A sling is a "simple" weapon, but, honestly, how common was it, historically? It should probably be a martial weapon... Throwing a sling with any level of accuracy requires decent training, unlike a "point and shoot" crossbow.
A sling is a "simple" weapon, but, honestly, how common was it, historically? It should probably be a martial weapon... Throwing a sling with any level of accuracy requires decent training, unlike a "point and shoot" crossbow.
Very common, going by how often sling bullets are found in archaeological digs. Not that commonness was relevant for proficiency typing, anyway. Since a slinge is one of the simplest weapons there is, it's very easy for a civilian to have one and thus learn how to use it. I'm pretty sure kids using self-made slings to mayby hunt some birds or something were rather common in medieval times.
@Dajur that is already factored into to my rewrite. Feel free to scroll up and you'll see I've already stated that I use an AC = DR system and the H.Xbow is quite effective against it.
Why would the Armor as DR system change the belancing between crossbow and bow? Even a normal shot should do more damage than the DR; thus 20/x3 and 19/x2 crit ranges should perform equally for average damage.
I've never used that system, but the only change I can see is that Manyshot looses a bit of value. Am I missing something here?
|
A bow has a draw weight based on the build of the weapon and the user's strength. This was translated in game to composite bows with strength ratings. The crossbow has a built in draw weight based purely on design. A simple solution would be to give crossbows a strength rating. So for example have a light crossbow deal 1d8+2, you could even copy the bow cost and have that be 35x3=105gp for a str14 light crossbow.
This would make the crossbow much better for unskilled archers, but the bow would still be the best. I'd put a maximum strength rating on them, say +2 for a light crossbow and +5 for a heavy one. That would be simple and easy to implement. Hmm, I might use this for my own home game.
Very common, going by how often sling bullets are found in archaeological digs. Not that commonness was relevant for proficiency typing, anyway. Since a slinge is one of the simplest weapons there is, it's very easy for a civilian to have one and thus learn how to use it. I'm pretty sure kids using self-made slings to mayby hunt some birds or something were rather common in medieval times.
But, hmm, how to put it... how common was mastering it? I mean, it's cheap, so I could see it being "common" despite everyone having a -4 non-proficiency penalty to use it. Also, how much was it used in war? Seems to be many accounts of it, but didn't find much in its prevalence. If it throws really far, costs almost nothing to make, uses free ammunition, then sure in many cases it can make a lot of sense to give a bunch of them to your men, especially if they just sling stones at a crowd. That doesn't necessarily require these people to really be proficient with it and know how to aim (well), though. Launching stones at a crowd and aiming at a target are different challenges, indeed.
Personally, if I had to go to war in the days (without fortifications), I would likely much rather be given a longspear than a sling, if we stay low budget. Assuming hiding in the back ranks forever isn't an option. Even a bow is easier to aim, imo, and quicker to reload.
But maybe I'm biased because I have almost no experience with a sling, while I have some with bows and firearms.
A sling is zero encumbrance, so it's an utter non-issue to carry one. It's just a few feet of string. Conversely, a longspear is a PITA to cart about (there were serious penalties for soldiers in the English Civil War who cut their pikes short, but they'd still do it because it's really inconvenient carrying a huge pole everywhere. Try it).
So yes, a longspear is obviously superior in melee, but a sling is great as a cheap, free harassment weapon that anyone can carry. And slingers weren't expected to get into melee. The specialist Balearic slinger mercenaries employed by the Romans would never get that close. Not needing armour, shields or melee weapons, they could run fast.
OTOH, for any decent accuracy you need the right projectile, and that means either carefully selected rocks or lead bullets. And rocks aren't much good against armour. So they'd largely fallen out of use in western militaries by 1100 or so. I think they saw some use in the crusades, but that's probably the last meaningful time.
I like the idea of Power Vs Speed in this, the idea that weaker characters can squeeze more power from a crossbow but shoot more slowly, whilst an archer needs to actually be strong enough to pull the string back but can loose more arrows in a round is an interesting balance point.
But, hmm, how to put it... how common was mastering it?
Irrelevant - proficiency is about knowing how to use it properly, not about mastery.
In Pathfinder, a simple weapon is basically one where you do not need to go into a barracks (or have a personal teacher) to learn how to use it.
Personally, if I had to go to war in the days (without fortifications), I would likely much rather be given a longspear than a sling, if we stay low budget.
Sling's aren't really military weapons, at least not in "Pathfinder times", i.e. high to late middle ages. Not every weapon in Pathfinder is made for war - indeed, most simple weapons aren't.
Doesn't that kinda emphasis that they should not be martial weapons? "Martial" means "related to war" or "warlike", after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like a lot of what is being suggested in this thread. But this specifically is simple and easy to implement. I think I’m going to do this.I could see upping the light xbow to 1d10 and the heavy to 2d6. Leave the crit at 19-20 and range doesn't matter (you could spend a lot of time researching what is realistic, but the fact of the matter is that when playing pathfinder you will almost never have a fight more than 100 ft apart so whatever).
Weapons in pathfinder/d&d were never "realistic." I do think crossbows could use some love, but that just means they need to be altered to something viable to use in game mechanics. Realism doesn't need to play any part in it.
I'd note one minor problem with the "Up the damage dice" idea, namely that.. I remember most people saying that in general damage dice don't matter that much. 1d10 to 2d6 goes from a 5.5 average to a 7 average (so 1.5) and 1d8 to 1d10 is a 1 damage difference. Although the increased dice DOES make them more useful for Vital Strike builds.
I'd note one minor problem with the "Up the damage dice" idea, namely that.. I remember most people saying that in general damage dice don't matter that much.
Doing some sample calculations with a Fighter at 6th and 12th level, a crossbow needing one feat for reloading (i.e. light crossbow) would need to do ~3d6 base damage to be competitive, i.e. at about the same average damage, as a bow with Manyshot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The lower your bonus, the more the base damage matters, sure. But the lower the level, the more the extra feat needed hurts, too.