why are slings so bad?

[Woodoodoo]

What about the double sling?

[Mark Hoover]

Nicos wrote:

Mark Hoover wrote:

The point is that, when all is said and done if, in your game the primary method of conflict resolution is dealing enough damage to render your conflict unconscious or dead, then the sling is inferior to other options long term. If however you have a game that places emphasis on other forms of conflict resolution and damage is not a priority, the sling is an excellent choice.

Not sure what many other things the sling do besides doing damage to kill enemies in combat.

You're right of course; all they DO is deal damage. However they are cheap, so another thing they DO is save your PC money. They also save your PC some encumberance. Finally they are very easily hidden so they also do something with that, though it's not quantifiable here.

Long term with one feat they're usable at melee range; with another feat they can actually be used IN melee. Enchanting the sling provides attack and damage bonus for range but also in melee if you're using it with that one feat, so the money savings continue. The ammo's also cheap and there's even a cheap ammo to make the damage non-lethal for a build that focuses on NL damage.

As I said though, in the end if it IS all about the damage then a sling-focused build will ALWAYS be inferior. If however you have a need to build in a resource-restrained campaign or you'll be saving every gold piece for other stuff a sling-emphasis build is worthwhile.

[Gaberlunzie]

Cyrus Lanthier wrote:

I wasn't suggesting looking at a situation with no magic involved, just that we shouldn't be comparing the sling directly to a wizard/primary caster, because the warrior (almost) always will lose that fight regardless. It's about sling vs other weapons, and no weapon saves you from wizards, really (unless maybe it's by having a prepared action to hit them and try to disrupt their spell, which Ammo Drop puts you in a great position to do, actually).

But some weapons make you more vulnerable than others. An archer with Iron Will and Improved Iron Will at 100 ft. distance is in a far better position against mind-affecting spells than a slinger with Ammo Drop and Juggle Load or whatsitsname at 50 ft.

Or even someone with an atlatl, rapid reload and iron will at 50ft.

Quote:

My point about the Paladin is that he doesn't have to take off the shield to use the sling. He definitively isn't better off with the bow at lower levels, when he can't afford a composite bow appropriate to his strength even if he wanted to spend the action to take the thing off.

"Lower levels" would in this case be level one, and maybe level two.

Also, even at this point the atlatl has the same stats except for better damage, and only requiring one feat for insta-reload. The only drawback is that you, at level one and two, won't be able to fire past the -10 penalty bracket. :P

At levels 1 and 2, atlatl>slings. At levels 3+, bows>slings.

[Nicos]

Once you need to enchant then (or even MW them) the diference becomes minimal.

What I'm seeing is "slings are good if you can not afford a bow", wich me, IMHO, that slings are not good.

[Nicos]

Dabbler wrote:

"Why are slings so bad?"

I have a halfling rogue in my party who regularly dishes out 12d6+24 temporary damage with one shot from a sling. He's killed foes with one shot just from temporary damage. It's enough to make me shudder.

Uhm, not bad (I'm assuming sap adept feats). It coud be the only good combo I've seen for slings.l

[Gaberlunzie]

Mark Hoover wrote:

Why are they so bad? Because they will always do less damage than the crossbow and the bow. Period.

Honestly I don't think that is by itself the main reason. Because if slings where like 1d4 longbows, they'll have far less issues than now and be plenty used.

So it's not so much that they do _less_ damage, but that you have to jump through plenty of hoops just to get them to do the very basest of _required_ damage.

I could have a 10th level slinger that does acceptable damage for their level when full attacking with a sling. But instead, I could have an archer that do equal damage with the bow, but that also has a decent will save, and can also handle themselves in melee.

[Mark Hoover]

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Mark Hoover wrote:

Why are they so bad? Because they will always do less damage than the crossbow and the bow. Period.

Honestly I don't think that is by itself the main reason. Because if slings where like 1d4 longbows, they'll have far less issues than now and be plenty used.

So it's not so much that they do _less_ damage, but that you have to jump through plenty of hoops just to get them to do the very basest of _required_ damage.

I could have a 10th level slinger that does acceptable damage for their level when full attacking with a sling. But instead, I could have an archer that do equal damage with the bow, but that also has a decent will save, and can also handle themselves in melee.

So what you're saying is that they do less damage initially, so you have to spend more feats to enhance that damage to compete with the bow, so that you end up with less defense or special effects in other areas?

That all started with does_less_damage.

[Nicos]

Mark Hoover wrote:

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Mark Hoover wrote:

Why are they so bad? Because they will always do less damage than the crossbow and the bow. Period.

Honestly I don't think that is by itself the main reason. Because if slings where like 1d4 longbows, they'll have far less issues than now and be plenty used.

So it's not so much that they do _less_ damage, but that you have to jump through plenty of hoops just to get them to do the very basest of _required_ damage.

