Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dropbear8mybaby" data-source="post: 7155159" data-attributes="member: 6863518">You can't have it both ways. Either you're hewing to reality or you're not. You can't keep shifting the goal posts whenever someone questions your logic. If I say D&D isn't a realistic system and you say we're not basing it on reality, then you can't go and then say you're basing things on reality when someone questions you on that.D&D barely pays lip-service to realism. Sure, you need two hands to load and fire a crossbow in the system. But that's where the "realism" ends. A dagger is no less deadly than a longsword. There's no justification for it doing less damage aside from system mechanics contrivances. If it were based on reality, then the longsword would be a superior weapon to a dagger primarily due to reach, leverage and the techniques you can use for defence and attack. But D&D doesn't work that way. Instead, the longsword is represented as the better weapon by having a higher damage die.And the same logic has to apply to all items in the system. A sling may very well have been the superweapon you want it to be in history, but in D&D it's represented the way it is because that's how the system works. And all that is leaving aside the fact that D&D is a mish-mash of real-world cultures and technology and time periods that has no comparative basis in reality. So the sling in D&D could be representing any sling throughout history rather than the peak of its evolution and use in the real world.I never said they didn't. I said it was most likely that they would kill by head shot than other means and in the context of D&D, not history. And all that is also not accounting for armour. I don't care what sling bullet you're using or how accurate you are with it, you're unlikely to kill someone wearing 15th or 16th century plate armour with it from 300 yards away. And again, D&D doesn't account for weapon versus armour types. It's simplified. A sling bullet does the same damage wether the target is armoured or not. D&D isn't the system for subtleties of weapon and armour and the context of battle/melee situations. Any single argument you bring up to justify improving the sling, you can also use for every single other weapon in the system. None of them are truly representative of how they work in reality. So why should the sling get special attention?What has any of that got to do with anything?A sling bullet against the predominant form of armour throughout European history and which is the most common heavy armour in D&D, i.e. gambeson and mail isn't going to do much of anything aside from being annoying and maybe bruise a little, unless it's a head hit. And even then, there's a very good reason why helmets were very popular. If you're arguing about bullet damage against unarmoured opponents, then you're using the very best possible scenario that advantages your argument and isn't represented in most of history. The Romans weren't using sling bullets against lorica segmentata wearing opponents. The Greeks weren't using it against gambeson and maille wearing opponents. And in D&D, neither of those things matter because the sling will do the same damage against an armoured or unarmoured opponent because that's how things are balanced and represented in the system, regardless of reality or logic.I'm pretty sure you're the same dude who came onto the DoMT server and argued with everyone about the underrated superiority of the sling as a superweapon. You didn't listen to anyone there and you won't listen to anywhere here either. So obviously you love the sling and want to make it better. OK, do that. What's stopping you? You don't need or want my approval. So other than getting people to agree with you, what is the point of making a discussion thread if you're not willing to discuss anything?</blockquote>

Verification