Question about reflavor

[Dankus Memakus]

So, I'm playing a warlock most likely pact of the chain, I am therefore gonna be using simple weapons but my issue is, I really like the flavor of swords better than any simple weapons so I'm trying to reflavor a simple weapon to be more swordlike but not any different from their counterpart has anyone flavored a simple weapon as a sword before, please help.

Edit: I'd prefer it to not have any different abilities because my dm will fight me on it if it's not akin to its base weapon

[Kafkesque]

Well, the simplest solution would probably be to carry around a dagger and say it's something more akin to a dirk than a pocketknife. (I think this would be more accurate to historical daggers anyway, but don't quote me on that.)

Otherwise I'd say take a simple weapon that does slashing or piercing damage and say it's something like a falchion or a really crappy arming sword.

[DracoKnight]

I would ask if you can refluff a quarter staff, change the damage type to Slashing, and you have a d6/d8 Versatile Sword.

[Nifft]

Sickle is a Simple bladed weapon. That might be reflavored as a sword of some kind.

[Contrast]

If you don't fancy refluffing a dagger as a short short sword (if you offer to give up the thrown quality on the spear in exchange for swapping it to slashing damage to represent a falchion or something I can't imagine most DMs objecting) - are you actually going to be using the weapon? As pact of the chain I assume you're mostly planning on keeping your distance and eldritch blasting.

If you really like swords all you're giving up is your proficiency bonus which if you're only using it to take the occasional opportunity attack isn't that big a deal *shrugs* Says its a family heirloom or whatever if anyone queries. Carry around a dagger or quarterstaff/arcane focus staff (with the longsword for the full Gandalf look) in case you decide you really need to.

[DevilMcam]

handaxe is a simple slashing weapon as well, it can probably look like a sword as well.

[JNAProductions]

Honestly? Here's what I would allow.

Take any simple melee weapon. Literally any simple melee weapon, though one without the thrown property, preferably.

Make it slashing or piercing (as appropriate to the sword technique).

Call it a sword.

It's a very minor change, and offers no mechanical benefits to my knowledge. So, why not let a player use a sword?

[Anymage]

Short or long swords?

Giving a low level caster a greatsword wouldn't be the most ideal thing I'd want to do. But even then, it wouldn't be that crazy strong; your hp and ac wouldn't support your role as a melee frontliner, and the points you spend on strength for it are points you're not spending on more useful warlock abilities. A longsword, though, is basically +1 to damage over a simple weapon, and a shortsword is largely on par with what a simple weapon can do.

So unless this is AL or some other organized play thing (in which case, getting all the different DMs to accept your refluffing is probably more hassle than it's worth), just ask your DM if you can start with shortsword proficiency.

[Asmotherion]

You can wield a 1'6" foot-long bladed Dagger that looks like a Sword for all purposes except Damage. Or, if your DM lets you, even make the blade longer, up to 2 feet (though that's more of a small shortsword than a Dagger, but it's no big problem mechanically).

Now, if you absolutelly want a Sword, there is a way around this: If you're a Half Elf (One of the best two options on a Warlock as it gives +2 Charisma) you can take a Half Elf Variant from SCAG, trading your 2 bonus proficient skills with proficiency in Elf Weapons; This includes the Shortbow, Longbow, and more importantly what you're aiming for, the Longsword and Shortsword!

Those are the Simple ways around it, without multiclassing or taking a feat for something so simple :) Hope I was helpfull.

[Mikal]

So, I'm playing a warlock most likely pact of the chain, I am therefore gonna be using simple weapons but my issue is, I really like the flavor of swords better than any simple weapons so I'm trying to reflavor a simple weapon to be more swordlike but not any different from their counterpart has anyone flavored a simple weapon as a sword before, please help.

Edit: I'd prefer it to not have any different abilities because my dm will fight me on it if it's not akin to its base weapon

The problem is that a sword isn't meant to be a simple weapon. It's meant to require training to use with proficiency and skill.

If you like the flavor then you should make the sacrifice to take a rest to use it, or just use a simple weapon, or use a sword without proficiency. Or just use a dagger or sickle and call it a sword but everyone realizes in game it's a dagger or sickle.

That's like saying as a champion fighter I really like the flavor of a familiar, so what if I just bought a pet and called it a familiar? It pushes on the territory of those who actually spent resources to have a familiar, and to me shouldn't be allowed. At best it could be an in character delusion of grandeur, but everyone knows it's just a pet.

Restrictions aren't meant to be refluffed around. They're meant to be lived with, or have resources spent to overcome them. If you really want to be a sword wielding chainlock... spend something to make it happen. You'll appreciate it more.

[JNAProductions]

The problem is that a sword isn't meant to be a simple weapon. It's meant to require training to use with proficiency and skill.

If you like the flavor then you should make the sacrifice to take a rest to use it, or just use a simple weapon, or use a sword without proficiency. Or just use a dagger or sickle and call it a sword but everyone realizes in game it's a dagger or sickle.

That's like saying as a champion fighter I really like the flavor of a familiar, so what if I just bought a pet and called it a familiar? It pushes on the territory of those who actually spent resources to have a familiar, and to me shouldn't be allowed. At best it could be an in character delusion of grandeur, but everyone knows it's just a pet.

Restrictions aren't meant to be refluffed around. They're meant to be lived with, or have resources spent to overcome them. If you really want to be a sword wielding chainlock... spend something to make it happen. You'll appreciate it more.

He's not asking for more damage, or anything mechanically, really. He just likes the visuals of wielding a sword. Why deny that?

[Dankus Memakus]

He's not asking for more damage, or anything mechanically, really. He just likes the visuals of wielding a sword. Why deny that?

Yeah, exactly, I don't care at all if it does more damage, I just like swords

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, exactly, I don't care at all if it does more damage, I just like swords

What's your DM saying? Obviously their opinion matters most.

[Dankus Memakus]

What's your DM saying? Obviously their opinion matters most.

He doesn't care as long as "nothing changes" meaning damage type of properties, so basically im I'm leaning towards greatclub as a really blunt sword. However as someone mentioned I could indeed take half elf, then there would be no reflavor

[Mikal]

Yeah, exactly, I don't care at all if it does more damage, I just like swords

then you should play a concept that allows the use of swords with proficiency, or use it without proficiency.

If you just like swords, wield one with the negatives that go with it, or spend a resource to use it without negatives. There's literally no need to refluff an existing weapon to match another existing one.

[JNAProductions]

then you should play a concept that allows the use of swords with proficiency, or use it without proficiency.

If you just like swords, wield one with the negatives that go with it, or spend a resource to use it without negatives.

Okay, so what resources do you have to pay to play a tall character? Or a pretty one? Short character? Thick, thin? Red hair? Green eyes? Former potato farmer?

Why does what your weapon looks like matter more than those?

[Mikal]

Okay, so what resources do you have to pay to play a tall character? Or a pretty one? Short character? Thick, thin? Red hair? Green eyes? Former potato farmer?

Why does what your weapon looks like matter more than those?

Strawman argument.
The op wants to refluff existing weapon a into existing weapon b, not make choices that the rules already allow him to do I.e. Hair and eye color and background fluff.

Your weapon matters more because the weapons already exist with mechanics and more importantly, restrictions.

[Dankus Memakus]

then you should play a concept that allows the use of swords with proficiency, or use it without proficiency.

If you just like swords, wield one with the negatives that go with it, or spend a resource to use it without negatives. There's literally no need to refluff an existing weapon to match another existing one.

If I were to do this is never have proficiency correct? Unless I gave up a level of warlock I'd never get to be proficient losing that bonus? If i eventually can become proficient please tell me how

[JNAProductions]

Strawman argument.
The op wants to refluff existing weapon a into existing weapon b, not make choices that the rules already allow him to do I.e. Hair and eye color and background fluff.

Your weapon matters more because the weapons already exist with mechanics and more importantly, restrictions.

Re-fluff. As in, keep mechanics the same (other than potentially swapping damage types, which I would allow at my table since it has pretty much no effect), just change the appearance.

He's not asking for a more powerful weapon. He's asking for a visual change. I don't see the strawman.

If I were to do this is never have proficiency correct? Unless I gave up a level of warlock I'd never get to be proficient losing that bonus? If i eventually can become proficient please tell me how

You can multiclass into a class that gives proficiency in it.

You can go Pact of the Blade.

You can take the Weapon Master feat.

You can be a Variant Half-Elf and swap skills for swords.

[Mikal]

If I were to do this is never have proficiency correct? Unless I gave up a level of warlock I'd never get to be proficient losing that bonus? If i eventually can become proficient please tell me how

Does your game allow feats? There's one that makes you proficient with four weapons. So you could technically be proficient with all swords if you really wanted. I don't think there are more than four off the top of my head.

Beyond that yeah, multiclassing or being like an elf.

[scalyfreak]

What race is your warlock? Elves automatically have sword proficiency, as has already been pointed out. So if you play an elf warlock, that would seem to solve your problem.

[Jormengand]

If you want to do it and your DM is fine with you doing it, don't listen to random people telling you that you shouldn't be able to do it without really ever articulating why.

[Mikal]

If you want to do it and your DM is fine with you doing it, don't listen to random people telling you that you shouldn't be able to do it without really ever articulating why.

Yeah that's right. You should just go ahead and break verisimilitude and ignore any sort of existing fluff just because you're you.