I could have a 10th level slinger that does acceptable damage for their level when full attacking with a sling. But instead, I could have an archer that do equal damage with the bow, but that also has a decent will save, and can also handle themselves in melee.

So what you're saying is that they do less damage initially, so you have to spend more feats to enhance that damage to compete with the bow, so that you end up with less defense or special effects in other areas?

That all started with does_less_damage.

Actually, you spend more feat to do less damage, probably lot less damage (no manyshots, 1d3 vs 1d8, x2 crit vs x3 crit, bracers of falcom aim).

[Skerek]

Woodoodoo wrote:

What about the double sling?

In short, way to feat heavy to pull off. I can't remember if Halfings treats double slings as a martial or not, but you'll need to grab the TWF line, ammo drop, juggle load and some archery feats such as precise shot and improved precise shot. In the end you'll save yourself 3-4 feats by using a normal sling and the war slinger alternate racial trait.

I am intrigued on building a some what viable halfling slinger now.
I get that you could always build a better archer, but that's too easy, how about something new?
Warpriest and Luring Cavalier have been mentioned.
I think a Ranger or Slayer would help get improved precise shot earlier.
Hell, even a Fighter might work, a bucket load of feats is kinda what this build needs.

[Gaberlunzie]

Mark Hoover wrote:

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Mark Hoover wrote:

Why are they so bad? Because they will always do less damage than the crossbow and the bow. Period.

Honestly I don't think that is by itself the main reason. Because if slings where like 1d4 longbows, they'll have far less issues than now and be plenty used.

So it's not so much that they do _less_ damage, but that you have to jump through plenty of hoops just to get them to do the very basest of _required_ damage.

I could have a 10th level slinger that does acceptable damage for their level when full attacking with a sling. But instead, I could have an archer that do equal damage with the bow, but that also has a decent will save, and can also handle themselves in melee.

So what you're saying is that they do less damage initially, so you have to spend more feats to enhance that damage to compete with the bow, so that you end up with less defense or special effects in other areas?

That all started with does_less_damage.

Sorry if I came across as argumentative; what I meant was that if their only issue was doing less damage than a bow, then it wouldn't be an issue; people could simply choose to use a sling instead of a bow for flavor purposes, and accept that loss of a few DPR. Kind of like how a barbarian might opt to use a longspear instead of a crow's beak just because of flavor, or a dwarven fighter might opt for a heavy mace instead of a longsword because they're a devout follower of Bolka

If the only thing a player had to consider was "well I'll do a bit more damage if I pick a bow instead..." it wouldn't have been seen as as big a deal; it would have been the same kind of minor variations that we see among melee weapons.

But using a sling doesn't just end up in less damage, it requires hard optimization to even deal enough damage to pull one own's weight. It's not the difference between a fighter taking Weapon Focus and a fighter taking Skill Focus, it's the difference between a barbarian with a greatsword and an expert with a greatsword.
And it's not only that you have to devout all your feats to make it viable - most of the feats are not from the core rulebook either. You have to juggle a whole lot of splatbooks to even get to that point.

So I think the main issue isn't that "they do less damage than a bow", but rather that "they do less damage than is required of even a secondary damage dealer, and they require a lot of system mastery to even get to that point".
And of course, they're completely outclassed by a stone age weapon.

[DM Under The Bridge]

Cyrus Lanthier wrote:

I wasn't suggesting looking at a situation with no magic involved, just that we shouldn't be comparing the sling directly to a wizard/primary caster, because the warrior (almost) always will lose that fight regardless. It's about sling vs other weapons, and no weapon saves you from wizards, really (unless maybe it's by having a prepared action to hit them and try to disrupt their spell, which Ammo Drop puts you in a great position to do, actually).

My point about the Paladin is that he doesn't have to take off the shield to use the sling. He definitively isn't better off with the bow at lower levels, when he can't afford a composite bow appropriate to his strength even if he wanted to spend the action to take the thing off. Zero feat investment, he can just nail something with a sling (Only once per round, of course. Still, Smite Evil hurts).

Yeah, high str characters like orcs can benefit from using slings when their orcish shotputs run out. ;)

[Dabbler]

Nicos wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

"Why are slings so bad?"

I have a halfling rogue in my party who regularly dishes out 12d6+24 temporary damage with one shot from a sling. He's killed foes with one shot just from temporary damage. It's enough to make me shudder.

Uhm, not bad (I'm assuming sap adept feats). It could be the only good combo I've seen for slings.

Absolutely - Bludgeoner, Sap Adept and Sap Master, and then a pair of sniper's goggles into the bargain on a high level rogue (scout). It's the only ranged weapon you can do this with, but dear god does it work when it works! He's actually out-damaged the party ranger (archer) on a few occasions against his favoured enemies.

He moves 10', lets fly (aiming at flat-footed AC) and hits for this bucket of dice. Now, imagine him mounted...

[Kudaku]

Why wouldn't you just use a shortbow and blunt arrows?

[LoneKnave]

Or throw clubs.

Which are also free BTW and do more damage, and you only need one feat to full attack with them.

[Dabbler]

Not many people think of blunt arrows, and thrown clubs don't have the range. I guess the arrows would work, but using a sling is just so halfling, you know? As a rogue he'd only have access to a shortbow, which has comparable range to a sling. As he's moving he's only going to shoot once anyway so rate of fire doesn't matter, and he gets strength added to damage (such as it is) without extra expenditure, and it doesn't require specialist amunition.

On the fun side, I had a druid forget he had placed a produce flame on his hand and take out his sling to make a long shot...and burned it.

[Kudaku]

Dabbler wrote:

Not many people think of blunt arrows, and thrown clubs don't have the range. I guess the arrows would work, but using a sling is just so halfling, you know? As a rogue he'd only have access to a shortbow, which has comparable range to a sling. As he's moving he's only going to shoot once anyway so rate of fire doesn't matter, and he gets strength added to damage (such as it is) without extra expenditure, and it doesn't require specialist amunition.

I get that the sling makes sense for halfling, and I think it's cool that's the character he wanted to play. :)

Granted, he'd have to pay anywhere between 100 and 1000 gp for a composite bow fitted to his strength score. However if he went with the shortbow with blunt arrows he'd have +10 feet range, +1 average damage, a x3 multiplier instead of x2 on critical hits, excellent feats and spell options that's not available for slings like Multishot and Gravity Bow, and he could keep Sure-Footed or pick a different race trait like Fleet of Foot.

[Freehold DM]

chaoseffect wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

They're free, with essentially limitless free ammunition, ridiculously easy to hide, and you can add your strength to the ranged attack bludgeoning damage(a rare combination) they offer without spending money. This can cause chaos in games not prepared for them.

If 1d4+str (or 1d3+str with a -1 to attack rolls if you use that "unlimited free" ammo) once per round without spending two feats or being a race with a strength penaly can cause "chaos" in a game, then I really wonder what kind of game is being played.

So playing to the sling's "strengths" we're looking at a halfling using a non-magic sling and rocks off the ground (because how else can it be cheap?): So 1d2+strength mod (yay -2 racial to strength) to hit with a -1 attack roll penalty... oh man, if you have two attacks from BAB that's getting broken. It's like you're going Ray of Frost, Quickened Ray of Frost, but with with arguably less actual DPR due to accuracy issues.

never, ever said anything about Halflings in my statement.

[Nicos]

Kudaku wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

Not many people think of blunt arrows, and thrown clubs don't have the range. I guess the arrows would work, but using a sling is just so halfling, you know? As a rogue he'd only have access to a shortbow, which has comparable range to a sling. As he's moving he's only going to shoot once anyway so rate of fire doesn't matter, and he gets strength added to damage (such as it is) without extra expenditure, and it doesn't require specialist amunition.

I get that the sling makes sense for halfling, and I think it's cool that's the character he wanted to play. :)

Granted, he'd have to pay anywhere between 100 and 1000 gp for a composite bow fitted to his strength score. However if he went with the shortbow with blunt arrows he'd have +10 feet range, +1 average damage, a x3 multiplier instead of x2 on critical hits, excellent feats and spell options that's not available for slings like Multishot and Gravity Bow, and he could keep Sure-Footed or pick a different race trait like Fleet of Foot.

But the crit multiplier does not do much since he relies on sneak attack. The itteratives also do little since he is moving to use the scout trick.

On the other hand, using a sling let him use a shield, wich is a good idea since rogues have so bad defenses.

Personally I pretty much dislike the sapt adept, it seems so silly fluffwise to me, but mechanically It is an interesting Idea dabbler, You should post your build here
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2piog?Build-Thread-3-Swinging-Swords-and-Kickin -Ass

[Weirdo]

Phil Greeley/Rochandil Calenlad wrote:

I highly recommend this article (its a link to a PDF) titled, "The Sling: Forgotten Firepower of Antiquity". Its must-reading for anyone interested in the sling; its a fascinating article. Some interesting things: slingers would use different kinds of bullets for their slings, even biconical ones that were better at piercing armor; also, when used in massed formation, cavalry wouldn't cross into the beaten zone of sling bullets. Great stuff for the game, if you want to parlay the article into game mechanics.

I felt like turning the article into game mechanics.

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Quote:

Bucklers can't (by RAW, for some reason) be used with a bow (you can wear it, but it'll just net you -1 to hit),

This is kind of an iffy part of the rules. A bow is neither an off-hand weapon* or a two-handed weapon, so from a strict RAW perspective I think you'd still get the bonus. But it is probably not intended, so one should expect table variance.

Unless there's some FAQ I'm not aware of.

