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

[see]

1) Wizards and sorcerers have proficiency with the sling because Gygax put it on the magic-users list.
2) Wizards and sorcerers are supposed to be worse at doing damage in physical combat than bards, clerics and rogues.
3) Uniform 5e proficiency bonuses to attack means the only way to express #2 is by making wizard weapons worse than the bard/cleric/rogue weapons.

Therefore, slings, which wizards can use, are worse than the short bow that they can't, but clerics and rogues can.

An alternative would be to remove slings from the sorcerer and wizard lists, make them a martial weapon better than the shortbow, and keep them under the longbow, so martial-types could choose either the cheap and inconspicuous sling (also useful if you are size S and can't use a heavy weapon without disadvanatge) or the more expensive and more conspicuous longbow.

 

[Redthistle]

Not to disagree with any of the history here (I'm not a student of sling lore by any means), but I've noticed that whenever pretty much any D&D weapon's potency is brought up as not good enough, apparently all the history that is then presented manages to prove it is, in fact, the best weapon of its type (sword, ranged attack, etc) ever made. Am I just crazy, or is this a real thing?

Think "Arms Race". History is one long line of weapon design improvements. The object is always to seek an advantage over one's enemies.

Every weapon has its strengths and weaknesses, and its moment in time.

It also has the potential, if not already realized, of being rendered relatively obsolete by another weapon design's "work-around" to gain the new lead on effective violence.

[P.S. When typing "work-around", I miss-keyed the "k" as an "f", and immediately thought "Worf-around"? How did Star Trek pop into mind for a D&D discussion? Then I remembered: the batleth, or whatever it's called. That weapon always struck me as awkward.]

[P.P.S. I can't assess your craziness-qoutient at this remove (strange, because I like to believe that it takes one to know one), but I don't think it applies to the discussion at hand: your observation is correct. Weapon favorites, like sports-team favorites, are not always as rationally determined as their fans proclaim.]

 

[Alexemplar]

Not to disagree with any of the history here (I'm not a student of sling lore by any means), but I've noticed that whenever pretty much any D&D weapon's potency is brought up as not good enough, apparently all the history that is then presented manages to prove it is, in fact, the best weapon of its type (sword, ranged attack, etc) ever made. Am I just crazy, or is this a real thing?

Because D&D isn't based so much on real history as much as it's based on stories and other fictional tales and the tropes upon which those tales are built. Heroes use daggers, swords, and bows and only poor/primitive people use slings and spears. So they try to design the weapons to make them more/less attractive in that respect.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

This is one of the reasons I loved weapon proficiencies from 2nd Edition. Sure, you could use any weapon you wanted at a slight (for fighters) or severe (for wizards, clerics and rogues) disadvantage on to hit rolls. But that is more accurate. Using a weapon you're not trained on is hard, and weapons DO require training. Even rifles require SOME training for the user to be effective. Not as much as a sling or longbow, but still something. Fighters, with specialization, could become even more deadly with higher rates of fire (3/2 for specialization and a +1 to hit bonus).

It helps with these kinds of problems. Heck even if you just did something like this:

Weapon Proficiency: Using a weapon and using a weapon as effectively as possible are two different things. Most people have some training in at least one kind of weapon, enough to be considered proficient:

• One Weapon Proficiency: Sorcerer, Wizard
• Two Weapon Proficienies: Warlock, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Bard
• Three Weapon Proficiencies: Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger
• Four Weapon Proficiencies: Fighter

Anyone can use a simple weapon. Martial weapons being used without proficiency have a -1 to hit penalty. Proficiency grants a +1 to hit bonus. Fighters can use two weapon proficiencies on one weapon to become specialized. They gain advantage on the attack rolls with that weapon.

Clarification
Monks would gain proficiency in unarmed combat obviously, and a monk weapon of their choice. Other restrictions from things like weapon list still apply. Then you could add "bonus weapon proficiency: Sling" to halflings. Additionally, Warlocks with the weapon pact would get that weapon and proficiency in the weapon as well.

Finally, I'm not a huge fan of 5e weapons at all, and feel that speed factors and Rate of Fire should be added to them. I'm actually working on that right now LOL

 

[Pranqstr]

Leading edge games had a system out years ago, where each weapon had a power and penetration, and you cross referenced it with the AC. The system was probably much more realistic than 1d4,1d6, 1d8, but the system wasn't much fun to play because it was a lot of looking tables up.

Okay,I took a hit to the left upper chest and with the penetration of 2.1, and power, well, i'm dead again.

Iron crown enterprises (ICE) had a similar system which had individual weapons on a table, but all ICE did was repeat damage 4 times (with some variation, ), if the weapon had other attack methods. Like an axe could have a flat head and used as a hammer, and it referenced a critical level( A being least damaging and E being worst), and which damage ttable to reference - Slashing (S), puncture (P), crush (K). So, 8AS means 8 damage and roll on the A slash table. What fun.

Where is the slash table? Oh, there it is, I rolled a 66, 12 more damage and damaged his elbow, he is at -25%, and bleeding at 3 hits/rd.

I like the ICE system, but the roll a 1d8 and add modifiers is easier. The D&D system may not be realistic, but it is faster and easier to learn and does the job (and you usually don't have to worry about having a character go from 60hp to zero in 1 attack).

