Whether middle class or not, people in 5e may have had better access to practice and real swords than to bows as per phb/equipment#Weapons.
Shortsword 10 gp Longsword 15 gp Crossbow, light 25 gp Shortbow 25 gp
Shield 10 gp
The difference in standards is between a character with a background such as acolyte, anthropologist, athlete, charlatan, clan crafter, cloistered scholar, courtier, criminal or entertainer being proficient with clubs, daggers greatclubs, handaxes, javalins, light hammers, maces, quarterstaffs, sickles, spears, light crossbows, darts, shortbows and slings but not with the swords which are just as associated with these games as the sorcery.
And someone middle class in modern real life can likely afford a car. That does not mean they know how to safely drive it.
They can easily afford a sword. It does not mean they are proficient in wielding it.
You are repeating yourself.
You are yet to account for the "difference".
How does someone from a background such as acolyte, anthropologist, athlete, charlatan, clan crafter, cloistered scholar, courtier, criminal or entertainer get to be specifically proficient with clubs, daggers greatclubs, handaxes, javalins, light hammers, maces, quarterstaffs, sickles, spears, light crossbows, darts, shortbows and slings but in a culture, where swords are valued, not to become proficient with readily wieldable swords?
That's where we differ. I keep mentioning that we have differences of viewpoints and I keep pointing out that this is one of them.
You take the subjective view that "swords are harder to learn to wield."
I take the subjective view that "swords are readily wieldable but that, in the real world, there are many facets of swordplay that can be mastered".
I would really appreciate it if you could please accept that people may have different points of view on issues that cannot be proven. Without this, discussion with you becomes futile in discussions like this.
You have NOT answered, How does someone from a background such as acolyte, anthropologist, athlete, charlatan, clan crafter, cloistered scholar, courtier, criminal or entertainer get to be specifically proficient with clubs, daggers greatclubs, handaxes, javalins, light hammers, maces, quarterstaffs, sickles, spears, light crossbows, darts, shortbows and slings but in a culture, where swords are valued, not to become proficient with readily wieldable swords?
How do people from those backgrounds gain proficiency to use all those often challenging weapons with a +2 to hit?
My conjecture is that it would be easier or at least as easy for characters from most 5e backgrounds to achieve a starter-level combat ability of +2 to hit with a balanced, easy to move, finesse weapon like a sword than say a far end heavy weapon like a hand axe or hammer.
The fact is that historically a weapon of choice has been the sword. The idea is that people with equal familiarity with the weapons would choose hand axes is absurd. Swords are better weapons and, on this basis, the conjecture that it would be easier for people to gain an ability of +2 to hit with a generally superior weapon is fair.
It is pointless talking to you.
The heads of axes and hammers are made of metal, a relatively heavy material. The shafts of axes and hammers are made of wood, a relatively light material. When a user holds an axe or hammer by the shaft, the heavy head of the weapon is at the far end.
While swords are balanced with their weight towards the wielder, axes and hammers have most of their weight at the far end,
My conjecture is that it would be easier or at least as easy for characters from most 5e backgrounds to achieve a starter-level combat ability of +2 to hit with a balanced, easy to move, finesse weapon like a sword than say a far end heavy weapon like a hand axe or hammer.
That's where we differ. I keep mentioning that we have differences of viewpoints and I keep pointing out that this is one of them.
You take the subjective view that "swords are harder to learn to wield."
I take the subjective view that "swords are readily wieldable but that, in the real world, there are many facets of swordplay that can be mastered".
Problem is that you are, simply put, wrong. While swords are generally a superior and more versatile weapon it is considerably easier to reach a skill level that would make you effective in combat with the types of weapons on the list of simple weapons.
The fact is that historically a weapon of choice has been the sword. The idea is that people with equal familiarity with the weapons would choose hand axes is absurd. Swords are better weapons and, on this basis, the conjecture that it would be easier for people to gain an ability of +2 to hit with a generally superior weapon is fair.
For the likes of professional soldiers and knights yes but for rank and file infantry or militia type of troops it wasn't.
Don't get me wrong, you do have a point about the "who gets what weapon proficiency" and "from where do they get it" issue. And as I mentioned before there are issues with what kinds of weapons exist/don't exist and how do they work/what traits do the have and what do/doesn't differentiate between them and so on. But the designers quite clearly went with a few of the classic fantasy world tropes and then added a bit to not be overly restrictive and then said "fine, this'll work". Simplicity is the name of the game and generally I think they are right. Sure there are details that I think are stupid but overall when I look at the rules the one thing I might wish for is more clarity but rarely more complexity.
That's where we differ. I keep mentioning that we have differences of viewpoints and I keep pointing out that this is one of them.
You take the subjective view that "swords are harder to learn to wield."
I take the subjective view that "swords are readily wieldable but that, in the real world, there are many facets of swordplay that can be mastered".
Problem is that you are, simply put, wrong. While swords are generally a superior and more versatile weapon it is considerably easier to reach a skill level that would make you effective in combat with the types of weapons on the list of simple weapons.
The fact is that historically a weapon of choice has been the sword. The idea is that people with equal familiarity with the weapons would choose hand axes is absurd. Swords are better weapons and, on this basis, the conjecture that it would be easier for people to gain an ability of +2 to hit with a generally superior weapon is fair.
For the likes of professional soldiers and knights yes but for rank and file infantry or militia type of troops it wasn't.
Don't get me wrong, you do have a point about the "who gets what weapon proficiency" and "from where do they get it" issue. And as I mentioned before there are issues with what kinds of weapons exist/don't exist and how do they work/what traits do the have and what do/doesn't differentiate between them and so on. But the designers quite clearly went with a few of the classic fantasy world tropes and then added a bit to not be overly restrictive and then said "fine, this'll work". Simplicity is the name of the game and generally I think they are right. Sure there are details that I think are stupid but overall when I look at the rules the one thing I might wish for is more clarity but rarely more complexity.
two brothers. one practices sword fighting. the other practices fighting with a 5e 2lb light hammer.
my conjecture is that the brother practising sword fighting will become dangerous in combat just as quickly if not faster than the brother with the light hammer. is that not reasonable?
two brothers. one practices sword fighting. the other practices fighting with a 5e 2lb light hammer.
my conjecture is that the brother practising sword fighting will become dangerous in combat just as quickly if not faster than the brother with the light hammer. is that not reasonable?
Not really no. The one training with a sword might well become more dangerous after a while but that isn't really well represented in the 5E rules. But the one using a hammer (or a mace, club, spear or similar) would reach a "useful in battle" status a lot quicker and that fits perfectly with what proficiency is in 5E.
two brothers. one practices sword fighting. the other practices fighting with a 5e 2lb light hammer.
my conjecture is that the brother practising sword fighting will become dangerous in combat just as quickly if not faster than the brother with the light hammer. is that not reasonable?
Not really no. The one training with a sword might well become more dangerous after a while but that isn't really well represented in the 5E rules. But the one using a hammer (or a mace, club, spear or similar) would reach a "useful in battle" status a lot quicker and that fits perfectly with what proficiency is in 5E.
If you were to face a combat opponent in, say, 3 days time, would you take weapon's practice with a sword or a light hammer/hand axe?
two brothers. one practices sword fighting. the other practices fighting with a 5e 2lb light hammer.
my conjecture is that the brother practising sword fighting will become dangerous in combat just as quickly if not faster than the brother with the light hammer. is that not reasonable?
Not really no. The one training with a sword might well become more dangerous after a while but that isn't really well represented in the 5E rules. But the one using a hammer (or a mace, club, spear or similar) would reach a "useful in battle" status a lot quicker and that fits perfectly with what proficiency is in 5E.