I believe the usual interpretation is that someone with a bow and a buckler doesn't take a -1 to hit, but they don't benefit from the buckler. The application is for switch hitters - you can have the buckler equipped, use your bow, and then switch to a 1-handed weapon and benefit from the buckler bonus.

[Bob Bob Bob]

I said it early on in this thread and I'll say it again. Slings are not comparable to composite bows. A dedicated ranged character is always better off blowing the feats on getting a composite bow. Slings compare very favorably to crossbows, thrown weapons, and non-composite bows (does anyone actually use these?) for anyone with decent strength. Slings have a range increment between the bows and thrown weapons, strength to damage, move action to reload (as good as thrown weapons and light crossbows, better than heavy crossbows). As the ranged weapon of a strength-oriented melee, it's not a bad choice. Eventually they'll get a +1 adaptive bow, but seriously, that's 3,400 gp. That's 21% of your cash at level 6. It's not close to 10% until level 8. 10% of all your money on your backup weapon is still a lot.

[chaoseffect]

Freehold DM wrote:

chaoseffect wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

They're free, with essentially limitless free ammunition, ridiculously easy to hide, and you can add your strength to the ranged attack bludgeoning damage(a rare combination) they offer without spending money. This can cause chaos in games not prepared for them.

If 1d4+str (or 1d3+str with a -1 to attack rolls if you use that "unlimited free" ammo) once per round without spending two feats or being a race with a strength penaly can cause "chaos" in a game, then I really wonder what kind of game is being played.

So playing to the sling's "strengths" we're looking at a halfling using a non-magic sling and rocks off the ground (because how else can it be cheap?): So 1d2+strength mod (yay -2 racial to strength) to hit with a -1 attack roll penalty... oh man, if you have two attacks from BAB that's getting broken. It's like you're going Ray of Frost, Quickened Ray of Frost, but with with arguably less actual DPR due to accuracy issues.

never, ever said anything about Halflings in my statement.

...but then you're looking at one attack per round regardless of BAB, haste, rapid shot, etc. without spending two feats. You are literally suggesting 1d4+str (or 1d3+str with a -1 penalty if using free ammo) once per round can cause chaos in a game. That is what confuses me. I threw in the halfling part as that is the only way to get actually get more than a single attack without burning two feats, which would arguably make it the optimal path.

[Cyrus Lanthier]

*stares at the fact that you can rapid reload an AtlAtl but not a sling*

What? And also the ammunition is effectively javelins? So... Do you also need quick draw to get the "darts" out, or can you pull them out instantly "because they are ammunition?" Also, are they destroyed when fired?

Also, an Atlatl is martial, if that's an issue.

Anyway, back on topic...

If you aren't already proficient in bows, then two feats will let you use the sling in one hand, still fully able to equip a shield, one feat will allow you to use a bow (and no shield), and both can full attack. You also probably don't need the second feat until at least eighth level (if you aren't already bow-proficient, you probably don't have full BAB) anyway, so up until then (or until you are regularly being hasted) the Sling does pretty well for some characters.

But, if you're a seriously martial character, the only good answer I can think of to "why a sling over a bow" is "you can use a shield." I guess blunt damage could be a thing but as has been pointed out there are already blunt arrows.

All that being said, a shield can give huge amounts of AC; for a mid-level character, a plus one or two shield isn't all that pricy, and gives between plus two and six AC (but you probably won't use a tower shield), assuming that you aren't considering Shield Focus. Would you consider spending two feats to use a shield with your bow? I would certainly consider spending one feat to get the benefit of a buckler (and no penalty) while using a longbow.

If you don't start with Longbow proficiency, and you care about your AC (and your game doesn't typically involve extended battles taking place at very long range), then I would think that the sling would be a pretty good option; you're spending one more feat to get the ability to use your shield at range (though your ranged weapon is admittedly slightly crummier than a bow in terms of damage and range). Slings aren't amazing but they are okay with a little investment, or at low level, for the right character.

Also, can you Ammo Drop and/or Juggle Load a Halfling Sling Staff? Because that thing is one handed, deals Longbow damage (and critical multiplier), and, if these feats are compatible with it, it can be used to full effect with a shield... I know that the Halfling trait doesn't work with the Sling Staff, but do these feats?

[Chengar Qordath]

Cyrus Lanthier wrote:

Also, can you Ammo Drop and/or Juggle Load a Halfling Sling Staff? Because that thing is one handed, deals Longbow damage (and critical multiplier), and, if these feats are compatible with it, it can be used to full effect with a shield... I know that the Halfling trait doesn't work with the Sling Staff, but do these feats?

Nope, Ammo Drop and Juggle Load specify that they only work with basic slings and the double sling. Because of course halfling racial weapons aren't compatible with halfling racial traits or feats from a halfling-themed supplement. That would be crazy.

