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
interesting.....
Would like to see other comments on this guy- not saying he used trick photography or anything but his video was very much slanted in his direction.
|
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.
Because they exist, and you can either not have things like clubs and slings or you can have them and not have them be as good as things that were better that also existed.
Hence being simple weapons used by the untrained.
Having played with one a bit, I would say that beyond twenty feet or so (the range at one might startle a rabbit or a bird) it would be difficult to hit a target.
You were taking a penalty for using an exotic weapon without proficiency.
Not too long ago, I watched a documentary wherein the world champion slinger (is that what a professional sling-user is called?) was given three tries at about 50 yards or so, to put a sling bullet through a forensic skull to see if David's slaying of Goliath would be possible in real life.
The dude nailed the forehead on the first or second try, and put the front of the skull all the way through the brain cavity with one bullet, proving just how deadly a sling is in the hands of an expert.
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.Because they exist, and you can either not have things like clubs and slings or you can have them and not have them be as good as things that were better that also existed.
Hence being simple weapons used by the untrained.
I'd be okay if slings being simple weapons aimed at untrained levies was the main reason, but I don't swallow that wholesale.
The sling was outdated as a weapon of war by around AD200-400* or so, and wasn’t even a blip during the entire medieval period, since crossbows were easier to use and more effective.
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.
Just a heads up Deth that I suspect neither of these assertions are true. I'm not an expert - indeed my only impetus to research sling history many months ago was 'cause I made a character who used one - but I recall reading at that time that slings remained in significant military use in Europe into the 17th century, which would well post-date crossbows and English longbows.
Other than in sieges or by a occ peasant? Ok, I'd like to see a cite for that. My research has shown opposite. True, in the Iberian area it stayed in use a little longer, and certainly more than a few shepherds likely brought theirs along, but there were no units of slingers after the Roman empire.
Not too long ago, I watched a documentary wherein the world champion slinger (is that what a professional sling-user is called?) was given three tries at about 50 yards or so, to put a sling bullet through a forensic skull to see if David's slaying of Goliath would be possible in real life.
The dude nailed the forehead on the first or second try, and put the front of the skull all the way through the brain cavity with one bullet, proving just how deadly a sling is in the hands of an expert.
A sling wielded by an expert will indeed kill in PF. No one, not even the devs have said it was just a toy. It's right there on the weapons charts. It does the same damage as a dart, and about that of a javelin, while having a much superior range to either. It's about the same as a short bow. Hand a sling to a str 12 dex 12 commoner or even expert and it is more deadly than a simple short bow.
It's just that there's a cornucopia of feats and archetypes that make the Longbow MUCH better, as indeed it really was. That's just the reality. The other reality is that more people want to play Legolas or Robin Hood than David.
Now the sling still has advantages-cost & weight is nil. It's super easy to hide. You don't need martial weapon prof.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other than in sieges or by a occ peasant? Ok, I'd like to see a cite for that. My research has shown opposite. True, in the Iberian area it stayed in use a little longer, and certainly more than a few shepherds likely brought theirs along, but there were no units of slingers after the Roman empire.
Sure. I don't recall it's being at all hard to find.
[google google google]
...Okay. The article I recall reading quotes the sling as becoming an increasingly popular tool for medieval armies due to the ability to use it to launch grenades. Citation from that article ultimately sources this claim to an October, 1973 Scientific American article, "The Sling as a weapon" written by a Manfred Korfmann.
Same article also says that navies continued to use the sling far longer than armies did, though no date is given, so I couldn't say whether that would carry it past the 17th century.
Just as speculation, my guess is that if it was still in naval use in the 18th century, it died along with the Mediterranean (~1720-1750ish disappearance) galley fleets, or perhaps the slightly later Baltic galleys. Just a guess that galleys would have been more suited to the weapon than other types of warships were.
Early/middle 17th century would give the sling about a century on the longbow and crossbow, which fell off in early/middle 16th. If the sling did make it to the 18th on sea, then two centuries.
