Sling shots are easy to use, but don't pack much power. Both traditional slings and bows require a lot of training to use with much effectiveness.
For example although the composite bow was recognised to be more effective than the crossbow in the hands of an experienced archer, the Chinese Qin and Han Empires mass produced crossbows because it was much easier to train a vast conscript army to use crossbows, whereas the elite (professional) regiments actually used bows.
In England, in order to maintain a large manpower base that could effectively deploy as long bowmen, England had laws that made archery practise mandatory for citizen, and banned other leisure activities, cos u know, playing football like a boss doesn't help when French knights are charging at you at Agincourt.
Sling shots are easy to use, but don't pack much power. Both traditional slings and bows require a lot of training to use with much effectiveness.
For example although the composite bow was recognised to be more effective than the crossbow in the hands of an experienced archer, the Chinese Qin and Han Empires mass produced crossbows because it was much easier to train a vast conscript army to use crossbows, whereas the elite (professional) regiments actually used bows.
In England, in order to maintain a large manpower base that could effectively deploy as long bowmen, England had laws that made archery practise mandatory for citizen, and banned other leisure activities, cos u know, playing football like a boss doesn't help when French knights are charging at you at Agincourt.
It's a sling, not a slingshot, two totally different things. I can shoot a bow far better than a sling, but can see a skinny wizard getting more mileage out of a sling because you don't need as much strength to use it.
Verrryy different. On put a hole in a mans head, one puts a dent in an apple. On requires a massive amount of traing, the oth about half an hour.
Who ever said that the wizard becomes 'Proficient' in the weapon? I know that my mage in BG will hit a target maybe one time out of 20 or thirty throws. Basically he hits the broad side of a barn more often.
Besides, didn't David slay Goliath with a sling? (not really, at least not according to my History teacher).
Verrryy different. On put a hole in a mans head, one puts a dent in an apple. On requires a massive amount of traing, the oth about half an hour.
Who ever said that the wizard becomes 'Proficient' in the weapon? I know that my mage in BG will hit a target maybe one time out of 20 or thirty throws. Basically he hits the broad side of a barn more often.
He can't hit a target even if it's right in front of him and standing still... but if you put it sleep, he's suddenly deadly accurate even at the edge of his vision.
One of the greatest changes imo to the low level wizard of 3rd edition was letting him use a crossbow
I always wanted a pissed off drunken dwarf warpreist with a crossbow and a HORRIBLE aim. 3e made my dream come true. I shot party members, said I was sorry, healed them, and then shot them again.
One of the greatest changes imo to the low level wizard of 3rd edition was letting him use a crossbow
I personally don't like this convention. I am OK with it being used (by others) and think it is great that Wizards actually get to DO something in combat when they aren't casting spells, but.....
The Wizards that I play are all about the magic. Why do something the mundane way, when there is Magic to be had/manipulated? "My" wizards never get very good at anything besides staves, and even then it is simply whacking something hard with the pointy end. They'd much rather be spending time learning/casting spells than any physical pursuit. In PnP (way back in the day when I played), when asked what my Wizard was doing for any given round of combat, if it wasn't 'Cast X spell' it was "Duck and cover". Let the fighters do the dirty work. That's what I pay them for.
This is my own personal brand of playing a Wizard and I am not in any way proposing or championing that wizards not get X-bows. Merely that my wizards don't bother with them.
Actually slings and bows are weapons that require a great deal of training to use in combat, it's the reason why the crossbow was such a big innovation when it was invented. It meant that you could take a bunch of farmers and give them minimal training and you'd have a decent group of troops.
In 3rd edition the wizard (mage equivalent) is not proficient with slings or bows, but is proficient with crossbows. This makes a great deal more sense as it is a very simple weapon to use.
In my own PNP game I allow mages to use crossbows, it is by far the simplest medieval/ancient missile weapon IRL.
However, we can just as easily argue that the rationale has to do with encoumberance and freedom of movement. In which case, carrying a crossbow could be as burdonsome as wearing a light armor. So the Mage may be restricted to weapons that are easy to carry and don't weigh the character down. Of course that opens a whole other can of worms about encoumberance issues...
And for the record, it is the sling, not the slingshot that is very dangerous in the hands of a skilled slinger. Many ancient armies made extensive use of it. Large, almost baseball size sling stones have been found stockpiled in ancient fortresses and battle sites. According to the Bible, the shepherd David, who was well experienced with his sling from protecting his flock from lions and wolves; killed or incapacitated the Philistine champion Goliath with one (the second account of the battle says he decapitated his enemy with a sword to be sure he was dead). Whatever one thinks of the validity of the ancient text, there is no reason to doubt the deadliness of the weapon.
And for the record, it is the sling, not the slingshot that is very dangerous in the hands of a skilled slinger. Many ancient armies made extensive use of it. Large, almost baseball size sling stones have been found stockpiled in ancient fortresses and battle sites. According to the Bible, the shepherd David, who was well experienced with his sling from protecting his flock from lions and wolves; killed or incapacitated the Philistine champion Goliath with one (the second account of the battle says he decapitated his enemy with a sword to be sure he was dead). Whatever one thinks of the validity of the ancient text, there is no reason to doubt the deadliness of the weapon.
Yeah. I mean regardless of the accuracy of the story, it is a story that exists to illustrate that the sling is a deadly weapon. If the sling was not an effective (but unassuming) weapon then the story probably would have uhad David use something else.
And for the record, it is the sling, not the slingshot that is very dangerous in the hands of a skilled slinger. Many ancient armies made extensive use of it. Large, almost baseball size sling stones have been found stockpiled in ancient fortresses and battle sites. According to the Bible, the shepherd David, who was well experienced with his sling from protecting his flock from lions and wolves; killed or incapacitated the Philistine champion Goliath with one (the second account of the battle says he decapitated his enemy with a sword to be sure he was dead). Whatever one thinks of the validity of the ancient text, there is no reason to doubt the deadliness of the weapon.
Yeah. I mean regardless of the accuracy of the story, it is a story that exists to illustrate that the sling is a deadly weapon. If the sling was not an effective (but unassuming) weapon then the story probably would have uhad David use something else.
It's also the only ancient or medieval story I can think of where a slinger is the hero!
And for the record, it is the sling, not the slingshot that is very dangerous in the hands of a skilled slinger. Many ancient armies made extensive use of it. Large, almost baseball size sling stones have been found stockpiled in ancient fortresses and battle sites. According to the Bible, the shepherd David, who was well experienced with his sling from protecting his flock from lions and wolves; killed or incapacitated the Philistine champion Goliath with one (the second account of the battle says he decapitated his enemy with a sword to be sure he was dead). Whatever one thinks of the validity of the ancient text, there is no reason to doubt the deadliness of the weapon.
Yeah. I mean regardless of the accuracy of the story, it is a story that exists to illustrate that the sling is a deadly weapon. If the sling was not an effective (but unassuming) weapon then the story probably would have uhad David use something else.
I agree though i think the sling i significantly easier to make and maintain than other counterparts hence its in the story because it was low level but highly common weapon. And indeed if something else was common Goliath could have been defeated with Holy Hand Grenade or something...
However, we can just as easily argue that the rationale has to do with encoumberance and freedom of movement. In which case, carrying a crossbow could be as burdonsome as wearing a light armor. So the Mage may be restricted to weapons that are easy to carry and don't weigh the character down. Of course that opens a whole other can of worms about encoumberance issues...
Really, the reason why Mages can't use crossbows in 2e is either for balance reasons (limiting them to lower damage weapons) and/or flavor reasons (i.e., a wizard carrying around a crossbow "doesn't look right"). Like a lot of rules, you really have to ignore what the book says and come up with a justification that makes sense to you (or change the rule to something that does make sense).
