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.
Funny you say that i recently homebrewed one after the party in my GREYHAWK campaign found a wrough iron broadsword. (D10 non-versatile)
Sweet, biggest damage die of any 1-handed weapon. Sign me up for one.
What i meant is that finesse is not specifically said to be quick and agile. it's only mechanical terms.
The player quite liked it since she is a sword & board fighter. The only thing though is that it's a unique weapon so far ancient from Old Ferrond empire, found iin the dungeon beneath a ruin. It also has uniques properties from its material/process of fabrication. So not something every shopkeeper has for sales. Here's the stats if curious
Cold-Wrought Iron Broadsword
Martial melee weapon
Broadsword 50gp, 1d10 slashing, 6 lb, heavy, special
Special: This heavy broad sword is made of cold wrought iron, which can overcome resistance of fey, undeads and fiends.
The schiavona looks like a basket hilted broadsword. The blade appears made for slashing and thrusting.
In D&D terms, I think it would be a longsword without the versatile property since the basket hilt would make it difficult or impossible to use with two hands. There is also no indication that a sword like this would be particularly maneuverable or agile so the finesse property of the rapier would not make sense either.
D&D is awful when it comes to weapon classification, so we have to deal with RAW if you don't want to add your own homebrew table (I saw some attempts here on the thread that are reasonable). Since historical Schivonas have a basket hilt guard, they should not fall into the D&D classification of a "longsword", which would allow it to be use in two hands (Versatile). They are cut & thrust swords, usually on the "heavier" spectrum of swords that area (late 16th & 17th century). Would it qualify as a "Finesse" (Dex) weapon? Again D&D = horrible. A sturdy rondel dagger or a smallsword (both "stabby" weapons), yes IMHO ... anything around the 2 pound / 1 kilo mark & 1m length ... no.
It is a little weird that we have not one but two one-handed 1d8 bludgeoning weapons with no properties, but not a single one-handed 1d8 slashing weapon without properties. The latter classification seems like it would fit the sword in question nicely.
Yes, 5e is bad for weapon classification and damage type assignment there are a lot of weapons that should either be combo of damage types or allow the wielder to decide which of the appropriate types a specific attack causes. In 1-3x they tried to cover every different weapon while in 5e they went to the other extreme with too simple a group of categories. Maybe in 6e they will finally find a good middle ground.
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.
It is a fantasy game of make believe, played in the imagination. It isn’t an exact real world simulation. It doesn’t need to make sense or apply real world rules.
They played around with hundreds of weapons, gave weapons different bonuses or penalties to hit different armour types, different bonuses to damage against different armours, even had tables giving different values depending on the material the weapon was made of or the armour that was being hit in previous editions. It was an absolute PITA. So no, lets not. I doubt that anyone that actually played back in the day has any interest in going back there.
Looking at pictures of it, the weapon is very clearly a longsword with a ‘fancy hilt / guard’. It’s not even remotely rapier or scimitar like. The weapon tables are simple for a reason. It honestly isn’t rocket science. DM looks at the picture, compares the picture with pictures of other weapons, makes a decision. Literally takes 2 minutes, then back on with the game.
It is a fantasy game of make believe, played in the imagination. It isn’t an exact real world simulation. It doesn’t need to make sense or apply real world rules.
It doesn't have to be a great real world approximation, but if it could be in the ballpark it would be nice.
The mechanic side of the rules however would benefit a lot from making sense.
They played around with hundreds of weapons, gave weapons different bonuses or penalties to hit different armour types, different bonuses to damage against different armours, even had tables giving different values depending on the material the weapon was made of or the armour that was being hit in previous editions. It was an absolute PITA. So no, lets not. I doubt that anyone that actually played back in the day has any interest in going back there.
Sure but I didn't suggest adding hundreds of weapons. I said that adding one more type of sword (the middle ground, the base and most common real world sword) could make both the mechanics and real world approximation make a lot more sense.
... adding one more type of sword (the middle ground, the base and most common real world sword) could make both the mechanics and real world approximation make a lot more sense.
