|
Who says I'm upset at you? You are just taking certain information from the site to support the argument that you are making to counter an argument I am not making.@Gallo - So at this point the site you referred me to go to actively refutes your argument, but it seem you are upset at me for this...
If you are going to argue against your own citation, I'm not sure what to say to you.
The site you referred me to in order to make your argument.
The article on slings in medieval times, from that site.
What argument are you making?
Oh please. Now you are getting to the point of just being silly.
I admire your tenacity in defending the indefensible, but when you claim ignorance of posts and cites that you have actually responded to, it goes from admirable tenacity to ignorant stubbornness.
This whole thread is littered with evidence for the case to uprate the sling, yet you pretend not to have seen it? If you haven't read the material then that is one thing, but to claim ignorance of it is quite ridiculous.
1. The article from the cite your side presented says otherwise.
The site you referred me to in order to make your argument.
The article on slings in medieval times, from that site.
What argument are you making?
Yet, funnily enough, that very same article from slinging.org that you used to try and discount our case contains plenty of information that supports our case.
Again, I don't care in the slightest how the sling compares to other weapons, who historically used it or why it went out of favour, only that the sling as presented in Pathfinder is a poorer weapon than it should be. And by extension using it as a major factor in building a character is more problematic than it should be.
You do realize that is a direct quote from a pathfinder book, right?
Yes I do. And the weapon I quoted are from the Pathfinder material yet are clearly not medieval or renaissance.
Now, to me that suggests that Pathfinder might be a game that is not so heavily entrenched in a medieval or early Renaissance as that quote would make out. Or just possibly that there is scope for using weapons and armour that do not fit the medieval and early Renaissance setting, and that you might actually be allowed to set the game in something other than a medieval world.
I would add that the medieval world didn't have orcs and magic.
|
|
Oh please. Now you are getting to the point of just being silly.
I admire your tenacity in defending the indefensible, but when you claim ignorance of posts and cites that you have actually responded to, it goes from admirable tenacity to ignorant stubbornness.
This whole thread is littered with evidence for the case to uprate the sling, yet you pretend not to have seen it? If you haven't read the material then that is one thing, but to claim ignorance of it is quite ridiculous.
Link to them.
|
|
1. The article from the cite your side presented says otherwise.The site you referred me to in order to make your argument.
The article on slings in medieval times, from that site.
What argument are you making?
Yet, funnily enough, that very same article from slinging.org that you used to try and discount our case contains plenty of information that supports our case.
Again, I don't care in the slightest how the sling compares to other weapons, who historically used it or why it went out of favour, only that the sling as presented in Pathfinder is a poorer weapon than it should be. And by extension using it as a major factor in building a character is more problematic than it should be.
The one that says in conclusion
"However, it was during medieval times that an experienced slinger would find, for the first time in history, that he was simply outmatched."
That article?
|
|
You do realize that is a direct quote from a pathfinder book, right?Yes I do. And the weapon I quoted are from the Pathfinder material yet are clearly not medieval or renaissance.
Now, to me that suggests that Pathfinder might be a game that is not so heavily entrenched in a medieval or early Renaissance as that quote would make out. Or just possibly that there is scope for using weapons and armour that do not fit the medieval and early Renaissance setting, and that you might actually be allowed to set the game in something other than a medieval world.
I would add that the medieval world didn't have orcs and magic.
So that would make it more or less advanced.
Because
"The sling enjoyed more than 10,000 years as humanity’s premier ranged weapon. Its remarkable simplicity meant that by Hellenistic times, it had reached its pinnacle of development; there was simply nothing left to improve in its design. However, other weapons continued to develop, which eventually surpassed the sling in effectiveness. Better armor and tactical changes further reduced its value. This transition was slow, taking place over the last two millennia. However, it was during medieval times that an experienced slinger would find, for the first time in history, that he was simply outmatched.
The legacy of this great weapon did not end in medieval times however. While nearly disappearing in Europe, the sling continued to be used in the New World and Near East well into the 1700s. Although the sling is still being used on a small scale today, it is no longer employed by any militaries. The last recorded martial use of a sling was during the Spanish Civil War in 1936."
Because it isn't as good as newer weapons.
1. The article from the cite your side presented says otherwise.The site you referred me to in order to make your argument.
The article on slings in medieval times, from that site.
What argument are you making?
Yet, funnily enough, that very same article from slinging.org that you used to try and discount our case contains plenty of information that supports our case.
Again, I don't care in the slightest how the sling compares to other weapons, who historically used it or why it went out of favour, only that the sling as presented in Pathfinder is a poorer weapon than it should be. And by extension using it as a major factor in building a character is more problematic than it should be.
The one that says in conclusion
"However, it was during medieval times that an experienced slinger would find, for the first time in history, that he was simply outmatched."
That article?
Yup. That article. One particular article, that you have chosen to use and selectively quote from. Tell the Spanish conquistadors that the Aztec slingers were outmatched.
The same article provides plenty of information about how slings were effective at various times and situations - and why they fell from use. But, again, that is not my argument. You can continue to try and prove I'm wrong, but everything you are trying to prove is not what I am arguing.
Because it isn't as good as newer weapons.You do realize that is a direct quote from a pathfinder book, right?Yes I do. And the weapon I quoted are from the Pathfinder material yet are clearly not medieval or renaissance.
Now, to me that suggests that Pathfinder might be a game that is not so heavily entrenched in a medieval or early Renaissance as that quote would make out. Or just possibly that there is scope for using weapons and armour that do not fit the medieval and early Renaissance setting, and that you might actually be allowed to set the game in something other than a medieval world.
I would add that the medieval world didn't have orcs and magic.
Why are you trying to disprove a point that none of us are making?
Please everyone: calm down. The sling loses out on a couple feats, spells and powers that affect only bows and sometimes crossbows; this is fact. The sling (for whatever reason you choose - unpopular, conflicting science/history, the devs don't like, etc) deals less damage than those others with the same range as a crossbow; these are also facts. There are currently no supported PF archetypes or PrC's that center on the sling; this is our reality.
I didn't start this thread to debate the validity of these facts.
Personally I think that the sling's range is fine but that damage could use a bump. I also think the same about 0-level spells but these are not the subject of the thread. I started out by saying: since the sling will ALWAYS be inferior in DPR to it's ranged brethren, why not give it some OTHER utility to bring to the table.
At 1st level a highly optimized Halfling ranger (Str 14, Dex 17, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10; 20 pt buy; Feats: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot) has a ranged +4 (1d3+2) or from 30' ranged +5 (1d3 +3) attack every round. So long as he can move to within 30' he can accurately deliver 5 damage every round. Looking at a goblin warrior 1 in Bestiary 1 their average HP is a 6, meaning that our slinger can nearly drop a CR 1/3 goblin every round.
Further this means that, as part of a larger party our slinger and his party's arcanist with a 0-level attack spell spamming every round could, between the two of them mop up 1 goblin every round leaving the rest for the remainder of the party to deal with. Does this dude do as much as his own cousin (same build) with a shortbow? About the same at 30' though he falls behind every level afterwards.
But then, we took a sling so we knew damage wouldn't be our measure of success anyway right?
But here's the thing: you take a bow cause it's the best damage dealer. You take a crossbow because it's the second best and gets supported by ranger builds, most feats, etc. You take the sling because...why?
About the only mechanical reason I can see is because of cost: the sling costs nothing and the bullets cost 1SP/10. Weight-wise it's the same as carrying a crossbow; it's as easy to conceal as using your fists, other common tools-as-simple-weapons or daggers; range-wise it's again the same as the crossbow.
We've already proven that there is less feat support for them. Maybe not drastically less but the fact remains that there are not as many feats usable with the sling as there are w/the bow and crossbow. There are also no archetypes that support this weapon's focused use.
So the only motivation to take the weapon is, IMO, flavor.
So why not GIVE the freaking thing some FLAVOR. I don't need it to be equal in DPR to another ranged option, but it would be nice if it gave you SOME reason to take it. If you're using core, attacking w/a 1 handed simple weapon and building to focus on this you could take Morningstar since its B & P damage, but you might also take a shortspear for the potential to use it as ranged OR melee. These are different reasons to take these different weapons that are very similar.
The sling, to further this melee analogy, is like taking a 1-handed heavy mace only said mace deals 1d6 instead of 1d8.
So that would make it more or less advanced.
Because
"The sling enjoyed more than 10,000 years as humanity’s premier ranged weapon. Its remarkable simplicity meant that by Hellenistic times, it had reached its pinnacle of development; there was simply nothing left to improve in its design. However, other weapons continued to develop, which eventually surpassed the sling in effectiveness. Better armor and tactical changes further reduced its value. This transition was slow, taking place over the last two millennia. However, it was during medieval times that an experienced slinger would find, for the first time in history, that he was simply outmatched.
The legacy of this great weapon did not end in medieval times however. While nearly disappearing in Europe, the sling continued to be used in the New World and Near East well into the 1700s. Although the sling is still being used on a small scale today, it is no longer employed by any militaries. The last recorded martial use of a sling was during the Spanish Civil War in 1936."
Because it isn't as good as newer weapons.
You know, the falcata disappeared from use about the time of the early Romans. The short and longsword replaced it.
By your logic, that makes it inferior to the longsword.
But wait! In Pathfinder the falcata is actually superior - it has a x3 crit instead of the longsword's x2.
Guess that argument fails then. Pathfinder obviously doesn't use the logic that a weapon replaced must be inferior to anything that comes after it.
Now then, let's look at your post again. The slinger was outmatched on the battlefield in medieval times. What weapon, what missile weapon, came of age during this time? That would be the longbows and crossbows.
Now, has this discussion been about making the sling superior to the longbow or crossbow?
No. Only you are using that as a strawman argument, despite being told three times now that it is irrelevant.
About the only mechanical reason I can see is because of cost: the sling costs nothing and the bullets cost 1SP/10. Weight-wise it's the same as carrying a crossbow; it's as easy to conceal as using your fists, other common tools-as-simple-weapons or daggers; range-wise it's again the same as the crossbow.
So why not GIVE the freaking thing some FLAVOR. I don't need it to be equal in DPR to another ranged option, but it would be nice if it gave you SOME reason to take it. If you're using core, attacking w/a 1 handed simple weapon and building to focus on this you could take Morningstar since its B & P damage, but you might also take a shortspear for the potential to use it as ranged OR melee. These are different reasons to take these different weapons that are very similar.
If you're outfitting an army, cost seems a pretty good reason to me. The sling doesn't really stand out to me as something most adventurers are going to be carrying, so reflecting that in the rules to discourage it's use isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I could go for the following, though:
- Allowing scavenging rocks and stones for ammunition in the field. (EDIT: Which you already can... just proves how long since I actually looked up the sling in the rulebook ;) )
- Allow construction of improvised slings in the field.
- Allow it to be drawn as a swift action, due to it's size and weight.
Personally I think that the sling's range is fine but that damage could use a bump. I also think the same about 0-level spells but these are not the subject of the thread.
I would give it d6 damage and a better range increment, enough to outrange the shortbow. In fact, I'd just swap range increments for the two weapons.
As balance for being a Simple weapon, I'd keep the Crit. multiplier as x2, thus making the x3 of the shortbow a superior crit.
To balance the STR adding to damage, I would deny the sling the ability to use Precise Shot, giving a game balance nod to an arrow's potentially better accuracy at short range (dubious, but game-balancy). The Composite Shortbow is still a better weapon thanks to a better range and crit. multiplier, but the sling is now a viable alternative to the basic shortbow.
For a Feat, allow the Stunning Shot I mentioned earlier, possibly with Point-Blank Shot as a prerequisite.
Please everyone: calm down. The sling loses out on a couple feats, spells and powers that affect only bows and sometimes crossbows; this is fact. The sling (for whatever reason you choose - unpopular, conflicting science/history, the devs don't like, etc) deals less damage than those others with the same range as a crossbow; these are also facts. There are currently no supported PF archetypes or PrC's that center on the sling; this is our reality.
I didn't start this thread to debate the validity of these facts.
Personally I think that the sling's range is fine but that damage could use a bump. I also think the same about 0-level spells but these are not the subject of the thread. I started out by saying: since the sling will ALWAYS be inferior in DPR to it's ranged brethren, why not give it some OTHER utility to bring to the table.
I'm not overly fussed about damage, though it should be a little higher. Range is basically irrelevant in game situations. Cost is an non-issue after you hit level 2. Rate of fire is my real bugbear.
Tell the Spanish conquistadors that the Aztec slingers were outmatched.
How did that work out? Do you remember.
That article's summary was...
So I ask again, what is your argument?
Seriously, you are still trying to argue a point no one else is making.
As for Aztecs v Spanish…. simply pointing out that maybe all the conclusions the author made that you are using for your case are not as all-encompassing as you would like.
You know full well that were a huge range of military, social and other factors that led to the Aztecs losing. Just because the Germans blitzkrieged their way across Europe in 1939-41 doesn't mean the French, Poles etc didn't have some weapons that were better than some of the German weapons. And nor would the outcome of particular campaigns in 39-41 be relevant in a discussion about the performance of one particular weapon.
I'm not overly fussed about damage, though it should be a little higher. Range is basically irrelevant in game situations. Cost is an non-issue after you hit level 2. Rate of fire is my real bugbear.
How would you feel about allowing a full attack action with a sling by only using a standard attack? Again, trying to use the lightness of the weapon as a justification here.
So, I thought I tried to write some sling-centric feats, and what I came up with was this:
Just use the Vital Strike chain. It's actually better in some ways than the Gunslinger's dead shot. If there's not some Vital Strike on the run feat already, we should write one. Your DPS may never be quite a match for the crossbow guy, but the sling works just for the harrier, which reflects its historical role.
Damage should probably be bumped up to d6. From a realism standpoint, as I said before, it's surely as stout as a hit from a staff. From a balance standpoint, it's a fair trade for the other things it lacks.
How would you feel about allowing a full attack action with a sling by only using a standard attack? Again, trying to use the lightness of the weapon as a justification here.
I'm not overly fussed about damage, though it should be a little higher. Range is basically irrelevant in game situations. Cost is an non-issue after you hit level 2. Rate of fire is my real bugbear.
It's not about the weight of the weapon. It's is about why slings are deemed slower to load and fire than bows.
Rapidly reloading a sling is difficult, but it seems like a feat should cover it.
Also, you still have not given any reason for claiming pathfinder tries to model "the medieval period".
"The standard Pathfinder Roleplaying Game campaign takes place in a time period similar to the medieval and early Renaissance age of iron and steel."
Note the quotation marks and decide if you want to continue this argument.
you do realize there is a difference between claiming pathfinder tries to model the medieval.period and that the standard pathfinder campaigb is set in something similar to the medieval era, right? Especially when its very loosely similar in the official setting...
Goalposts went where?
Exotic weapon vs martial said what?
Sling is Simple yet you claim that one reason they are inferior to bows (Martial) is that they were replaced historically. Therefore, the same argument should presumably hold true for other weapons, that's why I used the falcata example.
If you don't like the falcata/longsword analogy, try javelins. You don't see a lot of them in a medieval battle, yet they are still reasonable weapons in Pathfinder. 1d6 damage is probably about right for a light javelin of the type thrown by peltasts and Celtic-style skirmishers. There are also darts and throwing axes, which were similarly little (if ever) used missile weapons by the later medieval/early Renaissance, yet still appear.
My point is that, whichever argument you are trying to make - historic or game - being replaced on the battlefield does not hold water.
Historically, throwing weapons and slings went when close-ranged infantry skirmishers left the battlefield. Tactics that worked against the slow and heavy infantry formations of the Classical Age and early medieval were no longer viable in warfare that included large amounts of cavalry. What was required were longer ranged missile weapons that could be used by denser and formed bodies of troops. These could be slower to operate because the users were not expected to be as mobile.
In game terms, weapons that have no place in a medieval battle setting are still represented, and often as very effective alternatives to the more medieval-flavoured options.
Therefore, to use the argument that slings are badly modelled in Pathfinder because they were obsolete in the battles of the later medieval and early Renaissance simply does not work.
Rapidly reloading a sling is difficult, but it seems like a feat should cover it.
I have always seen Feats as taking your character from being an average citizen to the dizzy heights of Hero. A look over the Feats list emphasises that these are not abilities available to the common man, but are the building blocks of legendary characters.
|
|
I'm not overly fussed about damage, though it should be a little higher. Range is basically irrelevant in game situations. Cost is an non-issue after you hit level 2. Rate of fire is my real bugbear.
Which was addressed with ammo drop and juggle load.
Slings have a lower rate of fire than Bows. So do non-modern crossbows.
|
|
Tell the Spanish conquistadors that the Aztec slingers were outmatched.
How did that work out? Do you remember.
That article's summary was...
So I ask again, what is your argument?
Seriously, you are still trying to argue a point no one else is making.
As for Aztecs v Spanish…. simply pointing out that maybe all the conclusions the author made that you are using for your case are not as all-encompassing as you would like.
You know full well that were a huge range of military, social and other factors that led to the Aztecs losing. Just because the Germans blitzkrieged their way across Europe in 1939-41 doesn't mean the French, Poles etc didn't have some weapons that were better than some of the German weapons. And nor would the outcome of particular campaigns in 39-41 be relevant in a discussion about the performance of one particular weapon.
And again, what is your argument?
The Aztecs lost. If occasionally I am able to use club a marine to take out a, but most of the time the automatic rifle wins, that says very little about club effectiveness.
I'm not the one who cited the Aztecs, you did. Just as I'm not the one to link to the website. You were.
Your sources are not helping make a case that slings should get a bump.
I'm not overly fussed about damage, though it should be a little higher. Range is basically irrelevant in game situations. Cost is an non-issue after you hit level 2. Rate of fire is my real bugbear.Which was addressed with ammo drop and juggle load.
Slings have a lower rate of fire than Bows. So do non-modern crossbows.
You do realise my argument is that those two feats shouldn't be necessary? And that slings don't necessarily have a slower rate of fire. I don't care about rate of fire for crossbows as it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
|
|
You do realise my argument is that those two feats shouldn't be necessary? And that slings don't necessarily have a slower rate of fire. I don't care about rate of fire for crossbows as it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm not overly fussed about damage, though it should be a little higher. Range is basically irrelevant in game situations. Cost is an non-issue after you hit level 2. Rate of fire is my real bugbear.Which was addressed with ammo drop and juggle load.
Slings have a lower rate of fire than Bows. So do non-modern crossbows.
If you want to be technical, slings are harder to master than bows so they shouldn't actually be simple weapons...
We have shown that slings can more or less match bows, with the exception of manyshot.
Manyshot is the "problem", not slings.
Tell the Spanish conquistadors that the Aztec slingers were outmatched.
How did that work out? Do you remember.
That article's summary was...
So I ask again, what is your argument?
Seriously, you are still trying to argue a point no one else is making.
As for Aztecs v Spanish…. simply pointing out that maybe all the conclusions the author made that you are using for your case are not as all-encompassing as you would like.
You know full well that were a huge range of military, social and other factors that led to the Aztecs losing. Just because the Germans blitzkrieged their way across Europe in 1939-41 doesn't mean the French, Poles etc didn't have some weapons that were better than some of the German weapons. And nor would the outcome of particular campaigns in 39-41 be relevant in a discussion about the performance of one particular weapon.
And again, what is your argument?
The Aztecs lost. If occasionally I am able to use club a marine to take out a, but most of the time the automatic rifle wins, that says very little about club effectiveness.
I'm not the one who cited the Aztecs, you did. Just as I'm not the one to link to the website. You were.
Your sources are not helping make a case that slings should get a bump.
If you don't know what my position is then why are you still in this thread?
You do realise my argument is that those two feats shouldn't be necessary? And that slings don't necessarily have a slower rate of fire. I don't care about rate of fire for crossbows as it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm not overly fussed about damage, though it should be a little higher. Range is basically irrelevant in game situations. Cost is an non-issue after you hit level 2. Rate of fire is my real bugbear.Which was addressed with ammo drop and juggle load.
Slings have a lower rate of fire than Bows. So do non-modern crossbows.
If you want to be technical, slings are harder to master than bows so they shouldn't actually be simple weapons...
We have shown that slings can more or less match bows, with the exception of manyshot.
Manyshot is the "problem", not slings.
Another irrelevant tangent. Simple, martial or exotic doesn't matter. Slings may be able to get close to bows but at an extra cost in feats. Which if you've been paying attention is what I believe is the problem with the current rules.
Tell the Spanish conquistadors that the Aztec slingers were outmatched.And again, what is your argument?
The Aztecs lost. If occasionally I am able to use club a marine to take out a, but most of the time the automatic rifle wins, that says very little about club effectiveness.
England lost the Hundred Years War. If occasionally I am able to use longbow a marine to take out a, but most of the time the automatic rifle wins, that says very little about longbow effectiveness.
And again, what is your argument?
The Aztecs lost. If occasionally I am able to use club a marine to take out a, but most of the time the automatic rifle wins, that says very little about club effectiveness.
I'm not the one who cited the Aztecs, you did. Just as I'm not the one to link to the website. You were.
Your sources are not helping make a case that slings should get a bump.
For the love of all that is holy.....
The Spanish did not conquer the Aztecs by themselves, far from it. They did not slaughter every opponent before them with their 'superior weapons' and armour. The slaughter of a third of the escaping Spaniards in Tenochtitlan during La Noche Triste suggests what would have happened had the Spaniards tried it alone.
The Spanish were a small group (around 500 men) that used the Aztecs' enemies, thousands of them, to fight their battles. They brought with them smallpox which decimated the native population. In battle, they deliberately targeted the Aztec generals to sow confusion amongst the Aztec ranks. They used cannon to systematically reduce the capital city after trapping the population inside.
They did not line up and trade blows, 500 Spanish against thousands of Aztecs. The differences in weapons they used were largely irrelevant in battle, aside from their armour and horses allowing them to reach the Aztec commanders, and the fact that they had cannon to reduce Tenochtitlan.
Nothing about this has any bearing on how effective slings were against individuals.
|
|
Another irrelevant tangent. Simple, martial or exotic doesn't matter. Slings may be able to get close to bows but at an extra cost in feats. Which if you've been paying attention is what I believe is the problem with the current rules.
Aside from manyshot, the cost difference is two feats ammo drop and juggle load.
Bows are martial, Slings are simple.
That is one feat.
So the difference is...one feat and 1000 gold for an adaptive bow
Or none if you take the halfling trait.
Because given it is a medieval fantasy setting, "...during medieval times that an experienced slinger would find, for the first time in history, that he was simply outmatched."
|
|
England lost the Hundred Years War. If occasionally I am able to use longbow a marine to take out a, but most of the time the automatic rifle wins, that says very little about longbow effectiveness.Tell the Spanish conquistadors that the Aztec slingers were outmatched.And again, what is your argument?
The Aztecs lost. If occasionally I am able to use club a marine to take out a, but most of the time the automatic rifle wins, that says very little about club effectiveness.
I'm not the one trying to argue that the Aztec loss to Spain is "evidence" that slings are good. I'm just pointing out that when that is the best evidence you can come up with, you don't have much of a case.
Exotic weapon vs martial said what?
That the siangkam is WAY better than the longsword! Oh, wait...
I'm not the one trying to argue that the Aztec loss to Spain is "evidence" that slings are good.
No. Nobody is.
I'm just pointing out that when that is the best evidence you can come up with, you don't have much of a case.
Are you not running out of straw yet?
|
|
I'm not the one trying to argue that the Aztec loss to Spain is "evidence" that slings are good.No. Nobody is.
You brought this up. You, not me.
Gallo sent me to slinging.org where the article that says "...during medieval times that an experienced slinger would find, for the first time in history, that he was simply outmatched." was.
He sent me there. That is the link he gave me to look for evidence.
These are the arguments you were making, not me.
Exotic weapon vs martial said what?That the siangkam is WAY better than the longsword! Oh, wait...Goalposts?
It's exotic because you can flurry with it.
that makes no sense.
I'm not the one trying to argue that the Aztec loss to Spain is "evidence" that slings are good.No. Nobody is.
You brought this up. You, not me
....
These are the arguments you were making, not me.
My exact words in that post were
"When the Spanish invaded South and Central America, the Aztec and Inca (and other indigenous nations') weapon they feared the most was the sling. It didn't need to penetrate armour, it just needed to hit to transfer its force through the helmet and onto the target's head, often stunning or concussing him - the missile equivalent of the mace."
Now I don't know how you get from that to "the Aztec loss to Spain is "evidence" that slings are good", but it is an amazing leap of false logic.
It's exotic because you can flurry with it.
The only person in the game who can flurry with it gets it for free -- no proficiency feat required. So it's exotic why, again? because it looks funny, or has a funny name. Not because it's a better weapon, because it's not.
Well, if a fighter's going to dress like a monk, he better have to blow a feat on it. :P
|
|
It's exotic because you can flurry with it.The only person in the game who can flurry with it gets it for free -- no proficiency feat required. So it's exotic why, again? because it looks funny, or has a funny name. Not because it's a better weapon, because it's not.
I would personally prefer it was simple, because it is basically a converted farm implement.
But that is why it is exotic. Right or wrong.
But what any of that has to do with sling, I don't know.
|
|
I'm not the one trying to argue that the Aztec loss to Spain is "evidence" that slings are good.No. Nobody is.
You brought this up. You, not me
....
These are the arguments you were making, not me.
My exact words in that post were
"When the Spanish invaded South and Central America, the Aztec and Inca (and other indigenous nations') weapon they feared the most was the sling. It didn't need to penetrate armour, it just needed to hit to transfer its force through the helmet and onto the target's head, often stunning or concussing him - the missile equivalent of the mace."
Now I don't know how you get from that to "the Aztec loss to Spain is "evidence" that slings are good", but it is an amazing leap of false logic.
And I'm not sure how you got that the only weapon moderately effective in an ostensibly stone age culture was the sling, because their javelins and bows were...stone age. As you pointed out, the bows were not-composite.
If you want to do a build discussion with you using non-composite bows and me using slings, I like my chances.
If I was fighting someone with a butter knife and a spork, I would fear the butterknife the most. But that doesn't make a butterknife "good".
And given the fall of the Aztecs to the Spanish is pretty much a textbook example of superior technology winning...
Not to mention arguing that a sling stone and a mace are equivalent flies in face of physics and logic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what any of that has to do with sling, I don't know.
How quickly they forget...
1. You said that the sling was replaced by the bow, and hence inferior, and therefore the game stats should be inferior.
2. Someone else pointed out that the falacata was replaced by the longsword, but the falcata game stats are much better than the longsword's, rather than inferior.
3. You defended this by snarkily claiming that exotic weapons are better than martial ones.
4. I demonstrated that exotic weapon stats are often worse than martial ones, rather than better.
|
|
But what any of that has to do with sling, I don't know.How quickly they forget.
1. You said that the sling was replaced by the bow, and hence inferior.
2. Someone else pointed out that the falacata was replaced by the longsword, but the falcata stats were much better.
3. You replied, snarkily, that exotic weapons are better than martial ones.
4. I demonstrated that this isn't true.
1. Because it was.
2. I wouldn't have made the falcata better. It wasn't. But if it is going to be better, it needs to be exotic. And none of this had anything to do with the sling.
3. Because in the example given (that had nothing to do with the sling) the exotic weapon was better.
4. Which has nothing to do with the sling.
I know you don't care for my tone, and I know we disagree about some very basic principles of the game, but I am not seeing how any of this makes your position stronger.
And given the fall of the Aztecs to the Spanish is pretty much a textbook example of superior technology winning...
It's an example of germ warfare winning. The native populations were decimated by smallpox, their military structure in shambles because of the speed and mortality rate of the infections, long before the Spanish ever fought them.
You're also ignoring the advantage of having mounted forces.
So, the conquest of South America by the Spanish shows that resistance to deadly plague + intact command structure + horses + better technology > susceptability to plage + decimated command structure + no horses + worse technology. I can't see how the sling's supposed inferiority to the bow enters into this scenario except tangentially at best.
2. I wouldn't have made the falcata better. It wasn't. But if it is going to be better, it needs to be exotic.
that also makes no sense.