The D&D rules for underwater combat are... generous, to say the least. No, a crossbow can't be used underwater, but you also can't throw a spear or net. However, realistic underwater combat would also be annoying and unfun.
On the original point, a shortsword is intended to model a gladius; to model a cutlass or machete, use scimitar stats (and to model a scimitar or cavalry saber, use longsword stats. Because D&D names are only incidentally related to real weapons). You might also consider changing the price of the scimitar to 10 gp.
The D&D rules for underwater combat are... generous, to say the least. No, a crossbow can't be used underwater, but you also can't throw a spear or net. However, realistic underwater combat would also be annoying and unfun.
On the original point, a shortsword is intended to model a gladius; to model a cutlass or machete, use scimitar stats (and to model a scimitar or cavalry saber, use longsword stats. Because D&D names are only incidentally related to real weapons). You might also consider changing the price of the scimitar to 10 gp.
Why not just use a scimitar for a scimitar? (Especially seeing as how neither a scimitar nor a cavalry saber were hand-and-a-half swords.) Personally I use a rapier that does slashing damage as a saber.
The D&D rules for underwater combat are... generous, to say the least. No, a crossbow can't be used underwater, but you also can't throw a spear or net. However, realistic underwater combat would also be annoying and unfun.
On the original point, a shortsword is intended to model a gladius; to model a cutlass or machete, use scimitar stats (and to model a scimitar or cavalry saber, use longsword stats. Because D&D names are only incidentally related to real weapons). You might also consider changing the price of the scimitar to 10 gp.
Yeah, a D&D longsword is a lousy model for a real world scimitar (mainly because you don't use cavalry sabres two-handed).
That said, the D&D weapons should really be seen as vague guidelines or categories at best. A "short sword" is any sword that is used one handed and is designed mainly for thrusting, this doesn't mean that it technically can't be used for cutting or slashing but mechanically it deals piercing damage. Is it a Roman gladius? Is it an 18th century small sword? Is it a 15th century Oakshott type XV? Doesn't matter. Same goes for the "scimitar". Is it an actual scimitar? Is it a cutlass? Is it a migration era iron sword? Is it a 14th century side sword? Is it a 16th century Messer? Doesn't matter, pick what best suits your character but mechanically it deals 1D6 slashing damage.
One correction, the “side sword” (aka “spada da lato”^1) would be a shortsword as it was a thrusting weapon. Did you perhapse mean the “backsword”^2 instead? I would probably classify that as a scimitar.
Why not just use a scimitar for a scimitar? (Especially seeing as how neither a scimitar nor a cavalry saber were hand-and-a-half swords.) Personally I use a rapier that does slashing damage as a saber.
A scimitar or cavalry saber is a full weight war sword, not a light weapon. It just happens that 5e doesn't have a 1d8/no special properties weapon. The slashing rapier option is decent (it suddenly becomes the best druid melee weapon, but... eh).
One correction, the “side sword” (aka “spada da lato”^1) would be a shortsword as it was a thrusting weapon. Did you perhapse mean the “backsword”^2 instead? I would probably classify that as a scimitar.
Nah, actually I was thinking of an arming sword but I haven't had enough sleep lately. Thanks for the correction though. :) But a backsword works as well. An actual side sword/spada da lato would probably be a D&D rapier, if you'd care to make the difference.
Gotcha. You think a side sword would be long enough rate as a rapier?
Sure, why not. I honestly think it's just a matter of personal preference. If you want the D&D Rapier to represent any thrusting sword it'd be fine with me. As long as you have the proficiency to use it, it's just a matter of flavour. :)
Gotcha. You think a side sword would be long enough rate as a rapier?
Sure, why not. I honestly think it's just a matter of personal preference. If you want the D&D Rapier to represent any thrusting sword it'd be fine with me. As long as you have the proficiency to use it, it's just a matter of flavour. :)
In the real world, it would be easier for most people to attain the equivalent of a +2 to hit proficiency bonus with a weapon that was designed to be a weapon than with a tool that a character for some reason decided to fight with. I'd think this could apply both to a 2lb piercing/slashing "shortsword" or a 3lb 5e scimitar.
Gotcha. You think a side sword would be long enough rate as a rapier?
