|
Also: bowstaff. So I can spend a feat to use my sling as a flail, or I can cast a first level spell to use my longbow as a quarterstaff.
However, Rapid Reload with a sling staff is SO off limits. Don't even try it, because the Spanish beat the Incans.
Unrelated to the actual topic, did anyone else find themselves forced to hear the title of this thread in Jerry Seinfeld's voice?
Yes!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also: bowstaff. So I can spend a feat to use my sling as a flail, or I can cast a first level spell to use my longbow as a quarterstaff.
However, Rapid Reload with a sling staff is SO off limits. Don't even try it, because the Spanish beat the Incans.
Hmm. Would that mean that since the French beat the English in the Hundred Years War, crossbows should be better than longbows?
Okay, I'm not reading thirteen pages. I'm sure this has been brought up, but on the tiny chance it hasn't: An actually quite large advantage that goes to the sling staff over crossbows, most guns and the most wonderfullest weapons, the longbows is that you are always considered armed. That attack of opportunity can make a big deal.
One of the ranged fighter's biggest weaknesses is he can't do much of anything to shut down mages and clerics, allowing them to walk right up to him and start poking him with fingers of death/moderate unpleasantness. The sling staff has no such issue.
Otherwise, though, yeah, I'd say longbows have a big advantage. Maybe some homebrewed alchemical bullets/sling-related feats are in order? At least I think there could be a custom Manyshot for slings--a skilled warrior could learn to put two bullets in, after all.
Then I guess the solution is clear: We need 1d4 splatbooks with lots and lots of broken sling feats! Make it so, Paizo. Don't play favorites.
;)
|
|
Hmm. Would that mean that since the French beat the English in the Hundred Years War, crossbows should be better than longbows?Also: bowstaff. So I can spend a feat to use my sling as a flail, or I can cast a first level spell to use my longbow as a quarterstaff.
However, Rapid Reload with a sling staff is SO off limits. Don't even try it, because the Spanish beat the Incans.
Of course! It has been logic'd so.
Of course! It has been logic'd so.Hmm. Would that mean that since the French beat the English in the Hundred Years War, crossbows should be better than longbows?Also: bowstaff. So I can spend a feat to use my sling as a flail, or I can cast a first level spell to use my longbow as a quarterstaff.
However, Rapid Reload with a sling staff is SO off limits. Don't even try it, because the Spanish beat the Incans.
Naw, they just rolled a LOT better on their Diplomacy check. ;-)
One of the ranged fighter's biggest weaknesses is he can't do much of anything to shut down mages and clerics, allowing them to walk right up to him and start poking him with fingers of death/moderate unpleasantness.Agreed. You can fix that though via quite a few methods.
Weapons: Spiked Gauntlets, Armor Spikes, Dwarven Boulder Helmets, ...
Natural Attacks: Claws, Bites, ...
Feats: Improved Natural Attack, Catch Off Guard, ...
And frankly there's not much he could do even if he had a greatsword since touch spells can be cast, moved, and then touched all in one go without provoking an AoO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am starting to wonder why bows are even in the game, when firearms were so much better that they replaced the bow almost entirely within a century or two....
After all, if firearms are so good, how come bows are given any sort of decent rating at all? Obviously they should be reduced to ineffectuality to properly reflect the domination of the firearm.
Yes, I'm being ironic.
|
It is not important. It is better to take point blank master than to use a sling as a flail. SO no, is not and advantage.It still falls pretty short of shooting 2 arrows at the same time imo.And I want to eat ice cream and not get fat.
There is a feat that allows you to load a sling While you are slinging it around your head.
Yes.
And I can't use a bow as a flail.
If you are a 4th level fighter, you or a 6th level ranger.
|
|
Unless you take feats.
The answer, for good or ill, is that the halfling sling staff lacks any ability to allow it to fire more than once per round.
There is no feat that allows you to load a sling staff as a free action. Ammo Drop and Juggle Load (two feats to a crossbow's one) do not apply to the sling staff.
Furthermore, the sling staff is an exotic weapon. If exotic is to mean anything, it should be better, or have the ability to become better, than the martial ranged weapons available. For this game's rules to make sense, a ranged character who has spent a feat on exotic weapon proficiency should have a better weapon than a character who has not.
Since one of your main arguments for a sling being worse than a longbow is due to the simple vs. martial disparity, I cannot comprehend why you should think a sling staff is fine the way it is. Even if you COULD take Ammo Drop and Juggle Load to reload as a free action, you are now down three feats compared with a longbow user.
I agree with the concept that a guy with Exotic profiency in a piece of paper should be able to outperform a guy with Simple proficiency with a sword. But most people do NOT agree with that. Most people want there to be weapons that suck that no one takes unless forced to. Kind of like, if you've got heavy armor proficiency, no one wants half-plate if full plate is available -- why would you?
Until we can reconcile this, there's no progress to be made. Either we are attempting to simulate a fantasy world in which slings can be totally awesome (which also satisfies a gamist approach of scaling proficiencies/feats being equal with equal investment), or we're attempting to simulate a "realistic" world in which, accuracy being equal, a .45 hogleg is always better than all bows and slings and crossbows, regardless of the user's level of specialization and knowledge of tricks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's rather the point of the discussion, currently the rules do neither.
A sling wielded by an average warrior does not deal out enough damage to kill an average warrior, yet we know that they did. It is also outranged by a shortbow, when we have plenty of testimony that it wasn't. It has none of the advantages or features that slings historically enjoyed.
So it is not modelled realistically. This is an issue for those who want to have weapons that do what they 'should' do if the gameworld combat is based on realistic conventions.
On the other side of the coin, there are not the Feats or abilities to make the sling into a Weapon of Awesomeness for those who want to travel the mythic warrior superhero route. If these Feats and abilities are available to archers, what is the logic in not allowing them to be available to slingers? After all, Pathfinder super-archery is hardly limited by realism in the first place, so the decision to downplay the sling cannot be seen as anything but arbitrary.
In short, the sling benefits from neither the application of realism nor the application of 'kewlness'.
|
|
There is no feat that allows you to load a sling staff as a free action. Ammo Drop and Juggle Load (two feats to a crossbow's one) do not apply to the sling staff.
Furthermore, the sling staff is an exotic weapon. If exotic is to mean anything, it should be better, or have the ability to become better, than the martial ranged weapons available. For this game's rules to make sense, a ranged character who has spent a feat on exotic weapon proficiency should have a better weapon than a character who has not.
Since one of your main arguments for a sling being worse than a longbow is due to the simple vs. martial disparity, I cannot comprehend why you should think a sling staff is fine the way it is. Even if you COULD take Ammo Drop and Juggle Load to reload as a free action, you are now down three feats compared with a longbow user.
So now it is about the sling staff and not the sling...
The sling staff that has better range and damage than a sling and is also a melee weapon, in and of itself...
|
|
So is a bow with bowstaff. Before you say "well only for a few classes", it's available to every archetypal ranged class but the fighter, who we have mentioned has access to Point Blank Master.
It's not about the sling staff instead of the sling. It's about either debunking the argument that martial is always better than simple, or enforcing the idea that exotic is always better than martial.
You can't have that both ways.
Unfortunately, Exotic weapons are very often worse (or at least no better) than Simple or Martial ones; look at the siangham. Also, sometimes the same weapon can be Simple or Martial or Exotic, depending on where you buy it; look at the kama vs. the sickle. (Hint: "kama" is the Japanese word for "sickle." They're the exact same tool.).
I would prefer it if a higher proficiency "grade" made you able to do better and/or cooler stuff, but that's often not the case in the RAW; instead, the system is in place to punish you for flavor. Somehow a sickle bought in the Far East is harder to use, even though it's the exact same thing as a sickle bought in the West. How's THAT for "realism"?
Changing that would mean moving the whole thread into the Homebrew section, however. As far as "General Discussion" goes, in the core Pathfinder game, Exotic weapons can be worse than Martial ones, so whether a staff sling requires an Exotic proficiency has no bearing on its usefulness as a weapon.
|
|
I agree with the concept that a guy with Exotic profiency in a piece of paper should be able to outperform a guy with Simple proficiency with a sword. But most people do NOT agree with that.
The issues also involves the fact that you may have to invest more in making a piece of paper deadly than a sword.
And if you invest the same in a sword and a piece of paper, the sword is still going to be generally better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issues also involves the fact that you may have to invest more in making a piece of paper deadly than a sword. And if you invest the same in a sword and a piece of paper, the sword is still going to be generally better.
OK, so if we have two 6th level human fighters, and one has spent Exotic profiency in staff sling (greater investment), and the other has Martial proficiency in the composite longbow (no additional investment), why is the second guy so much better off? A: Because in the RAW, "exotic profiency" isn't better than "martial" or "simple." The proficiency grades are in place to punish flavor, not to reward feat investment.
|
|
And in that case, whether a longbow requires Martial proficiency should also has no bearing on its usefulness. In which case the 'simple must be worse than martial argument' is patently ridiculous.
Except it isn't if you aren't playing a martial class.
Ask anyone who plays a class that doesn't get martial proficiency.
Because the Spanish beat the Incans.
Yep. But in D&D land, the Spanish 1st level fighter and the Incan 1st level fighter have the same range of starting wealth and equipment availability, so the Incans don't exist. At least not as PCs. And if you still insist on an Incan PC, you can play, but the game will punish you severely enough to make you regret your temerity. How dare you be a Special Snowflake!
Sigh.
I'm thinking I'm making some changes to slings for myself. I'm just not sure if it's going o be ammo based or not.
A sling wielded by an average warrior does not deal out enough damage to kill an average warrior, yet we know that they did. It is also outranged by a shortbow, when we have plenty of testimony that it wasn't.On the other side of the coin, there are not the Feats or abilities to make the sling into a Weapon of Awesomeness for those who want to travel the mythic warrior superhero route. If these Feats and abilities are available to archers, what is the logic in not allowing them to be available to slingers? After all, Pathfinder super-archery is hardly limited by realism in the first place, so the decision to downplay the sling cannot be seen as anything but arbitrary.
A shortbow wielded by an average warrior does not deal out enough damage to kill an average warrior, yet we know that they did. A shortsword wielded by an average warrior does not deal out enough damage to kill an average warrior, yet we know that they did. A dagger wielded by an average warrior does not deal out enough damage to kill an average warrior, yet we know that they did. And so forth.
A Sling wielded by a average warrior does 1D4+1. The shortbow does 1d6. The damage is the same.
The range of sling vs shortbow IRL is highly debated. In the game, the difference is minor.
Other than manyshot, what feats are unavilable to slingers? Pointblank, Precise, Improved Precise, Pinpoint, Shot on the Run, Rapid shot, all work with a sling. As do weapon focus, greater weapon focus, Penetrating strike, Weapon specialization….
|
|
Because the Spanish beat the Incans.Yep. But in D&D land, the Spanish 1st level fighter and the Incan 1st level fighter have the same range of starting wealth and equipment availability, so the Incans don't exist. At least not as PCs. And if you still insist on an Incan PC, you can play, but the game will punish you severely enough to make you regret your temerity. How dare you be a Special Snowflake!
Sigh.
No, the Incans and the Spanish don't have the same starting wealth.
PC's do.
If you choose to play a wizard who charges into combat with a sword, the expectation isn't that the game will correct your poor choices.
Sigh.
|
|
The issues also involves the fact that you may have to invest more in making a piece of paper deadly than a sword. And if you invest the same in a sword and a piece of paper, the sword is still going to be generally better.OK, so if we have two 6th level human fighters, and one has spent Exotic profiency in staff sling (greater investment), and the other has Martial proficiency in the composite longbow (no additional investment), why is the second guy so much better off? A: Because in the RAW, "exotic profiency" isn't better than "martial" or "simple." The proficiency grades are in place to punish flavor, not to reward feat investment.
First, and that martial class got to start off with martial weapon proficiency, making them unsurprisingly better with martial weapons as a class feature.
And also, as a class feature, they have access to point blank mastery, because you need to be a 4th level fighter (or 6th level ranger) to have the pre-requisite.
As a class feature, wizards can cast spells. Class features let you do things other classes can't.
Now if you have a class that doesn't have martial weapon proficiency, the sling staff is the same investment as a martial weapon and can be used for both ranged and melee.
The Longbow can't.
Not every option is equal for every build, in every situation, and such a goal creates more problems than it solves.
Meanwhile for one feat, the club user can use a club that is also a sling.
You seem bothered that a club isn't as good as a sword.
I'm not. I would be bothered if the guy with the club is the same the guy with the sword, all other things being equal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem bothered that a club isn't as good as a sword. I'm not. I would be bothered if the guy with the club is the same the guy with the sword, all other things being equal.
It's when all other things aren't equal is my concern. If the club guy spends feats on it, it should be better in his hands than a sword. Yes, it bothers me that it's not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Sling wielded by a average warrior does 1D4+1. The shortbow does 1d6. The damage is the same.
This is incorrect. _AVERAGE_ damage may be the same (though it is not, due to crits) but that does not mean the lethality is equal.
The average trained soldier (assuming warrior 1, 10 hp) shooting a similar soldier with a bow deals 1-18 points of damage on a hit. A similar slinger deals 2-10 points of damage on a hit. Someone with a shortsword deals 2-12 points of damage on a hit.
To be able to kill someone you need to be able to put them into the negatives, where they can bleed out unless helped. The bow and sword can do that, with a rather large margin, on a good hit. The sling cannot (though it can wound).
A shortbow wielded by an average warrior does not deal out enough damage to kill an average warrior, yet we know that they did.
You appear to missing what I am saying. The fact that the weapon does not act as it did in real life points makes slings wrongly modelled if you are looking for realism.
A Sling wielded by a average warrior does 1D4+1. The shortbow does 1d6. The damage is the same.
Umm, no it isn't. 1d4 (it is 1d4 by the way, not 1d4+1, you only get +1 if you have a STR bonus which most people don't get) is not the same as 1d6. 1d4+1 is not the same as 1d6 either. 1d6 is the same as 1d6.
The range of sling vs shortbow IRL is highly debated.
Yes it is. Between academic experts and contemporary eye-witness accounts on the one hand, and anonymous internet voices on the other. I know which I'll go for.
Other than manyshot, what feats are unavilable to slingers?
Are you saying that a fully optimised character can be equally as good with a sling as with a bow? Because I will call BS if you are.
Rapid Reload. Why do crossbows get a single feat to reload as a free action (despite it being quite the process) while a slinger needs two from a random splatbook?Because crossbows don't add strength and can't be used as a melee weapon.
Umm, no it isn't. 1d4 (it is 1d4 by the way, not 1d4+1, you only get +1 if you have a STR bonus which most people don't get) is not the same as 1d6. 1d4+1 is not the same as 1d6 either. 1d6 is the same as 1d6.
One can assume that the average warrior is not the same as the average person; using the basic array a reasonable professional soldier would be a Warrior 1 with stats something like: Str 13, Dex 12, Con 11, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 9.
I'm using warrior to mean someone who is fighting, rather that the Warrior NPC class. Most slings were used by skirmishers who were young and/or agile rather than powerfully built. In most cultures the skirmish line was somewhere you served if you weren't considered ready for the melee line.
Therefore, an historical warrior (not Warrior) using a sling would (in PF terms), be DEX rather than STR-heavy.
I'm using warrior to mean someone who is fighting, rather that the Warrior NPC class. Most slings were used by skirmishers who were young and/or agile rather than powerfully built. In most cultures the skirmish line was somewhere you served if you weren't considered ready for the melee line.
Therefore, an historical warrior (not Warrior) using a sling would (in PF terms), be DEX rather than STR-heavy.
Yeah, but that depends heavily on what level demographics you have. Generally pathfinder assumes a relatively high level distribution; being level 1 is being a rookie. Also note my array distribution did not include the racial bonus, so a dex of 14 is very possible. According to the NPC gallery, this is reasonable for a "low level archer soldier".
It has a similar array to what I proposed, with racial going to dex and being a bit smarter but a bit less wise.