Cutlass and Sabre how do you stat them?

[Tanarii]

When I have players ask me for the stats of a cutlass or cavalry Sabre, I've been pointing them at the scimitar. I'm curious, what other people use for these two weapons?

I'm generally fine with players making their own weapon fluff for weapons, within reason. But for a multi-party open table campaign, I try to encourage consistency. And cutlass comes up a lot because I use the standard PHB backgrounds, so there are a lot of Sailors. And Pirates. Because Pirates!

[Moredhel24]

For the cutlass my group uses scimitar w/out finesse property (they were designed to hack through rope, canvas, wood, people etc., we view it as a more brute force weapon than finessable) and for sabre use rapier but deals slashing instead of piercing damage. Cant find it right now but in one of the books is a stat block for a pirate that uses a cutlass w/ scimitar in parenthesis.

[lunaticfringe]

Rogues and Monks are, in my experience, the people who ask about this the most so I make Cutlasses Slashing Shortsword so Sailor/Pirate Monks have no issue. Sabres are Slashing Rapiers for players who feel the Rapier is a bit too poncy.

[JellyPooga]

Cutlass = Scimitar
Sabre = Longsword

That's pretty much it for me.

[CaptainSarathai]

Rogues and Monks are, in my experience, the people who ask about this the most so I make Cutlasses Slashing Shortsword so Sailor/Pirate Monks have no issue. Sabres are Slashing Rapiers for players who feel the Rapier is a bit too poncy.

Yep, this.
Really, the weapon types in D&D are just stupid. It all boils down to this:
Die Size
Damage Type
Hands/Heavy/Light
Finesse (incredibly dumb)

Hilariously, they adamantly refuse to give weapons different damage types. Take the typical short sword. Can I slash with it? Yep! Can I stab you with a Scimitars? Absolutely!
The only difference is that the Shortsword is usually better at thrusting than the scimitar. Note that I didn't say "better at thrusting than slashing," I said that it's better at thrusting than the scimitar is.

It cracks me up that the Rapier does more Piercing Damage than a Short Sword. Have you seen a gladius? Those things leave a 2.5" gash inside you, and they pierce deep. A rapier is far more narrow. Getting stabbed with a rapier puts a hole in you, easily stitched shut, much like a bullet wound. In fact, less like a bullet wound, because it doesn't tumble, deform, or otherwise expand inside the wound.

The GreatAxe meanwhile deals statistically less damage than the Greatsword unless you have brutal crits or something. Really? You mean to tell me that getting slammed from above with a two-pound chunk of metal, sharp or not hurts less than getting hit with an equally sharp, but less heavy, hunk of metal? Really?!

D&D does this weird thing where accuracy=damage. Or skill=damage. But then, on top of this, they also add your actual skill to the damage, after using that skill to determine accuracy.
So already, a character with +5 Str is going to hit more often and deal more damage than a less skillful character. But if that character is using a "barbaric" great axe or scimitars, then he somehow does less damage than he does with a Greatsword or Rapier, because those weapons are more graceful or something? That's like the people who say that katanas are superior swords and practically worship them because "everyone knows the samurai were the most skillful fighters ever." Well, that may be true about samurai bring skilled, but the katana still sucks as a sword. Getting stabbed in the shoulder by a novice wielding a rapier is gonna hurt just the same as getting stabbed by a master using the same weapon. If you argue that the master is skilled enough to aim for the throat or eyes or whatever instead of the shoulder, then fine, by why couldn't they also do that with a dagger or a Shortsword? Hell, getting stabbed in the throat with a Shortsword would nearly decapitate you...

[Steampunkette]

I'm mostly with Sarathi on this one.

Damage to the Human Body is just the violent randomization of material within a given area. A bullet tends to make a deep and narrow randomization, like a Rapier does, while a Shortsword makes a much -wider- randomization while still being able to pass as deep into the body as the rapier (Few people are 2 feet thick or better).

A greatsword makes a much wider but much less deep randomization in the human body because more of the blade hits the surface and spreads out the pressure that would normally randomize flesh. But a greataxe, with it's rounded cutting edge, is designed to increase randomization area -during- penetration, not simultaneously. For this reason a Greataxe should, on average, deal more damage to a given target because of it's method of randomization increasing depth over a Greatsword while retaining overall length of the randomization (Relative to the full form, that is).