The staff-sling, which was little more than a sling on a pole, became an increasingly popular grenade launcher in medieval times. However, before the staff-sling, the traditional sling would have fulfilled this role equally well. The staff-sling’s simpler operation meant it was the favored weapon by medieval armies. It continued to be used well into the 17th century (Korfmann, 1973).
3] It seems the sling continued to be used in a naval role far longer than in land combat. Some suggest that the salty spray at sea made bows troublesome, as their strings would fail. The sling did not suffer from this problem (Hawkins, 1847; DeVries, 1956; Wise, 1976; Ferrill, 1985). There is also some debate about whether the sling’s gyroscopic properties gave it an edge in accuracy on the pitching deck of a ship.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
And yet, there's a lot of room between the sling as it currently is, where the Simple Weapon takes *three feats* to be *almost* as good as the Martial Weapon, which only takes *one feat* to purchase, and the sling-as-uberweapon-better-than-bows that you are mentioning here.
The difference between sling and bow is just that, one feat. Simple vs. martial.
There's no game justification for it to take more than one feat for it to be a competitive weapon, if not an *identical* weapon (because that would be boring, IMO). Adding damage to a single shot, instead of the ability to load and fire it at bow-like speeds, would, IMO, better reflect the nature of the sling, while still upgrading it to being more useful mechanically, and, subsequently, more *used* in gameplay.
IMO, if the difference between a Simple Weapon and a Martial Weapon is one feat, then making a Simple Weapon (such as a sling or spear or dagger) function more effectively, and closer to a Martial Weapon (but not necessarily identically!), should never cost more than one feat.
This, again, IMO, is part of the 'Fighters can't have nice things' problem. I do away with the in-game limitations of the fireball being one of the more common resistance types and occasionally nuking your treasure, by making a 'frostball,' and it's practically a non-issue, with feats and class abilities that already do that sort of thing (such as elemental sorcerer or 3.X's Energy Substitution). I suggest something that might benefit a non-spellcaster, even to the point of making a sub-optimal option (sling) *almost as good* as the default choice (longbow), and it's Armageddon.
After the discussion on height and sling effectiveness, I want to see a version of Lord of the Rings where the taller-than-human elves like Legolas used brutally effective slings, and the little hobbits were the ones using bows. If Legolas had taken out forty-some orcs at the siege of Helm's Deep by cracking their skulls open with sling bullets, instead of filling them full of arrows, maybe the sling would be a little more popular in the fantasy RPGs inspired by that genre.
Having played with one a bit, I would say that beyond twenty feet or so (the range at one might startle a rabbit or a bird) it would be difficult to hit a target.You were taking a penalty for using an exotic weapon without proficiency.
Man that guy takes forever! No wonder you can't reload as a free action.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Streets of Zobeck, part of the Pathfinder compatible Midgard setting has three excellent sling Feats. Bank shot, Improved bank shot and Sling anything. They help the sling have a unique character.
A little word on uniqueness and optimal. Not all things can be optimal, if they were then there would be no optimal, there would be bland.
The reason I play Pathfinder is that I became jaded with 4th edition. You could move your opponent and do damage OR do damage then move your opponent. (Simplified but you know what I mean). Choices should mean something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not all things can be optimal, if they were then there would be no optimal, there would be bland.
This idea seems to be a pretty popular one and I still have no idea why.
Uniqueness and balance have nothing to do with each other. The hallmark of a well balanced game is that ALL of the options are optimal and worthwhile without sacrificing those differences.
If TWFing was as effective as 2H combat was as effective as sword and board, that would not be bland. All 3 are very different fighting styles and work differently from each other.
Look at it like flavors of ice cream. Just because vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry are all "optimal" choices, depending on your preference (neither is better or worse, it just depends on what you want), doesn't mean they are bland or not unique from each other.
