PDA

View Full Version : Rules Q&A Scimitar or Shortsword?



ImSAMazing
2015-08-22, 11:06 AM
Hey Playgrounders,

I am playing a Ranger and I am going to buy a Scimitar, but I saw that it costs 25 gp, it is 3lb, is finesse & light and has 1d6 damage die. The shortsword however is only 10 gp, 2 lb, is ALSO finesse & light and also deals 1d6 damage. Why would someone ever buy a Scimitar above a Shortsword?

Atalas
2015-08-22, 11:10 AM
only reasons I can think of is they want slashing over piercing. Or aesthetics.

ImSAMazing
2015-08-22, 11:11 AM
only reasons I can think of is they want slashing over piercing. Or aesthetics.

So, you pay 15gp for slashing instead of piercing? Who would do that...
Also, this link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage) says that there are 4 more creatures with resistance against Piercing damage, but there are 2 more creatures immune to slashing damage(no creature is immune to piercing), so you pay 15gp for the fact that 4 creatures can't resist your damage better but you also take the risk that if you fight against something with Slashing immunity you should switch weapons...

Pyon
2015-08-22, 11:22 AM
I remember in 4e there was a perk that boosted Scimitars. In 5e, I don't really see a point either.

Ralanr
2015-08-22, 11:22 AM
So, you pay 15gp for slashing instead of piercing? Who would do that...
Also, this link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage) says that there are 4 more creatures with resistance against Piercing damage, but there are 2 more creatures immune to slashing damage(no creature is immune to piercing), so you pay 15gp for the fact that 4 creatures can't resist your damage better but you also take the risk that if you fight against something with Slashing immunity you should switch weapons...

You're overthinking this.

ImSAMazing
2015-08-22, 11:55 AM
You're overthinking this.

What do you mean by that?

Daishain
2015-08-22, 12:06 PM
What do you mean by that?
A.) 15 gp is chump change at anything other than L1, and not always even then
B.) the difference between slashing and piercing is miniscule
C.) prices are driven by factors other than game mechanics. Scimitars are a more difficult weapon to produce than a short sword, therefore it costs more.

ZenBear
2015-08-22, 12:07 PM
A.) 15 gp is chump change at anything other than L1, and not always even then
B.) the difference between slashing and piercing is miniscule
C.) prices are driven by factors other than game mechanics. Scimitars are a more difficult weapon to produce than a short sword, therefore it costs more.

D.) it's really not important

HoarsHalberd
2015-08-22, 12:28 PM
Weapons aren't balanced on their cost or weight. A trident is heavier, more expensive and a martial weapon, but is equivalent to a spear in all other ways. A mace is more expensive than a quarterstaff and can't be used versatile style. A morning star is more expensive, heavier and does a less efficient damage type than the flail.

Because weight and cash are almost irrelevant in 5e at the costs and weights we have here, they try and roughly simulate the costs and weights and only worry about balancing damage and abilities.

Raphite1
2015-08-22, 12:37 PM
Druids can use scimitars, but not shortswords.


A.) 15 gp is chump change at anything other than L1, and not always even then


The DMG suggests wealth not too far above starting equipment for levels 1-5. In the interval after that, they can get up to a max of about 500gp leading up to level 10.

Kryx
2015-08-22, 12:47 PM
Weapons aren't balanced on their cost or weight. A trident is heavier, more expensive and a martial weapon, but is equivalent to a spear in all other ways.
That's why a Trident is commonly houseruled to d8/d10 versatile.


A mace is more expensive than a quarterstaff and can't be used versatile style. A morning star is more expensive, heavier and does a less efficient damage type than the flail.
Reddit discussion that talked about buffing these as well (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/3g07yw/my_5e_phb_weapon_rebalance).

HoarsHalberd
2015-08-22, 01:00 PM
That's why a Trident is commonly houseruled to d8/d10 versatile.


Reddit discussion that talked about buffing these as well (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/3g07yw/my_5e_phb_weapon_rebalance).

