Pathfinder Staff-Sling.

1) Indirect fire--which is more than correcting for projectile drop--is hard in the middle of a hectic melee and is why real artillery teams have spotters, forward observers, and a dude whose job it is to calculate the angle. While you could use the sling staff that way, it would be at an exceedingly hefty penalty to the point that the difference between rolling and not rolling is moot.

2) Also, unless you're using an explosive warhead, your damage is going to come mostly from the weight of the projectile, which isn't a lot for sling stones.

3) What the GM says goes. You are free to bring up counter arguments to try and change his mind, but once he puts his foot down, bitching about the decision makes you look whiny, and coming to 4chan for validation is even worse. I can only hope you didn't actually interrupt the game to argue with the GM.

>>52205934

1) Your DM is right because the DM is always right

2) Your DM is also right because you are an enormous homo who should read the rules

>>Ranged Attacks
>With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line of sight.

>>Line of Sight
>A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment).

>>Line of Effect
>A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier.

It came across as needing validation because I had always considered the statement to be a valid argumentm Ill admit it did tick me off, only because he pulled rank and didnt offer any explanation as to his reason, nevermind much less the explanation provided here, which I thankyou for because I hadnt taken that into account. Thanks I guess.

>>52206093
Fuck, I hate posting from my phone. Forgot punctuation here.

>Roll a dexterity check with disadvantage because you can't see the enemy
>If you succeed, the stone still only does 1d4 damage because as it's falling back down over the wall, it's lost all its speed because of how high you had to arc it

That being said, I have experience dealing with autists like you, listen to your DM and stop being a retard.

>>52205934
GM is right. at the very least you need a spotter to tell you how to correct your shot when you invevitably miss.

>>52205934

You can aim at a location, yes. You can't aim at a person you can't see, because you can't see them. Where you think they are, sure. This gives them total concealment.

Furthermore, the kinetic energy of indirect fire is considerably poorer than direct fire, due to the arc involved. This isn't such an issue with Trebuchets, because of the mass of the projectile involved. Your sling-staff has no such advantage.

All that being said - Pathfinder is a fucking retarded system if you're not allowed to shoot at things you can't see.

OP's idea about lobbing stones over walls aside, if a Goblin just popped behind a small bush, it makes perfect sense to say "I put an arrow through the bush and into the square behind it." I get that you would need Line of Effect, that makes perfect sense. Line of Sight? Get fucked Paizo. 3E gave 50% miss chance and 4E -5 to attack but at least you were allowed to try.

>>52205934
You both need to read the rules for cover and concealment. There does come a point where you're never going to hit because of penalties and miss chance.

>Total Concealment
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

On top of that, a defender behind cover gets a +4 AC bonus. There comes a point where you won't hit because you're taking too many penalties. Your DM is basically shortcutting "You take - 10 in penalties, require an attack of 25 or higher, and there's a 50% miss chance even if you do succeed" to "no".

I don't see why you *couldn't* do this, I just don't see why you *would* do this. If you sling a rock in the air in a large arc a lot of the damage you would normally do is lost. Additionally it would be hard as fuck to hit with that kind of attack.

So you're sacrificing not only damage but also accuracy, why the fuck would you waste your time with that?

>>52205934
I'd say you need a feat to use it indirect fire.

>>52205934
Staff-Slings were used for exactly what you described. They were often used in sieges to huck shit over a wall. Your DM is a moron.

>>52205934
Let me get this straight: you want to do something sensible, backed by real world physics, real world usage, and it makes sense in world?
Uh, that is definitely illegal according to Paizo, since you're not casting a spell.
Remember the Pathfinder Content Creation Guidelines: If something based on the laws of physics gives a non-caster any advantage, then that law of physics does not exist unless magically called upon.

Here's a question that's a bit off topic but it's been bugging me for a while.
Why are slings so underpowered in most tabletop games? In real life they tended to outrange all but the later bows that were better made, and both the Greeks and romans talk about how they could break bones even under armor. Is it just that people are generally uninformed about how actually deadly the things were?

>>52208668
People associate slings with sling shots, which is also associated with being toys for mischievous young boys like Dennis the Menace or Bart Simpson.

It's the same reason why people don't think that being able to huck cars 100 yards away is impressive, because their only frame of reference comes from characters like Superman who can easily chuck cars at people without even breaking a sweat or how getting hit with a paint can to the face is funny, rather than being painful and dangerous due to the possibility of severe head trauma or broken teeth.

People's perceptions on what they believe to be possible outweighs what's actually possible for a lot of people.

>>52209115
That's a fair point. Also I suspect that if a system did stay out slings correctly you'd have people talking about how "unrealistic" it is to have them outrange bows because the opposite is what they're used to

>>52205934
Did you wait for your bread to bake before you left?

>>52209175
At that point I start hitting them with a bible while telling the story of David and Goliath

On the subject of underpowered slings, I've been wanting to run a game set in pre-dynastic Egypt. The Fighter would have a heavy stick and a sling, the Wizard would have a nazir and some shitty rituals, and all the enemies would be appropriately barbaric/just wild animals. Any anon here know interesting things about that time period? The pantheon is basically incomprehensible to me.

>>52209610
If it's incomprehensible I don't know why you want to run it as a setting. You need to do a lot of background reading, friendo.

The whole point of a sling staff is the extra leverage and therefore force on the projectile. You wouldn't even be able to hurt anyone if you did a bitchly little flick that ended at the top of the slings arc. Fucking use your noggin retard.

>>52209646
Don't friendo me, pally

>>52209519
That made me chuckle
"And it came to pass *WHAM*, when the Philistine arose *WHAM*, and came and drew nigh to meet David *SMACK*, that David hasted *BAM*, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine *WHAM*. And David put his hand in his bag *BOOM*, and took thence a stone *WHAM*, and slang it*SMACK*, and smote the Philistine in his forehead *BAM*, that the stone sunk into his forehead*BOOM*; and he fell upon his face to the earth*WHAM*."

>>52209998
That first part reminds me of AC/DC
>And it came to pass, when the philistine arose
>And every swordman throughout the land, was waiting for the score
>And the David man got famous!
>That Goliath man died weak!
>And in every heart that went and did their part
>Cheered throughout the week

PF's weapon system is a far cry from a robust simulationist ruleset and often has trouble differentiating unique weapons. This is why so many weapons use write in rules that defeat the purpose of having standardized qualities. I don't know why you're expecting physics to be simulated by a highly abstracted combat system, but it's possible to run such a game with a GM filling in blanks. If you want such a game, talk to your Gm ahead of time and prepare to count your bolts, guano, and water flasks, and account for spacial dimensions in addition to weight in encumbrance and lose a lot of the fantasy handwaving as you now face random cr monsters because SIMULATION guys 'that's how it would really go', else don't lose your salt when he makes a judgement about a game mechanic.

>>52206996
>, it's lost all its speed because of how high you had to arc it
Back to high school physics with you.

>>52206009
>Also, unless you're using an explosive warhead, your damage is going to come mostly from the weight of the projectile, which isn't a lot for sling stones.

Thread should have ended here.

Using a sling correctly: damage caused by force of high-velocity sling bullet being launched from sling

Using a sling like an ICBM: basically the same as dropping a sling bullet on their head from 10 feet in the air

>>52205934
>blind fire
isn't there, and I do mean this in the truest sense of the word, LITERALLY an in-game mechanic for shooting blind without LOS?

I mean, you take a huge penalty to hit but it's not like there's some invisible hand forcing your weapon to fire in a given arc. Just say "I sling a rock over the wall, does it hit?" and the DM (or namely, YOUR DM) can be a huge dick and say "no" or the DM (namely some OTHER DM) can say "let's see" and make a few rolls.

>>52210291
Well it'll have a bit more force than just dropping it depending on how shallow the arc is but you're right that it doesn't keep its force like, say, a bullet following a ballistic arc

>>52205934
can we turn this awful (no offense) thread into an alternative ranged weapons thread?

Suggestions for atlatl stats?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjV7lYP6hRw

>>52205934
>Not using spider climb to solve LoS problems.

>>52205934
can we talk about how underpowered slings are in D&D and Pathfinder instead of this stupid shit?
I've seen a professional slinger use a lead projectile (i assume about 1 or 2 oz) in one and punched through a bullseye at 150 feet on a 1/8th inch steel plate. that is a metric fuckton of kinetic energy.

>>52210340
Use whatever the throwing spear stats are, double the range? Historically, soldiers could injure or kill with a javelin at about 80 feet reliably. How much more damage would an atlatl do than an ordinary spear?

>>52210323
>Well it'll have a bit more force than just dropping it depending on how shallow the arc is but you're right that it doesn't keep its force like, say, a bullet following a ballistic arc
Yeah, I fudged some numbers, but >>52210246 is obviously confused about how these things work.

