What measure is a Scimitar?

[Tvtyrant]

I'm working on a pirate Rogue and was struck by the Scimitar. It is identical to a shortsword except slashing instead of piercing and costs 2.5X the amount.

Is slashing tremendously better then piercing or am I missing something else?

[DMThac0]

It's pretty much an aesthetic, a shorsword doesn't take much to manufacture due to it's, relatively, simple design. Where as a scimitar requires more work to get the shape and strength correct, in comparison.

Slashing vs Piercing doesn't matter for the majority of the game. There are a handful of creatures that are immune/resistant or have special properties based on those types of damage, but it's not frequent enough to make it a case of which is better.

[ImproperJustice]

They’re curved swords.....curved.....swords.

[Arkhios]

They’re curved swords.....curved.....swords.

LOL. letters

[Man_Over_Game]

From my experience, resistance to piercing is more common than resistance to slashing. Things like Skeletons or Swarms are resistant to piercing.

But mostly it's for flavor. Some people add special clauses or modify the weapons to make them more unique, but there's not much difference.

Consider that the Trident costs 5x more, weighs a pound more, and requires Martial Proficiency compared to the Simple Proficiency Spear, yet they're identical in damage numbers, damage type, and traits. Not everything makes perfect sense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And druids are proficient in scimitars (for untouchable bovine reasons), but not rapiers.

[Man_Over_Game]

And druids are proficient in scimitars (for untouchable bovine reasons), but not rapiers.

I think that was likely to draw the parallel of a machete, which is a pretty common tool used by guides in jungles (often a Druid). However, a rapier is strictly used for fun or for murder (and sometimes for both).

[GlenSmash!]

The difference in cost becomes becomes negligible very quickly.

[Millstone85]

Things like Skeletons or Swarms are resistant to piercing.Skeletons aren't resistant to piercing.

Swarms are resistant to piercing, along with bludgeoning and slashing.

[Man_Over_Game]

Skeletons aren't resistant to piercing.

Swarms are resistant to piercing, along with bludgeoning and slashing.

Hmm...Whoops. Just got into a fight with those, maybe my DM just added some homebrew traits. My bad.

[SpanielBear]

I think that was likely to draw the parallel of a machete, which is a pretty common tool used by guides in jungles (often a Druid). However, a rapier is strictly used for fun or for murder (and sometimes for both).

That’s interesting, I always assumed it was an attempt to model sickles, a la getafix/panoramix/choose your native pun of choice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That’s interesting, I always assumed it was an attempt to model sickles, a la getafix/panoramix/choose your native pun of choice.

They're also proficient in sickles (which are a slashing dagger, except half as expensive, not finesse, and not thrown).

[Laserlight]

Is slashing tremendously better then piercing or am I missing something else?

You are missing "the weapons and armor stats were thrown together as a first draft by an intern who had no real life experience, and somehow no one ever revisited them to see if they made any kind of sense." NB: I have no proof that this statement is true...other than the weapons and armor stats.

[Louro]

Skeletons aren't resistant to piercing.
Just checked it. It's a typo. I'm sure. They were resistant to piercing, and they will always be.

About scimitars... They should weight the same as shortswords or less, not more.
What you're paying when you get a scimitar is STATUS.

- Oh, look at that one. He has one of those exotic curved swords. He must be rich!

[Tvtyrant]

You are missing "the weapons and armor stats were thrown together as a first draft by an intern who had no real life experience, and somehow no one ever revisited them to see if they made any kind of sense." NB: I have no proof that this statement is true...other than the weapons and armor stats.

This seems odd to me as weapons are the most consistent feature of D&D, across time and classes. 3.5 went the "weapons are dressing" route and 4E went "weapons are a mechanic." Here it seems like there are just clear winners and losers for no reason.

[Kalashak]

That’s interesting, I always assumed it was an attempt to model sickles, a la getafix/panoramix/choose your native pun of choice.

