|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Rynjin - No that isn't the point.
If I have a stick and you have a sword, you have a better weapon than me. If we both take feats, you still have a better weapon than me.
This is why people prefer to fight with swords rather than sticks.
Crossbows are great for people who don't have a lot of training, relative to things that require training.
But they are inferior weapons when training comes into play, because they are designed for untrained people.
Slings are great if you are playing a character that
A) Is untrained but wants a ranged weapon that you can add strength to.
B) Wants to keep his weapon in his pocket.
C) People who think slings are cool.
D) Some halfling builds.
That is fine. That is a niche. A niche need not be the norm. That is why it is a niche.
Generally, the most common options are the most common because they work the best.
feats are not all created equal.
You can take MWP, and go from using a sling to a bow. fantastic. You basically just got Far Shot x 5, Improved Critical, and +2 damage, ALL FOR ONE FEAT.
Of course, if I go from a club (1-6) to a Greatsword (2-12) with the same feat, I get +3.5 damage and Improved Critical for the same feat, as well!!!!
You know, maybe there IS a reason why Martial Weapon Prof is important, and why some feats are better in some circumstances then others.
Let me turn your argument BACK on you. For the investment of NO feats, why can't a sling be made equal to a crossbow? They are both simple weapons!!!!
And you don't even have to cross the martial weapon divide to realize just how impossible that is.
==Aelryinth
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.
This is true for a few levels. As soon as iteratives come into play this scenario is sunk.
No that isn't the point.
If I have a stick and you have a sword, you have a better weapon than me. If we both take feats, you still have a better weapon than me.
This is why people prefer to fight with swords rather than sticks.
Crossbows are great for people who don't have a lot of training, relative to things that require training.
But they are inferior weapons when training comes into play, because they are designed for untrained people.
Slings are great if you are playing a character that
A) Is untrained but wants a ranged weapon that you can add strength to.
B) Wants to keep his weapon in his pocket.
C) People who think slings are cool.
D) Some halfling builds.That is fine. That is a niche. A niche need not be the norm. That is why it is a niche.
Generally, the most common options are the most common because they work the best.
Yes. They work best out of the box. But what I'm saying is that there's no reason why, given similar investment, a sling or crossbow shouldn't be as good as a bow.
If I invest 5 Feats in a sling or Crossbow I would hope that I am at least as good as someone who has invested 4 Feats into the Longbow. Currently, this is not the case.
From a flavor perspective, training and specialization should match weapon superiority.
A guy who has trained his whole life to use a crossbow quickly and effectively should be close to as good as a guy who's trained to use a bow effectively.
It's the same principle as unarmed martial arts in fiction. You beat the untrained man with the sword due to superior training regardless of the fact that a sword is a better weapon than your bare fists. You match the trained swordsman blow for blow because training overcomes many inherent limitations, or at least lets you work around them.
The main issue is C.) The guy who thinks slings are cool and wants to make a character based around using a sling. But if he tries to do so, he's gimped to hell just trying to make it work.
Let me turn your argument BACK on you. For the investment of NO feats, why can't a sling be made equal to a crossbow? They are both simple weapons!!!!
And you don't even have to cross the martial weapon divide to realize just how impossible that is.
That's not turning my argument back on me at all. My argument relies on the fact that training (Feats) should overcome the disadvantages inherent in a weapon.
As a weapon, the Crossbow is superior. With training (Feats) the Sling and Crossbow are similarly matched (damage vs range, same attack rate and to-hit).
@Rynjin.....you just scored a whole lot of wooshes.
Aye. Why don't you tell me how many feats it would take for the Sling to equal the crossbow.
I'm thinking about 7?
And you want to bridge the gap to MARTIAL weapons with a feat or two. Uh huh.
==Aelryinth
Aye. Why don't you tell me how many feats it would take for the Sling to equal the crossbow.
I'm thinking about 7?
And you want to bridge the gap to MARTIAL weapons with a feat or two. Uh huh.
==Aelryinth
Advantages light crossbow has over sling:
-Range
-Damage dice
-Critical range
Advantages Sling has over crossbow:
-Static damage
Damage dice is pretty irrelevant. Improved Critical covers the crit range thing.