Though if the sling staff could get free action reloads, that would go a fair ways towards making slings competitive with bows. They'd still be worse at damage if only due to lack of Manyshot and the two-feat tax for reloads, but the gap would be a bit narrower.

Also, one potential issue I noted with Ammo Drop/Juggle Load, they might not give free action reloading with one hand. Ammo Drop lets you reload one-handed as a swift action, but Juggle Load only changes your standard reload time, with no mention of handedness. It's ambiguous enough that a GM might rule that you can reload with two hands as a free action, or one hand as a swift.

[Just a Guess]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Because of course halfling racial weapons aren't compatible with halfling racial traits or feats from a halfling-themed supplement. That would be crazy.

!This!

[DominusMegadeus]

Just a Guess wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Because of course halfling racial weapons aren't compatible with halfling racial traits or feats from a halfling-themed supplement. That would be crazy.

!This!

What do you expect when your racial weapon is water balloons?

[Tacticslion]

... I know I've been told before, but I'm sick, so... "water balloons"?

[DominusMegadeus]

Tacticslion wrote:

... I know I've been told before, but I'm sick, so... "water balloons"?

One of the devs, when asked why crossbows were just objectively bad, compared them to a water balloon fighting style. Saying, basically, that crossbows were goofy and you were goofy for wanting them to be good.

Or something like that. I could go find the quote, because I'm probably being unfair to him.

EDIT; "I want my water-balloon-throwing fighter to be able to deal the same damage as a longbow-shooting fighter. Why does Pathfinder have trap options for some ranged characters?" -Sean K Reynolds

Page 3.

[Tacticslion]

Ah, Sean. So brilliant. So divisive. Both insightful and inciting at the same time.

Thanks!

[chaoseffect]

Tacticslion wrote:

... I know I've been told before, but I'm sick, so... "water balloons"?

It was one of SKR's more infamous comments. He essentially said people wanting rule support for slings beyond being a shitty bow were pretty much asking for a functional "water balloon" fighting style and Paizo didn't have time to deal with their insane crackpot demands. All delivered with the condescension such a statement implies.

In retrospect I don't know if it was as vicious as I remember it, but I really don't care enough to look it up. Aw, yeah, screw checking sources!

Ninja'd: Okay, good to know I was pretty much remembering it right.

[DominusMegadeus]

SKR isn't a bad guy. Some of his brunt nature was for a good cause. "Don't read the rules like an idiot, you know better" or something like that being a very reasonable argument against RAW stupidity.

I still don't think that means you can leave poorly written abilities in the books, but he's absolutely right that if you actually think about what the devs might mean when they say something, the game is much less stupid. This is undercut by the devs sometimes purposefully putting incredibly powerful things in and meaning them to do exactly what they say. Can't win 'em all.

[Chengar Qordath]

chaoseffect wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

... I know I've been told before, but I'm sick, so... "water balloons"?

It was one of SKR's more infamous comments. He essentially said people wanting rule support for slings beyond being a s#%+ty bow were pretty much asking for a functional "water balloon" fighting style and Paizo didn't have time to deal with their insane crackpot demands. All delivered with the condescension such a statement implies.

In retrospect I don't know if it was as vicious as I remember it, but I really don't care enough to look it up. Aw, yeah, screw checking sources!

Ninja'd: Okay, good to know I was pretty much remembering it right.

It is worth noting that after leaving Paizo, SKR threw up a blog-post about his new project where he more-or-less admitted that he was wrong about the whole water balloons thing.

Anyway, back to slings: anyone else want to comment on the issue one-handed reloads when using Ammo Drop/Juggle Load? Given that being able to use them with a shield is an advantage a couple people in the thread have touted, I would like to know if that's something that you can actually do while full attacking.

[Gaberlunzie]

Weirdo wrote:

I believe the usual interpretation is that someone with a bow and a buckler doesn't take a -1 to hit, but they don't benefit from the buckler. The application is for switch hitters - you can have the buckler equipped, use your bow, and then switch to a 1-handed weapon and benefit from the buckler bonus.

Sounds very reasonable, though I know a certain other goblin that would probably scream at the top of their lungs about "unwritten rules" about that ;)

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

move action to reload (as good as thrown weapons and light crossbows, better than heavy crossbows).

When looking at reloading speed it's important to not only consider their default reloading speed but also what you get with feats.

For light crossbows, Rapid Reload is a single feat to get free action reload.
For throwing weapons, Quick Draw is a single feat to get free action reload and that is also very useful in other circumstances.
For slings, it's two feats to get free action reload.
Regardless of weapon, it's at most one feat away from MWP (Comp Longbow).

Granted, for a dedicated ranged character throwing weapons aren't feasible due to the cost of enchanting multiple ones, but for a dedicated ranged character specialist archetypes or composite longbows are basically the only viable methods (potentially barring Dabbler's build, but that doesn't work on a lot of enemies like undead and constructs).