But the thing is that vanilla, chicolate and strawberry are not the only avaliable choices. You could mix the chocolate and strawberry together, which would not be optimal, or the vanilla with chocolatr which would be nice but probably not as nice as the others. Of course its a faulty comparison because ice cream taste cant really be meally be measured but it is what it is.
The more options, the larger the risk of some combinations beibg more useful than others.
Not all things can be optimal, if they were then there would be no optimal, there would be bland.This idea seems to be a pretty popular one and I still have no idea why.
Uniqueness and balance have nothing to do with each other. The hallmark of a well balanced game is that ALL of the options are optimal and worthwhile without sacrificing those differences.
If TWFing was as effective as 2H combat was as effective as sword and board, that would not be bland. All 3 are very different fighting styles and work differently from each other
If they were all optimal all the time, then the net result would be the same, therefore the only difference would be the words on the character sheet. Each of your examples is optimal in particular situations. As is the sling for ranged combat for a non martial character with no money.
It is a matter of choice and flavour. If everything does the same then choice becomes redundant and flavour just "topping". Don't you think flavour should be integral? Just think of a well cooked meal rather than noodles with a sachet of beef/chicken/bbq flavour powder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fully accept the fact that a sling is dealing as much damage in the hands of a Halfling as an Acid Splash cantrip. However as the game goes on, there's a few ranged attack feat chains around weapon specialization and point-blank shots that work for the sling...and then that's it.
I don't need the options to be the same; I agree that a vanilla game would be boring. But why limit the utility of a weapon already on the losing arc of damage and range? If you're going to say "it takes 3 feats for a standard sling to make 2 attacks" then why not instead say "it won't make multiple bullet shots in a round ever; instead you get a feat that lets you make a Ranged Cleave attempt by bouncing a single shot."
It's not exactly the same as a bow, plays off the Strength component of a sling where the stronger you are the better you are with this weapon, and gives you a corner case where if you're slinging into a dense pack of foes you can bean 2 for the price of 1. Or imagine a ranged Sunder trick; it only works at range, can't be used in melee but lets you crack or destroy an opponent's weapon. Even better would be a ranged Disarm doing the same thing.
Chaining all these together it would be interesting and very non-vanilla to see a Halfling with a leather bandanna suddenly come up with a shot that ricochets between the 2 on-rushing goblins and knocks the weapons out of both of their hands. THAT'S why I began the thread; to figure why the sling, as feats progress, gets teased and nerfed into REMAINING a sub-par weapon.
@Mark I couldn't agree more. The feats I mentioned from Zobec are sling specific and similar in concept....bouncing stones etc. And make the sling a more appealing option.
The argument for slings is completely facetious.
you know what is also a simple weapon? Throwing a rock.
Yeah, that's right. Throwing a rock is a simple weapon.
Why is a sling better then throwing a rock by hand? They are both simple weopons. You don't need a feat for either one! But, like, the sling gets so much more range and damage, and is just as fast from levels 1-6!
I think thrown rocks should be just as good as slings, because both are simple weapons.
hey! Daggers are also simple weapons! Rocks should be as good as daggers, with a better crit range, and do 2 damage types. That would be fair. And usable easily in melee, too!
Spears are simple weapons! Hey, I think I should be able to brace and do double damage against charges with a rock in my hand, tyvm. And do more damage, too!
Crossbows are simple weapons! I think I should get the threat range and range of a crossbow with my rock. They are both simple weapons, so it is only fair. And naturally I want 1-8 dmg, not 1-3.
Longbows are only martial weapons! I think I should get the enhanced range of a longbow and the enhanced critical of a longbow for my rock for only 1 feat, despite the fact that it's like far shot x4 and 2 die sizes larger and Improved Critical in relative cost. I mean, it's only one feat, not 7, right?
It's like, wow, martial weapon prof, if you didn't get it as a group, really might be valuable when you look at the individual weapons. Who'da thunk?
==Aelryinth
Where is throwing a rock listed as a simple weapon? Isnt it an improvised weapon?
