The only two classes who doesn't get it next to simple weapons are warlock and cleric. Rogue, bard, monk get it as an addition to simple weapons. Is there any specific huge advantage this weapon would provide for these classes so they should be prohibited to use it? I don't think so but I might be wrong.
The only definition on page 146 is this: "Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency."
Short swords were the typical weapons of the urban citizens in the late medieval/renaissance era (15th century) on which all the equipment are based. So there is no particular reason for them to be banned from its usage either.
Mechanically, I'm guessing it's because it's a 1d6 finesse weapon, which would encourage clerics and warlocks to easily dump strength in favor of dex. For cleric especially, when coupled with their shield, it's pretty OP.
Other classes either use dex as a feature to begin with or have other reasons not to dump strength?
Lore-wise, given that spears are simple weapons, I see no excuse :D
The only two classes who doesn't get it next to simple weapons are warlock and cleric. Rogue, bard, monk get it as an addition to simple weapons. Is there any specific huge advantage this weapon would provide for these classes so they should be prohibited to use it? I don't think so but I might be wrong.
The only definition on page 146 is this: "Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency."
Short swords were the typical weapons of the urban citizens in the late medieval/renaissance era (15th century) on which all the equipment are based. So there is no particular reason for them to be banned from its usage either.
So why shortsword isn't a simple weapon?
I'm a bit doubtful that "Short swords were the typical weapons of the urban citizens in the late medieval/renaissance era". My understanding is that most couldn't afford a sword. Using a sword well takes training and practice, even a short sword. The wealthier folks and gentry might have a sword (any kind of sword) but it seems to me that the majority of folks would have clubs, cudgels and staves of one sort or another as their mainstay for weapons (maybe also a dagger than doubles as an eating/skinning knife).
Most of the simple melee weapons fall into the category of heavier things that you swing or pointy things that you can poke something with, without requiring a lot of skill or training to be proficient. Some are even farming implements which might be why they are included.
On the other hand, the simple ranged options are probably there just to give characters some options since they are too expensive or require some training to use. I would not expect most commoners to be trained to use a light crossbow for example though it might be more common in a militia setting. Short bow and sling would be more common among hunters/farmers/shepherds but perhaps less commonly used for urban citizens.
So, if I had to guess :), I'd say that short sword is not considered a simple weapon since it might not have been that common and would require more training than the other typical simple weapons like mace, axe, dagger, clubs, staff etc.
I think the writers of 5e associated short swords primarily with military use and thus excluded them from simple weapons. Although I still also wonder if it being a 1d6 finesse weapon influenced that decision from a game balance perspective. My problem with this lore-wise is there are races with innate cantrips and a light crossbow is a "simple" weapon.
Non-noble/non-military people were known to use bladed weapons in various European regions throughout medieval and renaissance times. Whether as allowed for travelers outside cities (e.g. merchants or sailors) or even for general self defense, such as in the cases where loopholes existed (such as Lange Messers in German territories not counting as swords due to being single edged, assuming that legend is true; and those things could get pretty long).
For affordability... most European peasants probably couldn't afford a spear or a mace either. The light (thrown) hammer, the thrown hand axe, and the javelin also seem dubious from that perspective (the hammer and the axe made for throwing and fighting weren't quite the same as the more common tools, at least in Europe?). And then there's the yklwa :P
As for training... To use any of the "simple" weapons (as defined in 5e) effectively requires quite a bit of training. I'd even say, most would be comparable to a short sword, a machete, or even a Lange Messer and the like. Conversely, as one could "simply" bash someone with a club, chop someone with an axe, or stab or slash someone with a dagger; they can just as "simply" stab or slash someone with a short sword. Arguably even easier with a short sword than with a dagger, in fact!
A common peasant could still use a shortsword without issue. They just don't get their proficiency bonus to attack rolls.
Someone with formal training can use a shortsword more effectively than someone without. That's what proficiency is intended to reflect, and it makes sense to me.
