It's a short sword. A longsword is a specific thing, it is a sword designed for primarily two handed use. The arming sword, a single hander is a whole different animal, used in a different manner.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
The Arming Sword and Longsword were not the same thing. People often conflate them, but they are different. An Arming Sword was a side “arm,” more of a backup/piecetime weapon. A personal defense weapon. It was strictly one-handed. They were longer than a shortsword, but shorter than a longsword.
The Longsword was part of a classification of swords generally referred to as “hand-and-a-half swords.” Hand-and-half swords were balanced in such a way that they could be used one-handed with a shield in the beginning of the fight, and by the time your shield broke and your swordarm started to get tired, you could then wield it two-handed for the rest of the fight because of the extra grip length. The very name “Longsword” refers not specifically to the length of the blade, but the extra length of hilt as well. These were swords designed for more than just self defense.
Of course you are correct about the rest.
D&D 5e decided to simplify by eliminating a bunch of categories of weapons (such as longsword vs broadsword) that lacked meaningful distinction in previous editions, and real world historical distinctions don't map very well to the categories in any edition. If you encountered a weapon with a heavy 33" blade but a short hilt (so not convenient to wield in two hands), what would you call it? I'd call it "longsword, but not versatile".
In as far as D&D 5e goes I would as well, even though nobody would ever use it because Rapiers.
Haha. No, a 33" blade is not a short sword, it's actually quite long for a sword (typical one handed sword length is about 28"). It's the weapon that in 3e would be called a longsword (which used bastard sword for hand-and-a-half swords) and in 2e might have been called a longsword or broadsword.
This isn't 3e. Just because old editions used improper terminology doesn't mean you have to now.
A longsword is a very specific thing, and a 33" one handed arming sword doesn't meet the definition. Since a shorts word is not defined, arming sword fits that definition. Compared to the standard of what a /real/ longsword is, a 33" onehander is short.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
This isn't 3e. Just because old editions used improper terminology doesn't mean you have to now.
A longsword is a very specific thing, and a 33" one handed arming sword doesn't meet the definition. Since a shorts word is not defined, arming sword fits that definition. Compared to the standard of what a /real/ longsword is, a 33" onehander is short.
A short sword is just as well defined as a long sword (which is to say, not very; the term 'longsword' is ahistorical). A short sword is a sword that significantly shorter than an ordinary sword, a long sword is a sword that is significantly longer than an ordinary sword. It just happens that 5e does not have a term for an ordinary sword.
your bog standard sword by the high middle ages was the...longsword. The arming sword was a backup, no more. Thus, it's a short sword in comparison to the long blades of the high middle ages and renaissance. It's a short sword.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
The term longsword in D&D has always referred to a single handed blade meant as a primary weapon. 5e combined the bastard sword into it with the versatile option.
Look through the editions. The one handed 1d8 sword is a longsword. As others have pointed out, the real world has no such classification. A longsword could be an Italian schiavona, a Scottish basket hilted claymore, etc, etc. All of which are effectively arming swords, though the two I mention add basket hilts.
In general 3' is a "Longsword", 2'-2.5' is a short sword. 1' down is a dagger.
PS, swords as a general rule are back up weapons. Primary is going to be maces and flails and such or if you're talking two handed a polearm of some sort or a two-handed sword or pike.
your bog standard sword by the high middle ages was the...longsword. The arming sword was a backup, no more. Thus, it's a short sword in comparison to the long blades of the high middle ages and renaissance. It's a short sword.
The term shortsword is meant for short thrusting weapons such as the gladius (short slashing weapons, such as a machete or cutlass, apparently fall under scimitar). The fact that 5e doesn't have a weapon category between shortsword and bastard sword doesn't mean that no such category existed.
Coming a bit back to the original discussion for ranged weapons.
I think it would make sense, that ranged weapons get a to-hit modifier from DEX, while Slings and Bows get a damage modifier from STR. Crossbows should get a fixed damage value and need a minimum STR to load (which does not need to be that high).
This is probably too complex for the 5e appoach...
I honestly always thought that DEX based weapon effectiveness was based on accuracy (makes sense for almost any ranged weapon), and STR based weapon effectiveness was based on force/power (makes sense for most melee weapons), with the finesse trait given to those melee weapons where power could be traded for accuracy.
i don’t know anyone who would say both aren’t important to any weapons use, 5e just sets the priority of one over the other for simplicity. Any change to this just makes gameplay more complicated for little to no reason
I honestly always thought that DEX based weapon effectiveness was based on accuracy (makes sense for almost any ranged weapon), and STR based weapon effectiveness was based on force/power (makes sense for most melee weapons), with the finesse trait given to those melee weapons where power could be traded for accuracy.
i don’t know anyone who would say both aren’t important to any weapons use, 5e just sets the priority of one over the other for simplicity. Any change to this just makes gameplay more complicated for little to no reason
While this is in principle true, the rather bloated AC (containing dodging, luck, magical protection and armor) makes this also somehow strange. I think, you can look at it in every way, and something is always off with this DEX/STR system D&D uses. But it works foir the game, more or less.
I honestly always thought that DEX based weapon effectiveness was based on accuracy (makes sense for almost any ranged weapon), and STR based weapon effectiveness was based on force/power (makes sense for most melee weapons), with the finesse trait given to those melee weapons where power could be traded for accuracy.
i don’t know anyone who would say both aren’t important to any weapons use, 5e just sets the priority of one over the other for simplicity. Any change to this just makes gameplay more complicated for little to no reason
While this is in principle true, the rather bloated AC (containing dodging, luck, magical protection and armor) makes this also somehow strange. I think, you can look at it in every way, and something is always off with this DEX/STR system D&D uses. But it works foir the game, more or less.
It’s been said a billion times in these threads, but it all goes back to D&D being a game and not a simulation. Also, attack and damage rolls use the same combination of factors if you think about it (power and accuracy (with the more important of the two determining if you use DEX or STR), magical guidance, weapon type, luck) all simplified into two rolls (hit and damage)
Coming a bit back to the original discussion for ranged weapons.
I think it would make sense, that ranged weapons get a to-hit modifier from DEX, while Slings and Bows get a damage modifier from STR. Crossbows should get a fixed damage value and need a minimum STR to load (which does not need to be that high).
This is probably too complex for the 5e appoach...
Eh, both bows and crossbows would just use the strength of the bow rather than the strength of the wielder, and would require a minimum strength to wield. That's not terribly complex.
Slings having superior range is pretty much common knowledge
from wikipedia
Ancient peoples used the sling in combat—armies included both specialist slingers and regular soldiers equipped with slings. As a weapon, the sling had several advantages; a sling bullet lobbed in a high trajectory can achieve ranges in excess of 400 metres (1,300 ft). Modern authorities vary widely in their estimates of the effective range of ancient weapons. A bow and arrow could also have been used to produce a long range arcing trajectory, but ancient writers repeatedly stress the sling's advantage of range. The sling was light to carry and cheap to produce; ammunition in the form of stones was readily available and often to be found near the site of battle. The ranges the sling could achieve with molded lead sling-bullets was surpassed only by the strong composite bow.
Finally, in terms of skills, the solution is for me fairly easy. I do not hesitate to swap one stat for another when asking for a check if I find that it's more appropriate. The intimidation one with swapping from Cha to Str has always been a favourite of mine and many DMs, and you can certainly apply it with very little difficulty in your campaigns. It's a bit of a shame that it's not in the basic 5e rules. It is not that complicated but it also allows for much more flexibility and uncertainty on the DM side that I understand that they left it out. Still, very easy to implement back in.
It certainly would be a shame if it weren't. Fortunately, it is.
Combat in an RPG is really not supposed to be a tactical mini game
Um... revisionist much? RPGs were originally designed as an add-on to tactical minis games (Chainmail was a tactical minis game, and several other reasonably well known RPG products have similar origins). You didn't really see RPGs that lacked a major component of tactical minis before the 90s.
Combat in an RPG is really not supposed to be a tactical mini game
Um... revisionist much? RPGs were originally designed as an add-on to tactical minis games (Chainmail was a tactical minis game, and several other reasonably well known RPG products have similar origins). You didn't really see RPGs that lacked a major component of tactical minis before the 90s.
That’s not entirely true. People played as often with minis as without since the beginning. Most folks only got to know how things were generally done in their area, but both with and sans minis have always been a thing.
Combat in an RPG is really not supposed to be a tactical mini game
Um... revisionist much? RPGs were originally designed as an add-on to tactical minis games (Chainmail was a tactical minis game, and several other reasonably well known RPG products have similar origins). You didn't really see RPGs that lacked a major component of tactical minis before the 90s.
That’s not entirely true. People played as often with minis as without since the beginning. Most folks only got to know how things were generally done in their area, but both with and sans minis have always been a thing.
There's a long distance between "people often played without minis" and "RPGs were never intended to use minis".
Combat in an RPG is really not supposed to be a tactical mini game
Um... revisionist much? RPGs were originally designed as an add-on to tactical minis games (Chainmail was a tactical minis game, and several other reasonably well known RPG products have similar origins). You didn't really see RPGs that lacked a major component of tactical minis before the 90s.
That’s not entirely true. People played as often with minis as without since the beginning. Most folks only got to know how things were generally done in their area, but both with and sans minis have always been a thing.
There's a long distance between "people often played without minis" and "RPGs were never intended to use minis".
your bog standard sword by the high middle ages was the...longsword. The arming sword was a backup, no more. Thus, it's a short sword in comparison to the long blades of the high middle ages and renaissance. It's a short sword.
The term shortsword is meant for short thrusting weapons such as the gladius (short slashing weapons, such as a machete or cutlass, apparently fall under scimitar). The fact that 5e doesn't have a weapon category between shortsword and bastard sword doesn't mean that no such category existed.
The fact that the scimitar was also demoted to a d6 weapon is more proof that the arming sword is a shortsword in 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's a short sword. A longsword is a specific thing, it is a sword designed for primarily two handed use. The arming sword, a single hander is a whole different animal, used in a different manner.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
In as far as D&D 5e goes I would as well, even though nobody would ever use it because Rapiers.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Haha. No, a 33" blade is not a short sword, it's actually quite long for a sword (typical one handed sword length is about 28"). It's the weapon that in 3e would be called a longsword (which used bastard sword for hand-and-a-half swords) and in 2e might have been called a longsword or broadsword.
This isn't 3e. Just because old editions used improper terminology doesn't mean you have to now.
A longsword is a very specific thing, and a 33" one handed arming sword doesn't meet the definition. Since a shorts word is not defined, arming sword fits that definition. Compared to the standard of what a /real/ longsword is, a 33" onehander is short.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
A short sword is just as well defined as a long sword (which is to say, not very; the term 'longsword' is ahistorical). A short sword is a sword that significantly shorter than an ordinary sword, a long sword is a sword that is significantly longer than an ordinary sword. It just happens that 5e does not have a term for an ordinary sword.
your bog standard sword by the high middle ages was the...longsword. The arming sword was a backup, no more. Thus, it's a short sword in comparison to the long blades of the high middle ages and renaissance. It's a short sword.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The term longsword in D&D has always referred to a single handed blade meant as a primary weapon. 5e combined the bastard sword into it with the versatile option.
Look through the editions. The one handed 1d8 sword is a longsword. As others have pointed out, the real world has no such classification. A longsword could be an Italian schiavona, a Scottish basket hilted claymore, etc, etc. All of which are effectively arming swords, though the two I mention add basket hilts.
In general 3' is a "Longsword", 2'-2.5' is a short sword. 1' down is a dagger.
PS, swords as a general rule are back up weapons. Primary is going to be maces and flails and such or if you're talking two handed a polearm of some sort or a two-handed sword or pike.
The term shortsword is meant for short thrusting weapons such as the gladius (short slashing weapons, such as a machete or cutlass, apparently fall under scimitar). The fact that 5e doesn't have a weapon category between shortsword and bastard sword doesn't mean that no such category existed.
Coming a bit back to the original discussion for ranged weapons.
I think it would make sense, that ranged weapons get a to-hit modifier from DEX, while Slings and Bows get a damage modifier from STR. Crossbows should get a fixed damage value and need a minimum STR to load (which does not need to be that high).
This is probably too complex for the 5e appoach...
I honestly always thought that DEX based weapon effectiveness was based on accuracy (makes sense for almost any ranged weapon), and STR based weapon effectiveness was based on force/power (makes sense for most melee weapons), with the finesse trait given to those melee weapons where power could be traded for accuracy.
i don’t know anyone who would say both aren’t important to any weapons use, 5e just sets the priority of one over the other for simplicity. Any change to this just makes gameplay more complicated for little to no reason
While this is in principle true, the rather bloated AC (containing dodging, luck, magical protection and armor) makes this also somehow strange. I think, you can look at it in every way, and something is always off with this DEX/STR system D&D uses. But it works foir the game, more or less.
It’s been said a billion times in these threads, but it all goes back to D&D being a game and not a simulation. Also, attack and damage rolls use the same combination of factors if you think about it (power and accuracy (with the more important of the two determining if you use DEX or STR), magical guidance, weapon type, luck) all simplified into two rolls (hit and damage)
Eh, both bows and crossbows would just use the strength of the bow rather than the strength of the wielder, and would require a minimum strength to wield. That's not terribly complex.
Slings having superior range is pretty much common knowledge
from wikipedia
Ancient peoples used the sling in combat—armies included both specialist slingers and regular soldiers equipped with slings. As a weapon, the sling had several advantages; a sling bullet lobbed in a high trajectory can achieve ranges in excess of 400 metres (1,300 ft). Modern authorities vary widely in their estimates of the effective range of ancient weapons. A bow and arrow could also have been used to produce a long range arcing trajectory, but ancient writers repeatedly stress the sling's advantage of range. The sling was light to carry and cheap to produce; ammunition in the form of stones was readily available and often to be found near the site of battle. The ranges the sling could achieve with molded lead sling-bullets was surpassed only by the strong composite bow.
It certainly would be a shame if it weren't. Fortunately, it is.
Um... revisionist much? RPGs were originally designed as an add-on to tactical minis games (Chainmail was a tactical minis game, and several other reasonably well known RPG products have similar origins). You didn't really see RPGs that lacked a major component of tactical minis before the 90s.
That’s not entirely true. People played as often with minis as without since the beginning. Most folks only got to know how things were generally done in their area, but both with and sans minis have always been a thing.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There's a long distance between "people often played without minis" and "RPGs were never intended to use minis".
That is true.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The fact that the scimitar was also demoted to a d6 weapon is more proof that the arming sword is a shortsword in 5e.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha