Bringing this back from the dead to see if you can help me out Sposta.
In terms of sharpshooter, would one be able to use all parts of the feat with sling propelled magic stones? The internet seems to be all over the place on this one.
You touch one to three pebbles and imbue them with magic. You or someone else can make a ranged spell attack with one of the pebbles by throwing it or hurling it with a sling. If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet. If someone else attacks with the pebble, that attacker adds your spellcasting ability modifier, not the attacker’s, to the attack roll. On a hit, the target takes bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Hit or miss, the spell then ends on the stone.
If you cast this spell again, the spell ends early on any pebbles still affected by it.
Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
No, only the third bullet point of Sharpshooter works for a Magic Stone hurled using a sling. Hurling a Magic Stone is a “ranged spell attack” that uses the Attack, and if you use a sling it is a “ranged spell attack made using a ranged weapon” as part of the Attack action. The fact that it is “made using a ranged weapon” is what makes the third bullet point of Sharpshooter (and Sneak Attack) applicable, but it is still a “ranged spell attack.”
Ah gotcha, that all makes sense. Thanks sposta. You said it would be with 120 foot range. I'm a little confused why it uses the long range and not the 30 foot short range.
A few years ago someone explained it to me, but I honestly don’t remember all of the details. Essentially it came down to the fact that ranged spell attacks only have one range increment and it does not impose disadvantage. That being said, there is some debate about that point.
"If thrown [magic stone], it has a range of 60 feet." A thrown pebble, or any improvised thrown weapon, has a range of 20/60 feet. Imbuing the pebble with Magic Stone appears to grant it the max range without disadvantage. Though it is not expressly written, we can infer that using a Magic Stone pebble in a sling would give the same benefit, granting the max range of 120 feet without penalty. (A sling has a range of 30/120 under normal circumstances.)
Some interesting logic. I like it.
Definitely takes some DM buy-in, but I get it now. The "spell attack with a ranged weapon" part made perfect sense to me, but this was holding me up a bit.
Edit: Looking back through this thread, wouldn't a magic sling add its bonus to the magic stone attacks? After all they are spell attacks made with a ranged weapon.
I was just coming back to post the same bit of logic myself! And yes, if you use a sling, +1, then you would "have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with [that] magic weapon.”
Bringing this back from the dead to see if you can help me out Sposta.
In terms of sharpshooter, would one be able to use all parts of the feat with sling propelled magic stones? The internet seems to be all over the place on this one.
Sposta is incorrect. If you propel a magic stone from a sling, it is both a ranged spell attack and a ranged weapon attack, because it meets the qualifiers for both, so all of SS's bullets apply. Likewise, if you use a +1 sling, the +1 bonus applies to the hit and damage rolls.
Sposta is incorrect. If you propel a magic stone from a sling, it is both a ranged spell attack and a ranged weapon attack, because it meets the qualifiers for both, so all of SS's bullets apply. Likewise, if you use a +1 sling, the +1 bonus applies to the hit and damage rolls.
The Magic Stone spell specifically say it's a ranged spell attack even with a weapon. I don't think an attack can be both spell and weapon attack.
Yeah that's an interesting interpretation Quindraco. Huh. I'll have to think on that. I'm inclined to agree with Plaguescarred that an attack cannot be both a spell and weapon attack and that magic stone + sling occupies an odd middleground of being a spell attack made with a ranged weapon.
Bringing this back from the dead to see if you can help me out Sposta.
In terms of sharpshooter, would one be able to use all parts of the feat with sling propelled magic stones? The internet seems to be all over the place on this one.
Sposta is incorrect. If you propel a magic stone from a sling, it is both a ranged spell attack and a ranged weapon attack, because it meets the qualifiers for both, so all of SS's bullets apply. Likewise, if you use a +1 sling, the +1 bonus applies to the hit and damage rolls.
I believe you would just take the Magic Stone damage, it's an enhancer. And it makes the ammunition magical, for the purpose of overcoming resistance.
