This is one that's always urked me: it's less a "missing weapon" as a "misnamed" weapon. A mistake in Chain mail way back then has been so prevalent and grandfathered in that's it's basically been exported to the entire fantasy genre by way of cultural osmosis... I speak of course of the "Arming sword"... AKA: "one-handed, western-style, straight-bladed sword, usually paired with a shield".
"Wait, isn't that a long-sword?" You say... and there's the mistake: it's NOT:
The problem is that an arming sword would basically be '1d8 damage, not Finesse, not Light, not Versatile'... and that's kind of a pointless weapon, so they don't bother to publish it.
This is one that's always urked me: it's less a "missing weapon" as a "misnamed" weapon. A mistake in Chain mail way back then has been so prevalent and grandfathered in that's it's basically been exported to the entire fantasy genre by way of cultural osmosis... I speak of course of the "Arming sword"... AKA: "one-handed, western-style, straight-bladed sword, usually paired with a shield".
"Wait, isn't that a long-sword?" You say... and there's the mistake: it's NOT:
- A "Short-sword" is something akin to a Gladius: one-handed, with a short-blade
- A "Long-sword" is SUPPOSED to be something like a Claymore or "Great-sword", IE: Two-handed, long-blade, "A sword, but longer".
- The missing "middle" is the "Arming Sword", or "Straight-sword", or just "sword".
- Then there's the middle between the arming sword and the long sword: the "hand-and-a-half sword"
...
But this is a mistake that's been made so often that I suppose I'll just have to learn to live with it and fight down my OCD.
Well, the use of longsword in that manner goes back long, long before chainmail, lol. While in the world of fencing and its closely related fields the concept and understanding of those continues, in fiction and general storytelling, as well as wargaming, the term "longsword" was used to refer to an arming sword (28 to 38 inches in length) as far back as the 1700's.
If your OCD is still twitching, it's reacting to an entire change in concept over 300 years in the making.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This is one that's always urked me: it's less a "missing weapon" as a "misnamed" weapon. A mistake in Chain mail way back then has been so prevalent and grandfathered in that's it's basically been exported to the entire fantasy genre by way of cultural osmosis... I speak of course of the "Arming sword"... AKA: "one-handed, western-style, straight-bladed sword, usually paired with a shield".
"Wait, isn't that a long-sword?" You say... and there's the mistake: it's NOT:
The problem is that an arming sword would basically be '1d8 damage, not Finesse, not Light, not Versatile'... and that's kind of a pointless weapon, so they don't bother to publish it.
Well: to be fair, this is where "TTRPG: a collection of gameplay mechanics" clashes with "TTRPG: a simulation of a fantasy world": where exactly one draws the line between "too much detail/granularity" and "too little detail/granularity" is sort of a matter of taste.
As for vis-a-vis AEDorsay's point: "Colloquial" and "proper" meanings often differ, and agreed;w ords tend tod rift over time. But in this case: that more just means Chain Mail imported a mistake the same way D&D imported the mistake from Chain Mail. To point to a different example: people often use "United Kingdom", "Britain/Great Britain", and "England" interchangeably in common language, even though each of those is entirely different (Union of countries, land-mass, country respectively). In any case: D&D is more often emulating a medieval or late medieval setting; so the more medieval terminology ought to fit in my mind... but once again: that's a matter of taste more than anything else.
Um, yeah, I would totally not try and make a scythe into a greataxe, even just for damage's sake.
For one, a Scythe has reach. They are a form of polearm, after all.
A scythe is in the category of 'not actually a weapon'; the way you fight with a scythe is by detaching the blade and reattaching it to be straight, at which point you've got a sword-on-a-stick weapon that is a poor quality glaive.
If for some reason you're fighting with it in its traditional configuration, its reach is actually going to be surprisingly short because the cutting surface is on the inside and you'll need to hold it at a strange angle to hit with it at all. If you just swing it to stab with its point (which would in reality give you a broken scythe, but this is fantasy) it's a two-handed reach weapon that does piercing -- so stats-wise equivalent to a pike (which is, for no apparent reason, absurdly heavy in D&D), though obviously different in actual usage.
In general melee weapons in 5e are mostly about three variables: reach, hands, and damage type. Looking at martial weapons
Long One-Handed Bludgeoning: missing (historically rare, though some weighted chain weapons might qualify). I'd probably just use a whip with damage type changed.
Long One-Handed Piercing: missing (also rare, though some sorts of rope darts would qualify). I'd probably just use a whip with damage type changed.
Aside from those four missing weapons, the only weapons you can't do as a reskin of an existing weapon are weapons that have specialized qualities, such as a a harpoon, and that's mostly because 5e doesn't try to implement most non-damaging weapon properties.
Well, if it was the farmer's implement, or the usual way that such a thing is portrayed in folklore (a la Death) , sure, but as recently as 1921, entire units of soldiers were armed with War Scythes. They have a long history of value as a weapon, successfully used, going back to ancient Greece, so calling them "not a weapon" isn't accurate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Um, yeah, I would totally not try and make a scythe into a greataxe, even just for damage's sake.
For one, a Scythe has reach. They are a form of polearm, after all.
A scythe is in the category of 'not actually a weapon'; the way you fight with a scythe is by detaching the blade and reattaching it to be straight, at which point you've got a sword-on-a-stick weapon that is a poor quality glaive.
The point of a war scythe or some equivalent isn't because they're a real weapon, but because they crop up a lot in various pieces of fiction; some notable examples include RWBY and various FromSoft titles. Typically they are attributed to have a long reach; now, that said, in 5e terms they're pretty interchangeable with a glaberd.
Garrotte - how do you even use this? No way you could use this without sneaking up on the person, and then it does what? Causes suffocation vs. a strength check each turn?
Phalanx Spear/Sarissa (very long spear) - what is the difference between this and a Pike
I would say a Machete would just be a Handaxe without the thrown property (it should be slashing and strength based, but light enough to dual wield)
Fighting Fans would fall under short swords, I would say, but should do slashing instead of piercing (it's kinda wierd that short swords do piercing damage anyway).
You're not wrong, although I brought up chakram because it feels like it should be a handaxe with finesse IMO.
Ultimately I don't really think there's a lot you can't do without reflavoring, and when I want a special weapon in my campaign I just make it a magic item. But I think you can make an argument for "utility" martial weapons that trade damage for CC or other effects. Bolas, garrottes, and the like could be a martial equivalent to spells that are used out of combat to sneakily subdue or capture targets. And let's be honest - no one's reflavoring a net because nets just suck. Like they included them just to make them really bad. Sure, we've got no problems suspending our disbelief so that there are no penalties for swinging our 10-foot glaive in a 5-foot hallway, but when it comes to nets suddenly everything needs to be super real-world accurate to the point that they're useless as a fun fantasy weapon... but I digress.
Well, if it was the farmer's implement, or the usual way that such a thing is portrayed in folklore (a la Death) , sure, but as recently as 1921, entire units of soldiers were armed with War Scythes.
A war scythe is what you get when you take the head off of a scythe and reattach it straight (I can't read the script on the text here, but it actually seems to be showing how you turn an agricultural scythe into a war scythe since the top blade image has a rotated tang).
The point of a war scythe or some equivalent isn't because they're a real weapon, but because they crop up a lot in various pieces of fiction; some notable examples include RWBY and various FromSoft titles. Typically they are attributed to have a long reach; now, that said, in 5e terms they're pretty interchangeable with a glaberd.
That's not a war scythe, that's a cinematic scythe, which as I mentioned, is basically a reach/piercing or reach/slashing weapon. In the current edition of the rules it's indistinguishable from either a pike or a halberd; in the UA rules it probably has a mastery property of cleave, which would mean a piercing version of the weapon doesn't exist, though the slashing variant is identical to a halberd.
People have talked about garrotes before. I think they concluded there wasn't a way to implement them that wasn't game-breaking. 5e did away with coup de grace or other out of combat instant kill moves as player facing options by design.
I think the weapon list is too big, rather than too small. You really only need "pointy stabby", "sharp slashy", and "blunty munty" combined with "small", "medium" and "large".
A long sword, an arming sword, a katana, a falchion - they are all the same in the game. A sharp slashy thing that medium creatures wield in one hand.
Hmm, since small creaures exist, maybe we need five sizes.
Well, if it was the farmer's implement, or the usual way that such a thing is portrayed in folklore (a la Death) , sure, but as recently as 1921, entire units of soldiers were armed with War Scythes.
A war scythe is what you get when you take the head off of a scythe and reattach it straight (I can't read the script on the text here, but it actually seems to be showing how you turn an agricultural scythe into a war scythe since the top blade image has a rotated tang).
Not quite. Agricultural scythes didn't have blades that were particularly good for use as weapons, even if they were rotated. Actual war scythes had a thicker blade that was more effective for cutting flesh and bone, whereas agricultural scythe blades are only really good for cutting grass or wheat. Changing the orientation on an agricultural scythe like that image shows would make it more effective as an improvised weapon but it still wouldn't be a particularly good weapon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Well, if it was the farmer's implement, or the usual way that such a thing is portrayed in folklore (a la Death) , sure, but as recently as 1921, entire units of soldiers were armed with War Scythes.
A war scythe is what you get when you take the head off of a scythe and reattach it straight (I can't read the script on the text here, but it actually seems to be showing how you turn an agricultural scythe into a war scythe since the top blade image has a rotated tang).
The point of a war scythe or some equivalent isn't because they're a real weapon, but because they crop up a lot in various pieces of fiction; some notable examples include RWBY and various FromSoft titles. Typically they are attributed to have a long reach; now, that said, in 5e terms they're pretty interchangeable with a glaberd.
That's not a war scythe, that's a cinematic scythe, which as I mentioned, is basically a reach/piercing or reach/slashing weapon. In the current edition of the rules it's indistinguishable from either a pike or a halberd; in the UA rules it probably has a mastery property of cleave, which would mean a piercing version of the weapon doesn't exist, though the slashing variant is identical to a halberd.
It shows (in dutch or german, I can't be more clear) how the artist estimated they came to the arrangement of a War Scythe over time (the one roughly in the center above the spears), which was not a rotated scythe head from the original mowing machine, lol.
War Scythes were purpose-built weapons, capable of literally removing limbs from calvary steeds and riders in a single side thrusting motion. The reason I mention the other sort of weapon is because the two were considered more efficient tools for infantry units of the middle ages than Halberds (which were considered more useful in narrower spaces), Pikes (which were used in units alongside spearmen for those who broke the ranks in a charge), and other Polearms because they needed less horizontal and vertical space to be effective, particularly since they used the inner curve for killing and the backside for pushing.
You could have a line of Scythemen six abreast and they could use the scythes over the shoulders and heads of short sword and shield armed defenders -- because they could operate in a more narrow space. Really under-rated weapons in the modern sense. And that's if a formation was used -- in an open field, they wouldn't lead with the polearm, they set it back, and would run beside an opponent, especially mixed calvary and siege towers.
That is all to say that they weren't used like the farmer implement (which requires a somewhat tiring almost rocking motion going side to side and gives you a backache after about 30 minutes if you are as out of shape a gal as I am, lol).
I like your term for distinction (cinematic) -- but note a couple other properties of a scythe blade for mowing (or, I guess, scything is what folks would call it today). the blades were more typically narrow, and they had two curves to them (the standard arc to a point, but also a light twist of the blade along the plane) in order to enable smoother fall patterns in use.
Another way to look at it is the Ball and Chain traditional ideal is still derived from the threshing flail (two sticks bound by leather or cording), but a lot more specific to the purpose of war. Still derived from an agricultural implement, but purpose built for war.
Also, all of this talk reminded me of another weapon: the staff sling. Which is another polearm in some form, though again most players think of it as a person high stick with a sling on it, lol. Not actually how they worked, but they were far more dangerous than hand slings (which included the kind of handheld "slingshot" with the Y shape as far back as 500 BCE).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
People have talked about garrotes before. I think they concluded there wasn't a way to implement them that wasn't game-breaking. 5e did away with coup de grace or other out of combat instant kill moves as player facing options by design.
Last one I saw involved a grapple, followed by holding on for several rounds for suffocation effects.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I'm tidying up a short list of weapons I've added to my games and I'm curious as to which weapons other people think are missing from the game and need rules!
So far I've added the Bolas, Brass Knuckes, Garrotte, Phalanx Spear/Sarissa (very long spear), Monster Hunter's Spear, War Scythe, and Shuriken.
Are there any weapons which you think are missing from 5e, that can't just be reflavoured?
The Glaive from the movie, Krull (it's a thrown weapon made of 5 daggers and is magical...returns to the thrower). The short sword staff (Matt's) from wheel of time, but that could probably be re-flavored (or not). Double crossbow (these exist in real world; would only give an extra attack if pre-loaded beforehand)--our rogue had one custom made.
I would not bother with suffocation rules for a garotte. It just does damage, the same way constriction attacks are just implemented as damage. Grappling rules in general could use some expansion, a garotte is a tool to make you better at throttling someone... which is also not possible with the grappling rules.
Whilst making the Kopesh I stumbled upon a niche in the weapon system which has gone unfilled - Finesse weapons which aren't Light.
So Kopesh does 1d8 Slashing and is Finesse, but lacking Light you can't duel-wield it as well as the 1d6 slashing scimitar!
The Garrotte I have made a bit complex, but not overly so. It's assumed if you know how to Garrotte you can transition to it whilst grappling!
Garrote. As an action, you can use the Garrotte to attempt to choke a creature which is not more than one size larger than you, and which is currently grappled by you, provided it has a neck to Garrotte. When you do so, the creature you have grappled immediately starts choking (see Suffocating), and cannot breathe or speak. Whilst Garrotting a creature, you maintain the Grapple, and do not require a free hand to do so. This effect lasts until:
You finish a turn without having used an action to use the Garrotte,
You are no longer Grappling the creature.
If a creature would drop to 0 hitpoints as a result of the Garrote, it instead falls unconscious for 1d4 hours. This condition ends if it takes damage or recovers any number of hit points, provided that it can breathe. If the creature cannot breathe for 3 further rounds, it will instead die.
I've added a Blackjack (Sap club) as a Light Finesse weapon that deals 1d4 Bludgeoning.
Regarding the Sword Breaker, I've already got one!
Sword Eater
weapon (dagger), uncommon
This long, heavy dagger features deep serrations along its edge, which are angled such that a deft flick of the wrist can leave an opponent empty-handed, or even clutching little more than a useless hilt.
Requires proficiency in Daggers to use. If you are hit by an attack using a sword or dagger which exactly equals your AC, you can use your reaction to cause the attack to miss, and to disarm the attacker. If the attacker’s sword is not magical, it is destroyed as the blade is snapped from the hilt.
This long, heavy dagger features deep serrations along its edge, which are angled such that a deft flick of the wrist can leave an opponent empty-handed, or even clutching little more than a useless hilt.
Requires proficiency in Daggers to use. If you are hit by an attack using a sword or dagger which exactly equals your AC, you can use your reaction to cause the attack to miss, and to disarm the attacker. If the attacker’s sword is not magical, it is destroyed as the blade is snapped from the hilt.
Garrotes should only be useable against creatures of your size or smaller. Look at how thick the neck is on a horse or a cow- you're not going to successfully garrote it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Garrotes should only be useable against creatures of your size or smaller. Look at how thick the neck is on a horse or a cow- you're not going to successfully garrote it.
If you're strong enough to grapple a horse or a cow (fairly easy in 5e, not so easy in reality) and have a sufficiently long and strong wire, you could do it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The problem is that an arming sword would basically be '1d8 damage, not Finesse, not Light, not Versatile'... and that's kind of a pointless weapon, so they don't bother to publish it.
Well, the use of longsword in that manner goes back long, long before chainmail, lol. While in the world of fencing and its closely related fields the concept and understanding of those continues, in fiction and general storytelling, as well as wargaming, the term "longsword" was used to refer to an arming sword (28 to 38 inches in length) as far back as the 1700's.
If your OCD is still twitching, it's reacting to an entire change in concept over 300 years in the making.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Well: to be fair, this is where "TTRPG: a collection of gameplay mechanics" clashes with "TTRPG: a simulation of a fantasy world": where exactly one draws the line between "too much detail/granularity" and "too little detail/granularity" is sort of a matter of taste.
As for vis-a-vis AEDorsay's point: "Colloquial" and "proper" meanings often differ, and agreed;w ords tend tod rift over time. But in this case: that more just means Chain Mail imported a mistake the same way D&D imported the mistake from Chain Mail. To point to a different example: people often use "United Kingdom", "Britain/Great Britain", and "England" interchangeably in common language, even though each of those is entirely different (Union of countries, land-mass, country respectively). In any case: D&D is more often emulating a medieval or late medieval setting; so the more medieval terminology ought to fit in my mind... but once again: that's a matter of taste more than anything else.
Well, if it was the farmer's implement, or the usual way that such a thing is portrayed in folklore (a la Death) , sure, but as recently as 1921, entire units of soldiers were armed with War Scythes. They have a long history of value as a weapon, successfully used, going back to ancient Greece, so calling them "not a weapon" isn't accurate.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The point of a war scythe or some equivalent isn't because they're a real weapon, but because they crop up a lot in various pieces of fiction; some notable examples include RWBY and various FromSoft titles. Typically they are attributed to have a long reach; now, that said, in 5e terms they're pretty interchangeable with a glaberd.
You're not wrong, although I brought up chakram because it feels like it should be a handaxe with finesse IMO.
Ultimately I don't really think there's a lot you can't do without reflavoring, and when I want a special weapon in my campaign I just make it a magic item. But I think you can make an argument for "utility" martial weapons that trade damage for CC or other effects. Bolas, garrottes, and the like could be a martial equivalent to spells that are used out of combat to sneakily subdue or capture targets. And let's be honest - no one's reflavoring a net because nets just suck. Like they included them just to make them really bad. Sure, we've got no problems suspending our disbelief so that there are no penalties for swinging our 10-foot glaive in a 5-foot hallway, but when it comes to nets suddenly everything needs to be super real-world accurate to the point that they're useless as a fun fantasy weapon... but I digress.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
A war scythe is what you get when you take the head off of a scythe and reattach it straight (I can't read the script on the text here, but it actually seems to be showing how you turn an agricultural scythe into a war scythe since the top blade image has a rotated tang).
That's not a war scythe, that's a cinematic scythe, which as I mentioned, is basically a reach/piercing or reach/slashing weapon. In the current edition of the rules it's indistinguishable from either a pike or a halberd; in the UA rules it probably has a mastery property of cleave, which would mean a piercing version of the weapon doesn't exist, though the slashing variant is identical to a halberd.
People have talked about garrotes before. I think they concluded there wasn't a way to implement them that wasn't game-breaking. 5e did away with coup de grace or other out of combat instant kill moves as player facing options by design.
I think the weapon list is too big, rather than too small. You really only need "pointy stabby", "sharp slashy", and "blunty munty" combined with "small", "medium" and "large".
A long sword, an arming sword, a katana, a falchion - they are all the same in the game. A sharp slashy thing that medium creatures wield in one hand.
Hmm, since small creaures exist, maybe we need five sizes.
Not quite. Agricultural scythes didn't have blades that were particularly good for use as weapons, even if they were rotated. Actual war scythes had a thicker blade that was more effective for cutting flesh and bone, whereas agricultural scythe blades are only really good for cutting grass or wheat. Changing the orientation on an agricultural scythe like that image shows would make it more effective as an improvised weapon but it still wouldn't be a particularly good weapon.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It shows (in dutch or german, I can't be more clear) how the artist estimated they came to the arrangement of a War Scythe over time (the one roughly in the center above the spears), which was not a rotated scythe head from the original mowing machine, lol.
War Scythes were purpose-built weapons, capable of literally removing limbs from calvary steeds and riders in a single side thrusting motion. The reason I mention the other sort of weapon is because the two were considered more efficient tools for infantry units of the middle ages than Halberds (which were considered more useful in narrower spaces), Pikes (which were used in units alongside spearmen for those who broke the ranks in a charge), and other Polearms because they needed less horizontal and vertical space to be effective, particularly since they used the inner curve for killing and the backside for pushing.
You could have a line of Scythemen six abreast and they could use the scythes over the shoulders and heads of short sword and shield armed defenders -- because they could operate in a more narrow space. Really under-rated weapons in the modern sense. And that's if a formation was used -- in an open field, they wouldn't lead with the polearm, they set it back, and would run beside an opponent, especially mixed calvary and siege towers.
That is all to say that they weren't used like the farmer implement (which requires a somewhat tiring almost rocking motion going side to side and gives you a backache after about 30 minutes if you are as out of shape a gal as I am, lol).
I like your term for distinction (cinematic) -- but note a couple other properties of a scythe blade for mowing (or, I guess, scything is what folks would call it today). the blades were more typically narrow, and they had two curves to them (the standard arc to a point, but also a light twist of the blade along the plane) in order to enable smoother fall patterns in use.
Another way to look at it is the Ball and Chain traditional ideal is still derived from the threshing flail (two sticks bound by leather or cording), but a lot more specific to the purpose of war. Still derived from an agricultural implement, but purpose built for war.
Also, all of this talk reminded me of another weapon: the staff sling. Which is another polearm in some form, though again most players think of it as a person high stick with a sling on it, lol. Not actually how they worked, but they were far more dangerous than hand slings (which included the kind of handheld "slingshot" with the Y shape as far back as 500 BCE).
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Last one I saw involved a grapple, followed by holding on for several rounds for suffocation effects.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The Glaive from the movie, Krull (it's a thrown weapon made of 5 daggers and is magical...returns to the thrower). The short sword staff (Matt's) from wheel of time, but that could probably be re-flavored (or not). Double crossbow (these exist in real world; would only give an extra attack if pre-loaded beforehand)--our rogue had one custom made.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
I would not bother with suffocation rules for a garotte. It just does damage, the same way constriction attacks are just implemented as damage. Grappling rules in general could use some expansion, a garotte is a tool to make you better at throttling someone... which is also not possible with the grappling rules.
We need a finesse bludgeoning weapon like a Sap. I'd settle for d4 damage. Rogues shouldn't have to stab people to knock them out.
I'd also like a Reach Heavy bludgeoning weapon (e.g. lucerne hammer as mentioned by somebody upthread.)
Billy clubs? short staves and nunchucks, sais and that can be dual wielded? Brass knuckles? A sword breaker like in wheel of time books?
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
More good discussion, thanks everyone!
Whilst making the Kopesh I stumbled upon a niche in the weapon system which has gone unfilled - Finesse weapons which aren't Light.
So Kopesh does 1d8 Slashing and is Finesse, but lacking Light you can't duel-wield it as well as the 1d6 slashing scimitar!
The Garrotte I have made a bit complex, but not overly so. It's assumed if you know how to Garrotte you can transition to it whilst grappling!
Garrote. As an action, you can use the Garrotte to attempt to choke a creature which is not more than one size larger than you, and which is currently grappled by you, provided it has a neck to Garrotte. When you do so, the creature you have grappled immediately starts choking (see Suffocating), and cannot breathe or speak. Whilst Garrotting a creature, you maintain the Grapple, and do not require a free hand to do so. This effect lasts until:
If a creature would drop to 0 hitpoints as a result of the Garrote, it instead falls unconscious for 1d4 hours. This condition ends if it takes damage or recovers any number of hit points, provided that it can breathe. If the creature cannot breathe for 3 further rounds, it will instead die.
I've added a Blackjack (Sap club) as a Light Finesse weapon that deals 1d4 Bludgeoning.
Regarding the Sword Breaker, I've already got one!
Sword Eater
weapon (dagger), uncommon
This long, heavy dagger features deep serrations along its edge, which are angled such that a deft flick of the wrist can leave an opponent empty-handed, or even clutching little more than a useless hilt.
Requires proficiency in Daggers to use. If you are hit by an attack using a sword or dagger which exactly equals your AC, you can use your reaction to cause the attack to miss, and to disarm the attacker. If the attacker’s sword is not magical, it is destroyed as the blade is snapped from the hilt.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Yup, a sword breaker. I mentioned that.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
Garrotes should only be useable against creatures of your size or smaller. Look at how thick the neck is on a horse or a cow- you're not going to successfully garrote it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If you're strong enough to grapple a horse or a cow (fairly easy in 5e, not so easy in reality) and have a sufficiently long and strong wire, you could do it.