# What, exactly, is a 5e "scimitar"?



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

What, exactly, is a 5e "scimitar"?

Because the word "scimitar" means the same thing as a "sword", there are many different kinds of scimitars.

Where European swords tended to be double-edged and straight, some Central Asian swords were single-edged and curved. Horse riders introduced their to elsewhere outside of Central Asia. Eventually, Europeans came to use the term "scimitar" for any kind of curved blade. There are many different kinds. But medieval Europeans mainly encountered only one kind of scimitar, the one used by the Turkic or Mongel horse riders from Central Asia.

What kind of "scimitar" the 5e Weapons Table is statting is less clear. Its d6 damage, and finesse and light properties, suggest a small weapon, like a shortsword, about the bladelength of ones forearm.

However.

In a medievalesque context, from the 1200s onward, the term "scimitar" especially refers to the long sabers that the cavalries of Mongols or Turkics used. But this is a kind of longsword, and not at all what the 5e Weapons Table is describing.

For bladelengths, I find the Japanese unit of measurement most useful and most convenient (coincidentally about a foot or 30 cm).

• 1 foot or less = knife
• 1-2 feet (12-24 inches) = shortsword
• 2-3 feet (24-36 inches) = sword
• 3-4 feet (36-48 inches) = longsword
• 4 feet or more = crazy long

The scimitars that the Central Asian cavalries wield are between 30 inches and 40 inches. In other words, the "scimitar" is comparable to a "normal" knightly sword or else a longsword. The longer length helps reach from horseback.

But this sword-or-longsword isnt at all what the 5e Weapons Table is statting.

What is the Weapons Table statting?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 23, 2022)

It’s a light weapon that does 1d6 slashing. 

Beyond that, it’s whatever you want.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 23, 2022)

It's not what's in the Wikipedia article, for example? (That's what I had always assumed it was).

---

Does 5e specify lengths anywhere? (Was there a 2e book of weapons or something eons ago?).

---

Is the etymology on Wikipedia correct? Seems like in its usage with that pronunciation it doesn't mean sword in general (even though the Persian word it is descended from did).


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Is the etymology on Wikipedia correct? Seems like in its usage with that pronunciation it doesn't mean sword in general (even though the Persian word it is descended from did).



From the various Wikipedia articles.

The European term "scimitar" comes from the 1400s at the end of the Medieval Period. Compare Italian _scimitarra_. Etymologists assume the European term ultimately derives from the Persian term _shamshir_. But this Persian term also refers to a straight double-edged weapon.

The changes in meaning only happened when the Mongols via Central Asia migrated across other areas, including Persia and Europe during the 1200s.

The medieval "scimitar" is referring to the Central Asian cavalry weapon.

In the Modern Period, Europeans start to reuse the term to mean any kind of curved single-edged sword, in contrast to the European swords that tend to be straight double-edged.

But the main point is, for a "medievalesque" D&D setting, there is really only one kind of "scimitar": the cavalry saber.

But the 5e Weapons Table − I have no clue what it has in mind.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> It’s a light weapon that does 1d6 slashing.
> 
> Beyond that, it’s whatever you want.



LOL.

Pretend that there exists D&D players who care about narrative and flavor.


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 23, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> It’s a light weapon that does 1d6 slashing.
> 
> Beyond that, it’s whatever you want.



This is correct.

The entries in the weapon table are not real weapons. They are shorthand for game statistics and mechanics. The names are just flavour text.

Trying to match them to real world weapons just leads to a mass of conflicts and inconsistencies.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 23, 2022)

They're swords that druids can use


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 23, 2022)

Gradine said:


> They're swords that druids can use



Exactly! This person gets it.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 23, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> LOL.
> 
> Pretend that there exists D&D players who care about narrative and flavor.



That’s my point. Add whatever narrative and flavor you want.

I imagine my scimitars to look like sabers, but with more curve. And maybe a little shorter and broader near the hilt.


----------



## Hriston (Sep 23, 2022)

I use it for any one-handed single-edged sword, such as a falchion or a seax.


----------



## aco175 (Sep 23, 2022)

Used to love this artifact.





The end all of discussion.


  or


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 23, 2022)

Hriston said:


> I use it for any one-handed single-edged sword, such as a falchion or a seax.



I do think of the seax as more of a stabbing weapon, but then again I don’t care much about historical accuracy. (But I will die on the hill of metallurgical accuracy…)


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

For a nonmagical weapons table to be meaningful, I prefer to have a reallife analogue in mind, better yet a historical one. But there seems to be none for the "scimitar" the 5e Weapons Table describes.



Compare the "falchion". Most falchions come from the Renaissance Period. The artwork from illuminated manuscripts can sometimes be highly stylistic thus the shapes and lengths of the blades might not exist in reallife. That said, here are some examples of weapons called "falchions" in Renaissance artwork from the latter 1400s. (The image is unsourced but is in a credible context in a forum discussion.)






Three of the six appear to be normal sabers. One looks like a stylized saber. One looks like it might be a reuse of a damaged saber. The one at the right seems realistic and its blade looks unusually broad.



"Falchions" are rare during the Medieval Period. But a few survive, such as the Thorpe falchion found in England and dating to the 1300s.

View attachment Thorpe Falchion 1300s England.webp

This medieval falchion might only weigh about 2 pounds, but corrosion causes uncertainty.

Even so, its bladelength is roughly 32 inches, thus compares to a "normal" viking/knightly "sword". Importantly, the blade is designed to be heavier near the tip in order to "chop" like axe.

For the same reason that no D&D axes have the "finesse" property (namely, to easily wield by small precise hand motions), this reallife falchion seems to lack the finesse property.  It also seems to lack the "light" property (namely, to be normally used in the offhand as a second weapon). The 5e "scimitar" disresembles this reallife blade.



Elmslie has the following typology for medieval single-edged curved swords. He calls these swords a "messer", the German word for a "knife". They start off like meat cleavers for chopping but soon look more like Mongol and Turkic cavalry sabers.





All of these messer/falchion blades have a length from 24 to 33 inches. They are the lengths of normal swords. All of them are for wide arcs of arm swings. None are for agile "finesse" movements. None seem suitable for the offhand.

In sum, I am not finding any reallife examples that compare to the 5e version of a "scimitar".


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

Compare the khukuri. It seems to match the description of a curved single-edged shortsword for slashing, with light and finesse properties.

The weapon relates to the nation of Nepal along the Himalayan mountain range. English sometimes refers to it as the kukri.






Note the use of the khukuri as an offhand weapon. In the mainhand, is a modern talwar sword, which earlier is long like a saber, but the modern version could be short like a cutlass.





The khukuri is a medieval weapon apparently in use since the 600s.

The khukuri seems to match the 5e stats: martial weapon, 1d6 slash, light, and (maybe?) finesse.

But I would never call the khukuri a "scimitar".


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

One can call the modern "cutlass" a "scimitar", in the sense of single-edge blade curving (backward).

