What systems let me use man's oldest weapon and make a spear master that isn't strictly inferior to sword guy #5? No Halberds or Glaives, as much as I love them, just a plain old spear.
General underused/underrepresented weapons thread, and what systems do them justice.
Posting other underused weapons.
>>44491054
You could try Dragonquest.
http://www.fantasist.net/dragonquest.shtml
My last character's primary weapon was a garrote.
>>44491054
The spontoon/half-pike is literally the most overpowered weapon in Song of Swords.
Posting Best Weapon with other polearms.
Behold, the most underused of weapons!
Why are warhammers always portrayed as mini sledgehammers? This is a way cooler design, anyway.
D&D 4e really had a boner for polearm weapons.
>>44491576
Because idiots think a bigger hammer face is better.
>>44491576
Nobody actually remembers what a warhammer actually looks like
>>44491735
>boner
>one die lower in exchange for easy-to-overcome reach
>>44491802
Eh, they were built around the role-centrism of 4e. Fighters and Pallies existed to say "No, you stay THERE!" And double the range meant you could do that to double the people.
>>44491802
>polearm momentum
>polearm gamble
It's about the feats nigga
>>44491532
So... What am I looking at, and how does it work? Some kind of... Arm-lengthener for throwing spears?
>>44491982
It's an atlatl. It's a thing that lets you fling spears better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjV7lYP6hRw
>>44491054
warhammer fantasy 2ed
>>44491982
That's an atlatl, or a spear thrower. It adds another lever to your throw (basically, another elbow), so that you can get more momentum and force. I've mainly seen it in the context of native American people.
So yeah, basically.
>>44491950
Except that fighter's "No you don't, motherfucker" interruption stuff didn't actually work properly with a reach weapon IIRC.
>>44491054
I friggin love spears
If memory serves there's a pathfinder fighter archetype, forget the name, but it turns a polearm user into a control fighter of sorts
At level 7 it worked like this:
Could switch between reach and not, but would take penalty when doing so
By taking the feats for tripping people, they would move in, provoke an AOO, get tripped, which would provoke an AOO thanks to feat for everyone in range, including yourself.
I basically 1-2 comboed everything, including bosses into the ground. The feats made your tripping easily able to knock down stuff with +2 and +4 legs without much trouble.
>>44491054
Sorry, but the spear was made obsolete by the pike; it's making it viable by then is like trying to make flintlockes viables alongside SMGs.
>>44492224
I disagree. The pike was primarily a formation weapon, and while it is true that late middle ages and renaissance saw more complex polearms dominate the battlefield, spears were the mainstay for centuries upon centuries. While I agree other polearms are superior, saying the spear is a flintlock compared to an MP5 isn't doing spears justice. Tommy Gun compared to MP5 seems fairer.
>>44492103
It did with the polearm master PP
>>44491054
Are spears with that sort of cross at the end designed that way to prevent over-penetration? Also was a Boar Spear used for killing boars?
>>44492676
Over-penetration, and also the fact that if there's no crossguard of any kind, it's very hard to actually control a body or push it away or anything. You stab someone, and once the blade is in, there's not much preventing the rest of it following.
It's not a huge worry, seeing as how spears without lugs were common and plentiful, but it was still a worry.
And yes, boar spears and similar were used for hunting animals. A big, tough animal could conceivably actually push close enough to you to cause damage before dying if you didn't have something to press it down with.
Oh, and the lugs can also be used to pull shields and similar maneuvers, which made them useful as well.
For me pistols, knives and other side arms.
Seriously it's gay that the most classic and common weapons get no love.
>>44492795
Because they're sidearms. Common and often carried, but not the thing that ideally gets the job done.
Of course, that's not to say that they're not seriously underappreciated and shafted in games. I mean, I know very few games where someone just stabbing you with a dagger or a knife would actually be dangerous by itself (without mad optimization or stuff like that). And most of the systems that have that are modern or otherwise focused differently from more action-oriented stuff.
Wasn't the oldest weapon hand axes?
>>44491054
Sword path glory
Light Spear stabbing damage when hitting with normal speed = (1d22 + 22) / 10
Broadsword stabbing damage when hitting with normal speed = (1d14 + 14) / 10
Broadsword normal chance to hit = 60%
Light Spear = 65%
This is base chance to hit, your skill level with weapons will influence actual chance to hit
amount of turns (1/12 of a second) needed to attack with broadsword when attacking with normal speed = 64
light spear one = 60
this is the base amount of turns, this is influencied by sex, size, strenght stat, skill with weapon, speed stat and dextery stat
>>44491576
>>44491756
>>44491786
Because people are so used to silly bullshit physics where you can survive being hit by ogres and dragons as long as you're wearing your shining armour.
This, in turn, has the sad effect of making realistically sized weapons look silly and puny.
Like, if you can handle getting bashed by some troll wielding a club the size of your leg, a 2lb hammer shouldn't make a dent, right?
Besides, it's not like the average D&D player has any idea of what a halberd or Poleaxe actually weighed, or that swords aren't one inch thick with blades as wide as your face.
>>44492224
>the spear was made obsolete by the pike
Very wrong. The pike is completely worthless 1v1, there is no worse melee weapon to use without a formation.
The spear is great 1v1 in wilderness, in open terrain, even in streets and alleys. Not in extremely cramped indoors areas but you don't rely on a spear there.
The pike phalanx was worthless against enemies that could move faster than you (which was everyone if you don't get rid of your armor entirely)
It was worthless on difficult terrain and wirthkess without every member having trained together for essentially their entire life.
It also was helpless on the sides and rear, you can't turn your enormous stick without bumping into the wall of heavy sticks of everyone else, and they had no real armor protection whatsoever because putting any armor on meant they were too slow to ever engage anything and would simply tire themselves out until they can' even hold their pikes up.
If you have 50+ trained men always in a group and a wide open field and no enemy skirmishers with ranged weapons, then pikes may be a good weapon.
That simple boar spear will murder any pikeman 1v1 or 5v5 though. Pikes are utterly dependent on having so very many men that the enemy can't knock the unwieldy tip to the side with their shorter weapon and then get inside your reach and end you.
>>44493340
>worthless without every member having trained together for essentially their entire life
>I must answer ridiculously exaggerated and erroneous claims with even more exaggerated erroneous claims.
>>44491054
One of the most misunderstood weapons, fully 80% of the "facts" that you hear will be bullshit.
