D&D 5E Quick Question: Spell Sniper and Magic Stone

[pukunui]

Oops I didn't read carefully sorry

It's OK. I'm not sure I made it very clear.

"You learn one cantrip that requires an attack roll."
Magic Stones requires an attack roll.

Does it really *require* an attack roll, though? You can't do anything but attack with a spell like fire bolt, but with magic stone, all the spell is actually doing is imbuing three pebbles with magic. You *can* attack with them, but you don't have to, and if you do, you're not attacking as part of the spell. The attack comes after the casting.

 

[mellored]

Does it really *require* an attack roll, though? You can't do anything but attack with a spell like fire bolt, but with magic stone, all the spell is actually doing is imbuing three pebbles with magic. You *can* attack with them, but you don't have to, and if you do, you're not attacking as part of the spell. The attack comes after the casting.

By that definition, you don't "have' to attack with firebolt, since you could just counter spell yourself.

 

[pukunui]

By that definition, you don't "have' to attack with firebolt, since you could just counter spell yourself.

My point is that you make an attack with fire bolt as part of casting the spell. You don't make an attack with magic stone as part of casting the spell. You make an attack with the pebbles *after* you've cast the spell on them.

Look, I would *like* to be able to take magic stone with Spell Sniper, as the only other viable options are produce flame and thorn whip, neither of which I'm particularly keen on. I'm just not convinced that it's a valid choice for the reason I've outlined above.

EDIT: I suppose you could argue that magic stone "requires" an attack roll in order to actually benefit from it. Sure, you can cast the spell on the stones and then not use them, but if you actually do want to use them, then you have to make an attack roll.

But then, the same could be said about shillelagh, and I'm not sure that I'd allow someone to take that cantrip with Spell Sniper. I know it doesn't say you have to take a ranged cantrip but that would make the most sense, since the feat's other benefits are all about enhancing ranged spell attacks.

 

[Lanliss]

Irrelevant. My point is that you make an attack with fire bolt as part of casting the spell. You don't make an attack with magic stone as part of casting the spell. You make an attack with the pebbles *after* you've cast the spell on them.

Look, I would *like* to be able to take magic stone with Spell Sniper, as the only other viable options are produce flame and thorn whip, neither of which I'm particularly keen on. I'm just not convinced that it's a valid choice for the reason I've outlined above.

Have you considered asking your DM what they think on the matter? That is generally the best place to go for what will be allowed.

 

[pukunui]

Have you considered asking your DM what they think on the matter? That is generally the best place to go for what will be allowed.

Of course. I was hoping to get some kind of consensus here first, though.

 

[Lanliss]

Of course. I was hoping to get some kind of consensus here first, though.

Just making sure. Getting a consensus here would be pretty disappointing if your DM still says no, and might even look like an attempt at peer pressure. Not a comment on what sort of person you are, as your past posts have shown you aren't the sort to do something like that, but it could look like that, which might be just as bad.

 

[pukunui]

Fair enough. Definitely not my intention. Was more just keen to see if it had come up before.

What I'm thinking, though, is that if you allow magic stone with Spell Sniper, then Shillelagh ought to be a valid choice too, and I'm not sure that's the intention. But I could be wrong.

 

[Lanliss]

Fair enough. Definitely not my intention. Was more just keen to see if it had come up before.

What I'm thinking, though, is that if you allow magic stone with Spell Sniper, then Shillelagh ought to be a valid choice too, and I'm not sure that's the intention. But I could be wrong.

Speaking for myself, I would allow either to be chosen. Doesn't seem to be a problem to me.

 

[pukunui]

I think that, legally, you could take shillelagh, since the feat's wording says "attack roll" rather than "ranged attack roll." However, I don't think shillelagh is in the spirit of the feat, which is focused on ranged attacks. You certainly wouldn't get any benefit from the rest of the feat with shillelagh.

 

[hastur_nz]

Jonathan's DM here... good discussion, all quite valid points raised. I actually said yes just before I saw this thread...

For me, the important thing to remember in cases like this is that 5e was always designed to escape the "RaW" problems that came to plague 3.5 - while they have done a good job of 5e through alpha and beta testing etc to get the wording tight and clear, the intent of the rules as a whole is as important as the exact wording, as is the collaboration of players and DM to agree on any rough spots.

As far as intent goes, Spell Sniper is like a blend of Sharpshooter and Magic Initiate - you are great at using ranged spell attacks, and learn an extra one to help out. While technically one could argue that using Spell Sniper to add Shillelagh is completely valid, personally I'd question why one would ever do so, it just doesn't make sense - if you wanted Shillelagh, you'd use Magic Initiate. Whereas Magic Stone totally fits the intent of the Spell Sniper Feat - throwing a magic stone is a ranged spell attack, not a weapon attack, so in my world yes it qualifies to anyone except the most strict of rules lawyers, which isn't how 5e was ever intended to be used.

p.s. the fact that the caster could give magical stones to someone else to throw, it totally irrelevant to me - only the caster really benefits from the Spell Sniper feat.