My Dungeon Master and I have been trying to answer this question for a couple of months and a bit, and we have been on both sides. We would both appreciate some outside opinions.
Hm... from my understanding the schiavona was used much more in a way the classical arming sword was used, than the rapier. It has a broader blade made for slashing attacks. It was also used by heavy cavalry, which furthers the slashing aspect.
Honestly, it kind of fits in the middle (as 5e does not have a wide variety of weapon types compared to IRL). I'd say it is a 1-handed 1d8+STR slashing weapon. Basically a longsword without versatile.
It can realistically do piercing damage just as easily, but all d&d weapons can realistically do more than 1 type of damage.
Honestly, it kind of fits in the middle (as 5e does not have a wide variety of weapon types compared to IRL). I'd say it is a 1-handed 1d8+STR slashing weapon. Basically a longsword without versatile.
It can realistically do piercing damage just as easily, but all d&d weapons can realistically do more than 1 type of damage.
Good point with the versatile. It is definetely a single handed blade and not one-and-a-half.
Between the options given, longsword for sure, but the scimitar is the closest weapon in the PHB.
Too long, straight, and narrow to be a scimitar IMO. They probably weigh similar, but the longer blade would have a higher rotational weight and require more strength to swing and lend itself to thrusts more.
Honestly, it kind of fits in the middle (as 5e does not have a wide variety of weapon types compared to IRL). I'd say it is a 1-handed 1d8+STR slashing weapon. Basically a longsword without versatile.
It can realistically do piercing damage just as easily, but all d&d weapons can realistically do more than 1 type of damage.
Pretty much exactly what my thoughts is too. It is the sort of middle ground sword that likely was the most common type of sword in existence but that 5E for some reason forgot.
Honestly, it kind of fits in the middle (as 5e does not have a wide variety of weapon types compared to IRL). I'd say it is a 1-handed 1d8+STR slashing weapon. Basically a longsword without versatile.
It can realistically do piercing damage just as easily, but all d&d weapons can realistically do more than 1 type of damage.
Pretty much exactly what my thoughts is too. It is the sort of middle ground sword that likely was the most common type of sword in existence but that 5E for some reason forgot.
5e made a chart of damage dice and weapon properties, drew a line and assigned some weapon archetypes they could think of to combos where the line crossed. It needs reworked with at least twice as many options and rules for higher quality versions (masterworks for example).
Honestly, it kind of fits in the middle (as 5e does not have a wide variety of weapon types compared to IRL). I'd say it is a 1-handed 1d8+STR slashing weapon. Basically a longsword without versatile.
It can realistically do piercing damage just as easily, but all d&d weapons can realistically do more than 1 type of damage.
Pretty much exactly what my thoughts is too. It is the sort of middle ground sword that likely was the most common type of sword in existence but that 5E for some reason forgot.
5e made a chart of damage dice and weapon properties, drew a line and assigned some weapon archetypes they could think of to combos where the line crossed. It needs reworked with at least twice as many options and rules for higher quality versions (masterworks for example).
Please no. We had more options before. It was a pain and didn't add anything to the game. And do we really need more halberd/glaive situations where they are identical in every way except name? Cause that's what you end up with.
On the upside, I learned an almost disturbing amount about medieval pole arms from the 1e PHB.
Honestly, it kind of fits in the middle (as 5e does not have a wide variety of weapon types compared to IRL). I'd say it is a 1-handed 1d8+STR slashing weapon. Basically a longsword without versatile.
It can realistically do piercing damage just as easily, but all d&d weapons can realistically do more than 1 type of damage.
Pretty much exactly what my thoughts is too. It is the sort of middle ground sword that likely was the most common type of sword in existence but that 5E for some reason forgot.
5e made a chart of damage dice and weapon properties, drew a line and assigned some weapon archetypes they could think of to combos where the line crossed. It needs reworked with at least twice as many options and rules for higher quality versions (masterworks for example).
