5e sling: not as bad as I thought

[Aaedimus]

Been looking at ways to give a lvl 12 tony stark type wizard (not artificer) some combat boosts, and was disappointed as to how hard it would be to provide a decent not-shadowblade weapon.

I can learn weapon proficiencies... taking the UA shield training feat... realized that all the other ranged weapons are either 2 handed or have the loading property. Sling (dart is identical) doesn't have those limitations... the biggest limits are the range and damage... 1d4 to 1d8 isn't huge. The 30ft is a bigger deal.

But still, this makes it arguably the best weapon for a non bladesinger Tenser's Transformation if you want to be holding a shield, especially of you don't want to waste feats on a weapon (something dumb for a wizard).

It's arguably the best weapon for a niche circumstance, which is better than it usually gets credit for.

That being said, if I didn't have a ring of spell storing and a paladin (access to find steed), cantrips would still be better.... but a tensers transformation wizard on a find steed with a sling and haste is a pretty damn brutal combo

[Tanarii]

The Ammunition property means the sling still needs a free hand to load.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Also handy if you’re a rogue and you run into skeletons.

[Naanomi]

a few fringe but interesting builds wanting to use Magic Stone and a Sling out there as well

[Morty]

The Ammunition property means the sling still needs a free hand to load.

I was going to talk about my halfling battlemaster using a rapier (actually a spear) with a shield and used a sling as a backup weapon, but I guess it turns out I shouldn't have been allowed to do that.

[Yakmala]

Unfortunately, 5e has not done right by the sling.

As others have mentioned, you cannot use a sling with a shield due to the ammunition property, in spite of the fact that ancient slingers absolutely used shields and had no trouble re-arming their slings while holding one.

5e also lacks sling bullets, which, at least historically, had a maximum range of 1,300 feet and were likely a d6 projectile.

[Martin Greywolf]

So, whoever wrote the sling entry has never even been close to someone who sort of knew how to use one.

First of all, it's possible to reload it one handed, if a bit slow. If I have a shield on my off hand, one reload takes about 3-4 seconds compared to 1-2 of using both hands, an entirely one handed reload is something like 4-5. As for range increments... I practice at a minimum of 30 feet and can go over 180 when I go for maximum range. That's just my mediocre slinging, some of the really good slingers can go for about 900, the current record is somewhere near 1200. You could argue what the effective range for one man accuracy is, but even then, it should be a lot more than 30/120.

You can also sling darts with a standard split pouch sling, which should enable you to change damage type from bludgeoning to piercing if you want to.

So, I guess you can use this as basis for a "this is dumb" argument with your DM.

[JellyPooga]

Unfortunately, 5e has not done right by the sling.

As others have mentioned, you cannot use a sling with a shield due to the ammunition property, in spite of the fact that ancient slingers absolutely used shields and had no trouble re-arming their slings while holding one.

5e also lacks sling bullets, which, at least historically, had a maximum range of 1,300 feet and were likely a d6 projectile.

The sling has the misfortune of being conceptually associated with a sling shot, aka: a Dennis the Menace style, two-pronged Catapult used for launching soot bombs and other large, slow-moving projectiles. The reality is that their linguistic relation is about the only connection these two weapons have. A bow and a crossbow have more similarities to one another and the sling-shot, using the same physical properties to launch its projectiles (i.e. the elastic properties of a material). The sling uses a very different method; essentially the same launch physics as a trebuchet.

Yes, a sling can be used to lob larger projectiles, but to the layman, the notion that a sling bullet could break bones and pierce an armoured mans skull is shocking, if not actively unbelievable.

A sling using appropriate ammunition (hint: not a rock) should probably not only deal 1d6 damage, but also deal piercing damage.

[Morty]

As is the case with most of the weapons table, I doubt a lot of thought went into the sling. It deals 1d4 damage because it dealt that much damage in past editions. The Ammunition property was probably written with bows and crossbows in mind.

[Anonymouswizard]

Ice considered using a sling to deliver alchemical items at the, particularly acid but also Alchemist's Fire and whatever else the GM will let me get away with. Sure, it'll probably do less damage then a full vial, but with a bit of fast talking the sling gives access to the largest variety of damage types outside of magic.


If you can get a GM to agree to d6 damage and reloading with one hand the sling probably becomes a viable weapon for everybody. +2 AC could easily be worth doing a point of damage per attack, especially now even high level events don't have attacks above the teens.

[Contrast]

First of all, it's possible to reload it one handed, if a bit slow. If I have a shield on my off hand, one reload takes about 3-4 seconds compared to 1-2 of using both hands, an entirely one handed reload is something like 4-5.

In fairness, if someone wanted to spend an action loading their sling one handed, I doubt many DMs would have a problem with that. But if it takes 3-5 seconds I don't know if its unreasonable to rule that as an action.

Of course now we're getting into justifying rules using real life ability. The Fighter over there can somehow fire their crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds so clearly D&D does make compromises in realism to make weapons work.

[Tanarii]

As others have mentioned, you cannot use a sling with a shield due to the ammunition property, in spite of the fact that ancient slingers absolutely used shields and had no trouble re-arming their slings while holding one.
I somehow doubt they were using a shield to actively defend themselves in (relatively) close combat at the time.

[Sigreid]

Watched a show talking about slings once. Had some surprising results including them getting the same kind of impact results from a good sling hit as you'd expect out of a .45 ACP pistol. In a way, it's odd the sling is a "simple" weapon as it looks to me like it would take a lot of training and practice to be able to use it to any effect.

[nickl_2000]

Watched a show talking about slings once. Had some surprising results including them getting the same kind of impact results from a good sling hit as you'd expect out of a .45 ACP pistol. In a way, it's odd the sling is a "simple" weapon as it looks to me like it would take a lot of training and practice to be able to use it to any effect.

I think it is considered a simple weapon because it is something that a peasant could pick up and learn. There is a reason there are stories of shepherds using slings to protect their sheep, they are something that could be made without excessive tools and rocks could be found anywhere. It is similar to a club or a staff in that regard.

Don't get me wrong, there is a large difference with a sling in the hands of a master verses someone playing around with it. However, that is shown in higher stats and extra attacks.

[stoutstien]

Slings are one of those weapon that every player should carry. They are cheap and take up almost no space and can be used to arm a bunch of skeletons or other NPCs in the cheap.

PC wise, artificer is the only way I know to really leverage it.

[Sigreid]

I think it is considered a simple weapon because it is something that a peasant could pick up and learn. There is a reason there are stories of shepherds using slings to protect their sheep, they are something that could be made without excessive tools and rocks could be found anywhere. It is similar to a club or a staff in that regard.

Don't get me wrong, there is a large difference with a sling in the hands of a master verses someone playing around with it. However, that is shown in higher stats and extra attacks.

I do get that part. I would just tend to divide things along difficulty lines if left to my own devices. Maybe allow some backgrounds to allow training in some common weapons.

[nickl_2000]

I do get that part. I would just tend to divide things along difficulty lines if left to my own devices. Maybe allow some backgrounds to allow training in some common weapons.

That's fair. I see the difference between martial and simple as the difficulty to make it instead of the difficulty to wield it. A sword takes a lot more skill and knowledge to make than a hammer or a mace. A sling takes a lot more skill and knowledge to make than a net (NOTE: this falls apart is the Crossbow and Shortbow, I struggle to fit that into my mind canon).

So, if a weapon is harder to make only those that have training in combat would have access to learn how to use it effectively and therefore martial.

[Sigreid]

That's fair. I see the difference between martial and simple as the difficulty to make it instead of the difficulty to wield it. A sword takes a lot more skill and knowledge to make than a hammer or a mace. A sling takes a lot more skill and knowledge to make than a net (NOTE: this falls apart is the Crossbow and Shortbow, I struggle to fit that into my mind canon).

So, if a weapon is harder to make only those that have training in combat would have access to learn how to use it effectively and therefore martial.

Crossbow is one that makes sense in my rational since they were popular because they required less training that other bows to use in mass volley fire.

[Ogun]

The Ammunition property means the sling still needs a free hand to load.

I don't see why, drawing Ammunition is part of the attack, requiring two hands is a different property.



Ammunition
Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack. At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield. If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon.

[Tanarii]

I don't see why, drawing Ammunition is part of the attack, requiring two hands is a different property.

PHB 146-147:
Ammunition. You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon (see "Improvised Weapons" later in the section). A sling must be loaded to deal any damage when used in this way.

[MrCharlie]

Unfortunately, 5e has not done right by the sling.

As others have mentioned, you cannot use a sling with a shield due to the ammunition property, in spite of the fact that ancient slingers absolutely used shields and had no trouble re-arming their slings while holding one.

5e also lacks sling bullets, which, at least historically, had a maximum range of 1,300 feet and were likely a d6 projectile.
I would urge caution when talking about maximum range. A formation of archers can obviously hit a volley at much greater ranges than any individual archer can hit a target. Crossbows, for instance, had much greater target shooting potential with much less training, but on a battlefield rate of fire and volley fire meant that longbows were a superior weapon. In fact, virtually all ranged weapons have a maximum range around 1500 feet, but it's almost guess work if you will hit a target-that you could fire at a formation is what made this useful. It's only modern firearms that can fire, accurately, at such extreme ranges-and this relies on them being precision instruments that don't rely on muscle tension to aim (even then, breathing can disrupt aim). Early rifles had a lesser but serious advantage over all portable weapons that use human muscles too, although reliability wasn't up to snuff.

(As an aside-rifling was invented as early as 1500, but a lack of precision tools, standardized caliber ammunition [rifling is pointless if it's not a tight fit] and barrel fouling made it a curio rather than a battlefield innovation.)

Slingers (and other skirmishing light infantry) absolutely did use a shield in battle though. You can't really keep it up while you are releasing, but you can keep it up while reloading and winding up.

I personally like the idea of making the sling a 1d6 one-handed weapon as such, but I think the range is okay-maybe a longer maximum range would be better, but the minimum range is fine. Aiming a sling accurately is hard, and I feel like the sharpshooter feat is a fine way to model the expertise required to actually hit on target at range with a weapon you can't quite aim in the traditional sense.


Slings are one of those weapon that every player should carry. They are cheap and take up almost no space and can be used to arm a bunch of skeletons or other NPCs in the cheap.

PC wise, artificer is the only way I know to really leverage it.
RAW a sling is the only way for a rogue to get sneak attack with a bludgeoning weapon, and I've completely trivialized many a low level skeleton fight by the simple expedient of carrying one (I usually disguise it as my leather armors codpiece, which means I've also used it in a jailbreak before).

[x3n0n]

PHB 146-147:
Ammunition. You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon (see "Improvised Weapons" later in the section). A sling must be loaded to deal any damage when used in this way.

RAW, definitely.

That said, if I had an interested player, I'd be happy to house rule that a sling hand plus a shield-wielding hand together count as a free hand for the purposes of loading a sling (contra hand crossbow). Sling hand draws bullet, transfers to shield hand, and cinches appropriately on the sling to allow the shield hand to just drop the bullet in.

I also think it should be possible to become proficient with "loaded sling as d4 bludgeoning melee weapon" (without taking Tavern Brawler). That said, it's probably irrelevant since it wouldn't be finesse, and a hybrid non-finesse ranged/melee weapon has not many expected users.

[Tanarii]

RAW, definitely.
It may have been an errata addition though. Either that, or the site Ogun pulled it from was incomplete.

[x3n0n]

It may have been an errata addition though. Either that, or the site Ogun pulled it from was incomplete.

Ah, I had misread his quote as a sig.

Your quote corresponds to my memory, my (recent-ish printing of the) PHB, and to the live Basic Rules on dndbeyond.

I understand now.

[J.C.]

If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon (see "Improvised Weapons" later in the section). A sling must be loaded to deal any damage when used in this way.[/I]

If the sling is loaded with a Magic Stone and you have Tavern Brawler and attack with the sling as an improvised melee weapon, does it deal magical damage? Does it deal Magic Stone damage? It looks to me like it deals magical damage for sure but does not deal Magic Stone damage.

With the Tavern Brawler feat you could have 3 sling improvised melee weapons on your person. Make them magical with Magic Stone using your bonus action. Use your free action to draw one. Then either use as a magical melee weapon (with the possibility of Sneak Attack and/or Smite) or as a magical ranged weapon (with the possibility of Sneak Attack) or as a Magic Stone spell attack (also with the possibility of Sneak Attack).

[Ogun]

Ah, I had misread his quote as a sig.

Your quote corresponds to my memory, my (recent-ish printing of the) PHB, and to the live Basic Rules on dndbeyond.

I understand now.
My bad, I quoted from an outdated source.

[Tanarii]

My bad, I quoted from an outdated source.

I vaguely remember it as being an errata that made a lot of people unhappy.

[DwarfFighter]

It's been so long since anyone at my table used a sling that I can only vaguely remember someone looking for sling stones at a beach once, I feel like it may have been this side of the millennium, but...

Recently, nobody has used the sling. Not even the NPCs. How useless is it when not even low level monsters and humanoids refuse to use it?

[J.C.]

Tavern Brawler loves Sling and Dart and Sharpshooter and Elvish Accuracy though.

[JellyPooga]

It's been so long since anyone at my table used a sling that I can only vaguely remember someone looking for sling stones at a beach once, I feel like it may have been this side of the millennium, but...

Recently, nobody has used the sling. Not even the NPCs. How useless is it when not even low level monsters and humanoids refuse to use it?

It's the standard kobold armament. For some reason.

[Mastikator]

The sling has the misfortune of being conceptually associated with a sling shot, aka: a Dennis the Menace style, two-pronged Catapult used for launching soot bombs and other large, slow-moving projectiles. The reality is that their linguistic relation is about the only connection these two weapons have. A bow and a crossbow have more similarities to one another and the sling-shot, using the same physical properties to launch its projectiles (i.e. the elastic properties of a material). The sling uses a very different method; essentially the same launch physics as a trebuchet.

Yes, a sling can be used to lob larger projectiles, but to the layman, the notion that a sling bullet could break bones and pierce an armoured mans skull is shocking, if not actively unbelievable.

A sling using appropriate ammunition (hint: not a rock) should probably not only deal 1d6 damage, but also deal piercing damage.

Bludgeoning damage on a ranged weapon is the main selling point though. Otherwise you may as well use a short bow.

[stoutstien]

It's the standard kobold armament. For some reason.

Makes perfect sense. It's the most effective way to arm everyone with ranged attacks in the absence of manufacturing weapons. Most of the focus of kobold engineering is on clever traps and finding ways to take advantage of the environment to take advantage of superior numbers(pack tactics)

If we look at the crafting kobolds can make stacks of slings compared to short bows. Darts are tempting but sling ammo is also cheap so in the end it wins. 50 kobold + slings is more effective for the clutch as a whole compared to 10 kobold + bows.

Unfortunately they have to sink a lot into daggers being their only real melee option.

[JellyPooga]

Bludgeoning damage on a ranged weapon is the main selling point though. Otherwise you may as well use a short bow.

An inaccurate selling point is still inaccurate.

If you want bludgeoning damage on a ranged weapon, you really need to be looking at the likes of the (olympic) shot or hammer and weapons such as bolas and boomerangs (no, not the returning kind :smallsigh:); large, heavy blunt-force objects. Even a 2-3" diameter spherical stone or bullet is starting to be "too big" for a sling to launch practically. Early catapults shot stones/balls that started in the 4-6" range and cannon don't have bores that get much bigger. Anything smaller than that 3" mark either isn't going to have the weight to inflict significant blunt-force and/or is going to have to be designed to impact more like a bullet or dart. Sling bullets are typically about 1.5" long and shaped like a rugby ball (or one of your footballs for anyone in the US). They're a bullet and behave as such.


Makes perfect sense. It's the most effective way to arm everyone with ranged attacks in the absence of manufacturing weapons. Most of the focus of kobold engineering is on clever traps and finding ways to take advantage of the environment to take advantage of superior numbers(pack tactics)

If we look at the crafting kobolds can make stacks of slings compared to short bows. Darts are tempting but sling ammo is also cheap so in the end it wins. 50 kobold + slings is more effective for the clutch as a whole compared to 10 kobold + bows.

Unfortunately they have to sink a lot into daggers being their only real melee option.

I can dig that. I do like the idea of kobold workshops churning out dozens of crossbows using their mechanical know-how though. Light crossbows including a crows-foot or winch to load them, would represent a significant technological compensation for their low individual Strength scores.

[stoutstien]

An inaccurate selling point is still inaccurate.

If you want bludgeoning damage on a ranged weapon, you really need to be looking at the likes of the (olympic) shot or hammer and weapons such as bolas and boomerangs (no, not the returning kind :smallsigh:); large, heavy blunt-force objects. Even a 2-3" diameter spherical stone or bullet is starting to be "too big" for a sling to launch practically. Early catapults shot stones/balls that started in the 4-6" range and cannon don't have bores that get much bigger. Anything smaller than that 3" mark either isn't going to have the weight to inflict significant blunt-force and/or is going to have to be designed to impact more like a bullet or dart. Sling bullets are typically about 1.5" long and shaped like a rugby ball (or one of your footballs for anyone in the US). They're a bullet and behave as such.



I can dig that. I do like the idea of kobold workshops churning out dozens of crossbows using their mechanical know-how though. Light crossbows including a crows-foot or winch to load them, would represent a significant technological compensation for their low individual Strength scores.

Kobold ballisticas are definitely a thing in my head canon in all three forms. heavy, light, and mobile (hand crossbow) are used in more established kobold clutches. I tend to use 2 man teams for the mobile and light fixed option and three man + a few spotters for heavy placements.

My party just faced off against a clutch who learned to mounted them on wagon wheels so they can rotate the wheel and reload under cover while maintaining a solid rate of fire.

[Lord Vukodlak]

An inaccurate selling point is still inaccurate.

No its perfectly accurate, a sling bullet didn't penetrate armor it dealt damage the same way a mace did, concussive force. They wouldn't penetrate armor but the force of the impact could get through.

From Vegetius, Epitoma Rei Militaris 4th Century AD:
"Soldiers, despite their defensive armor, are often more aggravated by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood."

Slings dealt bludgeoning damage.

[stoutstien]

No its perfectly accurate, a sling bullet didn't penetrate armor it dealt damage the same way a mace did, concussive force. They wouldn't penetrate armor but the force of the impact could get through.

From Vegetius, Epitoma Rei Militaris 4th Century AD:
"Soldiers, despite their defensive armor, are often more aggravated by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood."

Slings dealt bludgeoning damage.

Depends on the sling used and it's application. Some slings were used in the manner you mention but others where used with smaller shot at point blank range with devastating effect. Obviously dnd doesn't have that lev of distinction of damage so blunt just makes the most sense.

[Segev]

Slinger
You have trained extensively to get the most out of this simple to learn, difficult to master weapon.
You do not need a free hand to load a sling.
When using specially-made sling bullets, which have a market value of 1 sp, your sling attacks have a range of 500/1000 and deal 1d6 bludgeoning damage. You can also enjoy this improved range with magic stone-enchanted ammunition.
Being within five feet of a hostile creature while attacking with a sling doesn't impose disadvantage on your attack roll, and you need not expend the currently-loaded ammunition when attacking a creature within five feet with a sling.

If this is a little undertuned, it could also give +1 Dexterity.

[CapnWildefyr]

Curiously, 5e is also missing the staff-sling (leather thong on a stick, instead of in the hand). And the atladl. I'd tend to house rule:
sling stone: d4 (meaning, not hand-shaped, designed ammo)
sling bullet: d6
staff sling: d6 or d8, with ranges comparable to longbow. (I haven't researched that yet, I'm pretty sure this was in the old 2e fighter's handbook.) But a sling on the end of a long stick adds a lot of mechanical advantage and therefore energy to the shot.

Staff-sling would be martial -- harder to use, requires more practice.

[Tanarii]

Slinger
You have trained extensively to get the most out of this simple to learn, difficult to master weapon.
You do not need a free hand to load a sling.
When using specially-made sling bullets, which have a market value of 1 sp, your sling attacks have a range of 500/1000 and deal 1d6 bludgeoning damage.
Being within five feet of a hostile creature while attacking with a sling doesn't impose disadvantage on your attack roll, and you need not expend the currently-loaded ammunition when attacking a creature within five feet with a sling.

If this is a little undertuned, it could also give +1 Dexterity.
It's not undertuned.

Change it to "you can load a sling with a hand wearing a buckler shield" and the range to 100/400. (Bucklers are mechanically the same as other shields in 5e so that'd just be for flavor.) Also change last point to "you can use a loaded sling as a melee weapon to attack a creature within 5ft."

[Segev]

It's not undertuned.

Change it to "you can load a sling with a hand wearing a buckler shield" and the range to 100/400. (Bucklers are mechanically the same as other shields in 5e so that'd just be for flavor.) Also change last point to "you can use a loaded sling as a melee weapon to attack a creature within 5ft."

I'm not sure that's worth a feat at that point. The range is insufficiently superior to a short bow to make the attraction of the feat anything but the ability to use a shield along with a sling. Do you see that as the only "real" benefit and the rest as ribbons?

If bucklers are no different than other shields, specifying them in the feat is confusing, at best. Inviting people to ask for mechanics on a buckler to be different than a normal shield's, in a less desirable outcome, because otherwise why would "buckler shield" be called out specifically?

As a melee weapon, it would be strength-based. This could be remedied by making it finesse, but then you're allowing strength-based attacks with it in melee; is this desirable? Is there a reason that they should be unable to use a sling as a ranged weapon while near hostiles, but people with crossbow expert can do so freely?

[Silpharon]

I picked up a Two-Birds Sling in my MoT campaign. It's a great weapon, but the need for a free hand has me looking to sell it. I just can't justify losing 2+ AC on an Artificer.

As is, I could see Two-Birds Sling being a strong combo for a Bladesinger (who can't use a shield anyway) with Magic Stone picked up from Artificer Initiate. Throw in a couple levels of Ranger for archery and a Sharpshooter feat and it would make a powerful gish.

[Valmark]

I picked up a Two-Birds Sling in my MoT campaign. It's a great weapon, but the need for a free hand has me looking to sell it. I just can't justify losing 2+ AC on an Artificer.

As is, I could see Two-Birds Sling being a strong combo for a Bladesinger (who can't use a shield anyway) with Magic Stone picked up from Artificer Initiate. Throw in a couple levels of Ranger for archery and a Sharpshooter feat and it would make a powerful gish.

My only issue with this would be that when you get to high levels Song of Victory wouldn't work (why that is locked to melee weapons while the other features aren't is beyond my comprehension).

[Silpharon]

My only issue with this would be that when you get to high levels Song of Victory wouldn't work (why that is locked to melee weapons while the other features aren't is beyond my comprehension).

Yep, that's unfortunate. It's clear from the dance styles that they intended it to be melee, but a dancing slinger makes sense in my head. :)

[Sorinth]

Swarmkeeper + Crusher feat is a solid build that uses the sling.

You trade some damage for some significant battlefield control.

[MrCharlie]

Slinger
You have trained extensively to get the most out of this simple to learn, difficult to master weapon.
You do not need a free hand to load a sling.
When using specially-made sling bullets, which have a market value of 1 sp, your sling attacks have a range of 500/1000 and deal 1d6 bludgeoning damage. You can also enjoy this improved range with magic stone-enchanted ammunition.
Being within five feet of a hostile creature while attacking with a sling doesn't impose disadvantage on your attack roll, and you need not expend the currently-loaded ammunition when attacking a creature within five feet with a sling.

If this is a little undertuned, it could also give +1 Dexterity.
The range is a bit unreasonable (slings are not longer range than bows or crossbows) and if you reduce the range it's not worth it-you've just made the sling a worse shortbow. Even as is it's undertuned. It's probably undertuned with a +1 DEX. It just has no mechanical incentive to use it-range is barely a consideration in most 5e besides that ranges above 100 feet are "enough". And in melee, you can just draw a sword-the reason why crossbow expert is picked isn't for the 5 foot range bullet point.

[MaxWilson]

The range is a bit unreasonable (slings are not longer range than bows or crossbows) and if you reduce the range it's not worth it-you've just made the sling a worse shortbow. Even as is it's undertuned. It's probably undertuned with a +1 DEX. It just has no mechanical incentive to use it-range is barely a consideration in most 5e besides that ranges above 100 feet are "enough". And in melee, you can just draw a sword-the reason why crossbow expert is picked isn't for the 5 foot range bullet point.

I think "Sharpshootering people in melee while still wielding a shield" is a decent reason, especially since as written you're still getting the Archer bonus (+2 to hit) and possibly a +1 Dex as well.

An Artificer can make a Repeating Hand Crossbow which is even better (for a Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert), but that takes an Artificer.

[Tanarii]

I'm not sure that's worth a feat at that point. The range is insufficiently superior to a short bow to make the attraction of the feat anything but the ability to use a shield along with a sling. Do you see that as the only "real" benefit and the rest as ribbons?Shield + extended range "shortbow" + can use at point blank range without changing weapon sounds like a feat to me.


If bucklers are no different than other shields, specifying them in the feat is confusing, at best. Inviting people to ask for mechanics on a buckler to be different than a normal shield's, in a less desirable outcome, because otherwise why would "buckler shield" be called out specifically?Something something historical? I agree, that part is a terrible idea. :smallredface:


As a melee weapon, it would be strength-based. This could be remedied by making it finesse, but then you're allowing strength-based attacks with it in melee; is this desirable? Is there a reason that they should be unable to use a sling as a ranged weapon while near hostiles, but people with crossbow expert can do so freely?Well for starters, XBE is hugely overturned. But sure, if you just want to steal the bullet point from that feat, that'd probably be fine. I'd restrict it to attacks with weapons though, so it can't be used with spells. (Which is how XBE should have been written in the first place.) but it should use ammo if you're going that route.

So yeah ... I guess my recommendation is:
- reduce range to 100/400 (HXbow) or even 80/320 (Shortbow/LXbow) range
- restrict ammunition exception on hands to sling & shields combo specifically, not anything in other hand (or a global exception)
- XBE-like firing at close range, with any weapon (but not spells).

[Greywander]

The Ammunition property means the sling still needs a free hand to load.
IIRC, this is errata, the original printing of the PHB didn't have this, and allowed (or rather, didn't forbid) one-handed reloads of ranged weapons.


I vaguely remember it as being an errata that made a lot of people unhappy.
It makes me unhappy because (a) it completely defeats the purpose of having one-handed ranged weapons in the first place, and (b) because historical examples of slingers using shields exist.

Yes, I understand that there's a niche for single-shot weapons, like a flintlock pistol, but those need to do a heck of a lot more damage in order to be worth it. Those are the kind of weapons that you use at the start of a fight, hoping to finish it quickly or at least shift the odds dramatically in your favor, then you toss them aside and clean up whatever is left. You can carry more than one, but that can get prohibitively expensive. The hand crossbow can fill this niche if you're using poisons, but the sling can't even do that. I also understand that using Crossbow Expert with a shield would be too strong, though I'm not sure it's stronger than PAM with a staff/spear + shield.

Historically, slings appear to have filled a role not unlike the longbow; they required a lot of skill to use effectively, and in the hands of a master they could be terrifying. IIRC, there's accounts of Spanish conquistadors having their armor penetrated by native American slingers. I'm not sure why the sling fell out of use; it could be that it was just the insane investment required to master it, which is also a big reason why bows gave way to firearms. There was also apparently a difference between short-range slings and long-range slings, not unlike the difference between a shortbow and longbow.

Personally, I don't like this errata, and I still consider the pre-errata rules to be RAW. I understand that most people will opt to use the most up-to-date RAW, if they're aware of it, but technically these are still official rules that have been published, even if they've been overridden by errata. The "new RAW" is more official, but the "old RAW" is still valid if the DM chooses to allow it; it's definitely in a different league from straight homebrew, or even UA material.

[Scarytincan]

Monk can use sling as dedicated weapon and pick up crusher /sharpshooter for fun, d10 weapon eventually

[Sigreid]

Don't overlook that a sling is one of the weapons that can reasonably be made by just about anyone if you're in one of those adventures where your gear gets jacked.

[Mastikator]

An inaccurate selling point is still inaccurate.

If you want bludgeoning damage on a ranged weapon, you really need to be looking at the likes of the (olympic) shot or hammer and weapons such as bolas and boomerangs (no, not the returning kind :smallsigh:); large, heavy blunt-force objects. Even a 2-3" diameter spherical stone or bullet is starting to be "too big" for a sling to launch practically. Early catapults shot stones/balls that started in the 4-6" range and cannon don't have bores that get much bigger. Anything smaller than that 3" mark either isn't going to have the weight to inflict significant blunt-force and/or is going to have to be designed to impact more like a bullet or dart. Sling bullets are typically about 1.5" long and shaped like a rugby ball (or one of your footballs for anyone in the US). They're a bullet and behave as such.



I can dig that. I do like the idea of kobold workshops churning out dozens of crossbows using their mechanical know-how though. Light crossbows including a crows-foot or winch to load them, would represent a significant technological compensation for their low individual Strength scores.

Accuracy and realism are not the selling points of D&D, *nothing in D&D 5e is realistic. Why impose this weird burden on slings of all things? The reason you want to have a sling is for when your ranged warrior faces an enemy with piercing resistance or bludgeoning vulnerability. It's the same reason a melee warrior carries both a longsword and a warhammer.


*it specifically says in the dungeon master guide that D&D does not operate on Newtonian physics, it operates on Aristotelian physics

[JellyPooga]

Accuracy and realism are not the selling points of D&D, *nothing in D&D 5e is realistic. Why impose this weird burden on slings of all things?

The real question for me is "Why impose the burden of being (largely) the only viable bludgeoning ranged weapon when other options exist?"

[Mastikator]

The real question for me is "Why impose the burden of being (largely) the only viable bludgeoning ranged weapon when other options exist?"

Sling is not a thrown weapon, it's a ranged weapon. It benefits from sharpshooter feat and archery fighting style and it's a simple weapon with cheap ammunition. There are no other simple ranged (not thrown) bludgeoning weapons.

If someone wants a simple thrown bludgeoning weapon then throwing hammers already exist, and can be refluffed to be boomerangs for those that want that instead. But they won't fulfill the same role as a sling.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The real question for me is "Why impose the burden of being (largely) the only viable bludgeoning ranged weapon when other options exist?"

Because slings dealt bludgeoning damage.

Once again,

From Vegetius, Epitoma Rei Militaris 4th Century AD:
"Soldiers, despite their defensive armor, are often more aggravated by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood."

There is historical proof that slings killed via contusions aka bludgeoning damage.



Historically, slings appear to have filled a role not unlike the longbow; they required a lot of skill to use effectively, and in the hands of a master they could be terrifying. IIRC, there's accounts of Spanish conquistadors having their armor penetrated by native American slingers.
I've looked and can't find those accounts.
The Conquistadors who died via sling were either not wearing armor or they got hit in the face where they weren't armored at all. Or after taking a dozens of shots all those bruises eventually led to death. The armor worn by Conquistadors was still effective against the guns of that era which is why it hadn't been abandoned yet.

[JellyPooga]

Because slings dealt bludgeoning damage.

New sources are useful. You don't need to re-quote the same source.

In seeking out a linkable source of my own, I stumbled across this study (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1032%26context%3Danthr otheses&ved=2ahUKEwjkpPKQpPjuAhWSQUEAHTdHAC4QFjABegQIARAC&usg=AOvVaw3hJFE9dkK0we-2TkbkJbsf) that you might find interesting (notably Chapter 7). Largely speaking it supports your claim that sling stones by-and-large cause blunt damage. It does, however, also support my claim that purpose built sling bullets (lead or clay) could and would pierce flesh.

The main focus of the paper, after a quick skim, appears to be on the use of round stones rather than bullets and the writer rightly concludes that impact damage would be most common under such circumstances (particularly when using larger stones). However, they do cite several historical sources that claim or infer slings causing piercing injuries that include fractured bones (much as gunshot wounds do) and the papers experimental data backs it up.

I've also read evidence (I can't find a linkable source without further research and don't have access to the hard copy to provide an accurate quote) that sling bullets have been surmised to be the cause of at least one archeological find in which a skull with a clean (non-fractured) hole in it has been found with traces of lead and iron, suggesting a lead sling bullet pierced not only the bone, but an iron cap also. Several other finds have been found at a variety of sites with similar injuries that have been attributed to sling injury.

I'm not saying slings can't do bludgeoning damage. I'm saying sling bullets deal piercing.

Also, Vegetius is not a great source of military history. Not only was he writing in the latter half of the 4th century about events (in some cases) hundreds of years prior, he was neither in the military or an accomplished historian. His Epitoma is little more than a 'compilation album' of some of his favourite histories. I'm not discounting it as a source, only casting reasonable doubt on its validity (albeit in this particular case, I'm inclined to agree that your quote is valid to the conversation).