>>52205934
>Someone in the way
-4 for cover
>wall in the way
-8 for total cover

What >>52206009 said.

Problem solved.

>>52210445
Ancient slingers would have been able to reliably hit a man-sized target at half a kilometer with a 500-gram lead bullet, which would kill the fuck out of you. Everyone greatly misunderestimates the lethality of the sling and the skill with which it must be used. The sling should easily beat the shortbow for range and power, and be found in the hands of experienced soldiers and rangers who have trained with it their entire lives, but it's instead given as a shitty backup weapon to priests and wizards and never used at all. In settings that are supposed to be more ancient, it should be the only effective ranged military weapon, period. Bows were the next step up from throwing rocks for most of human history. Composites, recurves and the like are all relatively new advancements.

Anyway, that's my autism for the evening.

>>52210246

There is no worse feeling than when someone on the right side of a debate makes a shitty and easily encountered argument.

>>52211225

Work-a-day effect. Things that would be so thick on the ground that you should see 4 of them in ever scene, like slings, hand axes, hammers, and daggers, are given short shrift in a setting because adventurers and what they fight tend towards the more exotic weapons with higher stats.

Slings are so ubiquitous in the default 5e setting that every class, even the ur-Bookworm Wizard and dramatically under-clothed Sorc, are automatically proficient with them. A lvl 0 human with nothing but a 14 dex, simple weapon proficiency, and the Sharpshooter feat is attacking at -1 for 1d4+12 damage from 120 feet out at any target with less than total cover, giving it a better effective range than any weapon without the feat other than longbow. A "squadron" of four slingers cranks out about 29 damage/turn and costs just slightly more than half a gold piece to equip all of them. With good positioning they could be a Tier II challenge all by themselves. Two dozen could well be a max-level challenge. A medium sized kingdom could field them by the hundreds.

Slings are already scary good. If they're not seeing enough play at the table, that's on the table, not the setting or the rules.

>>52211646

I always take one as a backup weapon. They weigh next to nothing, they're basically free, and it's surprisingly significant damage.

>>52211225
A professional slinger had a longer range than the English longbow if I remember correctly

>>52208668
Currently playing fantasycraft. Slings have quite massive range (60x6 feet if I remember correctly) and the potential to deal more damage than bows thanks to hurled weapons adding strength modifier to damage. You can also use feats to double your modifier to hurled damage and reduce penalties from enemy cover. The only weakness is the half-action you need to reload it and a lack of armor penetration.

>>52210552
It would do less, since it has a stone tip instead of a metal head.

>>52209852
Don't pally me, broseph

>>52210683
>>52211299
Assuming you and your target are on the same height, the missile would have the same speed at the end of the arc as it had a the beginning. Minus whatever it lost due to air resistance. Now I don't know if it's negligible or not, but it shouldn't be much more than what you'd lose on a normal trajectory.

>>52211646
>>52211814
>>52211225
Thats the issue. Slings should be MARTIAL weapons, not simple.

sling should be 1d6 + 1/2 str bludgeoning dmg martial weapons.

Shortbows should be 1d6 + 1/2 str piercing martial weapons.

Longbows should be 1d8 + 1/2 str martial

Crossbows should remain 1d8/1d10 simple with no str mod respectively, excepting those specifically noted to have cranks as a special attribute.

>>52211225
>>52215588
Okay, call me a retard if I'm wrong, but bows have a certain maximum range at which they can be drawn, right? A massive strength warrior could pull hard, but at some point there'd be a breakpoint for the momentum of the released projectile. Slings don't seem to have that problem.

Maybe give bows a certain minimum strength to use properly - a massive composite longbow will require a robust wielder. On the other hand, give slings a scaling with strength - a godlike warrior can propel the projectile really, really far.

Either that, or maybe, let's assume slings are not particularly great at making dents in armor, but they will concave your skull in. Maybe make slings better at critical hitting?

https://youtu.be/JOhRhq6Pr6g?t=16m57s

>>52215837
I'm pretty sure you're right about bows having a sort of maximum draw.
Interestingly the romans and Greeks both talk about how badly a sling can fuck someone up even through armor; still breaking bones and shit

>>52216617
One of the Spanish conquistadores wrote about how the natives used slings that left debts almost identical to musket shots on the marmot

>>52216666
Armor not marmot wtf

>>52215414
what prevents it from having a metal head? And the exact composition of the head doesn't matter as much as the fact that it's going much faster.

>>52215535
Don't broseph me, Buddha