>>44493574
They seem pretty well understood to me, what sort of factoids are you just dying to tell us about anon?
>>44493340
>That simple boar spear will murder any pikeman 1v1 or 5v5 though. Pikes are utterly dependent on having so very many men that the enemy can't knock the unwieldy tip to the side with their shorter weapon and then get inside your reach and end you.
Which is why there were a bunch of guys with halberds and other murderous shit mixed in with the rest. The proportion shrunk more and more as pike usage changed from pushing and maneuvering to just guarding the guys with guns though, but while pikes were still mainly for fucking other guys with pikes, they were never without people with more up close weapons to get an edge once the formations got tangled up.
>>44492795
>pistols, knives
The former is practically an auto-pick if you ever plan to care about concealment or subtlety. The latter is the same deal, but it is also the most utilitarian weapon ever.
Also, cowboys, soldiers, and rogues. Pistols and knives are by no means underused or under-appreciated.
>>44493116
Early spears were literally pointed sticks. Aside from maybe clubs, you can't get much simpler.
>>44491576
>mini sledgehammer
We call that a Portable Rogue.
I love these things. I've been tossing rocks with them for years. Satisfying as all hell to actually hit something.
>>44493965
I fucking love them too, weave my own and everything, fun as hell. But jesus it's hard to actually hit stuff compared to any other primitive weapon.
>>44494048
It gets much easier with practice. I can imagine a squad of slingers being pretty terrifying.
>>44493965
Once you see what these things are capable of in the hands of a trained slinger and realize that Goliath was about 10-feet tall instead of 40 or 50 feet... You realize David wasn't so much a plucky underdog who won the day with a lot of skill and some luck, and more a motherfucker that brought a gun to a fistfight.
Fascinating things, slings. Especially with how easy it looks like they are to make from scratch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzDMCVdPwnE
Then again, PrimitiveTechnology makes everything look easy.
>>44491862
So is there some specific reason for this design, or is it just a tacticool machete?
>>44494171
They're piss easy to make from scratch. Ever see those Palestine fools tossing rocks at soldiers? They use slings made from seatbelt straps and shoelace. The design is simple but it's hard to use and master. The only people I know of that still consider the sling worth mastering are the folks in Mallorca. Annual sling competitions and everything, and man are they good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJa7FhVjSHI
And here's some Peruvian kids zinging a couple of mannequin heads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj4_3ynNj8o
I personally really love flanged maces and chakrams. I know maces are seen pretty often, but it always seems like they're way overshadowed by other stuff, and chakrams seem to be almost nonexistent.
>>44491950
Actually more than double. Nearly triple.
Reach 1 = 8 squares. Reach 2 = 8+14=22 squares. That's a pretty big block of the board, especially if you move to a chokepoint.
Not that I'm defending 4e, but reach can be a very powerful thing.
>>44494272
The Balearans were famous for their slings even way back in the time of the Roman Republic.
>>44494435
And they were paid in women. Not even joking.
>>44494188
Mostly, it's a tacticool machete. It's a russian survival tool issued to their pilots in case they eject. The pommel screws open to reveal some other supplies.
NOT intended as an interpersonal weapon, except if you're desperate.
The soviets made some interesting stuff, but IMO this isn't it. Take a look at their infantry spade if you want something that really lives up to its billing. It was a danish design licensed by the Soviets and made famous by them. Spetsnaz are famous for doing amazing weapons tricks with them, especially throwing them. Hence why it's sometimes called the "spetsnaz shovel" despite being a general infantry issue tool.
It doesn't fold, but is more durable/reliable, half the weight, and surprisingly compact compared to the folding entrenching tools that everyone else uses.
>>44494096
In David Weber's Safehold series, technology has been artificially introduced to a world that up until recently was around the 15th century in tech level, but by Book 8 has been pushed to the 19th century in places. One army, however, still fields slingers(sixty thousand out of a million soldiers)
Rather than just giving the slingers rifles instead, they rig up small grenades, perfectly sized to fit in a sling.
Explosive slingers. Hell yeah.
>>44493965
I remember Matt Easton did a video about them, and he pointed out how a trained user could be devastating with them. He couldn't explain why they went out of fashion as a backup ranged weapon.
Several of my fighter characters in D&D have used slings as a backup. They weigh next to nothing and don't take up much room, but every once in a while you have an encounter where ranged attacks are your only option. They were worth having (and even upgrading to magical with my spare change).
>>44493965
Can you easily bisect a knight wearing full plate in a single swing, yet?
>>44494544
Now that...that seems a bit much. Just speaking as a guy who slings regularly. They'd have to be crack shots. I've dropped rocks out of my pouch countless times. Is there some system in place to prevent accidental detonation?
>>44494455
Best Motivation. Kill shit, get waifus.
>>44491054
The Riddle of Steel and its successors. It's a pretty good versatile weapon in this system. Great for defending yourself, has variety of attacks to surprise your enemy.
>>44491054
GURPS
It didn't used to. It mostly mirrored D&D up until the early 2000's, which in turn mirrored the WEMA historical material available at the time. Which pretty much sucked.
It's easy to forget what an impact on the scholarship HEMA and ARMA made. Not just popularizing it, but also getting academics to revisit conventional wisdom formed in the victorian era.
Anyway, GURPS has been backfilling newer developments like that into the system. Martial Arts explains (retcons) that the katana and longswords of the Basic Set were really cinematic versions true to the fantasy genre and movies. Then offers more historically accurate versions.
They also go to lengths to make spears much more viable as they were historically. At this point, using defensive grip and other options in Martial Arts, you can do a great job mirroring a spear's true effectiveness.
However, that was 10 years ago, and the field is still progressing fast. You'll probably see other changes start to bubble into the RPGs. GURPS currently seems to like to be near but not at the bleeding edge of historical realism.
>>44494593
>He couldn't explain why they went out of fashion as a backup ranged weapon.
1: You need fucktons of training to be able to do more than just throw rocks in the right direction really hard, accuracy takes tons of effort.
2: The craftsmanship needed to really make the absolute most out of slings (uniformly sized projectiles for accuracy, even lead ones for maximum range and hitting power) can be much better used on more powerful weapons like bows.
3: sling projectiles have really, really shit penetration as soon as people start wearing more protection than a beard and a layer of sweat.
4: the windup and slinging motion makes them unsuitable for dense undergrowth, shooting out of windows or using them when you're huddled together.
