I was thinking of scenarios where you want a sling over a bow and I thought of skelly wildfire where you are fighting a ton flaming skeletons trying to overun a small town. Then a sling would be better because bludegoning damage. Altough somone could use blunt arrows.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Rynjin - Every class that doesn't have martial weapon proficiency called and said they can't use a longbow without major penalties...
Lessee what's a more efficient and intelligent use of resources for those classes:
Buy 4 Feats to make a Crossbow as good as a Longbow with no Feats.
Buy 1 Feat to give you Longbow proficiency, and then use the other 3 to make the Longbow even better.
They don't serve the same role. If they did, they would be redundant, so why have them.
They do serve the same role.
Ranged DPR. They have no extra utility, so that is the purpose they serve.
The Longbow is objectively superior. And not by a small amount.
So yes, I agree, they are redundant so why have them?
I agree it is suboptimal to make a martial class with a crossbow focus, and the crossbowman isn't a great choice relative to a straight fighter with a crossbow.
But I also got over 70 DPR with a crossbow in a fighter build at 10th, so that seemed pretty good to me.
I personally don't think it is, though I'd be curious how you pulled that really. Was it ALL from Weapon Training/Weapon Enhancements?
You start adding Dex damage, you start having single attribute dip classes with a class that is already built to mix with rogue (not the denial to dex...)
It wouldn't be kicking in until third and/or 5th anyway. I'm not seeing a huge influx of Rogues with 5 levels of Gunslinger (though i kinda want to build this for the build thread now) just to get Dex to damage, so it's obviously not as optimal a choice as you think.
You can make a viable crossbow guy. But if you don't want to play unless you can have the absolute best numbers...
I don't really want to play a character unless I can have at least in the same ballpark of the same numbers as a different style.
It's fun to think about, and build, but in practice not so much. It's why I always put so much damn work into my Monk builds, so I can at least come close to our unoptimized Barbarian's damage output.
I put just as much emphasis on the game portion as the RP portion, and IMO if an option is literally inferior in every possible way to another option, with nothing unique to stand it apart either, I see no reason to use it.
It's the main problem I have with the Rogue class as a whole as well. With the monk, while you can run the numbers and say "Well he's just not as good as X", at least you get some extra goodies to go along with it that amke the class INTERESTING, if not optimal.
Rogues don't have this (they've got: Skills, which everyone has, and situational DPR, which everyone has except not situational...and thassaboutit), and neither do Crossbows.
They're both non-optimal and uninteresting. That is pure suckage right there.
|
The crossbow is the ranged weapon of choice for people who aren't proficient with longbows and who don't have particularly high strength.
Which is pretty consistent with what a crossbow was.
With one feat the sling is both a ranged weapon that adds strength damage and a melee weapon. So you can get that +3 sling rather than two +2 weapons. Oh, and your weapon focus, specialization, etc...all on one weapon.
And as I said, you are walking around with basically a piece of cloth rather than the more obvious Giant Sword.
|
|
I don't really want to play a character unless I can have at least in the same ballpark of the same numbers as a different style.
It's fun to think about, and build, but in practice not so much. It's why I always put so much damn work into my Monk builds, so I can at least come close to our unoptimized Barbarian's damage output.
And here lies the fundamental difference. I look at the rest of the group and go "Well, the Barbarian is doing "x" so what niche will I take".
Maybe I make my monk the scout for the party, as the Barb with a giant sword is a might more conspicuous than the unarmed, unarmored guy. Maybe I focus on becoming a mage slayer, get my saves, grapple and stun up so I can take out the casters while the barb takes out the brutes. Maybe I do both.
Maybe I try to make a character that can do other things and I'm just glad that the Barb is doing the tank stuff.
Maybe I'm trying to make the party "win", and not just showcase myself to solo the whole thing.
And maybe I just think it is absolutely badass that my unarmed, unarmored guy with a piece of cloth can contribute.
|
|
The crossbow is the ranged weapon of choice for people who aren't proficient with longbows and who don't have particularly high strength.
Because taht classes are stuck with it. Even without a high str the longbow is better.
The diference should be a feat (martial weapon proficiency), the actual diference is higher, your thread proved that.
Without a strength bonus, the crossbow does more damage. 1d10 (19/20) to 1d8 (x3) and has better range (120 to 100).
My thread showed that the crossbowman is worse than a regular fighter with a crossbow, that a ranger with a crossbow is much weaker than a ranger with a bow, but and that a regular fighter with a crossbow can to a lot of damage.