A Magic Stone hurled with a sling use the Attack action to make a ranged spell attack at a range of 30/120 feet for;
Attack: 1d20 + your spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus
Damage: 1d6 + your spellcasting ability modifier bludgeoning damage
I believe that is incorrect.
A Magic Stone hurled with a sling use the Attack action to make a ranged spell attack at a range of 120 feet for;
Attack: 1d20 + your spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus
Damage: 1d6 + your spellcasting ability modifier bludgeoning damage
Nothing in Magic Stone change the sling range, all it says about range is that If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet. If not thrown, then we refer to the sling range unless noted otherwise.
Range. A weapon that can be used to make a ranged attack has a range shown in parentheses after the ammunition or thrown property. The range lists two numbers. The first is the weapon's normal range in feet, and the second indicates the weapon's long range. When attacking a target beyond normal range, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. You can't attack a target beyond the weapon's long range.
None of this specifies "weapon attacks." Obviously, that's generally to be assumed, but magic stone is a weird spell. If you use a sling to hurl the stone, you are using the weapon to make an attack, so the Range rules should apply, as far as I can tell.
If we decide that the range rules shouldn't apply, I don't think the third bullet of Sharpshooter should apply either; either it's an attack with a ranged weapon (both apply) or it isn't (neither applies).
[EDIT] Further elucidation in the Combat chapter; again, the actual language includes no suggestion that "one range" is an inherent property of spell attacks; some attacks have two ranges, some have one, and while a weapon/spell distinction is generally true, it's not enshrined in the rules. If you make an attack with a sling, the sling's Range property should definitely apply, even if it's a spell attack.
Range
You can make ranged attacks only against targets within a specified range.
If a ranged attack, such as one made with a spell, has a single range, you can't attack a target beyond this range.
Some ranged attacks, such as those made with a longbow or a shortbow, have two ranges. The smaller number is the normal range, and the larger number is the long range. Your attack roll has disadvantage when your target is beyond normal range, and you can't attack a target beyond the long range.
I'm also firmly in the "use the sling's range (30/120)" camp. There's too many unjustified assumptions in the 120 foot range ruling to call that RAW or even RAI, though it's still the sanest way to run the spell since the RAW are silly when it comes to slings. While I don't agree with quindraco that it's both a spell and weapon attack, I do agree with them that a +1 sling's bonuses arguably would apply to the spell attack and damage roll for the very same reason you'd be able to Sneak Attack or use the 3rd bullet point of Sharpshooter.
The 3.5e version made a lot more sense; the range increment for throwing was 20 feet, while slings had a range increment of 50. (Range increment kind of functioned like 5e's normal range, except instead of suffering disadvantage you take a -2 penalty for each multiple of the range increment.) The 4e version only had a range of 10 feet (but it did have other redeeming features like pushing back 5 feet, targeting the equivalent of a DEX save instead of AC, and attacking up to 3 targets as part of the action.)
I'm guessing the devs wanted to increase the throwing range to bring it in line with other cantrips. Maybe at some point slings actually had longer range and they forgot to revise Magic Stone after they nerfed slings down to 30 for no reason?
I'm also firmly in the "use the sling's range (30/120)" camp. There's too many unjustified assumptions in the 120 foot range ruling to call that RAW or even RAI, though it's still the sanest way to run the spell since the RAW are silly when it comes to slings.
I don't think anyone argued it was RAW in the first place. The argument made was an inference (which is only ever going to be a RAI thing) that since the thrown version of Magic Stone eliminates the normal range for a thrown object (normally 20/60), that the same should apply to the sling. I don't think that's an unjustified assumption. But no, it's certainly not RAW.
I'm also firmly in the "use the sling's range (30/120)" camp. There's too many unjustified assumptions in the 120 foot range ruling to call that RAW or even RAI, though it's still the sanest way to run the spell since the RAW are silly when it comes to slings.
I don't think anyone argued it was RAW in the first place. The argument made was an inference (which is only ever going to be a RAI thing) that since the thrown version of Magic Stone eliminates the normal range for a thrown object (normally 20/60), that the same should apply to the sling. I don't think that's an unjustified assumption. But no, it's certainly not RAW.
