Question about reflavor

[Dankus Memakus]

So, I'm playing a warlock most likely pact of the chain, I am therefore gonna be using simple weapons but my issue is, I really like the flavor of swords better than any simple weapons so I'm trying to reflavor a simple weapon to be more swordlike but not any different from their counterpart has anyone flavored a simple weapon as a sword before, please help.

Edit: I'd prefer it to not have any different abilities because my dm will fight me on it if it's not akin to its base weapon

[Kafkesque]

Well, the simplest solution would probably be to carry around a dagger and say it's something more akin to a dirk than a pocketknife. (I think this would be more accurate to historical daggers anyway, but don't quote me on that.)

Otherwise I'd say take a simple weapon that does slashing or piercing damage and say it's something like a falchion or a really crappy arming sword.

[DracoKnight]

I would ask if you can refluff a quarter staff, change the damage type to Slashing, and you have a d6/d8 Versatile Sword.

[Nifft]

Sickle is a Simple bladed weapon. That might be reflavored as a sword of some kind.

[Contrast]

If you don't fancy refluffing a dagger as a short short sword (if you offer to give up the thrown quality on the spear in exchange for swapping it to slashing damage to represent a falchion or something I can't imagine most DMs objecting) - are you actually going to be using the weapon? As pact of the chain I assume you're mostly planning on keeping your distance and eldritch blasting.

If you really like swords all you're giving up is your proficiency bonus which if you're only using it to take the occasional opportunity attack isn't that big a deal *shrugs* Says its a family heirloom or whatever if anyone queries. Carry around a dagger or quarterstaff/arcane focus staff (with the longsword for the full Gandalf look) in case you decide you really need to.

[DevilMcam]

handaxe is a simple slashing weapon as well, it can probably look like a sword as well.

[JNAProductions]

Honestly? Here's what I would allow.

Take any simple melee weapon. Literally any simple melee weapon, though one without the thrown property, preferably.

Make it slashing or piercing (as appropriate to the sword technique).

Call it a sword.

It's a very minor change, and offers no mechanical benefits to my knowledge. So, why not let a player use a sword?

[Anymage]

Short or long swords?

Giving a low level caster a greatsword wouldn't be the most ideal thing I'd want to do. But even then, it wouldn't be that crazy strong; your hp and ac wouldn't support your role as a melee frontliner, and the points you spend on strength for it are points you're not spending on more useful warlock abilities. A longsword, though, is basically +1 to damage over a simple weapon, and a shortsword is largely on par with what a simple weapon can do.

So unless this is AL or some other organized play thing (in which case, getting all the different DMs to accept your refluffing is probably more hassle than it's worth), just ask your DM if you can start with shortsword proficiency.

[Asmotherion]

You can wield a 1'6" foot-long bladed Dagger that looks like a Sword for all purposes except Damage. Or, if your DM lets you, even make the blade longer, up to 2 feet (though that's more of a small shortsword than a Dagger, but it's no big problem mechanically).

Now, if you absolutelly want a Sword, there is a way around this: If you're a Half Elf (One of the best two options on a Warlock as it gives +2 Charisma) you can take a Half Elf Variant from SCAG, trading your 2 bonus proficient skills with proficiency in Elf Weapons; This includes the Shortbow, Longbow, and more importantly what you're aiming for, the Longsword and Shortsword!

Those are the Simple ways around it, without multiclassing or taking a feat for something so simple :) Hope I was helpfull.

[Mikal]

So, I'm playing a warlock most likely pact of the chain, I am therefore gonna be using simple weapons but my issue is, I really like the flavor of swords better than any simple weapons so I'm trying to reflavor a simple weapon to be more swordlike but not any different from their counterpart has anyone flavored a simple weapon as a sword before, please help.

Edit: I'd prefer it to not have any different abilities because my dm will fight me on it if it's not akin to its base weapon

The problem is that a sword isn't meant to be a simple weapon. It's meant to require training to use with proficiency and skill.

If you like the flavor then you should make the sacrifice to take a rest to use it, or just use a simple weapon, or use a sword without proficiency. Or just use a dagger or sickle and call it a sword but everyone realizes in game it's a dagger or sickle.

That's like saying as a champion fighter I really like the flavor of a familiar, so what if I just bought a pet and called it a familiar? It pushes on the territory of those who actually spent resources to have a familiar, and to me shouldn't be allowed. At best it could be an in character delusion of grandeur, but everyone knows it's just a pet.

Restrictions aren't meant to be refluffed around. They're meant to be lived with, or have resources spent to overcome them. If you really want to be a sword wielding chainlock... spend something to make it happen. You'll appreciate it more.

[JNAProductions]

The problem is that a sword isn't meant to be a simple weapon. It's meant to require training to use with proficiency and skill.

If you like the flavor then you should make the sacrifice to take a rest to use it, or just use a simple weapon, or use a sword without proficiency. Or just use a dagger or sickle and call it a sword but everyone realizes in game it's a dagger or sickle.

That's like saying as a champion fighter I really like the flavor of a familiar, so what if I just bought a pet and called it a familiar? It pushes on the territory of those who actually spent resources to have a familiar, and to me shouldn't be allowed. At best it could be an in character delusion of grandeur, but everyone knows it's just a pet.

Restrictions aren't meant to be refluffed around. They're meant to be lived with, or have resources spent to overcome them. If you really want to be a sword wielding chainlock... spend something to make it happen. You'll appreciate it more.

He's not asking for more damage, or anything mechanically, really. He just likes the visuals of wielding a sword. Why deny that?

[Dankus Memakus]

He's not asking for more damage, or anything mechanically, really. He just likes the visuals of wielding a sword. Why deny that?

Yeah, exactly, I don't care at all if it does more damage, I just like swords

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, exactly, I don't care at all if it does more damage, I just like swords

What's your DM saying? Obviously their opinion matters most.

[Dankus Memakus]

What's your DM saying? Obviously their opinion matters most.

He doesn't care as long as "nothing changes" meaning damage type of properties, so basically im I'm leaning towards greatclub as a really blunt sword. However as someone mentioned I could indeed take half elf, then there would be no reflavor

[Mikal]

Yeah, exactly, I don't care at all if it does more damage, I just like swords

then you should play a concept that allows the use of swords with proficiency, or use it without proficiency.

If you just like swords, wield one with the negatives that go with it, or spend a resource to use it without negatives. There's literally no need to refluff an existing weapon to match another existing one.

[JNAProductions]

then you should play a concept that allows the use of swords with proficiency, or use it without proficiency.

If you just like swords, wield one with the negatives that go with it, or spend a resource to use it without negatives.

Okay, so what resources do you have to pay to play a tall character? Or a pretty one? Short character? Thick, thin? Red hair? Green eyes? Former potato farmer?

Why does what your weapon looks like matter more than those?

[Mikal]

Okay, so what resources do you have to pay to play a tall character? Or a pretty one? Short character? Thick, thin? Red hair? Green eyes? Former potato farmer?

Why does what your weapon looks like matter more than those?

Strawman argument.
The op wants to refluff existing weapon a into existing weapon b, not make choices that the rules already allow him to do I.e. Hair and eye color and background fluff.

Your weapon matters more because the weapons already exist with mechanics and more importantly, restrictions.

[Dankus Memakus]

then you should play a concept that allows the use of swords with proficiency, or use it without proficiency.

If you just like swords, wield one with the negatives that go with it, or spend a resource to use it without negatives. There's literally no need to refluff an existing weapon to match another existing one.

If I were to do this is never have proficiency correct? Unless I gave up a level of warlock I'd never get to be proficient losing that bonus? If i eventually can become proficient please tell me how

[JNAProductions]

Strawman argument.
The op wants to refluff existing weapon a into existing weapon b, not make choices that the rules already allow him to do I.e. Hair and eye color and background fluff.

Your weapon matters more because the weapons already exist with mechanics and more importantly, restrictions.

Re-fluff. As in, keep mechanics the same (other than potentially swapping damage types, which I would allow at my table since it has pretty much no effect), just change the appearance.

He's not asking for a more powerful weapon. He's asking for a visual change. I don't see the strawman.


If I were to do this is never have proficiency correct? Unless I gave up a level of warlock I'd never get to be proficient losing that bonus? If i eventually can become proficient please tell me how

You can multiclass into a class that gives proficiency in it.

You can go Pact of the Blade.

You can take the Weapon Master feat.

You can be a Variant Half-Elf and swap skills for swords.

[Mikal]

If I were to do this is never have proficiency correct? Unless I gave up a level of warlock I'd never get to be proficient losing that bonus? If i eventually can become proficient please tell me how

Does your game allow feats? There's one that makes you proficient with four weapons. So you could technically be proficient with all swords if you really wanted. I don't think there are more than four off the top of my head.

Beyond that yeah, multiclassing or being like an elf.

[scalyfreak]

What race is your warlock? Elves automatically have sword proficiency, as has already been pointed out. So if you play an elf warlock, that would seem to solve your problem.

[Jormengand]

If you want to do it and your DM is fine with you doing it, don't listen to random people telling you that you shouldn't be able to do it without really ever articulating why.

[Mikal]

If you want to do it and your DM is fine with you doing it, don't listen to random people telling you that you shouldn't be able to do it without really ever articulating why.

Yeah that's right. You should just go ahead and break verisimilitude and ignore any sort of existing fluff just because you're you.

Seriously, is it just the current crop of gamers who've grown up
on mmo's or something that makes people think it's ok to just ignore consistent world building and internal game world logic? I don't think so cause we had mmos when I played 3e, but it just seems endemic, at least to some people on this board.

OP I'm not saying you're like that- you are looking for ways to actually use it correctly and i applaud that. It just gets tiring for people to literally think that they can ignore the fluff or
Mechanics of A by using B instead and pretending it's A. Even if there are in game ways to already use A that can be done.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah that's right. You should just go ahead and break verisimilitude and ignore any sort of existing fluff just because you're you.

Seriously, is it just the current crop of gamers who've grown up
on mmo's or something that makes people think it's ok to just ignore consistent world building and internal game world logic? I don't think so cause we had mmos when I played 3e, but it just seems endemic, at least to some people on this board.

So wait-a guy using a sword breaks your entire verisimilitude? Just to be clear, you're okay with dragons, wizards, liches, beholders, illithids, floating islands, the entire underdark ecology...

But not a guy using a sword AND being a Warlock?

Edit: Also, thanks for insulting us all! Really appreciate that touch.

[Jormengand]

Yeah that's right. You should just go ahead and break verisimilitude and ignore any sort of existing fluff just because you're you.
Obviously, neither the player nor the DM thinks that verisimilitude is broken. And refluffing... well, yes, that is what is being discussed here.


Seriously, is it just the current crop of gamers who've grown up
on mmo's or something
I for one grew up on Neverwinter Nights.


that makes people think it's ok to just ignore consistent world building and internal game world logic?

> D&D 5e
> Consistent world building and internal game world logic.

Pick one.


I don't think so cause we had mmos when I played 3e, but it just seems endemic, at least to some people on this board.

I mean maybe because it's the overtly correct thing to do?

[scalyfreak]

Yeah that's right. You should just go ahead and break verisimilitude and ignore any sort of existing fluff just because you're you.

Yes, you should.

If everyone else around the table, including the DM, is okay with it, you can do whatever you want. The forum can and will make suggestions, but ultimately, it's up to you and your DM to work out a good solution that will work for your table. We're here to give you advice, not approval.

[Mikal]

So wait-a guy using a sword breaks your entire verisimilitude? Just to be clear, you're okay with dragons, wizards, liches, beholders, illithids, floating islands, the entire underdark ecology...

But not a guy using a sword AND being a Warlock?

Edit: Also, thanks for insulting us all! Really appreciate that touch.

Reading comprehension is a bit beyond you isn't it?

Cause if it wasn't you'd know it isn't a warlock using a sword. There are plenty of options for a warlock to use a sword which already exist. It's a player not wanting to pay the mechanical price for using a sword and instead refluffing something they can use instead.

But feel free to refluff what I said above into something else since you've already done it twice so far.

Edit: I'd say the only insult done so far was by you and your lack of cognitive understanding of the basic concepts I was saying or worse, the purposeful strawmanning of it.

[JNAProductions]

> D&D 5e
> Consistent world building and internal game world logic

Okay, name an edition of D&D that actually has consistent world building and internal game world logic.

Go on, I'm waiting. :P


Reading comprehension is a bit beyond you isn't it?

Cause if it wasn't you'd know it isn't a warlock using a sword. There are plenty of options for a warlock to use a sword which already exist. It's a player not wanting to pay the mechanical price for using a sword and instead refluffing something they can use instead.

But feel free to refluff what I said above into something else since you've already done it twice so far.

Alright, allow to rephrase-a BASE warlock using a sword.

Hell, you can ever explain why it does less damage than an equivalent weapon wielded by a fighter-the warlock has less training and experience with the blade, so despite it being the same make as the fighter's weapon, they hit less vital areas and cause less harm. Mechanically? Warlock gets 1d6 (Versatile 1d8), while Fighter gets 1d8 (Versatile 1d10).

[Jormengand]

Okay, name an edition of D&D that actually has consistent world building and internal game world logic.

Go on, I'm waiting. :P

I mean I didn't say any of the other editions did, but I can't be certain because I haven't played half of them.

[Kane0]

How to make a weapon:

Start with 1d10 and a damage type of choice
Add positive traits, at least one. For each positive trait (simple, thrown, finesse, etc) reduce the die size by one step
Add negative traits. Each negative trait (heavy, two handed) increase your damage die one step.
One handed weapons are capped at 1d8 damage, simple weapons 1d10 damage

You can use this to recreate 90% of PHB weapons.

If you are more restricted than that, take a weapon from the PHB (eg club, mace, spear) and change only the damage type. Weapon damage type changes pretty much nothing, it has about as much mechanical impact as your alignment.

Alternatively alternatively, handaxes and sickles are simple slashing weapons so you can just use them, they're both blades already so just change the shape! Call it a kukri or khopesh or something not in the book already if your DM gets uppity.

[scalyfreak]

Reading comprehension is a bit beyond you isn't it?

Cause if it wasn't you'd know it isn't a warlock using a sword. There are plenty of options for a warlock to use a sword which already exist. It's a player not wanting to pay the mechanical price for using a sword and instead refluffing something they can use instead.

He doesn't want the mechanics of a sword, just the fluff of one.

While we're on the subject of reading comprehension anyway...

[JNAProductions]

I mean I didn't say any of the other editions did, but I can't be certain because I haven't played half of them.

Fair enough. I'll agree that 5E ain't the best at it-I don't know any system that really IS, though, barring really light ones like FATE.


He doesn't want the mechanics of a sword, just the fluff of one.

While we're on the subject of reading comprehension anyway...

That's a good point too. Hell, the OP even said he's probably going to refluff a greatclub as a rather dull blade, so the mechanics are literally identical.

[Mikal]

Alright, allow to rephrase-a BASE warlock using a sword.

Elven warlock
Pact of the blade warlock
Multi classed warlock
Warlock who picked up weapon master and chooses swords.

Man. That was hard.


Hell, you can ever explain why it does less damage than an equivalent weapon wielded by a fighter-the warlock has less training and experience with the blade, so despite it being the same make as the fighter's weapon, they hit less vital areas and cause less harm. Mechanically? Warlock gets 1d6 (Versatile 1d8), while Fighter gets 1d8 (Versatile 1d10).

Or instead of making a lot of mental gymnastics and house rules.... you could use all the valid options already in place to use a sword as warlock?

[Jormengand]

Why does the ideea of a player and DM doing what makes their game the most fun for them offend you so much? :smallconfused:

[Mikal]

He doesn't want the mechanics of a sword, just the fluff of one.

While we're on the subject of reading comprehension anyway...

While we're on the subject you failed it because I was talking about the fact that if one wants to use a sword one should pay the mechanical price to use one, which gives you the mechanics of it as a side benefit, not refluff one existing non sword weapon into one.

So... yeah. Guess you could use some lessons as well, eh?

[Jormengand]

While we're on the subject you failed it because I was talking about the fact that if one wants to use a sword one should pay the mechanical price to use one, which gives you the mechanics of it as a side benefit, not refluff one existing non sword weapon into one.

Oh? Why should the player do that? What is the actual benefit for the player and DM and other players in real terms?

[Mikal]

Why does the ideea of a player and DM doing what makes their game the most fun for them offend you so much? :smallconfused:

Why does actually having to spend resources to play a concept offend you so much?


Oh? Why should the player do that? What is the actual benefit for the player and DM and other players in real terms?

It doesn't dilute the fact that certain items are meant to be used by certain classes or races or people with specific feats?
It doesn't force the dm to come up with explanations on why x acts exactly like y- including with feat interaction, but not with feats that interact with x? Or magical versions of same?

[JNAProductions]

While we're on the subject you failed it because I was talking about the fact that if one wants to use a sword one should pay the mechanical price to use one, which gives you the mechanics of it as a side benefit, not refluff one existing non sword weapon into one.

So... yeah. Guess you could use some lessons as well, eh?

So you're saying-let me keep the record straight here-that a player who only wants to use a sword as their weapon-not for mechanical benefit, just because it looks cool-should not be allowed to have that without spending mechanical importance on a totally fluff-based decision?

And that is different from requiring a player to pay a mechanical price to be pretty... How?

[Dankus Memakus]

Elven warlock
Pact of the blade warlock
Multi classed warlock
Warlock who picked up weapon master and chooses swords.

Man. That was hard.



Or instead of making a lot of mental gymnastics and house rules.... you could use all the valid options already in place to use a sword as warlock?

Dude, do you have to be so aggressive, just chill out. It's not a bunch of mental gymnastics it's just me saying "instead of a handaxe I have a cleaver which is literally identical to a handaxes but it looks like a sword" don't get so upset, we aren't planning on breaking the game and giving my warlock a weapon he shouldn't. The fact that it looks like a sword has zero effect on the gameplay besides the image of my character. Don't insult all these people who came here to help me.

[Mikal]

So you're saying-let me keep the record straight here-that a player who only wants to use a sword as their weapon-not for mechanical benefit, just because it looks cool-should not be allowed to have that without spending mechanical importance on a totally fluff-based decision

Yup. That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying.
Or use it without proficiency. That's an option too. You want to look cool? Great. You don't know how to use it though, unless you take an effort to learn. Or are an elf. Or if you make a pact with our patron. And so on.

[Jormengand]

Why does actually having to spend resources to play a concept offend you so much?

It doesn't. Having to spend resources to do things - to play the concept of fire mage or summoner - doesn't. Having to spend resources to look as though you have a sword does for the same reason as having to spend feats to have red hair.


It doesn't dilute the fact that certain items are meant to be used by certain classes or races or people with specific feats?
It doesn't force the dm to come up with explanations on why x acts exactly like y- including with feat interaction, but not with feats that interact with x? Or magical versions of same?

No, I said "In real terms" not "In Mikal's head".

[scalyfreak]

While we're on the subject you failed it because I was talking about the fact that if one wants to use a sword one should pay the mechanical price to use one, which gives you the mechanics of it as a side benefit, not refluff one existing non sword weapon into one.

So... yeah. Guess you could use some lessons as well, eh?

He doesn't want to use a sword. He wants to use whatever he already has access to, but refluff it so it looks like a sword.

D&D is supposed to be fun. If others need to play it differently in order for it to be fun, it's none of our business. And none of yours. If you want to let that offend you on a personal level the way you're doing here, that's on you, and your problem.

[JNAProductions]

Yup. That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying.
Or use it without proficiency. That's an option too. You want to look cool? Great. You don't know how to use it though, unless you take an effort to learn.

And this is different from a pretty character... How?

[Dankus Memakus]

Yup. That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying.
Or use it without proficiency. That's an option to. You want to look cool? Great. You don't know how to use it though, unless you take an effort to learn.

Id prefer not to hear your answers if your gonna be rude to those who are actually helping me. If in your game you dont like refluff, cool, that sucks that your fun has to be limited by your closemindedness but instead of being sarcastic with people who have done nothing wrong go answer a question that you can actually help with

[JNAProductions]

Id prefer not to hear your answers if your gonna be rude to those who are actually helping me. If in your game you dont like refluff, cool, that sucks that your fun has to be limited by your closemindedness but instead of being sarcastic with people who have done nothing wrong go answer a question that you can actually help with

By the way, Dankus, has your DM offered a final ruling? I hope he lets you use your sword. It'd enhance your fun, and this is supposed to be a fun game.

[Dankus Memakus]

And this is different from a pretty character... How?

It isn't but our rude friend here can't actually tell you why

[Kane0]

Uh guys we should probably all just take a step back at this point, the question has been answered and everyone is just getting frustrated.

[Dankus Memakus]

By the way, Dankus, has your DM offered a final ruling? I hope he lets you use your sword. It'd enhance your fun, and this is supposed to be a fun game.

Yep, gonna use a handaxe, call it a cleaver

[JNAProductions]

Yep, gonna use a handaxe, call it a cleaver

Yay! Happy ending!

[scalyfreak]

It's not a bunch of mental gymnastics it's just me saying "instead of a handaxe I have a cleaver which is literally identical to a handaxes but it looks like a sword"

This is actually a great idea. Instead of a cleaver you can shorten the handle and lengthen the blade, and you would end up with something that looks a little bit like a machete. That looks like a short sword, but you would have the handaxe mechanics.

EDIT:
Never mind, you made your choice while I typed this. Enjoy the cleaver!

[Dankus Memakus]

Yay! Happy ending!

Lol just so you know I appreciate you and your help and your defence against rudeness

[Dankus Memakus]

This is actually a great idea. Instead of a cleaver you can shorten the handle and lengthen the blade, and you would end up with something that looks a little bit like a machete. That looks like a short sword, but you would have the handaxe mechanics.

Sounds awesome to me

[Asmotherion]

Yeah that's right. You should just go ahead and break verisimilitude and ignore any sort of existing fluff just because you're you.

Seriously, is it just the current crop of gamers who've grown up
on mmo's or something that makes people think it's ok to just ignore consistent world building and internal game world logic? I don't think so cause we had mmos when I played 3e, but it just seems endemic, at least to some people on this board.

OP I'm not saying you're like that- you are looking for ways to actually use it correctly and i applaud that. It just gets tiring for people to literally think that they can ignore the fluff or
Mechanics of A by using B instead and pretending it's A. Even if there are in game ways to already use A that can be done.

Currently, you are edge-lording a behaviour of "Hardcore Veteran D&D Player" in my oppinion. You may be so, and it's great, but there is no need to be offensive to others because of that.

You accuse others of being influenced by MMORPGS, yet I see your own behavior being more closed to out of the box thinking in the way it is reflected in those games. D&D has the luxury to allow imagination to fill the imperfections a computer game cannot, by allowing this versality.

I am not suggesting freebies. I'm totally against that. But I don't think anyone suggested that either. I'm sure the OP would be willing, in a show of good will, to trade off all his simple melee weapon proficiencies for proficiency in Shortswords and Longswords for example... Then the DM might think it's too much of a trade off, and instead ask for 2 simple melee weapon proficiencies for each. It's not the end of the world if something is not 100% RAW, as long as it's balanced.

Refluffing on the other hand is also a nice choice. There are a lot of Daggers in history whose Size/Shape makes them confusing to the non-expert to categorise as "A very large Dagger or maybe a very small Shortsword". I think one can toy with this idea without "breaking the Game". Wile I would probably go for the Half-Elf variant Example I gave, if I was so keen on using a character with a Sword, I see no reason why this is not a good solution.

This is considered a dagger for example:

http://www.darksword-armory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/the-danish-medieval-dagger-1815-0.jpg

[Boci]

It doesn't dilute the fact that certain items are meant to be used by certain classes or races or people with specific feats?
It doesn't force the dm to come up with explanations on why x acts exactly like y- including with feat interaction, but not with feats that interact with x? Or magical versions of same?

No it doesn't. It could lead to the following:

(martial NPC): "Funny blade you've got there. May I? Thanks. Wow, the balance on this blade is poor, the weight destruction...Who made it? Really, you find it easier to use than this? Strange,"

[Morty]

If someone's using a sword but with a dagger's worth of damage, it sounds pretty much exactly like someone trying to wield a weapon without proper martial training.

[Mikal]

He doesn't want the mechanics of a sword, just the fluff of one.

While we're on the subject of reading comprehension anyway...


It doesn't. Having to spend resources to do things - to play the concept of fire mage or summoner - doesn't. Having to spend resources to look as though you have a sword does for the same reason as having to spend feats to have red hair.

No, I said "In real terms" not "In Mikal's head".


He doesn't want to use a sword. He wants to use whatever he already has access to, but refluff it so it looks like a sword.

D&D is supposed to be fun. If others need to play it differently in order for it to be fun, it's none of our business. And none of yours. If you want to let that offend you on a personal level the way you're doing here, that's on you, and your problem.


It isn't but our rude friend here can't actually tell you why


Currently, you are edge-lording a behaviour of "Hardcore Veteran D&D Player" in my oppinion. You may be so, and it's great, but there is no need to be offensive to others because of that.

You accuse others of being influenced by MMORPGS, yet I see your own behavior being more closed to out of the box thinking in the way it is reflected in those games. D&D has the luxury to allow imagination to fill the imperfections a computer game cannot, by allowing this versality.

I am not suggesting freebies. I'm totally against that. But I don't think anyone suggested that either. I'm sure the OP would be willing, in a show of good will, to trade off all his simple melee weapon proficiencies for proficiency in Shortswords and Longswords for example... Then the DM might think it's too much of a trade off, and instead ask for 2 simple melee weapon proficiencies for each. It's not the end of the world if something is not 100% RAW, as long as it's balanced.

Refluffing on the other hand is also a nice choice. There are a lot of Daggers in history whose Size/Shape makes them confusing to the non-expert to categorise as "A very large Dagger or maybe a very small Shortsword". I think one can toy with this idea without "breaking the Game". Wile I would probably go for the Half-Elf variant Example I gave, if I was so keen on using a character with a Sword, I see no reason why this is not a good solution.

This is considered a dagger for example:

http://www.darksword-armory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/the-danish-medieval-dagger-1815-0.jpg


No it doesn't. It could lead to the following:

(martial NPC): "Funny blade you've got there. May I? Thanks. Wow, the balance on this blade is poor, the weight destruction...Who made it? Really, you find it easier to use than this? Strange,"

Ok. So every keeps saying that I'm just against having fun, and that fluffing has no mechanical value, and that you can pretend it's just a badly made or badly weighted sword and it doesn't make a difference.

You're all wrong. Why? Proficiency bonuses affect how often you hit, and how often you hit affects how often you do damage.
Let's take the handaxe. It does the same damage as the short sword, albeit piercing vs. slashing and using strength to hit vs. dex. It's an almost perfect example of a weapon you can refluff as a shortsword, just "badly made" or balanced or whatever, right?! I mean, it uses strength vs. dex, which shows how it's badly balanced and all.

Except...

The wielder of the "badly made" weapon does a lot more damage and hits a lot more often with his "crappy" weapon over the actual, well-made short sword.

Let's assume a dex 16 and str 16 warlock, and we'll hand wave damage reductions from piercing vs. slashing or from non-magic weapons, as well as circumstantial bonuses or penalties such as advantage or spells.

For the actual shortsword without proficiency, the warlock will always have the below chance to hit the target ACs as follows:


AC 10- 70%
AC 15- 45%
AC 20- 20%
AC 23 or higher - 5% (crit only)

Now, let's look at the same warlock using the "badly made shortsword/primitive shortsword/cleaver"


AC 10- 80%
AC 15- 55%
AC 20- 30%
AC 25 or higher- 5% (crit only)

So, off the bat, using a badly designed sword over a well designed sword gives the user a 10% better chance to hit a target AC, up to AC 25!
From a damage perspective, over 100 attacks, that means the badly designed, weaker sword will do about 65 more damage on average.

What's worse is when that same Warlock hits level 10. Now, the so-called badly designed sword can be quite deadly.

First, the actual shortsword percentages remain the same, so we don't need to bring those back.

Let's look though, at the level 10 wielder of the so-called crappy blade, and their chances to hit with it.



AC 10- 90%
AC 15- 65%
AC 20- 40%
AC 25- 15%
AC 27 or higher- 5% (crit only)

Not only can the weaker sword now be used to damage better protected people, but we have a boost of 20% compared to a "well-made" shortsword!
From a damage perspective, this now provides an average of 130 damage over 100 attacks!

What does this all mean?
It means that your so-called weaker sword is actually stronger in the hands of the warlock vs. the well-made sword. It is mechanically superior for them to use, despite being from a fluff perspective, mechanically worse.

This is what is meant by breaking internal world logic and verisimilitude.

Is it a small difference? Yes. Does it add up? Yes. Does it show why just saying "eh, call whatever a sword, it doesn't matter" does require mental gymnastics not needed? After all, if the weaker sword performs better for an untrained person, then why doesn't it perform even better for the trained person?

Why aren't the designs on the so-called weaker sword which performs better in the hands of anybody used in the designs of the shortsword?

Why does the wielder of the badly designed sword still attack with less ability when wielding a +3 legendary shortsword over the badly designed sword (once Prof. bonuses hit a +4)?

Those are just a few things that come up when you just think you can fluff something without consequences. There are mechanical differences, and there are issues that come up, both mechanically, and narratively.

If you really want to use a sword only because it looks cool, use a sword and take the penalties attached with it. Otherwise you're gaining mechanical benefits while wielding a sword that you shouldn't/wouldn't get otherwise. The damage difference is negligible if you follow RAW, especially as a chainlock, and you don't bring up the internal consistency issues that refluffing the weapon creates.

TL;DR
An axe is not a sword and refluffing can actually have mechanical benefits. Also, if you're doing something to look cool which your class can't normally do, there are drawbacks to it.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, I'm playing a warlock most likely pact of the chain, I am therefore gonna be using simple weapons but my issue is, I really like the flavor of swords better than any simple weapons so I'm trying to reflavor a simple weapon to be more swordlike but not any different from their counterpart has anyone flavored a simple weapon as a sword before, please help.
Make your Warlock an elf. Built in weapons proficiencies of short sword, long sword, short bow, long bow.
Problem solved.

OR

Use a hand axe and Call it a cleaver ... problem solved. Make sure that you now and again run about at high speed crying 'Fresh Meat!" :)

[Millstone85]

Let's take the handaxe. It does the same damage as the short sword, albeit piercing vs. slashing. It's also a light weapon, so you can use dex to hit and damage with it.You are confusing the light and finesse properties.

[Throne12]

I don't know if anyone has said this but even if you don't have Proficiency in a weapon you can still use it your just not adding your proficiency bonus to the attack roll. So if you want a sword just pick one up and use it.

[Mikal]

You are confusing the light and finesse properties.

Gah. You're correct. I'll change my post accordingly (handaxe using Str, swortsword using Dex)
Edit, corrected.

Note for those who will say "use a dagger!", while the damage itself goes down, the hit probabilities do not, thus still having a badly balanced or designed sword still hit much more often than a well balanced weapon.

[Dudewithknives]

I am having nightmare flashbacks to when Pathfinder came out with the Swashbuckler class and Slashing Grace feat in the same book...

You could use Dex to damage with a battle axe, but you couldn't with a rapier... on a swashbuckler.

This was due to them creating a feat to let any slashing 1 handed weapon use dex to damage but forgetting that rapiers are only piercing not piercing or slashing like some others.

They fixed this months later with Fencing Grace introduced as an oops fix.

I asked if I could refluff a scimitar to be a rapier, same damage, same threat range, and I think similar weight, but slashing to piercing. The DM said no, but mainly because he just liked pissing me off. He had no problem with another person in the group using a great sword as a magus.

As far as the refluff for 5e goes, as long as the traits of the weapon do not change and the die size does not change, just go with it.

[Mikal]

I am having nightmare flashbacks to when Pathfinder came out with the Swashbuckler class and Slashing Grace feat in the same book...

You could use Dex to damage with a battle axe, but you couldn't with a rapier... on a swashbuckler.

This was due to them creating a feat to let any slashing 1 handed weapon use dex to damage but forgetting that rapiers are only piercing not piercing or slashing like some others.

They fixed this months later with Fencing Grace introduced as an oops fix.

I asked if I could refluff a scimitar to be a rapier, same damage, same threat range, and I think similar weight, but slashing to piercing. The DM said no, but mainly because he just liked pissing me off. He had no problem with another person in the group using a great sword as a magus.

As far as the refluff for 5e goes, as long as the traits of the weapon do not change and the die size does not change, just go with it.

Except for that in this scenario doing so brings up logic holes and can break verisimilitude, per my last post.

[Jormengand]

refluffing can actually have mechanical benefits.

"He's better with a hand axe that looks like a sword than he is with a sword" yes but he is also better with a hand axe that looks like a HAND AXE than he is with a sword.

What is the "Mechanical benefit" of his hand axe looking like a sword?

[Contrast]

Except for that in this scenario doing so brings up logic holes and can break verisimilitude, per my last post.

Your argument would make more sense if anyone without martial weapon prof couldn't already pick up a handaxe and use it better than a shortsword (the weapon is even cheaper and comes with the thrown property!). The advantage of the shortsword is the finesse trait. Which OP doesn't get.

In this case OP is getting a shortsword without the delicate balance needed for a finesse weapon but clearly the more sturdy construction makes it easier to use for the less well trained individual. Mechanically nothing has changed from OP just using a handaxe instead (with the possibly exception that OP was waived their thrown property on their 'handaxe') so any balance argument is immediately shot down. I don't personally see the point in Wizards printing endless tables of weapons which all have the same statline with different names when a DM can easily say 'yeah that weapon seems similar to a <X>, just use the statline for that' - which is exactly what the improvised weapon rules tell the DM to do anyway. If I was a DM trying to come up with rules for a machete for an NPC I'd probably just use the handaxe rules and call it a day which is exactly what OP has done, just from the other direction.

If you were playing at OPs table and didn't like the ruling the only impact it would have is that when OP says 'I pull out my sword/falchion/machete/cleaver/particularly long dagger' you mentally change it to 'I pull out my handaxe'.

I'd look askance at someone trying to refluff a bow into a shotgun but if you seriously object to someone refluffing a one handed slashing blade into a one handed slashing blade with the same rules but a slightly different shape with no mechanical impacts because they think it looks cooler, then you need to re-evaluate your priorities in what you're sitting down at the gaming table to achieve.

[JNAProductions]

Mikal, you do realize that the Warlock is also better with a hand axe than with a sword? That math applies with basically any simple weapon as compared to any martial weapon.

Again, as was pointed out by Boci, the Warlock is simply used to and has trained with a poorly balanced blade. Were they to invest time and effort into learning how to use a well-made weapon (represented by taking the Weapon Master feat or Multiclassing) they'd learn to use well-balanced weapons better, and get more damage. But until that happens, they're better off with their shoddy, but personalized, weapon.

And if they grab a magic weapon that they swap out for, then the magic within the weapon adjusts the balance as appropriate for the user. In this case, actually goofing up the balance of the blade, but it works better for this character.

I feel like you're lacking in imagination. It's not that difficult to figure out how this does make sense, and honestly, it's a very minor issue. There are far, FAR greater breaks from consistent logic in the rules, such as the entire damn economy, but I've not seen you complaining about those.

[Mikal]

He's better with a hand axe that looks like a sword than he is with a sword" yes but he is also better with a hand axe that looks like a HAND AXE than he is with a sword.

What is the "Mechanical benefit" of his hand axe looking like a sword?

The fact a weapon that's been fluffed as a badly balanced weapon is actually easier to use for people who don't have training in actual martial weapons?
The fact that something that allows that kind of damage as a sword is a technology that logically should have been applied to other swords that require martial ability, yet the damage doesn't match that?
The fact that it makes a person who is using a weapon that looks exactly like a sword use it better than an actual sword?

The fact that a sword has historically been a weapon (both real world historical as well as D&D gaming historical) that required specific training to use, verses a hand axe or other weapon which is essentially a sharpened farmers tool, and that you're spitting in the face of it because you want to be a special snowflake, and breaking the verisimilitude and internal logic of the game to do so?


Mikal, you do realize that the Warlock is also better with a hand axe than with a sword? That math applies with basically any simple weapon as compared to any martial weapon.

Again, as was pointed out by Boci, the Warlock is simply used to and has trained with a poorly balanced blade. Were they to invest time and effort into learning how to use a well-made weapon (represented by taking the Weapon Master feat or Multiclassing) they'd learn to use well-balanced weapons better, and get more damage. But until that happens, they're better off with their shoddy, but personalized, weapon.

And if they grab a magic weapon that they swap out for, then the magic within the weapon adjusts the balance as appropriate for the user. In this case, actually goofing up the balance of the blade, but it works better for this character.

I feel like you're lacking in imagination. It's not that difficult to figure out how this does make sense, and honestly, it's a very minor issue. There are far, FAR greater breaks from consistent logic in the rules, such as the entire damn economy, but I've not seen you complaining about those.


Your argument would make more sense if anyone without martial weapon prof couldn't already pick up a handaxe and use it better than a shortsword (the weapon is even cheaper and comes with the thrown property!). The advantage of the shortsword is the finesse trait. Which OP doesn't get.

Except that we're not talking about someone with the proficiency using the weapon as is. We're talking about refluffing a simple weapon into a weapon whose all examples are martial. What a martial can or can't do in this case doesn't matter.


In this case OP is getting a shortsword without the delicate balance needed for a finesse weapon but clearly the more sturdy construction makes it easier to use for the less well trained individual.

Except that if the sturdy construction makes the short blade able to do this kind of damage, why isn't that sturdy construction used for the long sword to increase its damage? Or to a greatsword? Why would anyone bother using a hand axe over the sword?


Mechanically nothing has changed from OP just using a handaxe instead (with the possibly exception that OP was waived their thrown property on their 'handaxe') so any balance argument is immediately shot down.
Except it's not, per my previous posts.


I don't personally see the point in Wizards printing endless tables of weapons which all have the same statline with different names when a DM can easily say 'yeah that weapon seems similar to a <X>, just use the statline for that' - which is exactly what the improvised weapon rules tell the DM to do anyway. If I was a DM trying to come up with rules for a machete for an NPC I'd probably just use the handaxe rules and call it a day which is exactly what OP has done, just from the other direction.

I agree with this. Which is why if someone wants to use a Katana it's a long sword in my game. But that's not what's being asked for here. What's being asked for is a weapon of some type that hasn't existed before come into creation, one that looks like an existing sword, but uses different stats. Apples to Orange.


If you were playing at OPs table and didn't like the ruling the only impact it would have is that when OP says 'I pull out my sword/falchion/machete/cleaver/particularly long dagger' you mentally change it to 'I pull out my handaxe'.

Except for the examples I put before about what kind of questions such a sword's existing brings up for the game world, if you care at all about the worlds internal consistency, logic, and verisimilitude.

[JNAProductions]

The fact a weapon that's been fluffed as a badly balanced weapon is actually easier to use for people who don't have training in actual martial weapons?
The fact that something that allows that kind of damage as a sword is a technology that logically should have been applied to other swords that require martial ability, yet the damage doesn't match that?
The fact that it makes a person who is using a weapon that looks exactly like a sword use it better than an actual sword?

The fact that a sword has historically been a weapon (both real world historical as well as D&D gaming historical) that required specific training to use, verses a hand axe or other weapon which is essentially a sharpened farmers tool, and that you're spitting in the face of it because you want to be a special snowflake, and breaking the verisimilitude and internal logic of the game to do so?

Okay.

So, let me ask you this-should a sharpened farming tool do more damage than a sword? Because, for anyone with simple weapon proficiencies but not martial, the farming tool does more damage than the sword, as your own math shows.

I can sorta understand if that's a verisimilitude breaker for you (or at least hurts it a little), but that's right in the main rules.

[Jormengand]

the verisimilitude and internal logic of the game

I'm still bewildered that you believe that this is a thing in D&D.

EDIT: You could also give me a real answer to my question: what, mechanically, is the benefit of taking a hand axe that looks like a sword over one which does not?

[Mikal]

Okay.

So, let me ask you this-should a sharpened farming tool do more damage than a sword? Because, for anyone with simple weapon proficiencies but not martial, the farming tool does more damage than the sword, as your own math shows.

I can sorta understand if that's a verisimilitude breaker for you (or at least hurts it a little), but that's right in the main rules.

In the hands of someone without martial proficiency? Yes, a simple farming tool should theoretically be capable of doing so. Part of the martial proficiency is to reflect the fact that those weapons actually require training to use properly, to get the most out of them.

This is reflected by the better to-hit chances which come from using those weapons, and why certain classes which aren't truly "martial" (in the sense of having that combat training) only have proficiency with a few of those weapons (such as the rogue).

Mechanically, I fully admit the damage differences are minuscule when it comes to any single attack. But to me, that's another reason not to do it. It's providing an advantage, while also requiring breaks of logic and in world consistency compared to other swords, for what's really no reason. The warlock can use a sword just fine without proficiency, if all that's being wanted is to look cool.


I'm still bewildered that you believe that this is a thing in D&D.

I don't see why. Internal consistency means that you use the rules in the system, or, if you change those rules, do so consistently while answering any questions that come up from them. Such as the ones I posed earlier. It doesn't mean using real world physics or chemistry in the game. The game has rules. Those provide consistency and logic to the game.

[JNAProductions]

I don't see why. Internal consistency means that you use the rules in the system, or, if you change those rules, do so consistently while answering any questions that come up from them. Such as the ones I posed earlier. It doesn't mean using real world physics or chemistry in the game. The game has rules. Those provide consistency and logic to the game.

In a well-designed system, yes. Not in D&D.

Drown-healing, anyone? Wish-Simulacrum Chaining?

[Mikal]

In a well-designed system, yes. Not in D&D.

Drown-healing, anyone? Wish-Simulacrum Chaining?

Every system has holes in it. I never said you shouldn't have house rules, just that refluffing should be done with care, else it provides unexpected benefits and raises unexpected questions. And it shouldn't be done just to look cool when you can look as equally cool by wielding the actual dang sword. If you don't care about the mechanical benefits, then the proficiency bonus you're losing doesn't matter either.

[JNAProductions]

Every system has holes in it. I never said you shouldn't have house rules, just that refluffing should be done with care, else it provides unexpected benefits and raises unexpected questions. And it shouldn't be done just to look cool when you can look as equally cool by wielding the actual dang sword. If you don't care about the mechanical benefits, then the proficiency bonus you're losing doesn't matter either.

What benefits does it provide, other than looking cool?

And we've answered the questions that you've posed. It just took a little thought and imagination.

[Jormengand]

Amazing. I ask you a simple question: what is the benefit to the player, mechanically, of changing their weapon's appearance? You duck the question. I ask it again, and again you dodge the question. Something about that question, about asking you what mechanical benefit the player is attempting to gain by having a hand axe look like a sword and not like a hand axe, brings out your inner coward: you refuse to answer, for on the lack of any meaningful response that you have to that question is predicated the obvious reason why you're wrong: clearly, the player is ONLY making a cosmetic decision about their character, and there is NO good reason - and by good, I don't mean your laughable idea that martial weapon is a well-thought-through category (I have no real weapons training but I think I could wield a longsword [ignoring that "Longsword" is not a real type of weapon] better than a quarterstaff, say) - to take that away from them.

The idea that the fluff of 5e is both entirely robust, and fragile enough that you can literally cut it down with a machete, is among the more ridiculous doublethink in this realm.

[Mikal]

What benefits does it provide, other than looking cool?

And we've answered the questions that you've posed. It just took a little thought and imagination.

Except that doesn't answer the other part of the issue- if there is a mechanical way to make a sword simple to wield while doing the damage a martial sword does, why aren't those techniques used in those martial swords to make them better?

Why does the sword which looks like the martial sword actually work better in the hands of someone untrained, even if the martial sword is the legendary +3 sword of butt kicking for goodness?

Why does the mighty warlock still use this sword when he can bend time and space to his will, but when he uses an actually well balanced sword (one that uses finesse or does more damage), he's actually worse with it?

Those are the questions that need answers.


Amazing. I ask you a simple question: what is the benefit to the player, mechanically, of changing their weapon's appearance? You duck the question. I ask it again, and again you dodge the question.
No. It's already been answered in a previous post. It raises questions about mechanical viability of other swords, as well as raises the question as to why a warlock is able to use a "weaker" sword better than a "well-balanced" blade, or why the techniques creating a sword anyone can use verses one requiring martial training aren't implemented with all swords. Nice attempt at an ad hominem attack with the rest of your post, btw.

[Jormengand]

No. It's already been answered in a previous post.

Sigh.

What is the game mechanic benefit of the character wielding the hand-axe which looks like a sword instead of a hand axe which doesn't.

[JNAProductions]

Except that doesn't answer the other part of the issue- if there is a mechanical way to make a sword simple to wield while doing the damage a martial sword does, why aren't those techniques used in those martial swords to make them better?

Why does the sword which looks like the martial sword actually work better in the hands of someone untrained, even if the martial sword is the legendary +3 sword of butt kicking for goodness?

Why does the mighty warlock still use this sword when he can bend time and space to his will, but when he uses an actually well balanced sword (one that uses finesse or does more damage), he's actually worse with it?

Those are the questions that need answers.

{scrubbed}

Question 1: Because you're better with a well-balanced blade and complex techniques. It's not as effective (as shown by a smaller damage die), so even if it's easier to learn, if you know how to use the better stuff, you'd use it. It's like asking why we don't use Newtonian physics because they're easier than relativistic physics-relativistic physics are MORE ACCURATE than Newtonian.

Question 2: It... It doesn't. Fighters and the like have proficiency in simple weapons too. They can use it as well (probably better, due to stats and possibly feat choices) as the Warlock.

Question 3: Because he trained to do magic, but not to fight with a sword. So, he's stuck with the balance of a sword he grew up with-poorly balanced.

[JackPhoenix]

Okay.

So, let me ask you this-should a sharpened farming tool do more damage than a sword? Because, for anyone with simple weapon proficiencies but not martial, the farming tool does more damage than the sword, as your own math shows.

I can sorta understand if that's a verisimilitude breaker for you (or at least hurts it a little), but that's right in the main rules.

If you know how to use the tool but not a sword? Absolutely. My country had enough rebellions (and Hussite wars) that showed that farmer tools can be pretty dangerous.

I'd suggest to take a real sword and just eat up the non-proficiency. It gives a bit of extra characterisation to a character who likes swords, but never actually learned how to use one properly. It's not like that sort of thing doesn't happen: just look at random katana w*nker on the internet. (non-blade)Warlock won't be using sword that much anyway. And perhaps you'll convince one of the actual warriors in your party to teach you how to use it.

My lore bard uses longsword, even though with Str 8 and Dex 16, rapier would be much better, but I prefer the aesthetics of longsword. Perhaps I'll find finesse longsword in the future, perhaps I'll get Gauntlets of Ogre Power to give me strength to use it properly, I don't know. I'm mostly shooting crossbow anyway, the longsword is just for flavor.

[JNAProductions]

If you know how to use the tool but not a sword? Absolutely. My country had enough rebellions (and Hussite wars) that showed that farmer tools can be pretty dangerous.

I'd suggest to take a real sword and just eat up the non-proficiency. It gives a bit of extra characterisation to a character who likes swords, but never actually learned how to use one properly. It's not like that sort of thing doesn't happen: just look at random katana w*nker on the internet. (non-blade)Warlock won't be using sword that much anyway. And perhaps you'll convince one of the actual warriors in your party to teach you how to use it.

My lore bard uses longsword, even though with Str 8 and Dex 16, rapier would be much better, but I prefer the aesthetics of longsword. Perhaps I'll find finesse longsword in the future, perhaps I'll get Gauntlets of Ogre Power to give me strength to use it properly, I don't know. I'm mostly shooting crossbow anyway, the longsword is just for flavor.

Fair enough. I still contend that there's no real issue with fluffing something as a sword, especially when using the complete mechanics (well, less Throwing) of another weapon. Especially if the character is supposed to be competent at a sword. (Not all swords, just his sword.) But thanks for not being rude about it, Jack.

[Mikal]

{scrubbed}



{scrubbed}

I have.



Question 1: Because you're better with a well-balanced blade and complex techniques. It's not as effective (as shown by a smaller damage die), so even if it's easier to learn, if you know how to use the better stuff, you'd use it. It's like asking why we don't use Newtonian physics because they're easier than relativistic physics-relativistic physics are MORE ACCURATE than Newtonian.

Except that an argument can be made that the well-balanced blade isn't as good. A shortsword can technically be used with str vs. dex, so the "simple" sword is just as damaging. There is an added benefit in that one can use dexterity with the shortsword, but the swortsword is still as effective as the simple sword in the hands of the str based character, regardless of martial or simple proficiency. And if that's the case, if you can make a sword as damaging as a shortsword, why can't those techniques be used for a longsword to make it more damaging?


Question 2: It... It doesn't. Fighters and the like have proficiency in simple weapons too. They can use it as well (probably better, due to stats and possibly feat choices) as the Warlock.



Question 3: Because he trained to do magic, but not to fight with a sword. So, he's stuck with the balance of a sword he grew up with-poorly balanced.

It does. We're not talking about fighters. We're talking about the fact that a trained warlock (i.e. someone with proficiency 4+ can use the "simple, badly balanced" weapon better than a magic shortsword of legendary ability +3. Sorry for the confusion if there was any. I'm talking about the fact that this simple sword is somehow better in the hands of the warlock king despite it being a mechanically worse sword in every way when compared to the legendary blade of whatever.

EDIT: I'm sorry for coming across as rude. This has just been a red button for me with this edition. It may not actually be the case, but it seems to me almost every time it's come up it's done to ignore a mechanical drawback that's baked into the system just to look cool. Which means that the player is trying to ignore the rules as written for examples that already exist, just because they can't be bothered to take that drawback.

[coyote_sly]

I'm curious what you actually intend to DO with this sword-that-is-not-a-sword? You're not playing bladelock so the odds you'll actually be getting into melee combat sound pretty low. If you just want to wave it around and look cool, why do you even care if you're proficient in it? Carry around your longsword family heirloom and call it a day.

[JNAProductions]

You didn't answer their question. Game mechanics-what is the difference?

[Jormengand]

See my previous posts for the issues it brings up. Feel free to keep yelling the same questions which have been answered over and over again. I'm sure you'll get a different answer eventually.



I have.

I... I don't know how to make it clearer to you that your answer does not respond to the question I asked. I'm talking about the mechanical benefit to the player, not just "It looks cool." What is the mechanical benefit, to the player, of their weapon looking different?

[Mikal]

You didn't answer their question. Game mechanics-what is the difference?

The difference is based on the questions that are brought up by the existence of such a weapon and its mechanical abilities. These changes aren't being made in a vacuum. If you want to play trial lawyer and try and narrow down the scope to something as small as "what's the mechanical difference between x and y", you're ignoring those larger issues. Which I've brought up. Answering that question as if that was the only aspect of it is like using a review of something that is critical, and then taking 3 words out of the review to make it look as if it were positive.


I... I don't know how to make it clearer to you that your answer does not respond to the question I asked. I'm talking about the mechanical benefit to the player, not just "It looks cool." What is the mechanical benefit, to the player, of their weapon looking different?

See above.

[Contrast]

The fact a weapon that's been fluffed as a badly balanced weapon is actually easier to use for people who don't have training in actual martial weapons?
The fact that something that allows that kind of damage as a sword is a technology that logically should have been applied to other swords that require martial ability, yet the damage doesn't match that?
The fact that it makes a person who is using a weapon that looks exactly like a sword use it better than an actual sword?


Except that if the sturdy construction makes the short blade able to do this kind of damage, why isn't that sturdy construction used for the long sword to increase its damage? Or to a greatsword? Why would anyone bother using a hand axe over the sword?

The handaxesword isn't a better design. Its just a different design. You can tell this by the way it doesn't have finesse or versatile or base d8 damage. Much like any other weapon it has its strengths and weaknesses. In this case, its strength it that it looks much more like a sword than a handaxe. It probably looks different in much the same way that you can tell the difference between a longsword and a short sword and a falchion. It's weakness is that it doesn't have finesse or versatile or base d8 damage (and likely won't be thrown making it strictly worse than a handaxe).


Except that we're not talking about someone with the proficiency using the weapon as is. We're talking about refluffing a simple weapon into a weapon whose all examples are martial. What a martial can or can't do in this case doesn't matter.

Humour me then. What stats would you give if you wanted to represent a machete in game? Lets start off with a dagger. Its a particularly hefty one (and often used in a similar fashion to a handaxe) so lets up the damage to d6. You swing rather than poke so lets change piercing to slashing. It's still a pretty small weapon so light doesn't seem unreasonable. Oh look, its a handaxesword.

Or how about lets start with a shortsword. They're often used by regular people as tools rather than weapons so lets say its simple not martial. It doesn't have the balance the shortsword does, relying more on heft so lets take finesse off. Oh look, its a handaxesword.

:smallconfused:


I agree with this. Which is why if someone wants to use a Katana it's a long sword in my game. But that's not what's being asked for here. What's being asked for is a weapon of some type that hasn't existed before come into creation, one that looks like an existing sword, but uses different stats. Apples to Orange.

I believe OP settled on a 'cleaver'. They wanted something 'more swordlike', clearly this did not mean 100% visually indistinguishable from a longsword. There seem plenty of historic slashing weapons between a dagger and a longsword to justify some design space. Falchions, machetes, etc.

I think I'm done here as we're going round in circles at this point but know that if you were my DM I would roll my eyes and write handaxe on my character sheet and then just describe it as a machete whenever it came up. :smallwink:

[Jormengand]

The difference is based on the questions that are brought up by the existence of such a weapon and its mechanical abilities.

No, there IS no mechanical difference between the machete in question and the hand axe. That is why we keep asking you, and you keep on refusing to answer: what is the mechanical benefit that you think that the player is trying to get from having the machete instead?

[Mikal]

Humour me then. What stats would you give if you wanted to represent a machete in game? Lets start off with a dagger. Its a particularly hefty one (and often used in a similar fashion to a handaxe) so lets up the damage to d6. You swing rather than poke so lets change piercing to slashing. It's still a pretty small weapon so light doesn't seem unreasonable. Oh look, its a handaxesword.

I'd use a scimitar. Anyone can use a machete to clear foliage. If you're going to use it as if it were a weapon you would use in combat, you require martial training in it.
Just like you could use a longsword, or a scimitar itself to clear foliage. It's not as if you need to have a proficiency bonus on your to hit to cut a non-animated vine.


Or how about lets start with a shortsword. They're often used by regular people as tools rather than weapons so lets say its simple not martial. It doesn't have the balance the shortsword does, relying more on heft so lets take finesse off. Oh look, its a handaxesword.

What types of tool use are shortswords used for? And if they're used as tools, then they are doing so without the proficiency bonus. Just like if I existed in a D&D world as is, I could use a shortsword or longsword without proficiency.

I never said you can't use the swords at all. I said you can't use them with proficiency.


I believe OP settled on a 'cleaver'. They wanted something 'more swordlike', clearly this did not mean 100% indistinguishable from a longsword. There seem plenty of historic slashing weapons between a dagger and a longsword to justify some design space. Falchions, machetes, etc.

Which can be refluffed from longswords, shortswords, rapiers, scimitars, etc.



I think I'm done here as we're going round in circles at this point but know that if you were my DM I would roll my eyes and write handaxe on my character sheet and then just describe it as a machete whenever it came up. :smallwink:

If I were your DM and you did that we would be having a discussion at the end of the game.
If you persisted in doing it, and for some reason I haven't kicked you out, you automatically would get a negative to all attacks equal to your proficiency bonus, to reflect that you're using a sword without martial training.
Though I'd probably kick you out. If you can't handle even a minor restriction because you want to look cool, I really don't want you in my game. Especially if you tried to ignore the reasons why.

[JNAProductions]

So what's those mechanical benefits, hm?

And if you were my DM and weren't allowing me to reflavor something with absolutely no mechanical changes, I wouldn't want to play at your table. That alone might not be the reason, but it's indicative of a DM who doesn't allow players to do cool things unless they're in the rules. Which runs counter to the entire point of TTRPGs.

[Mikal]

So what's those mechanical benefits, hm?

And if you were my DM and weren't allowing me to reflavor something with absolutely no mechanical changes, I wouldn't want to play at your table. That alone might not be the reason, but it's indicative of a DM who doesn't allow players to do cool things unless they're in the rules. Which runs counter to the entire point of TTRPGs.
{scrubbed}


The difference is based on the questions that are brought up by the existence of such a weapon and its mechanical abilities. These changes aren't being made in a vacuum. If you want to play trial lawyer and try and narrow down the scope to something as small as "what's the mechanical difference between x and y", you're ignoring those larger issues. Which I've brought up. Answering that question as if that was the only aspect of it is like using a review of something that is critical, and then taking 3 words out of the review to make it look as if it were positive.


Also, based on the above quote, and my previous quote, there are consequences to your refluffing beyond what you're thinking. I've noted them. Several times.
I allow my players to do plenty of cool things. I don't allow them to bypass existing in game restrictions just because they want to. I run my games with a look at the larger picture. If I introduce something, I make sure it can interact with the world as is, and if it changes it, I change everything I can think of that would be related to it.

And it seems to work out well. The vast majority of people I've gamed for have love the games I run, whether a one-shot or multi-year campaign. I have no problems finding players when I decide to run games, and they don't leave because they think I'm against them having fun. They just realize that a game does have limits, and you should follow them instead of trying to circumvent them just because you want to look cool.

[JNAProductions]

TL;DR
An axe is not a sword and refluffing can actually have mechanical benefits. Also, if you're doing something to look cool which your class can't normally do, there are drawbacks to it.

You were the one who brought up mechanical benefits. So tell us about them.

[Mikal]

{scrubbed}

[JNAProductions]

{scrubbed}

No, I read your post.

The thing is, using a handaxe (refluffed as a blade) is indeed better than using a shortsword.

But, what is the benefit of using a handaxe (refulffed as a blade) over a handaxe? THAT'S the real comparison you need to make.

[Mikal]

No, I read your post.

The thing is, using a handaxe (refluffed as a blade) is indeed better than using a shortsword.

But, what is the benefit of using a handaxe (refulffed as a blade) over a handaxe? THAT'S the real comparison you need to make.

No. It's not the pertinent comparison. Because the question is whether or not the player gets a mechanical benefit over using a refluffed sword over a real sword.
Does he? Yes. Does he need to? No. Why? Because he can use the sword that already exists.

Why else? Because it opens up logical inconsistencies and breaks verisimilitude requiring mental gymnastics and lots of messing around with to fit into a world if you give a damn about it being internally consistent.

Why else? Because it's the player wanting to look cool, without paying the drawbacks for it. I.E. being a class or race with proficiency, taking a feat, or foregoing the proficiency bonus.

Choices have consequences. You choose to wield a martial weapon? Then you either have proficiency in it or take the hit. But then I choose to play with people who can make mature decisions and realize that, not people who need to have everything the way they want exactly to the smallest detail, regardless of any larger consequences doing so brings up. After all, who cares? It's just fluff right? It doesn't change anything!

Oh wait. I care. And it does change things.

[Dudewithknives]

No. It's not. Because the question is whether or not the player gets a mechanical benefit over using a refluffed sword over a real sword.
Does he? Yes. Does he need to? No. Why? Because he can use the sword that already exists.

Why else? Because it opens up logical inconsistencies and breaks verisimilitude requiring mental gymnastics and lots of messing around with to fit into a world if you give a damn about it being internally consistent.

Why else? Because it's the player wanting to look cool, without paying the drawbacks for it. I.E. being a class or race with proficiency, taking a feat, or foregoing the proficiency bonus.

Choices have consequences. You choose to wield a martial weapon? Then you either have proficiency in it or take the hit. But then I choose to play with people who can make mature decisions and realize that, not people who need to have everything the way they want exactly to the smallest detail, regardless of any larger consequences doing so brings up. After all, who cares? It's just fluff right? It doesn't change anything!

Oh wait. I care. And it does change things.

This is completely inaccurate.

He is not getting the benefit of a short sword or a longsword.

Shorswords do piercing, hand axes do slashing. Also shortswords have the finesse trait where hand axes have thrown.
Longswords do slashing but have a 1d8 damage and also have the versatile trait, which the hand axe does not have.

He has a 1d6 slashing weapon that has the light, and thrown properties, that is a handaxe, not a short sword, not a longsword.

[Contrast]

I'd use a scimitar. Anyone can use a machete to clear foliage. If you're going to use it as if it were a weapon you would use in combat, you require martial training in it.
Just like you could use a longsword, or a scimitar itself to clear foliage. It's not as if you need to have a proficiency bonus on your to hit to cut a non-animated vine.


What types of tool use are shortswords used for? And if they're used as tools, then they are doing so without the proficiency bonus. Just like if I existed in a D&D world as is, I could use a shortsword or longsword without proficiency.

I was saying machetes were tools, not shortswords. If you think a machete should have the finesse quality I have to question if you've ever seen or used one. That said I'm not any sort of expert on bladed weapons so I can't really claim much expertise here.



If I were your DM and you did that we would be having a discussion at the end of the game.
If you persisted in doing it, and for some reason I haven't kicked you out, you automatically would get a negative to all attacks equal to your proficiency bonus, to reflect that you're using a sword without martial training.
Though I'd probably kick you out. If you can't handle even a minor restriction because you want to look cool, I really don't want you in my game. Especially if you tried to ignore the reasons why.

Am I using a sword though? If you look carefully I'm in fact using the rules for a handaxe, which is what I have written on my character sheet. How about we compromise and I have a handaxe that I have given the name 'machete' so when I say 'I draw my machete' you know that I mean my handaxe? :smallbiggrin:

More seriously, the martial weapons aren't martial weapons because they're 'swords'TM - they're martial weapons because of their access to certain damage levels with certain properties/property combinations. Would you, for instance, object to my handaxe thematically being two-sided instead of single sided or having a spiky/blunt protrusion on the other side provided I still used the rules for a handaxe? Sure if I insist its the size of a battleaxe and can be used like a battleaxe then I should use the rules for a battleaxe but if I'm content that it is the size of a handaxe and will be used like a handaxe what difference does it make what it looks like?

Edit - How about something like this (http://www.garrettwade.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/730x/0dc2d03fe217f8c83829496872af24a0/1/9/19S1301_11.jpg)? Looks more like a sword but would function like a hand axe (though as I've said, you'd probably have to forgo the throwing property - again I'm not an expert so I have no idea how balancing for thrown weapons works :smalltongue:).

[Mikal]

This is completely inaccurate.

The question was whether or not the refluffed "sword" was mechanically better for the warlock to use than an actual sword.
It is. So... it's accurate.


He is not getting the benefit of a short sword or a longsword.
He is. He wants to "look cool", but doesn't want to pay the costs to look cool and do so with proficiency. He's getting the benefit of looking cool at the expense of the worlds in game consistency and logic, and bringing up questions as to why these types of swords aren't used elsewhere, or their techniques copied elsewhere.


He has a 1d6 slashing weapon that has the light, and thrown properties, that is a handaxe, not a short sword, not a longsword.
No. He has a special sword that has never existed before, and the DM now has to figure out why it exists, where it exists, and what changes its abilities provide to the existing weapons, especially the fact that it's a simple weapon, while all other swords are martial.


I was saying machetes were tools, not shortswords. If you think a machete should have the finesse quality I have to question if you've ever seen or used one. That said I'm not any sort of expert on bladed weapons so I can't really claim much expertise here.

Fine. Call it a longsword then. It's thicker than the standard longsword, but still does 1d8 slashing damage and you use your strength. Regardless, if you use it as a tool, you'll still hit vines and such with it without needing the proficiency bonus that the martial weapon proficiency provides.


Am I using a sword though? If you look carefully I'm in fact using the rules for a handaxe, which is what I have written on my character sheet. How about we compromise and I have a handaxe that I have given the name 'machete' so when I say 'I draw my machete' you know that I mean my handaxe? :smallbiggrin:

You're calling it a sword. You're describing it as a sword. So yes. You're claiming it's a sword. Unless your character is actually delusional and only he calls it that, while the rest of the world and the other PCs know it's actually an axe. If you want to play a crazy dude whose ravings have no basis in reality... sure. I can roll with that. :smallsmile:


More seriously, the martial weapons aren't martial weapons because they're 'swords'TM - they're martial weapons because of their access to certain damage levels with certain properties/property combinations. Would you, for instance, object to my handaxe thematically being two-sided instead of single sided or having a spiky/blunt protrusion on the other side provided I still used the rules for a handaxe? Sure if I insist its the size of a battleaxe and can be used like a battleaxe then I should use the rules for a battleaxe but if I'm content that it is the size of a handaxe and will be used like a handaxe what difference does it make what it looks like?

If you want a two bladed handaxe sure. It's still the same size as the original handaxe. You just have a blade on the back of it. They're called double bit axes vs. a Francisca style axe. If you want to make it spiky... sure. You now have a handaxe that looks like something conan gives to his boy to train on before he learns to wield a real battle axe. And anyone with a real battleaxe will likely laugh in your face if you actually called it that. Or anyone who's used a real battleaxe. Or seen one. Or knows of them thanks to proficiency. See above about in-character delusions and my ability to work with them. I once had a guy with an attack chicken in my game cause he couldn't afford a war dog. Feathery little punk actually took out an Orc on a critical hit with his spurs. But the PC didn't pretend it was a dog.

It's still not a sword. It's just a fancy handaxe. Just like his chicken wasn't a dog.

A sword is an entirely different piece of smithing. It has a shorter handle, a longer blade, and different techniques used in its construction. A sword requires a different use of the weapon to make full effect. You put emphasis on different muscles when swinging an axe verses using a sword (when in combat). Swords don't swing the same way as axes.

So if you want to use a sword, learn how to use it over the pretty wood chopper you already know how to use, or take the proficiency hit.

[Contrast]

Fine. Call it a longsword then. It's thicker than the standard longsword, but still does 1d8 slashing damage and you use your strength. Regardless, if you use it as a tool, you'll still hit vines and such with it without needing the proficiency bonus that the martial weapon proficiency provides.

Machete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machete#/media/File:Machette_kos.pg.jpg). Longsword (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword#/media/File:Espadon-Morges.jpg). So you're clearly fine with pretending weapons are things which look absolutely nothing like what you're using ruleswise to represent them then?


If you want a two bladed handaxe sure. It's still the same size as the original handaxe. You just have a blade on the back of it. They're called double bit axes vs. a Francisca style axe. If you want to make it spiky... sure. You now have a handaxe that looks like something conan gives to his boy to train on before he learns to wield a real battle axe.

It's still not a sword. It's just a fancy handaxe.

A sword however, is an entirely different piece of smithing. It has a shorter handle, a longer blade, and different techniques used in its construction. A sword requires a different use of the weapon to make full effect. You put emphasis on different muscles when swinging an axe verses using a sword (when in combat). Swords don't swing the same way as axes.

So if you want to use a sword, learn how to use it over the pretty wood chopper you already know how to use, or take the proficiency hit.

We might be making progress here. Now lets imagine someone wants something that isn't a sword but is more sword like in design than an axe. Something that looks a lot more like a sword but is designed with the weight shifted to the end for chopping like an axe. Like some kind of bolo knife or machete or something :smalltongue:

No one here is arguing you should be able to pick up a longsword and argue its covered by your simple weapon proficiency. What we're saying is that a smith could pretty easily make you a blade that mostly functioned like a handaxe while looking a lot more like a sword than a handaxe does. It wouldn't look like a longsword but it would look more like a longsword than a handaxe.

[JNAProductions]

You said it gives a mechanical advantage.

Which is more powerful? Assuming 14 Strength and +2 proficiency bonus.

Handaxe (Range 20'/60', Slashing) +4 to-hit, 1d6+2 damage.
Machete (Slashing) +4 to-hit, 1d6+2 damage.

Which is more powerful? Because that would be the one that gives a mechanical advantage.

[Mikal]

Machete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machete#/media/File:Machette_kos.pg.jpg). Longsword (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword#/media/File:Espadon-Morges.jpg). So you're clearly fine with pretending weapons are things which look absolutely nothing like what you're using ruleswise to represent them then?

No. I'm fine with swords being refluffed to similar types of swords.
The longsword you posted is long and thin. The machete is short and thicker. Both are swords that require strength to use, both can technically be used to cut vines, and you can do so pretty easily without proficiency.

However, to learn to use them with proficiency still requires martial training, because hacking at a vine isn't the same as cut, thrust, slash, and parry.


We might be making progress here. Now lets imagine someone wants something that isn't a sword but is more sword like in design than an axe. Something that looks a lot more like a sword but is designed with the weight shifted to the end for chopping like an axe. Like some kind of bolo knife or machete or something :smalltongue:

Nope, sorry. I already discussed the differences between an axe and a sword. You can call a longsword a machete if you want, but if you want to be able to use it in battle with proficiency, you better have some martial training.


No one here is arguing you should be able to pick up a longsword and argue its covered by your simple weapon proficiency. What we're saying is that a smith could pretty easily make you a blade that mostly functioned like a handaxe while looking a lot more like a sword than a handaxe does. It wouldn't look like a longsword but it would look more like a longsword than a handaxe.

If you want an axe handle with a sword blade... that's not a machete. That's not a bolo knife. That's a really stupid improvised weapon at worst, made by someone whose inventiveness ran away from their experience or knowledge.

If you want a sword blade with a sword hilt... that could be a machete. But it ain't an axe.

Edit: Anyone who persists in attempting to try and cherry pick three words while ignoring the larger post those words came from to twist the meaning of them will be ignored. If they persist, I may report them. It's been answered several times, but you keep trying to make it sound as if the words were meant to say that handaxe damage is different somehow from the refluffed weapon, even though the actual original post and the multiple posts since them have been explained repeatedly. At this point, you are just trolling.

[coyote_sly]

I'm still curious what he plans to DO with this thing. Warlocks who aren't blade pact don't tend to hit a lot of stuff with weapons anyway. If he wants a backup backup plan that involves a sword, it really doesn't matter if he's proficient in it because in terms of turns over the life of the character he'll basically never use it anyway.

If it was me, I'd probably tell him to just use a short sword without proficiency too, because why bother when it straight up doesn't matter? And if it DOES matter because he's building some kind of gish as a GM you probably want to make sure the player at least understands the mechanical inefficiencies they'll have to live with over the life of the character if they choose to build it this way.

[Dudewithknives]

I'm still curious what he plans to DO with this thing. Warlocks who aren't blade pact don't tend to hit a lot of stuff with weapons anyway. If he wants a backup backup plan that involves a sword, it really doesn't matter if he's proficient in it because in terms of turns over the life of the character he'll basically never use it anyway.

If it was me, I'd probably tell him to just use a short sword without proficiency too, because why bother when it straight up doesn't matter? And if it DOES matter because he's building some kind of gish as a GM you probably want to make sure the player at least understands the mechanical inefficiencies they'll have to live with over the life of the character if they choose to build it this way.

With Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade, anyone arcane caster can swing a sword fairly well.

[Mikal]

With Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade, anyone arcane caster can swing a sword fairly well.

Except for the ability to actually hit with the weapon.

[Dudewithknives]

Except for the ability to actually hit with the weapon.

The weapon you use is not the point of the spells.

With those spells in a game, any arcane caster can do fairly well in melee.

It got to the point that with my last pact of the blade warlock I did not even bother to take thirsting blade or life drinker, I just used GFB or BB and saved 2 invocations slots.

[JNAProductions]

{scrubbed}

[Mikal]

The weapon you use is not the point of the spells.

With those spells in a game, any arcane caster can do fairly well in melee.

It got to the point that with my last pact of the blade warlock I did not even bother to take thirsting blade or life drinker, I just used GFB or BB and saved 2 invocations slots.

No, you're right. Any weapon works- if it hits. But coyote was talking about using a sword without proficiency as a warlock, so was just pointing out that the weapon does matter to a degree, if only to actually land the hit.

[Eric Diaz]

Well, one of my best campaigns had a kobold sorcerer refluffed as an "iron man" type characher, with wild magic refluffed as system failure, so you see waht I think about "reflavor"...

Anyway, here is a crazy idea: if your GM doesn't allow it, why don't you call you handaxe "sword"? Like BB king calling his axe lucille.

- I hit him with my "sword"!
- I throw "sword" at his face!

Etc. The other Pcs will humor you becasue why not? And your enemies woudln't care either. "But wait this is actually an... UAARRGGG!!" (dies screaming)

Your PC can still HOLD an actual sword when he is posing for PC portrait... many kings who had no sword proficiency might have done just that.

:smallbiggrin:

[Contrast]

No. I'm fine with swords being refluffed to similar types of swords.

...if you're going to sit there and tell me you honestly think longswords and machetes are functionally interchangeable then I think this conversation officially just jumped the shark.



However, to learn to use them with proficiency still requires martial training, because hacking at a vine isn't the same as cut, thrust, slash, and parry.

OK. So the rule is if its a long blade mounted straight off a hilt it intrinsically requires martial training because...reasons I guess? Gotcha. Unless its a sickle of course.


If you want an axe handle with a sword blade... that's not a machete. That's not a bolo knife. That's a really stupid improvised weapon at worst, made by someone whose inventiveness ran away from their experience or knowledge.

Where on earth did I say anything like that?

From the wiki page on bolo knives:


Bolos are characterized by having a native hardwood or animal horn handle (such as from the carabao), a full tang, and by a steel blade that both curves and widens, often considerably so, at its tip. This moves the centre of gravity as far forward as possible, giving the knife extra momentum for chopping.

So-called "jungle bolos", intended for combat rather than agricultural work, tend to be longer and less wide at the tip.

So the tool ones are focused on chopping by being more weighted to the end and could be reasonably represented by a hand axe sans throwing. The combat ones are better balanced and could reasonably be represented by scimitars (which even works out as they're the ones gated by martial proficiency, how convenient!).

[Mikal]

...if you're going to sit there and tell me you honestly think longswords and machetes are functionally interchangeable then I think this conversation officially just jumped the shark.

Why? In this case interchangeable only means 1d8+str damage and versatile for 1d10+str damage.
The machete is shorter, but a lot thicker, so I could see its effects being of comparable damage.

They're both sword type weapons, much like the katana.


OK. So the rule is if its a long blade mounted straight off a hilt it intrinsically requires martial training because...reasons I guess? Gotcha. Unless its a sickle of course.

No. If a blade is mounted on a hilt as a sword, it's a sword. The balancing of a sword blade is completely different then that of a sickle.
Sickles simply do not mount the same way as swords. If anything, they mount more like the... handaxe. Look more like a handaxe as well.


Where on earth did I say anything like that?

No one here is arguing you should be able to pick up a longsword and argue its covered by your simple weapon proficiency. What we're saying is that a smith could pretty easily make you a blade that mostly functioned like a handaxe while looking a lot more like a sword than a handaxe does. It wouldn't look like a longsword but it would look more like a longsword than a handaxe.

Right around there. If you want to make a combat bolo knife, use a scimitar, like you suggested. If you want a non-combat one... it's a dagger. At best. Still ain't a hand-axe.

[JNAProductions]

{scrubbed}

And Mikal, what do appearances matter? What mechanical resources do I have to pay to play a pretty character, or one with red hair, or a short character?

[Mikal]

{scrubbed}


And Mikal, what do appearances matter? What mechanical resources do I have to pay to play a pretty character, or one with red hair, or a short character?

Personal character appearance isn't the same as modifying a weapon, so it's outside the scope of the discussion. Please keep your apples away from the oranges.

[JNAProductions]

{scrubbed}

Personal character appearance isn't the same as modifying a weapon, so it's outside the scope of the discussion. Please keep your apples away from the oranges.

{scrubbed}
And I fail to see a distinction, or at least a meaningful one. Both of them are about changing appearances-why does your equipment have to stay exactly as per what the PHB says, but your character appearance doesn't?

[Mikal]

{scrubbed}
And I fail to see a distinction, or at least a meaningful one. Both of them are about changing appearances-why does your equipment have to stay exactly as per what the PHB says, but your character appearance doesn't?

{scrubbed}

No one's ever said your equipment has to stay exactly as per the PHB, while your character appearance doesn't. I certainly didn't. See my machete-long sword-katana posts.

{scrubbed}

[Jormengand]

{scrubbed}

[JNAProductions]

{scrubbed}

[Mikal]

{scrubbed}

[Jormengand]

{scrubbed}

[JNAProductions]

{scrubbed}

[alchahest]

to the OP: Sounds like a fun idea, I'm glad your DM is interested in fun, especially since your idea is completely fluff based and doesn't wreck anything in terms of rules or versimilitude AND it increases your fun. Sounds like you've got a good table!

[Contrast]

Why? In this case interchangeable only means 1d8+str damage and versatile for 1d10+str damage.
The machete is shorter, but a lot thicker, so I could see its effects being of comparable damage.

They're both sword type weapons, much like the katana.

No. If a blade is mounted on a hilt as a sword, it's a sword. The balancing of a sword blade is completely different then that of a sickle.
Sickles simply do not mount the same way as swords. If anything, they mount more like the... handaxe. Look more like a handaxe as well.

I feel like you're messing with me now as you seem happy to accept any weapon as any other weapon except for a handaxe being refluffed as any straight bladed weapon :smalltongue:


Right around there. If you want to make a combat bolo knife, use a scimitar, like you suggested. If you want a non-combat one... it's a dagger. At best. Still ain't a hand-axe.

I suggested a blade weighted to the end to assist with chopping is functionally very similar to a handaxe both in function and use. A bolo knife is such a blade.

Moving on - so you'd be happy for someone to say they were wielding a particularly long dagger? So either a refluffed straight bladed sickle or a dagger without throwing that did slashing damage?

Forget for a second that the base stats are that of a handaxe. Can you agree that, based on that premise, it is up to a DM to listen to the type of weapon their player is looking for and make their own assessment in terms of balance what statistics it should be given (in line with the improvised weapon rules)? If that's the case the only difference here is that you think the damage should be d4 while everyone else here feels that the loss of finesse and thrown qualities justifies the bump up to d6 in line with other weapons in the simple weapon category.

[Mikal]

I feel like you're messing with me now as you seem happy to accept any weapon as any other weapon except for a handaxe being refluffed as any straight bladed weapon :smalltongue:

I promise you I'm not. I've tried to be consistent with the fact that a longsword is similar to a machete as well as a katana, but axes, not so much.


Moving on - so you'd be happy for someone to say they were wielding a particularly long dagger? So either a refluffed straight bladed sickle or a dagger without throwing that did slashing damage?

Not knowing about the bolo knife and its capabilities beyond what I've read, I can't say for certain. If it was closer to a martial weapon (even the "combat" version), then I would recommend that.


Forget for a second that the base stats are that of a handaxe. Can you agree that, based on that premise, it is up to a DM to listen to the type of weapon their player is looking for and make their own assessment in terms of balance what statistics it should be given (in line with the improvised weapon rules)?

Well... yes. If the DM rules differently and the players are ok with it, that's their decision. I really should get to adding that to my signature.

Unless we are talking about RAW discussions, or real life items that can be quantified, please consider anything said by me to be my opinion only.

Better?


If that's the case the only difference here is that you think the damage should be d4 while everyone else here feels that the loss of finesse and thrown qualities justifies the bump up to d6 in line with other weapons in the simple weapon category.

No. Cause we're talking about swords. For me, swords should be a martial weapon for the reasons stated previously by me. But then, again, I'm the type of DM (and player) who believes that if you want to look cool but your character can't pull it off, that you need to live with the consequences of that.

[JNAProductions]

{scrubbed}

[mrumsey]

But then, again, I'm the type of DM (and player) who believes that if you want to look cool but your character can't pull it off, that you need to live with the consequences of that.

Honest questions:

Would you be OK with magic refluffed as crow-magic (Magic Missile = Crows attacking, Fireball, Portal to Crow-town and they peck the **** out of everyone..etc).

Would you be OK with said crow-magus fluffing his carried quarterstaff attacks to be crows attacking his enemies (magic crows from the staff)?

[Mikal]

Honest questions:

Would you be OK with magic refluffed as crow-magic (Magic Missile = Crows attacking, Fireball, Portal to Crow-town and they peck the **** out of everyone..etc).

Would you be OK with said crow-magus fluffing his carried quarterstaff attacks to be crows attacking his enemies (magic crows from the staff)?

At first pass yes, with regards to magic missile.
I'd be cool with the magic missiles being crow shaped, but I'd probably draw the line at summoning actual crows to do it. That wouldn't really cause any differences in the spell itself or its abilities.
But, I'd also be fine with a magic user inventing such a spell if they wanted to have it be actual physical ravens. Instead of evocation it would be conjuration. It may or may not require a crow feather as a material component, and it may or may not work exactly like magic missile (piercing vs. force damage, something like that). Would also need to figure out how damage boosting abilities interact with it, if at all.

For a wizard, spell research is obvious. As a sorcerer, it's a little harder, but if they roleplayed the aspects well enough, including potentially hiring a wizard to help with spell research and manipulation, I'd probably allow it, perhaps with a ritual to help "teach" the sorcerer the spell (at a level when said sorcerer would be allowed to learn a new spell known). For a warlock, I'd probably make it a bonus spell for the Raven Queen.

I'd have to consider it a little more, but from a first impression perspective yes to magic missiles that are raven shaped, and a strong likely to actually creating a spell for physical raven attacks.

Granted- This is for magic missile only. Other spells would have to be on a case by case basis. A wizard with a crow fetish will need to have some deep pockets, as would the sorcerer.

Missed your fireball example. That... not so much. Making it a portal would be an entirely different school of magic. You'd have to create a new spell to do so with the proper spell research. I also wouldn't make the fireball "crow" shaped either, since that would be more like a firebird than fireball, which can cause issues with shapes and AoE.

[Dankus Memakus]

{scrubbed}

[Dankus Memakus]

{scrubbed}

[JNAProductions]

Ah, but allowing a Wizard to fluff his magic missiles as crows is far more mechanically effective than letting them stay as bolts of force! After all, crows are the scariest bird!

[Mikal]

Ah, but allowing a Wizard to fluff his magic missiles as crows is far more mechanically effective than letting them stay as bolts of force! After all, crows are the scariest bird!

That's nice. I didn't say the wizard could fluff magic missiles as crows. I said he could make magic missiles crow shaped. They're still magic missiles. They don't have feathers, they don't actually become birds. They're the same color as the standard magic missile, and do exactly the same thing. They aren't called "crow bombs" or "raven rampage".
No one considers it a different spell from magic missile.

Just like- gasp- I'm also ok with someone modifying their handaxe to look like a mini battle axe, even though it's still called a handaxe!

If they wanted them to be actual crows, it'd be a conjuration spell and would require research.

{scrubbed}

[JNAProductions]

{scrubbed}

{scrubbed}

There's pretty much no benefit to having them be fluffed as crows, or, to be more precise and pedantic, crow-SHAPED.

Likewise, there's no mechanical benefit to having a sword-shaped handaxe. You've yet to explain the mechanical benefit of what I posted earlier, by the way.

{scrubbed}

[Dankus Memakus]

{scrubbed}

[alchahest]

I played a goliath barbarian who used a dire elk's shinbone as a Maul, despite it looking like a greatclub. it even has better stats than a greatclub! but who cares because it made the game more fun for everyone!

[JNAProductions]

I played a goliath barbarian who used a dire elk's shinbone as a Maul, despite it looking like a greatclub. it even has better stats than a greatclub! but who cares because it made the game more fun for everyone!

Sounds like a good game. Glad you have a good time, Alch. :)

[Morty]

The suggestions in this thread are things that should be part of the rules to begin with, really. Either a generic weapons table, or even class-based damage dice (though the latter would require different multiclassing rules).

[alchahest]

Sounds like a good game. Glad you have a good time, Alch. :)

funny story: it was originally the thighbone but then I looked at an Elk Skeleton and yikes that is a gigantically wide and short bone.

[scalyfreak]

funny story: it was originally the thighbone but then I looked at an Elk Skeleton and yikes that is a gigantically wide and short bone.

That means you could sharpen the edge, attach it to a handle, and use it as an axe.

A battelk axe.

[alchahest]

actually probably going to make an adamantine axe blade for it at some point. maybe magical~

who knows but it's a fun image!

I can't wait to hear how a bone is actually an improvised weapon so it's only a D4