Elvin thinblade: Cool racial weapon or Exploited Powergamer Ploy?

[Kae'Yoss]

I love the posts from all of the elf haters. Really, I do.


Dwarves get thier special heavier axes. Gnomes get thier hooked hammers. Elves can have thier damned special heavier rapiers. Jeez.

That's because we have a lot of elf bashers out there, who probably can't stand that elves were Tolkiens pet race and see a Conspiracy behind everything "elven" in any book. We have no gnome bashers or dwarf bashers, and when they get something more (even though they were perfectly fine before), noone complains.

Like weapon familiarity and walking in armor in 3.5.

Small bitch about racial anything, the core books should have either 0 racial weapons or a equal number for each race, same with pretige classes, and this includes humans. It's retarded beyond all regonition that apparently only elves and dwarves are fancy enough to develop a prestige class that only there race can enter. Where's the halfing love in the core, why should they have to wait for some lame probably unabalnced splatbook and hope that the dm lets it in. It really is silly to pretend your balancing races when you ignore the hidden benefits.

Well, the two racial PrC's were just examples, as the core rules aren't there to give you every single detail. Look into other books, where you have Breach Gnomes, Halfling Outriders and the like.

I've never seen anyone take it.

My (noble) elven sorcerer has one. Thanks to weapon group proficiency and weapon familiarity (which every race gets in our game, not just dwarves and gnomes), he could even wield it. He hasn't, though, as far as I can remember.

The weapon itself is fine. But the weapon combined with Weapon Familiarity is taking us down the road toward "being a human is stupid." 3e finally made humans a solid, viable class, but Racial PrCs, and now Weapon Familiarity, are taking us back down the path toward demi-humans being clearly superior.

Either remove Weapon Familiarity entirely, or give humans Weapon Familiarity with the Bastard Sword and/or Spiked Chain.

I might add that the core rules don't grant elves weapon familiarity with their racial weapons. Only dwarves and gnomes have that.

IMC, all the races get weapon familiarity. Humans have their choice of whatever exotic weapon they want.
So we have whatever (humans), thinblade, shortblade (elves), battlepick (gnomes), urgrosh, waraxe (dwarves), double axe (orcs), skiprock, war sling (halflings)

 

[Drifter Bob]

Oh no no, I wasn't implying that sidesword is simple. Not at all. But neither are the rapier, two-hander, or many of the others classified as "martial weapons." I would say their training times are about equivalent.

Though most weapons are take a great deal of training to master or even learn well, I think the rapier and smallsword, being so specialized for the thrust, take much more training to reach a basic level of competency than most 'martial' weapons such as the arming sword or even the broadsword. I think the rapier should be an exotic weapon.

I know D&D longsword is a different beast than the historical longsword

that makes you a rarity among gamers. Shhh! Don't let the secret out!

I wouldn't say the sidesword is "backward" from the rapier. It continued to serve in warfare when the rapier took the lead in civilian defense.

I meant only that it was a step backward in terms of specialization, (and therefore ostensibly training.)

Anyway I agree that the sidesword and smallsword are not really replicated by any current D&D statistics, but neither really fits the description of the thinblade as put forth by WotC in Dragon magazine or the Complete Warrior.

Ah, my problem is I never saw the Dragon article and don't have a copy of the Complete Warrior yet. So I don't know what their description is, what they were aiming for.

If I had to take a guess, maybe the thinblade is something related to the estoc. Here is a description from the Wikipedia:

I mentoined the estoc / tuck / kanzer earlier in this thread.

Without knowing the description for the thinblade or what they had in mind, I guess you could take your pick. If you want a somewhat more robust rapier with better cutting ability that would probably also do more damage from a typical thrust, then a sidesword or some other cut-and-thrust transitional sword is your answer. (To me, the sidesword looks most elflike from an aesthetic perspective as well) I could see the sidesword doing more damage form an average cut or jab, while retaining a pretty good critical threat range due to it's good penetration.

If you want a lighter, faster, more specialized precision thrusting weapon than a rapier, but with even less (i.e. no) cutting ability, then you want the smallsword or the colichemarde. With their superb penetration these weapons would have a better critical hit threat range, but would probably do less damage from a standard jab. Neither speed, reach, nor defensive capability are modeled in D&D so you don't have to worry about any of that.

If you want a heavier, armor-piercing thrusting weapon with the cutting attack replaced by a secondary bludgeon attack, then the tuck or estoc is what you are looking for. These were used with half swording techniques, designed to "can open" plate armor. This weapon would be something like a military pick. A good damage multiplier on the critical hit.

DB

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I might add that the core rules don't grant elves weapon familiarity with their racial weapons. Only dwarves and gnomes have that.

My mistake. It was my understanding that the same source that introduced the thinblade gave elves weapon familiarity with it. I'm glad to hear that's not the case. Now to find a way to get the designers to get rid of it for gnomes and dwarves as well.

IMC, all the races get weapon familiarity. Humans have their choice of whatever exotic weapon they want.
So we have whatever (humans), thinblade, shortblade (elves), battlepick (gnomes), urgrosh, waraxe (dwarves), double axe (orcs), skiprock, war sling (halflings)

I'd be perfectly fine with such a campaign, and if one of my players wanted to use Weapon Familiarity, something like this is what I'd use for balance.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

My mistake. It was my understanding that the same source that introduced the thinblade gave elves weapon familiarity with it. I'm glad to hear that's not the case.

