Doesn't volley already address this? Just add Volley 20ft and increment the Sling dice damage size by 1.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slings deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that. I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine sling in the Baleares for 2,400,000 Pesetas (that's about €20,000 today) and have been practicing with it for almost 25 years now. I can even break slabs of solid steel with my sling.
Balearic slingbuilders spend years working on a single sling and braid the cord up to a million times to produce the finest slings known to mankind.
Slings hit thrice as far as English longbows and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything an arrow can pierce through, a sling bullet can crack through better. I'm pretty sure a sling could easily punch a hole in a knight wearing full plate with a simple direct hit.
Ever wonder why ancient Rome never bothered conquering the Balearic Islands? That's right, they were too scared to fight the funditores and their slings of destruction. Even in the Napoleonic Wars, French soldiers targeted the men with the slings first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Slings are simply the best ranged weapon that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the 2th Edition Pathfinder system. Here is the stat block I propose for slings:
Traits Concealable, Deadly 1d12, Propulsive
Favored Weapon Khepri, Lalaci, Pulura
Price 200gp; Damage 1d12 B; Bulk L
Hands 1; Range 300 ft.; Reload 1
Type Ranged; Category Simple; Group Sling
Ammunition Sling Bullets
Special: does half damage on a failed Strike (non critical).
Critical Specialization Effect for Sling group: The target must succeed at a Fortitude save against your class DC or be stunned 3 (automatically killed on a critical failure).
Now that seems a lot more representative of the crushing power of slings in real life, don't you think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slings deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that. I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine sling in the Baleares for 2,400,000 Pesetas (that's about €20,000 today) and have been practicing with it for almost 25 years now. I can even break slabs of solid steel with my sling.
Balearic slingbuilders spend years working on a single sling and braid the cord up to a million times to produce the finest slings known to mankind.
Slings hit thrice as far as English longbows and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything an arrow can pierce through, a sling bullet can crack through better. I'm pretty sure a sling could easily punch a hole in a knight wearing full plate with a simple direct hit.
Ever wonder why ancient Rome never bothered conquering the Balearic Islands? That's right, they were too scared to fight the funditores and their slings of destruction. Even in the Napoleonic Wars, French soldiers targeted the men with the slings first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Slings are simply the best ranged weapon that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the 2th Edition Pathfinder system. Here is the stat block I propose for slings:
Traits Concealable, Deadly 1d12, Propulsive
Favored Weapon Khepri, Lalaci, Pulura
Price 200gp; Damage 1d12 B; Bulk L
Hands 1; Range 300 ft.; Reload 1
Type Ranged; Category Simple; Group Sling
Ammunition Sling BulletsSpecial: does half damage on a failed Strike (non critical).
Critical Specialization Effect for Sling group: The target must succeed at a Fortitude save against your class DC or be stunned 3 (automatically killed on a critical failure).
Now that seems a lot more representative of the crushing power of slings in real life, don't you think?
Not gonna lie, you got me at first.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... hearing this is reminding me of something. Namely, how I realized why slingshots haven't shown up in Pathfinder 2e:
They're too new.
The slingshot depends on vulcanized rubber, which wasn't invented until 1839.
Let that sink in. The GUN is older than the slingshot.
I still really want a gunslinger archtype that lets them work with slings (and also buffs slings in their hands.)
Maybe call that feature, Forceful Sling?
I feel slings are among the weapons that sadly suffer from the simple / martial / advanced division that weapons have. A sling is a d6 50 ft simple range weapon with the propulsive trait, while a composite shortbow is d6 60 ft martial weapon with the propulsive and deadly traits. The real deal breaker here is that slings have reload 1, while bows don't. I think its obvious reload 1 has to go because that's the worst thing from slings, but to avoid slings becoming composite shortbows but simple they either should have a d4 damage die and become martial or remain simple but lose propulsive.
In an ideal system, weapons would be balanced against each other and not made worse by some arbritary divisions like simple or martial (for example, spears were relatively simple weapons to use IRL, but they also were one of the strongest too. The only martial class that used to bother with simple weapons was the pre-remaster ruffian rogue, but they don't have a reason to do it anymore since they can get access to d6 martial weapons now. Caster luckily don't have to bother with crossbows like in older editions because their cantrips are much better alternatives for them, and now even some casters like the bard get access to martial weapons if they were to want to use them for whatever reason. If there's a whole category of weapons that is made worse on purpose because they are supposed to be worse because everyone has acces to them, but the only classes that would ever want to use them don't have a reason to do it anymore, why bother with them in the first place?).
And don't get me started on advanced weapons. They are arguably worse because they are marginally better (if at all, right spiral rapier?) and require a feat to use.
You could perhaps define a Sling proficiency, treating it as an Advanced Weapon proficiency.
You could boost the damage by 1 die step as baseline, and give the weapon wielder the option if all adjacent spaces next to them are free of obstruction (inanimate, friendly, or hostile) above the ground, they get the damage boost granted by Vicious Swing, and it counting as two strikes for purposes of MAP. A part of me considers making it Deadly D8 as well, since you are going from Simple to Advanced, and the requirement to have space around you free/safe.
For what it matters I felt that Gunslingers absolutely should have included slings in their forte, if not by default, as a Way since they shared such a significant part of their name with it, leaving them out was a missed opportunity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel slings are among the weapons that sadly suffer from the simple / martial / advanced division that weapons have. A sling is a d6 50 ft simple range weapon with the propulsive trait, while a composite shortbow is d6 60 ft martial weapon with the propulsive and deadly traits. The real deal breaker here is that slings have reload 1, while bows don't. I think its obvious reload 1 has to go because that's the worst thing from slings, but to avoid slings becoming composite shortbows but simple they either should have a d4 damage die and become martial or remain simple but lose propulsive.
I mean they could just remove the reload and probably be fine.
The gap between simple and martial weapons isn't supposed to be massive. Like a dagger is one die size smaller than a shortsword (and even has extra traits). a club is one die size smaller than all the standard d8 1h 1 trait martial melee weapons.
A reload 0 sling with no other changes is still a straight downgrade from the martial boomerang.
I feel slings are among the weapons that sadly suffer from the simple / martial / advanced division that weapons have. A sling is a d6 50 ft simple range weapon with the propulsive trait, while a composite shortbow is d6 60 ft martial weapon with the propulsive and deadly traits. The real deal breaker here is that slings have reload 1, while bows don't. I think its obvious reload 1 has to go because that's the worst thing from slings, but to avoid slings becoming composite shortbows but simple they either should have a d4 damage die and become martial or remain simple but lose propulsive.I mean they could just remove the reload and probably be fine.
The gap between simple and martial weapons isn't supposed to be massive. Like a dagger is one die size smaller than a shortsword (and even has extra traits). a club is one die size smaller than all the standard d8 1h 1 trait martial melee weapons.
A reload 0 sling with no other changes is still a straight downgrade from the martial boomerang.
I feel daggers are an outlier because they are a d4 weapon (which tend to have a bunch of traits) and because they are actually one of the few good simple weapons.
The "standard" simple range weapon is the crossbow, which is a traitless reload 1 d8 120 ft range weapon with reload 1. Even the reload 0 without propulsive simple sling I suggested would probaby be a bit too good since it would totally overshadow the hand crossbow. But even then, the reload 0 propulsive d4 martial version I suggested would be overshadowed by the shuriken that is reload 0, thrown, and agile. Its simple variant probably has to lose propulsive and become a d4 weapon.
I feel slings are among the weapons that sadly suffer from the simple / martial / advanced division that weapons have. A sling is a d6 50 ft simple range weapon with the propulsive trait, while a composite shortbow is d6 60 ft martial weapon with the propulsive and deadly traits. The real deal breaker here is that slings have reload 1, while bows don't. I think its obvious reload 1 has to go because that's the worst thing from slings, but to avoid slings becoming composite shortbows but simple they either should have a d4 damage die and become martial or remain simple but lose propulsive.I mean they could just remove the reload and probably be fine.
The gap between simple and martial weapons isn't supposed to be massive. Like a dagger is one die size smaller than a shortsword (and even has extra traits). a club is one die size smaller than all the standard d8 1h 1 trait martial melee weapons.
A reload 0 sling with no other changes is still a straight downgrade from the martial boomerang.
Boomerangs only return on missed strikes, so you need to spend additional resources to make that true. Full strength to damage is nice for characters that have high strength, but it isn't a one to one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still really want a gunslinger archtype that lets them work with slings (and also buffs slings in their hands.)
Same due to the reload they need some class chassis that has more action compression around reloading. The weird thing is I don't get why bows are 0 reload and slings are 1. A trained slinger is not slower in loading and firing than a longbow. I think most assume they are twirling the sling around a bunch before loosing. You can do that but most slingers are just a whipcrack motion it is very fast and the pouch is easy and quick to load.
I really want a good halfling sling focused character that at least has some of the action/reload gunslingers get. A sling slinger should be viable.
|
We need a trait for weapons which isn't necessarily grapple, but more like "latch". Here is what I mean. I have had several campaigns where a new player takes the whip and thinks they will Indiana Jones an obstacle. I am honestly surprised it has happened four separate times. Got me thinking that for the sake of good pulpy fantasy we need whips and other weapons a chance to act like grappling hooks, or probably more reasonably, add this as an option given in a feat to the Archeologist Archetype.
So... hearing this is reminding me of something. Namely, how I realized why slingshots haven't shown up in Pathfinder 2e:
They're too new.
The slingshot depends on vulcanized rubber, which wasn't invented until 1839.
Let that sink in. The GUN is older than the slingshot.
Bullet shooting cross bows however WERE quite common. And overlapped the gun in use by quite some time. They served a similar niche in hunting that a slingshot would - good for bagging small game. The pellets cost less than crossbow bolts, you could just use stones or baked clay, so people could afford to practice. Shooting contests were quite common and had some absurd demands on accuracy. Not much use as a weapon form combat though. Then again, neither is a blow gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet-shooting_crossbow
Heavy sling bullets, exists for every kind of sling, changes propulsive to brutal. Costs 1gp each, purchasable starting from level... 1? As per composite shortbows.
I understand the cost is an effort to balance, but... ooof. Seems like what that really does is make str ranged builds possible in campaigns that start at high level, while still locking low level str builds out of the range game. Which maybe isn't so bad, given that at higher levels characters are more likely to face threats they can't deal with via normal movement & melee.
Still, it seems like just using a bigger rock shouldn't cost a gold piece, and if str characters can't just throw cobblestones using "brutal", I don't see how a sling changes things.
A property rune that makes a propulsive or thrown weapon Brutal might make more sense and again fits with the "mid-higher level characters need more options outside melee" idea.
|
I think slings are just a random victim of the simple/martial/advanced weapon paradigm. By definition simple weapons have to be worse than martial. For whatever reason, slings were classified as simple (because they're cheap?) so they're also going to be weak.
The problem is that by now, most classes that are limited to simple weapons are also not that interested in using weapons at all, because they're spellcasters with better things to do. So a bunch of interesting weapons are on the scrap heap because they're simple.
There's some attempts to bring them back (exemplar/war priest/champion humble weapons) but that doesn't really lift them to a niche where they're interesting. A dagger upgraded to d6 is like a short sword, just in a different weapon group and thrown 10ft.
Slings have reload 1 which is a big price to pay, and it's not clear what you're getting back for it. You basically need two hands to really get stuff done with a sling, it's not a viable switch-hitting weapon for a melee character that thinks bows are too much hassle.
---
To make slings really work I think you'd need to re-do their stats entirely as a martial weapon instead. With some custom rules language so rangers and gunslingers can use them with all the reloading things they can do with crossbows.
Numerically, you'd benchmark it against the sukgung and arbalest. The arbalest is d10, 110ft and takes two hands. So maybe the sling should be 1d10 + propulsive, 50ft range and only 1 hand? Even then it's niche, I don't see a ton of arbalest usage right now either.
Alchemists could get a feat to become proficient and use it to add extra bomb range (but requiring a hand to hold it).
Thaumaturges could use slings (they're technically 1H weapons, so viable for implement's empowerment) but they'd need some action economy support because that's already a bottleneck for thaumaturges. Taking inspiration from the new shield implement, a sling implement could combine reloading and exploiting vulnerability into one action. Imagine just adding some extra magic salt while loading the bullet. (It's not like a reload 1 weapon with a 10ft ranged reaction was gonna thrill you, so might as well do a bespoke implement instead. Could even re-use those rules for guns and crossbows too.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are bucklers just wrist-shields? Bucklers are not wrist-shields. They're small, light, dueling shields. You still hold them in one hand. They should not be "free-hand" shields. If anything, they should just be a +1 AC shield with an agile shield bash (so as to ensure it still has a niche.) If they need more than that, then maybe they can shield bash and raise as a single action, but I think that'd be pushing it.
If you want to preserve the niche of a free-hand shield, fine. Just call it a wrist-shield or wrist-guard, not a buckler.
Traditional bucklers would be more likely weapons with the Parry trait.
IMO:
Buckler
Agile, Finesse, Parry, Shove
Damage 1d4 B; Bulk L
Hands 1
Type Melee; Category Simple; Group Brawling
The current buckler is closest to a lantern shield, a free hand shield. As such, you can always call it that if you want a real life free hand shield.