Man that guy takes forever! No wonder you can't reload as a free action.Having played with one a bit, I would say that beyond twenty feet or so (the range at one might startle a rabbit or a bird) it would be difficult to hit a target.You were taking a penalty for using an exotic weapon without proficiency.
I too use slow mo videos of guys who were not hurrying to begin with in order to calibrate my expectations for the fantasy action economy.
On the chance that you had a non-facetious interest in the subject, though, here's a video of a some geriatric 150 year old with a sling. He's got no ammo carried and is bending over to find a rock between each shot, so, Pathfinder wise, you'd have move action (pick up object), move action (load sling), standard (attack) which would give you a round and a half's worth, or about 8-9 seconds for a generic 20th level fighter who picks up a sling and attempts to do the same at top speed.
This guy doesn't seem to be in a massive hurry either, but he's in the same point of motion in his throw at 17s as at 23s, which gives almost exactly a 6 second interval.
Roughly:
watch last shot: 1 s
pick up rock and fit in sling: 1 s
aiming/focus/situating 2s
throwing motion: 2s
Aelrynth. You seem to be missing the point. If you work hard at something (spend a feat point) then you become much better than average with it. Some things do have their limits (It would have to be a very heavy wet sponge to damage a rock giant) but some dangerous things, in the right hands, are even more lethal.
That us why I see nothing wrong with adding feats to slings, daggers or even rocks. While the average bloke would still do better with a shortsword, the specialist could take your tonsils out with a penknife
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Okay. The article I recall reading quotes the sling as becoming an increasingly popular tool for medieval armies due to the ability to use it to launch grenades. Citation from that article ultimately sources this claim to an October, 1973 Scientific American article, "The Sling as a weapon" written by a Manfred Korfmann.To be frank, in that article, it's the grenade that's the real weapon. The sling is nothing more than a delivery system.
Indeed. I cannot contest that this offers a clear distinction between the sling and other medieval ranged weapons. It is well known that if you are firing a cannon or a crossbow at someone, the weapon itself briefly stretches across the battlefield to smack them, as opposed to the sling's indirect effect via ammunition.
It is a matter of choice and flavour. If everything does the same then choice becomes redundant and flavour just "topping". Don't you think flavour should be integral? Just think of a well cooked meal rather than noodles with a sachet of beef/chicken/bbq flavour powder.As rinyns stated, things can be optimal without being the same. Particulary I do not undestand why an optimal choise woudl do th esamas another optimal choise.
For example, if you go THF you go for offensive if you go Sord and boar you go for defensive, sadly the game do not have much good support for non.twf sword and board guys, and the stye is just meh.
If paizo release some material to make non-twf sword and board better that style then becomes good without being the same as THF.
Look up the word "optimal" then come back to me if you like.
Other than in sieges or by a occ peasant? Ok, I'd like to see a cite for that. My research has shown opposite. True, in the Iberian area it stayed in use a little longer, and certainly more than a few shepherds likely brought theirs along, but there were no units of slingers after the Roman empire.Sure. I don't recall it's being at all hard to find.
[google google google]
...Okay. The article I recall reading quotes the sling as becoming an increasingly popular tool for medieval armies due to the ability to use it to launch grenades.
The staff-sling, which was little more than a sling on a pole, became an increasingly popular grenade launcher in medieval times. However, before the staff-sling, the traditional sling would have fulfilled this role equally well. The staff-sling’s simpler operation meant it was the favored weapon by medieval armies. It continued to be used well into the 17th century (Korfmann, 1973).3] It seems the sling continued to be used in a naval role far longer than in land combat. Some suggest that the salty spray at sea made bows troublesome, as their strings...
Right, as I said, other than in sieges(I don;t remember it being used in naval combat) , where the staff sling was used to fire grenades once in a while. However, this is not the usage some sling fans here want out of the sling.
Still, there were no units of slingers after the Roman empire, the sling went away except as a niche specialized weapon.
Even today, special forces still find a use for a bow once in a while. Does't mean that the bow is still a military weapon, it's been completely supplanted by the AK47, etc.
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.
And yet, there's a lot of room between the sling as it currently is, where the Simple Weapon takes *three feats* to be *almost* as good as the Martial Weapon, which only takes *one feat* to purchase, and the sling-as-uberweapon-better-than-bows that you are mentioning here.
There's no game justification for it to take more than one feat for it to be a competitive weapon, if not an *identical* weapon (because that would be boring, IMO).
This, again, IMO, is part of the 'Fighters can't have nice things' problem.
Then - don't spend those three feats. Use a bow instead.
Why should a sling ever be as good as a longbow? It never was. Not only that but few players want a super-sling. Why should the devs spend their time building elaborate feats chains or archetypes for something only a tiny number of players want? Players want to play Robin hood or Legolas, not David.
Oh come on. Fighters do indeed have “nice things” the Comp Longbow is very good indeed. The various archer builds out there can match anything for DPR. Saying the “fighter can’t have nice things’ just because a NON-fighter weapon is suboptimal is like saying that Wizards can’t have nice things as the Flaming Sphere spell is suboptimal compared to Fireball.
Spellcasters also have plenty of spells which are either not optimal or useful only in Niche sitreps. So?
I don’t get why folks want every weapon to be exactly the same. You know they had that in some games, where every weapon did a D6, you just called it whatever you wanted- battleaxe, dagger, whatever, they were all the same. Bad idea. Players want CHOICES and some choices are better than others. That's the thing about choices.
I have four active PF characters, and of them, three carry slings, and NONE carry a bow. To me, the sling is a perfect option for those characters. For example, my bard carries a bladed scarf and a sling as one of her things is to always appear unarmed. The sling works fine for this, it’s also cheap and weighs nothing. Ammo can be picked up for free too.
I just don’t get this campaign were EVERY weapon has to be as good as every other weapon. The sling is perfect as is. It’s a simple weapon, it’s free it weighs nothing. This works fine for me and my characters. If it doesn’t work for your, then your choice is to pick another weapon.
I think uniqueness is more important to me than optimization. But that is just me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not all things can be optimal, if they were then there would be no optimal, there would be bland.This idea seems to be a pretty popular one and I still have no idea why.
Easy.
If you have a world where some things are common, there should logically be a reason those things are more common.
Crossbows were made to be used by people with little training to be nearly as useful as people with training.
In the game, two untrained people are given a weapon: One a crossbow, one a longbow. Crossbow is better for the untrained person.
If everything is equally good, there is no logical reason why some things are more common, more used, etc.
Many, if not most of us think the logic of the world is very, very important. Why? Because all decisions are based off of the logic of the world, and it not making sense is a problem.
When things don't follow logic or reason, the game becomes less interesting to most of us.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crossbow where designed to kill, and they were very effective doing that. it is like saying a gun should be bad cause a peasent do not have the ability to use a longbow.
It is bad desing. It is a bad desing philosophy from paizo.
Crossbows were designed to be used by poorly trained soldiers, because they couldn't use the better weapon, without training.
There's nothing wrong with having feats that make slings more effective.
There IS something wrong with 1 feat making them equal to vastly superior martial weapons.
As I posited above, you'd need like far shot x 5, Oversized Weapon, and Improved Critical for a sling stone to equal a longbow.
Yes, that's SEVEN feats to upgrade your simple sling to a martial bow. The bow is THAT MUCH BETTER.
So claiming that 1-2 feats should make a sling equal to a bow isn't EVER going to cut it. The only reason this is not clear is because instead of weapons being bought 1 by 1, like in 1e, they are now purchased as groups, and you really don't see how vastly improved martial weapons are.
Martial weapon prof is underwhelming simply because so many classes get it. But when you start comparing it to simple weapons, its pretty easy to see that martial weapons are indeed worth it.
And you know? You have to spend an entire class level to pick it up. You can't just take a feat and do it.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t get why folks want every weapon to be exactly the sameI do not now why folks repeats this untrue statement.