5: Bows basically beat them at everything except range (yes, that sounds so fucked up but an ideal sling projectile has way less drag than an arrow)
>>44494634
Take metal bullets. Does exactly that.
>>44491054
Try Fantasycraft. It has its own branch of feats and shit.
>>44494593
>He couldn't explain why they went out of fashion as a backup ranged weapon.
Damage potential. The sling got replaced by weapons with much higher and more consistent damage potential. Sure, bows are more expensive to produce, but they have much higher damage potential, better accuracy (inbuilt firing plane), and they were easier to throw into the hands of the rank and file for immediate use. You probably won't hurt the fellow next to you if you misfire a bow - you absolutely will if you misfire a sling.
>>44494708
I've heard great things about this system.
>>44491054
What if there was a system where weapons had durability before they broke
>>44494667
Well, yes. They use time delay fuses. It's more than just a jar of gunpowder.
>>44494667
It could probably work if they were made to detonate on impact, like a molotov cocktail. Timed grenades would probably be just as dangerous to the slingers as the enemy, though.
>>44494778
That's warhammer 40 000 levels of retarded though.
>instead of teleporting bombs, lets teleport guys who plant bombs!
>In order to make this stone-age weapon more powerful we're using high-tech projectiles, instead of just using fucking guns.
>>44493574
Okay, tell me 100 facts about it.
>>44493340
>wirthkess without every member having trained together for essentially their entire life.
This goes against everything I read about the subject. Militia pikes were a thing ever since the Diadochi.
>>44494634
No but I can disintegrate his squire.
>>44494815
When you have a million men, the small amount of difference in your supplies 60,000 slingers isn't really important.
>>44494455
Good compensation, considering their childhood consisted of their mothers allowing to eat only after hitting the target.
>>44494860
Sounds even more like 40k
This is basically the opposite of this topic, but how would one fix the sword being the goto generic weapon in pretty much everything?
I mean, swords make sense. They're pretty effective weapons, not the most effective in different things, but effective in general. Carrying a sword will be a pretty safe decision no matter the situation. They're easier to carry than many other weapons as well. When I try to think of a wandering adventurer (assuming money isn't the biggest worry) who might get into any kind of trouble and travel a lot, it seems like a pretty safe bet that a sword's worth taking over many other weapons.
The problem is, though, that swords are so goddamn generic and ubiquitous by now that there's no visual or descriptive impact to them. A character with a knife can feel a lot more menacing than a character with a sword, simply because the knife provides more stimulus and is actually closer to our own experiences, in general. Same for many other weapons, like axes and hammers.
I mean, it's annoying really. Swords make sense a lot of the time, but at the same time they're so fucking boring. Weapons shouldn't be boring, not when they're being swung at you or someone else. That's ridiculous.
On that note, what other weapons would make a lot of sense for a traveller who's probably concerned about logistics and versatility the most?
>>44494883
It is the eighth book in the series. Gotta have escalated threats over time.
>>44494910
Flanged mace. Easier to use, better against armor.
>>44494815
I dunno, man. I can totally see the benefit of being able to throw grenades farther, even if guns are a thing.
>>44494934
Yeah. It's basically them substituting for not having grenade launchers or rifle grenades.
Only one side has access to Earth's history; the other side has more resources but is basically forces to emulate the enemy's innovations and can't usually come up with anything of their own.
If you want to check it out, first book in the series is Off Armageddon Reef.
>>44494927
A bitch to carry on your belt, though. Also, blunt weapons generally have the problem that unless you hit them on the head, it's going to take a lot more to take them out. Unless there's armor.
And no, I don't mean that hitting someone in the chest with a mace wouldn't cause damage. I just mean that if heavy armor isn't a big worry, hitting someone with an edged weapon to most parts of the body will cause much worse than a bludgeon.
>>44494934
Wasn't that actually a thing in WW1? I'm pretty sure I've heard of slings being used to throw grenades farther.
>>44494815
Except they're not even rifleman equivalents. They're grenadiers, but with far greater range and smaller bombs. Giving them guns would be a waste of both their talents and the guns they were equipped with.
>>44494910
The thing is that swords got really shit against armour really fast. The anti-armour type swords you'll see, like estocs, are in practice more used like short iron spears than swords.
Unless you're using the point a sword is not even reliably putting down a guy in mai.
Most rpg systems just don't have complex enough injury, hit and armour mechanics to model what makes armour good and what makes some weapons a better choice than others.
There's not enough detail to model the reasons why weapons with higher impact speed or more mass behind the striking surface makes sense, so swords just stay the go-to weapon because lets face it, they're pretty cool and if it's just going to do the same amount of hitpoints damage, who cares?
>>44494774
It's an old game in serious need of revamp but has the most enjoyable and interactive combat system. Spiritual Attributes encourage roleplaying and following character's goals and it's the second good part of TRoS. Give it a try.
>>44494999
Yes.
>>44495007
Except that's still retarded because why the hell are they even a thing when you have micro grenades? Just use a gun to shoot them further.
>>44495041
I could see it being useful in some situations. When stealth is necessary, a sling makes much less noise than the audible report of a launcher.
But that'd be a really short stealth mission, considering we're tossing HIGH EXPLOSIVES.
>>44495041
They haven't come up with the concept of grenade launchers yet.
>>44495085
Low explosives actually. They're still using black powder.
>>44495020
I dunno. I don't think it needs to be all that detailed. I mean, you could probably do an abstract injury system where armor and weapons are a thing even without resulting to huge amounts of numbers.
Generally, from what I've seen, from people doing testing simulations and whatnot, armor can be divided into categories based on protection. No armor means that more or less any hit, even an incidental swing, will mess you up nastily (not lethally, possibly, but taking a slight sword swing to the arm will still be a nasty cut). Gambeson and the like tend to protect you against this, but fail against more dedicated attacks. Mail (with padding) will reasonably protect you against most attacks from "medium-sized" weapons, unless the hit is really palpable. Against really big and nasty weapons (claymores, big fucking axes, big bludgeons, stuff like that), you're going to want heavy armor or you will die or at least get royally fucked.
It's not that simple, certainly, but I think these categories would basically work as the basis for a system. Bladed weapons cause worse damage against unarmored opponents, but are more reduced by armor. Bludgeons cause less damage in general (their "wound category" is smaller to begin with) but care less about armor.
It'd probably require a better game designer than me to make this actually elegant in any way.
>>44495041
Because slings are cheap and light, and shooting 19th century grenades out of a gun without blowing it up would probably require more research.