I'm pretty sure it had more to do with encumbrance. The mage is casting spells one second (with somatic elements) and slinging the next second. The sling is light and can pretty much just hang down while you are waving your hands around for the casting. If you were shooting arrows or a crossbow you'd have to manipulate a large and possibly heavy item in between casting.
Don't ask me to explain thief/mages or fighter/mages.
One of the greatest changes imo to the low level wizard of 3rd edition was letting him use a crossbow
I personally don't like this convention. I am OK with it being used (by others) and think it is great that Wizards actually get to DO something in combat when they aren't casting spells, but.....
The Wizards that I play are all about the magic. Why do something the mundane way, when there is Magic to be had/manipulated? "My" wizards never get very good at anything besides staves, and even then it is simply whacking something hard with the pointy end. They'd much rather be spending time learning/casting spells than any physical pursuit. In PnP (way back in the day when I played), when asked what my Wizard was doing for any given round of combat, if it wasn't 'Cast X spell' it was "Duck and cover". Let the fighters do the dirty work. That's what I pay them for.
This is my own personal brand of playing a Wizard and I am not in any way proposing or championing that wizards not get X-bows. Merely that my wizards don't bother with them.
"duck and cover" pff exactly whats wrong with 2E mages
I've always thought the story of David & Goliath serves to glorify David, and see the fact that he slayed Goliath with a mere sling to be a part of that. Regardless, I agree it certainly takes skill to use one.
You can tuck a sling or darts in your robes, not so much a crossbow. That's probably why mages are limited to those weapons. Maybe non-staff weapons are not permitted in wizard schools and if you want to carry one you have to hide it.
Comments
For example although the composite bow was recognised to be more effective than the crossbow in the hands of an experienced archer, the Chinese Qin and Han Empires mass produced crossbows because it was much easier to train a vast conscript army to use crossbows, whereas the elite (professional) regiments actually used bows.
In England, in order to maintain a large manpower base that could effectively deploy as long bowmen, England had laws that made archery practise mandatory for citizen, and banned other leisure activities, cos u know, playing football like a boss doesn't help when French knights are charging at you at Agincourt.
Slingshot
Verrryy different. On put a hole in a mans head, one puts a dent in an apple. On requires a massive amount of traing, the oth about half an hour.
Besides, didn't David slay Goliath with a sling? (not really, at least not according to my History teacher).
The Wizards that I play are all about the magic. Why do something the mundane way, when there is Magic to be had/manipulated? "My" wizards never get very good at anything besides staves, and even then it is simply whacking something hard with the pointy end. They'd much rather be spending time learning/casting spells than any physical pursuit. In PnP (way back in the day when I played), when asked what my Wizard was doing for any given round of combat, if it wasn't 'Cast X spell' it was "Duck and cover". Let the fighters do the dirty work. That's what I pay them for.
This is my own personal brand of playing a Wizard and I am not in any way proposing or championing that wizards not get X-bows. Merely that my wizards don't bother with them.
In 3rd edition the wizard (mage equivalent) is not proficient with slings or bows, but is proficient with crossbows. This makes a great deal more sense as it is a very simple weapon to use.
However, we can just as easily argue that the rationale has to do with encoumberance and freedom of movement. In which case, carrying a crossbow could be as burdonsome as wearing a light armor. So the Mage may be restricted to weapons that are easy to carry and don't weigh the character down. Of course that opens a whole other can of worms about encoumberance issues...
And for the record, it is the sling, not the slingshot that is very dangerous in the hands of a skilled slinger. Many ancient armies made extensive use of it. Large, almost baseball size sling stones have been found stockpiled in ancient fortresses and battle sites. According to the Bible, the shepherd David, who was well experienced with his sling from protecting his flock from lions and wolves; killed or incapacitated the Philistine champion Goliath with one (the second account of the battle says he decapitated his enemy with a sword to be sure he was dead). Whatever one thinks of the validity of the ancient text, there is no reason to doubt the deadliness of the weapon.
Don't ask me to explain thief/mages or fighter/mages.
"duck and cover" pff exactly whats wrong with 2E mages
I guess my failed attempt at being witty