Quote:

As the ranged weapon of a strength-oriented melee, it's not a bad choice. Eventually they'll get a +1 adaptive bow, but seriously, that's 3,400 gp. That's 21% of your cash at level 6.

At level 6 they won't have a constantly changing strength score so why would they need adaptive? With a 20 strength, it's 600 gp for a composite bow for their strength. For a primary ranged character, that's level 2. As a backup weapon, it's level 4.

And still an atlatl is better. An ammentum is better. In most circumstances javelins will be better, especially considering as a melee character quickdraw is never a bad feat.
When a weapon is so circumstantial that it's main usefulness is as a worse flavor option for a backup weapon for a level 1-3 strength heavy melee character, it's... Very

[Just a Guess]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

It is worth noting that after leaving Paizo, SKR threw up a blog-post about his new project where he more-or-less admitted that he was wrong about the whole water balloons thing.

If you insult people you should admit such things to them, not other people.

If someone talks shit on TV he should apologize on TV, not in some backwater newspaper. And the water balloon comment was both totally dumb AND insulting.

[DominusMegadeus]

Just a Guess wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

It is worth noting that after leaving Paizo, SKR threw up a blog-post about his new project where he more-or-less admitted that he was wrong about the whole water balloons thing.

If you insult people you should admit such things to them, not other people.

If someone talks s$$* on TV he should apologize on TV, not in some backwater newspaper. And the water balloon comment was both totally dumb AND insulting.

He posted a link to it at the end of the same thread, actually. Like I said, he's an okay guy.

[Just a Guess]

DominusMegadeus wrote:

Just a Guess wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

It is worth noting that after leaving Paizo, SKR threw up a blog-post about his new project where he more-or-less admitted that he was wrong about the whole water balloons thing.

If you insult people you should admit such things to them, not other people.

If someone talks s$$* on TV he should apologize on TV, not in some backwater newspaper. And the water balloon comment was both totally dumb AND insulting.

He posted a link to it at the end of the same thread, actually. Like I said, he's an okay guy.

I'll have to take a look for it some time.

Edit: I read it and nowhere did he say that it was wrong to insult his/his employer's fans. He saying " it's almost like I'm admitting I was wrong." It's the most pacifying part of what he wrote it it literary means "I wasn't really wrong but lets assume I was." or something like it.

He might be an ok guy IRL, but here on the boards he sometimes was a real jerk.

[Dabbler]

Kudaku wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

Not many people think of blunt arrows, and thrown clubs don't have the range. I guess the arrows would work, but using a sling is just so halfling, you know? As a rogue he'd only have access to a shortbow, which has comparable range to a sling. As he's moving he's only going to shoot once anyway so rate of fire doesn't matter, and he gets strength added to damage (such as it is) without extra expenditure, and it doesn't require specialist amunition.

I get that the sling makes sense for halfling, and I think it's cool that's the character he wanted to play. :)

Granted, he'd have to pay anywhere between 100 and 1000 gp for a composite bow fitted to his strength score. However if he went with the shortbow with blunt arrows he'd have +10 feet range, +1 average damage, a x3 multiplier instead of x2 on critical hits, excellent feats and spell options that's not available for slings like Multishot and Gravity Bow, and he could keep Sure-Footed or pick a different race trait like Fleet of Foot.

We're talking about an "upgrade" from 1d4 (x2) to 1d6 (x3) for the cost of several hundred gold (easiest to just put the Adaptive property on the bow for +1000gp), when most of the damage is being done by the 12d6+36 sneak attack with Sap Master and Sniper Goggles. Other than that it's just +10' range, when most combats are taking place at 60' or less (usually much less).

I concede the bow is technically slightly better, but it genuinely isn't making any significant difference in weapon performance, but there is a great difference in other properties - like the fact that the sling is much easier to conceal, and stones can be found everywhere.

[DominusMegadeus]

Dabbler wrote:

Kudaku wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

Not many people think of blunt arrows, and thrown clubs don't have the range. I guess the arrows would work, but using a sling is just so halfling, you know? As a rogue he'd only have access to a shortbow, which has comparable range to a sling. As he's moving he's only going to shoot once anyway so rate of fire doesn't matter, and he gets strength added to damage (such as it is) without extra expenditure, and it doesn't require specialist amunition.

I get that the sling makes sense for halfling, and I think it's cool that's the character he wanted to play. :)

Granted, he'd have to pay anywhere between 100 and 1000 gp for a composite bow fitted to his strength score. However if he went with the shortbow with blunt arrows he'd have +10 feet range, +1 average damage, a x3 multiplier instead of x2 on critical hits, excellent feats and spell options that's not available for slings like Multishot and Gravity Bow, and he could keep Sure-Footed or pick a different race trait like Fleet of Foot.

