• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E What I'd Like To See Added to 5E - Weapon Comparison

Water Bob

Adventurer
Both of those quotes are from the same guy who thinks that mass x velocity tells the whole tale of projectile effectiveness. The first quote doesn't really address the argument of slings vs bows at all, it merely states that slings were not wholly ineffective. The second quote is more of the same, plus its final unsupported sentence.

Use your GoogleFu. I found this on a wiki:

Ancient peoples used the sling in combat—armies included both specialist slingers and regular soldiers equipped with slings. As a weapon, the sling had several advantages; a sling bullet lobbed in a high trajectory can achieve ranges in excess of 400 metres (1,300 ft).[17] Modern authorities vary widely in their estimates of the effective range of ancient weapons. A bow and arrow could also have been used to produce a long range arcing trajectory, but ancient writers repeatedly stress the sling's advantage of range. The sling was light to carry and cheap to produce; ammunition in the form of stones was readily available and often to be found near the site of battle. The ranges the sling could achieve with molded lead sling-bullets was only topped by the strong composite bow or, centuries later, the heavy English longbow, both at massively greater cost.

Caches of sling ammunition have been found at the sites of Iron Age hill forts of Europe; some 40,000 sling stones were found at Maiden Castle, Dorset. It is proposed that Iron Age hill forts of Europe were designed to maximise the effective defense of slingers.

The hilltop location of the wooden forts would have given the defending slingers the advantage of range over the attackers, and multiple concentric ramparts, each higher than the other, would allow a large number of men to create a hailstorm of stone. Consistent with this, it has been noted that defenses are generally narrow where the natural slope is steep, and wider where the slope is more gradual.





And, although there is some speculation and discussion back and forth, the majority of the pages I've found say things like this:

I go by the rule that, being the model users of efficient weapons of warfare, the Romans wouldn't have used them if they didn't work well. Yet they used slingers all the time to screen the advance of their legions and to harry the advance of the enemy.

I agree again with your hypothesis. Sling bullets should deal crushing damage. There is not enough of a sharp penetrating point to cause penetration of any major type, although their might be some minor PEN damage. Plate would protect but chain, ring or leather less so. More like mace or impact-weapons




Yet, from another site, and common to most of them, is the point that slings don't penetrate against armor as much as they lead to blunt trauma that can be delivered through flexible armors like chain.

From Here.

Based on anecdotal evidence a lead shot can punch an inch deep dent into corrugated iron. Just imagine what that would do any flesh beneath the metal armour. You don’t need to imagine too much as we know from historical documents that the ancient Roman army surgeons had a special set of forceps used to extract shot that was embedded into combatant’s flesh.

So, we have a ranged weapon that matches if not exceeds the longbow in terms of range and damage, and it is also a damned sight easier to make it, as is the ammunition it uses. An effective sling is made from natural fibres such as hair and flax, which is pretty easy to come across almost everywhere. Although it is time consuming to weave a sling, once you know how to it, practice will reduce the time taken to make more. And compared to the time required to make a compound bow or to treat the wood necessary for a warbow, it was really very little time at all.





The popular opinion seems to go against your comment that "slings doing more (damage) vs. chain than arrows is idiotic".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IN 5E D&D

From what I've seen of 5E, weapons are rated very much as they were in 3E. That is to say that the neat weapon comparison stats like those in 1E and 2E AD&D have been watered down as they were in 3E D&D.

I'd like to see a Variant rule that will do for the game what the Conan RPG did for 3.5 D&D. I'm not saying that the Conan RPG should be copied. 1E and 2E AD&D show that there are many different ways to skin a goat. But, whatever it is, I'd like to see some weapon stats/rules that make the choice of weapon something more than just picking the weapon that does the most damage from the lot a character can choose from.

Am I the only one who would like to see this?

I can't guarantee that I would use the variant rule, because it might or might not add enough extra fun to offset the extra hassle. But I would certainly enjoy reading whatever anyone came up with. I really enjoyed AD&D2's Complete Gladiator's Handbook in part because it had a lot of interesting weapons with side quirks (e.g. this weapon makes Disarm maneuvers easier--could be applied to 5E's whip or trident), but as you say, even little quirks and differentiations can be nice, and 5E has only four ways to differentiate weapons right now: damage, damage type, proficiency type, and weight/cost. Unless you're fighting skeletons, only two of these really matter (damage and proficiency type), and for a given character with a fixed set of proficiencies only one matters (damage). And it would be nice to have options for changing that.

I often think there's a reason why 5E doesn't have the "Advanced" part of AD&D in its moniker. 5E is fun but it's pretty basic.
 


aramis erak

Legend
Yet, from another site, and common to most of them, is the point that slings don't penetrate against armor as much as they lead to blunt trauma that can be delivered through flexible armors like chain.

A well trained slinger can hit a man from 100 yards with greater than 90% accuracy when using bullets.
I know several reenactors who can do that with both hand sling and staff sling.

The staff sling is capable of higher penetration, longer range, and flatter arc. Takes more space to work, but boy howdy. I've seen a golf ball flung about 200 yards, and still hitting the man-sized target about 75% of the time. (Same guys as mentioned above).

With lead bullet, I've seen (from 50yd) Rick put copper bullet through 12ga steel breastplate in destructive testing demonstration. It also went through the 1/2" plywood behind it. Where he missed, it went clean through the plywood. Lead bullet was similar performance.

Scary effective stuff.
 


Mishihari Lord

First Post
I too would like to see more differentiation between weapons. The weapon vs armor type tables were one element of AD&D that I really wanted to use but just found too cumbersome in practice. Here's a simplified system that I've always meant to try but never actually got around to:

Three armor types Soft (includes leather, unarmored human, gelatinous cube, etc), Flexible (includes chain, dragon scales, etc), Hard (includes breastplate, plate armor, golems, etc)

Three weapon types: blunt (hammer), sharp (sword), pointed (pick).

Sharp weapons are +2 vs soft armor, +1 vs flexible armor
Pointed weapons are +2 vs hard armor, +1 vs flexible armor
Blunt weapons are +2 vs flexible armor, +1 vs soft armor

Another area I would like to see addressed in modifiers for weapon vs weapon. Frex, if one guy has a sword while the other has a knife, the knife guy is at a terrible disadvantage because (1) the sword has greater range; if he can hold the range then sword guy can hurt knife guy while knife guy can;t hurt sword guy, and (2) the sword can effectively parry the knife, but not vice versa.
 

Connorsrpg

Adventurer
Thanks to the encouragement on this thread I have submitted an article for 'Weapon Qualities' for En5ider, :)

You will hopefully see some of those in a future article :)
 

Grainger

Explorer
If you're going to do an analysis of weapons use from earlier editions of D&D, you really need to include BECMI's Weapons Mastery system. It's quite divisive (some BECMI players hate it, some love it), but it gives every weapon something unique, be it a chance to disarm opponents, an ability to deflect N attacks per round, etc. I also gives a different to-hit bonus depending on whether it's being used against an opponent using Hand-held or throws weapons, or Missile or Natural attacks. PCs (and indeed NPCs) can train up in a weapon, to improve their damage and other benefits of using the weapon. It results in a horrendously-complicated looking weapons chart, but you just note down the relevant stuff on your character sheet, and it's then pretty simple to use.

Overall, I felt it was a good addition to BECMI, partly as it eliminated the "it's a no-brainer to take weapon X" issue that you talk about in 5e.

Would I recommend it for adaptation to 5e? Well, it's pretty eccentric at times, and does make PCs a lot more powerful (but you needed it in BECMI, arguably). However, some of its ideas could be adopted if you really want to tweak the weapons list.

I won't link to a picture of the chart, but it is easy enough to find if you want to. You can buy the Rules Cyclopaedia (all the BECMI rules) pretty cheaply in electronic form.
 



Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top