I'm moderately certain I read Gygax say that's why they were originally able to use scimitars

[Willie the Duck]

The original Druid* showed up in oD&D in Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry. To quote, "Druids are able to employ the following sorts of weapons: Daggers, sickle or crescent-shaped swords, spears, slings, and oil." Simply put, the designers** wanted to have druids be sickle wielders***, but there was no sickle weapon in the game. Thus, druids started using curved swords, and it stuck even past the point when sickles were added to the weapon chart.
*As a playable PC class. Druid's showed up as monsters/encounters in Supplement I: Greyhawk
**In this supplement, Gygax shares writing credit with Brian Blume.
***particularly to cultivate mistletoe to use as holy symbols--" Mistletoe is of extreme importance to all druids. Each druid must locate and gather his own mistletoe, and such mistletoe must be used whenever spells involving cures, lightning, or weather are to be cast. To be most effective the mistletoe should be cut with a golden sickle"

[SpanielBear]

The original Druid* showed up in oD&D in Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry. To quote, "Druids are able to employ the following sorts of weapons: Daggers, sickle or crescent-shaped swords, spears, slings, and oil." Simply put, the designers** wanted to have druids be sickle wielders***, but there was no sickle weapon in the game. Thus, druids started using curved swords, and it stuck even past the point when sickles were added to the weapon chart.
*As a playable PC class. Druid's showed up as monsters/encounters in Supplement I: Greyhawk
**In this supplement, Gygax shares writing credit with Brian Blume.
***particularly to cultivate mistletoe to use as holy symbols--" Mistletoe is of extreme importance to all druids. Each druid must locate and gather his own mistletoe, and such mistletoe must be used whenever spells involving cures, lightning, or weather are to be cast. To be most effective the mistletoe should be cut with a golden sickle"

I thought this might be the case. Tbf, I was working off my first experience of D&D which was a relatively youthful Baldurs Gate. No sickles there either, so I assumed a trope was being alluded to.
Machetes do make sense too, though.

[Nifft]

In terms of measurement, a scimitar is precisely one scimeter in length.

In terms of damage, it looks like Scimitar is (1d6 slashing), while shortsword is (1d4 piercing). A better comparison might be the Rapier (1d6 piercing), which costs the same as a Scimitar (25 gp each).

[GlenSmash!]

In terms of measurement, a scimitar is precisely one scimeter in length.

In terms of damage, it looks like Scimitar is (1d6 slashing), while shortsword is (1d4 piercing). A better comparison might be the Rapier (1d6 piercing), which costs the same as a Scimitar (25 gp each).

Shortsword is 1d6, Rapier is 1d8. Are you sure you are looking at a 5e weapons table?

Edit: at least a non houseruled or home-brewed 5e weapons table?

[JellyPooga]

Just checked it. It's a typo. I'm sure. They were resistant to piercing, and they will always be.

Err...I'm not looking at my books or anything, but I'm fairly certain skeletons aren't resistant to piercing damage in 5ed, like they were in previous editions. They're vulnerable to bludgeoning, but take normal damage from both piercing and slashing. The difference is fairly pointless, but still mechanically important.

[Willie the Duck]

I thought this might be the case. Tbf, I was working off my first experience of D&D which was a relatively youthful Baldurs Gate. No sickles there either, so I assumed a trope was being alluded to.
Machetes do make sense too, though.

Yeah, machetes (explicitly described as such) are conspicuously absent from most of D&D (I believe they appeared in one of the later 2e AD&D supplements). I suspect because short swords have been reduced to offhand/roguish thrusting weapons (to be fair, their real-world uses are rather hard to model in the combat model that developed for D&D). As to whether druids should get machetes--that probably depends on how one imagines druids. Since most 5e druids use either shillelaghs or claws, it'a rather immaterial.

[Nifft]

Shortsword is 1d6, Rapier is 1d8. Are you sure you are looking at a 5e weapons table?

Edit: at least a non houseruled or home-brewed 5e weapons table?

http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm

https://image.ibb.co/dFrVEf/Screen-Shot-2018-11-15-at-6-34-20-PM.png (https://imgbb.com/)

Weird.

[GlenSmash!]

http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm

https://image.ibb.co/dFrVEf/Screen-Shot-2018-11-15-at-6-34-20-PM.png (https://imgbb.com/)

Weird.

Well that just goes to show you can't trust a site just because it says SRD.

That's somebody's homebrew. Page 149 of the 5e PHB clearly shows they actual damage dice for those weapons.

Or you can just scroll down to page 66 of WotC actual SRD here: https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf

[JackPhoenix]

From my experience, resistance to piercing is more common than resistance to slashing. Things like Skeletons or Swarms are resistant to

Skeletons aren't resistant to piercing damage, and while swarms are, they are also resistant to slashing and bludgeoning damage.

