D&D 5E Oh Hai Katana!
Salamandyr
Adventurer
I'd go with scimitars. I always think of elven weapons as delicately curving sabers, deadly on the cut, utilized in curving dancelike motions, with little to no indelicate thrusting, though they are capable of it, utilizing their curved blades to make off-line thrusts. Kind of similar to Polish saber, or Middle Eastern sword dancing. Tai Chi sword works too.
By contrast, the rapier fighter is crouched, scuttling crab-like in and out of reach, blade extended in front of him. Nah...just not Elvish to me.
Yeah, I could definitely see that.
I guess the real trick is that the "Longsword" (Arming Sword or Spada) really was the lighter sword design optimized for fighting with both Slashing and Piercing attacks. If the Morningstar can do Bludgeoning and Piercing at once, I think Slashing OR Piercing would be fine for the "Longsword."
I guess if the "Longsword" is really more of a Spada / Arming sword then the Elven fighting techniques with it look more viable. It needs to weigh half of what it does in the Equipment entry right now, though. Right now it weighs twice as much as it should - much more a broadsword than anything else.
Still, it really chafes me that the blade-dancing, light-footed elves have their racial aptitude for a sword that's Strength-only, when their fighting aptitudes are clearly based in Dexterity than lends itself to Finesse Weapons.
- Marty Lund
Steely_Dan
First Post
We can also slash with a short sword, so, more weapons need to cover more than one damage type.
Ultimatecalibur
Explorer
Because the name "Katana" has better mental traction for a finessible two-handed slashing sword than "Falchion."
Salamandyr
Adventurer
I'm gonna be contrary and disagree. The damage type should be a single type, reflecting the primary attack of that weapon, except for a few special cases like the morning star. I've hit enough opponents in the face (and been hit by my opponents in the face) with the pommel of my longsword not to know that, in addition to the point and the edge, I can do bludgeoning damage with one too. But, I know the great majority of my attacks are going to be slashing ones.
Even if a longsword can do bludgeoning damage, it's inferior to a maul at it; and while they thrust just fine, the spear is better. Likewise a spear might bludgeon, but is inferior to a mace at it. By having damage types reflect the weapons primary damage mode, you discourage hyperspecialization, and justify characters who use a wide range of weapons, the best tool for the job, and have design space for weapons like the halberd and morning star, that are true hybrid damage dealers.
I had considered a houserule back in 3rd edition where each weapon could do other damage types, but at a lower damage die. For instance, (switching back to D&D definition of) a longsword could do d8 damage as a slashing weapon, d6 as a thrusting weapon, and d4 as a bludgeoning weapon. But in the end it just seemed too fiddly to implement.
Even if a longsword can do bludgeoning damage, it's inferior to a maul at it; and while they thrust just fine, the spear is better. Likewise a spear might bludgeon, but is inferior to a mace at it. By having damage types reflect the weapons primary damage mode, you discourage hyperspecialization, and justify characters who use a wide range of weapons, the best tool for the job, and have design space for weapons like the halberd and morning star, that are true hybrid damage dealers.
I had considered a houserule back in 3rd edition where each weapon could do other damage types, but at a lower damage die. For instance, (switching back to D&D definition of) a longsword could do d8 damage as a slashing weapon, d6 as a thrusting weapon, and d4 as a bludgeoning weapon. But in the end it just seemed too fiddly to implement.
GameDoc
Explorer
In 3.5, I house ruled that elves got automatic training with scimitars instead of longswords and could apply Weapon Finesse to falchions and glaives if proficient. It was synergistic to their inherent Dex bonus. The idea hit not from Drizzt, but from the way elven warriors were depicted in The Fellowship of the Ring film.
One thing that kind of bugs me is that mechanically, D&D keeps associating elves with longswords and more recently rapiers, but the art department tends to depict them with scimitars.
On another note brought up earlier, it would be nice if they used terms a bit more consistent with history. They typically describe a falchion as a two-handed scimitar. However, that term, IIRC, actually referred to a weapon more like a large cleaver, wielded in one hand, and used more to hack at an enemy than to fence with them. Same issue with the fact that a longsword is historically a 2-handed sword and what D&D calls a longsword is just a "sword" or an arming sword.
Moreover, I think it would be nice if weapon choice meant something, at least to fighters and other warrior classes that have an array of options. If a longsword, a flail, and warhammer all do 1d8 and are wielded in one hand, why pick any one over the other? I thing damage type vs. armor gets a little too complex for my tastes, but I kind of like how 4e attempted to give a unique property different hand weapons (swords had a +1 to attack, axes were high crit, etc.)
One thing that kind of bugs me is that mechanically, D&D keeps associating elves with longswords and more recently rapiers, but the art department tends to depict them with scimitars.
On another note brought up earlier, it would be nice if they used terms a bit more consistent with history. They typically describe a falchion as a two-handed scimitar. However, that term, IIRC, actually referred to a weapon more like a large cleaver, wielded in one hand, and used more to hack at an enemy than to fence with them. Same issue with the fact that a longsword is historically a 2-handed sword and what D&D calls a longsword is just a "sword" or an arming sword.
Moreover, I think it would be nice if weapon choice meant something, at least to fighters and other warrior classes that have an array of options. If a longsword, a flail, and warhammer all do 1d8 and are wielded in one hand, why pick any one over the other? I thing damage type vs. armor gets a little too complex for my tastes, but I kind of like how 4e attempted to give a unique property different hand weapons (swords had a +1 to attack, axes were high crit, etc.)
Salamandyr
Adventurer
I'd prefer weapon choice not to mean too much. The problem 4e had was that, from a min/max perspective, your playstyle often necessitated your weapon choice. You wanted to be a big damage guy? Well, your big damage powers weren't going to work right unless you were using an axe.
A little differentiation is fine, but I really want to stay away from exploding hyper-specialization.
A little differentiation is fine, but I really want to stay away from exploding hyper-specialization.
Izumi
First Post
Fantasy without a basis in reality is very poor indeed. Let's not go overboard the way people have done to the katana throughout the years. I've noticed an emerging bias to the greatness of European arms that is unmerited, just as silly, and just as untrue.
At what time period are you refering? When fighting the Mongols, for example, cross sections changed, swords became heavier, tips longer/more pronounced, and the handles lengthened. No, the bastard sword will not cave in the chest of a man in plate. At best it might make him puke or disorient if the hit is severe enough.
A lot of still existant koryuu include single sword one-handed wield in their curriculum. (Unkou Ryuu comes immediately to mind for a lot of this kind of form.)
Tony Vargas
Legend
Meh. Fantasy goes beyond reality, it should be grounded in it, sure, but not limited by it. And RL beliefs, myths, and the like, no matter how thoroughly debunked, today, are great sources of inspiration.
I've seen no such thing - which is sad, I'd be delighted to see D&D start to give the old knight-in-shining-armor archetype some love.
Roland cut enemies in half, lengthwise - and on through the horses they were riding. So did his fellow knights. And they spitted foes four to a lance, too. That's all quite impossible, 'realistically,' but D&D has wizards and dragons, realism isn't relevant. It's nice to know, but shouldn't stop us from having some fun.
A sword wielded by a preternaturally strong heroic paragon of warriors (high level fighter) should be bloody well cutting /through/ plate - and iron golems. The exact pattern or cultural origin of the sword shouldn't matter.
Last edited:
