Cutlass

[Knight Otu]

... Really? Where does it say that? What's the rationale behind the rule?

I'm not aware of such a rule. As long as you make it clear what the "real" weapon is, and it is reasonably close, call your equipment any name you want. We have some examples of that even - one for our gluttonous god, and Sir Ishmael, I believe, also wears a slightly renamed armor.

This is strictly better than the scimitar, since the stats are exactly the same, but it is finessible. That doesn't necessarily mean it is overpowered, it may mean the scimitar is underpowered, and even if it is overpowered, it is only by a tiny, tiny amount. I would suggest that it can not be used two-handed to gain any benefit such as 1.5 x Str, 2:1 power attack ratio, bonus to disarm, etc.

Remember that the rapier, which this new cutlass would be based upon, already has that drawback.

 

[IcyCool]

I've got no real problem with the cutlass as proposed. It doesn't invalidate the scimitar (which can still be used in two hands for a damage bonus). I'd just as soon use a shortsword and call it a cutlass (which is what a cutlass feels like to me), but I don't see any balance problems with the proposal.

 

[SlagMortar]

Remember that the rapier, which this new cutlass would be based upon, already has that drawback.

The rapier can't be used in two hands to get a strength bonus, but the rules don't say anything about power attack or disarm. I figured we could make it explicit for the cutlass since I believe the intent is to limit it to one handed use.

 

[Bront]

It would be a non-light finessable martial weapon, just the same as a rapier that slashes. Looks good to me.

Or it would be a Finessable Scimitar, which is probably a better way to look at it, since the weapon exists, but just isn't finessable.

I don't realy see a problem with it at the moment, since the damage type isn't too much of an issue most of the time, and there are finessable slashing and even bludgeoning weapons. I'll hold a vote off for a day or so though.

 

[Bront]

Let me try to compile all this (Der Hauptman, you should put this in the origonal proposal, reworded however you like or reject my thoughts if you wish, but it's easier to vote off the first post).

Cutlass [One Handed Martial Weapon]
Cost: 20 Gp
DMG: 1d6
Crit: 18-20/x2
Wt: 3 lb
Special: Cutlass is a finesse weapon, so it can be used with the Weapon Finesse feat, but it may not be used two handed for extra damage. In all other respects, it is treated as a normal One Handed Martial weapon
Proficient: All classes that have All Martial Weapon proficiency, Rogue, and Bard.

As a cross between a Scimitar and a Rapier, I averaged the weight. Makes sense to me, as to be slashing, it needs a bit more reinforcement.

I added Bard as well, which is another likely piratey/sailory/swashbuckling class in the SRD, and they are proficient in the Rapier as well.

 

[Patlin]

It would definitely be OK to use the stats for a similar sword (rapier, scimitar, or even short sword) and refer to it in character as a cutlass. D&D uses predominantly generic names for swords for the sake of simplicity. In fact, the DMG makes it clear that a Katana is a Bastard Sword in D&D terms.

Creating a new weapon will mostly just decrease your chances of finding a magic weapon of the type you prefer.

I'm not constitutionally opposed to this proposal, but in order to vote in favor of it I'd need to be persuaded. Feel free to refute what I've written above!

 

[DerHauptman]

I think Bront's got all the relevant information. Fine by me.

As for the rule requiring it to be added for common acceptable usage it is implied.

We use the SRD and the weapons therein.

The cutlass is not in there and you can see that 5 different DM's in LEW would play it 5 different ways.

Therefore the proposal to have it standardized and approved to alleviate any questions on usage when a character would transition from one adventure to the next.

A rapier is a rapier and a cutlass is a cutlass even if the stats are the same - nuf said. I can bet someone would find a way to argue against its use or some such in one adventure while another DM would say fine just call it whatever you want its a rapier. NO big deal really just needs to be added for clarity sake.

Again, I am fine with Bront's wrap up. (Thank you Bront) Meets my intent and more.

DH

 

[orsal]

A rapier is a rapier and a cutlass is a cutlass even if the stats are the same - nuf said. I can bet someone would find a way to argue against its use or some such in one adventure while another DM would say fine just call it whatever you want its a rapier. NO big deal really just needs to be added for clarity sake.

Well, if I understand correctly you want it to be like a rapier, only slashing instead of piercing. That means it's not mechanically the same as a rapier -- almost, but not quite. Is this distinction important to you? If not, take a rapier, call it a cutlass for fluff purposes but a rapier for crunch purposes.

On the other hand, if it is important to you that it be a slashing weapon -- is there any SRD weapon whose stats, taken in toto, would agree with what you want your cutlass to be? If so, take that weapon. For fluff purposes, you call it a cutlass, but for crunch, call it whatever SRD weapon you're using.

 

[Bront]

Well, if I understand correctly you want it to be like a rapier, only slashing instead of piercing. That means it's not mechanically the same as a rapier -- almost, but not quite. Is this distinction important to you? If not, take a rapier, call it a cutlass for fluff purposes but a rapier for crunch purposes.

On the other hand, if it is important to you that it be a slashing weapon -- is there any SRD weapon whose stats, taken in toto, would agree with what you want your cutlass to be? If so, take that weapon. For fluff purposes, you call it a cutlass, but for crunch, call it whatever SRD weapon you're using.

The answer to your second question is No. The closest thing is a Kukri, which isn't realy right, and is a martial only weapon (Well, Monk, but they don't count).

As for the issue of finding a magical one, that's always an issue with more obscure weapons, but since you can simply buy an enchantment, not an overtly problematic one.

I'll admit I don't see the huge need for the weapon, but that won't stop me from voting YES to it.

All I did was compile all the relivent info into the post. However, if that does make me inellegable to vote, then oh well.

 

[Patlin]

Bront is certainly eligible to vote.