Please no. We had more options before. It was a pain and didn't add anything to the game. And do we really need more halberd/glaive situations where they are identical in every way except name? Cause that's what you end up with.
On the upside, I learned an almost disturbing amount about medieval pole arms from the 1e PHB.
It needs the top end for Str based weapons to top out at 2d8/4d4 (instead of 1d12/2d6) and a few more weapons added into the middle like the Arming Sword/Schiavona in at 1d10 after the Longsword gets adjusted to 2d4/2d6. That would fix things without it getting to be a hot mess.
Please no. We had more options before. It was a pain and didn't add anything to the game. And do we really need more halberd/glaive situations where they are identical in every way except name? Cause that's what you end up with.
On the upside, I learned an almost disturbing amount about medieval pole arms from the 1e PHB.
It would absolutely add a lot to the game to go back and render the simple and martial weapons tables coherent so that simple->martial is always a step up, as opposed to e.g. allowing tridents to exist. Around a year ago I examined the table in depth and once you do so it becomes self-evident they started with a coherent approach then decided that was too much work and half-assed the rest of both tables. That's why e.g. greatclubs don't deal 1d10 damage, which they would if the tables were consistent. Instead, 5E has given us a world where there is literally no reason for anyone anywhere to ever make a greatclub in the first place.
That is what you get when you try to reduce 6000 years of different weapons ( & armors) to about 2 dozen total 😳🤡
Counterpoint: 5e weapons and armor are abstractions designed around presenting different mechanics, rather than direct representations of specific weapons and armor. Give your equipment whatever descriptive characteristics you desire.
To me a schiavona is closer to a rapier in 5E as it cannot be wielded with two hands. But i woundn't mind any of the two that fit best the player character.
To me a schiavona is closer to a rapier in 5E as it cannot be wielded with two hands. But i woundn't mind any of the two that fit best the player character.
While I agree that a schiavona should in no way be able to be used 2 handed I'd also say that the finesse property is equally inappropriate for it. And that means that it is a sword that doesn't exist in 5E.
That is what you get when you try to reduce 6000 years of different weapons ( & armors) to about 2 dozen total 😳🤡
Counterpoint: 5e weapons and armor are abstractions designed around presenting different mechanics, rather than direct representations of specific weapons and armor. Give your equipment whatever descriptive characteristics you desire.
While I generally agree with the sentiment I do think that there is something missing among the swords in 5E and that it means that neither the mechanics nor the representation of real swords really make sense. We have representations for most of the variations with bigger/heavier, smaller/lighter, more versatile, more agile and so on but the most common type, the base 1-handed sword is nowhere to be seen (call it viking-sword or broad-sword or arming-sword or basket-hilted-sword (as the schiavona) or side-sword or any of the many other types used in non-european cultures). If you added a sword with a D8 dmg-die and no properties then sword section of weapons looks a whole lot better for realism and it also makes sense from a mechanical perspective. (small argument might still be had about all swords having either slashing or piercing damage but never both)
On a side note it is also somewhat annoying that they made short sword and scimitar into separate weapons and then only gave some classes proficiency with one of them. While the mechanical difference is negligible the flavour difference is quite a bit bigger. Monks are most hard done by it as the weapons many (most?) associate with them (eastern style single edge blades) aren't available to them without jumping through hoops because of a stupid design decision (it not like there had been any balance issues from allowing them to use either/both).
A quick note on monks and swords - the Chinese straight sword, katana, wakazashi and even ninjato are all martial/ warrior weapons. Yes they are included in a number of different martial arts traditions that we frequently dump into the monk class, but they were originally and even today by DnD standards Kensai weapons not regular monk weapons. The only bladed weapons that I think of as really monk weapons are the butterfly knives short swords or long daggers/knives and perhaps the naginta but even it was originally a warrior’s weapon not a monks weapon.
as for bladed weapons in general I, personally, break them down into the following groups:
1) very short (12”-) bladed stabbing and slashing weapons - daggers and knives 1D4 damage
2) short (12-20”) primarily stabbing weapons (siphons, etc) - short swords 1D6 damage
3) short primarily slashing or chopping weapons (machetes, falchion, etc) - falchions 1D6 damage
4) medium length (20-30”) one handed mixed slashing and stabbing weapons with 1 or 2 edges - broadswords (including scimitars and sabers) 1D8 damage
5) long (30-40+”) primarily slashing weapons usable with one or two hands - long swords ( including the katana) 1D10/D12 damage
6) long primarily stabbing weapons - rapiers 1D10 damage
7) very long (45”+) two handed slashing weapons - great swords ( including the nodachi) 2 D8 damage
I’ve also given the in game damage I think each class of weapon should get.
To me a schiavona is closer to a rapier in 5E as it cannot be wielded with two hands. But i woundn't mind any of the two that fit best the player character.
While I agree that a schiavona should in no way be able to be used 2 handed I'd also say that the finesse property is equally inappropriate for it. And that means that it is a sword that doesn't exist in 5E.
Why would finesse be inapropriate? It's just a property that let you substitute the attack's ability score without explanations.
We have representations for most of the variations with bigger/heavier, smaller/lighter, more versatile, more agile and so on but the most common type, the base 1-handed sword is nowhere to be seen
Funny you say that i recently homebrewed one after the party in my GREYHAWK campaign found a wrough iron broadsword. (D10 non-versatile)
Why would finesse be inapropriate? It's just a property that let you substitute the attack's ability score without explanations.
Yea that must be why we have all those finesse polearm weapons out there...
No there is an underlying reason for what weapons have the finesse property and it doesn't fit for the type swords we are talking about here. They aren't quick and agile weapons like Rapiers, Daggers or the various short/small blades that fall under Shortsword.
My Dungeon Master and I have been trying to answer this question for a couple of months and a bit, and we have been on both sides. We would both appreciate some outside opinions.
Hm... from my understanding the schiavona was used much more in a way the classical arming sword was used, than the rapier. It has a broader blade made for slashing attacks. It was also used by heavy cavalry, which furthers the slashing aspect.
So, my take would be D&D longsword over rapier.
Honestly, it kind of fits in the middle (as 5e does not have a wide variety of weapon types compared to IRL). I'd say it is a 1-handed 1d8+STR slashing weapon. Basically a longsword without versatile.
It can realistically do piercing damage just as easily, but all d&d weapons can realistically do more than 1 type of damage.
Good point with the versatile. It is definetely a single handed blade and not one-and-a-half.
I agree with the others, it would qualify as an Arming Sword, which D&D doesn’t have.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Between the options given, longsword for sure, but the scimitar is the closest weapon in the PHB.
Too long, straight, and narrow to be a scimitar IMO. They probably weigh similar, but the longer blade would have a higher rotational weight and require more strength to swing and lend itself to thrusts more.
Pretty much exactly what my thoughts is too. It is the sort of middle ground sword that likely was the most common type of sword in existence but that 5E for some reason forgot.
5e made a chart of damage dice and weapon properties, drew a line and assigned some weapon archetypes they could think of to combos where the line crossed. It needs reworked with at least twice as many options and rules for higher quality versions (masterworks for example).
Please no. We had more options before. It was a pain and didn't add anything to the game. And do we really need more halberd/glaive situations where they are identical in every way except name? Cause that's what you end up with.
On the upside, I learned an almost disturbing amount about medieval pole arms from the 1e PHB.
It needs the top end for Str based weapons to top out at 2d8/4d4 (instead of 1d12/2d6) and a few more weapons added into the middle like the Arming Sword/Schiavona in at 1d10 after the Longsword gets adjusted to 2d4/2d6. That would fix things without it getting to be a hot mess.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It would absolutely add a lot to the game to go back and render the simple and martial weapons tables coherent so that simple->martial is always a step up, as opposed to e.g. allowing tridents to exist. Around a year ago I examined the table in depth and once you do so it becomes self-evident they started with a coherent approach then decided that was too much work and half-assed the rest of both tables. That's why e.g. greatclubs don't deal 1d10 damage, which they would if the tables were consistent. Instead, 5E has given us a world where there is literally no reason for anyone anywhere to ever make a greatclub in the first place.
That is what you get when you try to reduce 6000 years of different weapons ( & armors) to about 2 dozen total 😳🤡
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Counterpoint: 5e weapons and armor are abstractions designed around presenting different mechanics, rather than direct representations of specific weapons and armor. Give your equipment whatever descriptive characteristics you desire.
Which is why I think SagaTympana nails it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To me a schiavona is closer to a rapier in 5E as it cannot be wielded with two hands. But i woundn't mind any of the two that fit best the player character.
While I agree that a schiavona should in no way be able to be used 2 handed I'd also say that the finesse property is equally inappropriate for it. And that means that it is a sword that doesn't exist in 5E.
While I generally agree with the sentiment I do think that there is something missing among the swords in 5E and that it means that neither the mechanics nor the representation of real swords really make sense. We have representations for most of the variations with bigger/heavier, smaller/lighter, more versatile, more agile and so on but the most common type, the base 1-handed sword is nowhere to be seen (call it viking-sword or broad-sword or arming-sword or basket-hilted-sword (as the schiavona) or side-sword or any of the many other types used in non-european cultures).
If you added a sword with a D8 dmg-die and no properties then sword section of weapons looks a whole lot better for realism and it also makes sense from a mechanical perspective.
(small argument might still be had about all swords having either slashing or piercing damage but never both)
On a side note it is also somewhat annoying that they made short sword and scimitar into separate weapons and then only gave some classes proficiency with one of them. While the mechanical difference is negligible the flavour difference is quite a bit bigger. Monks are most hard done by it as the weapons many (most?) associate with them (eastern style single edge blades) aren't available to them without jumping through hoops because of a stupid design decision (it not like there had been any balance issues from allowing them to use either/both).
A quick note on monks and swords - the Chinese straight sword, katana, wakazashi and even ninjato are all martial/ warrior weapons. Yes they are included in a number of different martial arts traditions that we frequently dump into the monk class, but they were originally and even today by DnD standards Kensai weapons not regular monk weapons. The only bladed weapons that I think of as really monk weapons are the butterfly knives short swords or long daggers/knives and perhaps the naginta but even it was originally a warrior’s weapon not a monks weapon.
as for bladed weapons in general I, personally, break them down into the following groups:
1) very short (12”-) bladed stabbing and slashing weapons - daggers and knives 1D4 damage
2) short (12-20”) primarily stabbing weapons (siphons, etc) - short swords 1D6 damage
3) short primarily slashing or chopping weapons (machetes, falchion, etc) - falchions 1D6 damage
4) medium length (20-30”) one handed mixed slashing and stabbing weapons with 1 or 2 edges - broadswords (including scimitars and sabers) 1D8 damage
5) long (30-40+”) primarily slashing weapons usable with one or two hands - long swords ( including the katana) 1D10/D12 damage
6) long primarily stabbing weapons - rapiers 1D10 damage
7) very long (45”+) two handed slashing weapons - great swords ( including the nodachi) 2 D8 damage
I’ve also given the in game damage I think each class of weapon should get.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Why would finesse be inapropriate? It's just a property that let you substitute the attack's ability score without explanations.
Funny you say that i recently homebrewed one after the party in my GREYHAWK campaign found a wrough iron broadsword. (D10 non-versatile)
Yea that must be why we have all those finesse polearm weapons out there...
No there is an underlying reason for what weapons have the finesse property and it doesn't fit for the type swords we are talking about here. They aren't quick and agile weapons like Rapiers, Daggers or the various short/small blades that fall under Shortsword.
Sweet, biggest damage die of any 1-handed weapon. Sign me up for one.