Because that was the point being stated.
That is the "point" you are stating.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
ciretose - is your basic position that the sling is fine as is? Is there more to it than that?To sum up
- The sling is viable as is, you can do what would be your share of damage if you invest in sling as your primary weapon (1/4 Hit Points of DPR)
- The Sling was largely obsolete as a ranged weapon during the period the setting mimics, so having it be sub-optimal as a ranged weapon makes perfect sense.
- The sling has some advantages relative to the longbow that shouldn't be discounted. It is smaller, easier to conceal, can double as a melee weapon, can improvise armor, etc...
- The damage difference is primarily one feat: Manyshot. If there is an issue, that is it. Personally I think making deadly aim precision damage "fixes" the discrepancy. But bumping up slings because Bows are really good is like giving all the skinny kids cake so the fat kid doesn't feel bad.
So a 50' range increment on a weapon that IRL had a range at least equal to an english longbow is ignored.
Needing 2 feats from a fairly obscure book just to have a similar firing rate to a bow when they had nearly identical firing rates IRL is ignored.
I don't really care about Manyshot, viability comparisons or whether or not I can use a sling as a belt and walk around with it. I would like a weapon to at least in some form mimic the real life version of itself. The sling in no way does this. The sling as presented in Pathfinder and 3.5 should be renamed into the slingshot since that is more in line with what it emulates.
I guess we should all just ignore everything everybody else puts forth in this thread and keep restating our own positions with no change for another 18 pages. Seems like that is what you are doing here Ciretose.
Hi Fakey! To be fair, I asked ciretose to restate his position, and he was responding to that request.
This thread reminds me of our epic argument back in the day about using Create Water against a fire elemental. It all seemed so important and shout-worthy then, but now I look back and feel silly for being so dickish over something so minor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- The sling is viable as is, you can do what would be your share of damage if you invest in sling as your primary weapon (1/4 Hit Points of DPR)
One of many problems here is this assertion. Absolutely nobody except Ciretose agrees that dealing 1/4 the HP of an equal CR enemy is a viable contribution for a damage-focused character.
Or at least it does not seem as if anyone does. I asked earlier and heard crickets, so if anyone else actually thinks such low damage is a viable contribution, please, speak up now.
Maybe instead of talking about horses and Greek historians, we should discuss what a damage dealer is actually expected to do.
Then, once it is finally accepted that the sling does crap for damage, we can discuss the things a sling might be able to do that is worth using one for--even if it's an usual niche (maybe bouncing shots from one dude to the next?).
Can someone show me what I'm missing? My human slinger doesn't come close to my archer, all other things equal (like, orders of magnitude of difference).
ARCHER (CR 8)
Init +7; Senses Perception +9
AC 26, touch 14, flat-footed 22 (+12 armor, +3 Dex, +1 dodge)
hp 77 (8d10+32)
Fort +10, Ref +8, Will +7; bravery +2
Spd 30 ft.
Melee mwk short sword +12/+7 (1d6+3/19-20)
Ranged +1 shock composite longbow +14/+9 (1d8+7/19-20/x3 plus 1d6) (min 18, max 102 if all hit) or
Rapid shot +12/+12/+7 (1d8+7/19-20/x3 plus 1d6) (min 27, max 153)
Deadly aim +11/+6 (1d8+13/19-20/x3 plus 1d6) (min 28, max 138)
BAB +8; CMB +10; CMD 23
Special Atks weapon training (bows) +1
Str 14 (16), Dex 16 (18), Con 14 (16), Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
SQ armor training 2
Feats (4+1 human +5 fighter): Deadly Aim, Dodge, Improved Critical, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus (longbow), Weapon Specialization (longbow)
Gear (WBL 33K): +1 full plate armor (2500), +1 shock composite longbow (8600), mwk short sword (300), cloak of resistance +2 (4000), belt of physical perfection +2 (16000), silversheen (x2 quivers’ worth)
SLINGER (CR 8)
Init +7; Senses Perception +9
AC 26, touch 14, flat-footed 23 (+12 armor, +3 Dex, +1 deflection)
hp 77 (8d10+32)
Fort +10, Ref +8, Will +7; bravery +2
Spd 30 ft.
Melee mwk short sword +12/+7 (1d6+3/19-20)
Ranged +1 distance sling +14/+9 (1d4+7/19-20/x2) (min 11, max 22 if all hit)
BAB +8; CMB +10; CMD 23
Special Atks weapon training (thrown) +1
Str 14 (16), Dex 16 (18), Con 14 (16), Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
SQ armor training 2
Feats (4+1 human +5 fighter): Ammo Drop, Clustered Shots, Improved Critical, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Juggle Load, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus (sling), Weapon Specialization (sling)
Gear (WBL 33K): +1 full plate armor (2500), +1 distance sling (8000), mwk short sword (300), cloak of resistance +2 (4000), belt of physical perfection +2 (16000), ring of deflection +1 (2000)
|
Also, why are all comparisons against the bow and not the crossbow? Seems like that's a better jumping off point given that they are both simple weapons and share certain features (e.g., slow reload). Is there a build that makes a crossbow as good as a bow?
Something based around Crossbow Mastery could get real close but I am unconcerned with how the crossbow is represented. The rate of fire is slower IRL and that is somewhat represented.
The rate of fire on a sling and the range of a sling is misrepresented horribly in the game and that is the issue I have with slings. I don't really care if they are as good as a bow or whatever. I do not like that the bow has a decent representation for range and rate of fire (ish) while the sling with almost identical ROF and range is only able to make up the difference by taking Ammo Drop, Juggle Load, and Far Shot. This to me is ridiculous. In my games I can adjust this but if I want to play elsewhere I have to hope they allow a Halflings of Golarion book or AD and JL are off limits and you can never get your reload speed with a sling past a move action.
Can someone show me what I'm missing? My human slinger doesn't come close to my archer, all other things equal (like, orders of magnitude of difference).
ARCHER (CR 8)
** spoiler omitted **
SLINGER (CR 8)
** spoiler omitted **...
You spent all your effort at making up for the weaknesses of the sling. This allowed your archer to do what they do better.
With your slinger, you needed 2 feats to reload and your archer used those 2 feats to get better at what they do. Namely your archer has rapid shot and deadly aim and your slinger doesn't. Also you got distance on your sling to make it more like a bow, and you got shocking on your bow.
That adds up to a huge difference in damage output.
You spent all your effort at making up for the weaknesses of the sling.
Well, yeah, I'm trying to come vaguely close to an archer. And failing miserably. So I'm not seeing how a sling is "not optimal, but still good."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've used the bow (shortbow) as a comparison to show how the sling is under-rated. I (and others) have used historical accounts to demonstrate how the bow (shortbow, not English warbow or composite bow) was inferior in range to the sling.
The horse thing cropped up as a (slightly obscure) example of how the sling was under-rated for damage. It is very hard to accurately reflect damage, of course, but accounts of a sling killing a horse with a single stone are one way to address what the weapon ought to be able to do.
I should point out that that side of the argument is about using real life as a base for writing weapon rules, but I think Pathfinder is seriously hampered by its overall combat system in this respect.
Another argument, the one being pursued by Kirth amongst others, is about how difficult the designers have made it to build a slinger that isn't laughed from the encounter by his bow-toting mates. This is about what in-game Feats and abilities are available or not to bows and slings.
I guess ideally both of these should be reflected - the weapon mechanics for sling ought to better reflect its real-life properties, and a player should be able to construct the character he wants, even if this is a capable sling-user. This might not be possible, but at least one of the options should be available. Pathfinder, sadly, fails on both counts.
You spent all your effort at making up for the weaknesses of the sling.Well, yeah, I'm trying to come vaguely close to an archer. And failing miserably. So I'm not seeing how a sling is "not optimal, but still good."
My advice is just suck it up. When playing with poor options you really need to ramp up the damage optimization, as that really is what you need to make the character effective and you start out with a decent deficient on that account. So ditch the iron will and improved init, and take the dpr feats on the slinger. Remove all the fluffy feats and whatnot and just optimize the damage.
Most combat takes place at close range, so ditch the distance and put shock on the sling. Honestly though, +1 holy is brutal on ranged weapons.
With that said, you don't even have manyshot on the archer, so even that build could be improved pretty easily. But you are right to notice that bows can bypass DR so much easier than slings can, so clustered shot is more important from slings.
The character won't be as good as the archer because the designers planned for slingers to suck. So mission accomplished.
An English longbow has a range of 350 yards. An average slinger isn't even going to be in the same ballpark with that range.
Carry on.
And by the way, you're all missing just how well it works with a necklace of missiles and potentially other splash weapons.
Just saying!
==Aelryinth
The character won't be as good as the archer because the designers planned for slingers to suck. So mission accomplished.
OK, we both see that. Can someone explain it to the "slings are fine as they are" people as well?
|
Because that was the point being stated.That is the "point" you are stating.
No actually someone else made the comment that slings could be hidden more easily, then you said "Not by RAW" and then it went from there.
So again I ask, are you as a GM going to adjudicate hiding a 3 to 6 foot Bow is the same as hiding a length of cloth or leather?
Is that really a ruling you would make?
|
|
This is the goalpost I'm referring.
The sling was comparable when you remove manyshot.Without free action loading, the sling is down two feats, at a worse base weapon (sling vs. martial), and lacks access to Many Shot (which is the big damage difference). Those two feats are excluded via your quote. I made sure people are aware that they are missing.
Not via my build, however. And I stand by the statement.
|
|
Can someone show me what I'm missing? My human slinger doesn't come close to my archer, all other things equal (like, orders of magnitude of difference).
ARCHER (CR 8)
** spoiler omitted **
SLINGER (CR 8)
** spoiler omitted **...
For the archer you picked
Deadly Aim, Dodge, Improved Critical, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus (longbow), Weapon Specialization (longbow)
For the slinger you picked
Ammo Drop, Clustered Shots, Improved Critical, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Juggle Load, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus (sling), Weapon Specialization (sling)
So why did the slinger need Clustered Shots when the archer didn't...was it so you didn't have to give the slinger deadly aim as that would make the damage fairly close?
Also, why give high Dex builds improved Initiative?
And why start at 8 rather than 10...
Oh...because you weren't trying to make an honest comparison...
EDIT: Hell, you can't even actually take Clustered shot 2nd, because of the pre-requisites...
|
|
An English longbow has a range of 350 yards. An average slinger isn't even going to be in the same ballpark with that range.
Carry on.
And by the way, you're all missing just how well it works with a necklace of missiles and potentially other splash weapons.
Just saying!
==Aelryinth
Way to ignore EVERYTHING posted that states how the range of a sling is actually slightly better than an english longbow and a sling actually uses ammo that can really hurt people instead of specially made flight arrows that are so light that they have almost no penetration and are horribly inaccurate due to the weight reduction.
|
|
I stopped here, because this statement is ridiculous.
So a 50' range increment on a weapon that IRL had a range at least equal to an english longbow is ignored.
Except for the part where I posted statements to this fact.
You seem to have no other purpose right now but to keep repeating that your determination is the only logical one even though you refuse to except anyone else's information on the subject despite being presented with various proofs from various sources."Laaa-laaa-laaaa I can't hear you, slings are fine, Laaaa-laaaa-laaaaa."
Got it. You really have nothing else to contribute to this discussion except to lie about how "Manyshot is the only difference" and other ridiculous statements, while calling other people's statements, when backed by facts, ridiculous.
Being able to kill and equal CR enemy in a single round with a party of 4 people like you means you are a viable contributor.
Ok, let me just make something clear.
Does anyone but ciretose actually think that being able to deal 1/4 of an equal CR enemy's HP in one turn is a viable contribution?
I think it's a bar so low that almost nothing can't reach it, to be honest, which makes it relatively meaningless as a tool for saying anything about the game mechanics.
I've previously spoken about my general disdain for build theorycrafting, but it does have its (limited) place from time to time. For instance, I suspect that it's such a low bar that with different weapons I could theorycraft up NPC class PCs capable of reaching it.
Best data on the effective combat range of the English longbow using war arrows is around 100-150 yards. This comes from studies of surviving bows and from the chronicles of battles such as Crecy, where the bowmen hit back at the Genoese crossbows when they got to within such ranges. At that range the arrows were expected to penetrate two layers of mail. I think we can assume that the longbowmen knew their business and were using their weapons at optimum range. It should be noted also that these should be considered highly experienced experts in their weapon.
|
|
Except for the part where I posted statements to this fact.I stopped here, because this statement is ridiculous.
So a 50' range increment on a weapon that IRL had a range at least equal to an english longbow is ignored.
Statements are not evidence. A list of people on a Sling forum throwing for distance and not accuracy with modern technology slings...closer I guess.
I posted actual evidence.
The numbers...less than 100 meters.
|
|
Best data on the effective combat range of the English longbow using war arrows is around 100-150 yards. This comes from studies of surviving bows and from the chronicles of battles such as Crecy, where the bowmen hit back at the Genoese crossbows when they got to within such ranges. At that range the arrows were expected to penetrate two layers of mail. I think we can assume that the longbowmen knew their business and were using their weapons at optimum range. It should be noted also that these should be considered highly experienced experts in their weapon.
Also during times when armies had longbow archers and slingers in their ranks together, the slingers were usually placed in ranks behind the longbowmen because the slings were more effective at their maximum range while the longbows lose effectiveness earlier. Slingers were usually good to the 200-250 meter range.
Also that link you posted Ciretose implies that the ranges they were able to find with the Andean people in the modern day are not as good as what they could do further back in history just to clear their own fort's outer walls. The article concludes that the modern experience levels and necessities for the sling don't reflect what was existant in their past and that they want to do further assessments. Hardly conclusive evidence especially when you can just go look at longbow records and sling records and see how similarly they stack up....or you can just ignore anything that displays a different ideal than you have....again....
The bar of a party of 4 being able to kill an equal CR opponent in a single round is to low to be meaningful...
