actually does present a potentially optimal use of the bonus action. I had missed spells with a duration that have an "as an action on your turn" clause. So that does open some possibilities of when it could be useful. First recommendation that could bring some marginal utility. Though I would still wonder if there was a more optimal bonus action spell. I kind of like the thought of Call Lighting and Spiritual Weapon side by side. That's seriously off topic though.

I like the idea of giving a different way to use the stones. Passing them off to allies is too dependent on external factors. Simply making them throwable as a bonus action (caster only?) Goes a long way for that. Bonus action create them and action cast another cantrip. Followed by an action spell (leveled or cantrip) and a bonus action magic stone toss each round. The additional damage is very minimal and could also easily be worded to only allow you to THROW as a bonus action, not use a sling, preventing things like sneal attack.

I don't think leaning into the niche use to supply attacks to allies that don't already have a combat value is the way to go, so I definitely wouldn't want to go into the creation of a stockpile. Plus adding minionmancy has never done anything good for my table. It slows things down and snowballs out of control too easily and/or a player gets upset when you destroy 2+ rounds of setup with a single AoE spell because now they wasted all their resources. Not the DMs fault, but I still don't like it happening at my tables.

Alternatively you could do a bonus action create. At level 1 you create 1. It scales with cantrips in the number created. Using your action you can throw any number of stones created with this spell. Now I might drop the damage to a d4 in that instance. (1d4+5)×4=30 average damage at level 17 is decent no resource damage. It doesn't out do anything currently out there. It's basically a weaker version of EB that isn't linked to Warlocks. If you (like I do) make EB a Warlock class feature instead of a cantrip it opens a similar, but weaker option, for the other classes. Not only does it take your action, and bonus action, but it's objectively weaker than EB by having a shorter range and lower damage die. It would combo with all the things EB does, like Hex.

[Segev]

While I understand the concern about minions slowing things down, I think using them this specific way actually mitigates that: if they go on your turn, it’s little different than you having three attacks (the way any eldritch blast user eventually does).

That doesn’t mean it’s great. But it is a way to try to eke out advantages that are potentially commensurate with the awkwardness.

[Galithar]

While I understand the concern about minions slowing things down, I think using them this specific way actually mitigates that: if they go on your turn, it’s little different than you having three attacks (the way any eldritch blast user eventually does).

That doesn’t mean it’s great. But it is a way to try to eke out advantages that are potentially commensurate with the awkwardness.

They still have to have move actions, hit points, AC etc. tracked. They are a way to use the spell for sure. I just don't think the drawbacks added, and DM cooperation required makes them useful for a build. An NPC, or a by happenstance use? Absolutely. I don't know anyone that would enjoy their build being countered by a single AoE. And since they have to get their stones from you EVERY turn, it doesn't even have to be a particularly big one.

Also running minions on the "owners" turn is a frequent rule that people implement, but they really should have their own initiative roll under standard iniative rules.

[Segev]

They still have to have move actions, hit points, AC etc. tracked. They are a way to use the spell for sure. I just don't think the drawbacks added, and DM cooperation required makes them useful for a build. An NPC, or a by happenstance use? Absolutely. I don't know anyone that would enjoy their build being countered by a single AoE. And since they have to get their stones from you EVERY turn, it doesn't even have to be a particularly big one.

Also running minions on the "owners" turn is a frequent rule that people implement, but they really should have their own initiative roll under standard iniative rules.

Not disputing any of this. I'm not saying any of it makes it good. I'm just trying to eke out the best use I can figure, especially considering it's a Druid cantrip. Saw this in the thread on the Piercer feat; they had a digression, it seems, on Crusher, and it made me laugh:


Honestly, not broken up about Wizard's not being able to utilize this feat effectively. I think an actual big winner here is the sling. It had zero value as a ranged weapon, and now it is a ranged control option if you take Crusher. Which is kind of cool.

Magic stone is an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, so a Druid with Crusher can use magic stones to move people about. Only once per turn, and only 5 ft., but it's actually greater control over their movement than Telekinetic gives you (albeit with more restriction on their size).

I should note, too, that I was mistaken about not being able to use Rogue Sneak Attack with it. While it's questionable whether the stone hurled by hand qualifies, it is unquestionable that a sling is a ranged weapon, and Sneak Attack requires an attack with a finesse or ranged weapon, not a "weapon attack" with such a weapon. So a spell attack with a sling can still get Sneak Attack bonuses.

This is now a slightly - but not supremely - better spell for rogues who can somehow pick it up. A rogue with Magic Initiate (Druid) could do worse than shillelagh and magic stone. Still not willing to call magic stone "good," but at least we're finding some extra utility it can have.

[Eldariel]

Necromancers love it. Giving your Skeletons +3 to hit, +3 damage and the ability to ignore non-magic resistance without having to acquire magic gear is just great. The only problem is that you need a caster per 3 Skeletons (well, on first round of combat you can reasonably have 3 precast stones if you don't mind being heard chanting), while it's pretty easy to get lots of skeletons.

Also nice that this doesn't consume your Concentration.

[Gignere]

Necromancers love it. Giving your Skeletons +3 to hit, +3 damage and the ability to ignore non-magic resistance without having to acquire magic gear is just great. The only problem is that you need a caster per 3 Skeletons (well, on first round of combat you can reasonably have 3 precast stones if you don't mind being heard chanting), while it's pretty easy to get lots of skeletons.

Also nice that this doesn't consume your Concentration.

Unfortunately it takes a multiclass or a feat to get it on a Necromancer. It’s actually great on anyone with Tiny Servants as well. They can get advantage by being heavily obscured.

[Eldariel]

Unfortunately it takes a multiclass or a feat to get it on a Necromancer. It’s actually great on anyone with Tiny Servants as well. They can get advantage by being heavily obscured.

Indeed. But a party with a Necromancer and a Magic Stone-capable caster or two works great too; say, a Shepherd Druid and a Necromancer (or any Wizard/Cleric/Divine Soul/Lore Bard using the spell).