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

[Pranqstr]

I have discussed buying a sling using shortbow stats, and I like the idea. But it is a peasants weapon. Strange, the PHB (pg149) has a sling entry, 1d4, and range, but does not say bullets. Although on the next page it lists costs of lead bullets. Yup. Stones should be 1d4, and lead 1d6 - personally, I prefer 1d4+1, like the old/orginal AD&D, but 5e simplified things and removed the +1 to a lot of damage (tridents used to be 1d6+1, Warhammers 1d4+1, footman's mace, flail and pick were all 1d6+1, there are many more...).

Two handed? I've seen ancient pictures where the slingers have a shield. now admittedly, I'm not sure about game balance with a shield. Although, a slinger shouldn't have to use the shield a lot (well, hopefully not).

How many people use bows in your games? I assume bows (including crossbows) are dominant, because no other weapon has the range - at 120feet a slinger can trade with a magic users cantrips.

 

[Redthistle]

The warfare history network link [MENTION=6890806]Pranqstr[/MENTION] provided above mentioned the use of the "sling stick", which provided greater range, and could also be used as a melee weapon.

Time to import the kender's "hoop-stick" from Dragonlance/Krynn to Faerun, hmmm?

 

[Valetudo]

In earlier editions, you could sling and shield. I havent actually looked in 5th. Didnt halflings get a damage upgrade in the playtest? Honestly the designers have butchered alot of weapons and armor to fit their designs. Its probably my biggest peeve of 5th.

 

[Raith5]

Isnt there also an issue of accuracy at short ranges (sub 60 feet). Wouldnt it be easier to hit a target with a bow or cross bow in this range than a sling? Most of (really great) references above as in respect to massed long range attacks rather than shorter ranges.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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?

 

[Thac0 the Barbarian]

The real problem is that D&D is ultimately not well-suited for mirroring the nuances of weapons from the real world. Ultimately, all of these weapons are deadly, which makes comparisons of "more deadly" somewhat spurious. There's also the fact that there are a wide variety of other factors incorporated into the damage die which are really separate issues, such as armor penetration. Ultimately, the majority of the balance issues with weapon damage in D&D are not linked to weapons on the low to mid end of the damage scale. So as a result, you could likely do whatever you would like with sling damage/range and not run into in game problems.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Isnt there also an issue of accuracy at short ranges (sub 60 feet). Wouldnt it be easier to hit a target with a bow or cross bow in this range than a sling? Most of (really great) references above as in respect to massed long range attacks rather than shorter ranges.

That is sort of it. Because sling stones gain more from gravity and suffer less from air resistance than arrows, they were effective at long ranges with lob shots down onto military formations. At that sort of range, however, targeting an individual person isn't feasible. In adventurer terms, they have less effective range than bows because they're less accurate.

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?

Pretty much all historical weapons were the 'best' weapon during the period in which they were used: - that is why they were used. But technology and styles of warfare and fighting change, and new weapons become more effective.

The issue is that D&D mashes about two thousand years of advancement into a single period, and its combat isn't granular enough to reflect weapon or armour performance against specific types.
So pick a period when slings were used, and the accounts from that time will depict them as effective. You won't generally find accounts from other times depicting them as ineffective, because if they were ineffective, they won't have been in use.

 

[Pranqstr]

missed the not

Yes. the sling was great for it's time period. I've had people tell me it would not penetrate plate. That is true, but not many weapons could penetrate plate enough to do damage.

The arrow and crossbow might be more accurate at closer ranges, as they are mostly direct fire weapons and the sling is more arcing. Here is another interesting article:

http://chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling

It discusses other weapons, including the bow (at 50m, the arrow has 75% of the penetration it did at 10m, and at 120m, the arrow was mostly ineffective, especially against armored opponents - but some say 200m it could still be effective), and the sling had a higher velocity but less penetration, wounding and killing without a bloody wound. The lead bullets looked like tiny footballs (biconical), and could imbed in the body much better than stones.

I think the sling is more versatile, as you could probably throw vials of poison, oil, or a thunderstone at a greater range.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

While I have no objection to making slings better, I'd be wary of relying on those articles as legitimate sources of historical accuracy. They cite no historical records or research papers and seem to be drawing solely from fictional sources.

 

[Pranqstr]

the chris Harrison article (above) does have better references. here they are

References
Blair, Claude (1958). European Armor, circa 1066 to circa 1700. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.
Bradbury, Jim (2004). The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Carman, John & Harding, Anthony (1999). Ancient Warfare, Archeological Perspectives. Gloucestershire, UK: Tempus Publishing Limited.
Connolly, Peter (1981). Greece and Rome at War. London: Macdonald.
Demmin, Auguste (1964) Die Kriegswaffen im ihren Geschichtlichen Entwickelungen von den Ältesten Zeiten bis auf den Gegenwart. (Weapons of War and their Historica Developments from the Past to the Present) Leipzig: Gg Olms.
DeVries, Kelly (1956). Medieval Military Technology. Lewiston, NY: Broadview Press Ltd.
Ferrill, Arther (1985). The Origins of War, From the Stone Age to Alexander the Great. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Gabriel, Richard & Metz, Karen (1991). From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Grunfeld, Foster (1996). The Unsung Sling. Military History Quarterly, V9 #1. p. 51-55.
Hawkins, Walter (1847). Observations on the Use of the Sling, as a Warlike Weapon Among the Ancients. London: J.B. Nichols and Son.
Hogg, O.F.G. (1968). Clubs to Cannon: Warfare and Weapons Before the Introduction of Gunpowder. London: Gerald and Company, Ltd.
Lindblom, K.G. (1940). The Sling, Especially in Africa. Stockholm: Staten Etnografsika Museum.
Korfmann, Manfred (1973). The Sling as a weapon. Scientific American, October 229(4), p. 35-42.
Martin, Paul (1968). Arms and Armor, From the 9th to the 17th Century. Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc.
Nicholson, Helen (2004). Medieval Warfare, Theory and Practice of War in Europe 300-1550. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Norris McWhirter, ed. (1985). The Guinness Book of World Records, 23rd US edition. New York: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc.
Richardson, Thom (1998a). Ballistic Testing of Historical Weapons. Royal Armouries Yearbook 3, p. 50-52.
Richardson, Thom (1998b). Ballistic Testing of the Sling. Royal Armouries Yearbook 3, p. 44-49.
Skobelev, D. A. (2000). Sling: Projectiles and the Methods of Throwing in the Antiquity (title translated from Russian). Para Bellvm. March 23, 2005. http://www.xlegio.ru/pubs/skobelev/sling2.htm
Snodgrass, A. M. (1967). Arms and Armor of The Greeks. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Underwood, Richard (1999). Anglo-Saxon Weapons and Warfare. Gloucestershire, UK: Tempus Publishing Limited. The Sling in Medieval Europe 10
Walker, R. (2004). Density of Materials: Bulk Materials. March 3rd, 2005. http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm
Wise, Terence (1976). Medieval Warfare. New York: Hastings House.
Wise, Terence (1980). The Conquistadores. Oxford: Osprey Publishing

While I can't say they are top references, as I really don't know, they appear to have some legitimacy.