Fully agreeing with that...
5th Edition is very likely in a dead end, when it comes to what "a weapon can do & what it is", because they have also added some characteristics into Feats, that IMO should be kind of baseline to the weapon and the dependency of it be either "slashing" or "piercing" (because of resistances and immunities) - and adding what is a simple or a martial weapon on top.
Where do you draw the line? If you’re going to add that one extra sword in, then why not have a katana? What about a Lucerne hammer? Or a Bill hook, why not let me have a truncheon instead of a club, or a stilletto or an estoc, or a main gauche and so on and so on.
Mechanically, a katana is a longsword and the rules say as much. You could make an argument for a Lucerne Hammer being a bludgeoning halberd and that is something that is not represented in the rules, although they would probably rename it something that eschews a real-world location. Would you make a bill hook mechanically distinct from a halberd? Both seem to land as a 1d10 martial weapon with the two-handed, reach, and heavy properties. The same goes for the truncheon versus the club.
I might be the only one in this thread who thinks the rules do a pretty good job distilling a list of hundreds of weapons that have appeared in previous editions down to a couple dozen that represent the different mechanical capabilities of the weapons you might use in combat. The one change I would make would be to dump either the war pick or the morningstar since they are redundant and add a 1d8 one-handed slashing sword that has no properties. Heck, you can call it the schiavona if you like.
Where do you draw the line? If you’re going to add that one extra sword in, then why not have a katana? What about a Lucerne hammer? Or a Bill hook, why not let me have a truncheon instead of a club, or a stilletto or an estoc, or a main gauche and so on and so on.
Because we're not talking about adding in a specific sword, we're talking about adding a type of swords that isn't currently represented in 5E. The ones you mention otoh are already represented in the 5E weapons, it's just a matter of flavouring the looks a little.
Truncheon - Use Club or more likely Mace. Stiletto - Dagger Estoc - Shortsword or possibly Rapier Main Gauche - Shortsword Katana - Longsword or possibly Scimitar Bill Hook - Halberd or Glaive Lucerne Hammer - Pike (should likely be able to do bludgeoning dmg too but 5E doesn't do variable dmg types so that's a problem for a lot of weapons)
So clearly you guys understand how d&d weapons work when it comes to identifying your own personal favourite weapon with one of the weapons in the tables and using those stats, just altering the descriptive flavour. And so…. Schiavona = long sword
As one of those players who has been thru all the editions of DnD I actually didn’t mind some of the efforts of the founders to actually represent real world weapons in the game. Was it perfect? No is 5e’s version perfect? No! I can make it work and generally do, but I recognize that there are a couple of holes that could be filled to improve the way weapons are handled. The long sword in 5e is actually the older version’s bastard sword not the one handed Viking sword. So yes there should be a category for a purely one handed sword doing both slashing and piercing damage. The war pick/pick-hammer and Morningstar (spiked ball and chain) are very different in how they are used but not too different in effect on impact so they should both probably stay. My other pet peeve is the lack of a composite short bow. I actually do understand why it’s not in the game in terms of balance but it’s such an important weapon historically that I wish it was listed. But a non heavy short bow with the range and damage of a longbow that could be used mounted would rule out both the long bow and the Shortbow from ever being used so it’s not available ( except it is in my campaign 😁😜).
As one of those players who has been thru all the editions of DnD I actually didn’t mind some of the efforts of the founders to actually represent real world weapons in the game. Was it perfect? No is 5e’s version perfect? No! I can make it work and generally do, but I recognize that there are a couple of holes that could be filled to improve the way weapons are handled. The long sword in 5e is actually the older version’s bastard sword not the one handed Viking sword. So yes there should be a category for a purely one handed sword doing both slashing and piercing damage. The war pick/pick-hammer and Morningstar (spiked ball and chain) are very different in how they are used but not too different in effect on impact so they should both probably stay. My other pet peeve is the lack of a composite short bow. I actually do understand why it’s not in the game in terms of balance but it’s such an important weapon historically that I wish it was listed. But a non heavy short bow with the range and damage of a longbow that could be used mounted would rule out both the long bow and the Shortbow from ever being used so it’s not available ( except it is in my campaign 😁😜).
We know, you aren’t the only person here that has been playing for a long time. I started playing in the 1980’s. The weapon tables are what they are, is there really any major impact in not having a single handed sword that is bigger than a shortsword and smaller than a longsword? No, in the vast majority of games there isn’t. Is there any impact in the fact that there isn’t an estoc listed - a sword invented specifically for punching through heavy armour unlike the rapier? No there isn’t. The system is very simple, that’s how it was designed to be, and the 10 year olds that are playing in school don’t care if the punch dagger, stilletto and butterfly knife are all rolled up together stats wise, even though functionally and aesthetically they are completely different. If you want to modify the table in the games you run then go ahead, thats your prerogative as dm. For the rest of us it simply doesn’t matter to gameplay at all.
Beardsinger, I am well aware that I am not the only old timer on here. If you are happy with the weapon system as is that’s fine play on. Others of us here clearly are not. And we, or I at least, don’t appreciate being told , in essence - it’s fine, quit bi******, and just play on. I am also well aware that WOTC is in the process of generating a new version and I/we don’t say what we want they have no way to know. Will they change it? Who knows? Would adding the single hand slashing and piercing category really be all that horrible? I don’t think so but you are entitled to your opinions- feel free to state why you don’t like it but please tell me/us the equivalent of “it’s fine as is just shut up and leave be” . I get that you don’t think it’s needed but m entitled to disagree.
Yes you are entitled to your opinion, and I get you don’t like it. As I said you are obviously capable and entitled to change things in your own game. From my perspective I simply don’t care to, I have had players ask me about other weapons like sickles and katana and all sorts. I just use the current rules, assign them to a weapon in the table and it’s done. Carry on with the game with minimal interruption. We don’t really know what WoTC intend to do with weapons and armour in the 2024 update but in all likelihood they are going to simplify things further. We aren’t going back to the days where there were literally dozens of pole arms with pages and pages of illustrations. Or different swords, or charts for different types of arrow head like before with broadhead or horse cutter or bodkin etc. The modern gamer culture simply doesn’t want it, so we have to make do, or homebrew our own. But it’s pointless making an issue of it as older players who used those things previously are not the target audience any more.
The modern gamer culture simply doesn’t want it, so we have to make do, or homebrew our own. But it’s pointless making an issue of it as older players who used those things previously are not the target audience any more.
Every gamer - old culture and modern - wants rules for designing their own weapons in a fair and balanced way, not to pick from an incredibly unbalanced table of pre-made options. WOTC isn't intelligently designing the game around modern gamer culture, it's giving us weapons the laziest possible way to design to save money on the dev team.
Unless you play in a standardized environment (like using DnDBeyond, Roll20 etc.) you can always home brew at your gaming table and find a solution to 5e problems of "oversimplification" (where Roman gladius + scutum = I.33 arming sword + buckler in terms of game mechanics, which is kind of ridiculous). If you can't find an agreement with your DM on that matter, the weapon isn't the true problem of the group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What i meant is that finesse is not specifically said to be quick and agile. it's only mechanical terms.
The player quite liked it since she is a sword & board fighter. The only thing though is that it's a unique weapon so far ancient from Old Ferrond empire, found iin the dungeon beneath a ruin. It also has uniques properties from its material/process of fabrication. So not something every shopkeeper has for sales. Here's the stats if curious
Looking at this article : https://rossarms.com/blog/focus-article-on-four-venetian-schiavona or wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket-hilted_sword
The schiavona looks like a basket hilted broadsword. The blade appears made for slashing and thrusting.
In D&D terms, I think it would be a longsword without the versatile property since the basket hilt would make it difficult or impossible to use with two hands. There is also no indication that a sword like this would be particularly maneuverable or agile so the finesse property of the rapier would not make sense either.