I think it's a bar so low that almost nothing can't reach it, to be honest, which makes it relatively meaningless as a tool for saying anything about the game mechanics.
You seem to be assuming that a party is typically four PCs who all do roughly the same thing (ranged damage in this case).
I have rarely found such to be the case. This is theorycrafting to the exclusion of practical applicability, again, and again shows (IMO) the inappropriate conclusions that can be drawn from much of this build theorycrafting and numbers comparison that goes on on these boards, because it rarely reflects considerations of playing.
But when I have played with such, yes, I find that stacking up multiple iterations of the same type of offense overwhelms foes vulnerable to it much more quickly than in a typical game. Four meleers don't take one round to kill a CR-appropriate foe, they take half a round or so, or else they can't hurt it at all.
Similarly, in the four caster party it rarely takes until the fourth caster to nail the foe.
In any case, if your bar for what makes a decent PC choice can be exceeded by classes designed to be too weak for PCs, I think it requires recalibrating regardless - no?
|
|
Best data on the effective combat range of the English longbow using war arrows is around 100-150 yards. This comes from studies of surviving bows and from the chronicles of battles such as Crecy, where the bowmen hit back at the Genoese crossbows when they got to within such ranges. At that range the arrows were expected to penetrate two layers of mail. I think we can assume that the longbowmen knew their business and were using their weapons at optimum range. It should be noted also that these should be considered highly experienced experts in their weapon.
Uh...no. Citation please because that isn't consistent with anything I've seen. The Range at Agincourt was measured at 300 yards.
From Wikipedia.
"The range of the medieval weapon is not accurately known, with much depending on both the power of the bow and the type of arrow. It has been suggested that a flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yd (370 m)[24] but the longest mark shot at on the London practice ground of Finsbury Fields in the 16th century was 345 yd (315 m).[25] In 1542, Henry VIII set a minimum practice range for adults using flight arrows of 220 yd (200 m); ranges below this had to be shot with heavy arrows.[26] Modern experiments broadly concur with these historical ranges. A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.89 oz) arrow 328 m (359 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.38 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (273.3 yd).[27] In 2012, Joe Gibbs shot a 2.25 oz (64 g) livery arrow 292 yd (267 m) with 170 lbf yew bow.[28]"
|
|
You seem to be assuming that a party is typically four PCs who all do roughly the same thing (ranged damage in this case).
I have rarely found such to be the case. This is theorycrafting to the exclusion of practicality, again, and again shows (IMO) the inappropriate conclusions that can be drawn from much of this build theorycrafting that goes on on these boards, because they don't reflect considerations of playing.
But when I have played with such, yes, I find that stacking up multiple iterations of the same type of offense overwhelms foes vulnerable to it much more quickly than in a typical game. Four meleers don't take one round to kill a CR-appropriate foe, they take half a round or so, or else they can't hurt it at all.
Similarly, in the four caster party it rarely takes until the fourth caster to nail the foe.
In any case, if your bar for what makes a decent PC choice can be exceeded by classes designed to be too weak for PCs, I think it requires recalibrating regardless - no?
I'm assuming 4 players are contributing. These are base numbers, they don't include a Bard buffing, a wizard casting Haste or weakening the enemy, a rogue flanking, etc, etc....
All of which would increase damage output from the person involved, but are not factored into the equation.
The question is, will this person do their share to remove an equal CR creature from combat in a single round.
If the answer is "yes" then the build is viable.
Also, found this.I stopped here, because this statement is ridiculous.
So a 50' range increment on a weapon that IRL had a range at least equal to an english longbow is ignored.
So...the range increment is accurate then. While I know this was debated quite a bit in this thread, I don't think even the people in that debate ever said "man, I wish Paizo would change the RANGE of this weapon." Maybe they did though; it's been a long thread.
No, I think folks wanting a change to the sling want the damage higher or the rate of fire to be faster. This article didn't address that.
It also was undertaken I order to prove or disprove the defense of hill forts. Well, adult males could consistently get the distance they needed from the upper ramparts to do so. Champagne all around.
I wish we had a "Hill Fort Defense Slinger" archetype...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bar of a party of 4 being able to kill an equal CR opponent in a single round is to low to be meaningful...
I think it's a bar so low that almost nothing can't reach it, to be honest, which makes it relatively meaningless as a tool for saying anything about the game mechanics.
That is a slight twisting of what was said.
Four people in a party are not all doing equal amounts of damage, so the idea of 1/4 being "your share" is absurd. If you're primarily responsible for doing damage, doing 1/4 is way too low because it's your job to make up for the damage the non-damage focused PCs aren't doing.
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that an encounter of equal CR is only supposed to deplete 20% of the party's resources for the day, and in reality is usually even more of a joke than that.
Also that link you posted Ciretose implies that the ranges they were able to find with the Andean people in the modern day are not as good as what they could do further back in history just to clear their own fort's outer walls.
I agree that the scope of the study is somewhat too narrow for our purposes, confirmed by a quick look at the test subjects used. It is a useful study in its own right, but not broad enough to extrapolate for this discussion.
A PhD on the effectiveness of the sling by Eric T. Skov gives slings a much more in-depth treatment, including the physics involved and putting the results in historical perspective.
His conclusions pretty much mirror what has already been said - slings can be deadly and do not need to puncture armour to kill or maim, and that slings outranged bows up to the development of the English longbow and the advanced composite bows of the Ottoman Empire.*
Purely for interest as I do not believe it reflects the effective combat range, the longest measured range (using a bi-pointed lead bullet) in the test group he used was an incredible 505m!
*I still personally believe that the English warbow should be classified as a Composite Longbow in Pathfinder to reflect its power and the design taking advantage of its user's strength. Less effective longbows were known from Biblical times, and the only 'true' composite longbow we know of is the Japanese Daikyu, which had a performance similar to the English bow.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the current record for the greatest distance achieved in hurling an object from a sling is: 477.10m.
This was achieved by David Engvall at Baldwin Lake, California, USA on 13 September 1992."
Wait, that's more than 100 meters isn't it?
Let's look at bows...
"Primitive World Records (regular flight)
unl prim self bow 350yds 0 ft 11 in (320.31m) Scot Perry 9/07/07
50# prim self 340yds 0ft 6in (311.05m) Dan Perry 9/08/07
35# prim self 233yds 0ft 3in (236.92m) Brian Perry 8/03/02
unl simp comp 351-2-4 (321.73m) Dewayne Smith 9/06/03
50#simp comp 326-1-11 (298.67m) Bert McCune 10/08/94
unl complex comp 619-1-7 (566.5m) Don Brown 10/07/95
50# complex comp 321-0-8 (293.74m) Dewayne Smith 9/06/03
English Long Bows
unlimited Elb 371-1-4 (339.65m) Alistair Aston 8/15/07
50# Elb 318-2-5 (291.52m) Dan Perry 9/07/07
35# Elb 259-0-3 (236.92) Brian Perry 9/07/07
Broadhead Flight
Unl prim self 270-2-3 Jerimiah Retherford 9/05/04
50# prim self 211-1-3 Ronald Sannicandro 9/09/07
unl simple comp 244-1-5 David Hayes 7/27/97
50# simp comp 227-2-11 Alan Currier 9/05/04
Unl compl comp 208-2-9 Dewayne Smith 9/07/03 "
That eliminates all the non-combat records with flight arrows and such....
So sling- 477 meters in 1992 for the record.
English Longbow- 340 meters in 2007 for the record.
These are confirmed records. Ignore them, they make your argument weak.
The question is, will this person do their share to remove an equal CR creature from combat in a single round.
If the answer is "yes" then the build is viable.
So,
In any case, if your bar for what makes a decent PC choice can be exceeded by classes designed to be too weak for PCs, I think it requires recalibrating regardless - no?
"no, it would not be appropriate to rethink my standard in that case?"
I'm not sure we're going to be able to agree on the definition of viable, then. I am not on the same page with this theory that divides combat contribution in a typical party up into imaginary quarter-shares with four PCs all doing the same thing.
|
|
Also that link you posted Ciretose implies that the ranges they were able to find with the Andean people in the modern day are not as good as what they could do further back in history just to clear their own fort's outer walls.I agree that the scope of the study is somewhat too narrow for our purposes, confirmed by a quick look at the test subjects used. It is a useful study in its own right, but not broad enough to extrapolate for this discussion.
A PhD on the effectiveness of the sling by Eric T. Skov gives slings a much more in-depth treatment, including the physics involved and putting the results in historical perspective.
His conclusions pretty much mirror what has already been said - slings can be deadly and do not need to puncture armour to kill or maim, and that slings outranged bows up to the development of the English longbow and the advanced composite bows of the Ottoman Empire.*
From your link
"Experiments on sling capability have mainly focused on establishing the maximum range of the weapon. Brian Finney (2005, 2006) found a mean distance of approximately 56 m on level ground"
The tests all came out less than 100m, with the exception of one person.
Also anyone who says "Given the shortfalls of prior experimentation it is likely that the capabilities of slings lie closer to ranges reported in textual sources than to the measured trials" Meaning "I believe stories more than science" is not someone I take seriously.
Uh...no. Citation please because that isn't consistent with anything I've seen. The Range at Agincourt was measured at 300 yards.
Professor N H Gibbs, formerly Professor of the History of War at Oxford University, as cited in Numerical Analysis of a Battle from History by T G Weale of the UK Defence Operational Analysis Establishment.
This gives a quick description of the battle of Crecy.
Your 300 yards effective combat range for longbows at Agincourt comes from where? I would check your source again, if I were you, because I think you'll find that 300 yards is at the extreme end of the maximum range, rather than effective combat range. At Agincourt the English deliberately fired at extreme range because they wanted to lure the French into attacking prematurely.
|
|
Also that link you posted Ciretose implies that the ranges they were able to find with the Andean people in the modern day are not as good as what they could do further back in history just to clear their own fort's outer walls.I agree that the scope of the study is somewhat too narrow for our purposes, confirmed by a quick look at the test subjects used. It is a useful study in its own right, but not broad enough to extrapolate for this discussion.
A PhD on the effectiveness of the sling by Eric T. Skov gives slings a much more in-depth treatment, including the physics involved and putting the results in historical perspective.
His conclusions pretty much mirror what has already been said - slings can be deadly and do not need to puncture armour to kill or maim, and that slings outranged bows up to the development of the English longbow and the advanced composite bows of the Ottoman Empire.*
Purely for interest as I do not believe it reflects the effective combat range, the longest measured range (using a bi-pointed lead bullet) in the test group he used was an incredible 505m!
*I still personally believe that the English warbow should be classified as a Composite Longbow in Pathfinder to reflect its power and the design taking advantage of its user's strength. Less effective longbows were known from Biblical times, and the only 'true' composite longbow we know of is the Japanese Daikyu, which had a performance similar to the English bow.
Very nice link....and I agree on the longbow...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also anyone who says "Given the shortfalls of prior experimentation it is likely that the capabilities of slings lie closer to ranges reported in textual sources than to the measured trials" Meaning "I believe stories more than science" is not someone I take seriously.
Yeah, I think that says a lot about you rather than the author.
What he is saying is that "given the shortfalls of prior experimentation", i.e. the difficulty in reproducing the skill and experience of the reported slingers, that "it is likely that the capabilities of slings lie closer to ranges reported in textual sources than to the measured trials". In other words, he is acknowledging that his experiments are not perfect and that the results may therefore be skewed. Exactly what a responsible scientist would acknowledge.
That you don't take him seriously is of no consequence. He is now a doctor of Anthropology and spent years studying the sling to write the PhD thesis. The PhD was reviewed within the academic community and found to be factually correct.
Your qualifications for discussing the weapon are unlikely to be as impressive or as relevant.
The tests all came out less than 100m, with the exception of one person.
I advise you to read Page 48. Especially the top five ranges which are/were world records, and therefore independently verified.
Jerzy Gasperowicz (bipointed lead) 505m
David Engvall (Dart) 477m
Larry Bray (Stone) 437.1m
Melvin Gayloor 349.6m
Vernon Morton 258.2m
|
|
The tests all came out less than 100m, with the exception of one person.I advise you to read Page 48. Especially the top five ranges which are/were world records, and therefore independently verified.
Jerzy Gasperowicz (bipointed lead) 505m
David Engvall (Dart) 477m
Larry Bray (Stone) 437.1m
Melvin Gayloor 349.6m
Vernon Morton 258.2m
To be fair, the first one I have not been able to cross-reference with any official world record site so I don't know if that was verified for the record or not...I more commonly see David Engvall's record seen as the furthest object that was thrown in a sling. But even the 4th place dude beats the English Longbow record of 340m.
Also, found this.I stopped here, because this statement is ridiculous.
So a 50' range increment on a weapon that IRL had a range at least equal to an english longbow is ignored.
An interesting article. However the study does note:
"Because we used stones found in the immediate area of the slingers, stones varied slightly in size. Most were rectangular-shaped, although a few were more rounded. Slingers had preferences for certain size stones, which could be characterized generally as ‘small' or ‘large'. Measurements were taken on slingstones rapidly in the field to gain a sense of slingstone size used in the experiments. However, slingstone sizes were not consistently measured and linked to specific casts. Nevertheless, all slingers cast similar size stones within the range of 4–9 cm long and 2.5–4.5 cm wide"
Therefore the study used random stones not cast lead bullets. There is obviously going to be a difference in range between a cast bullet, prepared larger spherical stone and random stones off the ground. Just like there will be a range difference with bows depending on the type and weight of arrow used. The performance of a stone 4x2.5 cm is going to be different than one that is 9x4.5cm. The reports on archaeological sites where sling ammunition was found all have uniform sized ammo - either lead or clay bullets or stones of very similar shapes and sizes.
I have no issue with Pathfinder longbows having a longer range than Pathfinder slings but even looking at historical data there is quite a variance in figures for both long bows and slings.
Much as I am loathe to use Wikipedia as gospel, this excerpt does have some interesting ranges, including the differentiation between ranges expected with flight and heavy arrows.
The range of the medieval weapon is not accurately known, with much depending on both the power of the bow and the type of arrow. It has been suggested that a flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yd (370 m)[24] but the longest mark shot at on the London practice ground of Finsbury Fields in the 16th century was 345 yd (315 m).[25] In 1542, Henry VIII set a minimum practice range for adults using flight arrows of 220 yd (200 m); ranges below this had to be shot with heavy arrows.[26] Modern experiments broadly concur with these historical ranges. A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.89 oz) arrow 328 m (359 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.38 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (273.3 yd).[27] In 2012, Joe Gibbs shot a 2.25 oz (64 g) livery arrow 292 yd (267 m) with 170 lbf yew bow.[28]
To be fair, the first one I have not been able to cross-reference with any official world record site so I don't know if that was verified for the record or not...I more commonly see David Engvall's record seen as the furthest object that was thrown in a sling. But even the 4th place dude beats the English Longbow record of 340m.
Sure, it is of mild eyebrow-raising interest only as the maximum possible range of weapon is not the effective range. Maybe of relevance if someone is interested in following the 'a longbow has been known to shoot XXX yards' argument, but comparing longest possible range with effective range is not helpful.
Except for the part where I posted statements to this fact.I stopped here, because this statement is ridiculous.
So a 50' range increment on a weapon that IRL had a range at least equal to an english longbow is ignored.
Statements are not evidence. A list of people on a Sling forum throwing for distance and not accuracy with modern technology slings...closer I guess.
I posted actual evidence.
The numbers...less than 100 meters.
A bunch of Andean famers using random stones lying around on the ground as opposed to professional slingers using crafted ammunition designed for optional performance. Yeah right.
|
|
To be fair, the first one I have not been able to cross-reference with any official world record site so I don't know if that was verified for the record or not...I more commonly see David Engvall's record seen as the furthest object that was thrown in a sling. But even the 4th place dude beats the English Longbow record of 340m.Sure, it is of mild eyebrow-raising interest only as the maximum possible range of weapon is not the effective range. Maybe of relevance if someone is interested in following the 'a longbow has been known to shoot XXX yards' argument, but comparing longest possible range with effective range is not helpful.
I agree, I am only pointing out that greater maximum ranges were achievable with a sling. For effective range I think that staying in line with the longbow is fair, even though most accounts give slings a greater range of effectiveness.
Also that link you posted Ciretose implies that the ranges they were able to find with the Andean people in the modern day are not as good as what they could do further back in history just to clear their own fort's outer walls.I agree that the scope of the study is somewhat too narrow for our purposes, confirmed by a quick look at the test subjects used. It is a useful study in its own right, but not broad enough to extrapolate for this discussion.
A PhD on the effectiveness of the sling by Eric T. Skov gives slings a much more in-depth treatment, including the physics involved and putting the results in historical perspective.
His conclusions pretty much mirror what has already been said - slings can be deadly and do not need to puncture armour to kill or maim, and that slings outranged bows up to the development of the English longbow and the advanced composite bows of the Ottoman Empire.*
From your link
"Experiments on sling capability have mainly focused on establishing the maximum range of the weapon. Brian Finney (2005, 2006) found a mean distance of approximately 56 m on level ground"
Way to selectively quote an article there. The Finney study (2005, 2006) was using "Stones". The other studies quoted in the document are ones using lead or clay sphere or biconical projectiles that achieve great range.
And perhaps if you included the next sentence ... ..(page 49 of quoted document):
"Measurements were made very precisely, but Finney is a self-admitted amateur and his results likely reflect his ability more than the sling's capability (compare this result with those of other users in Table 2)."
Page 45: Korfmann observed Turkish shepherds sling ordinary pebbles, ‘in 5 out of 11 trials the pebbles reached 200 m, and the three best casts were between 230 and 240 m (1973), while Dohrenwend has himself thrown beach pebbles over 200 yds. (1994:86)
The tests all came out less than 100m, with the exception of one person.
Again the Peruvian study using random stones.
Also anyone who says "Given the shortfalls of prior experimentation it is likely that the capabilities of slings lie closer to ranges reported in textual sources than to the measured trials" Meaning "I believe stories more than science" is not someone I take seriously.
You are hardly in a position to talk about taking people seriously when you commit such egregious examples of selective quoting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Human Warrior 7 (Manyshot seems to be brought up often enough that I figured I'd make it high enough to use it, and to iron out early level weirdness).
Str 14, Dex 22, Con 14, Int 7, Wis 14, Cha 7.
=== Defense ===
Hp 7d10+21 (64)
AC 22 (6 Dex, 5 armor, 1 deflection)
CMD 26 (7 BAB, 2 Str, 6 Dex, 1 deflection)
=== Saves ===
Fort: +8 (5 base, 2 Con, 1 res, 1 trait)
Ref : +9 (2 base, 6 Dex, 1 res)
Will: +6 (2 base, 2 Wis, 1 res, 1 trait)
=== Attacks ===
(7 base, 6 Dex, 2 enhancement, 1 pointblank, -2 Rapid, -2 Deadly)
+13/13/8 (1d8+9/19-20x3)*
*double damage on first shot
(+2 Str, +2 enhancement, +1 pointblank, +4 Deadly)
=== Traits===
Indomitable will
Resilient
=== Feats===
1. Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot
3. Precise shot
5. Deadly Aim
7. Manyshot
=== Skills ===
2/lvl
=== Gear ===
Belt of dex +2 (4k) +2 adaptive longbow (9k), +1 cloak of resistance (1k), +1 mithril chain shirt (2k), bracers of falcon aim (4k), +1 ring of protection (2k), emergency masterwork greatsword, ~1.2k misc.
DPR vs CR 7 monster table (AC 20, hp 85 benchmark):
First attack hits 70%, average damage 2d8+18 = 27, x70% = 18.9
Crit threatens 10% and confirms 70% of those, adding 2d8+18 (27 further), which x7% = 1.89. Total first attack = 20.79
Second attack hits 70%, average damage 1d8+9 = 13.5, which x70% = 9.45
Crit same as first = +1.89, so total second attack = 11.34
Third attack hits 45%, which x13.5 = 6.075
Crit 4.5% x 2d8+18 = 1.215, so total third attack = 7.29
20.79+11.34+7.29 = 39.42. 25% of 85 is 21.25.
It looks like he could even lose Manyshot, replace it with, say, Skill Focus Basketweaving, and still make your standard with quite a bit to spare (28.755/21.25) - as an NPC class PC with Skill Focus Basketweaving - so it does seem hard to argue that that standard is anything but anemic.
To be fair, the first one I have not been able to cross-reference with any official world record site so I don't know if that was verified for the record or not...I more commonly see David Engvall's record seen as the furthest object that was thrown in a sling. But even the 4th place dude beats the English Longbow record of 340m.Sure, it is of mild eyebrow-raising interest only as the maximum possible range of weapon is not the effective range. Maybe of relevance if someone is interested in following the 'a longbow has been known to shoot XXX yards' argument, but comparing longest possible range with effective range is not helpful.
I would be interested in figures on the the damage potential of long bows and slings over various ranges, particular maximum range (whatever that might be). i.e. just because you can project a missile out to a certain range, will it actually be effective.
Given the range of literature talking about certain arrow types with certain types of arrowhead fired from certain bow types only penetrating certain types of armour at certain ranges, it would be safe to assume an arrow fired at 300m at Agincourt would not be as effective as one fired at 50, 100 or 200 meters.
Certainly at Agincourt if the English opened up at 300m to goad the French into attacking then they wouldn't really have cared about what actual damage they were causing. Though, while they might not have been able to harm the wealthier knights in good plate armour, maybe horses and less well equipped troops could have been harmed at that range.
As an aside, back in 2004 I went to Agincourt (Azincourt) and walked the battlefield and visited the excellent museum there.
Human Warrior 7 (Manyshot seems to be brought up often enough that I figured I'd make it high enough to use it, and to iron out early level weirdness).
** spoiler omitted **
DPR vs CR 7 monster table (AC 20, hp 85 benchmark):
First attack hits 70%, average damage 2d8+18 = 27, x70% = 18.9
Crit threatens 10% and confirms 70% of those, adding 2d8+18 (27 further), which x7% = 1.89. Total first attack = 20.79
Second attack hits 70%, average damage 1d8+9 = 13.5, which x70% = 9.45
Crit same as first = +1.89, so total second attack = 11.34
Third attack hits 45%, which x13.5 = 6.075
Crit 4.5% x 2d8+18 = 1.215, so total third attack = 7.2920.79+11.34+7.29 = 39.42. 25% of 85 is 21.25.
It looks like he could even lose Manyshot, replace it with, say, Skill Focus Basketweaving, and still make your standard with quite a bit to spare (28.755/21.25) - as an NPC class PC with Skill Focus Basketweaving - so it does seem hard to argue that that standard is anything but anemic.
Urgh, and now that I posted I see I shorted him his bracers bonus.
So he can still make your standard with quite a bit to spare, as an NPC class PC with Skill Focus Basketweaving, and with a lower bonus than his actual attack bonus because his player sucks at math.
I may eventually fix it and recalculate if I decide that it matters enough... eyeballing it it puts the Manyshot version at about double your standard.