They don't need rebalancing. Weapon choices are balanced already. Some choices are sub par but that's how the world worked. Nobody took a trident to war when they had a spear to hand. The flail and warpick I can get behind. But, frankly, a sickle and a club should be inferior to a shortsword/scimitar.

Kryx
2015-08-22, 01:13 PM
They don't need rebalancing.
That's your opinion. Many others disagree as evidenced by the number of these threads and the numbers who suggest the houserule as I have.

Ralanr
2015-08-22, 01:17 PM
D.) it's really not important

We have a winner.

JoeJ
2015-08-22, 01:30 PM
C.) prices are driven by factors other than game mechanics. Scimitars are a more difficult weapon to produce than a short sword, therefore it costs more.

Ah, but a wooden longbow, is easier and cheaper to produce than any sort of steel sword, and yet at 50 gp it's more expensive than any of them except greatsword. (In the real medieval world bows were significantly cheaper than swords, which is part of why they were considered peasant weapons, unsuitable for noble knights.)

Thrudd
2015-08-22, 02:07 PM
In the "real world", the price of weapons depends on the cost of materials and labor/skill that goes into making it. Anything made of metal, especially an alloy like steel that needs to be manufactured, is going to cost a lot more than something made of wood.
A spear is much cheaper than a sword to make, it uses a fraction of the metal, although it is just as good at killing people. Crossbows cost significantly more than a normal bow, because they often have steel in the tines and also require more advanced and detailed manufacturing, although a long bow kills someone just as well as a crossbow in most cases.
You have two choices in the game, one is to balance cost with damage range regardless of realism, which is the standard approach. The other would be to price the weapons more realistically, retaining realistic damage output relative to each other, but give them new properties and requirements which balance them in different ways. A spear is cheaper, but can't be used in confined spaces and might break when facing axes, heavy swords, or maces. A crossbow costs a lot more, but requires almost no training to use it and has a chance to bypass armor at closer ranges.

Scimitars and shortswords should basically be identical in terms of cost, since they are presented as being basically the same size. It isn't really harder to make a scimitar. Only requiring one edge to be sharpened actual makes it a bit easier. As far as I'm concerned, there should be no difference in damage either, the curve or no curve in the blade is something too detailed for D&D to model in combat. They should both be several times the cost of a spear, which itself is significantly above the price of a staff or club.

ImSAMazing
2015-08-22, 02:08 PM
Ah, but a wooden longbow, is easier and cheaper to produce than any sort of steel sword, and yet at 50 gp it's more expensive than any of them except greatsword. (In the real medieval world bows were significantly cheaper than swords, which is part of why they were considered peasant weapons, unsuitable for noble knights.)

True. But most villagers fighted with a Sling/CROSSbow not a Longbow. Ranger's Apprentice says that normal Bows aren't produced easily.

Raphite1
2015-08-22, 09:14 PM
They don't need rebalancing. Weapon choices are balanced already. Some choices are sub par but that's how the world worked. ...

This point has more merit than it may seem.

Playing a character you like really makes a big different in an RPG, and that includes flavor choices like weapons. One damage die higher or lower just isn't a big deal, even in terms of raw combat numbers, but a character that seizes your imagination makes all the difference in the world.

Ralanr
2015-08-22, 09:26 PM
This point has more merit than it may seem.

Playing a character you like really makes a big different in an RPG, and that includes flavor choices like weapons. One damage die higher or lower just isn't a big deal, even in terms of raw combat numbers, but a character that seizes your imagination makes all the difference in the world.

Exactly. Not everything is about optimization. Sometimes I just want to play a dwarf rogue/paladin with a greataxe.

Ouranos
2015-08-22, 09:44 PM
Proficiency. Scimitar is a special weapon in that druids can use it. Gotta pay more for a good blade when you can TURN INTO A DAMN BEAR.

Ralanr
2015-08-22, 09:48 PM
Proficiency. Scimitar is a special weapon in that druids can use it. Gotta pay more for a good blade when you can TURN INTO A DAMN BEAR.

It's practically criminal!

JoeJ
2015-08-22, 09:59 PM
There's also the coolness factor. Scimitars have the whole Arabian Knights thing going, and they're essentially the same as cutlasses, which pirates use. If you're gonna hang with the cool crowd, you've gotta pay for the privilege.

Coidzor
2015-08-23, 12:02 AM
If your party is so consistently broke that you can't buy or otherwise acquire both to use as necessary for the damage types, then you're running into some serious issues.

Also, if you get your choice free at 1st level instead of having starting gold to allocate to supplies yourself, then going with a scimitar over a short sword means that if you eventually sell it upon getting a magic weapon or something, then you earn half of 25 gp instead of half of 10 gp, so that's a marginal advantage.

UXLZ
2015-08-23, 12:15 AM
There's a similar issue with the Glaive and Halberd. Honestly, it feels like they should have given templates rather than actual weapons and let the DM decide on the variable stats. For instance, a Khukuri is going to be heaver than a stiletto, and do slashing damage instead of piercing.

"Knife/Dagger Template - Piercing/Slashing - 1d4 - 5 foot (20/60)- Finesse, Light, may include 'Thrown' property - 1-6GP - 1-3 lb. Examples: Bowie Knife, Khukuri, Switchblade, Stiletto."

Knaight
2015-08-23, 12:26 AM
Ah, but a wooden longbow, is easier and cheaper to produce than any sort of steel sword, and yet at 50 gp it's more expensive than any of them except greatsword. (In the real medieval world bows were significantly cheaper than swords, which is part of why they were considered peasant weapons, unsuitable for noble knights.)

That's not even remotely true in general. High quality bows were generally very nice, very expensive weapons that were either some expensive combination of laminate or very particular parts of very particular trees which were then heavily treated. Meanwhile the price of swords pretty much plummeted throughout the middle ages, and by the time the weapon typically thought of as a longbow was in heavy use (e.g. the Hundred Years War) swords were widely available and not particularly expensive. Closer to 500 CE, swords were vastly more expensive and a lot of the bows around were comparatively cheaper.

PoeticDwarf
2015-08-23, 01:02 AM
Hey Playgrounders,

I am playing a Ranger and I am going to buy a Scimitar, but I saw that it costs 25 gp, it is 3lb, is finesse & light and has 1d6 damage die. The shortsword however is only 10 gp, 2 lb, is ALSO finesse & light and also deals 1d6 damage. Why would someone ever buy a Scimitar above a Shortsword?

A druid only got a scimitar. There are more weapons like this. Why would you prefer a trident every above a spear, and nobody gots the trident but not the spear.

djreynolds
2015-08-23, 01:21 AM
Hey Playgrounders,

I am playing a Ranger and I am going to buy a Scimitar, but I saw that it costs 25 gp, it is 3lb, is finesse & light and has 1d6 damage die. The shortsword however is only 10 gp, 2 lb, is ALSO finesse & light and also deals 1d6 damage. Why would someone ever buy a Scimitar above a Shortsword?

Concept trumps all. Scimitars are cooler and thus justify my charging you 15gp extra. It's like a tattoo, do you need really need it? No, but its cool. You win. I can't argue cool. And since you're going two-weapon grab one of each and don't name one Twinkle, because its not cool like Icingdeath.

Ralanr
2015-08-23, 01:29 AM
Concept trumps all. Scimitars are cooler and thus justify my charging you 15gp extra. It's like a tattoo, do you need really need it? No, but its cool. You win. I can't argue cool. And since you're going two-weapon grab one of each and don't name one Twinkle, because its not cool like Icingdeath.

Or sparkle.

I get your reference, I just thought this would be funny.

djreynolds
2015-08-23, 03:02 AM
Or sparkle.

I get your reference, I just thought this would be funny.

Some guy on this forum or another went to town and bashed twinkle. And it was funny.

Ralanr
2015-08-23, 10:00 AM
Some guy on this forum or another went to town and bashed twinkle. And it was funny.

I wish I could see this.

Tarvil
2015-08-23, 10:26 AM
I'm quite sure this inequality is intended to hold back hordes of Drizzt wannabes :smallwink:

MeeposFire
2015-08-24, 08:13 AM
I'm quite sure this inequality is intended to hold back hordes of Drizzt wannabes :smallwink:

NO you are thinking too small.

This is a way for shop keepers to make a tidy profit on Drizzt wannabes.

Cybren
2015-08-24, 09:36 AM
Druids can use scimitars, but not shortswords.



The DMG suggests wealth not too far above starting equipment for levels 1-5. In the interval after that, they can get up to a max of about 500gp leading up to level 10.

1) that's for starting wealth in campaigns that start above 1st level. For the average adventurer, you will be able to buy any weapon you want after your first adventure.
2) Most of the classes that want to use a martial weapon get to start with a martial weapon of their choice for free, since equipment packages are almost always better than rolling (and still better even in the few situations where the average roll is better, since it saves time and is close enough)

Vogonjeltz
2015-08-24, 03:54 PM
Weapons aren't balanced on their cost or weight. A trident is heavier, more expensive and a martial weapon, but is equivalent to a spear in all other ways. A mace is more expensive than a quarterstaff and can't be used versatile style. A morning star is more expensive, heavier and does a less efficient damage type than the flail.

Because weight and cash are almost irrelevant in 5e at the costs and weights we have here, they try and roughly simulate the costs and weights and only worry about balancing damage and abilities.


That's your opinion. Many others disagree as evidenced by the number of these threads and the numbers who suggest the houserule as I have.

Having two essentially identical weapons is ok because they are differentiated by one important thing: One is a simple weapon that practically anyone can use, and the other requires special training (is a martial weapon).

So, if your characters are ever in the position of having access to the trident, only someone with the special training can use it effectively, which means anywhere from +2 to +6 bonus on attack. Plus if someone disarms you, they might not be proficient with that trident and be unable to use it against you as well as if you lost a spear.

So, there's a benefit there to using weapons that fewer people in the world can use as well as you can.

Longcat
2015-08-24, 10:14 PM
There are more creatures resistant to Piercing damage than Slashing damage, which is also something you should take into account.

Mith
2015-08-24, 11:32 PM
In vein with the thought on realism, would it be considered broken to have a feat for long sword mastery that allowed one to use a long sword with half-swording and gripping the blade to use the hilt like a war hammer? This would give a PC one weapon with piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage. Likely different die rolls for the hilt bash versus the half sword or slash.

Battlebooze
2015-08-25, 03:07 AM
C.) prices are driven by factors other than game mechanics. Scimitars are a more difficult weapon to produce than a short sword, therefore it costs more.

Technically since item construction time is based on the cost, it's actually like this...


C. prices are driven by factors other than game mechanics. Scimitars are more expensive to produce than a short sword, therefore they take longer.

Lol. There's D&D for you! :)

woodlandkammao
2015-08-25, 06:42 AM
https://i.imgflip.com/gm2y2.jpg


Its all about skeletons. They're common, and piercing resistant.

Fighting_Ferret
2015-08-25, 09:42 AM
In vein with the thought on realism, would it be considered broken to have a feat for long sword mastery that allowed one to use a long sword with half-swording and gripping the blade to use the hilt like a war hammer? This would give a PC one weapon with piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage. Likely different die rolls for the hilt bash versus the half sword or slash.

You don't need a feat. You are proficient with the weapon and how to use it for various things. Worse case scenario would be to treat it us an improvised weapon (aka club) and allow it to hit with str mod + proficiency and deal 1d4 + str mod damage. Congrats, you didn't have to take anything and were able to use the rules to do exactly what you wanted to do. I'd also say that half-swording to deal piercing damage, via the versatile option, but in this case, change it to the spear's damage dice, so 1d8 piercing for half-swording, note this uses two hands. You could also stab, with the point, and I'd stick with the 1d6 of the spear one-handed.

Longsword - slashing vs slashing resistant creature (1d8 +3) say we rolled a 5 that's 8 damage /2 for resistance... so 4 damage
Longsword - bludgeon vs slashing resistanct creature (1d4+3) say we rolled a 2 that's 5 damage not resisted

KorvinStarmast
2015-08-25, 10:01 AM
Get the short sword, and with the money left over buy a mace as a backup weapon, and have 10 GP for ale and w--- oops, gotta keep it family friendly.

Mith
2015-08-25, 10:22 AM
You don't need a feat. You are proficient with the weapon and how to use it for various things. Worse case scenario would be to treat it us an improvised weapon (aka club) and allow it to hit with str mod + proficiency and deal 1d4 + str mod damage. Congrats, you didn't have to take anything and were able to use the rules to do exactly what you wanted to do. I'd also say that half-swording to deal piercing damage, via the versatile option, but in this case, change it to the spear's damage dice, so 1d8 piercing for half-swording, note this uses two hands. You could also stab, with the point, and I'd stick with the 1d6 of the spear one-handed.

Longword - slashing vs slashing resistant creature (1d8 +3) say we rolled a 5 that's 8 damage /2 for resistance... so 4 damage
Longsword - bludgeon vs slashing resistanct creature (1d4+3) say we rolled a 2 that's 5 damage not resisted

Thanks! I will run that by my DM and see what he thinks of the idea as well.

Longcat
2015-08-25, 07:38 PM
for ale and w--- oops, gotta keep it family friendly.

Surely you meant to say "ale and wine", right? :smalltongue:

Sigreid
2015-08-25, 08:08 PM
I would argue that the weapon table currently contains all the information you need to include any weapon you like. A cutlass is just a short sword that is slashing instead of piercing (or a scimitar if your prefer) A military fork works fine using either the spear or trident. I think the reason they called out scimitar is because of the fans that know nothing really about weapons but know a certain dark elf and the trident because the trident of fish command and trident of warning are things in the DMG. In the PHB it even says that in their opinion any weapon can be duplicated by re-skinning existing weapons.

Princess
2015-08-25, 10:37 PM
NO you are thinking too small.

This is a way for shop keepers to make a tidy profit on Drizzt wannabes.

"That'll be 20 gold for the two swords and 30 gold for the Salvatore tax."

But yes, in reality a scimitar or saber is harder to make than a gladius, and would cost more. In actual game play, it just makes Driz'zt wannabes poorer.

Speaking of which, more of the class starting equipment entries should really just say "choose a weapon" instead of telling people specifically what to use.

UXLZ
2015-08-26, 12:37 AM
And I think they should have just given weapon templates with common examples.

"Dagger Template", "One Handed Sword Template", etc.

KorvinStarmast
2015-08-26, 04:02 PM
Surely you meant to say "ale and wine", right? :smalltongue: I'll defer that answer to my attorneys from the offices of Sienna, Kurtz, and Powers. :)

(Not to mention that we don't cross the streams (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyaLZHiJJnE), and we don't mix wine and ale in the same binge!)

Princess
2015-08-26, 04:41 PM
And I think they should have just given weapon templates with common examples.

"Dagger Template", "One Handed Sword Template", etc.

The note about monk weapons (sickles as kama, clubs as nunchaku, et c.) was nice, and they probably should have gone ahead and included another remark in the weapons section that "Your 'long sword' could be a katana, your scimitar could be a saber or dadao, your rapier could be a jian, your pike could be a corbie's beak, et c." Most historical handheld weapons more or less correspond to something on that list - if anything they wasted an entry listing glaive and halberd separately and left out any mention of atlatls.

HidesHisEyes
2015-09-01, 06:01 AM
In my ideal RPG all weapons would balance out perfectly, gameplay-wise. Cost would be a significant factor. There would also be some kind of speed factor (beyond "light" and "finesse") that might balance against damage die. Some weapons would be easier to conceal than others. Weapons like clubs and quarterstaffs might have nothing much to recommend them except that they are not martial weapons and so anyone can use them - but then feats and other options might be available to make these weapons powerful enough to contend with greatswords and longbows by specialising in them. The aim would be for players to be able to pick whatever weapon of choice they like purely because they think it's cool or suits their character concept, and still be able to build a fairly powerful character. But not all weapons would be powerful in the same ways. Some would be about damage potential, sure, but others would be better for defence, or assassinations or would have out-of-combat applications (like a ninja chain-and-sickle that doubles as a grappling hook). Simulating the reality of medieval weapons would be very, very, very low on the priority list, since it's a game and not a lecture on military history.

Obviously such a system would be extremely difficult to actually implement. 5E does a pretty good job of it.

Joe the Rat
2015-09-01, 07:37 AM
Me, I'd take one of each, but I'm a big fan of asymmetric skirmishing.


Surely you meant to say "ale and wine", right? :smalltongue:

This is the Forgotten Realms. You've got 10 gp left for the Festhalls.

Louro
2015-09-01, 04:56 PM
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101104150803/deadliestfiction/images/0/00/Short_Sword.jpg
--- I'm a pleb ---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TPEDXgkyH1I/Tzg7hfaGfBI/AAAAAAAAAwc/rGCOw-nbaxQ/s1600/Cimitarra.gif
--- I fight even better than I look ---

Fighting_Ferret
2015-09-02, 10:20 AM
Reply, well historically speaking scimitars were used in the Middle Eastern Countries, Africa, and Turkey and were used mainly by cavalrymen, use the blade was light enough to be used one-handed and had an arc that was preferred by cavalrymen, which caused great wounding and had little potential to get stuck.

There was never one weapon known as the "shortsword" but the gladius was typically used by the Roman legions and the Greeks and was made for thrusting into gaps in shield wall coverage when force merged together and spears became unwieldy due to length (We're talking close combat here). Alternately, Europe also developed the seax, a long knife or a short sword, with one edge and a tip. These were again weapon designed for close combat and personal use, primarily used as a secondary weapon (similar to today's handguns). Seax design was not standardized and different cultures use different varieties.


Going on the medieval arming sword would be the traditional middle age one-handed sword of preference. (Standard one-handed use, double edged, with a pointed tip and a cross shaped guard. Before that the so called 'Viking' sword was the one-handed sword of choice. The longsword was what we would call today the bastard sword. The long stemming not from the blade length, but the length of the hilt, allowing it to be used by either a one-handed grip, or a two-handed grip. (Note that the blade could be elongated slightly, but the point is to keep the balance of the weapon near the grip).

Now getting off the history lesson, as far as D&D is concerned... who cares? They needed some fancy illustrations and different weapon styles for flash. They obviously borrowed from different historical time periods and even tossed a bunch of similar weapons into a common name, such as longsword/shortsword/dagger. I've seen lists where they had ton of differing weapons and it made no sense to have 12 things that all cost differing amounts and all did the exact same damage amount and damage type. If you are mathematically looking for an advantage (slashing vs. piercing resistance) than the better question to ask is why not trade the finesse property to light (keeping the existing light weapons) and letting light do all of the heavy lifting, so to speak. That would open up tons of dex options for 10 gold or less and include all 3 damage types. Of course system wide this would open up dabate of str vs. dex as a combat stat of choice. It aslo opens up the rogues sneak attack damage, as any combatant would be trying to get the most damage from any opening vs. an opponent, but we aren't dealing with reality here, so I will leave it waiting outside...

As far as scimitar cost vs. shorsword... I'm going to side with the Salvatore tax supporters...

Louro
2015-09-02, 10:27 AM
Agree, although I think of shorsword as the arming sword.

Fighting_Ferret
2015-09-02, 10:41 AM
I'd be on board for that interpretation in d&d, especially since they added versatile to the actual provided longsword.

Princess
2015-09-02, 01:42 PM
Reply, well historically speaking scimitars were used in the Middle Eastern Countries, Africa, and Turkey and were used mainly by cavalrymen, use the blade was light enough to be used one-handed and had an arc that was preferred by cavalrymen, which caused great wounding and had little potential to get stuck.

[Clipped to save space]

As far as scimitar cost vs. shorsword... I'm going to side with the Salvatore tax supporters...

For all intents and purposes, the scimitar stats also work perfectly well for sabers of various kinds as well as wakazashi, et c.

And yes, it's important to make those spotlight-hogs pay their fair share. Support higher taxes for Driz'zt clones and their Marty-Stu brethren.

KorvinStarmast
2015-09-02, 01:52 PM
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101104150803/deadliestfiction/images/0/00/Short_Sword.jpg
--- I'm a pleb ---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TPEDXgkyH1I/Tzg7hfaGfBI/AAAAAAAAAwc/rGCOw-nbaxQ/s1600/Cimitarra.gif
--- I fight even better than I look ---
Reminds me of a Mameluke (http://www.toledosword.com/im/Cold_Steel_USMC_Officer_Mameluke_saber.jpg), the sword Marine officers carry.


Support higher taxes for Driz'zt clones and their Marty-Stu brethren. I support this message ...

Louro
2015-09-02, 03:29 PM
You, less curved but similar design.
I'm not an expert but I guess the scimitar is just a sable that became popular as the claymore is one of the most popular two-handed swords design.

BootStrapTommy
2015-09-02, 07:01 PM
Why choose scimitar over shortsword? Because the DM gave you a dancing scimitar, not a dancing shortsword of course!


Reminds me of a Mameluke (http://www.toledosword.com/im/Cold_Steel_USMC_Officer_Mameluke_saber.jpg), the sword Marine officers carry. Might I introduce you to the Mamluk (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk), the scimitar-wielding Near-Eastern slave-warrior class after which the afore mentioned sword is named?


Functionally speaking, scimitars are cavalry swords. The curve (like in the case of sabers, cutlasses, and katanas) makes it cut better with less drag. Drag with a sword that has the weight of a galloping steed behind it means a dropped sword and an unarmed horseman!

KorvinStarmast
2015-09-03, 07:45 AM
Why choose scimitar over shortsword? Because the DM gave you a dancing scimitar, not a dancing shortsword of course!

Might I introduce you to the Mamluk (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk), the scimitar-wielding Near-Eastern slave-warrior class after which the afore mentioned sword is named?
As a lifelong student of mil history, I am already familiar with the mamluks -- thank you for the reminder. :smallbiggrin: I am also reasonably well versed on the Derna expedition (Pressley O'Bannon) that led to the Marine's adapting that sword for their officers.

Scimitars can be cool, but that Kopesh sword that came out in the AD&D1e Unearthed Arcana ... never cared for that.

djreynolds
2015-09-03, 08:40 AM
The great thing about 5e, is no more crit range or weapon specialization. Some may disagree, and I can agree with them but I like it now, really for these ease of using anything. If it's +1, that's reason enough. Cool works too.

My point is, have on hand the weapon for the job. Have a weapon for this and that. There's no reason not. Kill a few baddies and buy one of everything. Have a light hammer and hand axe, because you throw them as well. Plenty of magic daggers out there, use them as well. Most of the weapons discussed do 1d6. And if resistance is factor, then change out your arsenal. And if money.... well just kill and loot

Morty
2015-09-03, 09:26 AM
Shortsword and scimitar are identical for all practical purposes, so it's probably best to just write down whichever and not worry about it.

djreynolds
2015-09-04, 02:12 AM
Shortsword and scimitar are identical for all practical purposes, so it's probably best to just write down whichever and not worry about it.

And that is why he is a Titan. Next thread.