|
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.
Yes. I think it was 80% by some counts, combined with the subsequent civil wars as various factions fell apart and upon each other.
And the sling<Bow<Guns at that point in history.
If the best argument you can give me for slings being on par with medieval bows is the Aztecs vs Spain, you have no case.
|
|
that also makes no sense.
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.
If I wrote the rules, I would have made the falcata a simple weapon without the high crit bonus if I included it at all. Really it should be like the dogslicer with a break chance, but that is a lot of weird and annoying failure chance to deal with.
But if you are going to make a weapon notably superior to a martial weapon, you have to make it exotic or it will just be what everyone picks.
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.
Let me try again: your stance is that the sling was replaced by the bow, and hence should be inferior.
Next step: the falcata was replaced by the longsword, and hence should be inferior.So far we both agree.
Fact: The game rules disagree with us. And it being Exotic vs. Martial has nothing to do with that, because Exotic weapons are often worse than Martial ones.
We're talking RAW here: Falcata > longsword. Therefore, by the logic of the developers, inferior weapons can have BETTER stats than the superior weapons that replaced them. Hence, by the logic of the developers, slings could very well be modeled as better than bows, in the same way that falcatas are modeled as better than longswords.
If the best argument you can give me for slings being on par with medieval bows is the Aztecs vs Spain, you have no case.
I never argued that at all. I merely pointed out that your rebuttal was equally flawed.
I don't care about historical accuracy as much as I do about a fun game. And a game in which slings were viable ranged weapons (without costing all your feats for 8 levels) would be more fun for me than one in which an infinite number of feats can never come close to narrowing the gap.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's deal with this point by point.
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.
I have not tried to argue that slings were the only weapons effective in a stone age culture. What I said was that the Spaniards feared the sling because, unlike their other missile weapons, it did not require the missile to penetrate their armour.
The reason I mentioned this was that sling bullets have qualities not modelled in most FRPGs. I started my original post of saying just that. Pathfinder does not give the concussive quality of the sling any consideration.
If you want to do a build discussion with you using non-composite bows and me using slings, I like my chances.
No doubt. Your ability to self-delude has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread. I dare say that you'll convince yourself of 1d4 being superior to 1d6, and that a shorter range is actually a bonus.
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".
What an utterly pointless thing to say. Can you really not analyse evidence? Can you really not look at reasons? The reason that the sling was feared most was that it worked well against heavy armour. The Romans and Greeks found the same thing.
Do you believe that the Romans, Greeks and Persians were so ignorant of military affairs that they raised bodies of slingers for fun when they already had bowmen and javelins? Or will you accept that they recognised that slings had a part to play in warfare because it brought qualities that the other weapons lacked?
And given the fall of the Aztecs to the Spanish is pretty much a textbook example of superior technology winning...
Your conclusion is wrong. There are no reputable textbooks that will use that conclusion. Even those aimed at children do not come to that conclusion.
Here's an extract from an online source for children, "Aztecs for Kids".
It was not the Spanish guns that won the day. It was the Spanish horses and dogs. The Spanish brought huge fierce mastiffs with them into battle. Their best weapon was disease. The Aztecs had never been exposed to childhood diseases like measles. As well, the Spanish had help from the other tribes in the area. These tribes saw a chance to get even, and perhaps even to rid themselves of the feared and hated Aztecs.
Here's a site aimed at slightly older school-age children.
But one of the most profound and far-reaching developments in the war was not a weapon of guns, powerful steel blades, or fierce dogs. It was smallpox. One of Narváez’ slaves was carrying smallpox. Americans had no immunity to this disease and it quickly devastated the country. Smallpox was the weapon that destroyed the Aztec empire.
Now, as an historian I would not normally use this sort of thing as a source, but it neatly illustrates how even a simple source aimed at children seems knows that your 'textbook example' is nothing of the kind.
Not to mention arguing that a sling stone and a mace are equivalent flies in face of physics and logic.
Both are blunt instruments that do not require penetration to cause injury. The mace was a popular weapon against heavy armour because it transmitted its energy through the armour to the victim. That is the quality of the sling that made it similarly effective.
|
|
My stance is that sling is fine as is. You can do enough damage to contribute (1/4th of the total damage for an equal CR enemy) and further you can basically match the damage of the bow with the exception of not having manyshot, so the problem is manyshot, not the sling.
Additionally, it is a simple weapon, that can be wielded in one hand, and made into a melee weapon, hidden on persons, etc...
So it's fine.
As to Exotic vs Martial, all of the exotic weapons that aren't mathematically better have a special feature or two that the Devs feel make them worth a feat to use.
Do I agree with all of them, no. Would they agree with all of mine? No.
If you want me to defend the Falcata being better than the Longsword, I won't. If you make a thread about it, I'll chime in the Falcata shouldn't be better.
But this is a thread about slings and bows. And medieval slings were not as good a ranged weapon as composite medieval bows.
|
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.
I am just gonna point out that you took one small phrase on a small portion of a website and used it to make a statement supporting your own determination while ignoring the vast majority of info on said site because it doesn't help your cause.
From the home page of Slinging.org, second paragraph of 'What is a Sling':
"There are many historical sources which describe the sling's extraordinary performance characteristics. Its main competitor, the bow, had both a shorter range and slower rate of fire."
That sounds to me like a sling was actually a better weapon. The only problem in Pathfinder is that they refuse to account for a sling as the actual weapon it is.
It took years of practice to get really good with it. Why did Pathfinder make it a basic weapon?
It had a range that was further than a English longbow. Why is the range increment in Pathfinder more than halved in comparison?
On the Longbow:
"For comparison, the current World Flight record for a "historically accurate" English longbow and horn/sinew composite bow is 306m and 566m respectively. It should be noted, however, that these ranges were achieved using light-weight flight arrows designed for range, and not for combat."
Meanwhile for slings:
"Jerzy Gasperowicz 2006 Bipointed, lead Sidearm 505m
David Engvall * 1992 pouch-less, special release Dart 62g 477.0m
Larry Bray * 1982 Stone 52g 130cm 437.1m"
and these are not world records in sling ranges, these are just enthusists that are practicing their slinging and seeing what they can do.
On the damage of a sling:
" the missile would penetrate the body easily up to a range of about 100 meters. Indeed, Celsius, a medical writer from Greek and roman times, gave detailed instructions in his "De Medicina" on how to remove lead and stone missiles from the bodies of soldiers." this is in reference to unarmored or lightly armored soldiers.
"The simple sling is often neglected when reviewing the long history of ranged warfare. Scholars typically focus on the simple thrown spear (javelin), atlatl, throwing axe, bow, and crossbow. However, in experienced hands, the sling was arguably the most effective personal projectile weapon until the 15th century, surpassing the accuracy and deadliness of the bow and even of early firearms."
"An experienced archer could fire ten to twelve un-aimed arrows a minute."
"A good slinger could fire more than twelve rounds a minute."
And some of the Mass/velocity sciency crap:
"Slingers could achieve faster “muzzle” velocities than archers, and their projectiles suffered less air resistance during flight than arrows, conserving more kinetic energy until impact. An experienced slinger could throw projectiles at speeds over 90m/s, while the longbow could fire arrows upwards of 60m/s (Gabriel, 1991; Richardson, 1998a). When projectile masses were equal, the 50% speed advantage of the sling equates to a 125% increase in kinetic energy (because the velocity value is squared). Despite this, the penetration of an arrow was still greater because the tip is roughly 24 times smaller than the side of a typical, spherical sling projectile. The impact force of a sling projectile was applied to a larger area during contact, making it unlikely to penetrate flesh, though the collision could cause internal bleeding and even crush bones (Ferrill, 1985; Grunfeld, 1996). Historical demonstrations of this power have crept into literature, providing unique, first-hand accounts of professional slingers in action. For example, during the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire in the 15th century, an observer recorded that an Andean slinger could shatter Spanish swords or kill a horse in a single hit (Kormann, 1973; Wise, 1980). Vegetius, a Roman writer in the late 4th century, observed in his famous Epitoma Rei Militaris:
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."
The vast majority of the site talks about the sling in a favorable light and uses actual comparisons to other weapons to show where it ranked in history.
It was a great weapon but it required a ton of practice to use correctly and that is why it was supplanted by the bow, not because the bow is a superior weapon. A good bowman can be trained in weeks, a good slinger took far longer. In war you need troops to be trainable quickly.
|
|
@Fake Healer - The "small portion" was the summary conclusion of the article.
1. What was the final conclusion of the article.
2. Were any of those referencing medieval bows, which is what we are talking about.
Again, if we want to do a comparison of slings to non-composite bows, I feel good about my chances.
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.
The siangham? Surely not. It's... a melee arrow.
|
|
If the best argument you can give me for slings being on par with medieval bows is the Aztecs vs Spain, you have no case.I never argued that at all. I merely pointed out that your rebuttal was equally flawed.
I don't care about historical accuracy as much as I do about a fun game. And a game in which slings were viable ranged weapons (without costing all your feats for 8 levels) would be more fun for me than one in which an infinite number of feats can never come close to narrowing the gap.
My rebuttal was in response to someone using that as an example, which means it was a rebuttal of a rebuttal.
You act like I'm speaking in a vacuum.
And again, the gap is one feat. Manyshot. That is the gap, as demonstrated during the golden age of this thread when numbers were actually used.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The siangham? Surely not. It's... a melee arrow.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.
Sorry, confused it with the kama in my head. Basically a spear then. Same argument.
|
|
Do you believe that the Romans, Greeks and Persians were so ignorant of military affairs that they raised bodies of slingers for fun when they already had bowmen and javelins? Or will you accept that they recognised that slings had a part to play in warfare because it brought qualities that the other weapons lacked?
You mean the empires that fell prior to the medieval period?
As in "You are talking about the pre-medieval period, not the time period of the setting"
Flint spears and leather were awesome in the stone age too. Why aren't they on part with longswords and plate mail...
Oh boy, ciretose, you really are doing this deliberately aren't you? Are you aware of what you are saying or is it a knee-jerk thing?
Slings were around when bows were around. They are repeatedly reported as out-performing those bows. If we take the early bows to be shortbows (probably not strictly accurate as they were larger than the Pathfinder description suggests - the Egyptian longbow would be a longbow in this system) then the sling should out-perform the shortbow.
They were around in the late medieval period as well. They were supplanted as weapons of war because of the tactics used and the changing battlefield required different weapons. Cavalry changed the requirements for missile weapons.
Please, if you want your argument to be taken seriously, stop building those strawmen of yours, and read the evidence that has been repeatedly made available to you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Fake Healer - The "small portion" was the summary conclusion of the article.
1. What was the final conclusion of the article.
2. Were any of those referencing medieval bows, which is what we are talking about.Again, if we want to do a comparison of slings to non-composite bows, I feel good about my chances.
I do not know which of the many articles you read but the several that I read concluded with (paraphrasing) "Bows are easier and quicker to train people in and that is what supplanted slings as the go to weapon in war.".
Most of what I was referencing was in comparison to the English Longbow (Yew, I believe), and the bows made of composite materials laminated together (horn, heartwood, sap wood).My whole issue with slings is that Pathfinder, and D&D before them, did not make them in any form historically accurate to their abilities. If they got the range correct and the firing rates somewhat accurate I would be happy, but there was a decision that someone along the line made that "Bows are going to be superior to everything else in the game" that doesn't follow real-world history or reasoning.
The sling should be at least a martial weapon(maybe even exotic due to how hard it is to train) with a range increment of 100 feet. All the feats for bows should work with the sling to allow for faster rates of fire up to what a bow can do.
Having them be a simple weapon just because peasants and shepherds used them is just bad design. I don't think that they should be the best, easiest, uber-weapon ever....I just think that they should have been designed to have some similarity to what is displayed throughout history.
As designed the sling is more like a slingshot to me.
And again, the gap is one feat. Manyshot. That is the gap, as demonstrated during the golden age of this thread when numbers were actually used.
The gap is still one feat (Manyshot) after closing the existing 5-feat gap in effectiveness (Ammo Dump + Juggle Load + Weapon Focus + Weapon Specialization + Improved Critical, just to get the base sling equal to a composite bow). Those are actual numbers. A 6-feat gap, one of which cannot ever be filled.
Therefore your head is quite obviously underrated, and should be regraded in order to make it a viable option in head vs wall combat.
Only if there is evidence that walls can be so broken.
|
|
Why is "1/4" of an enemy's health the standard? It seems like that is really low, mostly because many characters in a party don't do any damage at all.
Because it means you are doing your share.
If some people in the party are doing other things that allow you to do more damage (casting haste, stunning them, knocking them unconscious, flanking...) you would then do more damage.
But assuming no one is helping you, if you do 1/4 of an equal CR, then your party ends equal CR combats in one round.
One round.
If a party ending an equal CR combat in a single round by doing average damage seems low, I don't know what to tell you.
an observer recorded that an Andean slinger could shatter Spanish swords or kill a horse in a single hit (Kormann, 1973; Wise, 1980).
OK, people seem to like numbers and historical accuracy. Let's really look at them, then.
If we assume that Kormann and Wise aren't making things up (and if they are, then probably so are all the longbow enthusiasts, so we're back to square 1) the benchmark is that a human slinger with a modest number of feats can actually do either of these things. Let's be generous and assume a 2nd level fighter with 17 Str, and we'll give him Point-Blank Shot and Deadly Aim. He's dealing 1d4+6/20/x2, for a maximum 20 damage. A horse requires 30 hp of damage in one shot to kill. If we houserule a x3 crit for the sling he can score 30 damage, which just barely meets the mark. Ciretose, would you say that slings should have a x3 crit, based on this evidence?
Continuing:
"An experienced archer could fire ten to twelve un-aimed arrows a minute."
"A good slinger could fire more than twelve rounds a minute."
Therefore, equal rates of fire with equal training. However, a human slinger requires not one but two feats to match a longbow's ROF... not including the feats we already gave him to get close to the minimum damage mark (including our houseruled crit multiplier). Therefore, the requirements for rapidly reloading a sling need to be lower as well.
|
|
And again, the gap is one feat. Manyshot. That is the gap, as demonstrated during the golden age of this thread when numbers were actually used.The gap is still one feat (Manyshot) even after closing the existing 5-feat gap in effectiveness (Ammo Dump + Juggle Load + Weapon Focus + Weapon Specialization + Improved Critical, just to get the base sling equal to a composite bow). Those are actual numbers. A 6-feat gap, one of which cannot ever be filled.
No. The builds produced were equal level, equal buy, etc. The difference was manyshot.
Both builds had feats they could have moved around and adjusted. Both slinger builds, halfling and human, could have taken manyshot with significant sacrifice. If Deadly Aim were precision damage, the difference would have been negligible. And the sling had better AC because they can use a buckler with no penalty.
The composite bow also needs weapon focus and weapon specialization in order to get point blank master (which is also accessible by slings). You can't get point blank master unless you are a 4th level fighter or a 6th level ranged focus ranger, meaning with the exception of 1 and 1/2 classes (or the use of a spell), the bow is ranged only, while the sling can dual purpose.
We posted the numbers and the builds. If you want to post another one, feel free.
The numbers don't bear out the accuracy of the complaint.
More contemporary observations, this time from Vegetius's Epitoma rei militaris, or Epitome of Military Science, dating from the 5th Century.
"Often, against soldiers equipped with helmets, scale-armour, and coats of mail, smooth stones shot with a sling or sling-stick are more effective than any arrow, since while leaving the limbs untouched they nevertheless inflict a fatal wound and the enemy dies from the impact of the stone without the shedding of blood." Page 50.
I seem to recall that both scale armour and mail are found within Pathfinder.
True or false? A human requires 2 feats to match a sling ROF to that of a longbow.
True or false? Manyshot and crits aside, a sling's damage will match a composite longbow's if the Weapon Specialization feat is taken.
True or false? Weapon Specialization requires Weapon Focus.
True or false? Matching a 20/x3 crit requires Improved Critical (19-20/x2).
How many feats is that?
Answer: Five.
That applies no matter what games you play with your "build".
the bow is ranged only, while the sling can dual purpose.
This is a non-sequitor. Have each guy carry a short sword and drop their ranged weapon when people close. Having the sling or bow be able to double as a half-ass melee weapon isn't really all that much to write home about, and certainly isn't worth basing your character on.
If the bow user also takes the same Feats you mention, the sling is no further forward, of course....
More contemporary observations, this time from Vegetius's Epitoma rei militaris, or Epitome of Military Science, dating from the 5th Century.
"Often, against soldiers equipped with helmets, scale-armour, and coats of mail, smooth stones shot with a sling or sling-stick are more effective than any arrow, since while leaving the limbs untouched they nevertheless inflict a fatal wound and the enemy dies from the impact of the stone without the shedding of blood." Page 50.
I seem to recall that both scale armour and mail are found within Pathfinder.
Yeah, but what did they have to say about Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and Phantasmal Killer? What if you paid a commoner to reload it every round, thus freeing you from move action reload! Bazinga.
Just wanted to say I love slings, use them with every level one character. Strength damage for free at 50' range increments, yes please!
|
|
Continuing:
[quote=]"An experienced archer could fire ten to twelve un-aimed arrows a minute."
"A good slinger could fire more than twelve rounds a minute."
Therefore, equal rates of fire with equal training. However, a human slinger requires not one but feats to match a longbow... not including the feats we already gave him to get close to the minimum damage mark (including our houseruled crit multiplier). Therefore, the requirements for rapidly reloading a sling need to be lower as well.
This is a fair argument.
It was shown in videos in other threads, that the 12 per minute number is low. The average English Military Archer could fire 12 to 15 arrows per minute and hit a man-sized target at a minimum of 200 yards.
I have not been able to find any sling videos or references that back up his assertion that it could be fired that fast, and his article is the only one I've seen that says they fired faster. And it is one of the few things in the article he said that he didn't have a citation on.
Not saying he is wrong, he's done more research than I have, but I am not sure what he is basing it on.
Everything I've seen regarding the sling makes it seem like the process of loading in would be significantly longer than a bow, given you have to stop the swing, insert the stone, then restart the swing. This vs notching a bow as part of the pull. The video of each aren't as clear as the crossbow vs Bow issue (crossbow ridiculously slower) so if you find one, let me know.
The forums over at Slingers.org generally put the number around one every 6 seconds (10 a minute), with really good ones doing every 4 seconds taking it to 15, putting it behind the guys in the videos. (Although some guy said he could do 30...so I honestly don't know.)
What I do know is that the sling also was not and is not all that simple to use by someone without training, as even the sling defenders on the various sites admit to use one even remotely accurately takes lots and lots of training.
But you have to concede that by the medieval period the sling was functionally obsolete as a primary use weapon.
So what we have is this.
1. The sling in game is a simple weapon when it probably isn't.
2. The sling damage is less than a bow unless you add strength, but less than a composite bow with strength added, which is pretty accurate.
3. The sling can be used in one hand while the bow requires two. Yup.
4. The sling can be reloaded as a free action that does not provoke with two feats. Given it is a simple weapon, that is functionally a one feat difference.
5. The sling can be used as a melee weapon by anyone with a feat. The bow requires a feat chain only available to two classes to use it in melee. And this same path is available to the sling at the same cost.
When you do the math, the difference in damage is basically from manyshot. If you want to make slings able to manyshot, as I said that makes as much sense as firing two arrows at once, but I personally would make deadly aim not be precision damage instead.
The sling is fine. Is it as good as the bow in an optimized build? No.
And the club isn't as good as a sword in an optimized build. Obsolete weapon is less good.
|
|
the bow is ranged only, while the sling can dual purpose.This is a non-sequitor. Have each guy carry a short sword and drop their ranged weapon when people close. Having the sling or bow be able to double as a half-ass melee weapon isn't really all that much to write home about, and certainly isn't worth basing your character on.
It means you only need to invest in one magic weapon to do both melee and ranged damage.
So if I get Glyph of Warding cast on all my sling ammunition it's still not worth using?
Yeah, but what did they have to say about Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and Phantasmal Killer? What if you paid a commoner to reload it every round, thus freeing you from move action reload! Bazinga.
You realise that we were talking about how realistically represented the sling was, aren't you? I don't recall (working) magic being part of any real army's arsenal.
The discussion about how well it does in the game is a different point, but the builds demonstrate that it is still poor.
Just wanted to say I love slings, use them with every level one character. Strength damage for free at 50' range increments, yes please!
I love dwarven waraxes, but that doesn't mean they are properly represented.
|
|
True or false? A human requires 2 feats to match a sling ROF to that of a longbow.
True or false? Manyshot and crits aside, a sling's damage will match a composite longbow's if the Weapon Specialization feat is taken.
True or false? Weapon Specialization requires Weapon Focus.
True or false? Matching a 20/x3 crit requires Improved Critical (19-20/x2).How many feats is that?
Answer: Five.That applies no matter what games you play with your "build".
And the longbow requires weapon focus, weapon specialization, and point blank mastery to use it in melee.
Kirth the builds are in the thread. The numbers are what the numbers are. If you think Nicos missed something, bump up his archer. I know I missed something because after I checked I only used a 17pb and no traits.
But you have to concede that by the medieval period the sling was functionally obsolete as a primary use weapon.
This was false logic when you first brought it up, and it is still false logic now.
The fact that a weapon was no longer in use on the battlefield does not mean that it has suddenly become worse than it was.
Assuming the user is the same, a sling in Ancient Sumeria will do the same damage and have the same range as a sling in the 21st Century. A change in battlefield tactics does not mean that the sling bullet suddenly drops in power.
Your argument that it should somehow logical for it to be downrated in a medieval setting because it was no longer being used as a battlefield weapon has so many holes it could be used as a colander, yet you persist with it.
Contemporary...
Yes, contemporary. As in, he was writing about warfare of his time, rather than historically. The sling was still a common weapon in the 5th Century.
The word 'contemporary' does not mean 'medieval', it means of the same time. A contemporary historian is not necessarily a medieval one.
Continuing...This is a fair argument.
Did you want to address the one immediately preceding, that had 2 references?
an observer recorded that an Andean slinger could shatter Spanish swords or kill a horse in a single hit (Kormann, 1973; Wise, 1980).If we assume that Kormann and Wise aren't making things up (and if they are, then probably so are all the longbow enthusiasts, so we're back to square 1) the benchmark is that a human slinger with a modest number of feats can actually do either of these things. Let's be generous and assume a 2nd level fighter with 17 Str, and we'll give him Point-Blank Shot and Deadly Aim. He's dealing 1d4+6/20/x2, for a maximum 20 damage. A horse requires 30 hp of damage in one shot to kill. If we houserule a x3 crit for the sling he can score 30 damage, which just barely meets the mark. Ciretose, would you say that slings should have a x3 crit, based on this evidence?
|
|
But you have to concede that by the medieval period the sling was functionally obsolete as a primary use weapon.This was false logic when you first brought it up, and it is still false logic now.
The fact that a weapon was no longer in use on the battlefield does not mean that it has suddenly become worse than it was.
Assuming the user is the same, a sling in Ancient Sumeria will do the same damage and have the same range as a sling in the 21st Century. A change in battlefield tactics does not mean that the sling bullet suddenly drops in power.
Your argument that it should somehow logical for it to be downrated in a medieval setting because it was no longer being used as a battlefield weapon has so many holes it could be used as a colander, yet you persist with it.
The same damage being less than better weapons. Which is why when better weapons arrived they stopped using them.
A club still works. But a sword is better.
The same damage being less than better weapons. Which is why when better weapons arrived they stopped using them.
A club still works. But a sword is better.
Every weapon has a role for which it is best. A club is not a better battlefield weapon against lightly armoured opponents than a sword, but it is actually better for attacking an opponent wearing flexible armour. The mace is better than a sword against heavy armour. The dagger is better than the sword in a close quarters grapple.
However, you seem obsessed with the battlefield for what should have the 'best' mechanics in Pathfinder. So, why does a sling do less damage and have less range than a shortbow? That is the comparison, not the crossbow, longbow or bec-de-corbin. Plenty of battlefield accounts say that the sling outranged the bow, which I will happily classify as a shortbow because Pathfinder doesn't have a 'medium' class, yet the Pathfinder sling is rated as shorter ranged. The sling is reported as being better than the bow at causing damage against armoured opponents yet does less in Pathfinder.
Why is the shortbow somehow rated better than the sling, even on your hypothetical battlefield, when it wasn't?
|
|
Continuing...This is a fair argument.Did you want to address the one immediately preceding, that had 2 references?
an observer recorded that an Andean slinger could shatter Spanish swords or kill a horse in a single hit (Kormann, 1973; Wise, 1980).If we assume that Kormann and Wise aren't making things up (and if they are, then probably so are all the longbow enthusiasts, so we're back to square 1) the benchmark is that a human slinger with a modest number of feats can actually do either of these things. Let's be generous and assume a 2nd level fighter with 17 Str, and we'll give him Point-Blank Shot and Deadly Aim. He's dealing 1d4+6/20/x2, for a maximum 20 damage. A horse requires 30 hp of damage in one shot to kill. If we houserule a x3 crit for the sling he can score 30 damage, which just barely meets the mark. Ciretose, would you say that slings should have a x3 crit, based on this evidence?
And of course a light horse has 15 hit points, not 30 and 17 is not the max by any stretch...hell if they were barbarians a 24 strength on a throw at first level isn't out of the question, is it? What is that, 1d4 + 11...
We can also assume Kormann and Wise weren't the observer, unless they were really, really old.
And what we know about observers is that Xenophon counted a max of 20,000 as 100,000 and there were Cities of Gold and fountains of youth.
But for the purposes of this argument, let us assume the observer is correct. Let us assume the sling "could" kill an otherwise healthy horse in a single blow. It this more or less likely to happen when using a composite bow?
We can actually measure things, and when we did the sling did less damage that than the composite bow. It was cited in that article, again from the cite I was sent to in order to "prove" the sling position.
Which is why people invested in the much more expensive and difficult to acquire composite bow. It was better.
But let us look at my Barbarian again. At 1st level I can do 1d4 + 11 damage with the sling while raging? I take down that horse with a crit every single time, since my minimum damage on a crit is 24.
I can't even afford a composite bow.
For the same investment I could just take sling flail and power attack and have a flail that also is a back up ranged weapon. I would do 1d8 + 10 damage while raging in melee and 1d4 + 7 ranged.
At first level.
The flail also has trip and disarm, which I could invest in later.
Depending on how I decide to build out.
And if I stay barbarian, I could never take point blank mastery anyway.
|
|
The same damage being less than better weapons. Which is why when better weapons arrived they stopped using them.
A club still works. But a sword is better.
Every weapon has a role for which it is best. A club is not a better battlefield weapon against lightly armoured opponents than a sword, but it is actually better for attacking an opponent wearing flexible armour. The mace is better than a sword against heavy armour. The dagger is better than the sword in a close quarters grapple.
And if fighting the tin man, a water balloon is best with the "rust" effect...
Some weapons stopped being used as often because better weapons were available.
The weapons still existed, but when you had the choice...
And again, the math shows that the sling does fine.
You do know that a mace is just a club with a reinforced end, don't you?
So this one time... I was playing pathfinder and had to escort a caravan of refugees. So my weaponmaker crafted slings and stone tipped spears for everyone in short order. Imagine the suprise when the bandits showed up and they were getting rained on by dozens of stones every round.
Or I could have crafted like 2 shortbows....
Which is the better weapon?
And if fighting the tin man, a water balloon is best with the "rust" effect...
What would you recommend against strawmen?
Some weapons stopped being used as often because better weapons were available.
Why, then, did the sling continue in military usage for thousands of years even though bows were available?
And again, the math shows that the sling does fine.
Sure, as long as by 'fine' you mean, 'not fine'.