Seriously, is it just the current crop of gamers who've grown up
on mmo's or something that makes people think it's ok to just ignore consistent world building and internal game world logic? I don't think so cause we had mmos when I played 3e, but it just seems endemic, at least to some people on this board.

OP I'm not saying you're like that- you are looking for ways to actually use it correctly and i applaud that. It just gets tiring for people to literally think that they can ignore the fluff or
Mechanics of A by using B instead and pretending it's A. Even if there are in game ways to already use A that can be done.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah that's right. You should just go ahead and break verisimilitude and ignore any sort of existing fluff just because you're you.

Seriously, is it just the current crop of gamers who've grown up
on mmo's or something that makes people think it's ok to just ignore consistent world building and internal game world logic? I don't think so cause we had mmos when I played 3e, but it just seems endemic, at least to some people on this board.

So wait-a guy using a sword breaks your entire verisimilitude? Just to be clear, you're okay with dragons, wizards, liches, beholders, illithids, floating islands, the entire underdark ecology...

But not a guy using a sword AND being a Warlock?

Edit: Also, thanks for insulting us all! Really appreciate that touch.

[Jormengand]

Yeah that's right. You should just go ahead and break verisimilitude and ignore any sort of existing fluff just because you're you.

Obviously, neither the player nor the DM thinks that verisimilitude is broken. And refluffing... well, yes, that is what is being discussed here.

Seriously, is it just the current crop of gamers who've grown up
on mmo's or something

I for one grew up on Neverwinter Nights.

that makes people think it's ok to just ignore consistent world building and internal game world logic?

> D&D 5e
> Consistent world building and internal game world logic.

Pick one.

I don't think so cause we had mmos when I played 3e, but it just seems endemic, at least to some people on this board.

I mean maybe because it's the overtly correct thing to do?

[scalyfreak]

Yeah that's right. You should just go ahead and break verisimilitude and ignore any sort of existing fluff just because you're you.

Yes, you should.

If everyone else around the table, including the DM, is okay with it, you can do whatever you want. The forum can and will make suggestions, but ultimately, it's up to you and your DM to work out a good solution that will work for your table. We're here to give you advice, not approval.

[Mikal]

So wait-a guy using a sword breaks your entire verisimilitude? Just to be clear, you're okay with dragons, wizards, liches, beholders, illithids, floating islands, the entire underdark ecology...

But not a guy using a sword AND being a Warlock?

Edit: Also, thanks for insulting us all! Really appreciate that touch.

Reading comprehension is a bit beyond you isn't it?

Cause if it wasn't you'd know it isn't a warlock using a sword. There are plenty of options for a warlock to use a sword which already exist. It's a player not wanting to pay the mechanical price for using a sword and instead refluffing something they can use instead.

But feel free to refluff what I said above into something else since you've already done it twice so far.

Edit: I'd say the only insult done so far was by you and your lack of cognitive understanding of the basic concepts I was saying or worse, the purposeful strawmanning of it.

[JNAProductions]

> D&D 5e
> Consistent world building and internal game world logic

Okay, name an edition of D&D that actually has consistent world building and internal game world logic.

Go on, I'm waiting. :P

Reading comprehension is a bit beyond you isn't it?

Cause if it wasn't you'd know it isn't a warlock using a sword. There are plenty of options for a warlock to use a sword which already exist. It's a player not wanting to pay the mechanical price for using a sword and instead refluffing something they can use instead.

But feel free to refluff what I said above into something else since you've already done it twice so far.

Alright, allow to rephrase-a BASE warlock using a sword.

Hell, you can ever explain why it does less damage than an equivalent weapon wielded by a fighter-the warlock has less training and experience with the blade, so despite it being the same make as the fighter's weapon, they hit less vital areas and cause less harm. Mechanically? Warlock gets 1d6 (Versatile 1d8), while Fighter gets 1d8 (Versatile 1d10).

[Jormengand]

Okay, name an edition of D&D that actually has consistent world building and internal game world logic.

Go on, I'm waiting. :P

I mean I didn't say any of the other editions did, but I can't be certain because I haven't played half of them.

[Kane0]

How to make a weapon:

Start with 1d10 and a damage type of choice
Add positive traits, at least one. For each positive trait (simple, thrown, finesse, etc) reduce the die size by one step
Add negative traits. Each negative trait (heavy, two handed) increase your damage die one step.
One handed weapons are capped at 1d8 damage, simple weapons 1d10 damage

You can use this to recreate 90% of PHB weapons.

If you are more restricted than that, take a weapon from the PHB (eg club, mace, spear) and change only the damage type. Weapon damage type changes pretty much nothing, it has about as much mechanical impact as your alignment.

Alternatively alternatively, handaxes and sickles are simple slashing weapons so you can just use them, they're both blades already so just change the shape! Call it a kukri or khopesh or something not in the book already if your DM gets uppity.