We're talking about an "upgrade" from 1d4 (x2) to 1d6 (x3) for the cost of several hundred gold (easiest to just put the Adaptive property on the bow for +1000gp), when most of the damage is being done by the 12d6+36 sneak attack with Sap Master and Sniper Goggles. Other than that it's just +10' range, when most combats are taking place at 60' or less (usually much less).

I concede the bow is technically slightly better, but it genuinely isn't making any significant difference in weapon performance, but there is a great difference in other properties - like the fact that the sling is much easier to conceal, and stones can be found everywhere.

Sling wrote:

You can hurl ordinary stones with a sling, but stones are not as dense or as round as bullets. Thus, such an attack deals damage as if the weapon were designed for a creature one size category smaller than you and you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls.

So as a Small Halfling you normally do 1d3, but actually do 1d2 at -1 to-hit with 3/4ths BAB with no in-class accuracy boosters.

[Dabbler]

DominusMegadeus wrote:

One of the devs, when asked why crossbows were just objectively bad, compared them to a water balloon fighting style. Saying, basically, that crossbows were goofy and you were goofy for wanting them to be good

It is worth pointing out that actually IRL crossbows were not as good as longbows - they had less range, much slower rate of fire, and only equal power at best. It is also worth pointing out that decent longbowmen had to be trained for years to use them, and that in Pathfinder that would be the equivalent of all longbows needing Exotic Weapon Proficiency, while crossbowmen could be trained up in a week or two, and musketeers in just a day or so.

[Dabbler]

DominusMegadeus wrote:

So as a Small Halfling you normally do 1d3, but actually do 1d2 at -1 to-hit with 3/4ths BAB with no in-class accuracy boosters.

Indeed, but we are talking a rogue (scout) here, so he can move 10' and be attacking flat-footed AC with full sneak attack (in this case, 12d6+36 non-lethal damage) - so really, the damage done by the sling is pretty much not relevant. To a rogue, the infiltration advantage is more than worth it, and sling bullets themselves are easier to hide than arrows.

That's really the point of the build: it bypasses the sling's failings because everything hinges on the sneak-attack rather than the sling.

[Mark Hoover]

LoneKnave wrote:

Or throw clubs.

Which are also free BTW and do more damage, and you only need one feat to full attack with them.

Wow, that is a freaking awesome build. Yeah, it's shorter range but if you were mounted this would be great. With all the cash you'd save on the weapons you could trick out your mount with all kinds of defensive and mobility items so you're flying and get a +1 for higher ground on your melee attacks. Also since you don't have to spend feats on making the sling work in melee spend 2 feats to make your mount a familiar, then make your familiar a Mauler archetype. Now it shares all your combat feats, it's really strong and when worst comes to worst you have a flanking buddy.

[Devilkiller]

The water balloons comment seems kind of interesting in terms of firearms:
“I want my PC with a bow to bypass armor and do tons of damage like a guy with a gun.” (Guns are so awesome that the conquistadors had them. They had armor too, and that would have been very advantageous since the guys they were fighting didn't have guns. Killing people and taking their stuff wasn't always just something to do in games.)

I guess it could also work for the infamous caster vs martial disparity:
“I want my PC with a sharp stick to be as effective as a Wizard who can alter the very fabric of reality with magic.” (Magic is so awesome that nobody has it, but that just means nobody can say what it can't do. It is pretty easy to come up with some things a guy with just a pointy stick probably can't do.)

[Dabbler]

Interestingly the conquistadors also had crossbows. Early guns were not superior to bows, they were just easier to train troops to use. You could have ten longbowmen in a year, thirty crossbowmen in a month, or a hundred musketeers in a week. So which do you choose? Sure longbows are better than crossbows, and crossbows do more damage than early guns, but who cares when you have THAT many guns shooting?

[Nicos]

Devilkiller wrote:

The water balloons comment seems kind of interesting in terms of firearms:

“I want my PC with a bow to bypass armor and do tons of damage like a guy with a gun.” (Guns are so awesome that the conquistadors had them. They had armor too, and that would have been very advantageous since the guys they were fighting didn't have guns. Killing people and taking their stuff wasn't always just something to do in games.)

Crossbow were more acuarate than early guns, but that does not get reflected in game because reasons.

Also, now that someone mention conquistadors (if that means what I think it menas) in a sling thread, apparently the weapon the feared the most form the indigenous people was the sling, capable of breaking ribs and kill even on armored men.

[Weirdo]

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Weirdo wrote:

I believe the usual interpretation is that someone with a bow and a buckler doesn't take a -1 to hit, but they don't benefit from the buckler. The application is for switch hitters - you can have the buckler equipped, use your bow, and then switch to a 1-handed weapon and benefit from the buckler bonus.

Sounds very reasonable, though I know a certain other goblin that would probably scream at the top of their lungs about "unwritten rules" about that ;)

Well, don't tell the other goblin. ¬_¬

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Quote:

As the ranged weapon of a strength-oriented melee, it's not a bad choice. Eventually they'll get a +1 adaptive bow, but seriously, that's 3,400 gp. That's 21% of your cash at level 6.