Sure, why not. I honestly think it's just a matter of personal preference. If you want the D&D Rapier to represent any thrusting sword it'd be fine with me. As long as you have the proficiency to use it, it's just a matter of flavour. :)
In the real world, it would be easier for most people to attain the equivalent of a +2 to hit proficiency bonus with a weapon that was designed to be a weapon than with a tool that a character for some reason decided to fight with. I'd think this could apply both to a 2lb piercing/slashing "shortsword" or a 3lb 5e scimitar.
And this is relevant to comparing sideswords to rapiers exactly how? If you want an axe you have the handaxe, battleaxe and greataxe...
Gotcha. You think a side sword would be long enough rate as a rapier?
Sure, why not. I honestly think it's just a matter of personal preference. If you want the D&D Rapier to represent any thrusting sword it'd be fine with me. As long as you have the proficiency to use it, it's just a matter of flavour. :)
In the real world, it would be easier for most people to attain the equivalent of a +2 to hit proficiency bonus with a weapon that was designed to be a weapon than with a tool that a character for some reason decided to fight with. I'd think this could apply both to a 2lb piercing/slashing "shortsword" or a 3lb 5e scimitar.
And this is relevant to comparing sideswords to rapiers exactly how? If you want an axe you have the handaxe, battleaxe and greataxe...
Really just to illustrate the relative ease of use and typical versatility of swords. Swords could be readily used to basic levels of control with smaller sized swords like the gladius being suited for and easily applied to both piercing and slashing.
Really just to illustrate the relative ease of use and typical versatility of swords. Swords could be readily used to basic levels of control with smaller sized swords like the gladius being suited for and easily applied to both piercing and slashing.
But this literally has nothingto do with what I was talking about so why did you adress me?
Gotcha. You think a side sword would be long enough rate as a rapier?
Sure, why not. I honestly think it's just a matter of personal preference. If you want the D&D Rapier to represent any thrusting sword it'd be fine with me. As long as you have the proficiency to use it, it's just a matter of flavour. :)
In the real world, it would be easier for most people to attain the equivalent of a +2 to hit proficiency bonus with a weapon that was designed to be a weapon than with a tool that a character for some reason decided to fight with. I'd think this could apply both to a 2lb piercing/slashing "shortsword" or a 3lb 5e scimitar.
I understand that you are coming back to the 'shortswords should be simple weapons' argument but he is not talking in a fantasy setting context where armored opponents are more common, and most definitely is not talking in terms consistent with D&D game mechanics.. D&D has no separate penetration check for weapons. Getting past armor is factored into AC. He clearly states that axes penetrate better, that it is easier to score a solid hit with one.
He only really gives an edge (no pun intended) to swords in one on one duels in which both parties are unarmored, a situation that is really pretty rare in game.
He certainly indicates that, on occasion that a hit is achieved with an axe, you are less likely to do low damage with an axe.
Well armoured Roman and even Greek soldiers opted for swords and spears. It was only in the period when technology permitted use of full plate armour but prior to the advent of firearms that hammers, picks, axes and two-handed polearms seem to have really come into their own.
First of all, crossbow bolts are not normally 3' long. If a normal crossbow can fire a 3' long bolt, then why are there no super-heavy crossbows which do so?
Second, and again, YES it is a real world weapon, but it is NOT using medieval period technology. Even the sling shot version is elastic, using 20th century elastics, not the torque based weapon known as a sling. If that kind of tech exists, a lot of additional products should be on the equipment lists.
No bolts usually are from a little over 1ft to about 2ft long, you can however use longer bolts just fine if you want to. The reason it isn't usually done isn't a mechanical one, it's an ease-of-use one. If you walk around with a loaded crossbow with a bolt that protrude much in front of the stirrup then in nature (or in a crowd) it is more likely to snag on something and thus fall out of the crossbow.
Even so there isn't a lot of difference in functionality between a crossbow that fires 2ft bolts and a speargun that fires 3ft "spears". At least not as long as you assume that the crossbow can be fired unhindered under water, which DnD does.
He certainly indicates that, on occasion that a hit is achieved with an axe, you are less likely to do low damage with an axe.
Well armoured Roman and even Greek soldiers opted for swords and spears. It was only in the period when technology permitted use of full plate armour but prior to the advent of firearms that hammers, picks, axes and two-handed polearms seem to have really come into their own.
Well, not really. Firearms were actually around before (or at least pretty much around the same time as) "plate" armour (depending on how you define plate). Axes were also quite popular way before plate and in many cultures that didn't even develop plate armour (there are various reasons for this). Not sure which polearms you mean that aren't two-handed but spears in one form or the other was literally around for millenia.
He certainly indicates that, on occasion that a hit is achieved with an axe, you are less likely to do low damage with an axe.
Well armoured Roman and even Greek soldiers opted for swords and spears. It was only in the period when technology permitted use of full plate armour but prior to the advent of firearms that hammers, picks, axes and two-handed polearms seem to have really come into their own.
Well, not really. Firearms were actually around before (or at least pretty much around the same time as) "plate" armour (depending on how you define plate). Axes were also quite popular way before plate and in many cultures that didn't even develop plate armour (there are various reasons for this). Not sure which polearms you mean that aren't two-handed but spears in one form or the other was literally around for millenia.
Well, pretty much. The increasing use and development of firearms were a major cause of the decline in the use of full plate armour but that's a side issue.
Axes were quite popular. Swords and spears were more popular as weapons. Part of this may have been the accessibility of swords but other issues may have been its suitability for combat, long blade that can't so easily be blocked or held, handguard to protect the fingers and, significantly, regular in design suitability to both pierce and slash.
He certainly indicates that, on occasion that a hit is achieved with an axe, you are less likely to do low damage with an axe.
Well armoured Roman and even Greek soldiers opted for swords and spears. It was only in the period when technology permitted use of full plate armour but prior to the advent of firearms that hammers, picks, axes and two-handed polearms seem to have really come into their own.
Again, a 'hit' in English, means connecting with the target, whether you penetrate the armor or not. A 'hit' in D&D means actually penetrating the armor solidly enough to do damage. Armor in D&D does not affect damage the way it does IRL. It affects chances of being hit instead.
"Well armored" for Greek or Roman troops was Helmet, Breastplate and Shield. That leaves a lot of area unarmored. They also had bronze, rather than iron or steel, so not as thick or as hard. And most campaigns are not set in Greece (or even Theros).
Yeah, the lack of Roman full-body protection would also have added to the value of the handguard afforded by the versatile gladius. It provides protection leaving the wielder with more freedom to focus on attack.
He certainly indicates that, on occasion that a hit is achieved with an axe, you are less likely to do low damage with an axe.
Well armoured Roman and even Greek soldiers opted for swords and spears. It was only in the period when technology permitted use of full plate armour but prior to the advent of firearms that hammers, picks, axes and two-handed polearms seem to have really come into their own.
Well, not really. Firearms were actually around before (or at least pretty much around the same time as) "plate" armour (depending on how you define plate). Axes were also quite popular way before plate and in many cultures that didn't even develop plate armour (there are various reasons for this). Not sure which polearms you mean that aren't two-handed but spears in one form or the other was literally around for millenia.
Well, pretty much. The increasing use and development of firearms were a major cause of the decline in the use of full plate armour but that's a side issue.
Axes were quite popular. Swords and spears were more popular as weapons. Part of this may have been the accessibility of swords but other issues may have been its suitability for combat, long blade that can't so easily be blocked or held, handguard to protect the fingers and, significantly, regular in design suitability to both pierce and slash.
You are ignoring non-combat reasons for civilian sword use. Again, you can sheath a sword in such a way that it can easily be drawn. Axes are much trickier. Spears are a full different level of trickier. Given civilians were spending most of their time living their normal lives rather than fighting for their normal lives, that kind of convenience outweighs any disadvantages swords might have had over axes or spears. Furthermore, civilians, if they fought, were far more likely to be fighting unarmored civilians than anyone or anything else. And the anything elses' they might fight would be animals hunted with traps or possibly a bow or crossbow. D&D is not a game of 'normal life as a peasant.'
As for military use, swords were not used that much. Spears and other polearms were far more useful as they work so much better in formation fighting, better than sword or axe.
No, I'd just mentioned the accessibility of swords.
Yes, spears are awesome piercing weapons.
Swords of various sizes could often be used historically for piercing and/or slashing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
new here. how do you start a new thread, w/out using latex.
The D&D rules for underwater combat are... generous, to say the least. No, a crossbow can't be used underwater, but you also can't throw a spear or net. However, realistic underwater combat would also be annoying and unfun.
On the original point, a shortsword is intended to model a gladius; to model a cutlass or machete, use scimitar stats (and to model a scimitar or cavalry saber, use longsword stats. Because D&D names are only incidentally related to real weapons). You might also consider changing the price of the scimitar to 10 gp.
Why not just use a scimitar for a scimitar? (Especially seeing as how neither a scimitar nor a cavalry saber were hand-and-a-half swords.) Personally I use a rapier that does slashing damage as a saber.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah, a D&D longsword is a lousy model for a real world scimitar (mainly because you don't use cavalry sabres two-handed).
That said, the D&D weapons should really be seen as vague guidelines or categories at best. A "short sword" is any sword that is used one handed and is designed mainly for thrusting, this doesn't mean that it technically can't be used for cutting or slashing but mechanically it deals piercing damage. Is it a Roman gladius? Is it an 18th century small sword? Is it a 15th century Oakshott type XV? Doesn't matter. Same goes for the "scimitar". Is it an actual scimitar? Is it a cutlass? Is it a migration era iron sword? Is it a 14th century side sword? Is it a 16th century Messer? Doesn't matter, pick what best suits your character but mechanically it deals 1D6 slashing damage.
One correction, the “side sword” (aka “spada da lato”^1) would be a shortsword as it was a thrusting weapon. Did you perhapse mean the “backsword”^2 instead? I would probably classify that as a scimitar.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A scimitar or cavalry saber is a full weight war sword, not a light weapon. It just happens that 5e doesn't have a 1d8/no special properties weapon. The slashing rapier option is decent (it suddenly becomes the best druid melee weapon, but... eh).
Nah, actually I was thinking of an arming sword but I haven't had enough sleep lately. Thanks for the correction though. :) But a backsword works as well. An actual side sword/spada da lato would probably be a D&D rapier, if you'd care to make the difference.
Gotcha. You think a side sword would be long enough rate as a rapier?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sure, why not. I honestly think it's just a matter of personal preference. If you want the D&D Rapier to represent any thrusting sword it'd be fine with me. As long as you have the proficiency to use it, it's just a matter of flavour. :)
In the real world, it would be easier for most people to attain the equivalent of a +2 to hit proficiency bonus with a weapon that was designed to be a weapon than with a tool that a character for some reason decided to fight with. I'd think this could apply both to a 2lb piercing/slashing "shortsword" or a 3lb 5e scimitar.
And this is relevant to comparing sideswords to rapiers exactly how? If you want an axe you have the handaxe, battleaxe and greataxe...
Really just to illustrate the relative ease of use and typical versatility of swords. Swords could be readily used to basic levels of control with smaller sized swords like the gladius being suited for and easily applied to both piercing and slashing.
But this literally has nothing to do with what I was talking about so why did you adress me?
He certainly indicates that, on occasion that a hit is achieved with an axe, you are less likely to do low damage with an axe.
Well armoured Roman and even Greek soldiers opted for swords and spears. It was only in the period when technology permitted use of full plate armour but prior to the advent of firearms that hammers, picks, axes and two-handed polearms seem to have really come into their own.
No bolts usually are from a little over 1ft to about 2ft long, you can however use longer bolts just fine if you want to. The reason it isn't usually done isn't a mechanical one, it's an ease-of-use one. If you walk around with a loaded crossbow with a bolt that protrude much in front of the stirrup then in nature (or in a crowd) it is more likely to snag on something and thus fall out of the crossbow.
Even so there isn't a lot of difference in functionality between a crossbow that fires 2ft bolts and a speargun that fires 3ft "spears". At least not as long as you assume that the crossbow can be fired unhindered under water, which DnD does.
He has an axe (no pun intended here either) to grind with the rules, you just happened to be the post he picked to start with this time.
Well, not really. Firearms were actually around before (or at least pretty much around the same time as) "plate" armour (depending on how you define plate). Axes were also quite popular way before plate and in many cultures that didn't even develop plate armour (there are various reasons for this). Not sure which polearms you mean that aren't two-handed but spears in one form or the other was literally around for millenia.
Well, pretty much. The increasing use and development of firearms were a major cause of the decline in the use of full plate armour but that's a side issue.
Axes were quite popular. Swords and spears were more popular as weapons. Part of this may have been the accessibility of swords but other issues may have been its suitability for combat, long blade that can't so easily be blocked or held, handguard to protect the fingers and, significantly, regular in design suitability to both pierce and slash.
Yeah, the lack of Roman full-body protection would also have added to the value of the handguard afforded by the versatile gladius. It provides protection leaving the wielder with more freedom to focus on attack.
No, I'd just mentioned the accessibility of swords.
Yes, spears are awesome piercing weapons.
Swords of various sizes could often be used historically for piercing and/or slashing.