Lang Messer

It's a German sword who's name means Long Knife. This is an important distinction, which leaves me asking, "Is this a simple or martial weapon?"

Back when yee ole Messer was invented there were laws about who could own a sword (Nobles only).  This resulted in a legal description of what makes a sword different from a knife (it's the hilt's construction fyi)... so the commoners came up with these "long kinves" that legally weren't swords.

So here we have a weapon used primarilly by those who likely couldn't afford training and carried it for self-defense. All of this points to a Simple Weapon, but not a single sword or sword-like weapon is Simple in 5e.

What do you say?

EDIT: Change of topic. What do you feel is the difference between a simple and martial weapon aside from potential damage?

It wasn’t so much that only nobles could own swords, that’s a misnomer. In fact, at that time in Germany, every able bodied man was required by law to not only own a blade of a sufficient length to qualify as a sword, but to also train with it regularly like a modern National Guard.

In actuality, the Swordmakers’ Guild actively promoted their proprietary mark of quality, and would actively advertise that any swordmakers who were not in the guild were unfit, and that their work was garbage (even if it wasn’t) to basically put them out of business. Then, the Guild also engaged in price fixing because they controlled the market, so the price of a falchion was so high only the nobility could afford them. So any sword that didn’t have a guild stamp un-buyable, and any that had the stamp was unaffordable. But the men were still required to own sword-lengthed blades, anyway. 

The Knifemakers’ guild wasn’t subject to the Swordmakers’ mark of quality do they could promote their product as being just as good without facing any repercussions. And they were also not subject to the price fixing. So by purchasing a Messer (instead of a falchion) the average man could meet their legal requirements to own a sword-length blade, and be able to purchase something that was not only advertised to be just as good as any falchion, but at a fraction of the cost.

In fact, the Swordmakers’ guild actually manufactured most of the Messer blades anyway. They would have the lower level guild members crank them out but not put sword hilts on them, and then the Swordmakers would sell them wholesale to the Knifemakers’ guild who would than put knife handles on them and resell them.

For the sake of D&D, I would treat them both as Scimitars. After all, the people who bought Messers trained with them regularly.

Probably Martial, IMO.

However, I don't know enough about them to decide. Were they basically swords with short handles, as to count as a knife? Or were they more knife like, with a shorter blade, made for stabbing that slashing, ect.

They were practically identical, but they had a knife handle instead of a sword hilt. They length of the blade and handle were pretty much identical, it was purely a matter of how a hilt gets attached as opposed to how a handle gets pinned. Otherwise they were completely interchangeable.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7WaE9AqrIAU

Just because you don't have proficiency with a weapon doesn't mean you can't swing it.

Quote from IamSposta >>

It wasn’t so much that only nobles could own swords, that’s a misnomer. In fact, at that time in Germany, every able bodied man was required by law to not only own a blade of a sufficient length to qualify as a sword, but to also train with it regularly like a modern National Guard.

In actuality, the Swordmakers’ Guild actively promoted their proprietary mark of quality, and would actively advertise that any swordmakers who were not in the guild were unfit, and that their work was garbage (even if it wasn’t) to basically put them out of business. Then, the Guild also engaged in price fixing because they controlled the market, so the price of a falchion was so high only the nobility could afford them. So any sword that didn’t have a guild stamp un-buyable, and any that had the stamp was unaffordable. But the men were still required to own sword-lengthed blades, anyway. 

The Knifemakers’ guild wasn’t subject to the Swordmakers’ mark of quality do they could promote their product as being just as good without facing any repercussions. And they were also not subject to the price fixing. So by purchasing a Messer (instead of a falchion) the average man could meet their legal requirements to own a sword-length blade, and be able to purchase something that was not only advertised to be just as good as any falchion, but at a fraction of the cost.

In fact, the Swordmakers’ guild actually manufactured most of the Messer blades anyway. They would have the lower level guild members crank them out but not put sword hilts on them, and then the Swordmakers would sell them wholesale to the Knifemakers’ guild who would than put knife handles on them and resell them.

For the sake of D&D, I would treat them both as Scimitars. After all, the people who bought Messers trained with them regularly.

 Huh. That's pretty awesome. Thank you!

Slight change of topic: What is the difference between a simple and martial weapon? Outside of how big its damage die gets.

As I see it, any tool that can function as a weapon, or weapon intended for hunting, or a weapon that isn't intended to be lethal is a Simple Weapon. A cross peen hammer, a sickle, a quarterstaff, and a hunting bow all as a primary example. (This is why I get angry at Tridents. They're fishing tools that were used as generally non-lethal propaganda shows... not real weapons for poking people.)

A Martial Weapon on the other hand is designed to kill people who can defend themselvez. Sidearms rarely ever broke 3lbs, and generally were 2ft to 3ft long. Compare a normal warhammer (2 to 3ft long and about 3lbs) to a blacksmith's hammer (1ft long and 3 to 4lbs). Tools are designed for precision, while weapons are designed for impact. (Think about how a tool is designed for a specific job that is never "break that thing", but a weapon's primary job is "break that thing".

Tangent: I think it's the spear and the morning star that are on the Simple Weapons list and don't belong there. Spears are only used by people fighting people who generally have spears and shields, (unless it's something like a boar spear)... and the mace or morning star that is on there is 100% a cheaper alternative to a sword as a sidearm, but isn't how you hunt rabbits, or carve a bowl.

Quote from Erokow32 >>

Slight change of topic: What is the difference between a simple and martial weapon? Outside of how big its damage die gets.

As I see it, any tool that can function as a weapon, or weapon intended for hunting, or a weapon that isn't intended to be lethal is a Simple Weapon. A cross peen hammer, a sickle, a quarterstaff, and a hunting bow all as a primary example. (This is why I get angry at Tridents. They're fishing tools that were used as generally non-lethal propaganda shows... not real weapons for poking people.)

A Martial Weapon on the other hand is designed to kill people who can defend themselvez. Sidearms rarely ever broke 3lbs, and generally were 2ft to 3ft long. Compare a normal warhammer (2 to 3ft long and about 3lbs) to a blacksmith's hammer (1ft long and 3 to 4lbs). Tools are designed for precision, while weapons are designed for impact. (Think about how a tool is designed for a specific job that is never "break that thing", but a weapon's primary job is "break that thing".

Tangent: I think it's the spear and the morning star that are on the Simple Weapons list and don't belong there. Spears are only used by people fighting people who generally have spears and shields, (unless it's something like a boar spear)... and the mace or morning star that is on there is 100% a cheaper alternative to a sword as a sidearm, but isn't how you hunt rabbits, or carve a bowl.

 What about daggers?

It really has little to do with the damage die since a mace and a handaxe have the same damage die as a shortsword or scimitar, and a quarterstaff can do the same d8 as a rapier.

I think they actually have it divided by how much skilled work is required to create the weapon. Spears are cheap to make, which is why they were so common among untrained conscripts.

Quote from IamSposta >>

It really has little to do with the damage die since a mace and a handaxe have the same damage die as a shortsword or scimitar, and a quarterstaff can do the same d8 as a rapier.

I think they actually have it divided by how much skilled work is required to create the weapon. Spears are cheap to make, which is why they were so common among untrained conscripts.

 That's a pretty good theory. This fits my tangent about the Morning Star as well, because they can be made (or mostly made) with cast iron, which is a heck of a lot easier to do.

Quote from Erokow32 >>

Slight change of topic: What is the difference between a simple and martial weapon? Outside of how big its damage die gets.

As I see it, any tool that can function as a weapon, or weapon intended for hunting, or a weapon that isn't intended to be lethal is a Simple Weapon. A cross peen hammer, a sickle, a quarterstaff, and a hunting bow all as a primary example. (This is why I get angry at Tridents. They're fishing tools that were used as generally non-lethal propaganda shows... not real weapons for poking people.)

A Martial Weapon on the other hand is designed to kill people who can defend themselvez. Sidearms rarely ever broke 3lbs, and generally were 2ft to 3ft long. Compare a normal warhammer (2 to 3ft long and about 3lbs) to a blacksmith's hammer (1ft long and 3 to 4lbs). Tools are designed for precision, while weapons are designed for impact. (Think about how a tool is designed for a specific job that is never "break that thing", but a weapon's primary job is "break that thing".

Tangent: I think it's the spear and the morning star that are on the Simple Weapons list and don't belong there. Spears are only used by people fighting people who generally have spears and shields, (unless it's something like a boar spear)... and the mace or morning star that is on there is 100% a cheaper alternative to a sword as a sidearm, but isn't how you hunt rabbits, or carve a bowl.

 I disagree with your distinction between the terms. The distinction is really all about how hard it is to use. Everyone can try to stab you with a dagger but not everyone can wield a great-sword. A simple weapon doesn't require a lot of training. Some, but not much. A club, for example, is made merely for hurting or hunting. It is simple though because swinging a stick isn't so hard to do. Also, notice how many of the simple weapons are often used by commoners for other kinds of work. A farmer might use a Sickle, a smith might use a Light Hammer and a woodcutter will use a Handaxe. 
Martial weapons, on the other hand, need more training to be used properly. Well, usually. Everyone can still hit with a Warhammer, but it wouldn't be as effective. A Halberd, Maul, Lance or Flail need special training to be used right.
The few weird weapons are Whip, Net and Trident. The reason they are tagged as 'Martial', is because using them in combat is very different than using them for their normal use. You can't whip at someone trying to kill you, and not be killed by you, the same way you'd whip an animal you're trying to train. The net can't be tossed the same way and a trident isn't used even a bit similar to the way you'd hunt with it.

TL;DR: Training with Martial weapons require special training while simple weapons can easily be learnt and used by many, at least slightly efficiently.

Quote from FireCat5 >>

Quote from Erokow32 >>

Slight change of topic: What is the difference between a simple and martial weapon? Outside of how big its damage die gets.

As I see it, any tool that can function as a weapon, or weapon intended for hunting, or a weapon that isn't intended to be lethal is a Simple Weapon. A cross peen hammer, a sickle, a quarterstaff, and a hunting bow all as a primary example. (This is why I get angry at Tridents. They're fishing tools that were used as generally non-lethal propaganda shows... not real weapons for poking people.)

A Martial Weapon on the other hand is designed to kill people who can defend themselvez. Sidearms rarely ever broke 3lbs, and generally were 2ft to 3ft long. Compare a normal warhammer (2 to 3ft long and about 3lbs) to a blacksmith's hammer (1ft long and 3 to 4lbs). Tools are designed for precision, while weapons are designed for impact. (Think about how a tool is designed for a specific job that is never "break that thing", but a weapon's primary job is "break that thing".

Tangent: I think it's the spear and the morning star that are on the Simple Weapons list and don't belong there. Spears are only used by people fighting people who generally have spears and shields, (unless it's something like a boar spear)... and the mace or morning star that is on there is 100% a cheaper alternative to a sword as a sidearm, but isn't how you hunt rabbits, or carve a bowl.

 I disagree with your distinction between the terms. The distinction is really all about how hard it is to use. Everyone can try to stab you with a dagger but not everyone can wield a great-sword. A simple weapon doesn't require a lot of training. Some, but not much. A club, for example, is made merely for hurting or hunting. It is simple though because swinging a stick isn't so hard to do. Also, notice how many of the simple weapons are often used by commoners for other kinds of work. A farmer might use a Sickle, a smith might use a Light Hammer and a woodcutter will use a Handaxe. 
Martial weapons, on the other hand, need more training to be used properly. Well, usually. Everyone can still hit with a Warhammer, but it wouldn't be as effective. A Halberd, Maul, Lance or Flail need special training to be used right.
The few weird weapons are Whip, Net and Trident. The reason they are tagged as 'Martial', is because using them in combat is very different than using them for their normal use. You can't whip at someone trying to kill you, and not be killed by you, the same way you'd whip an animal you're trying to train. The net can't be tossed the same way and a trident isn't used even a bit similar to the way you'd hunt with it.

TL;DR: Training with Martial weapons require special training while simple weapons can easily be learnt and used by many, at least slightly efficiently.

Quote from IamSposta >>

It really has little to do with the damage die since a mace and a handaxe have the same damage die as a shortsword or scimitar, and a quarterstaff can do the same d8 as a rapier.

I think they actually have it divided by how much skilled work is required to create the weapon. Spears are cheap to make, which is why they were so common among untrained conscripts.

I second these, but try to keep things on topic.

I don't know a lot about these "long knives", so i cant use these to deiced if they are martial or simple. as far as i know, there swords, just with a slightly different handle, as to count as a knife. if so, that would mean they are probably martial, because sword can quite a bit of experience to wield properly, and are fairly expensive to be made well.