Hey, look. They're now pretty much even with one Feat if you value a 19-20 crit as much as the ability to add your strength to damage (which the crossbow never gets).
And again, the point is not that each weapon be identical. It's that they have distinct advantages and disadvantages over each other, not JUST ADVANTAGES.
The sling will ALWAYS have the damage advantage over the crossbow if the person has at least 14 Str. That is an advantage. An advantage the crossbow cannot replicate.
The Crossbow will always have a longer range than the Sling. That is an advantage. One the sling cannot replicate.
Advantage to each. Each is balanced with the other. They are not identical.
and with a feat the crossbow gets dex to damage. And many DM's let the crossbow be modified to include a Str mod, although its not Standard.
meh.
===Aelryinth
and with a feat the crossbow gets dex to damage. And many DM's let the crossbow be modified to include a Str mod, although its not Standard.
meh.
===Aelryinth
Yeah seriously, what Feat is that? Because that's exactly the thing that would make Crossbows worthwhile.
And we're not talking houserules here. I could houserule the sling to do 1d12 and have a x3 crit but that wouldn't have a bearing on whether it was better than the crossbow or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, why is the goal to make all things equal?
Why wouldn't that be a goal? It improves the game to make all options worthwhile.
thumbing through the feats...
Focused Shot, add Int to Xbow dmg...
Couldn't find it. Thought it was in the second or third book out. Might be only 1/2 dex to damage, but I'm sure it's around somewhere. It wasn't quite the equalizer with a bow, but it was still good additional damage.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And again, why is the goal to make all things equal?Why wouldn't that be a goal? It improves the game to make all options worthwhile.
Because not all options are equal.
Not wearing armor is not as good as wearing armor, hence why people wear armor.
Swords are better than clubs, hence arming people with swords rather than clubs.
You want the world to make rational sense. You want the common options to be the common options for a reason. You want there to be a reason why knights look and dress like knights.
Because that is generally the best option.
That is why people do it.
Focusing on secondary option equality is a bad goal that generally creates more problems with unintended consequences than it solves.
The crossbow was never the preferred weapon of the highly skilled warrior, specifically because it wasn't as good as other options.
In the same way "Rock" is less good than "Gun"
But why include secondary options? It's just a waste of words if they have no real advantages over other options. Could have used that space for something else.
I would rather that the crossbow was not an option rather than being an option so bad that it's still not really an option, it just resembles one in a certain light.
Or, more accurately, if they really wanted the option to be bad even after Feat investment, they shouldn't have included those Feat options in the first place.
Choices that aren't choices are bad choices.
It is a poor design choice when a game actively tries to make that the reality.
If I give you the choice between a shit sandwich and a delicious hoagie, you're going to take the hoagie. It doesn't matter if I offer you all you can eat and free condiments, a shit sandwich is still a shit sandwich so why would I even waste my time promising you a slightly better shit sandwich?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because some people like playing secondary options.
Not everyone is trying to win the mechanics drag race.
Some people just think it is cool to be the guy with the crossbow.
Or the guy who carries his weapons in his pocket.
Is that concept really that hard for your to understand?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people just think it is cool to be the guy with the crossbow.
So, why do you want to mechanically punish him for playing what he thinks is cool?
Is that concept really that hard for you to understand?
All I'm finding is an archetype ability, not a feat.
Looks like that's what I was thinking of.
At least it works with (Mythic?) Vital Strike!
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people just think it is cool to be the guy with the crossbow.So, why do you want to mechanically punish him for playing what he thinks is cool?
Is that concept really that hard for you to understand?
So, why do I want to reward him for using an inferior weapon?
Why do I want to punish the bow user by having someone with a lousier weapon be just as good as him?
==Aelryinth
Some people just think it is cool to be the guy with the crossbow.So, why do you want to mechanically punish him for playing what he thinks is cool?
Is that concept really that hard for you to understand?
You're not "punished" at all. I have a perfectly viable CB PC.
Just because he will be BETTER in a few levels if he went LB all the way doesn't mean that he's "punished".
Not every option has to be equally powerful.
Look at it this way. It's free icecream day at work/school. they have a sign up "We think our Chocolate is the best in the area, so you get extra ice cream if you order our chocolate!". But you like Vanilla. if you order vanilla you still get a free scoops, just that the guy who orders choco gets a bigger scoop. How are you being "punished"?
|
|
And that people wodl be equally hapy if those secondary optiosn were not bad. Improving those other ptiosn woudl not hurt their fun and could enhace the fun of other kind of players. Nobody lose.
Where is the problem then?
The realism of the game.
As 3.5 demonstrated, if what we intended to be secondary options become more powerful, all you see after awhile are secondary options.
And special ceases to be special, and the game is less enjoyable for many of us, because it ceases to make sense why people use bows rather than crossbows.
You can have your option. It exists. It is viable. It just isn't optimal.
Which is why it isn't a common option.
Which is what makes it special.
|
|
Some people just think it is cool to be the guy with the crossbow.So, why do you want to mechanically punish him for playing what he thinks is cool?
Is that concept really that hard for you to understand?
So, why do I want to reward him for using an inferior weapon?
Why do I want to punish the bow user by having someone with a lousier weapon be just as good as him?
==Aelryinth
So much this.
There is so much talk of "punishment" of people without discussion of how not rewarding people who do what is intended is in a sense punishing them for doing what is logical and fits the theme and setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Witch normally doesn't get Fireball, they just get Lightning bolt. FB is a better spell, overall than LB. Is the Witch "punished" for not being able to have FB?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slings were better than portrayed in many game systems.
When the Spanish invaded South and Central America, the Aztec and Inca (and other indigenous nations') weapon they feared the most was the sling. It didn't need to penetrate armour, it just needed to hit to transfer its force through the helmet and onto the target's head, often stunning or concussing him - the missile equivalent of the mace.
Bows and arrows were ineffective against even padded armour (albeit they weren't in the composite or war/longbow category), and crossbows had been taken into consideration when the armour was designed.
A stone might not cause as bad a wound as a penetrating arrow or bolt, but it was better against heavy armour. Sadly, Pathfinder has no system to deal with such vagaries of weapons, in the same way as it cannot distinguish between a warhammer's armour penetration and a sickle's low penetration but exceptional soft-tissue damage potential.
The best way to improve a particular weapon (assuming you want to model it realistically) is to throw out the existing combat system and bring in one that takes into consideration armour material, coverage, weapon penetration and non-penetration damage, as well as the potential for damage to vital areas (something that the current Critical system is reasonably good at modelling).
AD&D and Pathfinder are saddled with their ancestry. It is a fast-play game where weapon effects are secondary to character ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're not "punished" at all. I have a perfectly viable CB PC.
Just because he will be BETTER in a few levels if he went LB all the way doesn't mean that he's "punished".
I have no idea what CB/LB are referring to here.
Not every option has to be equally powerful.
Every option does not have to be equally powerful, but I would prefer it if they were. Equally powerful does not have to be identical, though. I don't need Slings to be the same as Bows. I want them to each have positives and negatives so that the decision isn't as simple as "The Longbow is always better in every circumstance forever."
The real culprit here, though, is the fact that the one weakness slings and crossbows had in real life compared to bows (i.e rate of fire) is the only relevant issue in Pathfinder because static damage bonuses make more attacks always better than fewer big attacks.
Look at it this way. It's free icecream day at work/school. they have a sign up "We think our Chocolate is the best in the area, so you get extra ice cream if you order our chocolate!". But you like Vanilla. if you order vanilla you still get a free scoops, just that the guy who orders choco gets a bigger scoop. How are you being "punished"?
If I like Vanilla more than Chocolate (which I do), I am being punished for my choice because I am being given less ice cream than someone that has a different flavor preference. I don't understand how that could be anything other than a punishment for those who like Vanilla.
Servings are arbitrary as it is. There is literally no difference between saying the normal serving size is two scoops, but people that like chocolate get a third scoop and saying that the normal serving size is three scoops, but people that like vanilla get one less scoop than normal. It still comes out the same--chocolate gets more than vanilla, and that's not fair.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The realism of the game.And that people wodl be equally hapy if those secondary optiosn were not bad. Improving those other ptiosn woudl not hurt their fun and could enhace the fun of other kind of players. Nobody lose.
Where is the problem then?
In reality, the sling is more difficult to master than the longbow, but the sling is simple and the bow is martial.
In reality, a single hit from either weapon has the potential to kill any human being that has ever walked the Earth, whereas in Pathfinder, it's basically impossible to kill anyone past level 5 or so in one shot.
Why is the realism you're after more valid than other bits of realism you don't seem to care about?
As 3.5 demonstrated, if what we intended to be secondary options become more powerful, all you see after awhile are secondary options.
I don't think I see any problem with that.
And special ceases to be special, and the game is less enjoyable for many of us, because it ceases to make sense why people use bows rather than crossbows.
If bows and crossbows were equal, and the GM thought the world's flavor was better suited by having everyone use bows, then, uh, everyone would use bows, because, duh. The PCs that chose crossbows would be special, but, yeah, PCs should be special unless you're running a very specific kind of game.
Here's the thing--stories about people using unconventional weapons are about people finding some kind of secret technique that utilizes said unconventional weapon or has some kind of special talent that maximizes the benefits of said weapon, thus making it better than other options for that specific person. The stories are not about people using unconventional weapons because they're purposefully contrary and trying to prove a point to people or something like that.
If swords were always better than axes, then nobody on the battlefield would have ever used axes. People who risk death for a living become very pragmatic. The idea that an adventurer would choose a purely inferior option because of aesthetics lacks more realism than any world in which slings have some kind of situational advantage.
I would be perfectly happy if Slings were worse than Bows in general, but taking a specific feat or two gave slings a unique ability that was actually as useful in some circumstances, as a bow is in general. Then, it'd make sense for slings to be rare, but it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility that someone might use one. As is, nobody uses them past level 1 or 2, the only levels at which the cost of mundane items matters at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The realism of the game.And that people wodl be equally hapy if those secondary optiosn were not bad. Improving those other ptiosn woudl not hurt their fun and could enhace the fun of other kind of players. Nobody lose.
Where is the problem then?
In reality, the sling is more difficult to master than the longbow, but the sling is simple and the bow is martial.
In reality, a single hit from either weapon has the potential to kill any human being that has ever walked the Earth, whereas in Pathfinder, it's basically impossible to kill anyone past level 5 or so in one shot.
Why is the realism you're after more valid than other bits of realism you don't seem to care about?
That's always been my issue with citing realism. How realistic is a longbow using manyshot? How realistic is it that longbows never need to be re-strung, or that rain/humidity never causes the wood of the bow or arrows to warp?
Realism never applies to the longbow. Just every weapon that competes with it. Because longbows are the occidental of katanas to their fanboys.
The problem is to be perfectly balanced they do have to be identical. If you try to say this ability balances out that ability, then you get into opinion and personal preference.
Which is exactly what you're running into here. For an admittedly small group, the sling can be better. For some that makes the sling a viable option. For others it is not enough.
How realistic is it that longbows never need to be re-strung, or that rain/humidity never causes the wood of the bow or arrows to warp?
Not really relevant to the point at hand but my group plays around with this kind of stuff. Unstringing/restringing bows,whetstones, just basic maintenance of your character's gear. (Of course, we're weird and do things like track ammo and rations, encumbrance, etc.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is to be perfectly balanced they do have to be identical. If you try to say this ability balances out that ability, then you get into opinion and personal preference.
Which is exactly what you're running into here. For an admittedly small group, the sling can be better. For some that makes the sling a viable option. For others it is not enough.
Perfect balance while maintaining unique flavor for every weapon isn't going to happen. That doesn't mean we can't have better balance while actually giving other weapons more flavor than they currently get. It's one reason I liked the idea of using the sling as a grenade delivery system. It gives you something unique (having the sling not just be a weaker longbow) with some interesting pros and cons.
Here's a question: why isn't there any grenade-type ammo for slings? I mean, we have wizards and dragons and no one thinks to use slings to lob bombs around?
Two elements to this discussion - weapon rules and available feats.
Weapon rules we could argue is relatively balanced and should have some basis on our 'relative' world.
Feats however are the RPG's opportunity to explore the 'possibilities' of the weapon.
I personally almost ever use a bow (1 character in my last 7 and that a shortbow), I find their popularity with other players means I steer clear of them in order to be different. So does the game benefit from having (in terms of flavour) unique paths for different weapon types? Yes I think it does.
There are already numerous 'paths' for the bow (feat chains and archetypes like the Zen Archer, Paladin, Ranger and Fighter archer sub-types), less so for the crossbow (Fighter and few feats to speed it up), but there are no archetypes for the sling (despite them being a specialist unit in classical warfare) and a few feats that allow a couple of minor abilities to use the sling in hand to hand or to be fired faster.
In terms of game 'flavour' I would like to see a dedicated archetype.
And/or a few dedicated sling feats made official in the Pathfinder rules so it doesn't have to be a complete lifestyle choice.
The main problem here is that people don't get that someone being rewarded is different from others being punished. If someone scores 100 on a shooting contest and wins the first prize, its not like the second place is being "punished" for scoring only 99.
|
|
Slings were better than portrayed in many game systems.
When the Spanish invaded South and Central America, the Aztec and Inca (and other indigenous nations') weapon they feared the most was the sling.
How did that work out?
Yes, yes, disease....but seriously, you are arguing that slings are good because the Aztecs and Incas used them when they were absolutely destroyed by much smaller forces?
Really?
Is that what you got from my post? That I was trying to say that a technically inferior army using a handful of slings should be able to defeat a force with firearms, horses, cannon, steel swords, better tactics and superior armour?
What I was pointing out was that a sling has advantages that are rarely modelled in games. Not that they should be treated as some sort of Ultimate Weapon.
Here's a thought for the sling-users.
How about allowing slings to stun on a Critical Hit? Maybe have it as a Feat (like the Monk's Stunning Fist) rather than automatic?
It wouldn't be greatly overpowering but would add something extra to the sling's repertoire to make it a little more attractive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because some people like playing secondary options.
Not everyone is trying to win the mechanics drag race.
Some people just think it is cool to be the guy with the crossbow.
Or the guy who carries his weapons in his pocket.
Is that concept really that hard for your to understand?
I just think it'd be cool to be the Halfling ranger with a sling instead of a bow. Sorry kid; you're out of luck.
At level 1 the elf fighter has you beat...at everything except tracking. Go sit on your riding dog and tell them where the enemy footprints are so the big kids can handle it.
Oh, you want to focus on the sling as you grow up? Isn't that adorable. That elf is going to spend SOME of his feats to make your ranged capabilities irrelevant. Sure the "flavor" of your character is cute but by level 4 you are sincerely behind in damage, accuracy, and even most skill effectiveness.
If only there was an archetype that fit your flavor...nope. Well, maybe those PrCs...nope. Well by flavor you don't want to do EXACTLY what the elf w/a bow does, so maybe if you took one of those ranged trick shot feats...they don't exist.
The above was what I actually ran through w/my CG male Halfling ranger Bucky. By level 4, due to going ranger instead of fighter and having NO archetypes to fit the sling flavor I was behind at every level with damage and at higher levels with accuracy. After 4th level it wasn't even a matter of "oh, you're only a LITTLE behind" it became a serious gulf. For my troubles I got a wolf that was ALSO behind in combat and I picked up a spell.
I acknowledged when I chose "Halfling + sling" as the flavor that I would lag in damage. What I DIDN'T realize that w/so little RAW support for using a sling long term that my build would be made irrelevant by another player at the table. The best was when that player's build ALSO included a feat for unarmed strikes meaning they were NEVER weaponless which was one of the KEY bonuses of my build.
I'll say it again: I don't WANT vanilla. I purposely choose to play PF instead of 4e for this reason. But my hope is to be able to contribute SOMETHING that others can't with my corner build. I can do that w/daggers (Knife Master) or even w/thrown weapons (barbarian "hurler" arch. I'm blanking on the name) but there's nothing for a sling.
Heck, I had to get my GM to houserule one of the weapon focus groups from ranger since neither of the ranged builds long-term works with the sling!
I was thinking about doing a writeup of some house rules to make ranged weapons more distinct, interesting, and make each have their benefit. This is just a first draft, and completely untested, but thought I'd put it up here anyway.
So, from what I've gathered from this thread combined with the info I have from before, this is the role each weapon should fill:
Crossbow: Very simple to use, has good damage. Should be good for single well-aimed shots.
Shortbow: Most bows. Decently simple to use, having some damage, good rate of fire and range but not being that special.
Longbow: Hard to use, requires special training. Big damage and good rate of fire, but a bit awkward to wield.
Sling: Hard to use, but not that uncommon to know among shepherds and similar. Decent damage, decent rate of fire, decent range. Less affected by wind than arrows and bolts. Can be used to launch "grenades" (alchemical items and similar).
From this, I think this would be fitting:
Hand Crossbow: Simple weapon. To reload a hand crossbow you only need marginal assistance from the other hand - you cannot be wielding a weapon in it but holding objects or a shield (except a tower shield) does not hinder you from reloading with it.
Shortbow: Martial weapon. Can be used as a simple weapon but in that case takes a move action to reload. Composite variants cannot be used as simple weapons.
Longbow: Exotic weapon dealing 1d12 damage. Can be used as a martial weapon but in that case takes a move action to reload. Composite variants cannot be used as martial weapons. If any of the hands used to wield this weapon is not completely free, for example by wielding a gauntlet or buckler, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls with it. If used mounted, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls with it.
Sling: Exotic weapon. Is treated as a siege weapon for the purpose of weather and wind effects (including wind wall). Reloading a sling takes as much effort as drawing a weapon would. Slings also can be used in the same way as a Flask Thrower, and if the sling is enchanted you can add the enhancement bonus to hit with them. You do not get to add your strength to attacks with alchemical weapons.
In addition, to reload a sling you only need marginal assistance from the other hand - you cannot be wielding a weapon in it but holding objects or a shield (except a tower shield) does not hinder you from reloading with it.
For the purpose of proficiency, halflings, commoners and rogues treat the sling as a simple weapon. Alchemist's bombs require special activation and thus cannot be used with slings.
Then we have this trait:
Shepherd Slinger [Background]
You are a shepherd and know how to use a sling. You are proficient with the sling, and gain a +1 trait bonus to Profession (Farmer) checks.
This one is harder, because thrown weapons fill a very different niche in real world and in the game - they are rarely used for continuous fire or as a main weapon. In-game, they are unwieldy and expensive to specialise in, and lack enough punch to be useful as a backup weapon or opener in most cases.
Darts, thrown daggers, knifes, shuriken, stakes and chakrams: When throwing these at a flat-footed or charging enemy, they deal extra damage equal to their damage dice.
Javelins, Pilum, thrown spears, harpoons and tridents, thrown axes, starknife: If you miss a shielded target with this, and you would have hit the target if it did not wear a shield, it sticks in the shield and the target loses it's shield bonus until it spends a standard action yanking it out. Note that for the pilum, this is in addition to the similar ability it has.
Thrown hammers, clubs, aklys, boomerang, throwing shield: When throwing these at a flat-footed or charging enemy, if you critically hit, the target is fatigued for one round.
Ok, so when the Zen Archer starts flurry of blows at d12 right from level one, adds his wisdom bonus to hit at 3rd level, addsstrength bonus with a composite longbow you think the melee characters are going to take it laying down? Power creep is a great way to spoil a good game.
Are the "new throwers" feats?
As for the trait, surely the whole point of the sling is that it is a simple weapon anyone can pick up. Sure in real life it's a bit tricky to start with,but because all you need is a bit of leather the sling is something that anyone could have learned since childhood.
|
|
Is that what you got from my post? That I was trying to say that a technically inferior army using a handful of slings should be able to defeat a force with firearms, horses, cannon, steel swords, better tactics and superior armour?
What I was pointing out was that a sling has advantages that are rarely modelled in games. Not that they should be treated as some sort of Ultimate Weapon.
And what we are all pointing out is that they still aren't as good as steel swords and longbows.
Which is why they lost.
The point is that they are inferior. Can they be used? Yes. Can they be effective? Yes.
Are they inferior to things that are...well...better.
Yes.
|
|
I just think it'd be cool to be the Halfling ranger with a sling instead of a bow. Sorry kid; you're out of luck.
OH MY GOD DID THEY FORBID THIS!?!?!?!
Oh...wait...no you can still totally do that.
The elf fighter has a lower con than you (is that useful?) and you add strength bonus (since he can't afford a composite at first level) but...
Oh...yeah.