So im DMing my first campaign, and my druid wants to change out the scimitar prof for a shortsword prof, as scimitars are kinda wonky to have as a stereotypical western pirate. Is there a functional difference that I am missing? Or is it all good to let him switch it?
Only functional benefit I can think of is underwater combat. SSs can be used underwater without problem. So if your campaign is going to have any underwater fighting at all, it'd be more useful for them to have the ss prof.
Or, one thing I do, is let players train up new proficiencies. It requires giving them ample downtime to do so, but can be done in chunks here are there. My rule for weapons training is 200 hours for proficiency.
Keep in mind that in D&D terms, a “scimitar” would also include many western “slashing” weapons including the falchion, messer, and even the cutlass. If a cutlass isn’t “stereotypical western pirate,” what is? “Scimitar” is a broad classification of swords, not a specific sword. But if they want a shortsword, go for it. The only two differences are the 1lb weight difference and the fact that a scimitar would potentially split a black pudding, or ochre jelly, but a shortsword wouldn’t. (And that there is no “shortsword of speed.”)
Yeah the scimitar fit's fine thematically, but it's not that big of a deal. If Druids can use dagger, scimitars, sickles, and spears, there's no real reason they shouldn't be allowed a short sword. Anyway, I might make them come up with some sort of backstory or RP reason why they're different from other Druids but that's about it.
So im DMing my first campaign, and my druid wants to change out the scimitar prof for a shortsword prof, as scimitars are kinda wonky to have as a stereotypical western pirate. Is there a functional difference that I am missing? Or is it all good to let him switch it?
What?? Use scimitar stats but call it a cutlass.
I don't think it's a big deal if you let them use a short sword instead. The only real difference is slashing vs. piercing damage, which rarely makes a difference.
Yeah just tell them that they can call it whatever they want and keep them using the scimitar. The PHB is fine with you renaming weapons to whatever you want. Scimitar is actually more in keeping with pirates than a shortsword anyway (a shortsword is basically a Roman gladius, while a D&D longsword is a hybrid of the arming sword and actual longswords, but there's so much variation in what swords were actually like, categorisation is almost impossible).
Throughout history, until quite late on (rapiers and sabres) almost all swords were just called "swords" in whatever language was spoken in the region. "Scimitar" is in fact a European term, and nobody who ever had one used it.
"A European term, scimitar does not refer to one specific sword type, but an assortment of different Eastern curved swords inspired by types introduced to the Middle East by Central Asian ghilmans."
Yeah, a “Shortsword” isn’t really a thing. It’s just “short sword.” (Guess why they called a “Longsword” a “long sword.”) They weren’t so much specific weapons, more nouns with adjectives. Technically, “katana” just means “Longsword.”
Thanks for the help! I did not consider just re-flavoring it as a cutlass. that should work fine. As to the underwater issue, they all will have underwater fighting prof, since it is a semi-aquatic campaign.
I just use scimitars to stat a range of finesse slashing swords, so "sabres" fit here too. Short swords are stables so there's the whole slashing vs. piercing thing. Basically if you have a scimitar, and a dagger as back up against whatever might be resistant to slashing damage, a starter bladey type adventurers is pretty set.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
In the end, it's pretty much one of those "Whatever the DM wants" issues, so if you like the idea of a grand underwater battle, and she wants a Short Sword, why isn't a Scimitar good enough?
Honestly, the fact that D&D has 'scimitar' as a separate weapon is silly excess detail, a real scimitar should probably just be a longsword (5e seems to confuse scimitar and cutlass), though at least they got rid of falchion and broadsword as separate categories.
Honestly, the fact that D&D has 'scimitar' as a separate weapon is silly excess detail, a real scimitar should probably just be a longsword (5e seems to confuse scimitar and cutlass), though at least they got rid of falchion and broadsword as separate categories.
It gives the player a slashing finesse weapon that the longsword as statted doesn't have for all those Dervishesque Drizzt wannabe and Errol Flynns. Nomenclature is a bit wonky but I see their logic. I would have made the short sword slashing finesse and allowed the cutlas in there, and downgraded the rapier to a d6 piercer.
It gives the player a slashing finesse weapon that the longsword as statted doesn't have for all those Dervishesque Drizzt wannabe and Errol Flynns. Nomenclature is a bit wonky but I see their logic. I would have made the short sword slashing finesse and allowed the cutlas in there, and downgraded the rapier to a d6 piercer.
Well, I assume they wanted to cover a gladius, but yes, there should be cutting shortswords (cutlass, machete, shorter falchion, etc). Or just call it 'light sword' and include rapiers and fencing sabers (a cavalry saber is just a longsword).
The real problem here is that 5e just has a single damage type per weapon. That's just kind of silly. A morningstar should do piercing and bludgeoning. Swords and halberds should do piercing and slashing. I know they did it to simplify things but still.
It gives the player a slashing finesse weapon that the longsword as statted doesn't have for all those Dervishesque Drizzt wannabe and Errol Flynns. Nomenclature is a bit wonky but I see their logic. I would have made the short sword slashing finesse and allowed the cutlas in there, and downgraded the rapier to a d6 piercer.
Well, I assume they wanted to cover a gladius, but yes, there should be cutting shortswords (cutlass, machete, shorter falchion, etc).
See that's the thing, I'd say the gladius is more unique than the scimitar, so I would've done a short slashing sword, and then have the gladius be the piercing d6er. Opposite of what they've done, but I guess scimitar has been a presence named in game in prior editions where the gladius not so much.
And whenever the gladius is mentioned for some reason I always think of the Cinqueada covered for AD&D in an old Dragon magazine. Just because Magic Users could wield it.
So im DMing my first campaign, and my druid wants to change out the scimitar prof for a shortsword prof, as scimitars are kinda wonky to have as a stereotypical western pirate. Is there a functional difference that I am missing? Or is it all good to let him switch it?
Only functional benefit I can think of is underwater combat. SSs can be used underwater without problem. So if your campaign is going to have any underwater fighting at all, it'd be more useful for them to have the ss prof.
Or, one thing I do, is let players train up new proficiencies. It requires giving them ample downtime to do so, but can be done in chunks here are there. My rule for weapons training is 200 hours for proficiency.
I don't see a big mechanical advantage/disadvantage, but I wonder why they think that the scimitar doesn't fit...
Western pirate sword expectation ("cutlass"):
Scimitar:
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Keep in mind that in D&D terms, a “scimitar” would also include many western “slashing” weapons including the falchion, messer, and even the cutlass. If a cutlass isn’t “stereotypical western pirate,” what is? “Scimitar” is a broad classification of swords, not a specific sword. But if they want a shortsword, go for it. The only two differences are the 1lb weight difference and the fact that a scimitar would potentially split a black pudding, or ochre jelly, but a shortsword wouldn’t. (And that there is no “shortsword of speed.”)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah the scimitar fit's fine thematically, but it's not that big of a deal. If Druids can use dagger, scimitars, sickles, and spears, there's no real reason they shouldn't be allowed a short sword. Anyway, I might make them come up with some sort of backstory or RP reason why they're different from other Druids but that's about it.
They could always take a the Weapon Master Feat, and not only be able to use Shortswords, they could pick out 3 more weapons they like.
<Insert clever signature here>
What?? Use scimitar stats but call it a cutlass.
I don't think it's a big deal if you let them use a short sword instead. The only real difference is slashing vs. piercing damage, which rarely makes a difference.
Yeah just tell them that they can call it whatever they want and keep them using the scimitar. The PHB is fine with you renaming weapons to whatever you want. Scimitar is actually more in keeping with pirates than a shortsword anyway (a shortsword is basically a Roman gladius, while a D&D longsword is a hybrid of the arming sword and actual longswords, but there's so much variation in what swords were actually like, categorisation is almost impossible).
Throughout history, until quite late on (rapiers and sabres) almost all swords were just called "swords" in whatever language was spoken in the region. "Scimitar" is in fact a European term, and nobody who ever had one used it.
"A European term, scimitar does not refer to one specific sword type, but an assortment of different Eastern curved swords inspired by types introduced to the Middle East by Central Asian ghilmans."
Yeah, a “Shortsword” isn’t really a thing. It’s just “short sword.” (Guess why they called a “Longsword” a “long sword.”) They weren’t so much specific weapons, more nouns with adjectives. Technically, “katana” just means “Longsword.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That Bastard.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh good, someone got it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Thanks for the help! I did not consider just re-flavoring it as a cutlass. that should work fine. As to the underwater issue, they all will have underwater fighting prof, since it is a semi-aquatic campaign.
I chuckled ;)
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
I shook my head.
I just use scimitars to stat a range of finesse slashing swords, so "sabres" fit here too. Short swords are stables so there's the whole slashing vs. piercing thing. Basically if you have a scimitar, and a dagger as back up against whatever might be resistant to slashing damage, a starter bladey type adventurers is pretty set.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
In the end, it's pretty much one of those "Whatever the DM wants" issues, so if you like the idea of a grand underwater battle, and she wants a Short Sword, why isn't a Scimitar good enough?
<Insert clever signature here>
Honestly, the fact that D&D has 'scimitar' as a separate weapon is silly excess detail, a real scimitar should probably just be a longsword (5e seems to confuse scimitar and cutlass), though at least they got rid of falchion and broadsword as separate categories.
It gives the player a slashing finesse weapon that the longsword as statted doesn't have for all those Dervishesque Drizzt wannabe and Errol Flynns. Nomenclature is a bit wonky but I see their logic. I would have made the short sword slashing finesse and allowed the cutlas in there, and downgraded the rapier to a d6 piercer.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Well, I assume they wanted to cover a gladius, but yes, there should be cutting shortswords (cutlass, machete, shorter falchion, etc). Or just call it 'light sword' and include rapiers and fencing sabers (a cavalry saber is just a longsword).
The real problem here is that 5e just has a single damage type per weapon. That's just kind of silly. A morningstar should do piercing and bludgeoning. Swords and halberds should do piercing and slashing. I know they did it to simplify things but still.
See that's the thing, I'd say the gladius is more unique than the scimitar, so I would've done a short slashing sword, and then have the gladius be the piercing d6er. Opposite of what they've done, but I guess scimitar has been a presence named in game in prior editions where the gladius not so much.
And whenever the gladius is mentioned for some reason I always think of the Cinqueada covered for AD&D in an old Dragon magazine. Just because Magic Users could wield it.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.