D&D 5E Why wimpy SLING damage and range?

[Pranqstr]

I've played various versions of (A)D&D over the years, everything but 4th ed. And the slings could keep up with shortbows and even have a greater range, well, sling stones (1d4 damage) had about the same range as a bow, and the sling bullet had a greater range (1d4+1 damage). I started playing 5e and noticed the damage is 1d4, and range is pretty pathetic. damage and range is the same as a hand crossbow, and WotC have created feats to make the hand crossbow a much more dangerous weapon, but not the sling. I know, the crossbowmaster feat could easily be changed to sling master, but the sling actually has a bigger place in history, and i'm sure in fantasy history to, slings are great for areas which have poor resources - arrows and bows are expensive and require more resources. I was told by a DM I was discussing it with, the game designers are a bit elitist and no one wants a sling. I do. And I think a sling of fire could be more fun than a bow of fire... Here is the message I sent asking for clarification:


I noticed the range and damage of a sling is much lower than historical standards. In previous game editions the sling was 1d4 with stones and 1d4+1 with lead bullets. The range in older editions was greater than 5e, especially with lead bullets. Is the 1d4 damage and shortish range for stones? What about lead bullets (1d4+1 or 1d6, perhaps and 80/350 range)?


After reading this article, I can understand why the short range of stones. Grabbing stones from the same area, produced weights from 105grams to 160grams, it would be hard to aim anything with a greater than 50% difference in ammo weight. But if you were careful and consistant, you could get shortbow range, I would think.

http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/sling.html

The average stone density (in grams/cm^3) is 2.6 to 2.8 (rarely do they get above 3.0), but lead is 11.34. So a greater density will hold velocity longer, but require more force to launch. The slingers from Balearic islands and Rhodes were well know as being able to out distance Roman shortbows, with stones. The lead bullets had an even greater distance.

_{http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/ancient-weapons-the-sling/}

Yes, the slingers had a lot of training, but so did (real) Viking swordsman or English archers.

Discuss?

 

[Pranqstr]

Here are a couple of good articles about slings and sling history, they in the previous post, but small font.

http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/sling.html

http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/dai...ons-the-sling/

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As far as I know, the sling has always fallen behind the shortbow in terms of damage (d4 compared to d6), with the possible exception of the 3E era when slings got +Str to damage for free and shortbows could only gain that benefit if you paid hundreds of GP for a mighty composite version. (The balancing factor was that the sling required an action to load, so you couldn't use them for a full-attack.)

That's always been the difference between the sling and everything else, though. Slings and stones are dirt cheap. It's a peasant weapon. Especially in an era when you were expected to have minions, and before rules for weapon proficiencies existed, letting the sling be comparable to a bow would have made it overpowered.

 

[Pranqstr]

Actually, the sling bullet was comparable to the bow at 1d4+1 vs 1d6, sure a d6 has a 6, but it also has a 1. The range in 2nd ed was short/med/long ranges. shortbow was 5/10/15, sling stone was 4/8/16 and sling bullet was 5/10/20. Oh, and hand crossbow was 2/4/6 (in tens of yards). 1st ed was similar, but I don't have the 1st ed PHB next to me.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I've played various versions of (A)D&D over the years, everything but 4th ed. And the slings could keep up with shortbows and even have a greater range, well, sling stones (1d4 damage) had about the same range as a bow, and the sling bullet had a greater range (1d4+1 damage). I started playing 5e and noticed the damage is 1d4, and range is pretty pathetic. damage and range is the same as a hand crossbow, and WotC have created feats to make the hand crossbow a much more dangerous weapon, but not the sling. I know, the crossbowmaster feat could easily be changed to sling master, but the sling actually has a bigger place in history, and i'm sure in fantasy history to, slings are great for areas which have poor resources - arrows and bows are expensive and require more resources. I was told by a DM I was discussing it with, the game designers are a bit elitist and no one wants a sling. I do. And I think a sling of fire could be more fun than a bow of fire... Here is the message I sent asking for clarification:


I noticed the range and damage of a sling is much lower than historical standards. In previous game editions the sling was 1d4 with stones and 1d4+1 with lead bullets. The range in older editions was greater than 5e, especially with lead bullets. Is the 1d4 damage and shortish range for stones? What about lead bullets (1d4+1 or 1d6, perhaps and 80/350 range)?


After reading this article, I can understand why the short range of stones. Grabbing stones from the same area, produced weights from 105grams to 160grams, it would be hard to aim anything with a greater than 50% difference in ammo weight. But if you were careful and consistant, you could get shortbow range, I would think.

http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/sling.html

The average stone density (in grams/cm^3) is 2.6 to 2.8 (rarely do they get above 3.0), but lead is 11.34. So a greater density will hold velocity longer, but require more force to launch. The slingers from Balearic islands and Rhodes were well know as being able to out distance Roman shortbows, with stones. The lead bullets had an even greater distance.

