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.
As there aren't terribly many monster types that care about the difference (skeletons for bludgeoning, maybe some flavors of ooze for slashing vs piercing) it barely matters.
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.
A scimitar isn’t any specific sword, it’s a catch-all term for a broad variety of weapons.^1 And a “Longsword” was so dubbed because of the grip length, not the blade length. Most weapons that would fall under the umbrella of “scimitar” would not have a two-handed grip. And Scimitar includes falchions,^2 messers,^3 cutlasses,^4 sabers ^5 and a whole host of other sword types.
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.
Well, gladius and spada da lato (side sword). But even some gladii were designed as choppers, like the Gladius Hispaniensis as an example.
Most weapons that would fall under the umbrella of “scimitar” would not have a two-handed grip.
An awful lot of weapons that would fall under the umbrella of 'longsword' didn't either. Longsword in D&D appears to be a generic term for "any one-handed sword that's longer than a shortsword and doesn't clearly fit another category", so pretty much any blade over 24" or so.
The creator of this thread only commented one time in their thread; "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."
What kind of damage can you do with a weapon? Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Piercing. Each weapon can do most of these. They pick just one for clarity, based on typical use. Grab any weapon you like, A Mace with a spike on top will do Bludgeoning and Piercing. A sword of any type typically has a sharp point for Piercing, a sharp blade for Slashing, and you can always turn it side ways and do Bludgeoning as an improvised weapon.
A cutlass usually has a hand-guard, so you slash with the sword, pierce them with the point, or punch them with the hand-guard. I don't have a clue why they they didn't want to use a Scimitar given that the only difference is the shape, and that Druids can't use Shortswords.
Most weapons that would fall under the umbrella of “scimitar” would not have a two-handed grip.
An awful lot of weapons that would fall under the umbrella of 'longsword' didn't either. Longsword in D&D appears to be a generic term for "any one-handed sword that's longer than a shortsword and doesn't clearly fit another category", so pretty much any blade over 24" or so.
A D&D Longsword is defined by a significant feature, versatile. It is meant to represent bastard swords and longswords. It’s D&D. Any hand-and-a-half sword falls under the category of a “longsword.” Any strictly two-handed sword falls under a greatsword any strictly one-handed weapon is a shortsword or scimitar.
A D&D Longsword is defined by a significant feature, versatile. It is meant to represent bastard swords and longswords. It’s D&D. Any hand-and-a-half sword falls under the category of a “longsword.” Any strictly two-handed sword falls under a greatsword any strictly one-handed weapon is a shortsword or scimitar.
The primary feature of a Longsword is that it's a one-handed sword that does a d8 damage. You could remove versatile from the longsword (heck, from the entire game) and no-one would notice, because it's a useless property.
A D&D Longsword is defined by a significant feature, versatile. It is meant to represent bastard swords and longswords. It’s D&D. Any hand-and-a-half sword falls under the category of a “longsword.” Any strictly two-handed sword falls under a greatsword any strictly one-handed weapon is a shortsword or scimitar.
The primary feature of a Longsword is that it's a one-handed sword that does a d8 damage. You could remove versatile from the longsword (heck, from the entire game) and no-one would notice, because it's a useless property.
This simply isn't true.
It's a weapon that Small creatures can use in both hands without disadvantage.
It has the flavour options to switch between longsword and shield and using a longsword two handed when you want to, without having to carry a greatweapon around as well.
Monsters can use a longsword in both hands
Basically anyone who has a longsword and doesn't use a shield or two weapon fighting due to weapon proficiencies will use it that way
A Surprised character may not want to spend an action equipping a shield, and therefore will wield it with both hands
I had a character with a Warhammer who in some situations would use it two handed, while most of the time he'd use it with a shield. I would make a call on whether I felt he'd need to equip his shield or not.
A D&D Longsword is defined by a significant feature, versatile. It is meant to represent bastard swords and longswords. It’s D&D. Any hand-and-a-half sword falls under the category of a “longsword.” Any strictly two-handed sword falls under a greatsword any strictly one-handed weapon is a shortsword or scimitar.
The primary feature of a Longsword is that it's a one-handed sword that does a d8 damage. You could remove versatile from the longsword (heck, from the entire game) and no-one would notice, because it's a useless property.
Being a d8 weapon isn't a useful distinction when trying to identify it as a historical weapon. The defining characteristic in that context is the versatile feature.
Most weapons that would fall under the umbrella of “scimitar” would not have a two-handed grip.
An awful lot of weapons that would fall under the umbrella of 'longsword' didn't either. Longsword in D&D appears to be a generic term for "any one-handed sword that's longer than a shortsword and doesn't clearly fit another category", so pretty much any blade over 24" or so.
Most one-handed short (court and small) swords were between 24" and 30" in length. Historically, long swords existed on a spectrum and included everything from a one-handed Bronze Age khopesh (which was more like an axe) to the Renaissance era rapier and zweihander and feudal Japanese swords like the katana and odachi. And the larger they became, the more ceremonial the became as well. For that matter, so would most short swords. Some would be functional in combat, like the Greco-Roman gladius and xiphos, but they're sidearms. Nobody would rely on them until they were out of options.
The majority of swords we think of would be best classified, in game terms, as a scimitar. Everything from the knightly arming sword, basket-hilted broadsword, Carolingian (viking) swords, a salior's cutlass, falcatas, falchions, and basically every sabre you can come up with. Though, I think it's worth mentioning that most cavalry sabers weren't sharpened because they didn't want to risk accidentally wounding their steeds. Cavalry relied on speed and a blunt blade to just crush the foot soldiers who weren't trampled.
Being a d8 weapon isn't a useful distinction when trying to identify it as a historical weapon. The defining characteristic in that context is the versatile feature.
5e doesn't have a one-handed sword that is a d8 and not finesse.
Most one-handed short (court and small) swords were between 24" and 30" in length.
Most one handed swords were not short swords (also, I was talking blade length, not total length), nor were most court swords what would be called short swords. Short swords are weapons such as a gladius (18-24" for most variants) and wakizashi (12-24"). In the end, 5e is missing a class of sword: average length one-handed sword. Probably because 'martial weapon, 1d8, no special features' (which is what the longsword was in 3.5e and earlier) just clutters up the weapon table.
Most weapons that would fall under the umbrella of “scimitar” would not have a two-handed grip.
An awful lot of weapons that would fall under the umbrella of 'longsword' didn't either. Longsword in D&D appears to be a generic term for "any one-handed sword that's longer than a shortsword and doesn't clearly fit another category", so pretty much any blade over 24" or so.
Why do you think blade length matters at all. Clearly, any “one-handed” sword would be either a “shortsword” or “scimitar,” any two-handed swords would be a “greatsword,” and a “longsword” covers all hand-and-a-half swords. Blade length is never once mentioned in the rules at all, but on-handed/versatile/two-handed are distinctions made several times in the rules.
What D&D 5e calls a "scimiter" is more like a parang or machete or bolo - a short, easily-maneuverable chopping weapon (it is after all both finesse and light). These suit a druid thematically.
The scimitar was originally chosen for the druid because of its similar shape to a crescent moon.
If you let a druid use a short sword, the only problem you are likely to have is competition between monk, rogue and (now) druid players when a magical shortsword is found.
Most one-handed short (court and small) swords were between 24" and 30" in length.
Most one handed swords were not short swords (also, I was talking blade length, not total length), nor were most court swords what would be called short swords. Short swords are weapons such as a gladius (18-24" for most variants) and wakizashi (12-24"). In the end, 5e is missing a class of sword: average length one-handed sword. Probably because 'martial weapon, 1d8, no special features' (which is what the longsword was in 3.5e and earlier) just clutters up the weapon table.
Sorry, but I was talking about the blade length. European small swords had blade lengths typically between 0.6 to 0.85 meters (or 24" to 33" long). The blades were also narrow, designed primarily for thrusting, and served the direct predecessors to the dueling swords of the Renaissance; such as the French epee. If you're looking for an "average length one-handed sword" then you should know those blades were between 45 and 80 centimeters (18" to 31") in length. And we've already addressed swords with blades of that length. As a matter of fact, the prototypical European arming/knightly sword had a blade only 30" long. The d6 damage die fits; whether you like it or not.
If you want a dao sabre (liuyedao or niuweidao), falcata, tulwar, or wakizashi, just reskin the scimitar. (Some of those are even prescribed on page 41 of the DMG.)
In the end, 5e is full of anachronisms and is not missing a class of sword. The rules are an abstraction for you to dress up however you see fit. Not every longsword or greataxe needs to look the same. A glaive could easily be reskinned as a bardiche, naginata, or war scythe. And if I wants to reskin a battleaxe to be a hand-and-a-half khopesh, I can.
In the end, 5e is full of anachronisms and is not missing a class of sword.
It's missing the weapon which 1e to 3.5e called a longsword (the 5e longsword was called a bastard sword in those editions).
It has that weapon, it's called a scimitar.
Nope. It's not a d8 weapon.
In AD&D1e/2e, the longsword was a d8 one-handed sword (the bastard sword was a d8 weapon that was in effect Versatile (2d4))
In D&D3e/3.5e, the longsword was a d8 one-handed sword. No Versatile sword existed.
In D&D4e, the longsword was a d8 one-handed sword with the Versatile property (first sign of Versatile on the longsword)
The scimitar was 1d8 against enemies of all sizes in AD&D 2nd edition. For that matter, the "long sword" dealt 1d8 (S-M) and 1d12 (L) against large creatures. So did the "bastard sword" when wielded one-handed, but then it also did 2d4 (S-M) and 2d8 (L) when wielded two-handed. And the "two-handed sword" was 1d10 (S-M) and 3d6 (L). But, you know, times change. We no longer have stats for the broad sword or khopesh. Or any of the other many, many weapons introduced in 3.X. Sometimes, less is more.
What we have now fine. There's no desperate need for a one-handed 1d8 slashing weapon (or two) that lack any special properties. That said, there's some arguable redundancy between both the morningstar and war pick and the battleaxe and longsword. And there's some legitimate redundancy between both the spear and trident and the glaive and halberd. If there's any place to be quibbling over weapon availability, it's there.
We've talked, at length (heh), about the relative blade length corresponding to different sword types and their damage dice used in 5e. Which is consistent; the dice more or less line up with the average length of these blade classifications. And we all know a certain drow who wields twin scimitars. Just look at them. They're pretty long.
In the end, 5e is full of anachronisms and is not missing a class of sword.
It's missing the weapon which 1e to 3.5e called a longsword (the 5e longsword was called a bastard sword in those editions).
It has that weapon, it's called a scimitar.
Nope. It's not a d8 weapon.
In AD&D1e/2e, the longsword was a d8 one-handed sword (the bastard sword was a d8 weapon that was in effect Versatile (2d4))
In D&D3e/3.5e, the longsword was a d8 one-handed sword. No Versatile sword existed.
In D&D4e, the longsword was a d8 one-handed sword with the Versatile property (first sign of Versatile on the longsword)
What makes you so sure a historical longsword that only has room for one hand on the hilt and is swung to do slashing damage is a d8 weapon instead of a d6 one?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As there aren't terribly many monster types that care about the difference (skeletons for bludgeoning, maybe some flavors of ooze for slashing vs piercing) it barely matters.
A scimitar isn’t any specific sword, it’s a catch-all term for a broad variety of weapons.^1 And a “Longsword” was so dubbed because of the grip length, not the blade length. Most weapons that would fall under the umbrella of “scimitar” would not have a two-handed grip. And Scimitar includes falchions,^2 messers,^3 cutlasses,^4 sabers ^5 and a whole host of other sword types.
^1 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar): Note, neither of the two swords shown in the image are two-handed swords. In fact they look very much like a falchion,^2 messer,^3 or saber.^5 A Cutlass^4 is merely a shorter, heavier “one-handed curved slashing sword.”
^2 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falchion)
^3 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messer_(weapon))
^4 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutlass)
^5 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is true and sad. I wish there were more cases where it mattered.
Well, gladius and spada da lato (side sword). But even some gladii were designed as choppers, like the Gladius Hispaniensis as an example.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
An awful lot of weapons that would fall under the umbrella of 'longsword' didn't either. Longsword in D&D appears to be a generic term for "any one-handed sword that's longer than a shortsword and doesn't clearly fit another category", so pretty much any blade over 24" or so.
The creator of this thread only commented one time in their thread; "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."
What kind of damage can you do with a weapon? Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Piercing. Each weapon can do most of these. They pick just one for clarity, based on typical use. Grab any weapon you like, A Mace with a spike on top will do Bludgeoning and Piercing. A sword of any type typically has a sharp point for Piercing, a sharp blade for Slashing, and you can always turn it side ways and do Bludgeoning as an improvised weapon.
A cutlass usually has a hand-guard, so you slash with the sword, pierce them with the point, or punch them with the hand-guard. I don't have a clue why they they didn't want to use a Scimitar given that the only difference is the shape, and that Druids can't use Shortswords.
<Insert clever signature here>
A D&D Longsword is defined by a significant feature, versatile. It is meant to represent bastard swords and longswords. It’s D&D. Any hand-and-a-half sword falls under the category of a “longsword.” Any strictly two-handed sword falls under a greatsword any strictly one-handed weapon is a shortsword or scimitar.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The primary feature of a Longsword is that it's a one-handed sword that does a d8 damage. You could remove versatile from the longsword (heck, from the entire game) and no-one would notice, because it's a useless property.
This simply isn't true.
I had a character with a Warhammer who in some situations would use it two handed, while most of the time he'd use it with a shield. I would make a call on whether I felt he'd need to equip his shield or not.
Being a d8 weapon isn't a useful distinction when trying to identify it as a historical weapon. The defining characteristic in that context is the versatile feature.
Most one-handed short (court and small) swords were between 24" and 30" in length. Historically, long swords existed on a spectrum and included everything from a one-handed Bronze Age khopesh (which was more like an axe) to the Renaissance era rapier and zweihander and feudal Japanese swords like the katana and odachi. And the larger they became, the more ceremonial the became as well. For that matter, so would most short swords. Some would be functional in combat, like the Greco-Roman gladius and xiphos, but they're sidearms. Nobody would rely on them until they were out of options.
The majority of swords we think of would be best classified, in game terms, as a scimitar. Everything from the knightly arming sword, basket-hilted broadsword, Carolingian (viking) swords, a salior's cutlass, falcatas, falchions, and basically every sabre you can come up with. Though, I think it's worth mentioning that most cavalry sabers weren't sharpened because they didn't want to risk accidentally wounding their steeds. Cavalry relied on speed and a blunt blade to just crush the foot soldiers who weren't trampled.
To sum up, the scimitar is perfect for a druid.
5e doesn't have a one-handed sword that is a d8 and not finesse.
Most one handed swords were not short swords (also, I was talking blade length, not total length), nor were most court swords what would be called short swords. Short swords are weapons such as a gladius (18-24" for most variants) and wakizashi (12-24"). In the end, 5e is missing a class of sword: average length one-handed sword. Probably because 'martial weapon, 1d8, no special features' (which is what the longsword was in 3.5e and earlier) just clutters up the weapon table.
Why do you think blade length matters at all. Clearly, any “one-handed” sword would be either a “shortsword” or “scimitar,” any two-handed swords would be a “greatsword,” and a “longsword” covers all hand-and-a-half swords. Blade length is never once mentioned in the rules at all, but on-handed/versatile/two-handed are distinctions made several times in the rules.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What D&D 5e calls a "scimiter" is more like a parang or machete or bolo - a short, easily-maneuverable chopping weapon (it is after all both finesse and light). These suit a druid thematically.
The scimitar was originally chosen for the druid because of its similar shape to a crescent moon.
If you let a druid use a short sword, the only problem you are likely to have is competition between monk, rogue and (now) druid players when a magical shortsword is found.
Sorry, but I was talking about the blade length. European small swords had blade lengths typically between 0.6 to 0.85 meters (or 24" to 33" long). The blades were also narrow, designed primarily for thrusting, and served the direct predecessors to the dueling swords of the Renaissance; such as the French epee. If you're looking for an "average length one-handed sword" then you should know those blades were between 45 and 80 centimeters (18" to 31") in length. And we've already addressed swords with blades of that length. As a matter of fact, the prototypical European arming/knightly sword had a blade only 30" long. The d6 damage die fits; whether you like it or not.
If you want a dao sabre (liuyedao or niuweidao), falcata, tulwar, or wakizashi, just reskin the scimitar. (Some of those are even prescribed on page 41 of the DMG.)
In the end, 5e is full of anachronisms and is not missing a class of sword. The rules are an abstraction for you to dress up however you see fit. Not every longsword or greataxe needs to look the same. A glaive could easily be reskinned as a bardiche, naginata, or war scythe. And if I wants to reskin a battleaxe to be a hand-and-a-half khopesh, I can.
It's missing the weapon which 1e to 3.5e called a longsword (the 5e longsword was called a bastard sword in those editions).
It has that weapon, it's called a scimitar.
Nope. It's not a d8 weapon.
The scimitar was 1d8 against enemies of all sizes in AD&D 2nd edition. For that matter, the "long sword" dealt 1d8 (S-M) and 1d12 (L) against large creatures. So did the "bastard sword" when wielded one-handed, but then it also did 2d4 (S-M) and 2d8 (L) when wielded two-handed. And the "two-handed sword" was 1d10 (S-M) and 3d6 (L). But, you know, times change. We no longer have stats for the broad sword or khopesh. Or any of the other many, many weapons introduced in 3.X. Sometimes, less is more.
What we have now fine. There's no desperate need for a one-handed 1d8 slashing weapon (or two) that lack any special properties. That said, there's some arguable redundancy between both the morningstar and war pick and the battleaxe and longsword. And there's some legitimate redundancy between both the spear and trident and the glaive and halberd. If there's any place to be quibbling over weapon availability, it's there.
We've talked, at length (heh), about the relative blade length corresponding to different sword types and their damage dice used in 5e. Which is consistent; the dice more or less line up with the average length of these blade classifications. And we all know a certain drow who wields twin scimitars. Just look at them. They're pretty long.
What makes you so sure a historical longsword that only has room for one hand on the hilt and is swung to do slashing damage is a d8 weapon instead of a d6 one?