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.
first of al thank you for a far less attacking reply. I tend to agree with Quindraco that its not so much planned supersimplification but a lazyness in the efforts to simplify what was, I agree with you here a far too complex system in early versions. Its helpful to remember that Gygax and the other initial designers were tabletop wargamers where attention to historical accuracy actually did matter. Yes the game has evolved considerably since those late 70s days and much of the efforts at realism have been dropped or extracted to simplified versions for easier play. The other point I was making is that to whatever extent WOTC watches these discussions this is one of the few ways we all can make or complaints and desires known - especially now that DDB is owned by WOTC - so trying to shut off discussion of opposing view pointsis actually doing the game as a whole a disservice. You may well be right that they will not change this. but till 2024 comes out I and others can try to get our ideas included. either way its easy enough for either of us to make the changes with the present or proposed systems if and when needed. I don't think anyone is actually proposing going back to the huge list of weapons thtf existed in 1-2 e so trying to argue against that is a strawman distraction from the actual discussion. for the time being yes its easy enough for me to homebrew the changes I want into my campaign as I always do.
A Schiavona is at least as quick and agile as a Rapier, being shorter and well balanced, and the ability to deliver quick cuts expanded that ability further. Finesse is for a weapon that you can wield with dexterity rather than strength, and any sword smaller than a longsword (two-handable) should qualify for that.
In the case of both arming swords and Schiavona they're most similar to a shortsword, only beefier. A weapon exists that is a beefier shortsword, the rapier. It doesn't matter that you can slash with it since the same is true for shortswords. The idea that a low strength high dex character like a rogue or Dex fighter couldn't wield a schiavona well is ludicrous.
It's just a squatter, slashier rapier and this argument wouldn't even be happening if rapiers were listed as "dueling sword"
It looks like a combination of both. If you add it in I'd say make it pretty much a longsword because of the blade shape, but give it the finesse property. Hope this helps.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
first of al thank you for a far less attacking reply. I tend to agree with Quindraco that its not so much planned supersimplification but a lazyness in the efforts to simplify what was, I agree with you here a far too complex system in early versions. Its helpful to remember that Gygax and the other initial designers were tabletop wargamers where attention to historical accuracy actually did matter. Yes the game has evolved considerably since those late 70s days and much of the efforts at realism have been dropped or extracted to simplified versions for easier play. The other point I was making is that to whatever extent WOTC watches these discussions this is one of the few ways we all can make or complaints and desires known - especially now that DDB is owned by WOTC - so trying to shut off discussion of opposing view pointsis actually doing the game as a whole a disservice. You may well be right that they will not change this. but till 2024 comes out I and others can try to get our ideas included. either way its easy enough for either of us to make the changes with the present or proposed systems if and when needed. I don't think anyone is actually proposing going back to the huge list of weapons thtf existed in 1-2 e so trying to argue against that is a strawman distraction from the actual discussion. for the time being yes its easy enough for me to homebrew the changes I want into my campaign as I always do.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
A Schiavona is at least as quick and agile as a Rapier, being shorter and well balanced, and the ability to deliver quick cuts expanded that ability further. Finesse is for a weapon that you can wield with dexterity rather than strength, and any sword smaller than a longsword (two-handable) should qualify for that.
In the case of both arming swords and Schiavona they're most similar to a shortsword, only beefier. A weapon exists that is a beefier shortsword, the rapier. It doesn't matter that you can slash with it since the same is true for shortswords. The idea that a low strength high dex character like a rogue or Dex fighter couldn't wield a schiavona well is ludicrous.
It's just a squatter, slashier rapier and this argument wouldn't even be happening if rapiers were listed as "dueling sword"
Life is the game.
It looks like a combination of both. If you add it in I'd say make it pretty much a longsword because of the blade shape, but give it the finesse property. Hope this helps.