Fair enough, if your enemies were stationary gelatinous blobs they would be terrified.
Ballistic Gelatin simulates the density of the human body barring bones.
I know its a decent mimic for muscle tissue though the tissue is still approximately 5-10% denser and epidermis is significantly more dense. The key word in there was stationary though.
Besides, didn't David slay Goliath with a sling? (not really, at least not according to my History teacher).
I thought he killed him by casting Magic Stone. At least, that's what it says in my New Living Gygax Testament version of the bible.
But yeah, Wizards being able to figure out slings and not crossbows is ridiculous. Also, sling bullets/stones, should be crushing, not piercing. But, I think Lord_Tansheron said it best:
I am inclined to think that crossbow would be better than slings as less skill is required
As has been stated in other threads on similar topics, I don't think that wizards are "incapable" of learning martial skill necessary to use any weapon including maintaining weapons, carrying them around, and killing stuff with them. Far from it. As generally intelligent beings, I am sure that they are 'Capable' of just about any learning. I think it has a lot more to do with focus, intent and sustainability.
No matter how much training it takes to learn how to use (base level proficiency) any weapon from darts to slings to bows to Xbows to two handed swords, and believe me there is a lot more than merely being able to aim and hit to use even the most basic weapon in combat situations, I think that a wizard could easily put in the time. And once having done so, they could maintain their hand in to a degree where they aren't going to hurt themselves more than their enemy with the thing. I just think that the level of effort to carry around and maintain such a weapon plays a significant part in how generally widely used they are.
A sling, once learned, requires pretty much keeping the leather cured and supple and collecting stones of the appropriate size and shape. A X-bow requires oiling and tweaking an balancing and string maintenance and a whole host of other things. They are also big and bulky and require bolts to be carried around and procured. Hand to hand weapons require getting closer to combat than most Wizards care to, and more martial weapons require a whole new level of training to become 'Good' at it and to maintain (owing to exotic nature and limited availability of expertise, among a whole host of other things).
Can a wizard do it? Yes. Might they want to do it? Possibly. Should it be a 'Restriction' that they can't? Maybe not. But I personally can forgive this as none of the wizards that I would play (personal opinion only) would ever bother with such an endeavor. and why would any wizard 'Need' to work so hard at something mundane? When they can summon the forces of magic and nature and unleash the very wrath of the nine hells on their opponents instead?
From what I understand, as soon as a mage actually takes the time to get to work on weapon skills etc. that is pretty much dual-classing. Time is, after all, finite. If you choose to develop martial skills more at the expense of arcane ones, that's when you're essentially dual-classing. It may not be a big deal to learn to use a sling (=gain a proficiency point), and once you do it's fairly easy to maintain. But other weapons may be a bigger deal, and require more time - which is why you can't afford to do it, unless you sacrifice time spent on something else, i.e. your mage skills. Definitely not a question of being *able* to do something, but a question of time management.
I think a lot of players read "rules" as HAVING to be finite absolutes and that if the rules say "X can't happen in the game" they take that as "I have to find a reason why this absolutely will never EVER happen, and if I can find a contrary argument, then 'The rule makes NO sense'".
I see it more as an 80/20 rule. If something like 'Wizards' can't use long Swords, and someone else says 'Gandalf' and someone else says 'Then Gandalf must have been a Multi-class wizard' and then it gets ugly, I say that the rule for wizards not using swords doesn't mean they "CAN'T" forever and for all time, and are further more completely incapable of doing so, but that the developers wanted to represent the ideal that most wouldn't, and to further enforce this view of the game by saying "Then Wizards shouldn't use that weapon. Let's make it a rule."
It's like of like the speed limit. It's a law so that the vast majority of people on the road will respect that limit and not abuse it too much. If it was meant to be 'Forever and all time' then cars would be forbidden from being capable of going faster. But it isn't. It is a strongly suggested guideline, with consequences if you break it, much like the 'Rules' in the D&D source books, it isn't supposed to represent impossibility, but rather a guideline and preference of the game developer. They are there to guide a modeled style of game play behavior and little more. There may be "Balance" issues in there as well, but I see it (personally) more as, if everyone can use every type of weapon equally, what is the point of wanting to play a fighter or a wizard or a thief? The rule (guidelines) are there to differentiate the classes and little more.
Now I am not proposing that every DM everywhere all of the sudden throw out the weapon proficiency rules entirely. I am merely saying that, just because you can think of an example of where X rule doesn't necessarily make the most sense in the world "In that instance" doesn't mean that the general reason for including it as a rule (i.e. to model a given pattern of game play) wasn't well thought out and shouldn't be observed.
I think the original model was that wizards/spell casters/mages, whatever you want to call them, are 'by and large' non martial, scholarly individuals in robes and leaning on walking sticks, ala- Gandalf, Raistlin, Eliminster and others. Hence, rules give the player guidelines that would push game play in a certain direction, not that they are absolutes that should NEVER be violated.
I guess it's true that it may be harder to learn, but it'll also be way easier to carry/maintain. Not much to do with a sling other than what you'd do with, I don't know, your shoes (i.e. take care of the leather).
What I really miss being available is the staff sling. It was definitely one of my more favored ranged weapons way back when I played the old Gold Box engine game "The Dark Queen of Krynn". Besides the ability to throw heavier stones than a normal sling, a staff sling can be used as a melee weapon.
Fair enough, if your enemies were stationary gelatinous blobs they would be terrified.
A sling to the head could easily fracture the skull and kill you. Even getting hit in other spots could take you out of the fight, like a broken collar bone, wrist, knee, rib, etc. It really was heavier armor, shields and helmets that caused them to go out of favor. Bullets were frequently pointed, too. Fun fact, ancient soldiers would write insults on their bullets, like "Take this!"
Ya it's obviously hard to hit a moving target with one. They were most popularly used when defending against a siege. You'd have a nice sized group of guys slinging from the walls into a crowd of attackers. At that point you know they're going to hit something.
I do agree that this particular rule doesn't make much sense when you put some thought into the difficulty of actually using a sling vs a crossbow. I think it was more of an issue of balance for it's implementation. It doesn't upset me, since the class was intended to sling spells and suck at about everything else.
No one ever said 2E was intelligent with its restrictions on weapon usage on classes and race/class restrictions. Two of my major problems with 2E rules.
Ok, look: it's a game. Not all the rules make perfect sense to everyone, as expected. And especially in a game were a bit of emotion and preference is inevitable. But I don't think wizards should use crossbows/large swords, and they should be able to use slings. Here's why: 1. Slings are cool. 2. Crossbows be sucky. 3. (The big one) aesthetics. A Mage is essentially the the science nerd of d&d. They are not usually physically strong of fit. Their prime req. stat is intelligence, they are not good in close combat. They wear dresses, for heavens sake. The strong fighters use big, cumbersome, ugly crossbows. The skinny mages use graceful slings. The idea of a Mage walking around with a crossbow just doesn't fit the image. The Mage avoids the crossbow/large combat weapons in a similar way that a stereotypical nerd or geek avoids sport. Being able to kick a football looks good at first, but they know they have something better up their sleeves, they're very smart. The Mage is someone who knows he's found something better, so he avoids the thing he thinks is worse so people don't see him with it. I guess a Mage with a big weapon is kind of admitting(at least to other mages) that they rant good enough at magic to cover themselves, and had to learn to use a xbow. 5. Balance. Mages are already OP.
iunno if i were a mage with Mirror image blur haste stoneskin and fireshield i'd feel fairly safe about walking up to something to stab it at that point
Comments
No matter how much training it takes to learn how to use (base level proficiency) any weapon from darts to slings to bows to Xbows to two handed swords, and believe me there is a lot more than merely being able to aim and hit to use even the most basic weapon in combat situations, I think that a wizard could easily put in the time. And once having done so, they could maintain their hand in to a degree where they aren't going to hurt themselves more than their enemy with the thing. I just think that the level of effort to carry around and maintain such a weapon plays a significant part in how generally widely used they are.
