| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what we are all pointing out is that they still aren't as good as steel swords and longbows.
No.
They are different. Most bows do not concuss through plate armour and have inferior range to a sling using a lead shot. Longbows need many years of training to use to their full potential, composite bows are expensive. Swords cannot be used at range. Crossbows are expensive and cannot be reloaded quickly with a simple stone. Bow and crossbow ammunition does not have the velocity which makes the incoming missile almost impossible to see, let alone dodge.
Your strawman about trying to make them as good as other weapons would be relevant if I were saying that a sling is better than another weapons, but I'm not. I'm saying that a sling has qualities that are not modelled in most RPGs, but whose inclusion would go some way to making them more useful than they are in the game.
Level 1 Halfling ranger
Ranged: sling +5 (1d3 +2)
Level 1 Elf fighter
Ranged: longbow +5 (1d8)
Now on top of this said elf had a better melee attack AND an unarmed option, matching the benefit of the sling being one I could take anywhere.
Yes, the elf had 1 less HP. His AC was better.
My complaint is not that the ranger was mechanically inferior (though he was) but that going forward there's no build that quite fits him. Wanna go sword and board? Its mechanically inferior to many others but yes; we have archetypes/feats/PrCs that fit that. You say you wanna be a quarterstaff master? Sure, it's a stick and inferior to other builds but we've got you covered there too.
Oh, you wanna emulate the Halfling-types from the Dennis L. McKiernan novels? The ones who take out werewolves with a single, well-aimed sling bullet? Sorry, we don't really have anything for that. If you'll just switch to this non-racially-identified crossbow or shortbow for your Halfling though, we can accommodate...
This isn't about optimization or vanilla weapons. When you're obsoleted on every front, including the niche your specific character is supposed to fill by another character, then you ask yourself why even make the guy. The only answers are: don't make that guy or choose a different weapon, none of which suit the flavor of the guy I ACTUALLY set out to make. Oh, there's a third option though; make the build and then hang back and roleplay a lot. That's what I ended up with while I vented my frustrations in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you describe is a microcosm of the frustration I often feel when I have a character concept that just won't work using the PF rules, or only works after extensive jumping and jiggling.
A sling specialist should be able to be someone rather special using a sling, rather than someone who uses a laughable weapon less well than his contemporaries.
I do think that the rules would benefit from creating special effects for different types of weapon, not every one but as a group. Other systems use different types of damage (not just X is immune to Slashing) and these serve to make (say) a battleaxe stylistically different to a mace.
I think slings ought to be recognised for what they are.
|
And what we are all pointing out is that they still aren't as good as steel swords and longbows.No.
They are different.
No, they are less good. If they were as good or better, then people would have kept using them rather than switching to things that are better.
It is like arguing that because people still used clubs that they should be as good as swords.
No, people used clubs because they had clubs. Once they could get swords, they used swords.
Slings are better than nothing. And they can even be pretty effective.
They aren't as good as bows.
Which is why that is how they are in the game.
|
|
Level 1 Halfling ranger
Ranged: sling +5 (1d3 +2)Level 1 Elf fighter
Ranged: longbow +5 (1d8)Now on top of this said elf had a better melee attack AND an unarmed option, matching the benefit of the sling being one I could take anywhere.
.
Your halfing ranger also has a favored enemy, more skill points, better AC, better saves, etc...
And why did you pick different classes, anyway?
Logically, slings should be good for the hard-hitting, well-aimed shot. Unfortunately, the Vital Strike chain is more of a much than a true alternative to bow use, and there is nothing like the Gunslinger's dead shot that I am aware of for the sling. The damage die (d4) does seem a little light, considering their real world applications, and in game terms, their utility versus thrown weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Spaniards 'feared' the slings of the Aztecs and the Incas because every single other weapon the natives had totally sucked and were useless against their armor.
Thrown rocks that got past shields and managed a direct hit on someone's head could be dangerous. Wooden swords inset with obsidian that broke against steel breastplates? Not so much.
And you don't really think a sling bullet moves faster then an arrow or crossbow bolt, do you? An average arrow hits 200 fps (and can go higher), a good crossbow bolt around 300 fps (and can go MUCH higher).
