When you make a ranged attack with this sling and hit a target, you can cause the ammunition to ricochet toward a second target within 10 feet of the first, and then make a ranged attack against the second target.
Rules Query: Does this wording allow unlimited ricochets if:
The second attack hits,
There exists another valid target within 10 feet of the previous target?
Key Ambiguity:
The phrase "make a ranged attack against the second target" satisfies the initial "when you make a ranged attack" condition.
Grammatically, this could create an infinite loop (Attack 1 → Ricochet to Target 2 → Attack 2 → Ricochet to Target 3 → etc.).
Design Intent vs RAW:
I suspect RAI (Rules as Intended) prohibits infinite attacks, but I cannot find any SAC rulings or errata explicitly limiting the ricochet chain.
Is there RAW support (e.g., hidden action economy restrictions) to deny this interaction?
As written, yes, you are correct. As long as you keep hitting, it keeps bouncing.
I would likely not rule it that way at the table, but I don't know how powerful the weapon is supposed to be. If "race weapon" means that every member of that race starts with one, then definitely not allowing it. If it means it's limited in use to members of that race, then it depends on the item's rarity. (Common == no, Legendary == yes)
Edit: looked it up and now I'm assuming a typo turned "rare" into "race". As a rare weapon, I'd probably allow it.
The RAW reason it does not work as if it ricocheted again it would be a third target, it only allows a second target.
The second ranged attack only has one target, so it can then bounce to a second target. It's not one attack with an arbitrary number of targets, but a chain of attacks.
As written, yes, you are correct. As long as you keep hitting, it keeps bouncing.
I would likely not rule it that way at the table, but I don't know how powerful the weapon is supposed to be. If "race weapon" means that every member of that race starts with one, then definitely not allowing it. If it means it's limited in use to members of that race, then it depends on the item's rarity. (Common == no, Legendary == yes)
Edit: looked it up and now I'm assuming a typo turned "rare" into "race". As a rare weapon, I'd probably allow it.
The RAW reason it does not work as if it ricocheted again it would be a third target, it only allows a second target.
The second ranged attack only has one target, so it can then bounce to a second target. It's not one attack with an arbitrary number of targets, but a chain of attacks.
I'm not sure I can say this in any other way, but... that's not how counting works. 'Second' means 'two sequentially', not 'additional'
Also, anything in the game I can think of that creates a chain of targets as you describe -- chaos bolt, for instance, or the new chromatic orb -- uses different wording to indicate the ricochets are open-ended
Also also, the magic item is literally called a Two-Birds Sling, not a Many-Birds Sling
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As written, yes, you are correct. As long as you keep hitting, it keeps bouncing.
I would likely not rule it that way at the table, but I don't know how powerful the weapon is supposed to be. If "race weapon" means that every member of that race starts with one, then definitely not allowing it. If it means it's limited in use to members of that race, then it depends on the item's rarity. (Common == no, Legendary == yes)
Edit: looked it up and now I'm assuming a typo turned "rare" into "race". As a rare weapon, I'd probably allow it.
The RAW reason it does not work as if it ricocheted again it would be a third target, it only allows a second target.
The second ranged attack only has one target, so it can then bounce to a second target. It's not one attack with an arbitrary number of targets, but a chain of attacks.
I'm not sure I can say this in any other way, but... that's not how counting works. 'Second' means 'two sequentially', not 'additional'
Also, anything in the game I can think of that creates a chain of targets as you describe -- chaos bolt, for instance, or the new chromatic orb -- uses different wording to indicate the ricochets are open-ended
Also also, the magic item is literally called a Two-Birds Sling, not a Many-Birds Sling
Also, technically, the second attack is not a shot from the sling but from a ricochet.
The best way to justify an interpretation of a limit of two targets is that the initial attack says:
"When you make a ranged attack"
but the second attack is described as:
"you can cause the ammunition to . . . [do something] . . . and then make a ranged attack"
Meaning, you are not making the second attack -- the ammunition is making that attack. Thus, that attack is not a qualifying attack for the next "when you make a ranged attack".
The problem is, I'm not so sure that that argument holds up grammatically because of the placement of the second comma.