If you dump strength, the crossbow works the same as if you pump strength.
And here lies the fundamental difference. I look at the rest of the group and go "Well, the Barbarian is doing "x" so what niche will I take".
Maybe I make my monk the scout for the party, as the Barb with a giant sword is a might more conspicuous than the unarmed, unarmored guy. Maybe I focus on becoming a mage slayer, get my saves, grapple and stun up so I can take out the casters while the barb takes out the brutes. Maybe I do both.
Maybe I try to make a character that can do other things and I'm just glad that the Barb is doing the tank stuff.
Maybe I'm trying to make the party "win", and not just showcase myself to solo the whole thing.
And maybe I just think it is absolutely badass that my unarmed, unarmored guy with a piece of cloth can contribute.
And in that case, your numbers are still similar, even in different specialties.
The point being that you are good at what you do, and presumably someone who tried to do the same would not be as good as you. You're still trying your damnedest to be good at your niche, and are presumably successful at it.
The problem is that Longbows and Crossbows fill the EXACT SAME niche, but the Longbow does it better. Not in a "If built better it is superior" sense, but in a "It's better without even trying" sense.
|
|
What niche can a crossbowman/ slinger fill than an archer can not?
That is the bigger problem. Monks and barbarians are diferent crossbows/slings are just bad longbows.
The sling fighter could be an very solid switch hitter. One feat and his ranger weapon is also his melee, with all of his focus and bonuses working for both range and melee and both adding strength bonus. Hell, with all the attack bonuses fighters get you might not even need to pump much in Dex.
All with a weapon he can hide in his pocket.
If you can't think of ways to make that useful...
As far as crossbows, you are a cleric, alchemist, Oracle, Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, etc, etc...sure you will usually use spells, but backup weapons are always nice to have.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Without a strength bonus, the crossbow does more damage. 1d10 (19/20) to 1d8 (x3) and has better range (120 to 100).
Not when manyshot cames into play, not to mention than the bracers of archery do not work with crossbows.
You can build two fighter with str 10 and convince youruelf.
==
By the way t to do 1d10 of damage you have to invest two feats. The same fighter could invest in weapon focus/weapon specialization and now he is doing more damage, as always.
Nicos, if the fighter made the same investment in the crossbow, he is also doing more damage starting from the baseline of 1d10 (19/20). Or 17/20 if keen or with improved crit since you are throwing in variables...
The longbow is better. It is supposed to be better. It has a higher feat investment.
Not all options are equal. That is half the fun of the game.
|
|
when the crossbowman is doing 1d10 of damage the archer is shooting two arrows. A much superior option.
The lonbog is supposed to be better, taht is what annoy me. Is bad desing, and definitely not fun.
At minimum 6th level, with a 17 dex and two other feats invested...which ain't happening unless you are a ranger or fighter focusing on that as your primary.
If you aren't investing that much, and you have a low strength, the crossbow makes as much if not more sense.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not all options are equal. That is half the fun of the game.
No, it really isn't.
Some options being hilariously bad is not fun. It just makes you go "Wow, that was a complete and utter waste of word count they could have used for something more interesting and/or powerful!"
I don't really want to put words in your mouth, but "not all options are equal, that sounds fun" sounds like one or both of two of my pet peeves coming into play at once.
Namely "If everything is (more) balanced, it would all be exactly the same!" which is patently untrue and infuriates me somewhat, and that whole bit about how "Sub-par options are just there to teach you how to not suck at the game! When your character fails miserably you'll know better than to go with that next time and pick one of the obviously superior options!" which feeds back into the question of "What purpose does this option serve, why was it printed, and how much of an asshat do you have to be to think that's a valid mindset to have as your main design principle?"
It's the equivalent of going to a burger restaurant and ordering a piece of food, and having it be terrible and disgusting, while "more experienced patrons" are quick to point out that this menu item is one of the sub-par options, put there so people who stick with the restaurant long enough to find the "good food" feel more rewarded for avoiding the bad stuff.
It doesn't make me want to come back to the restaurant and try new stuff until I find out what's good, nor does it make me want to look up "Menu option guides" to "Maximizing your flavor output". It just makes me want to leave said restaurant and never return.
As an aspiring game designer myself, that design philosophy bugs the shit out of me.
In real life, Slings are extremely deadly, highly accurate, and very long range.
However, just as Crossbows replaced bows because they were easier to use, bows replaced slings for the same reason.
Slings are extremely difficult to use correctly and effectively. Bows, which are not exactly easy themselves, feel like point and click by comparison.