A sling bullet averages around 100 fps, moving up to 200 fps with a lighter rock and 'full rounds' spent building up speed. Yeah, that's it!
The reason the sling bullet looks faster is because it is smaller and round in cross-section, minimizing area, where bolts and arrows are long and easier to follow from the side (but certainly not from in front!)
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
especially with obsidian! Glass can get sharper then ANY metal! Surely it should be a superior weapon!!!
==Aelryinth
I like my slingstaff fine, yes mechanics wise it is unoptimized.
If you want to use a sling go ahead, if someone tells you a bow is better, then they can buy it for you!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you believe that I think that sling bullets have a higher velocity? I said that their velocity made them almost impossible to see, not that they went faster than an arrow. You can see the flight of an arrow or bolt, but not a sling bullet. Arrows and bolts would need to travel far faster than they do to be able to fly without being seen.
And yes, the Spaniards feared the sling because it was one of the few weapons that could hurt them and their horses. The Aztecs and Incas also used bows, but these were ineffective against even padded armour.
More examples could be given - Rhodes supplied slingers to the Greek armies of the wars against the Persians. They are recorded by Anabasis as being able to outrange and outshoot the Persian archers. The Celtic Britons used slings to great effect against the armoured Romans, and they are recorded as being more effective than archers. Republican Rome used slingers even when it had a plentiful supply of archers, and Roman writers also tell of slingers outranging bowmen. Marcus Antonius took thousands of slingers with him on his 36BC Parthian campaign because they could outrange even the enemy horse archers.
The sling is not 'better' than the bow, and the bow is not 'better' than the sling. Finding the 'best' weapon is something best left to those glossy History Channel programmes with 'Ultimate' in their name. All weapons have an optimum application and are 'best' when used in that application. The problem is that Pathfinder does not have the flexibility or complexity in its combat system so that weapons can be used in their optimal role. This leads to the current problem as to why on earth one weapon would be taken when another does its job mechanically more advantageously within the game .
The macuahuitl they were using was actually really brutal against unarmored opponents. Same as most steel swords actually. It didn't have any worse penetration than, say, a katana would have. So in this sense, they were every bit as good as steel swords.
That's one of the problems of the game as it stands. The macuahuitl should be devastating but only against soft tissue. Against metal armour it would simply shatter. A dagger made of glass will kill you every bit as easily as one made of steel, but would only work once and break if parried or dropped.
To model this sort of thing requires amore complex combat system than Pathfinder offers. Whilst this unrealistically limits the usefulness of some weapons, it is probably better than having a system that requires hours of time, a file of charts and a calculator to run a single encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wooden sword is inferior to a steel one. It also benefits from EVERY melee attack feat.
A sling is inferior to a bow. It also benefits from EVERY... no wait MOST... no, scratch that, SOME ranged attack feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like Pathfinder put in more options for more popular weapons and less options for less popular weapons. Why do you think they would do that?
|
|
It seems like Pathfinder put in more options for more popular weapons and less options for less popular weapons. Why do you think they would do that?It is a logical fallacy.
The fact is that the weapon with more options will be the most popular one. If they release some good options for those neglected comtat style then you start to see more pc who use them.
Uh...you just said something that wasn't a logical fallacy was one, and then gave an example of an actual logical fallacy.
Also...why do we want more slings than longbows? That isn't what actually happened, because slings are not as good.
|
|
Also...why do we want more slings than longbows? That isn't what actually happened, because slings are not as good.Who is this "We"?
What I am gettin g from you is that "I like more longbows therefore I do not want to see other people be effetive with sling/crossbows".
And what you are being told is that longbows ARE more effective. In the same way that swords ARE more effective than clubs.
It still sounds like you don't want people who want to be effective sling users to have fun.
But the crossbows/sling do have advantages over the longbow, and those advantages do not get reflected by the mehcanics.
...in the way that you prefer.
Also...why do we want more slings than longbows? That isn't what actually happened, because slings are not as good.
Why would we want more fireballs than lightbulbs? That isn't what actually happened!!!!
