Wither the cutlass?

[Eluvan]

But... why would anyone use that? It's just a nerfed longsword. What is the purpose of its existence?

 

[Ibram]

But... why would anyone use that? It's just a nerfed longsword. What is the purpose of its existence?

For the flavor.

the Conan d20 stats say its

Cutlass 50sp 1d10 19-20/x2

 

[Eluvan]

I'm all for flavour - whihc is why I don't like it to be penalised by a statistical disadvantage. If you want a cutlass to be basically a longsword, then use the stats for a longsword. Personally I'd be more inclined to make it identical to a rapier, but do slashing damage. Some people might object to that, in which case I'd probably just make do with the stats a rapier, and describe my character as slashing with the sword even though technically it does piercing damage.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

I'm all for flavour - whihc is why I don't like it to be penalised by a statistical disadvantage. If you want a cutlass to be basically a longsword, then use the stats for a longsword. Personally I'd be more inclined to make it identical to a rapier, but do slashing damage. Some people might object to that, in which case I'd probably just make do with the stats a rapier, and describe my character as slashing with the sword even though technically it does piercing damage.

Flavor is more important to some people than others, and to some campaign settings more than others. Personally, I feel that it's almost never about the stats. After all, if that were the case everyone would always get the weapon that deals the most damage.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Edit: THANK YOU, Mr. Brunner! Whee, duel-cutlass-wielding bard/rogue/swashbuckler/warchanter -- AAARGH in the key of G-major as he wardances around the tavern!

Glad to help!

 

[Eluvan]

Flavor is more important to some people than others, and to some campaign settings more than others. Personally, I feel that it's almost never about the stats. After all, if that were the case everyone would always get the weapon that deals the most damage.

I agree, it's not about the stats; but the fact remains that it seems stupid to make players choose between power or flavour. That encourages power playing with no regard for roleplaying and style, and also ensures that any good roleplayers will be even weaker than the power players in their group than they normally would be. Why not just apply flavour to things that fit in well with the established ruleset, rather than making a whole, less powerful range of equipment that you have to use if you want flavour?

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Skull & Bones by Green Ronin. It also has some other swashbuckling weapons too.

 

[Will]

I really think cutlasses should be light weapons akin to short sword.

Noodling around the internet, I see, for example, scimitar lengths of about 37-40", while cutlasses are around 28". The grip of a cutlass also looks nearly impossible to use two-handed.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

I agree, it's not about the stats; but the fact remains that it seems stupid to make players choose between power or flavour. That encourages power playing with no regard for roleplaying and style, and also ensures that any good roleplayers will be even weaker than the power players in their group than they normally would be. Why not just apply flavour to things that fit in well with the established ruleset, rather than making a whole, less powerful range of equipment that you have to use if you want flavour?

Why not do both?

Seriously, though, I guess that's just where we disagree. I think that people would rather have more choices than less choices. If they decide to choose the common "longsword" over the "damrik - a straight-bladed, double-edged mountain dwarf sword with a broad blade and a crossbar hilt, worn in a gilt-decorated or inlaid leather scabbard," that's fine - but they should have the choice.

And in a campaign setting where flavor, feel and realistic fantasy are so important, it makes even more of a difference. For example, almost all of the several hundred weapons in Goods and Gear: the Ultimate Adventurer's Guide are based on real weapons from Earth. Blade quality, size, use, and so on depended on such things as region and weaponsmith, and I think that fantasy worlds should have that option as well. The varieties of Kalamaran weaponry SHOULD be different from Svimohzish weaponry, and Dejy weapons of the Khydoban Desert, and Dejy weapons of the Vohven Jungle, and so on and so on.

Also, I feel that players who favor flavor over power are often (not always) more thoughtful players more apt to use their brains over their brawn. If there was no random rolling, I would probably agree - why take a weapon that always deals 6 points when an 8-point weapon is available? A couple points of damage here or there will rarely affect them, it seems to me.

 

[Berandor]

Interesting that this comes up, because this design philosophy is what I disliked about the weapons in the Kalamar Player's Guide, as well.

Why? I think it's important that you have a lot of flavor in your game, and that you try to have a role-playing intensive campaign (you know what I mean). The problem with that aren't the players who like, or love, flavorful characters. These guys make even boring choices interesting because they add their own flavor.
No, the problem is with those guys and gals who prefer a more simplistic approach (I use problem strictly in the sense of getting a flavorful game going, because otherwise there is no problem with such a preference). You have to show these players that flavorful choices can be just as cool as their mechanically influenced ones, if not cooler. And you're not going to get there by making all flavorful weapons (like the leafblade et al) mechanically unsound choices.
That only leads to having "min/maxer" deride "flavor-friends" for being inherently weaker.

In short, if you make flavorful choices mechanically unattractive, you're not going to get more people choosing them, but less. And I don't think that's what you want, any more than I do.