The most accurate reading is probably something more like:
"When you . . . [do something], you can [do something], and then (you can) [do something]." In which case, you are the one that is doing all of the things, thus potentially starting the infinite loop.
At that point, I guess it would come down to whether or not you would consider the 2nd attack that you make to have been made "with the sling" or not.
The initial attack must be made "with this sling", so if it is determined that the second attack that you make is not being made "with this sling" then it would not qualify and we're back to a limit of 2 attacks again.
While I'm confident that infinite attacks is not the intent, as written it's at least arguable.
I mean, if you count "first', 'second', 'another second', 'another another second' etc., then sure
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The rare magic weapon Two-Birds Sling states:
Rules Query:
Does this wording allow unlimited ricochets if:
The second attack hits,
There exists another valid target within 10 feet of the previous target?
Key Ambiguity:
The phrase "make a ranged attack against the second target" satisfies the initial "when you make a ranged attack" condition.
Grammatically, this could create an infinite loop (Attack 1 → Ricochet to Target 2 → Attack 2 → Ricochet to Target 3 → etc.).
Design Intent vs RAW:
I suspect RAI (Rules as Intended) prohibits infinite attacks, but I cannot find any SAC rulings or errata explicitly limiting the ricochet chain.
Is there RAW support (e.g., hidden action economy restrictions) to deny this interaction?
Thank you for your insights!
The RAW reason it does not work as if it ricocheted again it would be a third target, it only allows a second target.
As written, yes, you are correct. As long as you keep hitting, it keeps bouncing.
I would likely not rule it that way at the table, but I don't know how powerful the weapon is supposed to be. If "race weapon" means that every member of that race starts with one, then definitely not allowing it. If it means it's limited in use to members of that race, then it depends on the item's rarity. (Common == no, Legendary == yes)
Edit: looked it up and now I'm assuming a typo turned "rare" into "race". As a rare weapon, I'd probably allow it.
The second ranged attack only has one target, so it can then bounce to a second target. It's not one attack with an arbitrary number of targets, but a chain of attacks.
I'm not sure I can say this in any other way, but... that's not how counting works. 'Second' means 'two sequentially', not 'additional'
Also, anything in the game I can think of that creates a chain of targets as you describe -- chaos bolt, for instance, or the new chromatic orb -- uses different wording to indicate the ricochets are open-ended
Also also, the magic item is literally called a Two-Birds Sling, not a Many-Birds Sling
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Also, technically, the second attack is not a shot from the sling but from a ricochet.
Key wording, "with this sling" the bounce just says ranged weapon attack, not make another attack with the sling.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The best way to justify an interpretation of a limit of two targets is that the initial attack says:
"When you make a ranged attack"
but the second attack is described as:
"you can cause the ammunition to . . . [do something] . . . and then make a ranged attack"
Meaning, you are not making the second attack -- the ammunition is making that attack. Thus, that attack is not a qualifying attack for the next "when you make a ranged attack".
The problem is, I'm not so sure that that argument holds up grammatically because of the placement of the second comma.
The most accurate reading is probably something more like:
"When you . . . [do something], you can [do something], and then (you can) [do something]." In which case, you are the one that is doing all of the things, thus potentially starting the infinite loop.
At that point, I guess it would come down to whether or not you would consider the 2nd attack that you make to have been made "with the sling" or not.
The initial attack must be made "with this sling", so if it is determined that the second attack that you make is not being made "with this sling" then it would not qualify and we're back to a limit of 2 attacks again.
For what it's worth, it seems like the intended behavior is pretty obvious just from the name of the thing.
pronouns: he/she/they
While I'm confident that infinite attacks is not the intent, as written it's at least arguable.
I mean, if you count "first', 'second', 'another second', 'another another second' etc., then sure
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To my understanding Two Birds Sling can't target a third creature or more, only a second creature. As the name imply, two.
The reason is simple, you can cause the ammunition to ricochet toward a second target within 10 feet of the first.
Not cause the ammunition to ricochet toward a third target within 10 feet of the second.
Or ricochet toward a fourth target within 10 feet of the third, which these additional targets would count as for ricochet.
Just first and second for 1 ricochet.
yes, it's "rare".
I am sorry about that, it has been edited.
Have none of you heard the phrase "Two birds with one stone"?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale