How to Make the Scimitar a good choice [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

KorvinStarmast

2020-05-12, 07:18 PM

Segev

2020-05-12, 07:20 PM

Aren't they just finessable, slashing short swords before your change?

What does the extra +1 damage do in terms of why it's needed?

Biggest problem I see with it is that it clogs up the simplicity of 5e's design, wherein weapons do dice of damage, and flat bonuses are the prerogative of stats and class features.

Griswold

2020-05-12, 07:21 PM

This slightly reduces the damage it does on a critical hit, without any real benefit (besides it being slightly more likely to do average rather than extreme damage).

KorvinStarmast

2020-05-12, 07:28 PM

Aren't they just finessable, slashing short swords before your change? Sorry, Short Swords already have finesse. Your question is?

Shortsword
melee weapon (martial, sword)
Damage: 1d6
Damage Type: Piercing
Item Rarity: Standard
Properties: Finesse, Light

This slightly reduces the damage it does on a critical hit, without any real benefit (besides it being slightly more likely to do average rather than extreme damage).
Incorrect, it changes nothing on a crit. It would do 1d6+1 on a crit or 1d6 (see the silly crap on great swords) and change nothing of any substance given that crits are rare.

Scimitar
Damage: 1d6
Damage Type: Slashing
Item Rarity: Standard
Properties: Finesse, Light
Maybe "get rid of light" is where I need to amend that.

To put this into perspective, I believe that a big club ought to be 1d10 versus 1d8 since a two handed quarter staff does 1d8 .... and the heavy/two handed penalty needs to be offset by something.

The step down from Martial to Simple usually is a die size.

Greatclub
melee weapon (simple, club)
Damage: 1d8
Damage Type: Bludgeoning
Properties: Two-Handed

Maul is Martial and does 2d6. I feel that great club needs to do 1d10.

Theodoxus

2020-05-12, 07:37 PM

That was his point. Literally the only difference between scimitar and short sword, in the PhB, is damage type.

You want to add a point of damage to scimitars. That's your change?

Ok...

ETA: Great clubs don't have the Heavy property. If they did, I'd be there with you, but going from Heavy + Martial (maul) to simple and standard is a 2 die drop. The 1d8 is appropriate and consistent. I'd be fine with making a Grand Club (of the Republic!) that was heavy and simple that did a d10... there's room for that, for sure.

Vogie

2020-05-12, 08:47 PM

The only real way to make them a better choice is to make melee damage types matter more often - Sure, Skeletons have vulnerability to bludgeoning, but BPS resistance across the board is very common. If that was more mixed, requiring martials to change weapons based on the fight, or the phase of the fight, that would be one thing.

However, that'd require a rehaul of the monster manual, rather than the scimitar itself. You could:

Change the damage to 2d3 damage instead of 1d6, making the damage average slightly higher.
Allow Druids to use an actual scimitar in lieu of concentration for Flame Blade.
Allow creatures to use their performance in lieu of to-attack bonuses on scimitars.

SunderedWorldDM

2020-05-12, 09:00 PM

I know that perhaps this isn't what you're looking for, but in my 5e games I've hypersimplified weapons so that you can basically mix and match to get a weapon that fits what you want narratively (granting more flexibility to people who want their characters to be able to use really exotic or iconic weapons that aren't handled well in the rules).

First, pick the weapon size. Second, choose any extra traits the weapon would inherently have.

Size:
Miniscule- d4 (Dagger)
Small- d6 (Shortsword)
Moderate- d8 (Scimitar)
Large- d10 (Longsword)
Mighty- d12 (Greatsword)

(Choose damage type here, but that seems like a no brainer)

Extra weapon traits:
-Ranged. Any weapon that can reasonably be thrown or shot has this property. The range could be thrown (20/60), close range (30/90), medium range (90/150), or long range (150/200).
-Two-Handed. Any weapon that is of Large or Mighty size requires two hands to wield.
-Finesse. Any weapon of Miniscule or Small size and some Moderate weapons (upon DM discretion) have this property.
-Light. You can dual-wield with any Small or Miniscule weapon in your off-hand.
-Reach. A melee weapon might have a larger range than typical. If you choose a weapon such as a whip or a lance, it can make melee attacks from slightly outside of Close range (10 ft).
-Underwater. If the weapon, like a trident or spear, would be able to be effectively used underwater without penalty, it has this trait.
-Custom. If the weapon is somehow remarkable or unique in a way not covered above, it could have a custom trait to reflect this. An example might be a boomerang, which you would be able to use a bonus action to return to your hand after making an attack roll with it (Returning).

Now let's make some common weapons that aren't covered in the PHB using the system.
Nunchucks- Small, so d6 damage. Finesse and Light, from being Small. And that's it!
Scythe- Probably Large, give 'em the benefit of the doubt. d10 damage, Two-Handed from being Large, and probably Reach too, and we're done.
Longsword- Just to show some things that would change from using this system. Large, so d10 damage, and Two-Handed. That's it! No fiddly "are you using it with one hand or two" business anymore.