Honestly, I'd lean the other way when it comes to most weapons. Someone who has trained with a quarterstaff would be able to beat the pants off a commoner who just picked one up. If you want to be realistic, proficiency with most simple weapons shouldn't be as common as it is.
(Artificers don't get shortsword proficiency either, just simple weapons.) Several classes don't get proficiency with all simple weapons: Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards.
I wonder who the "most people" having proficiency in simple weapons was referring to. Player Characters? Commoners (where a working commoner would be using tools similar to certain simple weapons throughout the course of a day)? I imagine just about everyone has Dagger proficiency since everyone used knives. Children wouldn't necessarily have proficiency in weapons unless life circumstances demanded it. If you were not allowed to use certain weapons (which applied to a number of groups historically, like where only nobility were allowed to carry swords, or certain simple weapons were deemed "unsuitable" for anyone of "breeding"), you wouldn't have proficiency.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Hm, the quote could be seen as leaving things a bit vague? "Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency." Doesn't necessarily mean all people are proficient with all simple weapons, but doesn't rule that possibility out either, depending on the world a DM wants.
But not unreasonable to figure an individual probably knows a couple weapons or weaponizable tools that they use all the time, and there's enough different people (with different "monster" statblocks :D ) so you'd see all the different simple weapons pretty often. Except for everyone probably knowing daggers as mentioned above.
Most simple weapons are weaponized farming implements or tools that have a primary purpose other than inflicting injury upon people. It’s difficult to envision a purpose for a short sword that isn’t swording. You can’t thresh wheat with it, it’s not useful for gardening, it’s not a tool for eating or serving a meal; all it is is a weapon. I don’t know if it was intended by the designers but “tool or not” seems to be how the weapons can be informally sorted and also seems to reflect history decently well (though I’m no historian so don’t smack me too hard over this broad assertion :D ).
On the other hand, the simple ranged options are probably there just to give characters some options since they are too expensive or require some training to use. I would not expect most commoners to be trained to use a light crossbow for example though it might be more common in a militia setting. Short bow and sling would be more common among hunters/farmers/shepherds but perhaps less commonly used for urban citizens.
Actually one of the main reasons that crossbows became popular was that the time it took to train someone from complete novice to reasonably effective in battle was measured in hours for crossbows while it was measured in weeks/months for bows.
For affordability... most European peasants probably couldn't afford a spear or a mace either. The light (thrown) hammer, the thrown hand axe, and the javelin also seem dubious from that perspective (the hammer and the axe made for throwing and fighting weren't quite the same as the more common tools, at least in Europe?). And then there's the yklwa :P
There is a reason that spears where the standard weapon of choice in medieval times, it was dirt cheap and easy to make and, relatively speaking, very quick to learn how to use. I mean a spear basically is a length of wood where you have sharpened one of the ends into a point, anyone with skill in building/working with wood could make one. If you wanted to reinforce the point then it took a small amount of iron/steel and basic steel-working skills to make it. Compare that to other polearms or bladed weapons and they took a lot more material and a lot more smithing skills to create.
The Yklwa is a different beast, while it obviously never was common in an european setting it was in the time and place it was used both common and trained with. I'd say that you'd just have to make a choice, either you include it and then have it be a simple weapon just as the similar european weapons are or you don't include it at all.
The cost, at least as defined in D&D rules, does seem to be a good excuse, seeing as a short sword costs 10gp compared to simple melee weapons costing 1 sp -5 gp. I call bs though, since a short sword is just a slightly longer dagger, and a dagger is only 2gp :P ...and if you say a "good" (balanced, well shaped) short sword is more complicated than just a longer dagger, then keep in mind so is a good spear, mace, or combat-usable hand axe or hammer.
