Broadsword

[Storm Raven]

I see where you're coming from. On the other hand, adding it gives more options for players, and more flavour to the game if there are more mechanically distinct weapons to chose from.

The problem is that the more options you start throwing out to use, the more likely you are going to have one that is clearly superior to the others. There is also a point of diminishing returns: at some point you are making such fine gradiations between weapon types that the distinction makes no sense other than to have a weapon with a different name attached to it. In that case, why not skip the step of coming up with a balanced set of stats and just say that the "longsword" or "rapier" entry covers weapons that would be called "broadswords" or "epees"?

Why not have broadswords,

That's just a longsword by another name.

cutlasses,

This appears in FRCS. It is a slashing shortsword with a basket hilt.

epees,

What is the functional difference between an "epee" and a D&D rapier?

sabers and so on?

A one handed curved bladed slashing sword? Soounds like an alternate name for a scimitar in D&D terms. The explicit picture given in the PHB may not be a sabre, but functionally what is the real difference?

I realise the current rules are very minimalist in this regard, but something inside me just thinks lots of weapons that have different rules to govern them is neat.

And I just see it as pointless complexity. Every weapon you have described is more than covered by the weapons already available in the PHB. They are just the same thing with a different name.

 

[Darklone]

For the guys with flavor intentions... want a flamberge? Use a greatsword with 3d4 damage, 19-20/*2 crit range and price 650gp, masterwork only.

 

[Davelozzi]

If you know the term "broadsword" shows up in Sakespeare...

because when you can't spell "petard" properly you aren't likely to be taken as a Shakespeare expert

Nor when you can't spell Shakespeare.

All in good fun, of course

 

[Benben]

Instead of bickering about nomenclature, why don't people post pictures of weapons they want stats on?

Cross this with the "Best names for weapons" thread and we'll have a veritable trove of DM and player inspiration.

http://www.gungfu.com/pics_info_pages/sword_chinese_broad_sword_9_ring.jpg
The above is one of the entries for a google image search on the term "broad sword". The sash at the end, and the rings along the blade are showy and interesting. Would anybody think that +1 circumstance bonus to feint and disarm are a good idea?

And should I use longsword, or scimitar stats for this weapon?

 

[Psionicist]

In Sweden during the 11th-12th century most fighting types used short, broad and heavy swords. I don't think it's what those knowledgeable about weapons call a "broadsword" but it was a broad sword alright.

 

[Dogbrain]

2) Weapons that are there to fit a gap in the rules - the greatfalchion, for instance. I had stats for a greatsword, a greatscimitar, but none for the two-handed version of the falchion.

Actually, such weapons did exist. They seemed to have their greatest "popularity" in Germany. Great honking unbalanced two-handed curved sword-thingies. They were called Grossmessern.

 

[Umbran]

Nor when you can't spell Shakespeare.

Yeah, well, irony was always my favorite flavor of ice cream

 

[Dogbrain]

Oh woe to you great historian. You have completely got it wrong.

The term "broadsword" shows up in plenty of litature before the 1800's including Shakesphere.

Prove it.

 

[Dogbrain]

Re D&D falchions - I would treat it like a bastard sword as exotic 1-handed, martial 2-handed, keep the stats.

Re broadswords & longswords - the D&D straight-bladed, pointy-ended single-hand sword seems to resemble the early-medieval swords used primarily for thrusting, to penetrate chainmail, ie primarily a thrusting weapon not slashing.

Early medieval swords were predominately for hacking--to smash through mail. Swords optimized for thrusting didn't show up in large quantities again until the late medieval and the renaissance--at least not according to Oakeshott.

This kind of sword is ineffective vs plate armour.

The German swordmasters who actually faced such armor advised that even a two-handed sword's cut was not that effective against plate armor. They advocated thrusting against heavily armored opponents and cutting against lighter-armored opponents.

 

[Umbran]

The sash at the end, and the rings along the blade are showy and interesting. Would anybody think that +1 circumstance bonus to feint and disarm are a good idea?

And should I use longsword, or scimitar stats for this weapon?

Looks like a scimitar to me. And I'd not give those bonuses. I don't think the rings are going to be much of a distraction, as the guy's watching the blade anyway. The sash is at the pommel - close to the body and where (hopefully) the weapon isn't moving much. In order to get that thing to flap around enough to really distract your opponent you'd have be moving your hands far from your body, putting the weapon out of line for attack and leaving your body unprotected.