| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how math dudes always think their hypothesises are stronger than the theories by by experts in a field, no matter what field and no matter how much empirical evidence there is around.
You know the sling bullets in the Core Rulebook? Ever check their weight? Yeah. Ten weigh FIVE LBS. More than 200 g EACH. We are not talking bullets here, we're talking rocks. I would say it's not bloody likely, but if it is, it will deliver a substantial wallop.
Ive seen people use slings to throw full glass bottles weighing double that at least 100 ft. And these weren't trained soldiers. With that range at that weight and shape, i do not think 200 grams per bullet is weird.
If I picked up a 1/2# stone and threw it accurately at someone's head it might hurt them. If I then used a long enough sling to speed that stone to the target faster, doesn't it stand to reason that it could kill them?
All of the words in this thread however are conjecture. I don't have the luxury right now, but I think tonight I'm going to have to go hunting online for some videos detailing pros and cons of this weapon. My latin teacher in HS extoled the virtues of the Romans and their units of slingers; others in this thread have done the same. Yet just as many have used math and physics to suggest that unless you're hunting squirrels there is virtually NO reason to use this weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, it's official: you can in fact find everything on the internet.
Here's a page where sling enthusiasts measure their range with different types of slings, projectiles, and release techniques. The variation is pretty broad.
http://slinging.org/index.php?page=sling-ranges
Same deal as with crossbows. They are mechanically inferior because they are simple and not martial or exotic.
However, with most weapons the difference between simple, martial, and exotic is usually 1 pt average damage, or 1 "crit point", or something else along those lines.
With slings, they could have a reload mechanic equal to that of a bow and they'd still not overpower them mechanically. At the levels where the reloading is a real problem, the benefit of getting free "mighty" on the sling is irrelevant.
|
Same deal as with crossbows. They are mechanically inferior because they are simple and not martial or exotic.However, with most weapons the difference between simple, martial, and exotic is usually 1 pt average damage, or 1 "crit point", or something else along those lines.
With slings, they could have a reload mechanic equal to that of a bow and they'd still not overpower them mechanically. At the levels where the reloading is a real problem, the benefit of getting free "mighty" on the sling is irrelevant.
I think the concern is the sling is one of the few weapons that can both be ranged or melee (with a feat, or not with a slingstaff) meaning you can pour all your energy into one thing that gives you two options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, a sling could break a rib thru a chainshirt. A longbow clothyard shaft will go thru the hauberk, thru the ribcage, thru the heart and back out the other side- and do so several times while the slinger is winding up for his next shot. So could a steel bolt, but the RoF isn’t as fast.
The sling was outdated as a weapon of war by around AD200-400* or so, and wasn’t even a blip during the entire medieval period, since crossbows were easier to use and more effective. A good slinger had to be trained from childhood, much like longbowmen.
Mind you, some sort of special Halfling slinger archetype would be very cool and hearken to the Balearic slingers.
*the later Romans use the dart & javelin instead, depending on range (and the pilum at extreme close range). Both could be clipped to the back of the scutum, and thrown while protected by the shield.
|
If you ignore the notoriously theatrical histories of ancient 'historians' and look at the numbers (in link above) -
Sling Stones are generating up to 36 joules(anywhere from 16 to 27 ftlbs)
which is less then basically any other weapon tested.
Nevermind the large impact area which makes it even less effective (even if fantasy artists infected with warhammer childhoods more and more prefer stupidly big weapons that ignore the laws of physics and thresholds where acceleration is hampered negatively by mass).To break a rib 67 ftlbs are needed and thats not including the WORST armour possible.
Really numbers indicate they sucked. En-mass 200+ stones raining on your army will have a massive impact even if its only in keeping them high strung, bruises, annoyance and bad footing for people and mounts. Kill Shots - not likely!
I don't know where you found those numbers but they are blatantly wrong.
I made my own sling a decade ago and played around with it a bit. I am not very accurate with it and haven't spent nearly the time to get great power and precision into tossing but even I could (and did a few times) drive an "egg" shaped metal sling bullet through a 1/2" sheet of plywood at around 50 feet.Good slingers do this with 3/4" plywood and up the distance into the 100 yard range.
Slinging.org's website
I suggest looking into this site and educating on the abilities that slings have instead of some ridiculously inaccurate math that somebody made up. The wounds described in some battle accounts from history are really brutal and disgusting and death was usually the result with trained slingers. Those bullets fly fast and hit hard.
Interesting points and questions raised. I'm thinking aboutincreasing the die for slings in my homebrew and allowing strength bonus to be added.
Oh, and the only work of fiction that I can think of off the top of my head that uses slings is The Wheel of Time. And there, it is mainly used for killing rabbits, not trollocs.David and Goliath, Greek history, some Greek myths.
Clan of the Cave Bear was another.