The cutlass evolves from the renaissance falchion. It is a favorite "pirate" weapon, because it is a utilitarian tool that can cut thru rope and such, while also being an effective sword for fighting in cramp ship spaces. The cutlass seems agile, thus benefit from the "finesse" property.

Also, fighting with two cutlasses is a thing.

Note, the cutlass bladelength is about 24 inches, which is the upper cusp of a shortsword. At least some versions of cutlasses are agile and effective in the offhand.

I think the best way to characterize the 5e "scimitar" is a modern pirate sword. Namely the cutlass.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 23, 2022)

A D&D scimitar is a light sabre, thin falchion, thin cutlass, or any other scurved light blade.

It's the support the dual wielding dervish or pirate fantasy,


----------



## bedir than (Sep 23, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The khukuri seems to match the 5e stats: martial weapon, 1d6 slash, light, and (maybe?) finesse.
> 
> But I would never call the khukuri a "scimitar".



Also, because their cutting edge is on opposite sides of the blade


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> A D&D scimitar is a light sabre, thin falchion, thin cutlass, or any other scurved light blade.
> 
> It's the support the dual wielding dervish or pirate fantasy,



Yeah, even tho the "pirates of the Caribbean" are modern from the 1600s onward, they have found their way into D&D fantasy well enough.

Despite being modern, the "cutlass" is a reallife weapon that can match the 5e Weapons Table stats.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Sep 23, 2022)

There are plenty of 16th-17th century Ottoman weapons which could plausibly do. See the sword of Shah Abbas I (middle panel, far right).




Same swords but from a different angle; one-handed swords with straight edges on the far right should give a good sense of the size of the central scimitars:


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 23, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Yeah, even tho the "pirates of the Caribbean" are modern from the 1600s onward, they have found their way into D&D fantasy well enough.
> 
> Despite being modern, the "cutlass" is a reallife weapon that can match the 5e Weapons Table stats.



D&DD uses bizarro arms and armor and infected all fantasy since.

Any nonfirearm weapon or armor from 0BC to 1700AD is a "Standard Fantasy" weapon or armor.  Legioaires vs Ninjas vs Knights vs Pirates vs Kung Fu Monks.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> D&DD uses bizarro arms andarmor and infectted all fantasy since.
> 
> Any nonfirearm weapon or armor from 0BC to 1700AD is a "Standard Fantasy" weapon or armor.  Legioaires vs Ninjas vs Knights vs Pirates vs Kung Fu Monks.



Heh. My first concern is "what the hell is this"?!

My second concern is what weapons are appropriate for a specific setting − whether a world setting or a local setting.



@Sepulchrave II

Yeah, for me, the phrase "Ottoman Period" is identical to the "Modern Period", in the same sense that the Renaissance Period is modern.

These smaller agile curved swords are untypical, or dont exist at all, during the Medieval Period. But once one gets into the Modern Period like a full suit of plate armor in the 1500s or a pirate ship in the 1600s, then these agile curved sword fit well enough in the setting.

The rapier (actually a very thin longsword) is similarly modern.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Sep 23, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> @Sepulchrave II
> 
> Yeah, for me, the phrase "Ottoman Period" is identical to the "Modern Period", in the same sense that the Renaissance Period is modern.
> 
> These smaller agile curved swords are untypical, or dont exist at all, during the Medieval Period. But once one gets into the Modern Period like a full suit of plate armor in the 1500s or a pirate ship in the 1600s, then these agile curved sword fit well enough in the setting.



Fair enough, although if you're trying to find a non-anachronistic equivalent, you might be hard-pressed.

Form follows function, as they say, and there's a reason the shamshir, paramerion etc. are 3-4 feet long, as they're designed to be used with a downward slashing motion from horseback.

If you can find a function for a 2-3 foot medieval light curved slashing sword, then you'll be able to find a form. Otherwise, I'm afraid it's just a D&Dism.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 23, 2022)

This is why I use this table.

Weapon traits&damage is 1st to be picked. It's important for game math.

then you flavor your weapon to whatever real life or fantasy can be closest to your design of character.


*Weapon traits**Simple weapon damage**example**Martial weapon damage**example*1Handed, Versatiled8(d10)maced10(d12)longsword1Handed, Thrownd6javelind8trident1Handed, finessed6long knifed8rapier1Handed, lightd6clubd8arming sword1Handed, reach, Versatiled6 (d8)speard8(d10)partisan1Handed, finesse, lightd4daggerd6shorsword1Handed, finesse, reachd4whipd6dagger whip1Handed, finesse, thrownd4dartd6throwing hammer1Handed, light, thrownd4pillumd6throwing axe1Handed, finesse, light, thrownd3throwing knifed4chakram2Handed, heavy2d6warmace2d8greatsword2Handedd12greatclub2d6claymore2Handed, heavy, reachd12pike2d6pole-ax2Handed, reachd10longspeard12glaive2Handed, finessed10bo staffd12elven courtblade2Handed, finesse, reachd8elven speard10spiked chain


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 23, 2022)

It’s a curved sword that’s light enough to dual-world. Beyond that, the description is pretty much up to the player or DM.


----------



## Peter BOSCO'S (Sep 23, 2022)

They're weapons that almost never get used because they cost 25 GP and the functionally identical, except pierceing, Shortsword is only 10GP.  Few L1 characters are rich enough to want to pay the extra 15 GP, and few higher level characters every bother to switch.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> Fair enough, although if you're trying to find a non-anachronistic equivalent, you might be hard-pressed. ... Otherwise, I'm afraid it's just a D&Dism.



Heh. Now I can only imagine a "Druid" wielding a cutlass. Aarrgh, matey.



Here is a list of modern weapons and armor. For me, the 1500s onward is modern. But the 1400s can be either medieval or modern, depending on where one is.

MODERN ARMOR
*Plate*: 1500s, but breastplate over chain is 1300s

MODERN WEAPON
*Longsword*: mainly 1400s, but odd ones 1100s
*Greatsword* (Zweihänder): 1500s
*Rapier*: 1500s-1600s
*Scimitar* (Cutlass): 1600s-1800s, but odd ones 1500s
*Pike* (12-25 feet): 1400s-1500s, but ancient ones
*Glaive*: 1400s-1600s, but Japan naginata 1100s on


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 23, 2022)

Its a thin curved single edge blade of persian design used by swashbucklers, and desert rogue-princes, that druids can sub for a sickle.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 23, 2022)

Peter BOSCO'S said:


> They're weapons that almost never get used because they cost 25 GP and the functionally identical, except pierceing, Shortsword is only 10GP.  Few L1 characters are rich enough to want to pay the extra 15 GP, and few higher level characters every bother to switch.



5e simplified weapons too much. Even Grognards think it's too simple.

The 4e scimitar was a longsword that was High Crit instead of Versatile.
The 3e scimitar was a shortsword that crit on and 18 or better.

One D&D should bring back keen or high crit and give it to scimatar. Or bring back Scimitar Dance that deals DEX mod damage on a miss


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 23, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> For a nonmagical weapons table to be meaningful, I prefer to have a reallife analogue in mind, better yet a historical one. But there seems to be none for the "scimitar" the 5e Weapons Table describes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Huh... To me, the 3rd and 4th ones from the left seem to be demonstrating cutting actions.  Piercing in the 3rd and slashing in the fourth. The lines representing the cut.