For proficiency vs just using a weapon... If a D&D common baker or weaver in some moderately sized town can proficiently use a mace, a crossbow, a spear, a quarterstaff, and, more relevantly (imho), a dagger in combat; I personally don't see why they don't have the same kind of combat tactical thinking and similar motor skills to use a short sword just as effectively. A short sword in my mind is closer to a machete (also a commoner tool irl btw!) than a rapier, so the difference between that and a dagger is mostly about spatial awareness due to a slightly greater length, which should be compensated by their innate spatial awareness required be proficient with crap ranging in size from a dagger to a quarterstaff. This is simply not well thought-out from the perspective of realism :P
As for times and places where it was common to have and be trained in use of a yklwa, it's similar to the times when it was common (and in some times and places legally required) to have and be trained with martial weapons. Namely, when all able people got martial training just as part of their general reality of life.
I'm with scatterbraind on this one... Either any weapon proficiency should only be given to PC or NPC with a class or background that implies actual training with that type of weapon (e.g. no spears for a Wizard unless they were a soldier, hunter, militia member, sailor, or other such) -or- everyone is equally proficient in most weapons, except something too specialized (lances, flails, whips, maybe the various longer sword types).The former seems more reasonable.
There are a number of answers I have here to the OP.
1. D&D is not a historical simulator, so what weapons people used, and who used them at any time period in history is irrelevant. (Beyond that, I disagree with the premise that the equipment is based on 15th century Europe. For example, the different sorts of armor available in D&D were not all used at the same time. Some, arguably, were never actually widely used at all. Historically, D&D can't effectively be placed in any earth-based time period. Moreover, peasants in medieval Europe (and really most of the world) were not generally permitted to bear arms. Nobles might have a sword, but commoners did not.)
2. A D&D short sword is not a short sword per se. It's a stand-in, catchall term for a variety of different weapons. Much like how a longsword can also be a katana, or a dagger can be a stiletto. Short sword is an umbrella term that doesn't have any one direct historical analog. All the weapons aren't weapons as much as they are packages of game mechanics (light, finesse, d6 damage) which the designers hung a name onto to make it easier to understand. For game balance reasons, the designers decided that the particular set of mechanics attributed to a "short sword" should be classified as a martial weapon. If they made it simple, it would outclass all other simple weapons, owing to the variety of tags it has. The only thing that would match it would be a handaxe, with the same damage, but swapping finesse for thrown. And finesse is almost always going to be a more useful property than thrown -- every character benefits from a high dex (initiative, AC and one of the most common saves), but very few will want the str to use a thrown weapon effectively.
In AD&D clerics were not supposed to use blade weapons and Magic Users were limited to d4 weapons. Maybe it is a holdover from the early days. I don't find it to be a problem.
5e rules can say what they like but I'd dispute a generalisation "Most people can xyz with proficiency". People can use do things they have been proficient at proficiency. I see no reason why Harry Potter would have become proficient with Daggers, darts, slings, quarterstaffs, light crossbows or why any scholar necessarily would. I certainly don't see why a warlock would become proficient with sickles but not swords and simitars. I'd have thought that a weapon that had been designed to be used as a weapon might be intuitively used as a weapon. If you pick up a perfectly balanced sword I'd have thought that it might be more intuitively used than a sickle, hand axe or two-handed greatclub which all strike me as not being particularly wieldy.
Most people gain proficiency with whatever they practice, though that may not make for easy to use game mechanics.
Because there was never any such specific weapon named “Shortsword” that is distinct enough from every other short sword, like the Gladius, Side-Sword, Backsword, etc. etc. Most weapons that fall under the umbrella of the D&D Shortsword were actually military weapons.
In AD&D clerics were not supposed to use blade weapons and Magic Users were limited to d4 weapons. Maybe it is a holdover from the early days. I don't find it to be a problem.
They could if it was a preferred weapon of their Deity. Halav’s was the Shortsword for instance, his wife Petra’s was a bow, Clerics of Yeenoghu could use a flail, etc.
Weapons: A cleric cannot use any weapon with a sharp edge; this is forbidden by the cleric’s beliefs. A cleric may only use a mace, club, war hammer, or sling.
A cleric's belief forbade bleeding that wasn't internal. :D
Most simple weapons are weaponized farming implements or tools that have a primary purpose other than inflicting injury upon people. It’s difficult to envision a purpose for a short sword that isn’t swording. You can’t thresh wheat with it, it’s not useful for gardening, it’s not a tool for eating or serving a meal; all it is is a weapon. I don’t know if it was intended by the designers but “tool or not” seems to be how the weapons can be informally sorted and also seems to reflect history decently well (though I’m no historian so don’t smack me too hard over this broad assertion :D ).
I'd have thought it would be simpler to learn to fight with a weapon that was designed and balanced to be a weapon rather than a weapon based on a tool.
Weapons: A cleric cannot use any weapon with a sharp edge; this is forbidden by the cleric’s beliefs. A cleric may only use a mace, club, war hammer, or sling.
A cleric's belief forbade bleeding that wasn't internal. :D
It very well may have, I started with AS&D2e so I cannot speak to that. I can tell you that in 2e, it a deity had a favorite weapon they blessed their clerics with the knowledge of its use and a special dispensation to use it.
The only two classes who doesn't get it next to simple weapons are warlock and cleric. Rogue, bard, monk get it as an addition to simple weapons. Is there any specific huge advantage this weapon would provide for these classes so they should be prohibited to use it? I don't think so but I might be wrong.
The only definition on page 146 is this: "Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency."
Short swords were the typical weapons of the urban citizens in the late medieval/renaissance era (15th century) on which all the equipment are based. So there is no particular reason for them to be banned from its usage either.
So why shortsword isn't a simple weapon?
Mechanically, I'm guessing it's because it's a 1d6 finesse weapon, which would encourage clerics and warlocks to easily dump strength in favor of dex. For cleric especially, when coupled with their shield, it's pretty OP.
Other classes either use dex as a feature to begin with or have other reasons not to dump strength?
Lore-wise, given that spears are simple weapons, I see no excuse :D
There's no sword as simple weapon, since they're not common weapons generally wielded by commoners.
I'm a bit doubtful that "Short swords were the typical weapons of the urban citizens in the late medieval/renaissance era". My understanding is that most couldn't afford a sword. Using a sword well takes training and practice, even a short sword. The wealthier folks and gentry might have a sword (any kind of sword) but it seems to me that the majority of folks would have clubs, cudgels and staves of one sort or another as their mainstay for weapons (maybe also a dagger than doubles as an eating/skinning knife).
Most of the simple melee weapons fall into the category of heavier things that you swing or pointy things that you can poke something with, without requiring a lot of skill or training to be proficient. Some are even farming implements which might be why they are included.
On the other hand, the simple ranged options are probably there just to give characters some options since they are too expensive or require some training to use. I would not expect most commoners to be trained to use a light crossbow for example though it might be more common in a militia setting. Short bow and sling would be more common among hunters/farmers/shepherds but perhaps less commonly used for urban citizens.
So, if I had to guess :), I'd say that short sword is not considered a simple weapon since it might not have been that common and would require more training than the other typical simple weapons like mace, axe, dagger, clubs, staff etc.
I think the writers of 5e associated short swords primarily with military use and thus excluded them from simple weapons. Although I still also wonder if it being a 1d6 finesse weapon influenced that decision from a game balance perspective. My problem with this lore-wise is there are races with innate cantrips and a light crossbow is a "simple" weapon.
Non-noble/non-military people were known to use bladed weapons in various European regions throughout medieval and renaissance times. Whether as allowed for travelers outside cities (e.g. merchants or sailors) or even for general self defense, such as in the cases where loopholes existed (such as Lange Messers in German territories not counting as swords due to being single edged, assuming that legend is true; and those things could get pretty long).
For affordability... most European peasants probably couldn't afford a spear or a mace either. The light (thrown) hammer, the thrown hand axe, and the javelin also seem dubious from that perspective (the hammer and the axe made for throwing and fighting weren't quite the same as the more common tools, at least in Europe?). And then there's the yklwa :P
As for training... To use any of the "simple" weapons (as defined in 5e) effectively requires quite a bit of training. I'd even say, most would be comparable to a short sword, a machete, or even a Lange Messer and the like. Conversely, as one could "simply" bash someone with a club, chop someone with an axe, or stab or slash someone with a dagger; they can just as "simply" stab or slash someone with a short sword. Arguably even easier with a short sword than with a dagger, in fact!
A common peasant could still use a shortsword without issue. They just don't get their proficiency bonus to attack rolls.
Someone with formal training can use a shortsword more effectively than someone without. That's what proficiency is intended to reflect, and it makes sense to me.
Honestly, I'd lean the other way when it comes to most weapons. Someone who has trained with a quarterstaff would be able to beat the pants off a commoner who just picked one up. If you want to be realistic, proficiency with most simple weapons shouldn't be as common as it is.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
(Artificers don't get shortsword proficiency either, just simple weapons.) Several classes don't get proficiency with all simple weapons: Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards.
I wonder who the "most people" having proficiency in simple weapons was referring to. Player Characters? Commoners (where a working commoner would be using tools similar to certain simple weapons throughout the course of a day)? I imagine just about everyone has Dagger proficiency since everyone used knives. Children wouldn't necessarily have proficiency in weapons unless life circumstances demanded it. If you were not allowed to use certain weapons (which applied to a number of groups historically, like where only nobility were allowed to carry swords, or certain simple weapons were deemed "unsuitable" for anyone of "breeding"), you wouldn't have proficiency.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Hm, the quote could be seen as leaving things a bit vague? "Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency." Doesn't necessarily mean all people are proficient with all simple weapons, but doesn't rule that possibility out either, depending on the world a DM wants.
But not unreasonable to figure an individual probably knows a couple weapons or weaponizable tools that they use all the time, and there's enough different people (with different "monster" statblocks :D ) so you'd see all the different simple weapons pretty often. Except for everyone probably knowing daggers as mentioned above.
Most simple weapons are weaponized farming implements or tools that have a primary purpose other than inflicting injury upon people. It’s difficult to envision a purpose for a short sword that isn’t swording. You can’t thresh wheat with it, it’s not useful for gardening, it’s not a tool for eating or serving a meal; all it is is a weapon. I don’t know if it was intended by the designers but “tool or not” seems to be how the weapons can be informally sorted and also seems to reflect history decently well (though I’m no historian so don’t smack me too hard over this broad assertion :D ).
Actually one of the main reasons that crossbows became popular was that the time it took to train someone from complete novice to reasonably effective in battle was measured in hours for crossbows while it was measured in weeks/months for bows.
There is a reason that spears where the standard weapon of choice in medieval times, it was dirt cheap and easy to make and, relatively speaking, very quick to learn how to use. I mean a spear basically is a length of wood where you have sharpened one of the ends into a point, anyone with skill in building/working with wood could make one. If you wanted to reinforce the point then it took a small amount of iron/steel and basic steel-working skills to make it. Compare that to other polearms or bladed weapons and they took a lot more material and a lot more smithing skills to create.
The Yklwa is a different beast, while it obviously never was common in an european setting it was in the time and place it was used both common and trained with. I'd say that you'd just have to make a choice, either you include it and then have it be a simple weapon just as the similar european weapons are or you don't include it at all.
The cost, at least as defined in D&D rules, does seem to be a good excuse, seeing as a short sword costs 10gp compared to simple melee weapons costing 1 sp -5 gp. I call bs though, since a short sword is just a slightly longer dagger, and a dagger is only 2gp :P ...and if you say a "good" (balanced, well shaped) short sword is more complicated than just a longer dagger, then keep in mind so is a good spear, mace, or combat-usable hand axe or hammer.
For proficiency vs just using a weapon... If a D&D common baker or weaver in some moderately sized town can proficiently use a mace, a crossbow, a spear, a quarterstaff, and, more relevantly (imho), a dagger in combat; I personally don't see why they don't have the same kind of combat tactical thinking and similar motor skills to use a short sword just as effectively. A short sword in my mind is closer to a machete (also a commoner tool irl btw!) than a rapier, so the difference between that and a dagger is mostly about spatial awareness due to a slightly greater length, which should be compensated by their innate spatial awareness required be proficient with crap ranging in size from a dagger to a quarterstaff. This is simply not well thought-out from the perspective of realism :P
As for times and places where it was common to have and be trained in use of a yklwa, it's similar to the times when it was common (and in some times and places legally required) to have and be trained with martial weapons. Namely, when all able people got martial training just as part of their general reality of life.
I'm with scatterbraind on this one... Either any weapon proficiency should only be given to PC or NPC with a class or background that implies actual training with that type of weapon (e.g. no spears for a Wizard unless they were a soldier, hunter, militia member, sailor, or other such) -or- everyone is equally proficient in most weapons, except something too specialized (lances, flails, whips, maybe the various longer sword types).The former seems more reasonable.
There are a number of answers I have here to the OP.
1. D&D is not a historical simulator, so what weapons people used, and who used them at any time period in history is irrelevant. (Beyond that, I disagree with the premise that the equipment is based on 15th century Europe. For example, the different sorts of armor available in D&D were not all used at the same time. Some, arguably, were never actually widely used at all. Historically, D&D can't effectively be placed in any earth-based time period. Moreover, peasants in medieval Europe (and really most of the world) were not generally permitted to bear arms. Nobles might have a sword, but commoners did not.)
2. A D&D short sword is not a short sword per se. It's a stand-in, catchall term for a variety of different weapons. Much like how a longsword can also be a katana, or a dagger can be a stiletto. Short sword is an umbrella term that doesn't have any one direct historical analog. All the weapons aren't weapons as much as they are packages of game mechanics (light, finesse, d6 damage) which the designers hung a name onto to make it easier to understand. For game balance reasons, the designers decided that the particular set of mechanics attributed to a "short sword" should be classified as a martial weapon. If they made it simple, it would outclass all other simple weapons, owing to the variety of tags it has. The only thing that would match it would be a handaxe, with the same damage, but swapping finesse for thrown. And finesse is almost always going to be a more useful property than thrown -- every character benefits from a high dex (initiative, AC and one of the most common saves), but very few will want the str to use a thrown weapon effectively.
Uhhh- you sure short swords were the typical weapon for urban citizens in the 15th century????
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
In AD&D clerics were not supposed to use blade weapons and Magic Users were limited to d4 weapons. Maybe it is a holdover from the early days. I don't find it to be a problem.
5e rules can say what they like but I'd dispute a generalisation "Most people can xyz with proficiency". People can use do things they have been proficient at proficiency. I see no reason why Harry Potter would have become proficient with Daggers, darts, slings, quarterstaffs, light crossbows or why any scholar necessarily would. I certainly don't see why a warlock would become proficient with sickles but not swords and simitars. I'd have thought that a weapon that had been designed to be used as a weapon might be intuitively used as a weapon. If you pick up a perfectly balanced sword I'd have thought that it might be more intuitively used than a sickle, hand axe or two-handed greatclub which all strike me as not being particularly wieldy.
Most people gain proficiency with whatever they practice, though that may not make for easy to use game mechanics.
Because there was never any such specific weapon named “Shortsword” that is distinct enough from every other short sword, like the Gladius, Side-Sword, Backsword, etc. etc. Most weapons that fall under the umbrella of the D&D Shortsword were actually military weapons.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They could if it was a preferred weapon of their Deity. Halav’s was the Shortsword for instance, his wife Petra’s was a bow, Clerics of Yeenoghu could use a flail, etc.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The basic set of d&d stated:
A cleric's belief forbade bleeding that wasn't internal. :D
I'd have thought it would be simpler to learn to fight with a weapon that was designed and balanced to be a weapon rather than a weapon based on a tool.
It very well may have, I started with AS&D2e so I cannot speak to that. I can tell you that in 2e, it a deity had a favorite weapon they blessed their clerics with the knowledge of its use and a special dispensation to use it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting