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

[dropbear8mybaby]

I'm not sure why you think slings became ineffective with armor. They were very effective on leather, chain and other armor, up until plate. And most weapons are ineffective against plate. Sure an arrow can pierce plate, but only after the arrow tip was redesigned. And, even then not all the time and not very deep. Swords can't pierce plate (well, maybe a critical hit), but like sling ammo, it will leave a dent. And plate armor was extremely expensive and rare. Shot placement is everything. If you have a sling and you keep fighting plate mailed fighters and you shoot for the armor, well, you are probably making other bad choices and will not live long. Aztec skirmishers would aim (and hit) the face of the Spanish.

From what I have read, the decline of the sling was not because of advances in metallurgy making the arrow SO much better, but because of the military. The militaries wanted consistent weapons and they chose military weapons not peasant weapons.

OK, there are so many errors in this that I don't know where to start.

First of all, are you playing D&D or are you recreating history?

Because if you're playing D&D then none of the above actually matters.

If you're trying to recreate history, then why are you playing D&D?

Lastly, have you heard of Schologladiatoria, skallagrim, KnightErrynt, Metatron, Lindybeige, etc.? I suggest watching a few hours of their YT videos in order to correct all the grossly incorrect information you're operating on currently.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I wouldn't call a sling's damage "wimpy", unless you want to protest that a dagger's damage is also "wimpy". They are both deadly weapons which are nevertheless not quite as good as their competition in sheer lethality. They also both have compensating advantages in portability and concealability which, although not spelled out explicitly in their rules, ought to be considered by any DM worth their salt.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

First of all, are you playing D&D or are you recreating history?

Because if you're playing D&D then none of the above actually matters.

D&D is fantasy adapted from history, and for the historical part to meaningfully represent its source, it needs to behave how we expect it to behave based on history.

Magical elves can behave however you want magical elves to behave, because we have no historical record for that. Slings and arrows are well-documented, and are granted much less leeway.

 

[Redthistle]

The argument for distance like grapple, arms length and 5' only works in single action tactical games. D&d assumes a 6 second round, and you should have several attacks, maybe a slash a slight push and another slash. Or a high feint, low strike, parry, and pummel strike. That would eliminate the need for such close distances classifications.The only concern is can I do enough to damage you in a round. I also think 2nd ed had minimum space needed to use a weapon, so if you were in a small cave, you weren't using an axe or a pole arm. Again too much keeping track of stuff...

And back to my sling thread... if you are shooting any kind of distance, Missile weapons may require a base speed and distance speed. (lets see, you move on action 9, but the sling bullet you launch takes 2 segments to hit...) And pretty soon you have a completely different system. I would rather role play, than spend time with calculating minutia.

A few articles I've read referenced Aztec slings using "clay' stones, I would think they would be baked (hardened, ceramic has the same density as stone 2.6 to 2.8g/cm^3, up to rarely 3g/cm^3 and should be very consistent for an area), and should provide better accuracy than unsorted stones. One article stated the stones gathered from near a river about the same size ranged in weight from 105grams to 160 grams. Too great a variation for a precision slinger, but okay for a slinging shepherd.

I'm thinking about what the articles and people posted (thanks!), and while some people say use shortbow info, I think a hybrid would be more... fun(?) satisfying(?). The sling is an indirect fire weapon, so the short range should be shorter than a shortbow, and long rage should be longer with bullets. With consistent weight stones the short range should be shorter and long about equal to the shortbow. unsorted stones, use the rage given in PHB

Sling bullet (lead) 1d6 bludgeoning ammunition 70/350
Sling stones (consistent density and/or clay/ceramic) 1d4 bludgeoning ammunition 50/240
sling stones (unsorted) 1d4 bludgeoning ammunition 30/120

What does everyone think?

I'd drop the long ranges to the game standard of no more than four times the short range. Otherwise, I view this as a reasonable home rule.

 

[Redthistle]

The thing I'd love to see is a martial option for the sling, like the slingstaff with the two-handed, ammunition properties, dealing 1d6 (or 1d8?) bludgeoning damage.

Add the dual-function of usage as a quarterstaff in melee, and I'm with you.

That's akin to a combat rifle's utilization as a melee bludgeoning weapon when out of ammunition ...

... and that's not even considering adding a spear point to the opposite end of the staff from the sling.

Which would make it a weapon that would bring smiles to the entire Swiss Army.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

D&D is fantasy adapted from history, and for the historical part to meaningfully represent its source, it needs to behave how we expect it to behave based on history.

Oh boy. OK, I'm going to break some bad news to you so please, sit down and prepare yourself.

D&D is not even remotely close to being historically accurate or of even being in the general relative vicinity of realistic. Even 1e with all it's glorious polearms wasn't in the same universe of compatibility to realism, or historical accuracy.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

D&D is not even remotely close to being historically accurate or of even being in the general relative vicinity of realistic. Even 1e with all it's glorious polearms wasn't in the same universe of compatibility to realism, or historical accuracy.

It doesn't need to be perfectly accurate, or within any specific degree of realistic. It just needs to be realistic enough that we can use our knowledge about how the world works in order to make decisions for our characters. A crossbow needs two hands to operate, because we know what a crossbow is and that's how a crossbow works. If a sling doesn't behave close enough to our conception of a sling for us to treat it like one, then it's not really a sling and there's no point in calling it that.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

It doesn't need to be perfectly accurate, or within any specific degree of realistic. It just needs to be realistic enough that we can use our knowledge about how the world works in order to make decisions for our characters. A crossbow needs two hands to operate, because we know what a crossbow is and that's how a crossbow works. If a sling doesn't behave close enough to our conception of a sling for us to treat it like one, then it's not really a sling and there's no point in calling it that.

A dagger can easily kill anyone with one hit in reality and it can do so by striking multiple possible locations on the body through both slicing and piercing (and even bludgeoning). A sling bullet is only likely to kill someone with a direct head wound and only by bludgeoning. So should we then make daggers 100d4 for purposes of realism? Or should we accept that D&D isn't realistic and figure on 1d4 being roughly about right, in the context of the system's rules, for a sling bullet?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A dagger can easily kill anyone with one hit in reality and it can do so by striking multiple possible locations on the body through both slicing and piercing (and even bludgeoning). A sling bullet is only likely to kill someone with a direct head wound and only by bludgeoning. So should we then make daggers 100d4 for purposes of realism? Or should we accept that D&D isn't realistic and figure on 1d4 being roughly about right, in the context of the system's rules, for a sling bullet?

A dagger can kill someone, and a sling bullet can kill someone, but in both cases you're likely to survive a hit unless it's to somewhere vital. Most people who get stabbed with a dagger don't die from it, especially on the battlefield when they're wearing armor. They're significantly less likely to survive a hit from a battleaxe. As long all of those things are mostly true under the system rules, then that's a good starting point.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

A dagger can kill someone, and a sling bullet can kill someone, but in both cases you're likely to survive a hit unless it's to somewhere vital. Most people who get stabbed with a dagger don't die from it, especially on the battlefield when they're wearing armor. They're significantly less likely to survive a hit from a battleaxe. As long all of those things are mostly true under the system rules, then that's a good starting point.

OK, you don't seem to understand the nature of weapon use or injury or even armour as it works in the real world so you really can't claim to use reality as a yardstick here. I suggest doing some research before coming back to this argument. There's really no point in me continuing to argue with you until you do. See you in five years or so.