----------



## Hriston (Sep 23, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I do think of the seax as more of a stabbing weapon, but then again I don’t care much about historical accuracy. (But I will die on the hill of metallurgical accuracy…)



If it wasn’t obvious from my use of the word _sword_, I was thinking more of a long seax rather than a scramseax, which I believe would fall into the dagger category in D&D.


----------



## John R Davis (Sep 23, 2022)

2 of the 4 players in my 1st AD&D are proficient with them and use them regularly.
I think they look kinda cool.
Not sure I recall anyone in the 5th ed group I'm in using one?
In our PF game 4 out of 5 pcs use them. They are a crit seekers dream


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Sep 23, 2022)

If I give a look at the source of all my D&D knowledge (BG 1-2) it is the same thing as a ninjato/wakisashi 

I would remove the scimitar and put in the box as the short sword (given that there's no real need to have different damage type in 5e) and put it another weapon, like the chakram with 1d6 S, finesse, thrown, light.

Or just write curved blade so it encompass most of those like the shamshir, kukri, falcata, scimitars etc


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> What, exactly, is a 5e "scimitar"?




It is a weapon that does 1d6 slashing damage, that has the light and finesse properties.  That is _exactly_ what it is.

Anything else we ascribe to it is _inexact_. 



Yaarel said:


> What kind of "scimitar" the 5e Weapons Table is statting is less clear.




What kind of _any_ weapon the 5e weapons table is presenting is unclear.  That's a feature, not a bug.  The tables are the abstract game-balanced elements.  The flavor elements don't need to be officially listed. The game is not historical, and does not need to adhere to a set of weapon stats adhering to some particular historical weapon.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 23, 2022)

Two completely different things that appeal to me:

1. On one end of the spectrum, I really like how Dungeon World does weapons: your damage die is based on your class, and you describe whatever you want. 

2. At the other extreme, I love how Conan, in the original stories, masters a wide range of weapons from all over the world. And he has to, because he is constantly losing/breaking/discarding weapons. 

Not that this would fit D&D, but I would enjoy a system with two features: 

You track proficiency in different weapons, with different types being connected on a chart. So if some kind of exotic sword is two steps removed from long sword, and you are expert in long sword, you use the new weapon at long sword -2. 

Second, weapons have both a quality and condition rating. It’s condition determines penalties/bonuses, you can never improve its condition above its quality, and as condition drops too low it can reduce quality or break completely. 

The result I’m looking for is that instead of keeping that +1 weapon for multiple levels, until you find a +2 weapon, you frequently find upgrades, but those upgrades don’t last. 




Or Dungeon World.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 23, 2022)

It's a curved sword. If you're putting it in a Near Eastern-inspired setting, it's a scimitar. If you're putting it in a pirate-inspired setting, it's a cutlass. If you're putting it in a Skyrim-inspired setting, it's what those guards from Hammerfell used to use before they took an arrow to the knee.

Too much granularity makes the game difficult to follow; if we tried to list every weapon people used across the world from the Bronze Age through the Renaissance we'd have a table 10 pages long. The last time someone tried to do this was in 1e, with polearms, and the resultant profusion of bill-guisarmes, fauchard forks, and bec de corbins was a geek in-joke for the next 20 years.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 23, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> It’s a curved sword that’s light enough to dual-*world*. Beyond that, the description is pretty much up to the player or DM.



I know this was a typo, but I love it! The sword can be a cutlass or a scimitar depending on what world you're in.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 23, 2022)

How good was the Palladium Compendium of Weapons, Armor, and Castles in terms of accuracy on stuff like this?


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> It’s a curved sword that’s light enough to dual-world. Beyond that, the description is pretty much up to the player or DM.





Blue Orange said:


> I know this was a typo, but I love it! The sword can be a cutlass or a scimitar depending on what world you're in.




The longsword is mainly 1400s, while slightly earlier and slightly later.

But there are precocious examples of it from the 1100s on. These medieval specimens are normal swords, but experimentally made longer to suit the preference of certain individuals.

In other words, these are "long swords", but not yet "longswords".



Similarly, there might medieval "falchions" that are precocious examples of cutlasses, that happen to be small and thin to suit the preference of certain individuals. These might even be gracile enough to function as an offhand weapon, even if they were never used this way. Even among the later modern cutlasses, only the smaller thinner ones would be useful as an offhand weapon.

So the flavor of a 5e "scimitar" can be medieval weirdness. Where the viewers perceive it as falchion but notice its wielder has a strange version of it.



My impression is, in Europe, two-weapon fighting is modern, and evolving from Renaissance streetfighting. As far as I know, there are no medieval mentions of it. But the modern styles show it is possible to use medieval weapons for two-weapon styles.

Note, it is possible to fight with two rapiers, two katana, two viking-knightly swords. These are not normally offhand weapons. They are agile ("finesse") but not offhand ("light"). Those individuals who use two of them are remarkable, and it is more like a D&D feat than a weapon property.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> Huh... To me, the 3rd and 4th ones from the left seem to be demonstrating cutting actions.  Piercing in the 3rd and slashing in the fourth. The lines representing the cut.



The illustrations come from the decorations in illuminated manuscripts. Some illuminations make a point to portray something realistically, while others are strictly decorative and distort stylistically.

The lines interrupting two of the images of falchions, are probably to signify where something else in the drawing is eclipsing the full view of the falchion.



Heh, note how the infamously wrong D&D "ring mail", derives from completely misunderstanding a stylistic representation of chain armor.


----------



## pukunui (Sep 23, 2022)

5e goblins use scimitars.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

pukunui said:


> 5e goblins use scimitars.









I wouldnt call these "scimitars" because the edge isnt curving backward.

But they do look like some of the early weapons that later evolved into falchions. These were moreorless meat cleavers.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 23, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> It's a curved sword. If you're putting it in a Near Eastern-inspired setting, it's a scimitar. If you're putting it in a pirate-inspired setting, it's a cutlass. If you're putting it in a Skyrim-inspired setting, it's what those guards from Hammerfell used to use before they took an arrow to the knee.
> 
> Too much granularity makes the game difficult to follow; if we tried to list every weapon people used across the world from the Bronze Age through the Renaissance we'd have a table 10 pages long. The last time someone tried to do this was in 1e, with polearms, and the resultant profusion of bill-guisarmes, fauchard forks, and bec de corbins was a geek in-joke for the next 20 years.



And if you weld two of them together you have a Warglauve of Azzinoth!


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

Of course.

The wakizashi is clearly a:
• martial
• single-edge curving backward
• 1d6
• slashing
• finesse (agile)
• light (offhand)
• shortsword (bladelength between 1 to 2 feet)

They are contemporary with modern weapons from 1400s on.

Compare the "daisho" katana-and-wakizashi combination that eventually only samurai aristocracy were permitted to wear together. The wakizashi is an excellent example of the 5e (short) "scimitar".


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 23, 2022)

Just to confuse things a bit more, consider the backsword:  A sword with one edge, with a handguard a bit like a sabre, but a _straight_ blade... 

I think @Umbran is right - there is far, far more variations in weapon possibilities and the 5e rules are not granular enough to distinguish them.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Sep 24, 2022)

If the stupidity that is "studded leather" is still hanging around then I'm not expecting any accuracy in weapons let me tell you,


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 24, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Of course.
> 
> The wakizashi is clearly a:
> • martial
> ...



While the samurai _wore_ daisho, it was extremely rare for them to _wield_ daisho. The two swords simply have two different functions, and most of the idea of a katana-in-one-hand and a wakizashi-in-the-other is assumed by people without a full picture of how they were used. It's more likely that a katana would be used one or two handed as a primary weapon and the wakizashi as a backup, or for close quarters fighting, or for other uses.

Two-weapon fighting just wasn't done that much in history anywhere. Because it's frankly hard to do, and most people lack the coordination to ever get very good at it no matter how hard they try.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 24, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I wouldnt call these "scimitars" because the edge isnt curving backward.
> 
> But they do look like some of the early weapons that later evolved into falchions. These were moreorless meat cleavers.



This illustration is from a 5e book, the same edition where the stat block for goblins has a scimitar attack listed. The fact that the weapons they’re depicted using look almost nothing like the real-life historical weapon that shares a name with the one goblins use in their stat block goes to show that D&D scimitars, like all D&D weapons, don’t represent a specific real-world historical weapon, but rather a very broad weapon concept. D&D “scimitars” are just light, curved-bladed weapons. Their specific description is otherwise malleable.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 24, 2022)

QuentinGeorge said:


> If the stupidity that is "studded leather" is still hanging around then I'm not expecting any accuracy in weapons let me tell you,



I just have to pretend it’s a brigandine


----------



## pukunui (Sep 24, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I wouldnt call these "scimitars" because the edge isnt curving backward.
> 
> But they do look like some of the early weapons that later evolved into falchions. These were moreorless meat cleavers.



They’re scimitars because the 5e goblin statblock says they are.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Sep 24, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I just have to pretend it’s a brigandine



I just wish they'd call it that. They didn't keep "Broadswords" or "bastard swords" not sure why they keep "studded leather".


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 24, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> While the samurai _wore_ daisho, it was extremely rare for them to _wield_ daisho. The two swords simply have two different functions, and most of the idea of a katana-in-one-hand and a wakizashi-in-the-other is assumed by people without a full picture of how they were used. It's more likely that a katana would be used one or two handed as a primary weapon and the wakizashi as a backup, or for close quarters fighting, or for other uses.
> 
> Two-weapon fighting just wasn't done that much in history anywhere. Because it's frankly hard to do, and most people lack the coordination to ever get very good at it no matter how hard they try.



A katana probably wouldn’t have been used as a primary weapon either in battlefield situations. In duels, sure, but on the battlefield you’d probably want a polearm like a naginata, with a katana as backup. The wakizashi then was the backup to the backup, and perhaps used in grappling situations.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 24, 2022)

QuentinGeorge said:


> I just wish they'd call it that. They didn't keep "Broadswords" or "bastard swords" not sure why they keep "studded leather".



Because the iconic images of the fantasy rogue and ranger wear leather clothing (not even _cuir bouilli_) and they need something to upgrade their “leather armor” to that fits that depiction.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 24, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I just have to pretend it’s a brigandine




Oh, I don't!  I imagine it's exactly what it sounds like: leather armor with metal studs embedded in it.  It's effective as armor because the tears and wails of historical accuracy nerds, in aggregate, are sufficient to bend space time and deflect weapons.  Just enough to get that +1.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Sep 24, 2022)

Why stop with studded leather, we need studded chain. Studded plate. Studded studded armor. Think of the possibilities!


----------



## Peter BOSCO'S (Sep 24, 2022)

QuentinGeorge said:


> I just wish they'd call it that. They didn't keep "Broadswords" or "bastard swords" not sure why they keep "studded leather".



So Druids could wear it.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 24, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Because the iconic images of the fantasy rogue and ranger wear leather clothing (not even _cuir bouilli_) and they need something to upgrade their “leather armor” to that fits that depiction.



It's like a 70's biker jacket with 'bling'.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Sep 24, 2022)

Peter BOSCO'S said:


> So Druids could wear it.



Druids can't wear metal armor, unless the metal is really small studs put on leather....?


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 24, 2022)

QuentinGeorge said:


> Druids can't wear metal armor, unless the metal is really small studs put on leather....?



The studs could be bone, I guess


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 24, 2022)

QuentinGeorge said:


> Druids can't wear metal armor, unless the metal is really small studs put on leather....?



In a game where a "druid" is a shapeshifting naturist who is allergic to metal for some reason, any concerns about historical accuracy seem terribly misplaced.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 24, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Oh, I don't!  I imagine it's exactly what it sounds like: leather armor with metal studs embedded in it.  It's effective as armor because the tears and wails of historical accuracy nerds, in aggregate, are sufficient to bend space time and deflect weapons.  Just enough to get that +1.



I just picture Studded Leather as bedazzled leather that is so shiny it distracts the attacker, thus granting the additional +1 AC


----------



## Composer99 (Sep 24, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I just picture Studded Leather as bedazzled leather that is so shiny it distracts the attacker, thus granting the addition +1 AC



Leather with flair you might say. Or...


----------



## niklinna (Sep 24, 2022)

QuentinGeorge said:


> Druids can't wear metal armor, unless the metal is really small studs put on leather....?



Druids _can_ wear metal armor! They just _won't_.

Edit: How the heck did that happen?!


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 24, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Druids _can_ wear leather armor! They just _won't_.



Druids aren't vegan necessarily; predators are part of nature.


----------



## niklinna (Sep 24, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> Druids aren't vegan necessarily; predators are part of nature.



Eep! Talk about a serious mistake. That's what I get for being sleep-deprived.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Sep 25, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Druids _can_ wear metal armor! They just _won't_.
> 
> Edit: How the heck did that happen?!



They will if the metal is only small studs apparently. We can calculate the exact metal percent that renders the armour a no go


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Sep 25, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I just have to pretend it’s a brigandine



No! Brigandine most definitely is no light armour. In D&D brigandine probably should just use same rules as scale armour. (They're very similar anyway. Smallish pieces of metal attached together.)

Studded leather could be just renamed "reinforced leather" or something like that. Leather with some pieces of metal or cuir-bouilli attached to here and there. Not that there really needs to be any other types of light armour than 12+dex, the price difference between the worse and the better type is so small that you can upgrade pretty soon, so "crappy starter version" doesn't seem particularly necessary.

As for scimitars, I just removed them and gave both short and longswords piercing/slashing damage type (user's choice.) They can be used to represent various swords of different blade shapes and of course most swords could be used to either slash or stab. Not that it almost ever matters in D&D.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 25, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Eep! Talk about a serious mistake. That's what I get for being sleep-deprived.



