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.
... that could also deal damage when slashing.
And a Longsword can do piercing damage when thrusting but its damage type is Slashing. There are a good few weapons that could have multiple damage types based on how they're used but they don't.
5e is meant to simplify much of the earlier-edition stuff like that. If you want it just house rule it.
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.
... that could also deal damage when slashing.
And a Longsword can do piercing damage when thrusting but its damage type is Slashing. There are a good few weapons that could have multiple damage types based on how they're used but they don't.
5e is meant to simplify much of the earlier-edition stuff like that. If you want it just house rule it.
Traditionally had versions that also had thrusting tips. They have longer blades so can be good for slashing but are still strong and narrow enough for thrusting.
I'd personally limit the thrusting damage of a longsword to 1d6 one-handed same as a shortsword but give 1d8 when used two-handed.
There's a lot of issues with weapon damage in 5e. For instance, if you've managed to grapple an opponent, you'd have more potential to damage them with a bladed knife or dagger than with, say, a rapier.
You have as much potential to damage a grappled target with a dagger than a rapier by RAW. The only weapon potential that will be different is if you're wielding a two-handed weapon, then you don't have any potential to damage your target with it since you don't have two free hands to wield it. A one-handed ranged weapon could also show a reduced potential as well due to disadvantage.
It might help to think of swords in 5e as abstractions and amalgamations of several kinds of swords. You might think of 5e swords as sword categories rather than descriptions of specific real world historical objects.
It might help to think of swords in 5e as abstractions and amalgamations of several kinds of swords. You might think of 5e swords as sword categories rather than descriptions of specific real world historical objects.
True. But people might not be familiar that much with the history of short sword in D&D but its always usually been depicted a small piercing type 1d6 weapon.
What would have not made sense to me in 5E is if they suddenly weren't anymore. It's all i've known loll
If you wanted to have a weapon that was a shortsword and a scimitar in one, it doesn't break the game to make one. I guess you would just declare what kind of damage you were trying to do when you made an attack with it.
I allow pretty much any sword to do both damage types. It doesn’t really matter much this edition since nothing but a handful of monsters care:
Bludgeoning is good against skeletons.
Slashing is bad against some slimes/Oozes.
Piercing sucks against Trees.
That’s it. Nobody else cares but those three.
Rakshasa takes double damage from piercing, but only if it's a magical weapon, and only if that magical piercing weapon is wielded by a good-aligned character. Cute.
Also trees don't care about bludgeoning either. I believe that also applies to wood woads. Bludgeoning and piercing resistance. It's like a soft vulnerability to slashing. Cute.
I've played this edition about twice weekly for about five years and I've seen skeletons aplenty, and tree type enemies three times. Nothing else from this list. Some rakshasas have existed in two of the modules but not in a fighting context. The frequency with which someone will need to consider the damage type of his weapon is like, once per campaign.
I allow pretty much any sword to do both damage types. It doesn’t really matter much this edition since nothing but a handful of monsters care:
Bludgeoning is good against skeletons.
Slashing is bad against some slimes/Oozes.
Piercing sucks against Trees.
That’s it. Nobody else cares but those three.
Rakshasa takes double damage from piercing, but only if it's a magical weapon, and only if that magical piercing weapon is wielded by a good-aligned character. Cute.
Also trees don't care about bludgeoning either. I believe that also applies to wood woads. Bludgeoning and piercing resistance. It's like a soft vulnerability to slashing. Cute.
I've played this edition about twice weekly for about five years and I've seen skeletons aplenty, and tree type enemies three times. Nothing else from this list. Some rakshasas have existed in two of the modules but not in a fighting context. The frequency with which someone will need to consider the damage type of his weapon is like, once per campaign.
You haven’t had a black pudding split on you because someone hit it with a Longsword/greatsword/scimitar/axe? I have been playing weekly for years and still haven’t had to fight a tree.
I allow pretty much any sword to do both damage types. It doesn’t really matter much this edition since nothing but a handful of monsters care:
Bludgeoning is good against skeletons.
Slashing is bad against some slimes/Oozes.
Piercing sucks against Trees.
That’s it. Nobody else cares but those three.
yet, as luck would have it, swords can commonly have edges.