At level 6 they won't have a constantly changing strength score so why would they need adaptive? With a 20 strength, it's 600 gp for a composite bow for their strength. For a primary ranged character, that's level 2. As a backup weapon, it's level 4.

Rage. New Str Belt. Str poison or disease. My character, who spent 600gp on a +5 Composite Bow at level 3, has run into all these issues between levels 5 and 7. It's not constantly changing, but you might miss out on a point or three of damage per hit or suffer a -2 attack penalty depending.

The other question is, do most melee characters use their ranged backup often enough that it's worth 600gp to avoid reload times? Even getting a full attack isn't worth much if you don't have the Dex to hit with an iterative. If you're built as a switch hitter you'll want a better ranged option but if the ranged weapon is just used when you absolutely cannot melee something (once per level?) you might be better off with a sling and some well-chosen consumables.

[DM Under The Bridge]

If a giant slinged a halfling in a giant sling, how much damage would the halfling bullet do?

[Cyrus Lanthier]

Do you mean that the halfling is slinging a bullet while also flying through the air with the momentum of the giant's slinging him like a bullet? Rule of cool says that this deals essentially infinite damage. :p

[Metal Sonic]

Dabbler wrote:

Indeed, but we are talking a rogue (scout) here, so he can move 10' and be attacking flat-footed AC with full sneak attack

Why you target flat-footed AC? Because the Scout Skirmisher ability make your attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target was flat-footed, not hit flat-footed AC.

[Phil Greeley/Rochandil Calenlad]

Cyrus Lanthier wrote:

Do you mean that the halfling is slinging a bullet while also flying through the air with the momentum of the giant's slinging him like a bullet? Rule of cool says that this deals essentially infinite damage. :p

Rule of physics says velocities are vectors, which add according to vector math. Thus, they add up if going in the same direction, but you subtract one from the other if they're going opposite (that's simplified).

So, if the evil, suicidal Halfling was launching his sling bullet at the hero that he's targeting as a sling projectile himself, the velocities (and hence the momentum, mass x velocity) add up.

But if our hero is the Halfling who's just been slung, and he's slinging his bullet at the giant's eye, they're going in (roughly) the opposite direction, so his bullet would be going slower. And do less damage.

:P

[Coriat]

Dabbler wrote:

DominusMegadeus wrote:

One of the devs, when asked why crossbows were just objectively bad, compared them to a water balloon fighting style. Saying, basically, that crossbows were goofy and you were goofy for wanting them to be good

It is worth pointing out that actually IRL crossbows were not as good as longbows - they had less range, much slower rate of fire, and only equal power at best. It is also worth pointing out that decent longbowmen had to be trained for years to use them, and that in Pathfinder that would be the equivalent of all longbows needing Exotic Weapon Proficiency, while crossbowmen could be trained up in a week or two, and musketeers in just a day or so.

There are several over-broad assertions in this post on the mechanics. I will say that the idea that crossbows outcompeted longbows due solely to ease of training troops is also somewhat suspect. Trained mercenary crossbowmen on the Continent actually generally commanded higher pay and higher social status perks than competing mercenary longbowmen.

And when you are hiring mercenaries, they come already trained to use the weapon, that's not an issue for the buyer.

Crossbows almost completely displaced bows among elite career soldiers on the Continent, and that isn't because they were easy to put in a peasant's hands, it's because they offered major advantages to the skilled user.

Xunal wrote:

Fair enough. Slings were definitely a rarity by the middle ages. Ancient Greece and Rome were what I studied lots.

Actually you will see slings still in very common use in the Middle Ages. They remained prominent in e.g. the Carolingian army, and that of many Mediterranean nations; the Eastern Romans, the Spanish, South Italians, etc.

It's with the close of the medieval period that they start to really become rarer, with rising urbanization and the accompanying growth of cities as economic and military powerhouses, and the economic rise of grain plantations rather than herding for many of the remaining rural dwellers (east-central Europe is the case study here). When you are recruiting from city dwellers or grain farmers, you can't get anyone with sling experience, it's a shepherd skill.

Not the Renaissance, sure, but slings were definitely a major weapon of the Middle Ages.

[Coriat]

Nicos wrote:

They are bad because bad selective realism to reinforce "my fantasy is better than your fantasay" coupled with water balloons stuff, there is no much more to say.

Well, that's basically true according to Paizo's explanations from the past, but it's good to see that people like SKR can be convinced to change their minds. Maybe someday we'll get the unrealistic fantasy sling stuff too, just like we've got the unrealistic fantasy archery stuff now, and unrealistic fantasy melee weapons, and etc. etc.

I want my sling to create craters and difficult terrain when I miss, or maybe concealment from debris and smoke as it hits so hard it acts like an artillery shell :)