Weeelll...it kind of fits our idea of the pacifist hippie, right? A lot of it (as I think Snarf Zagyg said elsewhere) was tied up in the 60s and 70s environmentalist movements, and even now a lot of environmentalists support veganism because it generates less carbon dioxide (it's inefficient to grow all that grain to feed the animal you then kill, plus the animals generate CO2 when they breathe and die, and methane when they fart--sounds dumb but it is apparently a serious issue). The avoidance of metal kind of fits with that--it's part of the whole 'artificial is bad' idea you see even now with those 'natural flavors'.

But I always took the D&D world to have an essentially premodern mindset--nature is red in tooth and claw. Druids live among and change into animals, and animals include predators. Most organisms have adaptations to avoid being eaten, or to eat other things themselves. 

I'd argue the druid is basically taking the place of the shaman as 'spellcaster for tribal, non-urbanized peoples', which is probably why you never saw shamans really take off as a class even before the current concerns about cultural appropriation. ('Spiritualist' might be a better word, though I think it still conjures up images of 19th-century spirit mediums...who might _also_ be an interesting character concept, but a very different one.)


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 25, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> No! Brigandine most definitely is no light armour. In D&D brigandine probably should just use same rules as scale armour. (They're very similar anyway. Smallish pieces of metal attached together.)



I conceptualize “studded leather” as brigandine because that’s almost certainly the actual armor that was visually mistaken for being some sort of studded jack, the “studs” being the rivets holding the plates to the garment. The armor weight categories have never really made a ton of sense anyway, any armor when worn properly has fairly well-distributed weight (though mail probably least so), so the real issues are flexibility and heat.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Studded leather could be just renamed "reinforced leather" or something like that. Leather with some pieces of metal or cuir-bouilli attached to here and there.



Leather armor should already be _cuir-bouilli_ since leather that isn’t reinforced isn’t even really armor; it’s just clothing.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Not that there really needs to be any other types of light armour than 12+dex, the price difference between the worse and the better type is so small that you can upgrade pretty soon, so "crappy starter version" doesn't seem particularly necessary.



You could honestly just rename the whole armor table. Have light armor be gambesons - padded, quilted, and “reinforced” (with mail voiders). Medium armor could be chest pieces - _cuir bouilli_, scale, mail hauberk, brigandine, and plate cuirass. Then heavy armor could be full suits - lamellar, mail, half plate, and full plate.


Crimson Longinus said:


> As for scimitars, I just removed them and gave both short and longswords piercing/slashing damage type (user's choice.) They can be used to represent various swords of different blade shapes and of course most swords could be used to either slash or stab. Not that it almost ever matters in D&D.



Yeah, seems like a good call.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 25, 2022)

I think it was supposed to be Studly Armor but a clueless TSR editor changed it and the rest is history.


----------



## Azzy (Sep 25, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I just have to pretend it’s a brigandine



From the description in the 1e DMG, that seems to be what it was supposed to be.


----------



## Azzy (Sep 25, 2022)

Yet we still have splint armor, yet the dropped banded (laminar) armor. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 25, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I just have to pretend it’s a brigandine



Brigandine is a fairly heavy and sturdy type of armor.  Instead, I use jack of plate:









						Jack of plate - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 25, 2022)

Azzy said:


> Yet we still have splint armor, yet the dropped banded (laminar) armor. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Splint should be brigandine IMO.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 25, 2022)

Ancalagon said:


> Brigandine is a fairly heavy and sturdy type of armor.  Instead, I use jack of plate:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jack of plate and brigandine are very nearly the same design. A jack is perhaps a bit less sturdy and a bit more flexible, but fundamentally they’re both textile garments with small overlapping metal plates lining the inside. The fact that the plates are riveted on instead of sewn on in the case of brigandine is what makes it resemble “studded leather.”


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Sep 25, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Jack of plate and brigandine are very nearly the same design. A jack is perhaps a bit less sturdy and a bit more flexible, but fundamentally they’re both textile garments with small overlapping metal plates lining the inside. The fact that the plates are riveted on instead of sewn on in the case of brigandine is what makes it resemble “studded leather.”



Yes. But the fact that it actually is _a coat of metal plates_, definitely makes it _not_ a light armour!


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 25, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yes. But the fact that it actually is _a coat of metal plates_, definitely makes it _not_ a light armour!



Again, weight is kind of a silly way to categorize armor to begin with. Whether it’s “light” or not, it is exactly the armor a medieval archer or light infantryman would most likely have been equipped with.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Sep 25, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Again, weight is kind of a silly way to categorize armor to begin with. Whether it’s “light” or not, it is exactly the armor a medieval archer or light infantryman would most likely have been equipped with.



And why would it be less protective than a mail shirt or a scale armour? 

Studded leather is placed near the bottom of the armour chart, because it is meant to be mainly made of leather. Its rules are not suitable to represent brigandine at all. Brigandine is basically the same thing than scale, the shape and attachment method of the small metal plates just is a bit different.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 25, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> And why would it be less protective than a mail shirt or a scale armour?



Realistically it wouldn’t, but D&D armors have never made a lick of sense. Which is why I proposed renaming the whole armor table.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Studded leather is placed near the bottom of the armour chart, because it is meant to be mainly made of leather. Its rules are not suitable to represent brigandine at all.



None of the armors are suitable for representing the things they’re named for, and several of them are named for things that neither existed historically nor would function as armor if they did exist as described.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Brigandine is basically the same thing than scale, the shape and attachment method of the small metal plates just is a bit different.



Kinda; frankly it’s much more effective armor than scale.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Sep 25, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Realistically it wouldn’t, but D&D armors have never made a lick of sense.



Yes, but putting brigandine as 12+dex light armour would make it_ even more _nonsensical. 



Charlaquin said:


> Which is why I proposed renaming the whole armor table.



Sure. I'm all for that. But then one should actually try to improve it.



Charlaquin said:


> None of the armors are suitable for representing the things they’re named for, and several of them are named for things that neither existed historically nor would function as armor if they did exist as described.



Sure, kinda. 



Charlaquin said:


> Kinda; frankly it’s much more effective armor than scale.



Yes, it is basically a higher tech-level version of the same concept. Thus it makes zero sense to make it _worse _than scale!


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yes, but putting brigandine as 12+dex light armour would make it_ even more _nonsensical.



I think having a cool studded leather jacket give you 12+dex AC makes a lot less sense.


Crimson Longinus said:


> try to improve it.



I did, if you saw my suggestion.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Yes, it is basically a higher tech-level version of the same concept. Thus it makes zero sense to make it _worse _than scale!



Well, I’d argue 12+Dex AC is actually better than 14+Dex (max +2) AC with disadvantage on Stealth.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 26, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Well, I’d argue 12+Dex AC is actually better than 14+Dex (max +2) AC with disadvantage on Stealth.



I agree. Having a higher base AC doesn't necessarily make the armour "better". Also - lighter armour implies advancements in armour 'technologies' - there's a reason all modern armour are lighter than traditional ones - advancement in materials and designs.

If Brigandine is like Scale but yet more advanced, it _could_ be modeled in D&D mechanics (mechanics that are often far less than ideal when it comes to realism or historical accuracy) by being lighter. 

Obviously reworking the armour list to an entirely different set of names would probably be "better" (from a historical perspective, at least. Some people care more about D&D 'tradition' than historical accuracy.)


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 26, 2022)

As an owner of a proper gambeson, I can assure you it's much more than +1 AC... perhaps that should be the studded leather.  Have the 11 AC, disadvantage with stealth be "improvised" armor?


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2022)

Ancalagon said:


> As an owner of a proper gambeson, I can assure you it's much more than +1 AC...



What does that even mean?


Ancalagon said:


> perhaps that should be the studded leather.  Have the 11 AC, disadvantage with stealth be "improvised" armor?



Studded leather _isn’t armor._ Fashionable? maybe. Protective? No.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Sep 26, 2022)

Ancalagon said:


> As an owner of a proper gambeson, I can assure you it's much more than +1 AC... perhaps that should be the studded leather.  Have the 11 AC, disadvantage with stealth be "improvised" armor?



Yep. Gambeson was the actual widespread medieval light armour. I'd make that to be the 12+dex light armour.

My current setting is not medieval, so I don't actually use this, but this is my revised armour table for medieval settings:


*Armour*CostArmour Class (AC)StrengthStealthWeight_Light Armour_Leather10 gp11 + Dex modifier——10 lb.Gambeson35 gp12 + Dex modifier——15 lb._Medium Armour_Reinforced gambeson50 gp13 + Dex modifier (max 2)——20 lb.Mail shirt70 gp14 + Dex modifier (max 2)—Disadvantage30 lb.Brigandine300 gp14 + Dex modifier (max 2)——30 lb.Half plate850 gp15 + Dex modifier (max 2)—Disadvantage40 lb._Heavy Armour_Mail suit100 gp16Str 13Disadvantage55 lb.Splint400 gp17Str 15Disadvantage60 lb.Full plate1,500 gp18Str 15Disadvantage65 lb._Shield_Shield10 gp+2——6 lb.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Sep 26, 2022)

Cadence said:


> How good was the Palladium Compendium of Weapons, Armor, and Castles in terms of accuracy on stuff like this?



Someone recently mentioned it to me and included a reference to the ahistoric studded leather concept, so I think it's a good guess that the book is more fantasy-focused than historical accuracy. 2e AD&D Arms and Equipment guide is similar.


QuentinGeorge said:


> Druids can't wear metal armor, unless the metal is really small studs put on leather....?



Funnily, 5e armor entry for studded leather doesn't mention metal (_"Made from tough but flexible leather, studded leather is reinforced with close-set rivets or spikes."_). It's hard to imagine a non-metal rivet in the default fantasy materials list*, but not hard to imagine a non-metal spike. If it were a historic armor, I'd be strongly arguing something along the lines of 'you know what they mean,' but with an armor we just finished pointing out didn't really exist**, I don't know that I'm in a hurry to do so (plus, the whole druid/non-metal thing is pointless and bizarre at this point anyways). 
*obviously dragon-scales-as-material can do anything you want, or you can make one out of space-age material in such a campaign.
**to any large degree. Armor never meant for real combat has existed about as long as armor has.



QuentinGeorge said:


> I just wish they'd call it that. They didn't keep "Broadswords" or "bastard swords" not sure why they keep "studded leather".



I assume the 5e armor chart is part of the whole 'make 5e an A/D&D greatest hits edition' thing we've heard it was. Bring back the TSR-era armors (not that 3e or 4e didn't have most of these, but the iconic armors of 3e were chain shirt, breastplate, and plate -- 3 relatively realistic armor options -- while everthing else was an also-ran) and have the play loop resemble the old ones (the roguish characters stuck with leather or studded, the warrior-types wore ring or splint or scale until they could afford full or partial plate). I get the why, even if I'd have preferred it be different. 

Broad and bastard swords -- I think bastard sword was a casualty of finally getting the longsword concept right-ish*, and broad sword just was never popular enough (didn't help that it was objectively worse than a longsword in the editions that had it). Scimitars had druids and Drizzt keeping them notable until 3e came along and made them the crit-fishing sword. Shortswords saw enough representation on the magic item table to carry them to when they were a common finesse/two-weapon-fighting weapon. The rest? Just kinda faded.
*side benefit: not having a new generation of 8-10 y. o. new players running around using that word, although I have no idea if that was really part of the thinking. 



Ancalagon said:


> As an owner of a proper gambeson, I can assure you it's much more than +1 AC... perhaps that should be the studded leather.  Have the 11 AC, disadvantage with stealth be "improvised" armor?



This raises the side point -- most armor was about the same weight and bulk, and thus there weren't a whole lot of 'light' armors*. Gambeson (as a separate piece of armor), leather (when used), linothorax, hides, all of these would still be worn in large suits looking not-unlike the guys in plate harness or chain hauberks or whatever. Predominantly because why not? 
_Sure, there's some variation like maybe the archer or pikeman (or naval combatants) wouldn't bother with certain pieces, different helmets based on how much you value visibility, obviously entire regions of the world where bundling up in poorly-breathing suits was more or less challenging, what you wear on the road (or in non-war situations) vs a set battle with prep-time, and so on_, but in general there's a specific amount of mass that's easy to wear and people generally did.  

Most of the reasons to want 'light' armor at the same time you want armor at all are D&D-isms -- you want the dashing roguish types in fantasy stealth-armor or fantasy outlaw crook in medieval biker-gang leathers-analog or swashbuckler in... I guess light armor*. I think it would make perfect sense in a theoretical 6E for the light armors to be some kind of 'hidden armor' or 'reinforced clothing' (with the cheap/low-stealth one currently occupied by Padded being 'improvised armor' or the like). Or just get rid of light armor altogether and maybe make rogues and Dex-fighters and such just be somewhat better at fighting unarmored than wizards or paladins outside their plate would be (if we're trying to preserve existing dynamics at all). 
*The whole Three Muskeeteers vibe would work fine with no armor at all, since the entire conceit is this is what they did in a civilian setting. In war they would have muskets and the battlefield armor of the day, but in AD&D terms that means missing out on the +1-5 magic bonus on the armor as well.


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 26, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> What does that even mean?
> 
> Studded leather _isn’t armor._ Fashionable? maybe. Protective? No.



ah, when I try to be concise late at night - let me try again.

I have a gambeson (a reproduction).  by this I don't mean the "under armor padding", I mean the armor made of several layers (up to 30!) of cloth quilted together that was used as the primary means of defence.   What I was trying to say is that this type of armor provides preeety decent protection - and that increasing your AC by 1 (as in wearing the D&D armor "leather") does not appropriately represent how protective that armor is.

I then suggested that perhaps the "AC 12 armor with a dex bonus" should be represented by this, instead of as you say - something that never existed.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 26, 2022)

When I imagine warhammers I’m thinking Thor, not that wussy little tack driver that was used historically.  Something that in real life would weigh 40 lbs.  Yes, I know how improbable that is. I swing a 2.5 lb hammer blacksmithing. 

So, yeah, metal studs…preferably with sharp points…embedded in leather armor is not a stretch for me.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2022)

Ancalagon said:


> ah, when I try to be concise late at night - let me try again.
> 
> I have a gambeson (a reproduction).  by this I don't mean the "under armor padding", I mean the armor made of several layers (up to 30!) of cloth quilted together that was used as the primary means of defence.   What I was trying to say is that this type of armor provides preeety decent protection - and that increasing your AC by 1 (as in wearing the D&D armor "leather") does not appropriately represent how protective that armor is.



Sorry, I also was not clear. I know what a gambeson is, but by what standard are you assessing the appropriateness of +1 AC representing its protectiveness? Pretty sure wearing it doesn’t make a strike with a weapon 5% less likely to affect you in any way and otherwise do nothing. But increasing that percentage to 10, 15, 20, 30, 35, or 40 wouldn’t fix that. AC just does not simulate what armor does. It’s a highly abstract expression of protectiveness, so the idea that +1AC doesn’t accurately represent a gambeson, but some other AC bonus would is silly.


Ancalagon said:


> I then suggested that perhaps the "AC 12 armor with a dex bonus" should be represented by this, instead of as you say - something that never existed.



But it’s not just something that never existed, it’s something that would not function as armor.


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 26, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Sorry, I also was not clear. I know what a gambeson is, but by what standard are you assessing the appropriateness of +1 AC representing its protectiveness? Pretty sure wearing it doesn’t make a strike with a weapon 5% less likely to affect you in any way and otherwise do nothing. But increasing that percentage to 10, 15, 20, 30, 35, or 40 wouldn’t fix that. AC just does not simulate what armor does. It’s a highly abstract expression of protectiveness, so the idea that +1AC doesn’t accurately represent a gambeson, but some other AC bonus would is silly.
> 
> But it’s not just something that never existed, it’s something that would not function as armor.




First, let me state that I do agree with  you that studded leather as an armor never existed and wouldn't work.

I do agree that it's really hard to say "this armor should block X% of blows" and get said X% correctly.  AC, HP are very abstract, after all.   What I do find ... peculiar... is that a gambeson is the _least_ protective type of armor - and I think if we look at this this way , we can have a more productive exchange on the topic?   This is why I put it as better than leather armor, and replaced the "+1 AC armor with stealth penalties armor" with "improvised" - the kind of stuff someone might cobble together in a rush to give themselves _some_ kind of protection.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2022)

Ancalagon said:


> First, let me state that I do agree with  you that studded leather as an armor never existed and wouldn't work.
> 
> I do agree that it's really hard to say "this armor should block X% of blows" and get said X% correctly.  AC, HP are very abstract, after all.   What I do find ... peculiar... is that a gambeson is the _least_ protective type of armor - and I think if we look at this this way , we can have a more productive exchange on the topic?



I mean, a gambeson, while very protective indeed, pretty much is the least protective type of armor, at least in a medieval context. That’s the thing about armor, very protective is the absolute bare minimum. Anything less protective wouldn’t be armor.


Ancalagon said:


> This is why I put it as better than leather armor, and replaced the "+1 AC armor with stealth penalties armor" with "improvised" - the kind of stuff someone might cobble together in a rush to give themselves _some_ kind of protection.



I’d be open to the idea of taking the “crappy but cheap” type of armor in each category and making them sort of “improvised armor,” sure. So, what, you’d have 11+Dex (disadvantage) be “leather clothing”, 11+ Dex be “gambeson” and 12+Dex be “reinforced gambeson” or something?


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 26, 2022)

5e 's mechanical granularity is pretty... limited, so sometimes I think it's perhaps better to "reverse" the analysis - look at mechanical windows and then fill them in with weapons/armor that fits.

Like a 1d8 slashing finesse martial single handed melee weapon.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 27, 2022)

Ancalagon said:


> 5e 's mechanical granularity is pretty... limited, so sometimes I think it's perhaps better to "reverse" the analysis - look at mechanical windows and then fill them in with weapons/armor that fits.
> 
> Like a 1d8 slashing finesse martial single handed melee weapon.



Honestly sounds like what I'd imagine a "scimitar" to be, whereas the 5e "scimitar" sounds more like a "sabre" but these things are really subjective. Could be called a "kopesh" too.

Frankly, the more I think on it, the more I like @Horwath's weapon chart. "Pay" for the features. Name it whatever you like.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 27, 2022)

Ancalagon said:


> Like a 1d8 slashing finesse martial single handed melee weapon.



I strongly perceive the sword types within the framework of the Japanese bladelength unit, approximately a foot or 30 cm.

upto 1 foot: knife
1 to 2 feet: shortsword
2 to 3 feet: "normal" sword
3 to 4 feet: longsword
4 feet plus: greatsword

In this context, the "sword" in the sense of a viking sword, knightly sword, and arming sword, is:

*Sword*: martial weapon, 1d8 slash/pierce, finesse, heavy

It has the heavy property in the sense that only a medium size humanoid can wield it agilely to benefit from its finesse.

By contrast, I view the katana as:

*Katana*: martial weapon, 1d6 slash/pierce, finesse, versatile (1d10).


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 27, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> When I imagine warhammers I’m thinking Thor, not that wussy little tack driver that was used historically.  Something that in real life would weigh 40 lbs.  Yes, I know how improbable that is. I swing a 2.5 lb hammer blacksmithing.



You seem to be describing the 5e maul?

It weighs 10 pounds.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 27, 2022)

For me, I interpret the armor table as if:

Padded (gambeson or equivalent layering of fabrics)
Leather (boiled/cured hard leather torso armor, whether breastplate cuirass, or scale shirt)
Studded Leather Full Leather Suit (torso armor, armguards and legguards)

Similarly scale:

Scale (metal scale armor, whether brigandine cuirass, or scale shirt)
Splint (scale torso armor, plus splinted armguards and splinted legguards)


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 27, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> You seem to be describing the 5e maul?
> 
> It weighs 10 pounds.




No, I'm not describing a maul.  I'm describing an anvil on a stick.

EDIT: Making the point that sometimes I'd rather imagine something impractical/impossible but aesthetically cool (imo), than imagine something historically/functionally accurate.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 27, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> No, I'm not describing a maul.  I'm describing an anvil on a stick.
> 
> EDIT: Making the point that sometimes I'd rather imagine something impractical/impossible but aesthetically cool (imo), than imagine something historically/functionally accurate.



Yeah, that's a way of looking at it. I wouldn't go as far as "anime-swords" but I don't mind _some_ silliness. I once modded a heavily armoured mini to make a Warforged. I made a flail that looked a bit like the one the Witch-King had in LotR. Because why not? The character was a "robot"!

On the other hand, I LOATHE the "double"-weapons. Anyone remember the "double-axe"? Ridiculous! (No, I don't mean a double-bladed axe. I mean a stick with axe blades on both ends! It was in 3.x and 4e, IRRC. Sooooo stupid.)


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 27, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Yeah, that's a way of looking at it. I wouldn't go as far as "anime-swords" but I don't mind _some_ silliness. I once modded a heavily armoured mini to make a Warforged. I made a flail that looked a bit like the one the Witch-King had in LotR. Because why not? The character was a "robot"!
> 
> On the other hand, I LOATHE the "double"-weapons. Anyone remember the "double-axe"? Ridiculous! (No, I don't mean a double-bladed axe. I mean a stick with axe blades on both ends! It was in 3.x and 4e, IRRC. Sooooo stupid.)




Yeah I'm not a fan of the double weapons. But if somebody else wants one, and the stats are otherwise normal, I'm not going to try to spoil their fun.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 27, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> What, exactly, is a 5e "scimitar"?
> 
> Because the word "scimitar" means the same thing as a "sword", there are many different kinds of scimitars.
> 
> ...



I always thought D&D got it from the scimitars encountered during the crusades into the Middle East.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Sep 27, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> • 4 feet or more = crazy long



I'll just drop in to say
4 feet or more = Berserk long


----------



## Cadence (Sep 27, 2022)

Eyes of Nine said:


> I'll just drop in to say
> 4 feet or more = Berserk long
> 
> View attachment 262483




Could be bigger?


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I always thought D&D got it from the scimitars encountered during the crusades into the Middle East.



I think that is true, but even these medieval scimitars seem to emerge later from the 1200s on. Earlier, the Mideast was generally still using straight swords. My impression is, Saladin who captured Crusader Jerusalem in the latter 1100s, was wielding one of these long curved sabers. His family is Kurd, but they served a Turkic governor, and Saladin adopted the saber from this.

I suspect the D&D "finesse light" sabers has more to do with Drizzt the drow. Seriously. Albeit this tradition improperly assigns the two-weapon fighting to a weapon property. Drizzt was able to wield two weapons, because the Drow race in earlier editions is truly and fully ambidextrous. So it is a race trait, not a weapon property.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 27, 2022)

Hmmm. Armored wings. Armored feet.

I suppose her torso armor is made out of Avariel culture glassteel?



Cadence said:


> Could be bigger?


----------



## Cadence (Sep 27, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Hmmm. Armored wings. Armored feet.
> 
> I suppose her torso armor is made out of Avariel culture glassteel?




With angels (or sentient illusions), who can say.  It seemed like a really, really big sword though!


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 27, 2022)

I am unsure if this true for all 3e, but going by the 3e SRD, the weapons of interest here are as follows:

SIMPLE WEAPONS
Sickle 1d6 slashing: light

MARTIAL WEAPONS
Kukri (= Khukuri) 1d4 piercing: light
Short Sword 1d6 piercing: light
Longsword 1d8 slashing
Rapier 1d6 piercing
Scimitar 1d6 slashing
Falchion 2d4 slashing: two-handed
Greatsword 2d6 slashing
Bastard Sword 1d10 slashing: (one-handed!)



Heh, the 3e Weapons Table is more of a mess than 5e is, and occasionally incorrect. But is here for comparison. Note how rapier deals 1d6 damage, which seems more accurate. But twohand falchion and onehand bastard sword are possible, but less characteristic of these weapons generally. Falchion and scimitar appear redundant, or perhaps even reversed, where the falchion is properly the onehand weapon.

Note, 4e and 5e correctly understand the "longsword" to be longer (3-4 feet) than the normal sword (2-3 feet). Whence the 5e longsword is "versatile" to optionally use both hands such as for a claymore.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Sep 27, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> No, I'm not describing a maul.  I'm describing an anvil on a stick.
> EDIT: Making the point that sometimes I'd rather imagine something impractical/impossible but aesthetically cool (imo), than imagine something historically/functionally accurate.






FitzTheRuke said:


> Yeah, that's a way of looking at it. I wouldn't go as far as "anime-swords" but I don't mind _some_ silliness. I once modded a heavily armoured mini to make a Warforged. I made a flail that looked a bit like the one the Witch-King had in LotR. Because why not? The character was a "robot"!






Eyes of Nine said:


> I'll just drop in to say
> 4 feet or more = Berserk long



Whichever example we use, they're all weapons designed for superhumans to wield, or at least not taking into account having to swing the thing dozens-to-hundreds of time on a battlefield using regular human stamina. Perhaps more primary is the question of is historical accuracy a goal? It sure isn't for much of the rest of the game (unless the world is populated by more monster-and-treasure-filled-subterranean-buildings than I'm aware of), and the knee-jerk attempt to do so for the weapon-and-armor-users exclusively is a big part of the martial-caster debate*. 
*that said, calling weapons by specific terms and/or removing studded leather/leather/ring mail/splint and replacing them with cuir bouilli/brigandine/coat of plate/lamellar/other historical armors is pretty far-afield from this. 


Yaarel said:


> I am unsure if this true for all 3e, but going by the 3e SRD, the weapons of interest here are as follows:
> 
> SIMPLE WEAPONS
> Sickle 1d6 slashing: light
> ...



3e has a bunch of wrinkles in the concept because they were trying to fit existing weapons into a paradigm where you had the 'short/long/bastard/greatsword' model (19-20 crit, 1d8 for the non-light 1H version) and then the '-1 avg damage for 18-20 crit' variants (kukri/scimitar/falchion). Also the axe model with x3 instead of 19-20 and a '-1 avg. damage for x4 crit' variant on the other side. They needed a curvy blade (or really just a blade sufficiently distinct from the default line) and then shorter and longer versions of that, and thus we got kukri, scimitar, falchion (if there was a specific reasoning behind falchion being the 2H version, I sure don't know about it).  

I'm really glad that they finally got longsword in the 'one hand, plus' slot, if only because it reduced how often we've gotten someone pop up thinking they would be the only person to know that (and then the people posting the 'well, akshually' meme to mock them for that, and so on). Here's hoping the next edition does the same with brigandine/studded.

I'm not 100% sure I know what you were trying to show with this post. What component of the conversation does this address? For example, what about a rapier doing 1d6 damage is 'more accurate,' and why? Thanks!


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 27, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Could be bigger?
> 
> 
> View attachment 262484



Love that Akroma art. I think being an angel gets her a pass on the giant sword and the midriff-bearing “armor.”


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 27, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Love that Akroma art. I think being an angel gets her a pass on the giant sword and the midriff-bearing “armor.”



As an astral thought construct, the angel is symbolism of armor, rather than actual armor.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 27, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> As an astral thought construct, the angel is symbolism of armor, rather than actual armor.



Well, Akroma specifically is a manifestation of Ixidor’s will and his desire for vengeance against his wife’s killer. But, yeah, point still stands.


----------



## MrWildman (Sep 29, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Yeah, even tho the "pirates of the Caribbean" are modern from the 1600s onward, they have found their way into D&D fantasy well enough.
> 
> Despite being modern, the "cutlass" is a reallife weapon that can match the 5e Weapons Table stats.




That's how I envision the 5e scimitar; not a horseman's sabre but a sailor's hanger.
I find it easy to explain to players, too: "Like Jack Sparrow" is all I need to say.


----------