There were/are some blades that were designed exclusively for stabbing, such as the Rapier and the “Spada da Lato” (a type of short sword), and others that were designed exclusively for chopping like the Khopesh or Kukri (longsword/scimitar equivalents for D&D). But there are far more examples of “cut and thrust” blades than blades designed for only cutting or only thrusting.
Dexterous Halfling wanting to avoid heavier weapons: "All your shortswords seem to be purposed only for stabbing but we're in the land of animated trees."
Smith: "Sorry. Nothing I can do. It's 5e specifications I'm afraid."
... that could also deal damage when slashing.
Fire (source: I am a classicist).
And a Longsword can do piercing damage when thrusting but its damage type is Slashing. There are a good few weapons that could have multiple damage types based on how they're used but they don't.
5e is meant to simplify much of the earlier-edition stuff like that. If you want it just house rule it.
Agreed. But people that use the gladius describe it as a "cut and thrust weapon".
I'd imagine that many 5e halflings may have preferred a shortsword that could do both.
It's exhausting, being this far ahead of the conversation. ;)
I have one word to say: Longsword.
I'd personally limit the thrusting damage of a longsword to 1d6 one-handed same as a shortsword but give 1d8 when used two-handed.
There's a lot of issues with weapon damage in 5e. For instance, if you've managed to grapple an opponent, you'd have more potential to damage them with a bladed knife or dagger than with, say, a rapier.
You have as much potential to damage a grappled target with a dagger than a rapier by RAW. The only weapon potential that will be different is if you're wielding a two-handed weapon, then you don't have any potential to damage your target with it since you don't have two free hands to wield it. A one-handed ranged weapon could also show a reduced potential as well due to disadvantage.
It might help to think of swords in 5e as abstractions and amalgamations of several kinds of swords. You might think of 5e swords as sword categories rather than descriptions of specific real world historical objects.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
True. But people might not be familiar that much with the history of short sword in D&D but its always usually been depicted a small piercing type 1d6 weapon.
What would have not made sense to me in 5E is if they suddenly weren't anymore. It's all i've known loll
It might help if a weapon of a type readily suited to do both piercing and slashing damage was able to do piercing and slashing damage.
The thing is, a short sword is not readily suited to do slashing damage because it doesn't have sharp edges. Just like a dagger.
But it doesn't break the game that much if one decide too. It's just that most weapon only deal a single damage type.
If you wanted to have a weapon that was a shortsword and a scimitar in one, it doesn't break the game to make one. I guess you would just declare what kind of damage you were trying to do when you made an attack with it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I allow pretty much any sword to do both damage types. It doesn’t really matter much this edition since nothing but a handful of monsters care:
That’s it. Nobody else cares but those three.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Rakshasa takes double damage from piercing, but only if it's a magical weapon, and only if that magical piercing weapon is wielded by a good-aligned character. Cute.
Also trees don't care about bludgeoning either. I believe that also applies to wood woads. Bludgeoning and piercing resistance. It's like a soft vulnerability to slashing. Cute.
I've played this edition about twice weekly for about five years and I've seen skeletons aplenty, and tree type enemies three times. Nothing else from this list. Some rakshasas have existed in two of the modules but not in a fighting context. The frequency with which someone will need to consider the damage type of his weapon is like, once per campaign.
You haven’t had a black pudding split on you because someone hit it with a Longsword/greatsword/scimitar/axe? I have been playing weekly for years and still haven’t had to fight a tree.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
yet, as luck would have it, swords can commonly have edges.
There were/are some blades that were designed exclusively for stabbing, such as the Rapier and the “Spada da Lato” (a type of short sword), and others that were designed exclusively for chopping like the Khopesh or Kukri (longsword/scimitar equivalents for D&D). But there are far more examples of “cut and thrust” blades than blades designed for only cutting or only thrusting.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Dexterous Halfling wanting to avoid heavier weapons: "All your shortswords seem to be purposed only for stabbing but we're in the land of animated trees."
Smith: "Sorry. Nothing I can do. It's 5e specifications I'm afraid."
Sounds like the smith is a regular in the Rules & Game Mechanics subforum.
"Not all those who wander are lost"