If you were to face a combat opponent in, say, 3 days time, would you take weapon's practice with a sword or a light hammer/hand axe?
If I was completely untrained, I would almost certainly take a greatsword instead of a kitchen knife too. That is not because of the ease of learning but just the fundamental damage potential difference, reach difference, etc. The greatsword does far more than 10% (+2 to hit ) more damage.
Oddly, you know that the discussion is about shortswords and simple weapons yet your example involves neither. This is the kind of thing that makes it hard to discuss things with you. Realworld swords can also be used with the advantage of being able to strike both ways.
two brothers. one practices sword fighting. the other practices fighting with a 5e 2lb light hammer.
my conjecture is that the brother practising sword fighting will become dangerous in combat just as quickly if not faster than the brother with the light hammer. is that not reasonable?
Not really no. The one training with a sword might well become more dangerous after a while but that isn't really well represented in the 5E rules. But the one using a hammer (or a mace, club, spear or similar) would reach a "useful in battle" status a lot quicker and that fits perfectly with what proficiency is in 5E.
If you were to face a combat opponent in, say, 3 days time, would you take weapon's practice with a sword or a light hammer/hand axe?
If I was completely untrained, I would almost certainly take a greatsword instead of a kitchen knife too. That is not because of the ease of learning but just the fundamental damage potential difference, reach difference, etc. The greatsword does far more than 10% (+2 to hit ) more damage.
Oddly, you know that the discussion is about shortswords and simple weapons yet your example involves neither. This is the kind of thing that makes it hard to discuss things with you. Realworld swords can also be used with the advantage of being able to strike both ways.
If you were to face a combat opponent in, say, 3 days time, would you take weapon's practice with a sword or a light hammer/hand axe?
If I was completely untrained, I would almost certainly take a greatsword instead of a kitchen knife too. That is not because of the ease of learning but just the fundamental damage potential difference, reach difference, etc. The greatsword does far more than 10% (+2 to hit ) more damage.
Oddly, you know that the discussion is about shortswords and simple weapons yet your example involves neither. This is the kind of thing that makes it hard to discuss things with you. Realworld swords can also be used with the advantage of being able to strike both ways.
Are you saying knives are martial weapons? Improvised weapons? How are knives not simple weapons?
You are comparing a martial weapon (short sword) with a simple weapon (a light hammer). I am pointing out that the advantages of swords typically include better damage for the weight. There are reasons other than ease of learning why someone might choose a sword over a simple weapon, despite the lack of sword proficiency.
Not sure what you mean by 'being able to strike both ways.' Thrusting blades tend not to have much for edge and cutting blades tend to have points wide enough that they are not great thrusting weapons. If you mean backhand, you lose a ton of power (and likely accuracy) striking backhand.
I didn't mention knives. I have no reason to talk about knives. No, knives are not on the list as 5e simple weapons. At least we agree about some of the advantages of swords: I'd argue that they also facilitate a better chance of doing any damage. They are greatly mobile and their edge is an extended blade. Swords can often be placed on a spectrum between thrusting blades and cutting blades. They are typically designed with both in mind but with a varying level of priority given to one or the other. They are designed as weapons to facilitate the maximum chance of doing damage.
I would personally consider that, if I had a limited time for practice, I could develop a better chance to hit with a sword than I could with a weapon such as a light hammer or a hand axe.
My conjecture is that it would be easier or at least as easy for characters from most 5e backgrounds to achieve a starter-level combat ability of +2 to hit with a balanced, easy to move, finesse weapon like a sword than say a far end heavy weapon like a hand axe or hammer.
swords are mobile, they have an extended edge, they have handguards allowing you to keep more of your focus on attack (while also adding facility that can be "useful in battle").
I'm not considering changing my personal usage of 5e rules but would still argue that it could be easier to learn to use weapons that were designed and intended to be used as weapons as it would be to use weapons that weren't so tailored to this use.
... Every weapon on the list, regardless of classification, is useful in battle. Proficiency is not a requirement for any of them to be useful in battle.
The proficiency bonus gives you base of +2 to hit, with result that a warlock with a background as an acolyte, anthropologist, athlete, charlatan, clan crafter, cloistered scholar, courtier, criminal or entertainer etc. will gain +2 with clubs, daggers greatclubs, handaxes, javalins, light hammers, maces, quarterstaffs, sickles, spears, light crossbows, darts, shortbows and slings but can't get proficiency with mobile, handguarded, designed for purpose shortswords.
The proficiency bonus gives you base of +2 to hit, with result that a warlock with a background as an acolyte, anthropologist, athlete, charlatan, clan crafter, cloistered scholar, courtier, criminal or entertainer etc. will gain +2 with clubs, daggers greatclubs, handaxes, javalins, light hammers, maces, quarterstaffs, sickles, spears, light crossbows, darts, shortbows and slings but can't get proficiency with mobile, handguarded, designed for purpose shortswords.
Yea we get it, you think that because swords are designed for combat they are also easy to use. But you are simply wrong... Swords are difficult to use well. You need to learn how to hold and swing it to get impact point at the correct place, you need to learn how to index it properly to get good edge alignment, you need to learn how to utilise your edge profile and curvature to get effective cutting (inward curve, outward curve or straight edge behave very differently). All in all it is a weapon that requires quite a bit of technical training to be able to use and even being skilled in one particular type of sword doesn't automatically make you skilled in other types of swords.
Meanwhile most of the weapons in the "simple" group can be picked up by most anyone and with little or no extra training be used because everyday life have already given you the skills needed to use them. You've ever used a hammer to hit a nail? Ever used an axe to cut wood for a fire? Ever swung a sledgehammer (building/demolition/similar) or thrashed wheat? All these (and more) activities that are seen as common everyday occurrences in a medieval agricultural society gives you skills that translates easily into using those weapons in battle. Sure they aren't really universal, some people living/growing up in cities might be exceptions, but again simplicity is the name of the game for the 5E rules set.
And this is what proficiency is about, can you effectively do/use (skills, tools or weapons) what you are doing/using with your current skill/experiences (not could you potentially do so at some point in the future after having received specialised training). Sure using weapons in actual battle conditions probably should net you higher/more proficiency and using weapons actually designed for war probably should yield better results but again, simplicity (plus you'll quickly run into balancing problems too).
The proficiency bonus gives you base of +2 to hit, with result that a warlock with a background as an acolyte, anthropologist, athlete, charlatan, clan crafter, cloistered scholar, courtier, criminal or entertainer etc. will gain +2 with clubs, daggers greatclubs, handaxes, javalins, light hammers, maces, quarterstaffs, sickles, spears, light crossbows, darts, shortbows and slings but can't get proficiency with mobile, handguarded, designed for purpose shortswords.
Yea we get it, you think that because swords are designed for combat they are also easy to use. But you are simply wrong... Swords are difficult to use well. You need to learn how to hold and swing it to get impact point at the correct place, you need to learn how to index it properly to get good edge alignment, you need to learn how to utilise your edge profile and curvature to get effective cutting (inward curve, outward curve or straight edge behave very differently). All in all it is a weapon that requires quite a bit of technical training to be able to use and even being skilled in one particular type of sword doesn't automatically make you skilled in other types of swords.
Meanwhile most of the weapons in the "simple" group can be picked up by most anyone and with little or no extra training be used because everyday life have already given you the skills needed to use them. You've ever used a hammer to hit a nail? Ever used an axe to cut wood for a fire? Ever swung a sledgehammer (building/demolition/similar) or thrashed wheat? All these (and more) activities that are seen as common everyday occurrences in a medieval agricultural society gives you skills that translates easily into using those weapons in battle. Sure they aren't really universal, some people living/growing up in cities might be exceptions, but again simplicity is the name of the game for the 5E rules set.
And this is what proficiency is about, can you effectively do/use (skills, tools or weapons) what you are doing/using with your current skill/experiences (not could you potentially do so at some point in the future after having received specialised training). Sure using weapons in actual battle conditions probably should net you higher/more proficiency and using weapons actually designed for war probably should yield better results but again, simplicity (plus you'll quickly run into balancing problems too).
My conjecture is that it would be easier or at least as easy for characters from most 5e backgrounds to achieve a starter-level combat ability of +2 to hit with a balanced, easy to move, finesse weapon like a sword than say a far end heavy weapon like a hand axe or hammer.
I don't dispute that, in real life, there are also a multitude of avenues of mastery that combatants might further attain with weapons like swords.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You are yet to account for the "difference".
How does someone from a background such as acolyte, anthropologist, athlete, charlatan, clan crafter, cloistered scholar, courtier, criminal or entertainer get to be specifically proficient with clubs, daggers greatclubs, handaxes, javalins, light hammers, maces, quarterstaffs, sickles, spears, light crossbows, darts, shortbows and slings but in a culture, where swords are valued, not to become proficient with readily wieldable swords?
That's where we differ. I keep mentioning that we have differences of viewpoints and I keep pointing out that this is one of them.
You take the subjective view that "swords are harder to learn to wield."
I take the subjective view that "swords are readily wieldable but that, in the real world, there are many facets of swordplay that can be mastered".
I would really appreciate it if you could please accept that people may have different points of view on issues that cannot be proven. Without this, discussion with you becomes futile in discussions like this.
You have NOT answered, How does someone from a background such as acolyte, anthropologist, athlete, charlatan, clan crafter, cloistered scholar, courtier, criminal or entertainer get to be specifically proficient with clubs, daggers greatclubs, handaxes, javalins, light hammers, maces, quarterstaffs, sickles, spears, light crossbows, darts, shortbows and slings but in a culture, where swords are valued, not to become proficient with readily wieldable swords?
How do people from those backgrounds gain proficiency to use all those often challenging weapons with a +2 to hit?
My conjecture is that it would be easier or at least as easy for characters from most 5e backgrounds to achieve a starter-level combat ability of +2 to hit with a balanced, easy to move, finesse weapon like a sword than say a far end heavy weapon like a hand axe or hammer.
The fact is that historically a weapon of choice has been the sword. The idea is that people with equal familiarity with the weapons would choose hand axes is absurd. Swords are better weapons and, on this basis, the conjecture that it would be easier for people to gain an ability of +2 to hit with a generally superior weapon is fair.
It is pointless talking to you.
The heads of axes and hammers are made of metal, a relatively heavy material.
The shafts of axes and hammers are made of wood, a relatively light material.
When a user holds an axe or hammer by the shaft, the heavy head of the weapon is at the far end.
While swords are balanced with their weight towards the wielder, axes and hammers have most of their weight at the far end,
I have my view.
You have your view.
We have both presented our views.
Problem is that you are, simply put, wrong. While swords are generally a superior and more versatile weapon it is considerably easier to reach a skill level that would make you effective in combat with the types of weapons on the list of simple weapons.
For the likes of professional soldiers and knights yes but for rank and file infantry or militia type of troops it wasn't.
Don't get me wrong, you do have a point about the "who gets what weapon proficiency" and "from where do they get it" issue. And as I mentioned before there are issues with what kinds of weapons exist/don't exist and how do they work/what traits do the have and what do/doesn't differentiate between them and so on. But the designers quite clearly went with a few of the classic fantasy world tropes and then added a bit to not be overly restrictive and then said "fine, this'll work".
Simplicity is the name of the game and generally I think they are right. Sure there are details that I think are stupid but overall when I look at the rules the one thing I might wish for is more clarity but rarely more complexity.
two brothers. one practices sword fighting. the other practices fighting with a 5e 2lb light hammer.
my conjecture is that the brother practising sword fighting will become dangerous in combat just as quickly if not faster than the brother with the light hammer. is that not reasonable?
Not really no.
The one training with a sword might well become more dangerous after a while but that isn't really well represented in the 5E rules. But the one using a hammer (or a mace, club, spear or similar) would reach a "useful in battle" status a lot quicker and that fits perfectly with what proficiency is in 5E.
If you were to face a combat opponent in, say, 3 days time, would you take weapon's practice with a sword or a light hammer/hand axe?
Oddly, you know that the discussion is about shortswords and simple weapons yet your example involves neither.
This is the kind of thing that makes it hard to discuss things with you.
Realworld swords can also be used with the advantage of being able to strike both ways.
I didn't mention knives.
I have no reason to talk about knives.
No, knives are not on the list as 5e simple weapons.
At least we agree about some of the advantages of swords:
I'd argue that they also facilitate a better chance of doing any damage. They are greatly mobile and their edge is an extended blade.
Swords can often be placed on a spectrum between thrusting blades and cutting blades. They are typically designed with both in mind but with a varying level of priority given to one or the other. They are designed as weapons to facilitate the maximum chance of doing damage.
I would personally consider that, if I had a limited time for practice, I could develop a better chance to hit with a sword than I could with a weapon such as a light hammer or a hand axe.
I'd likely take a mace and/or spear but that's just personal preference.
Absolutely, given the choice, I'd take a spear while having a dagger on standby in case that combat got too close.
On the topic of "Why shortsword is not a simple weapon?"
swords are mobile, they have an extended edge, they have handguards allowing you to keep more of your focus on attack (while also adding facility that can be "useful in battle").
I'm not considering changing my personal usage of 5e rules but would still argue that it could be easier to learn to use weapons that were designed and intended to be used as weapons as it would be to use weapons that weren't so tailored to this use.
Finally, I was saying this days ago.
The proficiency bonus gives you base of +2 to hit, with result that a warlock with a background as an acolyte, anthropologist, athlete, charlatan, clan crafter, cloistered scholar, courtier, criminal or entertainer etc. will gain +2 with clubs, daggers greatclubs, handaxes, javalins, light hammers, maces, quarterstaffs, sickles, spears, light crossbows, darts, shortbows and slings but can't get proficiency with mobile, handguarded, designed for purpose shortswords.
Yea we get it, you think that because swords are designed for combat they are also easy to use. But you are simply wrong...
Swords are difficult to use well. You need to learn how to hold and swing it to get impact point at the correct place, you need to learn how to index it properly to get good edge alignment, you need to learn how to utilise your edge profile and curvature to get effective cutting (inward curve, outward curve or straight edge behave very differently). All in all it is a weapon that requires quite a bit of technical training to be able to use and even being skilled in one particular type of sword doesn't automatically make you skilled in other types of swords.
Meanwhile most of the weapons in the "simple" group can be picked up by most anyone and with little or no extra training be used because everyday life have already given you the skills needed to use them. You've ever used a hammer to hit a nail? Ever used an axe to cut wood for a fire? Ever swung a sledgehammer (building/demolition/similar) or thrashed wheat? All these (and more) activities that are seen as common everyday occurrences in a medieval agricultural society gives you skills that translates easily into using those weapons in battle. Sure they aren't really universal, some people living/growing up in cities might be exceptions, but again simplicity is the name of the game for the 5E rules set.
And this is what proficiency is about, can you effectively do/use (skills, tools or weapons) what you are doing/using with your current skill/experiences (not could you potentially do so at some point in the future after having received specialised training). Sure using weapons in actual battle conditions probably should net you higher/more proficiency and using weapons actually designed for war probably should yield better results but again, simplicity (plus you'll quickly run into balancing problems too).
Specifically.
I don't dispute that, in real life, there are also a multitude of avenues of mastery that combatants might further attain with weapons like swords.