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,
Good point on the Zen archer. Note though that the Zen archer is the only one who doesn't lose much by this; nearly all other archers using a longbow will both spend a feat and lose a few points of AC from not wearing an enchanted mithril buckler.
While I haven't seen a zen archer in action though, I don't really think a two points of damage increase per arrow will make that much of a difference.
What the longbow-users gained:
2 pt of damage.
What they lost:
Need EWP unless gaining specific prof. with it.
Loss of the shield arm.
Cannot be mounted.
But you might still be right that it's too much gained for the loss. 1d10 damage might be better.
Are the "new throwers" feats?
No, that would be really crappy feats. They are inherent powers of the otherwise reaaaally underpowered throwing weapons (though I was unsure about adding the effect to thrown daggers, since daggers are quite decent melee weapons). Right now, no-one ever uses throwing axes, because it's expensive to keep them enchanted enough to be relevant, and you'd usually be much better off spending your first round charging, chugging a potion, or even shooting a bow (which has much better range).
Note though that the abilities only apply to flat-footed (or charging) opponents, not anyone denied their dex bonus. Except for the shield-disabling which isn't that big of a deal anyway - against a small subset of enemies (because not that many use a shield) they have like a 30% chance to drop their AC by 3 temporarily. Much worse than a bucketload of spells.
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.
No, the point is that a sling is hard to use - that's what's been stated repeatedly throughout this thread. "It's a bit tricky to start with" is a vast understatement - as said, a large reason why it fell out of use was because it was much easier to train people with bows.
But yeah, many people could have learnt it since childhood - hence it counting as a simple weapon for commoners (so it can be their one weapon proficiency) and being just a single background trait away.
|
|
It still sounds like you don't want people who want to be effective sling users to have fun.
You can do both. You won't be as effective, but you certainly can be effective.
Further, the fact that you can carry your weapon in your pocket means there are a lot of benefits.
"Throw out your weapons"
"Here is my dagger. That? That is my bandana/hankerchief/bandage/etc..."
|
|
Also...why do we want more slings than longbows? That isn't what actually happened, because slings are not as good.Why would we want more fireballs than lightbulbs? That isn't what actually happened!!!!
Actually...
Number of lightbulbs in medieval times - 0
Number of fireballs - Flaming barrels of oil count?
:)
|
|
??...in the way that you prefer.
But the crossbows/sling do have advantages over the longbow, and those advantages do not get reflected by the mehcanics.
Exactly what he said.
Crossbows are easier for untrained people to use. Advantage.
Slings are easier to hide. Advantage.
Neither were better to someone who trained extensively in both that someone who trained extensively with a longbow.
Crossbows and slings were inferior to a person with training.
So that is, correctly, reflected in the game.
??...in the way that you prefer.
But the crossbows/sling do have advantages over the longbow, and those advantages do not get reflected by the mehcanics.
Several advantages have already been listed. They are just not enough of an advantage for your (and some others) taste.
How's the armor penetration of the crossbow (or the sling, really) over the bow reflected? How's the massively higher draw strength (we are talking 3-5 times of the heaviest bows) of the heavy crossbow reflected?
A conscript army of archers (with a -4 penalty) and a conscript army of crossbow men (without a penalty): which army will achieve greater penetration (hee, hee)?
...in the way that you prefer.
But the crossbows/sling do have advantages over the longbow, and those advantages do not get reflected by the mehcanics.
No, really, they hardly get reflected at all with the sling. As I see it, slings have three benefits compared to bows (or rather, two benefits, and is on about equal footing on one part but that isn't reflected in the rules):
1. A sling is very quick to load, far faster than a light crossbow, probably in line with the usual methods of drawing arrows.2. Sling bullets are much less affected by weather and wind than arrows are, due to the smaller size and higher density.
3. Slings can be used to throw about anything, not just bullets.
My quick fix for this, if I were just to change the sling and nothing else, would be:
1. Make reload time equal to the time it takes to draw a weapon.
2. Make slings count as siege weapons for the purpose of weather effects.
3. Make slings also function as Flask Throwers from Gnomes of Golarion.
This would not make them the standard ranged weapon, they'd still be far outshone by bows as primary ranged weapons. It would give them a niche however, and if there is both a slinger and an archer in a party, the slinger would at least once in a while feel "F yeah, for once I'm not completely outdone by the longbower" when the party is caught in severe winds or whatever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand, though, why slings have to subscribe to realism why bows don't.
Or are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that actual bow users could shoot 4 arrows every 6 seconds, some by shooting 2 arrows with the same shot?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Throwing alchemical flasks should be a must. Slings have been used to launch grenades even in the present day.
|
|
1. A sling is very quick to load, far faster than a light crossbow, probably in line with the usual methods of drawing arrows.
2. Sling bullets are much less affected by weather and wind than arrows are, due to the smaller size and higher density.
3. Slings can be used to throw about anything, not just bullets.
I actually don't know that this is true. I was just looking up sling videos and realized my perception of what they looked like was wrong. They are still small and easy to hide, but they are not easy to quickly reload or fire.
Faster than a crossbow, but it doesn't seem at all faster than or even on par with a bow.
Also, why would they be less effected by weather and wind given the mechanism for firing and far slower velocity.
And finally, I actually wonder about accuracy when not using items made for the sling and practices with. Not saying adding that level of complexity is a good idea, but the "We can throw anything" doesn't seem consistent to the video's I've been looking at.
I don't understand, though, why slings have to subscribe to realism why bows don't.
Or are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that actual bow users could shoot 4 arrows every 6 seconds, some by shooting 2 arrows with the same shot?
As much as I agree with your sentiment, bow users really could shoot that fast, and still can with proper training.
|
|
Exactly what he said.Crossbows are easier for untrained people to use. Advantage.
Slings are easier to hide. Advantage.Neither were better to someone who trained extensively in both that someone who trained extensively with a longbow.
Crossbows and slings were inferior to a person with training.
So that is, correctly, reflected in the game.
Crossbow are much better in reduces spaces. It does have abetter power of penetration.
Where are those things reflected?
You can use them in one hand and they do more damage as a base?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.
I certainly hope you don't remember them being used in naval combat! That would make you pretty old. ;)
I did quite a bit more research on this subject over the course of this morning. Here is every instance of military usage of slings that I found - in organized, non siege warfare (since evidently sieges don't count), on a military unit rather than individual scale, that does not involve grenades (since evidently slinging grenades doesn't count either), that occurred in European or Middle Eastern societies (because we all know that Incas and tribesmen don't count!) and that I considered to be reasonably well attested - that was after the dates you mention.
I left out legendary, song, myth, etc sources, such as the various slings in the Irish heroic cycles, Bible, Aeneid, etc (particularly in our fantasy game, non strictly realistic and historical sources definitely shouldn't count!) I did however include art sources, on the theory that if someone took the effort to carve a sling-wielding soldier out of marble and stick him on the front of their cathedral, then a sling-wielding soldier was important enough in that time and place to be worth the effort of carving out of marble and sticking on the front of their cathedral.
This is still not comprehensive in any way, it merely represents what I found before tiring of reading about the topic.
-The Carolingian Empire (9th century AD) sought out slingers:
The slinger of the early Carolingian period was easily recruited from the rural populace
-The Strategikon, written by Byzantine soldier-emperor Maurice circa AD600 in order to codify his military reforms for the benefit of his successors, mandates training light infantry in the sling and lays out the recommended formations for slingers with relation to the infantry columns. Maurice seems to have favored the sling for its higher rate of fire.
-there seems to have been a general system of Byzantine (~4th-15th centuries AD) slinging, such that there is a style of wielding a sling called "Byzantine style slinging".
-Konungs skuggsjá, a circa AD 1250 Norwegian text, is the original document which prompted me several years ago to give my Norse-inspired fighter a sling staff instead of a bow for his ranged backup, and look into slings in the first place. Commissioned by Håkon Håkonsson as a book for his son to read and learn from his father's kinging experience, it mentions the sling and the sling staff as weapons used in warfare at sea. I found it especially interesting as the sling staff was supposedly (ed note: Coriat does not speak medieval Norwegian) recorded as a suitable weapon not just for common soldiers, but for high status warriors - which is pretty unique in medieval Europe I think as far as the sling goes. Perhaps due to the very high emphasis among the Norwegian aristocracy on sea warfare.