_{http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/ancient-weapons-the-sling/}

Yes, the slingers had a lot of training, but so did (real) Viking swordsman or English archers.

Discuss?

Basically because the D&D designers may or may not have the historical perspective of how effective slings were in well trained hands, or might just not care. With a bullet they not only had a greater range than most bows, but were even effective against armor and were used by some armies in medieval battles against plate armored knights.

I would recommend a feat to improve the effectiveness, because true mastery of the sling apparently took years, but they would also be popular as a simple weapon. In other words, they have a place as a simple weapon, and a martial weapon with specific practice and training.

Thematically, though, I'd be careful of beefing it up too much. A sling is among the perfect rogue weapons, since if all you are using are stones, it can be made in a pinch with a strip of cloth (probably not as effective as a real sling), and if you are caught, you are "unarmed" since you aren't carrying any weapons. Even a prisoner can probably get a strip of cloth and find a few stones. Not to mention that it's also a sneak attack weapon. If I recall, it was a staple in the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The reputation of ancient slingers is high, and it's important that as a technology slings continued to be used even after advanced bows could be made. the reason for this is *not* just that they were in expensive. In Xenophon's Anabasis (an account of a Greek mercenary expedition in Persian territory in 400 BCE), a specialist unit of slingers is made to respond to the changing types of engagements they are fighting during the campaign:

(3.3.17) Now I am told that there are Rhodians in our army, that most of them understand the use of the sling, and that their missile carries no less than twice as far as those from the Persian slings. [17] For the latter have only a short range because the stones that are used in them are as large as the hand can hold; the Rhodians, however, are versed also in the art of slinging leaden bullets.

Specifically, issues of range are mentioned:
[3.3.15] For at present the enemy can shoot arrows and sling stones so far that neither our Cretan bowmen nor our javelin-men can reach them in reply.

Once established, (3.4.16) “the barbarians were no longer able to do any harm by their skirmishing at long range; for the Rhodian slingers carried farther with their missiles than the Persians, farther even than the Persian bowmen”

So lead bullets can outdistance javelins and bows on both sides.

Issues of ammunition supply are also mentioned: the mercenaries did not have ready access to markets, but making lead bullets was a nonspecialist technology, as was picking up rocks.

In addition to Rhodians, Balearic slingers (already mentioned) were noted among Roman auxiliaries, but there are no actual claims about the effectiveness as a weapon outside of Xenophon (Strabo 3.5.1.167-68 and others do describe good individual shots, of course, as does 1 Samuel 17).

* * *

The traditions of the game and Robin Hood legends (and their descendants) romanticize archery, and slings end up being misunderstood.

As for your game: perhaps instead of making new rules, your DM would consider just re-skinnning an existing weapon: call it a Balearic sling and give it the exact same game stats as a short bow, or a Rhodian sling with the same stats as a long bow, and you should be good. (accept that you're paying 25gp for "sling training" or something).

Hope this helps.

 

[Demetrios1453]

In D&D, traditionally halflings have been noteworthy as slingers, so I would say a racial buff of some sort might be appropriate for them. Obviously, following the lead of other racials concerning weapons and saying halflings are proficient in slings will fall flat, since that's giving them absolutely nothing (as, if I'm not mistaken, everyone is proficient in slings), so it would need to be more powerful. Would giving halflings advantage with slings be a bit too much, or would it be just enough give those playing halflings reason to start using the weapon?

 

[Kobold Stew]

Also, [MENTION=6890806]Pranqstr[/MENTION] , welcome to the boards! Great first thread.

Also also, check this guy out. He's amazing (Youtube link).

 

[JonnyP71]

Following the K.I.S.S. strategy, I would:

- change the mention of 'Sling Bullets' in the current weapons/equipment tables to read 'Sling Stones'
- give Sling Bullets the same cost, weight, range and damage as arrows fired from a Shortbow

Job done

 

[S'mon]

I use d4 for sling stones from peasant shepherds. d6 lead sling bullets sounds fine to me, as does a David-style 'sling expert' -5/+10 feat.

You could also have a Martial-weapon Balearic Sling that does d8 with increased range using lead bullets; I probably
would keep range lower than the longbow (personally I have STR-based warbows in my 5e games anyway, I like messing with the 5e weapon listings).

Personally I think I'd compromise & have a martial weapon sling that does d6 with lead bullets, range
between shortbow & longbow. I'd probably keep halfling slingers to d4 though due to their teeny weeny arms.

As long as you're sensible and require 2 hands to use a sling (unlike darts, which can be drawn & thrown 1-handed) I think all is fine.