So I’ve been a bit interested in these and was curious, mostly for renaissance festival garb, but just what a character might be wielding, and looking online at sites that offer affordable weapons the only things that come up are gladiator, Spartan, and Viking swords. This is certainly not what I’d want on my belt at a festival and not what I’d imagine my character wielding.
Ultimately I’ve always viewed it as a shorter version of a Renaissance era long sword. Maybe with a smaller cross guard. And maybe you grn with a wider blade.
I’d love a link to an affordable weapon’s site that has a proper short sword!
The "short sword" in D&D can be any number of swords. The main thing is that they are shorter and lighter, which in game terms enables them to have the "finesse" property. From a real life perspective, a short sword would have a blade length of less than 30" and weigh below 2.5 lbs. (Very rough estimation) Oakeshott XIV and XVIII are good types to start with. A lot of places have them listed as knightly or arming swords.
The "short sword" in D&D can be any number of swords. The main thing is that they are shorter and lighter, which in game terms enables them to have the "finesse" property. From a real life perspective, a short sword would have a blade length of less than 30" and weigh below 2.5 lbs. (Very rough estimation) Oakeshott XIV and XVIII are good types to start with. A lot of places have them listed as knightly or arming swords.
This. You're looking at a one-handed straight sword, likely with a cruciform hilt. If you want a curved sword, scimitar represents the saber family.
There's a lot of confusion about longswords and shortswords, because in older editions of D&D, the arming sword was called a longsword, and the longsword, aka hand and a half or two-handed sword was called a bastard sword. The shortsword was considered to be a gladius sized weapon.
For 5e, swords appear to be more uniformly classified by medieval (rather than dark age or roman era) standards. The medieval longsword is now called a longsword. Purely 1h swords appear to have been universally demoted to D6 weapons (with the exception of the rapier, which has a longsword length blade) and are called shortswords and scimitars. The old arming sword is purely one handed...thus is a shortsword.
So, a good rule of thumb is, for 5e at least, if it's purely 1 handed, it's a shortsword. If you CAN use 2 hands on it, it's a longsword. If you HAVE to use 2 hands on it, it's a great 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.
If your looking for a quality weapon maker with a number of really nice looking long daggers and short/long swords check out Zombietools.com they produce some very very nice nearly combat grade steel, and the looks are the bomb!!!
Curious about why the shortsword modeled on a gladius is a piercing damage type rather than slashing? Rapier I can see the decision to make piercing even though it, too, has a long cutting edge, but the shortsword was primarily a slashing weapon wasn’t it?
Curious about why the shortsword modeled on a gladius is a piercing damage type rather than slashing? Rapier I can see the decision to make piercing even though it, too, has a long cutting edge, but the shortsword was primarily a slashing weapon wasn’t it?
I would not say D&D shortswords are necessarily modelled on a gladius - they also include long knives and other weapons common among stereotypical roguish types.
That said, a gladius was primarily a stabbing weapon - while it was double edged and could be used for slashing, a slashing wound is relatively treatable with Roman-era methods (sew it up, keep it bandaged, keep it clean). On the other hand, the broad, pointed head of the gladius made it able to inflict large, deep piercing wounds, much more likely to be fatal in that era. It also is a lot easier to stab without breaking a shield formation than it would be to slash.
So, while it could be used for both, in most combat it likely was being used primarily for stabbing. Gladiators might have used more slashing techniques with the weapon - but gladiators were not generally trying to kill their opponents, instead trying to inflict debilitating (and, more importantly, visually showy) wounds that would please the crowd.
So I’ve been a bit interested in these and was curious, mostly for renaissance festival garb, but just what a character might be wielding, and looking online at sites that offer affordable weapons the only things that come up are gladiator, Spartan, and Viking swords. This is certainly not what I’d want on my belt at a festival and not what I’d imagine my character wielding.
Ultimately I’ve always viewed it as a shorter version of a Renaissance era long sword. Maybe with a smaller cross guard. And maybe you grn with a wider blade.
I’d love a link to an affordable weapon’s site that has a proper short sword!
Try looking for small swords such as that from Cold Steel
Perpetually annoyed that Eldritch Knights can't use Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Smite, and Eldritch Sight.
The "short sword" in D&D can be any number of swords. The main thing is that they are shorter and lighter, which in game terms enables them to have the "finesse" property. From a real life perspective, a short sword would have a blade length of less than 30" and weigh below 2.5 lbs. (Very rough estimation) Oakeshott XIV and XVIII are good types to start with. A lot of places have them listed as knightly or arming swords.
This. You're looking at a one-handed straight sword, likely with a cruciform hilt. If you want a curved sword, scimitar represents the saber family.
There's a lot of confusion about longswords and shortswords, because in older editions of D&D, the arming sword was called a longsword, and the longsword, aka hand and a half or two-handed sword was called a bastard sword. The shortsword was considered to be a gladius sized weapon.
For 5e, swords appear to be more uniformly classified by medieval (rather than dark age or roman era) standards. The medieval longsword is now called a longsword. Purely 1h swords appear to have been universally demoted to D6 weapons (with the exception of the rapier, which has a longsword length blade) and are called shortswords and scimitars. The old arming sword is purely one handed...thus is a shortsword.
So, a good rule of thumb is, for 5e at least, if it's purely 1 handed, it's a shortsword. If you CAN use 2 hands on it, it's a longsword. If you HAVE to use 2 hands on it, it's a great 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
If your looking for a quality weapon maker with a number of really nice looking long daggers and short/long swords check out Zombietools.com they produce some very very nice nearly combat grade steel, and the looks are the bomb!!!
Fear is the mind killer!
Curious about why the shortsword modeled on a gladius is a piercing damage type rather than slashing? Rapier I can see the decision to make piercing even though it, too, has a long cutting edge, but the shortsword was primarily a slashing weapon wasn’t it?
I would not say D&D shortswords are necessarily modelled on a gladius - they also include long knives and other weapons common among stereotypical roguish types.
That said, a gladius was primarily a stabbing weapon - while it was double edged and could be used for slashing, a slashing wound is relatively treatable with Roman-era methods (sew it up, keep it bandaged, keep it clean). On the other hand, the broad, pointed head of the gladius made it able to inflict large, deep piercing wounds, much more likely to be fatal in that era. It also is a lot easier to stab without breaking a shield formation than it would be to slash.
So, while it could be used for both, in most combat it likely was being used primarily for stabbing. Gladiators might have used more slashing techniques with the weapon - but gladiators were not generally trying to kill their opponents, instead trying to inflict debilitating (and, more importantly, visually showy) wounds that would please the crowd.