... and I don't think any of that made sense but it's understandable because I am tired and typed the past three sentences with my eyes shut...

[Hypersmith]

Damage to the Human Body is just the violent randomization of material within a given area.
...
... and I don't think any of that made sense but it's understandable because I am tired and typed the past three sentences with my eyes shut...

Poetry. Absolute poetry.

[Sigreid]

If you check out the wiki on cutlass it seems that the stats for a hand axe would fit better since its design was more for chopping.

A saber is a scimitar in my opinion.

[miburo]

It's not like D&D damage actually maps to real-world injuries. It's a game...

I usually stat a sabre as a slashing rapier (1d8, slashing, finesse). The other option is just to make the longsword finesse when it is wielded in one hand, which would fit better with in-game weapons and allow elves to use a longsword and not suck (which is supposed to be the case fluff-wise, anyways).

[Morty]

Echoing what everyone else said - take a reasonably similar weapon from the list and describe it appropriately. If you want to use DEX, take a rapier and describe it as a sabre. Change the damage to slashing on the off-chance it comes up. If you want to use STR, take a longsword. A cutlass is a scimitar, short sword or even hand axe.

[SaurOps]

Yep, this.
Really, the weapon types in D&D are just stupid. It all boils down to this:
Die Size
Damage Type
Hands/Heavy/Light
Finesse (incredibly dumb)

Hilariously, they adamantly refuse to give weapons different damage types. Take the typical short sword. Can I slash with it? Yep! Can I stab you with a Scimitars? Absolutely!
The only difference is that the Shortsword is usually better at thrusting than the scimitar. Note that I didn't say "better at thrusting than slashing," I said that it's better at thrusting than the scimitar is.

It cracks me up that the Rapier does more Piercing Damage than a Short Sword. Have you seen a gladius? Those things leave a 2.5" gash inside you, and they pierce deep. A rapier is far more narrow. Getting stabbed with a rapier puts a hole in you, easily stitched shut, much like a bullet wound. In fact, less like a bullet wound, because it doesn't tumble, deform, or otherwise expand inside the wound.

I'm assuming that they meant an actual rapier rather than a fencing foil or an epee.



The GreatAxe meanwhile deals statistically less damage than the Greatsword unless you have brutal crits or something. Really? You mean to tell me that getting slammed from above with a two-pound chunk of metal, sharp or not hurts less than getting hit with an equally sharp, but less heavy, hunk of metal? Really?!

D&D does this weird thing where accuracy=damage. Or skill=damage. But then, on top of this, they also add your actual skill to the damage, after using that skill to determine accuracy.

Above all else, we can probably say that D&D has this weird thing about swords. This is hardly the first edition where they have an advantage over other weapons for no good reason.



So already, a character with +5 Str is going to hit more often and deal more damage than a less skillful character. But if that character is using a "barbaric" great axe or scimitars, then he somehow does less damage than he does with a Greatsword or Rapier, because those weapons are more graceful or something? That's like the people who say that katanas are superior swords and practically worship them because "everyone knows the samurai were the most skillful fighters ever." Well, that may be true about samurai bring skilled, but the katana still sucks as a sword. Getting stabbed in the shoulder by a novice wielding a rapier is gonna hurt just the same as getting stabbed by a master using the same weapon. If you argue that the master is skilled enough to aim for the throat or eyes or whatever instead of the shoulder, then fine, by why couldn't they also do that with a dagger or a Shortsword? Hell, getting stabbed in the throat with a Shortsword would nearly decapitate you...

So you're saying that the 2nd edition katana stats fit right in with the absurdity of D&D's sword fetish, then? (^VVVVVVV^)

[CaptainSarathai]

I'm assuming that they meant an actual rapier rather than a fencing foil or an epee.
Nah, I know - but even a rapier has a very small cross section and a thin blade. Especially compared to a military shortsword like a gladius.

Also, people saying that a saber should be finesse: have you held a saber?! They're a lot larger than you think. Cavalry sabers especially, are big hefty things meant to chop down into skulls and collar-bones from on horseback, they're practically a knight's sidesword in terms of weight and dimensions.

If you wanted properly model damage in D&D, you'd have to overhaul the entire system, as well as change how strong Str20 really is in terms of lifting capacity.
All weapons would hit on Dex.
Some weapons would require a minimum Str score to wield.
Many piercing weapons would not add any stat to damage.
Slashing and Bludgeoning weapons would add up an amount of Str to damage, like Medium Armor has a maximum Dex bonus.
Armor would not increase AC, but rather, decrease a flat amount of damage.

In this way, anyone can likely land a blow against an armored knight just as easily (if not more easily) as they would strike an unarmored target. However, the knight's armor would likely deflect a great deal of the damage, forcing you to use bigger, heavier weapons to get through to the knight's HP.

[Sigreid]

Also, people saying that a saber should be finesse: have you held a saber?! They're a lot larger than you think. Cavalry sabers especially, are big hefty things meant to chop down into skulls and collar-bones from on horseback, they're practically a knight's sidesword in terms of weight and dimensions.


To be fair, like with every other weapon there are different kinds of sabers. Cavalry sabers are designed to take advantage of the horse. But there are lighter fencing sabers. That's the thing about weapons, there's a lot of variety even within an accepted name grouping.

[Malifice]

Its fluff mainly.

If a PC wants to call his 'longsword' or 'scimitar' or 'rapier' a cutlass, sabre, falcatta, katana, jian, nine ring broadsword or whatever I'm happy.

Personally I mainly use the 'sabre' as a S damage rapier (I find dual weilding rapiers is weird). 1d8 finessable.

I wouldnt care if another PC was using a 'sabre' as a refluffed longsword either. His 'sabre' is just bigger and heavier than his companions.

Long story short, who cares? Let them fluff their weapons as they want.

[Klorox]

Its fluff mainly.

If a PC wants to call his 'longsword' or 'scimitar' or 'rapier' a cutlass, sabre, falcatta, katana, jian, nine ring broadsword or whatever I'm happy.

Personally I mainly use the 'sabre' as a S damage rapier (I find dual weilding rapiers is weird). 1d8 finessable.

I wouldnt care if another PC was using a 'sabre' as a refluffed longsword either. His 'sabre' is just bigger and heavier than his companions.

Long story short, who cares? Let them fluff their weapons as they want.

Bam !

[/thread]

[Tanarii]

I find it interesting how many folks are saying rapier for sabre. Those are wildly different weapons. After posting this, I googled cutlass/sabre, which I should probably have done first. :smallwink: It sounds like the scimtar is a sabre. Or vice versa. Basically just different names for what's ultimately the same weapons, at least at the root.

As to if scimitars should be light finesse d6 weapons, that's an entire 'nother barrel of fish. :smallyuk:

And no Malifice, I'm not going to let them completely fluff their weapons as they want in this particular case. As I explained, it's a large campaign with multiple players. If it was a typical adventure-path 'campaign' following a single group of unchanging PCs through their career and then ending, I'd be fine with it, because we'd all know what they meant when they said 'no-dachi' or 'tulwar' or whatever. But not in the case of 'persistent world' on-going campaign at an open table. I want consistent stats for the weapons for clear player/DM communications. I don't want two players who say they're using the same weapon having wildly different stats.

I mean, a PC can call a weapon whatever they want in-game. Because there's a million different names for weapons. Although they may be in disagreement with what NPCs/other PCs think. "Call that a Sabre? This is a Sabre!" *pulls out Two-handed sword* :smallamused:

(Edit2: on rereading, I see you were saying how you do it. I read your post as you saying that's how I should do it. /facepalm. I blame posting before coffee.)


If you check out the wiki on cutlass it seems that the stats for a hand axe would fit better since its design was more for chopping.Agreed, it does seem to be more like a small falchion, so hand axe seems more appropriate. Unfortunately if I try to retroactively change it now it'll affect multiple existing characters who are using one as a scimitar, as noted above. Unless I grandfather it in, and say the old cutlass was really a sabre, but the evolution of the weapon is to a wholly new type of cutlass that is used differently. Which seems like too much of a pain to be worth it.
Edit: plus the whole thrown weapon thing.

[Finieous]

Cutlass = 1d8 slashing (compare to hand axe, 1d6 slashing plus thrown property)
Sabre = scimitar

[lunaticfringe]

I find the idea of any blade heavy slashing weapon being finesse absurb, you need strength behind your strikes. The thing is, D&D ain't realistic by any stretch of the term. I stat or refluff stuff based on what my players want and what they have access to through class features. I haven't been asked to reskin a weapon by a player with proficiency in all Martial Weapons. It's Casters, Monks, & Rogues who have weird mixes of proficiencies. So I try and swap a damage type on an existing weapon they are proficient in, K.I.S.S.

But but Reality....
*Facepalm*

[Bohandas]

Cutlass = Scimitar
Sabre = Longsword

That's pretty much it for me.
3e treats both as scimitar-equivalent* (source: Arms And Equipment Guide); not sure if that carries over though


*Apparently, unlike fencing sabers, military sabers are generally curved

[JAL_1138]

There's a huge variety within sabers. Most British sabers, even cavalry sabers, are 2lbs or less and are quite agile. Napoleonic era british sabers are strongly-curved cutting weapons almost exclusively (terrible at thrusting, you can technically do it but not well) and are feather-light and fast in the hand. Later Victorian sabers are cut-and-thrust designs that are reasonably-nimble to fence with, like a slightly-curved single edged side-sword.

Most US (functional) cavalry sabers don't necessarily weigh much more but have a point of balance that's quite far from the hand and are considered a bit unwieldy on foot because of it (the 1840 model was nicknamed "the wrist-breaker"); the French cavalry sabers they were copies of had similar issues, but French infantry sabers were largely comparable to British infantry sabers (nimble cut-and-thrust weapons good for fencing).

[Tanarii]

*Apparently, unlike fencing sabers, military sabers are generally curvedOh hey! I totally knew fencing sabers were a thing, it just didn't click. That'd certainly explain why people are going with rapier for saber.

[hamishspence]

3e treats both as scimitar-equivalent* (source: Arms And Equipment Guide); not sure if that carries over though


Some 3e/3.5e sourcebooks have their own stats for cutlasses and sabres. 3.0 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting had stats for both, and 3.5 Stormwrack, had stats for just the cutlass.

[Malifice]

I find it interesting how many folks are saying rapier for sabre. Those are wildly different weapons. After posting this, I googled cutlass/sabre, which I should probably have done first. :smallwink: It sounds like the scimtar is a sabre. Or vice versa. Basically just different names for what's ultimately the same weapons, at least at the root.

As to if scimitars should be light finesse d6 weapons, that's an entire 'nother barrel of fish. :smallyuk:

And no Malifice, I'm not going to let them completely fluff their weapons as they want in this particular case. As I explained, it's a large campaign with multiple players. If it was a typical adventure-path 'campaign' following a single group of unchanging PCs through their career and then ending, I'd be fine with it, because we'd all know what they meant when they said 'no-dachi' or 'tulwar' or whatever. But not in the case of 'persistent world' on-going campaign at an open table. I want consistent stats for the weapons for clear player/DM communications. I don't want two players who say they're using the same weapon having wildly different stats.

I mean, a PC can call a weapon whatever they want in-game. Because there's a million different names for weapons. Although they may be in disagreement with what NPCs/other PCs think. "Call that a Sabre? This is a Sabre!" *pulls out Two-handed sword* :smallamused:

(Edit2: on rereading, I see you were saying how you do it. I read your post as you saying that's how I should do it. /facepalm. I blame posting before coffee.)

Agreed, it does seem to be more like a small falchion, so hand axe seems more appropriate. Unfortunately if I try to retroactively change it now it'll affect multiple existing characters who are using one as a scimitar, as noted above. Unless I grandfather it in, and say the old cutlass was really a sabre, but the evolution of the weapon is to a wholly new type of cutlass that is used differently. Which seems like too much of a pain to be worth it.
Edit: plus the whole thrown weapon thing.

If two players are using sabres with different stats they're just different sized sabres.

Who cares? I mean it's actually more realistic doing it that way.

Doing it your way adds nothing to the game and in fact detracts from it. Just let them fluff it however they want. One katana can be a Long sword and another can be a greatsword (it's heavier or made from something different or has a unique snowflake grip that requires two hands).

Seriously It doesn't matter. In fact it's worse than that. Not doing this restricts player fun, and fun is the whole point of the game.

[Tanarii]

Seriously It doesn't matter. In fact it's worse than that. Not doing this restricts player fun, and fun is the whole point of the game.Yeah, not buying your claim that pre-defined stats for cutlasses and sabres somehow restricts player fun, since an entire list of them in the PHB already existing doesn't do that.

[coolAlias]

Yeah, not buying your claim that pre-defined stats for cutlasses and sabres somehow restricts player fun, since an entire list of them in the PHB already existing doesn't do that.
I think his point is more that in real life, sword classifications are pretty fluid due to the huge variety even within a 'type.'

While I agree that having a nice, consistent list of available weapons is great, I also agree that in the end (to a certain extent) it doesn't really matter too much if one player has a longsword that they refer to as a sabre and another player has a rapier that they refer to as a sabre.

[Tanarii]

While I agree that having a nice, consistent list of available weapons is great, I also agree that in the end (to a certain extent) it doesn't really matter too much if one player has a longsword that they refer to as a sabre and another player has a rapier that they refer to as a sabre.It matters to me when they're trying to communicate something to me, or me to them. And in a drop-in open table, that's quite a lot.

It absolutely doesn't matter in game, any more than it would to anyone in real life. Which is to say some people will almost certainly take exception to it and argue ad nauseum if a slight curve to the blade means it's a backsword or scimitar or sabre.

[coolAlias]

It matters to me when they're trying to communicate something to me, or me to them. And in a drop-in open table, that's quite a lot.

It absolutely doesn't matter in game, any more than it would to anyone in real life. Which is to say some people will almost certainly take exception to it and argue ad nauseum if a slight curve to the blade means it's a backsword or scimitar or sabre.
DM: The enemy is wielding a nasty looking sabre, light and deadly like a scimitar.

That's all it takes to communicate both the fluff [sabre] and the mechanic [stats of a scimitar].

From the player to the DM, I admit it could be more problematic if you have players which are the type to abuse such a system (always a possibility especially as the number of players increases).

PC: I attack with my sabre doing 1d8+Dex slashing damage plus my sneak attack dice.
DM: Didn't you use your sabre as a scimitar to dual-wield last fight [without the feat], so your damage die should be d6?
PC: ...

In which case I can only offer a suggestion: record each weapon using the name corresponding to the PHB entry you wish it to use for stats, and then let the player put a parenthetical note about what their weapon looks like.

[Tanarii]

What you're describing sounds like a bunch of unnecessary work. The alternative is I can just say, without reducing player 'fun':
this is the stats for a cutlass / sabre. (Unspoken: Your character can call it whatever they like though.)

Of course, if I really wanted to I could just tell them to stick to the PHB weapons. That's even simpler. And if you look real close, you'll notice that's technically what I've done, just without telling them.

[coolAlias]

Whelp, this went real quick from people telling me how they do things to telling me how I'm doing things wrong.

What you're describing sounds like a bunch of unnecessary work. The alternative is I can just say, without reducing player 'fun':
this is the stats for a cutlass / sabre. (Unspoken: Your character can call it whatever they like though.)

Of course, if I really wanted to I could just tell them to stick to the PHB weapons. That's even simpler. And if you look real close, you'll notice that's technically what I've done, just without telling them.
I'm sorry if my posts came off as telling you you are doing it wrong - that wasn't my intent at all, as I agree with the way you decided to go about it (making a list with stats of those weapons and still allowing players to call it whatever they want).

Making a list of additional statted weapons is great for giving some extra flavor to a world and inspiring players. I suppose the players that are the type to re-fluff a weapon to fit their character concept aren't the target audience for the list, since they'll do whatever in either case.

[Tanarii]

I'm sorry if my posts came off as telling you you are doing it wrong - that wasn't my intent at all, as I agree with the way you decided to go about it (making a list with stats of those weapons and still allowing players to call it whatever they want).No no, I realized I was being unnecessarily sensitive and defensive. That's why I axed that part. :smallwink:


Making a list of additional statted weapons is great for giving some extra flavor to a world and inspiring players. I suppose the players that are the type to re-fluff a weapon to fit their character concept aren't the target audience for the list, since they'll do whatever in either case.Yup. And freely refluffing is a concept that fits in better with certain games. As I originally said, it definitely works well if you're doing the more common 'follow a single party' style of game. Because they're the focus around which the entire world resolves, and making heavily unique characters in such a case works well.

[smcmike]

If you wanted properly model damage in D&D, you'd have to overhaul the entire system, as well as change how strong Str20 really is in terms of lifting capacity.
All weapons would hit on Dex.
Some weapons would require a minimum Str score to wield.
Many piercing weapons would not add any stat to damage.
Slashing and Bludgeoning weapons would add up an amount of Str to damage, like Medium Armor has a maximum Dex bonus.
Armor would not increase AC, but rather, decrease a flat amount of damage.


If you think the weapons and armor are unrealistic, I have some news for you about Hit Points.

[Hrugner]

The sabre is a heavy ended cutting weapon meant to be used one handed from horse back, treat it as a long sword. I could see giving it the finesse property while on horseback. The cutlass is another heavy ended cutting tool used sometimes in combat, it's closest to a handaxe in its purpose. 1d6, light, slashing, 3 lbs.

You could find lighter variants that are closer to a scimitar, but those tend to have different names and come from places slightly to the east of these two weapons.

[Tanarii]

You could find lighter variants that are closer to a scimitar, but those tend to have different names and come from places slightly to the east of these two weapons.Are you talking about the British Military sabre here? Or the Hungarian-Turk Sabre, which appears to all intents and purposes (according to what I just read yesterday) was the same weapon as a scimitar, just with a different name.

[GlenSmash!]

I know the the British produced 2 Calvary sabers in 1796, a light and a heavy. I'd use a scimitar stats for the Light, and a Longsword stats for the Heavy.

[Cybren]

If you think the weapons and armor are unrealistic, I have some news for you about Hit Points.

All game mechanics are abstractions. HP themselves aren't intrinsically unrealistic or anti-simulationist, just the way they scale.


Are you talking about the British Military sabre here? Or the Hungarian-Turk Sabre, which appears to all intents and purposes (according to what I just read yesterday) was the same weapon as a scimitar, just with a different name.
Well, there's also the polish saber (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19hR04Ckb8), and tons of others. By the 1900s military thought had evolved to the point where cavalry swords had become straight, emphasizing thrust over cut.

Saber is a fairly broad term, but I would immediately interpret it as a finesse weapon, given they often had thin blades and, like the smallsword, evolved into a modern fencing weapon.

[Hrugner]

Are you talking about the British Military sabre here? Or the Hungarian-Turk Sabre, which appears to all intents and purposes (according to what I just read yesterday) was the same weapon as a scimitar, just with a different name.

The polish one I think. The line gets drawn over use and where the weight is. If the weight is in the end, then it's a saber and meant to be swung down on things from horse back; If the weight is near the base then it's a scimitar and meant the be swung while standing. The sports fencing saber is its own thing and has little in common with any sort of traditional saber.

There are sources out there that are sloppy or inaccurate. I figured I'd look at wikipedia to see how bad it is and it appears they use a Kilij picture as an example of a scimitar despite being entirely too heavy headed to be either a saber or a scimitar. They also use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar#/media/File:Boulanger_Gustave_Clarence_Rodolphe_A_Tale_of _1001_Nights.jpg as an image of "arab kids with scimitars" despite 3 khopis and a pulwar in the mix.

It isn't really important I suppose, but this is how I rule things. If someone says they want a finesse one handed curved blade, they can have it and call it what they like.

[Malifice]

Yeah, not buying your claim that pre-defined stats for cutlasses and sabres somehow restricts player fun, since an entire list of them in the PHB already existing doesn't do that.

Its a question of fluff and nothing more. Look at the Monk who expressly gets to fluff his 'monk' weapons however he wants.

One monk weilds an iron whip (staff). Another weilds a tetsubo greatclub (staff). Another weilds a Jian (shortsword). Another weilds a wakasashi (shortsword). Another weilds a hooked dragon sword (shortsword). And so forth.

It really doesnt matter. The mechanics stay the same. The fluff can be explained 'in game' by whatever mechanical justification you want (just like mechanics can be justifed by the fluff if need be).

Assume I have two 'samurai' PCs' (one a paladin and a rogue). The paladin is weilding a 'katana' (greatsword) and the rogue is also weilding a 'katana' (shortsword).

The Paladins 'katana' is fluffed as: 'An ancestral heirloom, made from meterioc iron. Even for someone as strong as the paladin (Str 16), it still requires two hands to use. It is capable of mighty strikes in the hands of someone with the right training (GWM and Smite class feature).'

The Rogues 'katana' is fluffed as: 'A blade forged by the fabled smith Myatomi, it is as light as a feather (finesse) but incredibly sharp (piercing damage). In the hands of a skilled user it is capabale of dealing incredibly precise cuts (sneak attack).'

Who cares? Mechanically nothing is different. Rather than deny something cool, immersive (and fun) I have now enabled it (and that's the whole point of the game). The alternative is to deny a concept or fluff to your players for no good reason other than a lack of imagination on behalf of the DM.

Heck; If a player came to me and requested his spear instead do slashing damage (its a 'naginata') instead of piercing damage, I'd also be cool with it. Im particularly open with monks with this ruling. A 'monk weapon' IMG is a weapon that is 1d6 - [versatile 1d8] your choice of S, B or P. This way not all monks are running around with staves and spears at 1st level.

Your monk wants a katana? Fine 1d6 (1d8 versatile) S weapon. Your monk wants a naginata? Same stats. A Jian? Same stats. Your monk wants a three section staff? Same stats, only bludgeoning. He wants a spear? Same stats, only piercing (or bludgeoning if he uses the pole). Etc

As a DM I have more important things to worry about than getting all Platos cave with what objects objectively 'are'. I want to maximise fun, enable as many concepts as I can, and focus on the important parts of the game (setting fun challenges for my players).

[Tanarii]

A naganata already exists - the Glaive.

The only reason for the kind of 'fluff only' re fluffing you're describing is so the player can take advantage of mechanical restrictions, while still using a weapon they couldn't normally.

Also, you're missing the main point. When the players find a magical sabre and it's a longsword, the next time one appears and it's a scimitar (usable by Druids), and the next one appears and it's a shortsword (usable by rogues and monks) ... the players are going to be quite rightly upset at me. Irritated by the inconsistency of the world and apparent DM favoritism.

This wouldn't be an issue if there was only one player in the campaign using the weapon and it stayed the same 'fluff' the entire time. But that's not the situation. As it stands. players re-fluffing at will creates an inconsistent world. Not an increase in 'fun' (which is a word describing individual perceptions of the situation).

[Joe the Rat]

How do your players want to use them? How do they see them?

Sabre: Are they wanting to Errol Flynn around with a thin, curved blade? Are they wanting to be slashing with force and abandon? Pick the image, assign the numbers: scimitar, or 1d8 slashing. Then stick with it. Remember, finesse weapons can be used with strength. Or 1d8/1d10 versatile, finesse, radiant damage, but that's for light sabres.

Cutlass: strength based slashing. shorter, heavier blade. d6 light, or d8, depending on how you feel about twin cutlasses.

My gut says they want sabre as a finesse weapon for fancy dueling in a piratey campaign, and cutlass for rough hacking.

[Tanarii]

Are they wanting to Errol Flynn around with a thin, curved blade? I think the first few players to ask me about cutlass for sailor (specifically Pirate variant background) were thinking of Pirates of the Carribean dueling. It's been a while, but that's what I recall.

For sabre it was definitely a cavalry sabre. I remember googling 'cavalry sabre', and deciding scimitar purely off. I don't know what the player was thinking. But after this thread and doing some basic reading, despite it apparently being the same root weapon as a scimitar IRL, it does seem a Str-based 'hacking' is probably more appropriate for a cavalry (specifically) sabre in D&D weapon terms.