Quote from Kotath >>

Why would there be ballistae if the larger bolts could be fired just as effectively using much smaller bows? And why would you need a heavy crossbow width bow, when, apparently a longer hand crossbow should handle larger bolts just fine? That crossbows can be fired underwater does not mean crossbows can fire any bolt style ammo you want to try firing from them, particularly without loss of performance.

 You seem to have some real issues with scale. The ammunition for crossbows, bows and spearguns is 1,5ft - 3ft (up to 5ft for the really long ones) and weighs from 0,5oz - 2oz (really heavy would be up to 5oz). The ammunition for a ballista would be somewhat similar to a spear and start at 5ft and go up to close to 10ft and its weight would be close to a pound and often a lot more.

Yes, firing a spear or ballista arrow from a crossbow is a ridiculous idea. But the only one trying to do that is you.

The rest of us argues that firing ammunition that is reasonably sized for a crossbow from a crossbow is fully doable. And if you do so under water then you have something that is functionally very similar to a speargun. Add a string for retrievability or a barbed/break-off arrowhead and you have all you need. And that with DnD level technology.

Quote from Thezzaruz >>

The rest of us argues that firing ammunition that is reasonably sized for a crossbow from a crossbow is fully doable. And if you do so under water then you have something that is functionally very similar to a speargun. Add a string for retrievability or a barbed/break-off arrowhead and you have all you need. And that with DnD level technology.

 Other than the part where a crossbow can fire underwater. Most crossbows would be ruined in short order by immersion in water, and even if you have a bow made of waterproof materials, water resistance on the bowstaff and string would substantially reduce power.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

 Other than the part where a crossbow can fire underwater. Most crossbows would be ruined in short order by immersion in water, and even if you have a bow made of waterproof materials, water resistance on the bowstaff and string would substantially reduce power.

 Realistically yes, but the rules allow for firing a crossbow under water without penalties (up to its normal range). If you want to change that or add bad things happening to the crossbow when used that way then by all means rule so for your games.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Thezzaruz >>

Quote from Kotath >>

Why would there be ballistae if the larger bolts could be fired just as effectively using much smaller bows? And why would you need a heavy crossbow width bow, when, apparently a longer hand crossbow should handle larger bolts just fine? That crossbows can be fired underwater does not mean crossbows can fire any bolt style ammo you want to try firing from them, particularly without loss of performance.

 You seem to have some real issues with scale. The ammunition for crossbows, bows and spearguns is 1,5ft - 3ft (up to 5ft for the really long ones) and weighs from 0,5oz - 2oz (really heavy would be up to 5oz). The ammunition for a ballista would be somewhat similar to a spear and start at 5ft and go up to close to 10ft and its weight would be close to a pound and often a lot more.

Yes, firing a spear or ballista arrow from a crossbow is a ridiculous idea. But the only one trying to do that is you.

The rest of us argues that firing ammunition that is reasonably sized for a crossbow from a crossbow is fully doable. And if you do so under water then you have something that is functionally very similar to a speargun. Add a string for retrievability or a barbed/break-off arrowhead and you have all you need. And that with DnD level technology.

 

You are the one now citing up to 5 foot long crossbow bolts and arguing like crossbows are one size loads all.  Yes, there are crossbows that can handle larger bolts. They are larger crossbows designed for such. 

You seem to have been arguing that 'a crossbow' (never specifying heavy or light or hand) can load a wide variety of ammunition. You are doing this while equating crossbows, bows and spear guns and ignoring the pull rating of the first two of those.

You insist that I am the one who is having trouble with scale, while you gloss over all questions of scale. Please provide a link to a bow capable of effectively firing spear gun ammunition. Or even a crossbow.

 
A large (cross)bow for which dimensions had been doubled would weigh 8 times as much as the bow it was based on but could shoot projectiles of just 4 times the weight.

Per the title of this thread, let's keep things on shortswords.

If you want to discuss crossbows, start a new thread

5e RAW permits one type of damage per weapon type.

In reality, many knives and swords were capable of piercing and slashing and many, war hammers, battleaxes, war picks and polearms were capable of two out of bludgeoning, slashing and piercing, and sometimes three.

Quote from 2Dogs >>

 
That's a rapier.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

Quote from 2Dogs >>

 
That's a rapier.

 
It doesn’t look quite long enough to be a rapier. It looks like it might be a side-sword (spada da lato), which was basically just a shorter rapier. That would qualify as a shortsword. Of course, so would a Gladius too.

I'm pretty sure the picture is a "smallsword" but it would fall under "rapier" in D&D. (because it's a pokey piercing-only 1-handed weapon)

In the real world, the smallsword is much lighter than a rapier, but also has less reach (and many rapiers were quite long and heavy).

Quote from kenclary >>

I'm pretty sure the picture is a "smallsword" but it would fall under "rapier" in D&D. (because it's a pokey piercing-only 1-handed weapon)

In the real world, the smallsword is much lighter than a rapier, but also has less reach (and many rapiers were quite long and heavy).

 
Shortswords in D&D are also pokey piercing-only 1-handed weapons, just smaller than rapiers is all.

No. That image is taken directly from the Wikipedia page for small swords.

It look like a rapier or side sword at first glance. 5E weapons don't have much specs regarding size, design or description so if a player would come to me about such image for his short sword, i'd let it be just fine.

Quote from 2Dogs >>

No. That image is taken directly from the Wikipedia page for small swords.

 
As mentioned, it is a type of rapier, just a shorter one. An Espada Ropera de Lazo is a type of rapier. Rapiers are not defined specifically by length, but rather by the blade style and guard. There's multiple rapier types with different blade lengths, the Espada Ropera de Lazo you show, as well as Espada Ropera de Conchas and Espada Ropera de Taza.

EDIT, to clarify, not saying it isn't a short sword, just clarifying that even though it is a short sword, it is also a rapier. This is to highlight how the D&D weapon lists are not realistic or defined, and largely just general categories for all sorts of weapons. 

Typical rapiers were approximately 4 feet long, whereas a small sword or side-sword were only about 3 feet long. Rapiers also typically had more hand protection too.

Small swords are considered an evolution of the rapier, including how/why they were used. Side swords and back swords and the gladius and other short swords aren't.

But then, it's just a question of d6 vs d8 and light vs not and cost, in D&D. So it can be whatever the DM thinks fits best. The technical diffence between a rapier and smallsword doesn't really show up in the granularity of D&D's weapons. (As it happens, I'd consider a smallsword to be not an off-hand weapon and not a cheap weapon, because of how it was used and by whom, so I'd rule it as a more modern "rapier.")

Correct, the side-sword was a precursor in the evolution of the rapier. And either a side-sword or a smallsword could be considered either a shortsword or a rapier in D&D.