-Slingers are recorded as causing casualties among the Viking army which ultimately lost a battle against the army of the Irish High King, Brian Boru, in AD1014, but with few details.
-It seems that Finns were recorded as slinging projectiles of red-hot iron against the Swedes during the Baltic Crusades. Undated and secondary-source, but the Baltic Crusades took place between the 12th and 13th centuries AD.
-The English seem to have repeatedly deployed slinger units against the Scots during the First War of Scottish Independence. As far as set piece battles, I found specific attribution of Irish and Welsh mercenary slinger units fighting for the English in AD 1298 (at the Battle of Falkirk against William Wallace).
-Breton slingers seem to have fought for the English against the French on several occasions during the 14th century, in some of the smaller battles of the Hundred Years' War, though again, I found few details.
-I found numerous references to slingers in various Anatolian Turkish and (later) Ottoman armies, earliest from the 9th century AD, albeit the later (c. 14th/15th centuries AD) were not clear as to whether they were employed in battle or siege.
-The last well-attested European use of mass formations of professional slingers (many thousands), in a set piece, open battle, other than grenadiers - that is to say, still slinging stones, rather than grenades - seems to have been in Spain in AD1367, when 4,000 slingers were fielded as part of the royal army in a battle against England. A thousand years after the fall of Rome. Incidentally, Spain seems to have been the first Western European state to field grenadiers relatively soon thereafter.
-Crusades (11th-12th centuries). Southern Italians in the first crusade were noted for their slingers, and slinger units are also recorded in Saladin's army in the 12th century AD. I have yet to find mention of slings in the Crusades after the 12th century, save in siege or naval context, in which they are present (Wikipedia has, e.g. a manuscript illustration of Italian sailors armed with the staff sling at the siege of Damietta during the Fifth Crusade)
-In statuary and carved relief (mainly the latter), a very cursory search found images of military slingers in France (12th century AD), Anatolia (9th century AD), Spain (13th century AD) and Armenia (10th century AD), after which I stopped.
|
|
You can use them in one hand and they do more damage as a base?
Crossbow are much better in reduces spaces. It does have abetter power of penetration.Where are those things reflected?
SO the advantage as a bow get reflected in a huge in game advantage.
And the advantage of crosbows does basically nothing in game?
You quoted my post...did you not read it?
|
|
The bigger damage dice of crossbow is pointless. The other thing is good but mehYou quoted my post...did you not read it?
You can use them in one hand and they do more damage as a base?
Crossbow are much better in reduces spaces. It does have abetter power of penetration.Where are those things reflected?
SO the advantage as a bow get reflected in a huge in game advantage.
And the advantage of crosbows does basically nothing in game?
The bigger damage dice is more damage. The other thing is why you can dual wield a ranged weapon or fire while prone or only have one hand free.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did quite a bit more research on this subject over the course of this morning.
Good searching, sir.
However, I think some of your text may have been in a selectively-invisible font colour because I predict some here may not be able to see it.
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.
No, as you have shown, you can play a halfing ranger if you like.
Ok, sure, the Elf ranger outdid you. Was it PvP? No? What's the problem then? Could the elf ride his wolf? You could.
Does anyone think that Pippin with his rock was more dangerous in combat than Legolas with his bow?
I played a Dwarf Sorc who was a pacifist, refused to do any direct damage or carry weapons. He was a lot of fun and contributed a lot to the party. Strangely the other Dwarf spellcaster, the Wizard with a dump CHA was more dangerous. So? I had fun and i contributed a lot to the party. I was the "face" i did boosty spells, i did battlefield control spells, etc.
I knew going in that "dwarf and sorcerer " is not a optimal combo. But- AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT- "Not optimal" does not = "not fun".
Now if "Not optimal" does = "not fun" for *YOU*, then for crikiessakes don't play a not optimal choice. Which you knew going in. Just like I did.