>>44494999
Anything that worked really.
>>44494934
WWI completely agrees with you.
>>44494910
Spear and/or long knife like seax. Cheap, versatile, replaceable and can be used as a thrown weapon in a pitch.
>>44491054
Man's oldest weapon was a large stick or rock.
Or their fists and teeth
>>44494981
Split the difference, get an axe. Possibly with a hammerhead on the other side.
Axes are awesome. The impact of a percussion weapon to smash protection, the blade to cut flesh, and if you have one of those sharpened reverse beards (I don't remember the term, someone help me out) you can even do rudimentary thrusts.
>>44495212
Functionally, what is even the difference between a long seax and a sword? I mean, sure, there are minor differences and no guard, but does it actually differ in fundamental ways?
>>44494533
Dude, that spade is awesome, thanks for the info
>>44495166
The way I'd do it if I was autistic would probably be to have some rough and ready value of the force of the attack like
Force (strength, weapon weight, weapon length and how well you rolled to hit) and then a multiplier for what type of weapon it is (so cutting or piercing have higher multipliers than bludgeoning weapons) but armour turns cutting or piercing damage back into force if they don't penetrate the armour, and force pushes you back, can give fatigue, pain, knock you out etc.
So two handed blunt weapons have the most force, but since blunt weapons have the lowest damge multiplier they don't murderfuck an unarmored person as much as a two handed sword would, but against armour their much higher starting force lets them have a greater effect than a weapon that relies on a cutting or piercing multiplier for damage.
did anyone else see these dudes IRL and think how ridiculous and gay they look while simultaneously respecting the fact that they have a very effective pole arm in their hands
>44495288
Functionally? Not much. A long seax is not made for a different purpose than a sword, it's made because it's cheaper and easier to make than a "proper" sword, but the guy getting chopped up by either one is probably not going to think too much about the difference.
>>44495288
Between long knife and early swords? Pretty much none. People saw that long knives perform better and made them longer and longer and that's how swords were born.
>>44495338
That is their parade dress, with the outdated fashion that guys manlier than you, even when they sodomized the losers with their greatswords.
Their actual combat equipment is modern, submachine guns and everything.
>>44495338
That guy looks idiotic with his ridiculous non-flamboyant hat. Look at the thing, it doesn't even have a feather in it.
>>44495384
>>44495478
Funny that messers later on came to fill the exact same niche as seaxes after swords were a thing. A big knife that's basically a sword for people who can't have swords.
Well, not funny, exactly. Logical. But I like the parallel.
>>44494981
> it's going to take a lot more to take them out
I never liked the misconception that it's really hard to put someone down with a blunt weapon.
Sure, an edged weapon is better at killing people, but it's not necessarily better at stopping someone. Cut a guy's artery, he'll be dead in a minute or two, but he could still kill you in that minute. Break a guy's pelvis, he might still be alive but he ain't moving much anymore.
>>44495020
>Unless you're using the point a sword is not even reliably putting down a guy in mai.
Even using the point, a sword is going to be hard-pressed to take a guy out who's wearing mail. Mail is actually pretty decent at stopping hard thrusts, at least compared to what is commonly believed.
>>44495338
see >>44495491
They've got modern guns along with plate armor and halberds in their armory. Pretty cool.
>>44495491
I read that they were allowed to ignore all sumptuary laws because being a merc was hell.
>>44491054
Spears are actually 100% viable in D&D--they're two-handed and offer reach, which is copasetic with just about anything you'd do with a greatsword. The damage difference stops mattering a few levels in, or with good battlefield control to speak of. You might need to bust something else out to handle DR, but to be fair, doesn't that mesh well with the flavor anyhow?
>>44495662
>Break a guy's pelvis, he might still be alive but he ain't moving much anymore.
I guess, but there are still way more places you can attack with a bladed weapon that will quickly shut someone down. Sure, it won't matter if all it takes is one swing to one place, but more options is more options.
Of course, it's moot point if we're to assume that there's going to be armor coming your way. But still, would an axe, like suggested above, give you the upsides of both bladed and blunt weapons?
I mean, I guess an axehead can't be as smashy, even with a hammer on the poll, but is it smashy enough?
What specific polearm would be a good adventurer's weapon?
What exactly is a hafted blade? Is it a type of polearm as seen in M&B Warband?
>>44495774
Well, polearms are pretty cumbersome. But if you want a polearm, then something with multifunctionality would be good. Since skeletons don't give a shit about bladed weapons and all that.
Generally, though, I find that polearms are categorized way too spergily. Get something with a choppy bit and a smashy bit, and a stabby bit as well. Let's say a pollaxe.
>>44495774
"Hafted blade" is not any one type of polearm, but that description could apply to many. The thing in M&B is some kind of a glaive, but there are other polearms that are basically a sword or a similar blade on a stick.
The most obvious (if not exactly the most well-known) being the literal swordstaff.
>>44495774
Are we talking about actual adventurers, or D&D style murderhobo adventurers? The former would probably use a fairly short spear for lightness, since they aren't going to be fighting all the time. The latter would want something like a halberd or poleaxe for versatility in combat.
>>44495816
>Since skeletons don't give a shit about bladed weapons and all that.
DnDism. Dry bones are less durable and steel weapons can cut through them.
>>44495628
In the case of Seaxes it's more about being cheaper/easier to make than a sword, while the Messer might have been more about crafty cutlers getting around the guild monopoly on swords by making sword-sized knives (distinguished by the handle construction)
>>44495913
Yeah, I know. I just meant that (owing to D&D a lot as well, though) there are weird monsters in fantasylands that require different types of punishment to kill, so maximizing your capability for different punishments is a good thing.
>>44495766
>But still, would an axe, like suggested above, give you the upsides of both bladed and blunt weapons?
Not really. An axe is mainly a bladed tool that hits with more oomph, but it's still not enough to beat armor.
It's different if you're using an axe on a really long haft, but at that point you're just using a polearm.
>>44495958
So there's not really a good compromise in the category of medium-sized (one-handed sword, mace, axe etc) weapons that would maximize both choppings and bashings?
>>44495988
Just put a big spike on the other end of your axe. Or better yet, have both a sword and hammer/mace for more versatility.
>>44494826
5 facts would be sufficent.
>>44495958
>>44495988
The axe has a lot more mass concentrated behind the striking surface than a sword and is going to be a lot more effective against armour than a sword, especially non-rigid armour, but a war axe is different from a wood splitting axe. It's a lot lighter and more broad-bladed with a thinner cross section as a general thing, so the effect is not as extreme as you might think. There are some extremely narrow types though, but never as heavy as splitting and felling axes.
>>44496058
I know. That's why I'm wondering why you couldn't just stick a hammerhead on the poll side and have a weapon that's both a battle axe and a warhammer.
>>44495909
>The former would probably use a fairly short spear for lightness
Keep in mind that even a poleaxe meant to fuck up people in plate armour and a favourite between knights and men at arms duking it out rarely clocks in at more than 7 lbs including the haft. Polearms might be inconvenient to lug around, but they're not very heavy all things considered.
>>44496076
You can and people did.
>>44496076
You can. But it also makes the thing very heavy, and that's not something you want in a one-handed weapon.
>>44492833
The main character always uses a pistol. They then proceed to mow down hordes of enemies from 50 yards away while avoiding rifle, submachinegun, and grenade fire.
boomerangs are cool man
>>44495988
By definition, it's not really a compromise if it maximizes both choppings and bashings.
However, I'm referring to the ability to defeat armor. If you just want to be able to cut and bash, an axe with a hammerhead on the back would be good.
>>44496076
>That's why I'm wondering why you couldn't just stick a hammerhead on the poll side and have a weapon that's both a battle axe and a warhammer.
Because the main face used when using a warhammer is actually the beak and not the hammerface.
>>44496058
>The axe has a lot more mass concentrated behind the striking surface than a sword and is going to be a lot more effective against armour than a sword
The axe may concentrate force more than a sword, but it's still not enough to significantly impact armor unless you mount it on a pole.
>>44491576
Biggest hammer is best hammer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_APoSfCYwU
>>44496118
Would it, though? Would it actually require any more metal than, say, an axe blade and a beak? Or a hammerhead and a beak? These are both pretty common configurations. Looking at some battle-ready replicas and museum pieces, the different kinds of heads don't really seem to be all that different in actual size/mass.
>>44496118
No it doesn't.
You don't take a regular axe and slap a hammer on it, you design it so that the same mass gets shifted around a bit and you get both. Same weight, same impact, but perhaps a more narrow or shorter blade for instance.
>>44496157
>The axe may concentrate force more than a sword, but it's still not enough to significantly impact armor unless you mount it on a pole.
I'm not saying it obliterates armour or anything, but it has more impact than a sword, that's the point I was making.
You don't have to bust a big hole in the armour to beat the guy, you can knock a guy wearing a plate helmet unconcious with a carpenters hammer without making much of a dent. Or the pommel of a sword. A smaller area of impact and more mass directly behind it should not be underestimated.
>>44491054
I play a fighter with hunter origins who uses a boar spear for combat. It's 5e though so I would really be better off with another weapon I don't get any real benefit out of it in that rule system. Not that it bothers me I don't play to min/max just have fun.
>>44496174
They wouldn't be all that different, but if you're trying to get through armour with something light like a small axe, a beak is probably a better bet than a hammer.
>>44496152
I like boomerangs, but the returning ones make pretty shit weapons. The war boomerangs that are basically just curved clubs are pretty dope, though.
Does armor protect you from falling too much? I mean, padding certainly does, but let's say that a knigh falls down from somewhere wearing full plate. Is he happy to have the padding and the plate, or is he unhappy to fall with the extra weight? Will it even matter too much?
I mean, of course a helmet will keep your nogging together, and shit like jagged rocks will kill you way more without the armor, but just the impact. Would wearing armor allow you to fall from higher up without getting crushed to death? Noticeably higher?
And on that note, is throwing someone in armor actually a good way to damage them? I don't mean wrestling them to the ground and all that, I just mean literally slamming them to the ground. I once saw a documentary about that, and I'm pretty skeptic.
Actually, would wearing plate armor make you less vulnerable to someone trying to break a joint by grappling? For example, can you get put into an arm lock in full armor?
>>44496184
This whole exercise is kind of pointless because:
1) pretty much everyone has multiple weapons on the battlefield
2) swords are ubiquitous as a sidearm because they're the best at it.
>>44496216
You're seriously underestimating how effective armor is.
>>44496312
yo what anime is that?
>>44496312
What the hell show is that?
>>44496386
>>44496393
Virgin Witch Maria. It's got a plot that's... not exactly what you'd expect from that, but the author is obviously a westaboo with a big hardon for medieval military stuff.
>>44496418
Oh, I read that mango! Or what chapters of it managed to get translated.
That's great, animus get translated.
>>44496386
>>44496393
As >>44496418 said, while there are random clips of awesome fetchtery scattered through the show, it is by no means the focus. The actual focus would be pic related.
>>44496418
>The main character is literally trying to stop the intresting, cool parts of the anime from happening.
>>44496471
Annnnnnd my interest is gone.
>>44496312
>Halfswording with no gauntlets
Wouldn't that result in cleaving your fingers off?
>>44496723
Yeah, it's kind a disappointingly deceiving animu.
>>44496743
It's gotten to the point where my having watched anime in the past is some dark secret I have to be ashamed of because shows like this are pretty much the norm.
Let's say that you're someone who has decided to become a mercenary, possibly due to there being a lot of war and instablity at the moment, making it impossible to work for a living but making killing others for a living a pretty good deal.
Now, presuming that you have next to no money, what would be the bare minimum kit you should get as a new mercenary? What would be sensible and cost effective for protection and weaponry?
>>44496732
No.
>>44496732
Surprisingly, no. Also, that's not halfswording. But no, it wouldn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwuQPfvSSlo
>>44491054
>ctrl+f
>No RuneQuest in a spear thread
/tg/ is slipping. My spear hits first, impales limbs, and let's me reach a giant's heart. If you do not have your spear, side arm, and shield you will find death.
>>44496732
Blade cuts when it moves along the surface. If it doesn't move around in your hands, it shouldn't cut you. So hold it tight and don't be a limp wristed pussy.
>>44496830
Maybe if I knew what edition of that fucking clusterfuck I should actually look into, I might have an opinion on it.
No, seriously, I'd appreciate someone telling me, because holy shit is the RuneQuest/HeroQuest/Whatever line of games convoluted.
>>44496772
Gambeson and spear, probably a hand axe or mace and a dagger, preferably also get a shield, some kind of metal helm is a MUST, just a kettle helm is fine.
>>44496859
Out of curiosity, has there ever been evidence of kettle helms (or any helms) being used as actual kettles? I mean, that seems like a sweet deal, you get head protection and also a cooking implement that would be cumbersome and expensive otherwise.
>>44496772
Spear, sidearm, helmet, gambeson, anything to protect your torso like mail shirt or cuirass, good boots.
>>44496920
Seeing as we're assuming they have next to no money they could probably do without the cuirass or mail, though that'd be a priority "upgrade."
>>44496471
>Outfit made out of belts
Godamnit
>>44496887
>Out of curiosity, has there ever been evidence of kettle helms (or any helms) being used as actual kettles?
Yes, but it ruins the helm so it's a one-way conversion.
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=36136&partId=1
>>44497005
It's the same guy that drew Moyashimon, as I recall, and he has some level of interest in bondage, as well as other deviant things.
>>44495958
>>44495988
>>44496157
>>44496216
During the Iron Age, a dull lusotann or celtic axe could kill a roman with blunt trauma impacting the flesh and bone beneath the mail.
I don't know if that works with steel weapons and armor, how different roman mail is from medieval mail etc.
What about this thing? Why would you use this instead of the regular mace? Looks like there'd be less heft to it for no discernable benefit, since the weight is distributed more evenly. Why did bar maces exist?
>>44497111
In flexible mail, the material isn't going to help you much against blunt trauma. The material affects how much punishment it can take, but it's not going to change the actual damage to the body much.
Mail alone is quite terrible against blunt trauma without padding. I mean, a mail coif without anything else is still going to transfer so much energy through it that a strong sword blow will split your skull, even if there's no cut.
>>44495958
>>44496058
The real problems with an axe are two-fold:
1) Training: They're pretty easy to chop wood with, but hard to control against someone who is trained to back-step or push in with a shield.
2) Range: Unless you're using a long-axe, they have to hit within about 20in of the user's hands.
There is a third but it's only relevant historically: any pleb might own an axe.
>>44497179
It'd be a little easier to recover with more even weight distribution, right?
>>44497239
You do know that woodcutting axes are completely different from battle axes, right?
>>44497179
I could totally see someone putting a guard on that thing. Intrestingly enough, blunt weapons with guards were actually a thing.
>>44496887
>>44497063
>Yes, but it ruins the helm so it's a one-way conversion.
Supposition: It also make the food taste like dried sweat.
>>44497262
I do. Battle axes still can't be swung like a 7 year old playing with toy lightsabers.
>>44497312
Also hair.
And lice.
>>44496855
RuneQuest 6
Basic rules on the design mechanism website.
There is a new edition being worked on by Chaosium, but RQ 6 is amazing and will be rereleased as yet another confusing name but for the near future it is the second Google result for "runequest".
>>44497366
so cook that shit...free protein.
>>44497371
>450+ pages
Yeah no. No good system requires this fucking much space.
>>44493116
the oldest weapon was probably a particularly usefully-shaped rock.
>>44497312
>>44497366
I think you mean minerals, fibre and protein respectively.
Don't go disrespecting helmet soup in the middle of a war.
>>44497410
Compared to what?
>>44494910
maces and other small blunt weapons have most of the same narrative/appearance advantages as swords and, honestly, tend to look cooler.
>>44497562
Compared to a system that's competent and doesn't require 450 fucking pages. Some people might not know this, but more rules doesn't actually equal better rules. More rules often equals clunkier, clumsier system.
>>44497587
>small rules = good system
That's a fallacy and you know it.
>>44497587
>can't name a system, instead grunts the same line
I'm not sure what you are specifically referencing; almost all games have 400 page rule books.
>>44497610
I didn't say that. I said that huge, clunky, complex rule systems sure as fuck don't make for good systems. Short doesn't automatically mean good, but I've had way more actual success with concise, well designed systems that have a solid core and mechanics instead of hundreds of pages of rules upon rules.
This kind of shit represents by-the-numbers game design I won't touch.
>>44497645
>by-the-numbers game design I won't touch.
What in the fuck are you on about?
>>44497652
Games like this make as many rules as possible to cover as many scenarios as possible, instead of making concise and effective rules that apply across the board. Might appeal to some, is vomit-inducing to me.
>>44497645
>still no example
>making less and less sense
Are you trying to compare RQ6 to D&D in some obtuse sweeping generalizations?
>>44497676
>concise and effective rules that apply across the board.
Like Dungeon World and FATE, both games with massive core rulebooks?
>>44497688
Or GURPS or Savage Worlds which quickly add up with the right supplement?
Only system I know off the top of my head that has these are path finder, and it was in a fairly recent supplement.
>>44495224
Goosewing?
>>44497587
You were just fishing for a reason to hate it, weren't you?
>>44494713
GURPS spears are very useful. There are situations there you'd much rather be holding a sword, but there is just as many where a spear is a damn fine, if not super versatile, choice.
That's even without martial arts.
>>44497587
That's not a general rule
>>44497780
Personally I can't think of many GOOD games with a rulebook less than 300 pages that didn't split its core rules up into multiple books.
Plus a lot of RQ's rulebook is setting fluff, I think anon was just being a faggot and lazily reaching for reasons to hate on the game.
>>44497825
GURPS Lite is 32 pages, and the Basic D&D family, prior to RC, tends to be one or two 30-50 page rulebooks.I personally hate Basic, but it's not a bad game.
A lot of OSR games have quite short rulebooks.
Paranoia tends to be quite short.
>>44497825
RQ6 is setting agnostic, built with Glorantha in mind but without the setting baked in.
The page count comes from a fairly extensive bestiary (including spirits), 5 magic systems that cover a wide net of unique magic styles, and skill descriptions.
The system is really, really solid for fantasy games; and the firearms supplement is great too.
>>44497825
There's plenty of good small games. Most aren't as universal as stuff like D&D or Runequest or such, and are instead very focused things, but there's plenty of good small games.
It's just that they don't tend to work for the same thing people want from stuff like Runequest or similar games. There's a Finnish system I very much like and that's very, very good for fantasy roleplay as long as there's no player magic, but that's Finnish so it's not going to help us much.
>>44497923
And RQ is built off BRP which has a 48 page quickstart booklet, too.
RQ6's core rulebook is a complete PHB, DMG, MM all in one book.
RQ is by no means a perfect game, but bitching about the PAGE COUNT? I'm going to stick with the "anon was reaching for criticisms" camp.
>>44497961
I've tried getting into it, but the combat seems needlessly bogged down. Special effects, mostly. I mean, I guess they provide the kind of tactical experience that could be fun, but checking all the interactions and all that all the time is pretty challenging for me.
But it looks pretty decent otherwise, yeah.
>>44498005
I have the android app, but there is a one page reference on their website.
>>44497923
GURPS is defiantly a game where you can learn a thousand rules one at a time while you play. Once you get into it you don't even notice how much you've picked up until someone new comes in and needs to be talked though how to attack something.
>>44494826
>They're called Crossbows.
>They fire sharp things.
>These sharp things are known as Bolts.
>Crossbows come in many varieties, including one handed.
>They were first made in china.
>They even make automatic types of these things, even though they tend to be inaccurate as hell.
>>44494910
An Axe, man. Always and forever. Cut down wood, have versatility, and if you get a small one you can carry it easily. Fuck, some of them can even be thrown.
>>44498177
>2016
>still thinking there aren't different kinds of axes for different tasks
>thinking any axe is versatile because of it
0/10
>>44491786
>being this retarded
>>44498177
You can't cut wood with an axe that is going to be any good at fighting. Battle axes and throwing axes are meant to cut flesh, and have much thinner, lighter blades. If you tried to cut down a tree with that, you'd ruin the axe just as badly as you'd ruin a sword.
>>44498177
You're going to fuck up your combat axe if you chop wood with it, and you're going to die like an idiot if you use a wood axe to fight.
I'd give you a hatchet, maybe.
>>44498190
Uhuh. Sure. A throwing axe can't be used to kill a dude in melee. A battle Axe can't cut down a tree. and a Wood axe can't be small.
You realize how retarded this is, right? An axe has a basic design; optimization in a particular axe-oriented task doesn't intrinsically mean inability in another.
>>44498209
Dude, if you're fighting a dude without armor, something tells me that if you hit him with a fucking wood axe you're still going to royally fuck up his day.
>>44498228
You could say the exact same shit about any weapon. Doesn't make it a unique advantage reserved solely for axes.
>>44498241
Really? Tell me the manifold uses of a fucking sword besides killing, and even then, inefficiently.
I await it. Sincerely.
>>44498240
It's not about armor. It's about the fact that a heavy lumber axe is slow and tiring as fuck. Your swings will be slow and telegraphed and you'll wear yourself out quickly.
Weapons were as light as possible (for the intended purpose) because that extra weight starts to make itself known very quickly.
>>44498254
>Really? Tell me the manifold uses of a fucking sword besides killing, and even then, inefficiently.
>optimization in a particular task doesn't intrinsically mean inability in another.
>>44498254
You can cut things. Cutting things is useful for many different tasks.
It's not optimal at all, but hey, we're not talking about optimal, are we?
>>44498254
A machete is basically a sort of falchion and people use them for clearing underbrush and all sorts of other stuff cuz it's also basically a big ol' knife.
>>44491054
13th Age. Spears are only outdamaged by greatwords but are useable by more classes, have greater utility through the Reach Trick feat, and are more useful for spellcasters.
>>44498264
Really? Was that why heavier armor was only used by people who could normally be on horse back, or was there another reason?
But anyway, why does /tg/s dick always get rock hard at the mention of spears, then? Aren't they relatively heavy and have lots of telegraphed nonsense?
>>44498267
Hence why I asked, m8.
>>44498274
I suppose that's a point. How were swords even developed? Were they a natural-ish outgrowth of certain types of axes or did everyone just diamond at the idea of a long knife?
>>44498323
Why would a sword grow from an axe? They are very different things. Shaped different, used for different purposes, etc.
They are a natural evolution of a dagger into a weapon. Daggers are all well and good as an emergency weapon or a concealed weapon, but in a real fight a sword's got the reach advantage over an ordinary dagger. It's not as wieldy as a dagger for cutting things like a tool, but it can do it fine enough in a pinch. Different swords were built for different things, and eventually we found a few lengths and weights and shapes that were the most efficient for it. It's why multiple cultures have swords that operate on similar principles, like one-edged curved swords for better cuts.
>>44498323
>Was that why heavier armor was only used by people who could normally be on horse back
Where did you hear that?
>Aren't they relatively heavy and have lots of telegraphed nonsense?
Nope.
>>44498323
You're retarded.
>>44498323
>Aren't they relatively heavy and have lots of telegraphed nonsense?
Um, no? A spear is a stick with a small steel blade. Some asian martial arts teach all kinds of twirlies, but the basic attack, the one you see in actual fights, is a thrust. I guess you can thrust at different angles or with different grips, but you aim the spear towards someone, then you thrust at them. They're fast, simple weapons with reach. They're pretty effective.
And yeah, horses greatly help with using heavier armor, although having a horse is useful regardless. Armor is generally so useful that you can wear more of it even if you don't have a horse (especially since with heavier armor, the need to respond to everything lessens), but horses were still very useful with the load.
Also, swords likely evolved from either knives and longer and longer knives, or different kinds of fighting clubs and the like. Both, probably.
>>44498323
Swords became a thing when new materials and metallurgical knowledge allowed for longer blades. They were an extension of the knife.
>>44491735
Dragon magazine had a comprehensive description of all of them.
I once played with a guy who made a character that wouldn't shut up about how spears were the best weapons ever, despite our chosen system being weapons-agnostic.
>>44498443
>Voltron of polearms
>>44491735
D&D has always had a boner for polearms. I don't even fucking know how many are in AD&D.
>>44498443
>No bohemian earspoon
0/10
>>44498448
Which is just as silly as assuming they're shit. Spears have advantages of reach, quick thrusts at wildly different areas of the body (difficult to block without sufficient skill or luck), and generally having a lot of leverage for powerful thrusts.
But they're not fucking gae bolg, killing entire armies with a single thrust. They have advantages, but they also have some weaknesses. They're not super effective against armoured opponents for example (though in fairness, neither are swords or most axes) and if someone can close the distance faster than the spearman can backstep or pull his spear point back to ready a thrust, he'll catch the spearman at the disadvantage. It's a risky maneuver, though.
There's a reason it's basically the number one weapon throughout history even in solo engagements, but it's not going to help against a bunch of straight-shooting archers or a bunch of armoured knights unless you get smart or lucky. Shields are a decent equaliser, too, if the spearman doesn't know how to deal with them.
>>44491054
Killer yo-yo. Underloved for a reason, since it was invented to kill snakes from afar.
>>44498452
AD&D 1e Unearthed Arcana has something like 23 mechanically different polearms.
>>44492795
well, pepperboxes and derringers are underused today, especially the pepperbox. It only got a modern equivalent when Assassin's Creed Liberation came out and featured it. Guess some gun maker played it and said "oh I wanna make one". I'm currently finding a way to acquire one - I've always been fascinated by it.
>>44496772
If you're talking about modern times? Well, I know some guys here that sell protective clothing and armor for the very low price of next-to-nothing, and I already have some weapons around here..so I guess there's that.
Talking about ye olden times? A sharpened stick, a club, a barrel cover used as a shield and some thick clothing.
>>44494708
Read ros and sounds good, but any more than 1v1 fights sound painful and way to complicated
>>44498758
Any more than 1v1 (or multiples of that) and you get the RoS equivalent of noncommittal shrug and "You figure it out."
It's a system designed for exactly one thing, and you're in for a bad time if you try to get much else out of it.
>>44491054
>Ctrl+F 'wulin'
>0 matches
Legends of the Wulin, mang, Legends of the Wulin. The differences between spears and swords in that game aren't huge but they're still noticeable. Swords are better for doing damage but spears have reach and can give you defensive advantage even when your kung fu is ill-suited to combating your opponent's kung fu.
>>44498758
Don't actually play RoS, mang. Play one of its successors; even Blade of the Iron Throne clears some stuff up. But Song of Swords is much better, and Band of Bastards might have dropped its demo by now (it also looked great from what I saw).
>>44498884
>Blade of the Iron Throne clears some stuff up
And completely fucks up everything else.
>>44498911
Honestly, it straight-up lifts so much from RoS that any fucked up shit is more likely to be a holdover from it than an actual, newly-introduced fuck-up.
>>44498884
>But Song of Swords is much better
Nah. It has better setting and magic, though.
>>44498911
It's carbon copy of TRoS in d12 and barbarian fur pants.
>>44498935
SoS is definitely much better, but it also doesn't have magic (unless you count the just-released blood magic which isn't even near completion yet).
>>44498924
>>44498942
Most if not all of the retarded parts of BotIT ARE the changes. The only good idea it has is making edged weapons do blunt damage when hitting plate.
>>44498948
SoS isn't better mechanically and yes, I count that blood magic rules Jimmy released recently.
>>44498948
SoS is RoS made into an even more convoluted rules clusterfuck.
>>44498959
Then BotIT magic must be fucking awful.
And SoS is definitely better mechanically, too.
>>44498964
Which part do you mean, specifically?
>>44498955
Not mail, though? That's basically what mail does by itself. It doesn't allow the edge to cut you, but it is flexible so if you're not padded up, even a sword can still cause damage by blunt force alone.
>>44498758
It was released during Sim-Nar obsession and heavily leaned towards Narrativism. You are supposed to handwave group fights as series of 1v1 duels or roll Terrain check to see how many opponents each fighter interact with. And everyone performs his actions at the same time, so it gets messy and killy very soon.
>>44498997
IIRC it's pretty much all metal armor.
>>44498978
>BotIT magic must be fucking awful
It tries too hard to be flavorful for sword and sorcery genre but creators didn't bother to take criticism.
>And SoS is definitely better mechanically, too.
Tell me how it's better mechanically than TRoS.
Has anyone got a copy of the OEF version of the TRoS core that supposedly exists? I have OEF versions of the supplements, but the only copies of the core I can find are the badly scanned one and the butchered JN2 version.
>>44499075
It was floating around at *some* point. I'll see if I accidentally have it.
>>44499075
http://www.trosfans.com/downloads/JN/TRoS%20Core%20-%20JN2.pdf
There's this.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/68bu8w9bk9go7pn/The+Riddle+of+Steel+-+Core+Rulebook+-+Fascimile+Scan.pdf
And this, I think.
>>44499075
What is OEF? Somebody posted mediafire link to that Sorcery and Fey unfinished supplement before.
>>44499098
It means a digitized version, with pages of actual text instead of just pictures of text.
Basically, he wanted the readable version of the rules, which was made way later than the original scan.
Like seriously seven years later or somesuch. By /tg/, because nobody else apparently cared enough to make a readable scan of the book.
>>44499098
OEF is Original Electronic File. I'm not sure if the PDF that was supposedly being sold was actually an electronic master, or just a really good scan.
>>44499090
There's a third version that's either 28.4 MB or something like 150 MB, depending on whether or not you have the compressed version, that's a really awful scan. That 'Facsimile Scan' one seems to be a massively cleaned up version of that, thanks.
>>44499098
Do you have the S&F supplement? Or the link?
>>44494593
They went out of fashion because
1. Bows did come into existence, of they fire further for more damage
2. A good helmet with a cap will make your head immune to the sling, at longer ranges.
3. Armor did exist, and improvements where made. Once you can't break their bones due padding and armor, slings go out of fashion really fast
Reintroducing slingers in a modern war would work wonders because armor is not designed against them. And it could always be combined with grenades.
>>44499127
http://www.mediafire.com/download/cqrpzf3c3vxnvpc/The+Riddle+of+Steel.rar
![Meteor_hammer[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Yanu98q.jpg "Meteor_hammer[1].jpg")
I love stupid ass weapons, and this one takes the cake for my favorite stupid ass weapon. I've only ever seen it in 3.5 though.
So what was the typical spear of the infantryman?
>>44499198
I would guess the one labelled 'spear'.
>>44499198
Pike or just a damn spear depending on the time.
>>44499170
You know, I tried having this discussion in one of the sling videos on Youtube (can't remember if it was Lindybeige, Matt Easton or someone else), but it just mostly turned into "HUR HUR LE ME MISUNDERSTAND YOU THE SLING IS GOOD KEEP HATING"
I brought up the point that slings are also burdened by the fact that there's not much you can do to improve them as such. Whereas a bow is based around storing force in the arms when you bend it back, a process which can be enhanced tremendously by new materials, advances in fabrication methods and engineering like that, the sling is based around a very simple physical action of additional leverage.
Now, I'm not saying that this is the reason that slings fell out of fashion. But it's an intresting thing to note. I mean, bows became more and more powerful, and then you get crossbows and all that, but there's not much you can do to a sling to actually make it more effective. Other than slinging hand grenades or some shit.
I mean, I guess you can put it on a staff. Then you have a staff sling, which gets you more range. But I can't actually think of any other ways to make the sling more effective. Unless you get robot slingers or some shit.