Back when I started 5e I understood RAW as 30/120 myself until someone in these DDB forums made such compelling arguments for the flat 120 that they legitimately changed my mind on the subject. (Don’t ask me who it was, it was 2 years ago.) So I freely admit that when I posted about the flat 120 in August of last year, I did believe it was RAW at the time.
However, some of the same folks who piled out of the woodwork to “Prove Sposta Wrong” here did the same thing maybe 4-6ish months ago, and even used the same arguments and everything. Talk about dejavous all over again! Sheesh.
By the way, is there, like, a contest or something to see who can prove me the wrongest, or are folks just adding notches to their proverbial bedposts gun belts? If there really is a contest, what is the prize and where do I sign up? (I use self debate almost daily as a technique to make sure my positions are sound and that my own understanding of them is whole enough that I can defend them. I guarantee that nobody is as good at arguing with me than I am on account of I got so much practice. 😜)
That is why I made a point to mention that the spell attack range for magic stone that I had previously stated as being a flat 120’ when slung (as opposed to hurled) was in dispute. And furthermore I was specifically careful to qualify my point with the phrase “I believe.”
And despite the RAW that people have so conveniently included in proving me wrong (thanks folks), I do genuinely believe that this is an instance where RAW ≠ RAI.
The “magic” in the magic stones must somehow boost the kinetic energy imparted by the attack enough to:
Increase the damage die from a d4 to a d6
Change the damage type from bludgeoning to force
And:
Either triple the effective range of the attack by acting as a force multiplier,
Or else applies a guaranteed minimum effective range of 60 feet to the attack “because Magic.”
The “simplest” explanation I can imagine is that the spell increases the stones’ density to the point at which one’s mass exceeds that of an equal volume of lead. (Sling bullets being lead and all.) After all, more mass means more inertia means more impact. (That ain’t actually simple at all, but “because Magic.” 👍)
Fundamentally speaking, slings serve the same basic function as every other weapon intended for use by individuals (from sticks and rocks, to AKs and Glocks), they are “force multipliers.” Slings are essentially based on the same mechanical engineering as one of the 6 simple machines, in this case the wheel and axle. A sling works by applying centripetal force onto the bullet, which experiences it as centrifugal force pulling it away from the wielders hand. That force gets combined with the kinetic energy the user imparts from their own motion. Combined, they accelerate that projectile waayyy more than what a person could accomplish without the sling.
Just like Kirk & Co. would use whenever they had to call a mulligan on history. They would “slingshot” the ship around a sun to use the resultant centrifugal force the ship experiences as a multiplier to get the ship from its “impulse speed” of 74,770 km/s (1/4 light speed) to break the light speed barrier. (Which apparently makes time travel possible. 🤷♂️ Of course, accelerating an object with the mass of a starship to 1/4 light speed like that is… implausible at best, but I digress.)
Its also the exact same principle at work in a laboratory centrifuge (hence the machine’s name); and many amusement rides like the Teacups, Tilt-a-Whirl, and Gravitron. (The difference being the amount of force imparted based by the speed of rotations. That’s why even a child can move about in a teacup, but yo @$$ planted to the wall of the gravitron.) in fact, it’s also what makes it possible for celestial bodies (planets, moons, comets, etc.) to maintain non-decaying orbits. They would all inexorably get pulled into whatever it is they orbit by that larger body’s gravitational force, but that is counteracted by the centrifugal force experienced by the orbiting object as it “slings” around its orbit. Essentially the Earth is only in stable orbit because it is perpetually falling into the sun and flying off into space simultaneously, and in equal measure.
Therefore, if RAI was to not make the normal range match the 120 ft long range so it only has a single range increment (like every other freaking ranged spell attack in 5e), then RAI must have been for the range of slung magic stones to be 60 (120) at the very least, “because Magic” has granted attacks with those stones a guaranteed minimum normal range of 60 feet, as evidenced by the thrown range of the attack. Otherwise, if it is a calculation instead of a set minimum, using a sling should then create other potential ranges (*70, 90, 70(120), or 90(120)*), although that’s far less likely. After all, slings were invented to extend an attack’s effective range, not reduce it.
