So Shortswords, according to the Player's Handbook, deals 1d6 piercing damage. Why piercing, and not slashing? Can someone explain? I mean, I just change it to deal slashing damage in my campaigns anyways, though.
I'm sure someone can explain. But probably only one of the designers, and it's probably something like "because we only wanted one damage type per weapon, and so we had to pick sort of arbitrarily for some of them."
It's been my experience that players don't really appreciate the little complication of having to switch weapons one out of every fifty fights to exploit a vulnerability or avoid a resistance. I'd gladly allow switching any damage types between weapons. It's not really a balance thing, it's a verisimilitude thing, and when you start thinking about it, it gets pretty easy to conceive, like, bludgeoning something with the handle of your axe, or whatever. Maybe not slashing with your hammer, but still.
Short swords are modelled as straight blades. Straight blades are better at piercing.
The scimitar is the equivalent but curved blade. Curved blades are better at slashing.
They both do 1d6 damage, both are light and both are finesse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Scimitars and longswords are both 3lb slashing weapons yet the longsword, dealing 1d8 damage, has a higher damage potential. Greatswords are straight 6lb slashing weapons. Glaves and battleaxes can have blades that are either curved or not. Inward curves have also had long historic use.
You stab with short swords. they're like bigger daggers. Stabitty stab stab.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Have short sword ever been slashing weapons? Even previous editions used to have them as piercing type. The earliest description i could find is in my AD&D 2nd Edition Arms & Equipment Guide.
Short Swords: The short sword is the first type of sword to come to existence. In the simplest of terms, a short sword can be considered a dagger with a blade so long that it can no longer be called a dagger. (about two feet in lenght)
Possibly, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_sword#Use, the late Renaissance épée de cour or dress sword was "used both by the military (where they served more as a sign of a certain rank rather than a real weapon for close combat) and as a dueling weapon". It was a small-sized rapier and certainly could have looked the part. I'm not convinced how relatively good it would be if going against opponents with armour and shields.
The Roman gladius has a record more closely associated with use in combat and, while suited to pierce, was also quite a slasher.
Daggers and stilettos were commonly used to finish armoured foes. Additionally, it was a dress sword, something meant less, perhaps, for the battlefield than other swords. A small sword had its place.
Renaissance weapons used in combat also included the Messer (German for "knife" but with weights between 5e short and longswords/scimitars) and the Cutlass (something like a small manoeuvrable scimitar).
So Shortswords, according to the Player's Handbook, deals 1d6 piercing damage. Why piercing, and not slashing? Can someone explain? I mean, I just change it to deal slashing damage in my campaigns anyways, though.
The game wanted to give players a choice for a 1h weapon that inflicted 1d6 piercing damage to go along with the scimitar and the mace for slashing and bludgeoning respectively. If you want to treat a shortsword like a scimitar, then that's fine too. They share 1d6 damage and both weapons have the light and finesse properties. Follow your bliss.
So Shortswords, according to the Player's Handbook, deals 1d6 piercing damage. Why piercing, and not slashing? Can someone explain? I mean, I just change it to deal slashing damage in my campaigns anyways, though.
Because they are short, straight bladed stabbing swords with a sharp point. Used famously by the Roman army to thrust out between their shields at enemy soldiers.
So Shortswords, according to the Player's Handbook, deals 1d6 piercing damage. Why piercing, and not slashing? Can someone explain? I mean, I just change it to deal slashing damage in my campaigns anyways, though.
Because they are short, straight bladed stabbing swords with a sharp point. Used famously by the Roman army to thrust out between their shields at enemy soldiers.
Which they did when fighting en mass against enemy soldiers instead of fighting individually against, say, animated trees.
With the blessings of Zeus, a 'Roman' halfling may have prefered to have swung a weapon of 'short sword' length that they had to hand if fighting an animated tree.
So Shortswords, according to the Player's Handbook, deals 1d6 piercing damage. Why piercing, and not slashing? Can someone explain? I mean, I just change it to deal slashing damage in my campaigns anyways, though.
I'm sure someone can explain. But probably only one of the designers, and it's probably something like "because we only wanted one damage type per weapon, and so we had to pick sort of arbitrarily for some of them."
It's been my experience that players don't really appreciate the little complication of having to switch weapons one out of every fifty fights to exploit a vulnerability or avoid a resistance. I'd gladly allow switching any damage types between weapons. It's not really a balance thing, it's a verisimilitude thing, and when you start thinking about it, it gets pretty easy to conceive, like, bludgeoning something with the handle of your axe, or whatever. Maybe not slashing with your hammer, but still.
Short swords are modelled as straight blades. Straight blades are better at piercing.
The scimitar is the equivalent but curved blade. Curved blades are better at slashing.
They both do 1d6 damage, both are light and both are finesse.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Scimitars and longswords are both 3lb slashing weapons yet the longsword, dealing 1d8 damage, has a higher damage potential.
Greatswords are straight 6lb slashing weapons.
Glaves and battleaxes can have blades that are either curved or not.
Inward curves have also had long historic use.
You stab with short swords. they're like bigger daggers. Stabitty stab stab.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's how they're prescribed in 5e, though reenactors can get more into the swing of it.
Have short sword ever been slashing weapons? Even previous editions used to have them as piercing type. The earliest description i could find is in my AD&D 2nd Edition Arms & Equipment Guide.
The short sword is most likely based off the small sword which is a thrusting weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_swords#Classification_by_blade_type
Possibly, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_sword#Use, the late Renaissance épée de cour or dress sword was "used both by the military (where they served more as a sign of a certain rank rather than a real weapon for close combat) and as a dueling weapon". It was a small-sized rapier and certainly could have looked the part. I'm not convinced how relatively good it would be if going against opponents with armour and shields.
The Roman gladius has a record more closely associated with use in combat and, while suited to pierce, was also quite a slasher.
Daggers and stilettos were commonly used to finish armoured foes. Additionally, it was a dress sword, something meant less, perhaps, for the battlefield than other swords. A small sword had its place.
yep, I'd suggest though that the place of the small sword wasn't typically as a primary warring weapon or as part of a dual-wield combo.
The gladius, when used in formation combat from behind shield walls, was primarily used (and designed to be used) as a piercing weapon but, in skirmish usage, combatants may have also hacked and slashed away.
Renaissance weapons used in combat also included the Messer (German for "knife" but with weights between 5e short and longswords/scimitars) and the Cutlass (something like a small manoeuvrable scimitar).
The game wanted to give players a choice for a 1h weapon that inflicted 1d6 piercing damage to go along with the scimitar and the mace for slashing and bludgeoning respectively. If you want to treat a shortsword like a scimitar, then that's fine too. They share 1d6 damage and both weapons have the light and finesse properties. Follow your bliss.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Because they are short, straight bladed stabbing swords with a sharp point. Used famously by the Roman army to thrust out between their shields at enemy soldiers.
Which they did when fighting en mass against enemy soldiers instead of fighting individually against, say, animated trees.
What did the Roman army use when fighting against animated trees?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
With the blessings of Zeus, a 'Roman' halfling may have prefered to have swung a weapon of 'short sword' length that they had to hand if fighting an animated tree.
That's what house rules are for.
... and that's because 5e rules for "Shortswords Make No Sense".
I think their sense of humour went straight over your head. :)
I disagree. A Shortsword is a thrusting weapon. The rules, in this case, make perfect sense.