[Louro]

Err...I'm not looking at my books or anything, but I'm fairly certain skeletons aren't resistant to piercing damage in 5ed.
But they should. And you know it.

[The Jack]

No, they really shouldnt be, the weakness to bludgeoning is dumb enough.

The scimitar and the glaive upset me because they clearly exist as seperate entities to laugh at monks, druids and rogues. Most of the martial weapons dont need their own entry to the table.

[Anonymouswizard]

I've honestly thought that D&D should abandon specific weapons in favour of weapon categories since 5e began (at the same time I've wondered about cutting specific currency). Partially because 5e sort of does this, and then adds in a bunch of weapons that are superior or inferior.

So you'd have light weapons (daggers and the like), small weapons (shortswords, clubs, you know the drill), large weapons (arming swords, battleaxes, maces), heavy weapons (two handed swords, quarterstaffs), and reach weapons (polearms). These categories would all have identical stats for all weapons, and when you bought one you'd pick it's appearance and damage.

For example:
Hand and a half sword (large, slashing)
Longspear (reach, piercing)
Meteor hammer (heavy, bludgeoning)
Detached arm (light, bludgeoning)
Ram, portable (heavy, bludgeoning)
Ram, male sheep (uh....)

[Arkhios]

[...]the weakness to bludgeoning is dumb enough.

Honestly, I disagree. Skeletons are not much else but animated old bones. Bones are fairly brittle and shatter or fracture easily from impact. Vulnerability to bludgeoning damage makes sense.

[LudicSavant]

I'm working on a pirate Rogue and was struck by the Scimitar. It is identical to a shortsword except slashing instead of piercing and costs 2.5X the amount.

Is slashing tremendously better then piercing or am I missing something else?

You are missing nothing, the weapon tables are just unbalanced.

[Arkhios]

Well that just goes to show you can't trust a site just because it says SRD.

That's somebody's homebrew. Page 149 of the 5e PHB clearly shows they actual damage dice for those weapons.

Or you can just scroll down to page 66 of WotC actual SRD here: https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf

Eh, not homebrew. The person who owns that domain has been keeping up the 3.5 srd for as long as I can remember, and is likely a huge fan of it. In 3.5, rapiers were only 1d6, and it's quite possible that the person copy-pasted the data from its 3.5 equivalent table and changed the entries, and merely forgot/didn't notice the mistake.

[GlenSmash!]

Eh, not homebrew. The person who owns that domain has been keeping up the 3.5 srd for as long as I can remember, and is likely a huge fan of it. In 3.5, rapiers were only 1d6, and it's quite possible that the person copy-pasted the data from its 3.5 equivalent table and changed the entries, and merely forgot/didn't notice the mistake.

Fair enough. It may not be homebrew, but it also ain't the 5e SRD Weapons table.

[KorvinStarmast]

And druids are proficient in scimitars (for untouchable bovine reasons), but not rapiers. I can tell you why; heck, I did here (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/70528/22566). EGG eventually fessed up. Referring to it as a bovine reason is a bit harsh.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can tell you why; heck, I did here (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/70528/22566). EGG eventually fessed up. Referring to it as a bovine reason is a bit harsh.

"untouchable bovine" == "sacred cow" == "leftover from previous editions". It's tongue in cheek. Yes, there was a valid reason (no sickles in the game, scimitars are the closest in theme, so...) but now there are sickles. So keeping them proficient in scimitars is a hold-over.

That doesn't make it bad, mind. 5e is really the "best-of" edition--it tries to take the parts of each previous edition that worked the best, fuse it together with some new (to D&D) things and breath new life into it. Which is admirable and works well. But if this wasn't D&D, but some new game, a lot of things would make more sense to be done otherwise and are included as touchstones to previous editions.

[Knaight]

I've gone over this before, but this is a classic case of two different weapon models. There's one where weapons are a stylistic effect, essentially bonded to characters and used as characterization props - where you might have some difference between them still, but you generally want them balanced as game objects and often have just a few categories that can be a lot of different things - and there's one where weapons are specific tools suited for specific situations and a character can be expected to use whatever tool is most appropriate, the same way one might use both a wrench and a screw driver.

They're different paradigms, they operate differently, they promote different design parameters and the D&D designers very much don't want to pick one (maybe they haven't really noticed the paradigms, maybe it's case of trying to cater to both styles, but my personal suspicion is that they have designers with strong preferences for both models), and end up dancing all over the liminal space in between. This produces some weird results.

[Anonymouswizard]

I've gone over this before, but this is a classic case of two different weapon models. There's one where weapons are a stylistic effect, essentially bonded to characters and used as characterization props - where you might have some difference between them still, but you generally want them balanced as game objects and often have just a few categories that can be a lot of different things - and there's one where weapons are specific tools suited for specific situations and a character can be expected to use whatever tool is most appropriate, the same way one might use both a wrench and a screw driver.

They're different paradigms, they operate differently, they promote different design parameters and the D&D designers very much don't want to pick one (maybe they haven't really noticed the paradigms, maybe it's case of trying to cater to both styles, but my personal suspicion is that they have designers with strong preferences for both models), and end up dancing all over the liminal space in between. This produces some weird results.

I'm going to note something, I see 'weapon as style' much more in point-based systems and 'weapon as tool' much more in class based systems. This is because in a point build system becoming proficient in multiple (classes of) weapons can be a rather significant investment, and so most players will only raise one, two, or very rarely three weapon skills (one ranged, one melee, and then either unarmed or knives), while in a class based system generally all your proficiencies will come from your class and so you don't have to put any additional resources into it. In point-buy systems without individual weapon skills I tend to see the end result dependant on how much special abilities depend on your weapon.

Then there are games where weapons are literally styling, where they have no actual rules beyond 'if you want to use a weapon you can'.

[Damon_Tor]

Is slashing tremendously better then piercing or am I missing something else?

It's marginally worse IIRC. There are some oozes which are immune to and/or benefit from slashing damage.

But at least it's not a trident. The trident is strictly inferior to a spear; it weighs and costs more and is a martial weapon while the spear is simple. They do they same damage and have the same throwing distance. To rub it in, as of the latest batch of errata, the spear can be used with the polearm master feat, while the trident still can't. Terrible.

EDIT: I'm sorely tempted to houserule the damage of a trident as 3d2, 3d3 in two hands. Just because "3".

[Mad Nomad]

I've honestly thought that D&D should abandon specific weapons in favour of weapon categories since 5e began (at the same time I've wondered about cutting specific currency). Partially because 5e sort of does this, and then adds in a bunch of weapons that are superior or inferior.

So you'd have light weapons (daggers and the like), small weapons (shortswords, clubs, you know the drill), large weapons (arming swords, battleaxes, maces), heavy weapons (two handed swords, quarterstaffs), and reach weapons (polearms). These categories would all have identical stats for all weapons, and when you bought one you'd pick it's appearance and damage.

For example:
Hand and a half sword (large, slashing)
Longspear (reach, piercing)
Meteor hammer (heavy, bludgeoning)
Detached arm (light, bludgeoning)
Ram, portable (heavy, bludgeoning)
Ram, male sheep (uh....)

I understand the desire for simplicity, but I also appreciate the different weapon options available and their associated mechanics.

There is a mechanical difference between 2D6 & 1D12 for example, especially when combined with something like a Fighter's GWF or a Half-Orc's Savage Attack. I for one appreciate having these different options available, and would actually like to see a larger variety in weapons and mechanics.

That being said, I am also fine with renaming or reimagining weapons for thematic purposes, as long as everything remains balanced. Calling a scimitar a cutlass is more than reasonable, as is calling a long sword a katana. In many cases, the only change necessary is the name, not the mechanics. I see no problem with that.

[Gastronomie]

Consider that the Trident costs 5x more, weighs a pound more, and requires Martial Proficiency compared to the Simple Proficiency Spear, yet they're identical in damage numbers, damage type, and traits. Not everything makes perfect sense.Yeah, but the trident is better in underwater combat. It does have a use.

That aside, with the UA options of feats for specific weapons, you could assume that in whatever's meant to be PHB 3 (considering Xanathar's as PHB 2), there's a good possibility of weapons getting more love.

[GlenSmash!]

Yeah, but the trident is better in underwater combat. It does have a use.

That aside, with the UA options of feats for specific weapons, you could assume that in whatever's meant to be PHB 3 (considering Xanathar's as PHB 2), there's a good possibility of weapons getting more love.

The spear, just like the trident is not disadvantaged in underwater combat. So no, the Trident is not better in that circumstance.


Underwater Combat
When adventurers pursue Sahuagin back to their undersea homes, fight off sharks in an ancient shipwreck, or find themselves in a flooded dungeon room, they must fight in a challenging Environment. Underwater the following rules apply.

When making a melee weapon Attack, a creature that doesn’t have a swimming speed (either natural or granted by magic) has disadvantage on the Attack roll unless the weapon is a Dagger, Javelin, Shortsword, spear, or Trident.

A ranged weapon Attack automatically misses a target beyond the weapon’s normal range. Even against a target within normal range, the Attack roll has disadvantage unless the weapon is a crossbow, a net, or a weapon that is Thrown like a Javelin (including a spear, Trident, or dart).

[Morty]

I understand the desire for simplicity, but I also appreciate the different weapon options available and their associated mechanics.

There is a mechanical difference between 2D6 & 1D12 for example, especially when combined with something like a Fighter's GWF or a Half-Orc's Savage Attack. I for one appreciate having these different options available, and would actually like to see a larger variety in weapons and mechanics.

That being said, I am also fine with renaming or reimagining weapons for thematic purposes, as long as everything remains balanced. Calling a scimitar a cutlass is more than reasonable, as is calling a long sword a katana. In many cases, the only change necessary is the name, not the mechanics. I see no problem with that.

What associated mechanics, though? The entire reason this thread exists is that 5E kept different weapons while removing most of the mechanics that differentiated them. Scimitars used to differ from shortswords because of their critical range. Since those don't exist anymore, neither does the difference.

[Willie the Duck]

Pretty sure the one advantage of trident is that the enemy without martial weapon proficiency that you throw it at cannot pick it up and throw it back at you. Not exactly a huge benefit (and not that spears qualify for PAM, almost sad in comparison).

[JackPhoenix]

Scimitar exists, and has the light property, so Drizzt has something to wave around.

[Anonymouswizard]

I understand the desire for simplicity, but I also appreciate the different weapon options available and their associated mechanics.

There is a mechanical difference between 2D6 & 1D12 for example, especially when combined with something like a Fighter's GWF or a Half-Orc's Savage Attack. I for one appreciate having these different options available, and would actually like to see a larger variety in weapons and mechanics.

That being said, I am also fine with renaming or reimagining weapons for thematic purposes, as long as everything remains balanced. Calling a scimitar a cutlass is more than reasonable, as is calling a long sword a katana. In many cases, the only change necessary is the name, not the mechanics. I see no problem with that.

The thing is, most of the weapons already follow a pattern roughly along those lines, with the few that don't either being strictly better or strictly worse (hello Trident). As Morty says, the Scimitar used to have a higher critical threat range in exchange for it's lower damage die, similar to the rapier. There aren't even that many tags, I'd love to see a tripping tag for weapons like the gurisame as an example (of course the gurisame is no longer on the list, although we have two completely identical polearms in the glaive and halberd, great use of space guys), or a dueling tag for the rapier and sabre (which I'm still convinced should have been the slashing finesse sword, Drizzt can go back to the underdark). Not to mention that there's not a lot of point to piercing/slashing/bludgeoning anymore, seeing as so many creatures that used to resist one don't anymore.

[Mad Nomad]

What associated mechanics, though? The entire reason this thread exists is that 5E kept different weapons while removing most of the mechanics that differentiated them. Scimitars used to differ from shortswords because of their critical range. Since those don't exist anymore, neither does the difference.

As limited as it may be, there is still a mechanical difference between piercing and slashing damage, which is what separates the scimitar from the shortsword.

I do miss the variety of weapons in 3.5, and hope we somehow work our way back to having more options available to choose from.

[Jophiel]

Simply put, the designers** wanted to have druids be sickle wielders***, but there was no sickle weapon in the game. Thus, druids started using curved swords, and it stuck even past the point when sickles were added to the weapon chart.
With the 1e Unearthed Arcana, druids gained access to khopesh swords (https://lubiblicalmuseum.weebly.com/khopesh.html), further deepening the sickle theme.

[The Jack]

You can stab with a scimitar and slash with a short sword, and a morningstar could be a one handed, versatile or two-hander weapon...

The weapon table would be decent for guidlines if not for arbitrary choices and obvious outliers. I like 5e's simple weapons, but they're not well set up.