I suggest looking into this site and educating on the abilities that slings have instead of some ridiculously inaccurate math that somebody made up. The wounds described in some battle accounts from history are really brutal and disgusting and death was usually the result with trained slingers. Those bullets fly fast and hit hard.
Which is totally why the sling dominated the medieval battleground for centuries…. Oh, wait…..
Sure, a sling makes nasty wounds. Take a look at what a crossbow does. the sling just can't compete with a CB or a LB. And the Romans found the dart to be better.
I don't understand: I did a search for "Slinging Accuracy" on Bing. This yielded several videos of slingers casually loading slings in 3-6 seconds, accurately hitting small targets at ranges stated to be up to 20 meters (60') and blowing out chunks of solid wood and melon. The slingers appear to be amateurs and many are kids.
So you're telling me that a Halfling (avg adventuring age of 31) who's studied as much as he can with a "native" weapon, become a fighter and taken the appropriate feats is slightly faster and more accurate than these kids?
Further the website FH mentions above suggests sling stone speeds exceeding 60 MPH. Human beings can pitch a baseball at 90. So PF is also suggesting a projectile shaped for flight and hurled at 75 MPH (between 60 and 90) with consistent accuracy is less effective than running at them and throwing a heavy stick?
...
And halflings can't have their own "awesome slinger" archetype or PRC or whatever? That just seems blech...
Slings did dominate the classical battlefield for millennia. They just take even more training than longbows and can't be fired through slits. Considering that in spite of the vast volume of fire advantages over the crossbow only the English dared train their people as longbowmen it's not surprising that slings went out of favor during the feudal era.I suggest looking into this site and educating on the abilities that slings have instead of some ridiculously inaccurate math that somebody made up. The wounds described in some battle accounts from history are really brutal and disgusting and death was usually the result with trained slingers. Those bullets fly fast and hit hard.Which is totally why the sling dominated the medieval battleground for centuries…. Oh, wait…..
Sure, a sling makes nasty wounds. Take a look at what a crossbow does. the sling just can't compete with a CB or a LB. And the Romans found the dart to be better.
Indeed. The big issue for slings was not battlefield performance, it was that (like a couple people have mentioned) getting a good slinger required a lot of training time relative to other weapons. That was why crossbows (and later guns) dominated the battlefield. Not because they were so technically superior that they outperformed slings and longbows, but because training people to use them was much simpler. Maintaining a corps of longbowmen required a huge investment on England's part, and while the results were impressive, a lot of people citing battles from the Hundred Years War tend to overlook the fact that England lost that war.
I think the concern is the sling is one of the few weapons that can both be ranged or melee (with a feat, or not with a slingstaff) meaning you can pour all your energy into one thing that gives you two options.Same deal as with crossbows. They are mechanically inferior because they are simple and not martial or exotic.However, with most weapons the difference between simple, martial, and exotic is usually 1 pt average damage, or 1 "crit point", or something else along those lines.
With slings, they could have a reload mechanic equal to that of a bow and they'd still not overpower them mechanically. At the levels where the reloading is a real problem, the benefit of getting free "mighty" on the sling is irrelevant.
Point Blank Master already lets you effectively use any ranged weapon in melee as it stands, so the sling having another way to do that doesn't strike me as that much of an advantage. The Sling Flail feat is just a bit less versatile, but has slightly lower prerequisites. I'd never take it over Point Blank Master.
I'd also like to point out that the armor-punching ability of crossbows and longbows was based on the armors of early eras.
Later armors (1500+) were capable of taking crossbow shots with just a dent. The reason armor didn't go out of style until guns came along is because wearing it was extremely effective.
And yes, the main problems with slingers was the training time. You couldn't take a conscript and turn them into a slinger...it took too long. You had to recruit from basically shepherd communities, where the sling was the weapon of choice.
You could train an archer up in a relatively short time with the short bows of the era, and it took no time at all to train spear, javelin and dart-throwers, as its all the same motion.
time and cost felled the mighty sling...cost to train and recruit slingers vs other missile weapons, not weapon effectiveness.
That being said...a sling works fine on a battlefield, where indirect fire and steady rate of fire, shielded by others is appropriate. It makes considerably less sense in an adventuring situation where it's rate of fire IS less then other weapons.
Oh, and you certainly should be able to use your Str bonus with a sling, as its effectively a thrown weapon apart from its reload!
==Aelryinth
Additionaly, the longbow is a relatively recent weapon: it showed up at the end of 15th Century, during the Hundred Years War. Until then, the shortbow was the only bow available, and compared to crossbows, the shortbow really lacked punch, while composite bows were found only in Asia and not really widespread.
|
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?Not all options are equal. That is half the fun of the game.No, it really isn't.
Creating some options that are better for some characters in some situations does not equate to "making trap options to punish new players". I love how people take that Monte Cook interview completely out of context. In any game where you have a lot of options, some options or combinations of options will be better than average, and some will be worse than average. That is not the same as deliberately punishing players who are less experienced with the system.
Clan of the Cave Bear was another.Oh, and the only work of fiction that I can think of off the top of my head that uses slings is The Wheel of Time. And there, it is mainly used for killing rabbits, not trollocs.David and Goliath, Greek history, some Greek myths.
That's not mythology, is it?
That's not mythology, is it?Clan of the Cave Bear was another.Oh, and the only work of fiction that I can think of off the top of my head that uses slings is The Wheel of Time. And there, it is mainly used for killing rabbits, not trollocs.David and Goliath, Greek history, some Greek myths.
But it is a work of fiction, which is what was in question.
|
|
I think the concern is the sling is one of the few weapons that can both be ranged or melee (with a feat, or not with a slingstaff) meaning you can pour all your energy into one thing that gives you two options.It takes 1 feat and to be a fighter or ranger to do this with a bow.
It takes 1 feat, a trait, and to be a halfling to do this with a sling.
The halfling sling staff... how can you get two shots with it in a round to make it a viable ranged weapon?
Halfling sling staff doesn't work with the feat to reload by FAQ.
I'm not sure what feat you are referring to with bows. There is a spell called Bowstaff. But I can't search at work so I probably missed something.
|
|
Halfling sling staff doesn't work with the feat to reload by FAQ.
I'm not sure what feat you are referring to with bows. There is a spell called Bowstaff. But I can't search at work so I probably missed something.
Yeah... the halfling sling staff was killed by the FAQ for sure. I do not agree with that FAQ at all, but I live with it (PFS constraints).
When you mentioned it as a viable melee and ranged weapon, that didn't make sense to me. Hence the question. I could only hope that you (or anyone) knew of a way to make it viable ranged weapon again.
Point Blank Master allows a bow to be used in melee.
Using a bow in melee is not using a bow as a melee weapon. And it is many more than one feat to get to point blank master.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that Legolas is full-drawing probably a 200 lb longbow at that speed, and our Danish friend is pluck-drawing a 50-60 lb short bow, at best.
World of difference in the power and accuracy of the shot.
Other points, well made.
==Aelryinth
I don't understand: I did a search for "Slinging Accuracy" on Bing. And halflings can't have their own "awesome slinger" archetype or PRC or whatever? That just seems blech...
Sure, slings were deadly in their period. Still are in PF. Just that crossbows and longbows were better IRL and completely supplanted the sling on the battlefield. It was not used a weapon in warfare for entire medieval period. The Clovis flint spear *WAS* a deadly weapon they killed mammoths with it. Bronze weapons were *THE* thing for a couple thousand years. But all were outdated by newer, better weapons. It's not that the sling is a terrible weapon, it's that other weapons are & were better and thus supplanted it.
Just like even today the Bow & crossbow are deadly weapons in the right hands, but have been supplanted by full auto firearms. Heck, even today, once in a great while some special forces dude will find a bow might be better for some sitrep or application. That doesn’t mean it’s better than a AK47 or M16.
But I did suggest a: "Mind you, some sort of special Halfling slinger archetype would be very cool and hearken to the Balearic slingers. "
I think what the Devs actually said was not every option needs to be the best option.
True for a dedicated ranged damage dealer the longbow is better- but that’s because the longbow *WAS* better, and still is.
I’d hate for them to take the sling option away, since it’s still useful. I’d also hate for the sling to be statted out as a more deadly than the longbow as the *WOULD* be crazy. The sling is not a ‘trap’ any more than the club is. In fact as a back up weapon it's possibly the BEST option for some PC's.
Additionaly, the longbow is a relatively recent weapon: it showed up at the end of 15th Century, during the Hundred Years War. Until then, the shortbow was the only bow available, and compared to crossbows, the shortbow really lacked punch, while composite bows were found only in Asia and not really widespread.
Basically true, although as early as the 5th century steppe tribes arrived in Europe carrying laminated composite bows. There's a lot of cultural inertia though - most empires preferred to hire specialist weapon users from subordinate peoples instead of training their own warriors in their use. As a result, many superior weapons never got absorbed into neighbouring countries, even if they were well familiar with their performance on the battlefield. Examples include stirrup-and-lance, mounted composite bows, slings (usually from Malta, the Balearics, and the Canaries), throwing axes, and others.
As a sidenote, the most effective countries, regarding the adoption of "foreign" weaponry, were those who converted their own lifestyle to begin with. You see this in the many Persian and Turkish empires that settled down from their roots as steppe nomads into very succesful dominions.
Interesting points and questions raised. I'm thinking aboutincreasing the die for slings in my homebrew and allowing strength bonus to be added.They already add str bonus to damage.
oh, I lnoe, I was just stating what my final writeup was going to be.
I think what the Devs actually said was not every option needs to be the best option.
I'm cool with that, but I would like reasons for sub optimal options to exist beyond money and desperation.