I do think there is truth to the idea players will want martial weapons instead of simple weapons, if available. Well, most anyway. But I like to be unique. everyone can pick a long sword or battle axe, but what about the flail or pick or hammer? I've noticed most magic is not geared to the less common weapons. Yes, less common means, less likely to be magicked. I get that. But it seems in most fantasy areas weapons are the same. The Zulus (okay, they were stone age ) had much different weapons than the Japanese, who had different weapons than the French. But most of the world had club (which again, went from a 1d6 in earlier systems to 1d4 in 5e), dagger, staff and sling. There could be some truth to damage reduced so magic users (wizards/sorcerers) do less damage, but 5e, has the damaging dealing classes doing damage by spells or effect - Rogues back stab, paladin's smite, fighter's action surge and improved critical. 1d4 vs 1d6 isn't really significant in this case. And the damage dealing classes are built to deal damage, rarely will a magic user have a 16 STR or DEX to deal extra damage. And if the magic user is fighting with weapons, the magic user and probably party is screwed, as he should be casting spells and cantrips (which deal better damage than a 1d6 anyway).

 

[Pranqstr]

Oops, it cut off part of my thought.

I do think there is truth to the idea players will want martial weapons instead of simple weapons, if available. Well, most anyway. But I like to be unique. everyone can pick a long sword or battle axe, but what about the flail or pick or hammer? I've noticed most magic is not geared to the less common weapons. Yes, less common means, less likely to be magicked. I get that. But it seems in most fantasy areas weapons are the same. The Zulus (okay, they were stone age ) had much different weapons than the Japanese, who had different weapons than the French. But most of the world had club (which again, went from a 1d6 in earlier systems to 1d4 in 5e), dagger, staff and sling. In some areas of the world those weapons would be common and magicked. There could be some truth to damage reduced so magic users (wizards/sorcerers) do less damage, but 5e, has the damaging dealing classes doing damage by spells or effect - Rogues back stab, paladin's smite, fighter's action surge and improved critical. 1d4 vs 1d6 isn't really significant in this case. And the damage dealing classes are built to deal damage, rarely will a magic user have a 16 STR or DEX to deal extra damage. And if the magic user is fighting with weapons, the magic user and probably party is screwed, as he should be casting spells and cantrips (which deal better damage than a 1d6 anyway).

 

[Pranqstr]

I disagree with the speed factor in most weapons. Sure a dagger is going to be faster than a longsword, but the dagger has to get in and get out of the longswords range before he gets hit. in some Systems, the pole arm gets a bonus in initiative for the first attack (ICE's rolemaster, and DCC come to mind), but a penalty on subsequent attacks. DCC rolls a d24 (normal weapons get a d20) on first attacks, and a d16 on the rest. You could get those dice or (d24=d12+odd/even roll, roll d12 and a d6. If the d6 is even add +12 to the d12 roll, d6 odd roll add nothing to the d12), d16 roll a d20 and ignore 17-20.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

I disagree on the speed factor. If I have a dagger and can hit you, then I'm close enough to you that your long sword is no longer an effective weapon. To better represent that we would need to break out ranges to "Grapple", "Arms Length" and "Reach (5' to 10')" for melee combat. Grappling would represent shield locking or smashing, but would require shorter weapons to be effective. You can use the hilt of a longsword at such range, but you're probably not going to effectively be swinging the blade. Arms length is where your sword duels take place. Reach is for polearms/spears.

Even ignoring range and reach, speed factor is still important in these situations. This is for 2e of course, but could easily apply to 5th edition. For example:

Raf the Fighter has responded to an alarm bell. Orcs are storming the castle! He enters the hallway and sees an orcish assassin attempting to cause mischief. His sword in hand he yells out something brave and courageous and attacks. There is no surprise as the assassin was pretty far away and the hallway is well lit. Raf also made a bunch of noise opening doors and such. Rolling for initiative, Raf gets a 4 + 5 for his longsword or 9 total. The orc roles a 5 and is wielding a dagger in each hand. The dagger speed factor is 2. The orc throws his dagger on 7 and can throw the second one on 9. So Raf is closing while the Orc holds his ground and throws both daggers. One hits and one misses (for arguments sake). The second one flies past his head as he ducks to the side and strikes at the orc causing some damage. Enraged the Orc draws a new dagger and jumps forward as well. In close combat the orc stabs again on 7 causing Raf to grunt in pain and begin to panic! He needs to break away to use his sword! Raf manages to twist out of the hold and shove the orc back a step before swinging his sword. The orc manages to block the blade and closes in again.

Now, add reach into that scenario. The orc is on top of Raf using a weapon that is effective in that situation. Raf would need to constantly assert space to use his long sword. In terms of simple easy rules? Not sure yet, but I'm working on it!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Just give daggers a bonus when used in a grapple. If you're bringing a dagger to a sword fight, then unless you're a lot more skilled than your opponent is, you're going to get slotted.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

And if you're trying to swing three feet of steel in an area only 5' across when you're already taking up two or three of those feet and your opponent has a dagger and is on top of you you're not going to do well. Which is why different types of weapons exist in the first place