D&D is awful when it comes to weapon classification, so we have to deal with RAW if you don't want to add your own homebrew table (I saw some attempts here on the thread that are reasonable). Since historical Schivonas have a basket hilt guard, they should not fall into the D&D classification of a "longsword", which would allow it to be use in two hands (Versatile). They are cut & thrust swords, usually on the "heavier" spectrum of swords that area (late 16th & 17th century). Would it qualify as a "Finesse" (Dex) weapon? Again D&D = horrible. A sturdy rondel dagger or a smallsword (both "stabby" weapons), yes IMHO ... anything around the 2 pound / 1 kilo mark & 1m length ... no.
It is a little weird that we have not one but two one-handed 1d8 bludgeoning weapons with no properties, but not a single one-handed 1d8 slashing weapon without properties. The latter classification seems like it would fit the sword in question nicely.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes, 5e is bad for weapon classification and damage type assignment there are a lot of weapons that should either be combo of damage types or allow the wielder to decide which of the appropriate types a specific attack causes. In 1-3x they tried to cover every different weapon while in 5e they went to the other extreme with too simple a group of categories. Maybe in 6e they will finally find a good middle ground.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It is a fantasy game of make believe, played in the imagination. It isn’t an exact real world simulation. It doesn’t need to make sense or apply real world rules.
They played around with hundreds of weapons, gave weapons different bonuses or penalties to hit different armour types, different bonuses to damage against different armours, even had tables giving different values depending on the material the weapon was made of or the armour that was being hit in previous editions. It was an absolute PITA. So no, lets not. I doubt that anyone that actually played back in the day has any interest in going back there.
Looking at pictures of it, the weapon is very clearly a longsword with a ‘fancy hilt / guard’. It’s not even remotely rapier or scimitar like. The weapon tables are simple for a reason. It honestly isn’t rocket science. DM looks at the picture, compares the picture with pictures of other weapons, makes a decision. Literally takes 2 minutes, then back on with the game.
It doesn't have to be a great real world approximation, but if it could be in the ballpark it would be nice.
The mechanic side of the rules however would benefit a lot from making sense.
Sure but I didn't suggest adding hundreds of weapons. I said that adding one more type of sword (the middle ground, the base and most common real world sword) could make both the mechanics and real world approximation make a lot more sense.
Fully agreeing with that...
5th Edition is very likely in a dead end, when it comes to what "a weapon can do & what it is", because they have also added some characteristics into Feats, that IMO should be kind of baseline to the weapon and the dependency of it be either "slashing" or "piercing" (because of resistances and immunities) - and adding what is a simple or a martial weapon on top.
Where do you draw the line? If you’re going to add that one extra sword in, then why not have a katana? What about a Lucerne hammer? Or a Bill hook, why not let me have a truncheon instead of a club, or a stilletto or an estoc, or a main gauche and so on and so on.
Mechanically, a katana is a longsword and the rules say as much. You could make an argument for a Lucerne Hammer being a bludgeoning halberd and that is something that is not represented in the rules, although they would probably rename it something that eschews a real-world location. Would you make a bill hook mechanically distinct from a halberd? Both seem to land as a 1d10 martial weapon with the two-handed, reach, and heavy properties. The same goes for the truncheon versus the club.
I might be the only one in this thread who thinks the rules do a pretty good job distilling a list of hundreds of weapons that have appeared in previous editions down to a couple dozen that represent the different mechanical capabilities of the weapons you might use in combat. The one change I would make would be to dump either the war pick or the morningstar since they are redundant and add a 1d8 one-handed slashing sword that has no properties. Heck, you can call it the schiavona if you like.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Because we're not talking about adding in a specific sword, we're talking about adding a type of swords that isn't currently represented in 5E. The ones you mention otoh are already represented in the 5E weapons, it's just a matter of flavouring the looks a little.
Truncheon - Use Club or more likely Mace.
Stiletto - Dagger
Estoc - Shortsword or possibly Rapier
Main Gauche - Shortsword
Katana - Longsword or possibly Scimitar
Bill Hook - Halberd or Glaive
Lucerne Hammer - Pike (should likely be able to do bludgeoning dmg too but 5E doesn't do variable dmg types so that's a problem for a lot of weapons)
So clearly you guys understand how d&d weapons work when it comes to identifying your own personal favourite weapon with one of the weapons in the tables and using those stats, just altering the descriptive flavour. And so…. Schiavona = long sword
Sure. Just choose not to use it two-handed if you're looking for accuracy :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
As one of those players who has been thru all the editions of DnD I actually didn’t mind some of the efforts of the founders to actually represent real world weapons in the game. Was it perfect? No is 5e’s version perfect? No! I can make it work and generally do, but I recognize that there are a couple of holes that could be filled to improve the way weapons are handled. The long sword in 5e is actually the older version’s bastard sword not the one handed Viking sword. So yes there should be a category for a purely one handed sword doing both slashing and piercing damage. The war pick/pick-hammer and Morningstar (spiked ball and chain) are very different in how they are used but not too different in effect on impact so they should both probably stay. My other pet peeve is the lack of a composite short bow. I actually do understand why it’s not in the game in terms of balance but it’s such an important weapon historically that I wish it was listed. But a non heavy short bow with the range and damage of a longbow that could be used mounted would rule out both the long bow and the Shortbow from ever being used so it’s not available ( except it is in my campaign 😁😜).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
We know, you aren’t the only person here that has been playing for a long time. I started playing in the 1980’s. The weapon tables are what they are, is there really any major impact in not having a single handed sword that is bigger than a shortsword and smaller than a longsword? No, in the vast majority of games there isn’t. Is there any impact in the fact that there isn’t an estoc listed - a sword invented specifically for punching through heavy armour unlike the rapier? No there isn’t. The system is very simple, that’s how it was designed to be, and the 10 year olds that are playing in school don’t care if the punch dagger, stilletto and butterfly knife are all rolled up together stats wise, even though functionally and aesthetically they are completely different. If you want to modify the table in the games you run then go ahead, thats your prerogative as dm. For the rest of us it simply doesn’t matter to gameplay at all.
Beardsinger, I am well aware that I am not the only old timer on here. If you are happy with the weapon system as is that’s fine play on. Others of us here clearly are not. And we, or I at least, don’t appreciate being told , in essence - it’s fine, quit bi******, and just play on. I am also well aware that WOTC is in the process of generating a new version and I/we don’t say what we want they have no way to know. Will they change it? Who knows? Would adding the single hand slashing and piercing category really be all that horrible? I don’t think so but you are entitled to your opinions- feel free to state why you don’t like it but please tell me/us the equivalent of “it’s fine as is just shut up and leave be” . I get that you don’t think it’s needed but m entitled to disagree.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Yes you are entitled to your opinion, and I get you don’t like it. As I said you are obviously capable and entitled to change things in your own game. From my perspective I simply don’t care to, I have had players ask me about other weapons like sickles and katana and all sorts. I just use the current rules, assign them to a weapon in the table and it’s done. Carry on with the game with minimal interruption. We don’t really know what WoTC intend to do with weapons and armour in the 2024 update but in all likelihood they are going to simplify things further. We aren’t going back to the days where there were literally dozens of pole arms with pages and pages of illustrations. Or different swords, or charts for different types of arrow head like before with broadhead or horse cutter or bodkin etc. The modern gamer culture simply doesn’t want it, so we have to make do, or homebrew our own. But it’s pointless making an issue of it as older players who used those things previously are not the target audience any more.
Every gamer - old culture and modern - wants rules for designing their own weapons in a fair and balanced way, not to pick from an incredibly unbalanced table of pre-made options. WOTC isn't intelligently designing the game around modern gamer culture, it's giving us weapons the laziest possible way to design to save money on the dev team.
Unless you play in a standardized environment (like using DnDBeyond, Roll20 etc.) you can always home brew at your gaming table and find a solution to 5e problems of "oversimplification" (where Roman gladius + scutum = I.33 arming sword + buckler in terms of game mechanics, which is kind of ridiculous). If you can't find an agreement with your DM on that matter, the weapon isn't the true problem of the group.