Broadsword

[S'mon]

For flavor reasons, I like a 1d8 slashing 18-20/*2 crit weapon. But handling of a katana and a bastard sword are pretty identical. Weight as well. Actually many katanas are as heavy as my (overweight because blunted 1.5mm edges) bastard sword.

Real-world bastard swords seem to be basically longswords with a longer hilt - I've never held one but people who have say they're easy enough to wield one-handed. The D&D bastard sword seems intended to be the biggest sword that can be wielded one-handed, with a blade length of 4' according to 1e, and weight 6lb (3e) to greatsword's 8lb. I suppose an uber lewt Katana could be d10 18-20/x2, XWP to wield one-handed, whereas a smaller one is d8 18-20/x2 (you could use this for 19th c cavalry sabre too), MWP one-handed and wakizashi d6 18-20/x2, No Dachi 2d6 18-20/x2 2-handed only. All the other PHB curved blades seem to have 18-20 threat ranges.

 

[nikolai]

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.

These are valid points; but so long as you don't create uber-weapons (I'm all for making sure this doesn't happen) and so long as you can make weapons mechanically different (so diminishing returns hasn't kicked in), I'm all for expanding the weapon lists. I realise it's the intent of the designers that the core list covers everything - they didn't want additions - but there are certainly gaps in the core 3.5e weapon lists.

[broadswords] That's just a longsword by another name.

It's possible to propose a broadsword [2d4 (19-20/x20) Slashing Martial Weapon] that's different from a longsword.

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

Is this an exception to your views against adding new weapons? I don't follow the arguement that there's no purpose to adding new weapons - except cutlasses. And, from what I remember, this was a bad addition; with it in the game is there any reason to use a short sword?

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

Perhaps an Epee could be a [1d8 (19-20/x20) Piercing Martial Weapon]? There isn't one of those in the rules at present.

[sabre] 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?

Perhaps you could use the ability to deal double damage from a charge from horseback (currently possessed by lances) to differentiate it?

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.

I think there are gaps in the listings. And I think, intelligently done, the weapons list could be filled out without damaging the game. This would add more options, and there are tricks in the rules (such as finesse) that can be used to differentiate new weapons from what's already there. It'd have to be done carefully, but I think it can be done and can add to the game.

 

[Dogbrain]

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

To answer that, one must first answer the question "What the $%^()&@#^)*&_@*$%^)*&^_(@*Y#*&$^&@%*&#% is a D&D rapier? The description says that it's a piercing weapon, but the picture in the PHB is of a $%)*!@#&%$(%*^&@%()Q@#(*% CUTLASS, a short, single-edge cutting weapon.

So, we'll presume that the artist was feeling more than ordinarily incompetent that morning and ignore the picture. Let's go by the description.

While the weight is not unacceptable in and of itself, it is confusing if compared to the "longsword". The D&D "longsword" weighs about a pound to a pound and a half more than it should, if the model is medieval one-handed swords, even in the era of heavy armor. But we'll pretend that this is the "default sword" weight. Thus, the D&D "rapier" weighs 75% of what the D&D "longsword" weighs.

That would mean that it is not the rapier of the Elizabethan era or even of years as late as roughly 1640. During that era, rapiers weighed about as much as one-handed cutting swords. The big difference was in weight distribution. For cut, more out in the blade. For thrust, less out in the blade. Therefore, to maintain the same relative weight to the D&D "longsword" we are talking about Transitional Era or later weapons. By the Transitional Era, cutting play had been relegated to backwater podunks like Scotland. Real gentlemen only pulled out the hackers for warfare.

A transitional rapier would often have a blade no longer than 36 inches. The blade would be quite thin, about as large as a "double-wide" stage blade or a practice schlaeger blade. Weight would be roughly 75% of that of a stout one-handed sword, give or take.

The epee is not a descendent of this weapon. The epee was invented in the 1800s, specifically and exclusively for duelling. It was never meant to be worn but was always to be carried (often in matched pairs) in a case unless used. These dueling epees were even lighter than the transitional rapier, sometimes being no more than 50% of what would have been the "standard sword" of the medieval era.

In the modern day, the longest standard "epee" one can now get has a 35-inch blade. The heaviest that the FIE permits the weapon to be is about half of the average weight of the medieval standard "sword", but most modern fencers I've polled prefer to use a weight that would be 1/3 of the weight of the sword that D&D tries to represent with "longsword".


Okay, so we have a weapon that is 3/4 the mass (and it's mass that matters very often) of the "longsword" doing 1d6(18-20/X2). The epee, even one optimized for real duels, was significantly lighter than this--with a smaller wound channel due to thinner blade. So, I'd say that a good approximation would be 1d4(18-20/X2) for the "epee".

 

[S'mon]

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.

Hacking at chain links is definitely not the best way to get through them - piercing weapons are much more effective. The D&D-style 'longsword' could both pierce chainmail and slash effectively at unarmoured foes, so it was a good weapon for its time but is very anachronistic as a battlefield weapon in a world of full plate armour. IRL by the time knights were wearing full plate in the 15c they'd be much more likely to wield specialised armour-beater weaponry like 2-handed lucern hammers which combined crushing & piercing effects to smash the joints in a foe's armour.

 

[Dogbrain]

Perhaps an Epee could be a [1d8 (19-20/x20) Piercing Martial Weapon]? There isn't one of those in the rules at present.

By thatreasoning, a toothpick should do 4d10 damage.

Perhaps you could use the ability to deal double damage from a charge from horseback (currently possessed by lances) to differentiate it?

The sabre is nothing more than the European version of the shamshir (scimitar). If it gets such special ability, so should the scimitar.
[/QUOTE]

 

[silentspace]

By thatreasoning, a toothpick should do 4d10 damage.

Ooh! I'm taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Toothpick) first chance I get! Then I'll go for Monkey Grip...

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Why take a longsword when I can take a halberd.. why take a halberd when I can take a spiked chain... why take anything because of anything. For flavor of course.

I definitely miss weapon speed factors from 2E AD&D. Didn't make much sense back then when the rounds were 1 minute each but when each round is only 6 seconds it definitely matters. Speed factor was the reason why you DIDN'T want to use a large weapon like a Two-Handed Sword or a Halberd. There was no such thing as an attack of opportunity so it was rare that you could beat an enemy wizard to the punch to prevent him from casting a spell with a really slow weapon. Overall everything balanced though. Daggers may be the fastest non-magical weapon in the game but they just didn't pack the punch that the big weapons did.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Hacking at chain links is definitely not the best way to get through them - piercing weapons are much more effective.

Yet another sign of 1E AD&D's superiority. Each weapon gave bonuses to hit certain types of armor and penalties against others. Piercing weapons typically were great against chain armor but against Plate it took penalties.

 

[herald]

Show, don't tell, herald. If you know the term "broadsword" shows up in Sakespeare, tell us where and give a quote.

Why? First because it is good style. Second because when you can't spell "petard" properly you aren't likely to be taken as a Shakespeare expert

I've seen it in Romeo and Juliet.

 

[nikolai]

Okay, so we have a weapon that is 3/4 the mass (and it's mass that matters very often) of the "longsword" doing 1d6(18-20/X2). The epee, even one optimized for real duels, was significantly lighter than this--with a smaller wound channel due to thinner blade. So, I'd say that a good approximation would be 1d4(18-20/X2) for the "epee".

Perhaps the mass of a weapon isn't the only factor that influences the damage caused by a weapon? Perhaps it's also best not to get too hung up on history, when the fantasy literature D&D draws upon isn't that hung up on it either.

In anycase, there is room for a sword that acts as a [1d8 (19-20/x20) Piercing Martial Weapon] in the weapons list. Could you suggest an alternative name for it than an epee?