A sling, once learned, requires pretty much keeping the leather cured and supple and collecting stones of the appropriate size and shape. A X-bow requires oiling and tweaking an balancing and string maintenance and a whole host of other things. They are also big and bulky and require bolts to be carried around and procured. Hand to hand weapons require getting closer to combat than most Wizards care to, and more martial weapons require a whole new level of training to become 'Good' at it and to maintain (owing to exotic nature and limited availability of expertise, among a whole host of other things).
Can a wizard do it? Yes. Might they want to do it? Possibly. Should it be a 'Restriction' that they can't? Maybe not. But I personally can forgive this as none of the wizards that I would play (personal opinion only) would ever bother with such an endeavor. and why would any wizard 'Need' to work so hard at something mundane? When they can summon the forces of magic and nature and unleash the very wrath of the nine hells on their opponents instead?
I see it more as an 80/20 rule. If something like 'Wizards' can't use long Swords, and someone else says 'Gandalf' and someone else says 'Then Gandalf must have been a Multi-class wizard' and then it gets ugly, I say that the rule for wizards not using swords doesn't mean they "CAN'T" forever and for all time, and are further more completely incapable of doing so, but that the developers wanted to represent the ideal that most wouldn't, and to further enforce this view of the game by saying "Then Wizards shouldn't use that weapon. Let's make it a rule."
It's like of like the speed limit. It's a law so that the vast majority of people on the road will respect that limit and not abuse it too much. If it was meant to be 'Forever and all time' then cars would be forbidden from being capable of going faster. But it isn't. It is a strongly suggested guideline, with consequences if you break it, much like the 'Rules' in the D&D source books, it isn't supposed to represent impossibility, but rather a guideline and preference of the game developer. They are there to guide a modeled style of game play behavior and little more. There may be "Balance" issues in there as well, but I see it (personally) more as, if everyone can use every type of weapon equally, what is the point of wanting to play a fighter or a wizard or a thief? The rule (guidelines) are there to differentiate the classes and little more.
Now I am not proposing that every DM everywhere all of the sudden throw out the weapon proficiency rules entirely. I am merely saying that, just because you can think of an example of where X rule doesn't necessarily make the most sense in the world "In that instance" doesn't mean that the general reason for including it as a rule (i.e. to model a given pattern of game play) wasn't well thought out and shouldn't be observed.
I think the original model was that wizards/spell casters/mages, whatever you want to call them, are 'by and large' non martial, scholarly individuals in robes and leaning on walking sticks, ala- Gandalf, Raistlin, Eliminster and others. Hence, rules give the player guidelines that would push game play in a certain direction, not that they are absolutes that should NEVER be violated.
All in my personal opinion.
1. Slings are cool.
2. Crossbows be sucky.
3. (The big one) aesthetics. A Mage is essentially the the science nerd of d&d. They are not usually physically strong of fit. Their prime req. stat is intelligence, they are not good in close combat. They wear dresses, for heavens sake. The strong fighters use big, cumbersome, ugly crossbows. The skinny mages use graceful slings. The idea of a Mage walking around with a crossbow just doesn't fit the image. The Mage avoids the crossbow/large combat weapons in a similar way that a stereotypical nerd or geek avoids sport. Being able to kick a football looks good at first, but they know they have something better up their sleeves, they're very smart. The Mage is someone who knows he's found something better, so he avoids the thing he thinks is worse so people don't see him with it. I guess a Mage with a big weapon is kind of admitting(at least to other mages) that they rant good enough at magic to cover themselves, and had to learn to use a xbow.
5. Balance. Mages are already OP.