D&D, however, from the beginning, has discounted them and romanticized the bow. It's odd to me that they were able to recognize that bows were better than crossbows but not that slings were better than bows.
I'm guessing it's because they misunderstood the story of David and Goliath.
Anyway, yeah, in Pathfinder, they are frustratingly not good weapons. I wish they were better. Oh well.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Western fantasy fetishizes the longbow as much as eastern fantasy fetishizes the katana.
Not all options are equal. That is half the fun of the game.No, it really isn't.
For some people, the fun in the game comes from watching those who lack system mastery make fools of themselves. Need I repeat the infamous remarks about how some 3e designers deliberately created trap options to punish new players and reward those with system mastery?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There will always be a best option in a game, it's inevitable.
Not necessarily. Which is better, the longsword or the battleaxe? The Greatsword or the Earthbreaker? The Falchion or the Scythe? All of them feel different enough for the choice to be meaningful, but none are truly superior to the alternative in all cases.
Or it is just better.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Western fantasy fetishizes the longbow as much as eastern fantasy fetishizes the katana.
It's faster but that doesn't mean better, except in 3rd edition D&D, where rate of fire > other considerations.
Crossbow bolts were powerful and accurate--more powerful and accurate than equivalent bows. The speed issue was a trade-off. You could fire more shots, or you could fire fewer, more powerful and more accurate shots.
There's no such trade-off here. Crossbow bolts are somehow even less powerful! It's absurd to me that there's no "Mighty Crossbow." You could vary the draw weight of a crossbow for sure, far more easily than the draw weight of a bow. Further, you didn't have to hold that draw weight while you were aiming--hell, if you had the right kind of crossbow (that admittedly took longer to load) you didn't even have to draw it, it was all mechanical.
And on the silly age topic, I am almost 30 and ran my first game of AD&D when I was 9. This is not relevant. Being older may make you more willing to deal with unfairness and imperfections, but that doesn't make those things any less bad.
A good start would simply be stating "a sling requires one hand to use, and while it requires another hand to load, holding a weapon or shield in that hand does not hinder reloading".
I mean, a sling does NOT require two dedicated hands to reload. You can hold a shield and still grab a stone or bullet for reloading a sling. That is not a problem _at all_.
That'd give it some benefit at least, making it more similar to throwing weapons.
(That said, I think throwing weapons are even worse of than slings; pathfinder has simply made longbows the best weapon in the game, period. Honestly, I feel longbows should have been exotic weapons)
In real life, Slings are extremely deadly, highly accurate, and very long range.
However, just as Crossbows replaced bows because they were easier to use, bows replaced slings for the same reason.
Slings are extremely difficult to use correctly and effectively. Bows, which are not exactly easy themselves, feel like point and click by comparison.
D&D, however, from the beginning, has discounted them and romanticized the bow. It's odd to me that they were able to recognize that bows were better than crossbows but not that slings were better than bows.
I'm guessing it's because they misunderstood the story of David and Goliath.
Anyway, yeah, in Pathfinder, they are frustratingly not good weapons. I wish they were better. Oh well.
I blame those pathetic y form elastic slingshots.
I'm curious how you'd stat ranged weapons. (including, if you've contemplated them, early firearms)
Personally I houserule that slings are the same as short bows in terms of range and damage. Reloading should be a free action so iterative attacks aren't wasted once you get them. There is no reason why loading as sling is any slower than a bow and is not unrealistic in both terms of actual use and game play.
In all the iterations of D&D the ignorance (and I use that term in a non pejorative sense) and apathy towards slings has been carried over right from the beginning. No one has seen the need, or thought it an issue, to present the sling in a more "realistic" fashion.
As an historical aside, there weren't many cultures that made major use of both bows and slings. I have a copy of some academic research into that issue somewhere at home but can't find it. It had some interesting points about where slings were or weren't used and why. There was also a lot of information about how effective slings were, military usage etc.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With one feat the sling is both a ranged weapon that adds strength damage and a melee weapon. So you can get that +3 sling rather than two +2 weapons. Oh, and your weapon focus, specialization, etc... all on one weapon.
I am unfamiliar with this rule that a sling can be used as a melee weapon. It doesn't seem to be in the core rules, or on the SRD, at least not under the sling description on p. 148. Somewhere upthread I think someone even suggested that a sling functioned like a Morningstar in melee, which seems a bit over the top...
In any event, if the primary difference between crossbow, sling and bow is one feat (simple vs. martial weapon proficiency), then, mechanically, it should only cost one feat to bring a crossbow or sling up to roughly equal (not identical, obviously, 'cause that would be boring) to the bow. (Not *three,* like the feats in Halflings of Golarion.)
OTOH, instead of focusing on getting more 'shots in the air,' which was the bows strong point over either the crossbow or the sling, a feat the brings them closer to par should be, IMO, one that increases the damage of that single shot, like Vital Strike does. Something that adds one die of that weapon's type (usable with crossbow, sling or any thrown weapon), at the cost of a move action, would 'stack' nicely with Vital Strike when it is available, and help to keep the crossbowman or slinger (or thrower) competitive with the bowman who can take Rapid Shot at 1st level.
That sort of feat, combined with increasing the damage die of a sling by one (to 1d4 for S and 1d6 for M), might be a good step towards evening things out without turning crossbows or slings into 'bows by another name' and sacrificing their flavor to make them mechanically identical rapid-shot-devices.
What if Bludgeoner also increased the damage of vital strikes?
|
|
For S&G's, The Halfling Slingfighter
18 (+2 4th and 8th)
18 Dex
14 Con
10 Int
12 Wis
10 Cha
AC: 26
HP: 80
Fort: +12
Ref: +9
Will: +8 (+4 fear)
Melee: +3 Sling 23/18 (1d3 +11) (power attack -3/+6) Risky Striker +6 for -3 to AC against large creatures.
Ranged: +3 Sling 23/18 (1d3 +11) Rapid shot 21/21/16 (1d3+11) (deadly aim -3/+6) +1 attack and damage within 50 ft
Fighter: Weapon Training 2 (Thrown +2, Blades +1) +2 Gloves of Dualing
Armor Training 3 (Sash)
Racial Variant: Warslinger
Feats:
1st Point Blank, Precise Shot
2nd Sling Flail
3rd Weapon Focus(sling)
4th Deadly aim
5th Weapon Specialization (sling)
6th Power attack
7th Rapid Shot
8th Arc Slinger
9th Risky Striker
10th Quick Draw
Equipment: +3 sling (18100), Gloves of Dueling (15000), Cloak of Resistance +2 (4000),Belt of Physical might (10000) Dex and Str, Sash of the war champion (4000), +1 Plate Mail (2600)
I have a some gold left, but I think this makes the general point.
Edited: Forgot armor, now corrected. Rush job, but as I said, makes the point.
|
|
I am unfamiliar with this rule that a sling can be used as a melee weapon.Now you are familiar.
So it's a feat and not something that anyone holding a sling can do?
Wow, that's, totally irrelevant then.
Also, in any discussion of whether spears or axes are better, we need to factor in that someone somewhere is using the Axe of the Dwarvish Lords.
I don't think options should all be equal - for example, I believe requiring a crossbowman to pick up an extra feat (or three) to match a bow's speed is reasonably appropriate. That's the nature of the technology.
But there are some issues I really don't get. If it's OK for there to be a rapid reload feat for a firearm of all things, why isn't there a rapid reload feat for a sling? Why is being able to reload a sling rapidly buried in halfling-specialty feats? And why does it take 2 feats to bring the sling down to a free action when a single rapid reload feat takes the light crossbow's reload, also a move action, down to a free action? Why isn't rapid reload just a more generic feat that takes the action required to load a weapon down a step (full to move, move to free)? That mystifies me.
The way I house rule the game, I allow slingers to take rapid reload (sling) and reload as a free action that still provokes attacks of opportunity.
For S&G's, The Halfling Slingfighter
** spoiler omitted **
I have a some gold left, but I think this makes the general point.
Edited: Forgot armor, now corrected. Rush job, but as I said, makes the point.
You never bought ammo: if you use rocks you take a penalty to hit.
And remember only a loaded Sling can be used as a flail.And thus using rocks imparts their penalty to the melee version.
|
|
The firearm stuff is a whole other ball of wax. I completely disagree with how that was handled and have voiced that in many other threads.
I argued that firearms should be more or less useless to non-gunslinger classes, and that only gunslingers should be able to fire them with high reload speed, and only with a high investment in gunslinger levels.
It should have been "the" class feature. Gunslingers get to actually be able to use guns effectively without the same risk everyone else has.
For everyone else, firearms should have been a high risk (could blow up in your face) one shot item that took time to reload. But they decided to make it something available to all classes without investment in gunslinger, which I think was a big mistake.
But that will have to be addressed in the next iteration, I suppose.