* 👇 *
I included all of those possible ranges for slung Magic Stones because I don’t know how Messers Mearls & Crawford applied their maths when determining the comparative ranges for slings [30(120)] and attacks with thrown objects [20(60)]. Did they calculate/conceptualize/represent sling ranges compared to thrown objects as slings’ ranges being
”normal range for thrown objects +10 ft. (long Range +60 ft.)”
or as “normal range*1.5 (long range*2)?”
I also don’t know how they determined the range for throwing a Magic Stone at 60 ft. as opposed to the 20(60) ranges for throwing a regular stone. Did they figure it as:
“Normal thrown range +40 ft., no long range;”
“Normal thrown range *3, no long range;”
”Normal range Set to 60 ft., no long range;”
Any of “normal thrown range +40,” “normal thrown range *3,” or “normal thrown range set to 60,” and simply skip any reference to “long range” at all since any of those three would result in a range of 60(60) and automatically default to a flat 60 ft;
Or was it simply “normal range = long range?”.
Finally, I don’t know what the order of options would be.
So it could be “thrown Magic Stone range” with the Sling’s increase to ranges over thrown objects applied, resulting in the following possibilities:
As 70(120) “60+10(60+60)”*
Or 90(120) “60x1.5(60*2)”
Or would it instead be the sling’s base range of 30(120) with the Magic Stone modifiers applied? That could have lead to slung magic stones having the following potential ranges:
A flat 70 ft. (“normal range (30)+40, no long range”)**
As 70(120) (“normal range (30)+40”)*
A flat 90 ft. (“normal range (30)*3, no long range”)*
As 90(120) (“normal range (30)*3“)
A flat 60’ ft. (“normal range set to 60 ft, no long range”)**
As 60(120) (“normal range set to 60 ft.)^
A flat 120 ft. (“normal range = long range”)^
**Least Likely. *Less likely. ^More likely. Repeated results across alternate orders of operation.
Bringing this back from the dead to see if you can help me out Sposta.
In terms of sharpshooter, would one be able to use all parts of the feat with sling propelled magic stones? The internet seems to be all over the place on this one.
No, only the third bullet point of Sharpshooter works for a Magic Stone hurled using a sling. Hurling a Magic Stone is a “ranged spell attack” that uses the Attack, and if you use a sling it is a “ranged spell attack made using a ranged weapon” as part of the Attack action. The fact that it is “made using a ranged weapon” is what makes the third bullet point of Sharpshooter (and Sneak Attack) applicable, but it is still a “ranged spell attack.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ah gotcha, that all makes sense. Thanks sposta. You said it would be with 120 foot range. I'm a little confused why it uses the long range and not the 30 foot short range.
A few years ago someone explained it to me, but I honestly don’t remember all of the details. Essentially it came down to the fact that ranged spell attacks only have one range increment and it does not impose disadvantage. That being said, there is some debate about that point.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I did some research and found this on reddit:
Some interesting logic. I like it.
Definitely takes some DM buy-in, but I get it now. The "spell attack with a ranged weapon" part made perfect sense to me, but this was holding me up a bit.
Edit: Looking back through this thread, wouldn't a magic sling add its bonus to the magic stone attacks? After all they are spell attacks made with a ranged weapon.
I was just coming back to post the same bit of logic myself! And yes, if you use a sling, +1, then you would "have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with [that] magic weapon.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ha nice. Thanks for the guidance Sensei Sposta.
As usual, happy to help.
😉
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A Magic Stone hurled with a sling use the Attack action to make a ranged spell attack at a range of 30/120 feet for;
Attack: 1d20 + your spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus
Damage: 1d6 + your spellcasting ability modifier bludgeoning damage
Sposta is incorrect. If you propel a magic stone from a sling, it is both a ranged spell attack and a ranged weapon attack, because it meets the qualifiers for both, so all of SS's bullets apply. Likewise, if you use a +1 sling, the +1 bonus applies to the hit and damage rolls.
The Magic Stone spell specifically say it's a ranged spell attack even with a weapon. I don't think an attack can be both spell and weapon attack.
Yeah that's an interesting interpretation Quindraco. Huh. I'll have to think on that. I'm inclined to agree with Plaguescarred that an attack cannot be both a spell and weapon attack and that magic stone + sling occupies an odd middleground of being a spell attack made with a ranged weapon.
I believe that is incorrect.
A Magic Stone hurled with a sling use the Attack action to make a ranged spell attack at a range of 120 feet for;
Attack: 1d20 + your spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus
Damage: 1d6 + your spellcasting ability modifier bludgeoning damage
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I know for a fact that is incorrect.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Nothing in Magic Stone change the sling range, all it says about range is that If thrown, it has a range of 60 feet. If not thrown, then we refer to the sling range unless noted otherwise.
One of the Dev Mike Mearls also answered this way; https://www.sageadvice.eu/what-is-the-range-on-a-magic-stone-when-hurled-from-a-sling/
@FilthMulligan What is the range on a Magic Stone when hurled from a sling? Is it 30/120, like the sling, 60, like when thrown, or a flat 120
@mikemearls use the sling range
Here's the rule on range:
None of this specifies "weapon attacks." Obviously, that's generally to be assumed, but magic stone is a weird spell. If you use a sling to hurl the stone, you are using the weapon to make an attack, so the Range rules should apply, as far as I can tell.
If we decide that the range rules shouldn't apply, I don't think the third bullet of Sharpshooter should apply either; either it's an attack with a ranged weapon (both apply) or it isn't (neither applies).
[EDIT] Further elucidation in the Combat chapter; again, the actual language includes no suggestion that "one range" is an inherent property of spell attacks; some attacks have two ranges, some have one, and while a weapon/spell distinction is generally true, it's not enshrined in the rules. If you make an attack with a sling, the sling's Range property should definitely apply, even if it's a spell attack.
I'm also firmly in the "use the sling's range (30/120)" camp. There's too many unjustified assumptions in the 120 foot range ruling to call that RAW or even RAI, though it's still the sanest way to run the spell since the RAW are silly when it comes to slings. While I don't agree with quindraco that it's both a spell and weapon attack, I do agree with them that a +1 sling's bonuses arguably would apply to the spell attack and damage roll for the very same reason you'd be able to Sneak Attack or use the 3rd bullet point of Sharpshooter.
The 3.5e version made a lot more sense; the range increment for throwing was 20 feet, while slings had a range increment of 50. (Range increment kind of functioned like 5e's normal range, except instead of suffering disadvantage you take a -2 penalty for each multiple of the range increment.) The 4e version only had a range of 10 feet (but it did have other redeeming features like pushing back 5 feet, targeting the equivalent of a DEX save instead of AC, and attacking up to 3 targets as part of the action.)
I'm guessing the devs wanted to increase the throwing range to bring it in line with other cantrips. Maybe at some point slings actually had longer range and they forgot to revise Magic Stone after they nerfed slings down to 30 for no reason?
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I don't think anyone argued it was RAW in the first place. The argument made was an inference (which is only ever going to be a RAI thing) that since the thrown version of Magic Stone eliminates the normal range for a thrown object (normally 20/60), that the same should apply to the sling. I don't think that's an unjustified assumption. But no, it's certainly not RAW.
Back when I started 5e I understood RAW as 30/120 myself until someone in these DDB forums made such compelling arguments for the flat 120 that they legitimately changed my mind on the subject. (Don’t ask me who it was, it was 2 years ago.) So I freely admit that when I posted about the flat 120 in August of last year, I did believe it was RAW at the time.
However, some of the same folks who piled out of the woodwork to “Prove Sposta Wrong” here did the same thing maybe 4-6ish months ago, and even used the same arguments and everything. Talk about dejavous all over again! Sheesh.