There is a feat, though, "Improved Weapon Familiarity". It lets you treat all weapons associated with your race as martial weapons rather than exotic weapons (Prereq: BAB+1, and it's a fighter feat). So elves have to blow a Feat for the thinblade, but get the smallblade thrown in.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

that makes you a rarity among gamers. Shhh! Don't let the secret out!

So what's the big secret? You don't seem shy about making everyone aware about all the other stuff you know about swords.

 

[Aaron L]

Historical longsword is pretty much equivalent to a D&D bastard sword, and wielded very similiar to a katana.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

That's because we have a lot of elf bashers out there, who probably can't stand that elves were Tolkiens pet race and see a Conspiracy behind everything "elven" in any book. We have no gnome bashers or dwarf bashers, and when they get something more (even though they were perfectly fine before), noone complains.

I see plenty of dwarf bashing especially after 3.5 decided to make their new best race even better. The elf bashing though should continue, game designers seem to be caught in some wierd limbo where if any culture develps something cool it has to be elven. Elves quickly seem to aquire the largest number of prestige classes, items, and feats. Luckily its not as bad as 2e with the CboE where there developing cyberware and all things artisic in every medium was developed by elves.

Well, the two racial PrC's were just examples, as the core rules aren't there to give you every single detail. Look into other books, where you have Breach Gnomes, Halfling Outriders and the like.

Yeah so in other words only dwarfs and elves are fancy enough to have a prestige class in the core and the rest have to wait for some likely unbalnced splat book to come out. And heck there still aren't 1/2 race prestige classes, because I guess they'd never develop anything that focused on the strenghts of their two races they come from, and they'd never develop a society for outcasts like them either in plain view or more of an 1/2 elf or 1/2 orc underground. And heck there are no human prestige classes(maybe red wizard I don't no if thay = human) because humans despite ruling vast tracts of the world apparently don't have a culture to go along with it.

I might add that the core rules don't grant elves weapon familiarity with their racial weapons. Only dwarves and gnomes have that.

IMC, all the races get weapon familiarity. Humans have their choice of whatever exotic weapon they want.
So we have whatever (humans), thinblade, shortblade (elves), battlepick (gnomes), urgrosh, waraxe (dwarves), double axe (orcs), skiprock, war sling (halflings)

That's the way it should be done if its done at all.

 

[RangerWickett]

I think the rules should just be simplified across the board. (Well, not really, but it's an interesting thought experiment.)

You have four styles of combat - Personal, Full, Shield, and Ranged.

Personal combat applies when you are grappling. Regardless of what weapon you use, or what size you are, you deal 1d4 damage per attack.

Full combat is when you are just attacking, and not really trying to defend yourself. This might mean you're using a one-handed weapon and have nothing in your free hand, or you might be using a two-handed weapon, or two one-handed weapons, or a sword and shield, but you're using the shield as a weapon and not as a defense. If you use this style, regardless of what weapon you use, or what size you are, you deal 1d10 damage per attack.

Shield combat is when you're fighting defensively. You might be using a shield and a single weapon, or just doing defensive martial arts, or anything else. Regardless of weapon(s) used or size, you deal 1d6 damage per attack, and get a +2 shield bonus to AC.

Ranged combat is when you're attacking from a distance. Regardless of weapon and size, you do 1d6 damage per attack. An 'attack' is not necessarily one arrow, spear, or thrown dagger. You might make four attack rolls in a round, and they'd all represent a single attack. It's all just an abstraction.

Wielding two weapons doesn't get you extra attacks. It just changes how you look. Really, the weapons you use don't matter. Sure, this may seem blasphemous to D&Ders, but it encourages people to have style over stats.

I'd never actually use this system.

 

[cleavthorn]

a rapier slice against the chest is not going to cut into the pectorals or even come close to entering the ribcage. This also applies to the abdomen, collarbone, or sides. It would hurt if it managed to penetrate a doublet (jacket), but would do little else."

- John Clements, Renaissance Swordsmanship.

Rapiers are not effective cutting weapons. It's pretty obvious from the blade shape and kinetics that they are excellent thrusting weapons, but extremely poor for cutting. Aside from obvious mechanics of the blade, no period manual shows anything resembling a cutting attack with a rapier.

They also ranged upwards of 48 inches overall length or above, depending on the comfort of the user. Reach is extremely important for a thrusting sword. Which still begs the question then - what the heck is a thinblade? What does it look like? I can't picture it in any function that a proper rapier wouldn't fulfill

The above is fine...if I were saying rapiers are excellant slashing weapons. Which I'm not.

I was comparing (perhaps poorly) an elvin thinblade to a rapier, the latter of which you could at least make a slashing attack with.

As far as what a thinblade actually looks like, It is a triangular shaped blade, a wedge, if you will, drawn out into a long point. The middle and tip of the blade would be flexible, while the end near the hilt would be much more rigid. There is no "blade" to speak of, just a piercing point. Making a thrust would allow the blade flexibility to either side, but not really up or down. A pic of the original elvin thinblade is in Dragon #275, which is the version that I was thinking of when I started this thread.

 

[Drifter Bob]

As far as what a thinblade actually looks like, It is a triangular shaped blade, a wedge, if you will, drawn out into a long point. The middle and tip of the blade would be flexible, while the end near the hilt would be much more rigid. There is no "blade" to speak of, just a piercing point. Making a thrust would allow the blade flexibility to either side, but not really up or down. A pic of the original elvin thinblade is in Dragon #275, which is the version that I was thinking of when I started this thread.

Definately a smallsword then!

DB