SetentaeBolg said:
I mean, seriously, now not only is a sling superior to a bow, but (as a single shot weapon) to an AK47?!
What he wrote was that the momentum of the sling shot/stone was greater than that of the rifle bullet, not specifically that it was a superior weapon than an AK47. The sling projectile hits with greater force, but will obviously have a different damage profile due to its blunter, wider profile.
But the youtube clip shows slingers hitting targets accurately; what's the distinction? The range. In the clip, the slingers are very close to their targets, skirmishing distance. At this distance, the sling stone, while dangerous undoubtedly, will not have built up the killing momentum it could gain from gravity and height by being fired indirectly.
That in itself is woolly thinking. The greatest momentum the shot will have is when it immediately leaves the sling. It doesn't gain any additional energy because it is falling from an arc.
As an example of accuracy at range, Hawaiians for example were 'able to strike a small stick at fifty yards distance, four times out of five' and there are other recorded incidences of hitting a small bird at a hundred yards. Which sounds to me just as accurate as any bow. Polynesians were 'powerful and expert marksmen, and the stones when thrown horizontally four to five feet from the ground, were seen with difficulty and often did much execution.'
To me, a sling used in a PCs hands will always be used to attack a single target (with a flattish trajectory and a short range), not fired into an indiscriminate mass of enemies (with an indirect trajectory and a long range). To me, a sling can't support it's listed damage and range with this method. I would feel justified in lowering its range fairly dramatically and its damage to 1d6 (to reflect this kind of usage).
See above. The sling is at its most deadly when used at close range, just as an arrow is. As for damage, classical sources indicate sling stones could break bones under armour. Since a broken bone in RQII is the equivalent of a serious wound, 1d8 seems perfectly reasonable.
Slings fell out of favour historically; if it was such a superior weapon, this would not have happened. I would ask, if anyone feels that the sling should retain its position as "top dog" of the RQII ranged weapons, they explain the reasons for this historical obsolence to me so I can understand why this king of ranged weaponry was so clearly and universally abandoned.
The sling was probably abandoned for the same reason as the bow was when firearms came along, i.e. ease of use. It takes a lot longer to achieve competence with a sling than it does with a bow.
In addition, you are missing out on the fact that in some cultures the sling was never made obsolete by the bow. Central and South America continued using it in preference (in war) over the bow until the sixteenth century, as it was across the Pacific until Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century explorers turned up with guns. Classical armies used it until the Dark Ages, since it had superior range on the battlefield, could be used one handed and during wet weather too. Archers on the other hand could form in closer ranks and thus provide a greater density of fire. There's countless reasons why cultures did or didn't stop using the sling, from changes in warfare tactics to environment.
Is the sling really 'king' of RQII ranged weapons? Most of the missile weapons are similar in damage and reload times, and the better bows actually have a higher penetration 'SIZ' than the sling. personally I don't think I've played in a game where missile exchange was ever done at full distance, or couldn't be easily countered, so a 25m range advantage is pretty negligible.
), for the penalties that it adds up on opponents.