That is why I made a point to mention that the spell attack range for magic stone that I had previously stated as being a flat 120’ when slung (as opposed to hurled) was in dispute. And furthermore I was specifically careful to qualify my point with the phrase “I believe.”
And despite the RAW that people have so conveniently included in proving me wrong (thanks folks), I do genuinely believe that this is an instance where RAW ≠ RAI.
The “magic” in the magic stones must somehow boost the kinetic energy imparted by the attack enough to:
The “simplest” explanation I can imagine is that the spell increases the stones’ density to the point at which one’s mass exceeds that of an equal volume of lead. (Sling bullets being lead and all.) After all, more mass means more inertia means more impact. (That ain’t actually simple at all, but “because Magic.” 👍)
Fundamentally speaking, slings serve the same basic function as every other weapon intended for use by individuals (from sticks and rocks, to AKs and Glocks), they are “force multipliers.” Slings are essentially based on the same mechanical engineering as one of the 6 simple machines, in this case the wheel and axle. A sling works by applying centripetal force onto the bullet, which experiences it as centrifugal force pulling it away from the wielders hand. That force gets combined with the kinetic energy the user imparts from their own motion. Combined, they accelerate that projectile waayyy more than what a person could accomplish without the sling.
Just like Kirk & Co. would use whenever they had to call a mulligan on history. They would “slingshot” the ship around a sun to use the resultant centrifugal force the ship experiences as a multiplier to get the ship from its “impulse speed” of 74,770 km/s (1/4 light speed) to break the light speed barrier. (Which apparently makes time travel possible. 🤷♂️ Of course, accelerating an object with the mass of a starship to 1/4 light speed like that is… implausible at best, but I digress.)
Its also the exact same principle at work in a laboratory centrifuge (hence the machine’s name); and many amusement rides like the Teacups, Tilt-a-Whirl, and Gravitron. (The difference being the amount of force imparted based by the speed of rotations. That’s why even a child can move about in a teacup, but yo @$$ planted to the wall of the gravitron.) in fact, it’s also what makes it possible for celestial bodies (planets, moons, comets, etc.) to maintain non-decaying orbits. They would all inexorably get pulled into whatever it is they orbit by that larger body’s gravitational force, but that is counteracted by the centrifugal force experienced by the orbiting object as it “slings” around its orbit. Essentially the Earth is only in stable orbit because it is perpetually falling into the sun and flying off into space simultaneously, and in equal measure.
Therefore, if RAI was to not make the normal range match the 120 ft long range so it only has a single range increment (like every other freaking ranged spell attack in 5e), then RAI must have been for the range of slung magic stones to be 60 (120) at the very least, “because Magic” has granted attacks with those stones a guaranteed minimum normal range of 60 feet, as evidenced by the thrown range of the attack. Otherwise, if it is a calculation instead of a set minimum, using a sling should then create other potential ranges (*70, 90, 70(120), or 90(120)*), although that’s far less likely. After all, slings were invented to extend an attack’s effective range, not reduce it.
* 👇 *
I included all of those possible ranges for slung Magic Stones because I don’t know how Messers Mearls & Crawford applied their maths when determining the comparative ranges for slings [30(120)] and attacks with thrown objects [20(60)]. Did they calculate/conceptualize/represent sling ranges compared to thrown objects as slings’ ranges being
I also don’t know how they determined the range for throwing a Magic Stone at 60 ft. as opposed to the 20(60) ranges for throwing a regular stone. Did they figure it as:
Finally, I don’t know what the order of options would be.
So it could be “thrown Magic Stone range” with the Sling’s increase to ranges over thrown objects applied, resulting in the following possibilities:
Or would it instead be the sling’s base range of 30(120) with the Magic Stone modifiers applied? That could have lead to slung magic stones having the following potential ranges:
A flat 60’ ft. (“normal range set to 60 ft, no long range”)****Least Likely.
*Less likely.
^More likely.
Repeated results across alternate orders of operation.
Because Science!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting