Now I see why slings are free...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Now I see why slings are free...Slinger.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If he had only spent 1 silver piece on some sling bullets, instead of using those rocks - his shots would have been more accurate and powerful, that video could have been significantly shorter, and he might not have seemed quite so lonely.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Khelreddin wrote:
If he had only spent 1 silver piece on some sling bullets, instead of using those rocks - his shots would have been more accurate and powerful, that video could have been significantly shorter, and he might not have seemed quite so lonely.

Lol. But his point is to do it all... And that would have him mining the lead, smelting,etc.

But he could have used fired clay bullets... Those he would have made ...

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to place an order of 694 slings, please.

And I need them by tomorrow.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Such a pity slingers need so many feats and items to shine in PF.

Imagine slings working like they did historically. Freaking scary stuff.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Main problem with slingers is how long they take to train to become accurate.

At that same range, with the same targets, likely an archer could have hit two to three times as often, and a crossbowman more often yet.

And while slings are great on bombardment, they don't work as well against rigid armor (but can still break bones on lighter armor and with head shots). Mechanically, the simple fact is you can reach MUCH higher concentrations of force with the use of bows.

Not that slings can't be awesome in their own way, of course.

==Aelryinth


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The strengths of one weapon does not invalidate the strengths of another.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
The strengths of one weapon does not invalidate the strengths of another.

Yeah, but the reality is that time to train is more expensive then cheap materials to make.

And slinging is time-expensive. Just like archery. The reason archery was slowly replaced by crossbows is training time...archers became elite troops, but if you could afford the crossbowmen, you could field tons more of them. The reason crossbows and all bows gave way to firearms is effectiveness, which is a seperate issue, but again basically comes down to money and time spent vs dmg inflicted.

==Aelryinth


6 people marked this as a favorite.

A use for Craft (Basket Weaving)!

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Sekkan wrote:
A use for Craft (Basket Weaving)!

Can you do it underwater?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Main problem with slingers is how long they take to train to become accurate.

Because archery doesn't? If anything, enough training to make a reasonable slinger was quicker than making a competent archer.

Edit: OK, responding to your response to that later.

Quote:
At that same range, with the same targets, likely an archer could have hit two to three times as often, and a crossbowman more often yet.

I would not bet anything I couldn't afford to lose on that.

Quote:
And while slings are great on bombardment, they don't work as well against rigid armor (but can still break bones on lighter armor and with head shots). Mechanically, the simple fact is you can reach MUCH higher concentrations of force with the use of bows.

Concussion and broken bones through the armour is an observed phenomenon. And it's not as if arrows are great at armour penetration.

Quote:

Not that slings can't be awesome in their own way, of course.

==Aelryinth

They survived alongside archers in plenty of places (as did javelinmen). The advantages may not be obvious to us, but the people who used them in war weren't exceptionally foolish or unsuccessful.

Aelryinth wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
The strengths of one weapon does not invalidate the strengths of another.

Yeah, but the reality is that time to train is more expensive then cheap materials to make.

And slinging is time-expensive. Just like archery. The reason archery was slowly replaced by crossbows is training time...archers became elite troops, but if you could afford the crossbowmen, you could field tons more of them. The reason crossbows and all bows gave way to firearms is effectiveness, which is a seperate issue, but again basically comes down to money and time spent vs dmg inflicted.

==Aelryinth

Crossbows required a significant amount of training to be used effectively too. While the English laws on longbow training are widely known there are similar sorts of requirements for military training in places that favoured crossbows such as Genoa, and they aren't any less time intensive.

And I'd dispute the question of why bows and crossbows were replaced firearms, but this isn't an ideal place to do so. Suffice to say that the effectiveness of an archer at the end of a campaign is a lot less than their effectiveness at the start of one.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
The reason crossbows and all bows gave way to firearms is effectiveness, which is a seperate issue, but again basically comes down to money and time spent vs dmg inflicted.

It's an outlier - but I will point out that Prussia had a small unit on longbows as late as the 18th century.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

I'd like to place an order of 694 slings, please.

And I need them by tomorrow.

Tomorrow?

Given the price and nature of the crafting system, I can make 694 slings right this instant.

But I think we all get the general point here that you can easily make slings from a bit of rope- maybe with some scrap leather from an old pair of boots (the top of the boot doesn't wear out as fast- should be fine to make a pouch bit).

Muser wrote:

Such a pity slingers need so many feats and items to shine in PF.

Imagine slings working like they did historically. Freaking scary stuff.

It is like Aelryinth said- The large number of required feats is actually historically accurate, since they need a lot of training.

While their effectiveness as weapons is fine, the only reason why battlefields had supplies of slingers was because ancient farmers had a lot of spare time and little money. Thus, the cheap sling easily became sport and a defense against wild animals attacking their sheep.

Bows, at least small hunting bows, are fairly easy to train in comparison (see- kids training in archery at summer camp- something they can get basic at in few weeks spent at the camp). That is what war tends to prefer- soldiers that you can produce in a couple weeks after you hand them a weapon. And that is why they were later over taken by crossbows (hard to produce due to mechanical bits, but high power and fairly easy to train) and guns (poor accuracy at the time and hard to produce, but very easy to train and good killing power)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
The large number of required feats is actually historically accurate, since they need a lot of training.

A large number of feats implies a higher-level person than ever existed in history.

Also, Pathfinder models "lots of training needed" by simply making the weapon Exotic, which unfortunately is the opposite of what they did with the sling.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
lemeres wrote:
The large number of required feats is actually historically accurate, since they need a lot of training.
A large number of feats implies a higher-level person than ever existed in history.

Not if you assume class levels really don't exist and don't emulate reality very well at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Not if you assume class levels really don't exist and don't emulate reality very well at all.

Almost nothing in the game emulates reality very well*. Slings included.

*Which is fine; it's intended as a fantasy game, not a reality simulator.


Freehold DM wrote:
The strengths of one weapon does not invalidate the strengths of another.

Tell that to the slingers/archers/crossbowmen that were invalidated by firearms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
The strengths of one weapon does not invalidate the strengths of another.
Tell that to the slingers/archers/crossbowmen that were invalidated by firearms.

As far as I am aware, early fire arms weren't particularly good, in comparison, but they were simple to train.

The idea that one day people will create nuclear missiles doesn't invalidate the use of armor until those actually showed up.

There is a reason why cold weapons survives for a long time, in a limited extent at least, after the introduction of firearms.

Plus, in the 'armor vs. nuke' scenario, it brought up the idea of different situations and uses. Because nukes aren't useful against the guy directly in front of you. Applying it to this case- early muskets were fine with armies, who could do volleys in order to make up for inaccruacy... but in small scale battles, having trained men with accurate weapons would be better when there are jsut not enough people involved to see 'quantity over quality' tactics.


lemeres wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
The strengths of one weapon does not invalidate the strengths of another.
Tell that to the slingers/archers/crossbowmen that were invalidated by firearms.

As far as I am aware, early fire arms weren't particularly good, in comparison, but they were simple to train.

The idea that one day people will create nuclear missiles doesn't invalidate the use of armor until those actually showed up.

There is a reason why cold weapons survives for a long time, in a limited extent at least, after the introduction of firearms.

Plus, in the 'armor vs. nuke' scenario, it brought up the idea of different situations and uses. Because nukes aren't useful against the guy directly in front of you. Applying it to this case- early muskets were fine with armies, who could do volleys in order to make up for inaccruacy... but in small scale battles, having trained men with accurate weapons would be better when there are jsut not enough people involved to see 'quantity over quality' tactics.

I don't really see what any of that has to do with what i said.

I just pointed out that the strength of an inferior weapon is in fact invalidated by the strengths of an advanced weapon.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are no inferior weapons.

There are inferior tactics that can develop from using the wrong weapon for the wrong task, but there are places on the modern battlefield for ancient weapons of modern takes on them.

One might consider a sling an inferior weapon, after all, the rate of fire isn't all that great, and the damage isn't all that good, either... but rocks (or bullets) are comparatively cheap.

One might consider a bow an inferior weapon, after all, that space needed to draw the bow is kind of crippling, plus the fact that typically it can only puncture given targets is also a bit of an issue.

One might even consider modern firearms to be inferior weapons... after all, they have limited capacity and have to be reloaded, which is a bit more complex even in this simplified age.

Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of one's weapons and properly using them can mitigate nearly any level of technological disparity. Requires working 'smarter not harder', though.


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


There are no inferior weapons.

There are inferior tactics that can develop from using the wrong weapon for the wrong task, but there are places on the modern battlefield for ancient weapons of modern takes on them.

One might consider a sling an inferior weapon, after all, the rate of fire isn't all that great, and the damage isn't all that good, either... but rocks (or bullets) are comparatively cheap.

One might consider a bow an inferior weapon, after all, that space needed to draw the bow is kind of crippling, plus the fact that typically it can only puncture given targets is also a bit of an issue.

One might even consider modern firearms to be inferior weapons... after all, they have limited capacity and have to be reloaded, which is a bit more complex even in this simplified age.

Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of one's weapons and properly using them can mitigate nearly any level of technological disparity. Requires working 'smarter not harder', though.

A sling is inferior to an assault rifle. The same way a wooden club is inferior to a steel sword.

What you are talking about is expertise of a person, not the quality of a weapon.

If all weapons were equal then they wouldn't be replaced by newer ones.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:

A sling is inferior to an assault rifle. The same way a wooden club is inferior to a steel sword.

A wooden club is more effective than a steel sword against armored opponents (especially in flexible armor like chainmail), is cheaper to make, is easier to train to use effectively, and is easier to maintain as it is no subject to rust nor does it need sharpening.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

A sling is inferior to an assault rifle. The same way a wooden club is inferior to a steel sword.

A wooden club is more effective than a steel sword against armored opponents (especially in flexible armor like chainmail), is cheaper to make, is easier to train to use effectively, and is easier to maintain as it is no subject to rust nor does it need sharpening.

So you would pick a wooden club over a steel sword then?

Assuming both you and your opponent had access to plate armor?

The sword is a superior weapon when compared to a wooden club. Saying otherwise is delusional.

Against unarmored foes you can thrust and cut and even against other armored foes, where you say the wooden club wins out, is false.

Mordhau

A sword is more versatile in the ways it can kill and sturdier than a wooden club.

There is a historical reason why armies preferred it over the wooden club.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

There are no inferior weapons.

There are inferior tactics that can develop from using the wrong weapon for the wrong task, but there are places on the modern battlefield for ancient weapons of modern takes on them.

One might consider a sling an inferior weapon, after all, the rate of fire isn't all that great, and the damage isn't all that good, either... but rocks (or bullets) are comparatively cheap.

Modern take on sling- Can you do something with grenades? I feel like you could do something with grenades. Or some form of molotov cocktails. Similar to mortors, perhaps, but more quiet and easily concealed.

Overall, just changing up the ammunition could ahve a lot of effect on their use. Making it so that anyone could chuck a grenade at the same speeds as a major league pitcher seems lik an advantage.

Brain in a Jar wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:


So you would pick a wooden club over a steel sword then?

Assuming both you and your opponent had access to plate armor?

The sword is a superior weapon when compared to a wooden club. Saying otherwise is delusional.

Against unarmored foes you can thrust and cut and even against other armored foes, where you say the wooden club wins out, is false.

Mordhau

A sword is more versatile in the ways it can kill and sturdier than a wooden club.

There is a historical reason why armies preferred it over the wooden club.

A wooden club. But what about metal clubs? Such as maces. They had a lot of use after armor became more advanced. They don't even try to get through armor- they just bash up the insides like a kid shaking a christmas present with a porcelain doll inside.

Plus, you are just saying 'swords'. Swords are diverse, with a wide number of designs for different purposes and techniques, for use in different situations. A slashing heavy sword, such as a broach scimitar, would not be very good against plate armor. In comparison, long swords are well suited for use against plate armor, since it can get into the gaps with a stab. And even then, it may have trouble against protective chainmail underneath (which is why the eyes are often a target, since obviously historical armor couldn't get plexiglas)

Weapons are made for the environment, culture, fighting style, and equipment of the era they are made in. They may have many advantages, but they may have areas where they are not the best option since they are specialized for the combat they were designed for.

For a comparison, knives, which are one of the most ancient types of weapons, have an advantage against handguns when the distance is under 20 feet. This may, of course, be more or less depending on the envrionment, whether the gunman is ready, reflexes, and movement speed. 10 feet is a more conservative estimate. Anyway- that is why police are often jumpy, since anyone guy theoretically pull a knife and kill them. It is why they are trained to aim center mass for a quick kill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
The strengths of one weapon does not invalidate the strengths of another.
Tell that to the slingers/archers/crossbowmen that were invalidated by firearms.
As far as I am aware, early fire arms weren't particularly good, in comparison, but they were simple to train.

Actually, they're not simple to train either. Reloading is complicated and tricky and getting people to do so quickly under battlefield conditions without screwing up takes a lot of drill.

The actual reason guns took over seems to be that they were fashionable. They were good for cavalry since they're actually effective at the pistol scale and crossbows aren't and they were better than torsion or even counterweight artillery pretty early, but for infantry everyone would have been better off with bows or crossbows well into the fifteenth century. Or slings. At their best arquebuses of the time were as accurate as a novice slinger, both would break arms or kill horses, and neither would penetrate breastplates.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:

Actually, they're not simple to train either. Reloading is complicated and tricky and getting people to do so quickly under battlefield conditions without screwing up takes a lot of drill.

The actual reason guns took over seems to be that they were fashionable. They were good for cavalry since they're actually effective at the pistol scale and crossbows aren't and they were better than torsion or even counterweight artillery pretty early, but for infantry everyone would have been better off with bows or crossbows well into the fifteenth century. Or slings. At their best arquebuses of the time were as accurate as a novice slinger, both would break arms or kill horses, and neither would penetrate breastplates.

While I'll admit it might be a tough sell against crossbows (since they are relatively simpler, and doesn't require you to keep a lare supply of highly explosive material), they do have an advantage that crossbows didn't have. In fact, it was one of the main advantages of slings- lead bullets.

Lead is used for bullets since it is well suited for high speed impacts as ammunition. The way it warps actually conveys the force really well. That i why it was often used against armor. It is also fairly dense and has a low melting point, which make it easy to make a simple, hefty bullet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

A sling is inferior to an assault rifle. The same way a wooden club is inferior to a steel sword.

A wooden club is more effective than a steel sword against armored opponents (especially in flexible armor like chainmail), is cheaper to make, is easier to train to use effectively, and is easier to maintain as it is no subject to rust nor does it need sharpening.

So you would pick a wooden club over a steel sword then?

Assuming both you and your opponent had access to plate armor?

The sword is a superior weapon when compared to a wooden club. Saying otherwise is delusional.

Against unarmored foes you can thrust and cut and even against other armored foes, where you say the wooden club wins out, is false.

Mordhau

A sword is more versatile in the ways it can kill and sturdier than a wooden club.

There is a historical reason why armies preferred it over the wooden club.

say that to the macuahuitl.


Freehold DM wrote:
say that to the macuahuitl.

A macuahuitl isn't a wooden club.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At one point, Musashi quit using metal swords in actual duels, because he knew he'd win with a wooden stick. But that would be more an issue of character level, not of weaponry. However, it does imply that maybe weapon type should matter less than it does in the rules.


Muser wrote:

Such a pity slingers need so many feats and items to shine in PF.

Imagine slings working like they did historically. Freaking scary stuff.

They do. I.e. a commoner (somebody with an actual realistic number of hitpoints) is significantly hurt and can be knocked unconscious or killed by a sling bullet in pathfinder.

It only stops being realistic when higher level characters inexplicably become 15x more damage resistant. That's the common denominator in weapon damage being fantastical (same goes for surviving huge explosions to the face, dragon bites, etc.)

Not that I have a better system to propose or anything, but just saying, it's not really the sling at issue so much as the whole health and damage system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
The strengths of one weapon does not invalidate the strengths of another.

If that were true in any sort of applicable way warfare wouldn't put such an emphasis on getting newer and better equipment. Weapons are for killing better killing = better weapon. Versatility, cost efficiency, and durability are useful but at the end of the day an A bomb is better than a sling no matter how easy it is to put a rock in it since one dropped bomb can kill more people in one go then a man with a sling probably can in his whole life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
The strengths of one weapon does not invalidate the strengths of another.
If that were true in any sort of applicable way warfare wouldn't put such an emphasis on getting newer and better equipment. Weapons are for killing better killing = better weapon. Versatility, cost efficiency, and durability are useful but at the end of the day an A bomb is better than a sling no matter how easy it is to put a rock in it since one dropped bomb can kill more people in one go then a man with a sling probably can in his whole life.

If your job is to quietly assassinate someone without anyone noticing, then an A bomb is a very poor weapon to use and that rock is a much better one. Collateral damage is a bad thing and it's hard to take over a facility and rescue the hostages after you're dropped an A bomb on it. Better is relative to the job you are meant to accomplish.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And the Aztecs would have used steel in a heart beat had they had access to it. They were blood thirsty bastards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thing about a bomb is that once you use it all you've made is some victims and rocks for the survivors to sling back. Slings will never run out! Never! Muwahaha


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a kid I made a sling and never became proficient with it, no matter how hard I tried. Sure, I could sling a rock, but I could never hit the target. I was trying to hit a stray dog that was chasing our cattle (I grew up on a farm) and missed, hitting a cow in the side of the head and bringing her to her knees. She recovered quickly, but my dad took away the sling.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And yet an ancient slinger could hit and kill a horse in one shot. I think maybe the threat of being conquered is probably a pretty effective motivator/catalyst for learning.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And also, eating. Slingers popping birds and rabbits was an effective hunting method.

You have a great incentive to get better when dinner is on the line.

But, it must also be said...you also usually had a teacher to show you how it was properly done, too. And lots and lots of time to practice.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
The strengths of one weapon does not invalidate the strengths of another.
If that were true in any sort of applicable way warfare wouldn't put such an emphasis on getting newer and better equipment. Weapons are for killing better killing = better weapon. Versatility, cost efficiency, and durability are useful but at the end of the day an A bomb is better than a sling no matter how easy it is to put a rock in it since one dropped bomb can kill more people in one go then a man with a sling probably can in his whole life.

people do not suddenly become invincible to rocks crushing their skulls just because bombs exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Helaman wrote:
And the Aztecs would have used steel in a heart beat had they had access to it. They were blood thirsty bastards.

possibly.

But we still use obsidian for cutting flesh today.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Main problem with slingers is how long they take to train to become accurate.

At that same range, with the same targets, likely an archer could have hit two to three times as often, and a crossbowman more often yet.

And while slings are great on bombardment, they don't work as well against rigid armor (but can still break bones on lighter armor and with head shots). Mechanically, the simple fact is you can reach MUCH higher concentrations of force with the use of bows.

Not that slings can't be awesome in their own way, of course.

==Aelryinth

It was either here or on the old WOTC boards, but I read one of the typical threads that came up once about medieval weapons (you know the ones, where everyone has a black belt and practices with slings or longbows or whatever 4 hours a day).

But I went through a lot of the links and did some reading.

Not sure if something like an English Longbow would be included, but the sling is just as lethal and accurate at the same range as most bows.

The caveat is what you said. The proficiency thing from hardest to master to easiest is something like sling -> bow -> firearm.

There were some slingers from some islands off the coast of Spain (Balearic Slingers?) that trained from childhood with the sling, and the Romans found them utterly lethal and dangerous to face in combat.

I guess I could google and find some of that on the web somewhere. And I won't swear I don't have one of my facts wrong.

But the Romans had a very, very healthy respect for the slingers I mentioned. (And as most here will be aware they were using "bullets," not random stones from the ground.)


Freehold DM wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
The strengths of one weapon does not invalidate the strengths of another.
If that were true in any sort of applicable way warfare wouldn't put such an emphasis on getting newer and better equipment. Weapons are for killing better killing = better weapon. Versatility, cost efficiency, and durability are useful but at the end of the day an A bomb is better than a sling no matter how easy it is to put a rock in it since one dropped bomb can kill more people in one go then a man with a sling probably can in his whole life.
people do not suddenly become invincible to rocks crushing their skulls just because bombs exist.

No they really sort of do.. If I kill you before you throw your rock your rock does not crush my skull. There's a reason why every time a sling was on Deadliest Warrior it did poorly up against other ranged weapons and most helmets.. slings *can* definitely kill people some of the time but nearly every weapon wielded by someone with as much skill hitting a target is more likely to cause death. If the dude had a helmet with a nose guard though the likelihood of death dropped dramatically and the sling was less a murder tool in those cases and more a cheap long ranges sort of debuff since fighting with cracked ribs, a broken nose/jaw or a concussion is definitely not fun times.

But I will amend my statement.. The strengths of one weapon do not invalidate those of another in a vacuum where the two are not in contest.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

sunbeam wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Main problem with slingers is how long they take to train to become accurate.

At that same range, with the same targets, likely an archer could have hit two to three times as often, and a crossbowman more often yet.

And while slings are great on bombardment, they don't work as well against rigid armor (but can still break bones on lighter armor and with head shots). Mechanically, the simple fact is you can reach MUCH higher concentrations of force with the use of bows.

Not that slings can't be awesome in their own way, of course.

==Aelryinth

It was either here or on the old WOTC boards, but I read one of the typical threads that came up once about medieval weapons (you know the ones, where everyone has a black belt and practices with slings or longbows or whatever 4 hours a day).

But I went through a lot of the links and did some reading.

Not sure if something like an English Longbow would be included, but the sling is just as lethal and accurate at the same range as most bows.

The caveat is what you said. The proficiency thing from hardest to master to easiest is something like sling -> bow -> firearm.

There were some slingers from some islands off the coast of Spain (Balearic Slingers?) that trained from childhood with the sling, and the Romans found them utterly lethal and dangerous to face in combat.

I guess I could google and find some of that on the web somewhere. And I won't swear I don't have one of my facts wrong.

But the Romans had a very, very healthy respect for the slingers I mentioned. (And as most here will be aware they were using "bullets," not random stones from the ground.)

Sige Slinging, where you hurl rather oversize rocks high and hope for a hit, was the main one where you could dash a guy through a helmet. otherwise, not so much.

It is also true that lead bullets were far, far more effective then mere stones. However, they didn't normally have the same killing power as an arrow, it's just a fact of life. The damage/time & Cost just wasn't worth it from the military standpoint.

So, Slings fell by the way side. They're a time suck to learn, and there's more effective ways to spend that time, especially if you can afford a bow or crossbow instead.

==Aelryinth

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunbeam wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Main problem with slingers is how long they take to train to become accurate.

At that same range, with the same targets, likely an archer could have hit two to three times as often, and a crossbowman more often yet.

And while slings are great on bombardment, they don't work as well against rigid armor (but can still break bones on lighter armor and with head shots). Mechanically, the simple fact is you can reach MUCH higher concentrations of force with the use of bows.

Not that slings can't be awesome in their own way, of course.

==Aelryinth

It was either here or on the old WOTC boards, but I read one of the typical threads that came up once about medieval weapons (you know the ones, where everyone has a black belt and practices with slings or longbows or whatever 4 hours a day).

But I went through a lot of the links and did some reading.

Not sure if something like an English Longbow would be included, but the sling is just as lethal and accurate at the same range as most bows.

The caveat is what you said. The proficiency thing from hardest to master to easiest is something like sling -> bow -> firearm.

There were some slingers from some islands off the coast of Spain (Balearic Slingers?) that trained from childhood with the sling, and the Romans found them utterly lethal and dangerous to face in combat.

I guess I could google and find some of that on the web somewhere. And I won't swear I don't have one of my facts wrong.

But the Romans had a very, very healthy respect for the slingers I mentioned. (And as most here will be aware they were using "bullets," not random stones from the ground.)

Here is a great site on slings, crafting them, using them, and history of them. Slinging.org They also do a good comparison of ranges and accuracy and such in comparison to other stuff like English Longbows and stuff...


Fake Healer wrote:
Here is a great site on slings, crafting them, using them, and history of them. Slinging.org They also do a good comparison of ranges and accuracy and such in comparison to other stuff like English Longbows and stuff...

Rocking site, much improved over the last one, but I tagged 3 different errors on the first page. The first projectiles were the rock and spear according to virtually all Anthropologists. Bows improved substantially by the end of the Roman era and supplanted slings as a military weapon, primarily due to acceptance grew due to simple crafting, practice, retrieval of ammunition and practice rounds. Still, I like slings and used to drop squirrels at 40+ yards. Never bagged a rabbit...

Sling stones and the like were deadly in their day, (Cretan slingers were valued mercenaries all over the Mediterranean) but the advent of cheap bows pulled by marginally trained mobs protected from cavalry by spearmen was their death knell. It was also the time of padded armor and actual metal helmets, both of which were good protection from sling bullets. Big shields that could shelter a legionnaire from both bullets and the fairly weak arrows of the day also helped. A big problem was how much space a slinger required to properly wield his weapon, roughly a 6 foot frontage and up to 8 in depth. Densely packed bowmen of the day could work with as little as 2 wide and deep! As many as 12 to 1 with similar range, but they were a much more 'target rich' aiming point. Remember, people were considerably smaller in that day, 6" shorter than Americans of today and rarely topped 130 lbs.


Getting an archer competent for D&D wasn't that hard. Getting them competent to shoot arrows for HOURS is what took an obscene amount of training. Like prima ballerina level training , with similar effects on your bones. YOu can still ID archers from their skeletons


lemeres wrote:

{. . .}

Modern take on sling- Can you do something with grenades? I feel like you could do something with grenades. Or some form of molotov cocktails. Similar to mortors, perhaps, but more quiet and easily concealed.

Overall, just changing up the ammunition could ahve a lot of effect on their use. Making it so that anyone could chuck a grenade at the same speeds as a major league pitcher seems lik an advantage.
{. . .}

You probably could, but I wouldn't want to stand anywhere near somebody trying this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Modern take on skills.... 10,000 hours of practice to master a subject.

http://www.wisdomgroup.com/blog/10000-hours-of-practice/

Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. Please keep it civil, thank you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People actually have used slings for grenades in the past. It's a good tool for people who can't afford RPGs. Interesting stuff.

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Now I see why slings are free... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.