Because strawmen are easier to beat than what people are actually arguing for.
On-topic, I wouldn't mind seeing some rules support for something like a grenade-flinging sling. It would give the sling something cool and unique to do, instead of it being a longbow with worse range, damage, crits, and rate of fire.
If they were all optimal all the time, then the net result would be the same, therefore the only difference would be the words on the character sheet.
"Optimal" does not mean "exactly as good as every other option in every conceivable scenario". It simply means that the option is "the best" (not inferior to other options counts as well if they're all at the same level of good).
Each of your examples is optimal in particular situations.
As they currently are, they are not. For melee combat, the 2H weapon style is superior to TWFing in every conceivable scenario. It has a better to-hit chance and higher damage than TWFing, even factoring in TWFing's extra attacks, and relies much less on each of those attacks connecting.
Sword and board is arguable, since it provides better defenses. But if you argue that it is just as good as 2H fighting, that proves my point right there. Options can be different and still just as good as each other.
As is the sling for ranged combat for a non martial character with no money.
No. This is not a scenario where the sling is better. This is a circumstance that justifies somebody picking up a sling as opposed to something else.
The sling is a ranged weapon. There is no scenario where the sling is better than another ranged weapon, namely the Longbow. Or even the Shortbow. It has no distinct advantages over either of those, in any scenario.
It is a matter of choice and flavour. If everything does the same
That *whoosh* noise is the sound of the point going right over your head, in case you were curious.
Easy.
If you have a world where some things are common, there should logically be a reason those things are more common.
Crossbows were made to be used by people with little training to be nearly as useful as people with training.
In the game, two untrained people are given a weapon: One a crossbow, one a longbow. Crossbow is better for the untrained person.
If everything is equally good, there is no logical reason why some things are more common, more used, etc.
Many, if not most of us think the logic of the world is very, very important. Why? Because all decisions are based off of the logic of the world, and it not making sense is a problem.
When things don't follow logic or reason, the game becomes less interesting to most of us.
And if you take a Feat to offset that disadvantage should be eliminated, is the point here.
I get it, it's a Simple weapon. Simple weapons are made to be worse. But if you're investing Feats into it, it should be on par (or close) to something else using the same investment.
So claiming that 1-2 feats should make a sling equal to a bow isn't EVER going to cut it. The only reason this is not clear is because instead of weapons being bought 1 by 1, like in 1e, they are now purchased as groups, and you really don't see how vastly improved martial weapons are.
Martial weapon prof is underwhelming simply because so many classes get it. But when you start comparing it to simple weapons, its pretty easy to see that martial weapons are indeed worth it.
And you know? You have to spend an entire class level to pick it up. You can't just take a feat and do it.
Martial Weapon Proficiency is a Feat.
If a Commoner can take Martial Weapon Proficiency: Longbow why should he still be superior to someone who invests 1-2 Feats into slings?
As is the sling for ranged combat for a non martial character with no money.No. This is not a scenario where the sling is better. This is a circumstance that justifies somebody picking up a sling as opposed to something else.
The sling is a ranged weapon. There is no scenario where the sling is better than another ranged weapon, namely the Longbow. Or even the Shortbow. It has no distinct advantages over either of those, in any scenario.
Indeed. The only scenario I've even seen where the sling has an advantage is when longbows are unavailable due to cost/proficiency. That strikes me as a very narrow corner case.
The sling is a ranged weapon. There is no scenario where the sling is better than another ranged weapon, namely the Longbow. Or even the Shortbow. It has no distinct advantages over either of those, in any scenario.
Yes, it does. For example, take two PCs without a lot of funds or martial weapon prof. A str 14 cleric will do better with a sling than a shortbow. He takes the Non prof penalty with the shortbow, and he gets the +2 to damage with the sling and not the shortbow. Thus the sling does better damage.
He hits better and he hits harder with the sling. All this for no cost and no extra weight.
In this scenario, the sling is better. In fact, it's better for many PC's with some str and no martial weapon profic.