And finally, the one, the only, the scimitar.
Scimitar- Moderate size, so d8 damage. A scimitar could be wielded dexterously, so I would give it Finesse. And we're done!

Now, this system does take out quite a bit, notably removing the simple/martial weapon disparity. I like to replace that with simply an all-around weapon proficiency- anybody who can use martial weapons can instead now wield any weapon with proficiency. A quick and dirty fix! But that's just how I did it, an extra point of damage to the scimitar might clear up your dissatisfactions with the system.

Aussiehams

2020-05-12, 09:34 PM

I know why they did it, but I miss different crit ranges and mods.

Lunali

2020-05-13, 12:01 PM

How to make scimitar a good choice: add it to the rogue list.

Misterwhisper

2020-05-13, 12:31 PM

How to make scimitar a good choice: add it to the rogue list.

Rogues should have been proficient with all finesse weapons.

Garfunion

2020-05-13, 12:57 PM

It would be far easier to create a weapon specific feat. In fact I think all weapons in the players handbook should have a specific feat for it. To provide the option for added complexity.

stoutstien

2020-05-13, 01:04 PM

It would be far easier to create a weapon specific feat. In fact I think all weapons in the players handbook should have a specific feat for it. To provide the option for added complexity.

I strongly disagree. And to add to this the feats that do exist for weapons shouldn't. They should just be added them to weapons as special features like the lance. feat taxing weapon uses is only marginally ok in systems like 3.X but 5e having them tied to ASI is just too restrictive.

KorvinStarmast

2020-05-13, 01:17 PM

Thanks for the feedback folks, we'll chew on this.

How to make scimitar a good choice: add it to the rogue list. heh, that made me grin.

nickl_2000

2020-05-13, 01:19 PM

Make your character named Drizzt Do'Urden? He dual wield scimitars, right?

prabe

2020-05-13, 01:24 PM

It would be far easier to create a weapon specific feat. In fact I think all weapons in the players handbook should have a specific feat for it. To provide the option for added complexity.

Feats specific to each weapon seems like an awfully granular level of detail--probably more than 5E is really built to support--and it seems like a pretty bad deal to have a feat for each specific weapon, given how few feats a character is likely to get. My approach has been to cobble together feats for different groups of weapons, so a character can choose to focus on, say, swords, and get benefits while wielding a sword. I want weapon choice to matter, if the player wants it to matter; I don't want to force a player who doesn't care to engage with that to do so. I'm away from my list at the moment, but while my ideal would be for martial weapons to be in two feats and simple weapons to be in one, I'm not sure I managed that.

KorvinStarmast

2020-05-13, 01:51 PM

Great clubs don't have the Heavy property. If they did, I'd be there with you, but going from Heavy + Martial (maul) to simple and standard is a 2 die drop. The 1d8 is appropriate and consistent. I'd be fine with making a Grand Club (of the Republic!) that was heavy and simple that did a d10... there's room for that, for sure. AH, good call, yeah, revise Great Club to Heavy and make it 1d10 simple whack 'em weapon.

For Nickl: no, just no.

As to feats: also a "no, feats are too expensive to apply to this" (I agree with Prabe)

Segev

2020-05-13, 02:12 PM

Might be something to build a subclass around, though.

"Weaponmaster," a fighter subclass, might choose a "weapon technique" at every level, with weapon techniques being weapon-specific. Level-gate them, and make them function independently, but perhaps self-synergize with techniques of the same weapon.

Sorinth

2020-05-13, 03:15 PM

Keep in mind if you make Scimitar a good choice that means you are making Shortsword a bad choice since they are basically the same weapon.

Also since 1d6+1 does the same average damage as 1d8 you are also reducing Rapier usefulness as well as making Dual Wielder feat a bit of a trap option.

CapnWildefyr

2020-05-13, 03:43 PM

Keep it as a martial weapon.
Keep Slashing Damage
Keep Finesse
Make the damage 2-7. (1d6+1)
No versatile feature.

This will distinguish it from both long sword and short sword.

Ok, this is my idea.
Where are the holes in this Swiss Cheese, going from level 1 to level 20? Yes, I realize that all I am doing is empowering Drzzt wannabees, but I want to live the Druid in the PHB who is laying the smackdown on Goblins with his dual wielding scimitars!

https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.d20.io/images/55555699/nyXmUcBhEMlDr4nERo_r5w/original.png?1528350166

(And please don't mention hexblades, as anything to do with them makes for sadness)

To improve it? Hack a hexblade with it? :smallbiggrin:

Looking at the picture -- and here we get into historical interpretations -- I dont think that's a scimitar per se because it's got a straight back. Broadsword maybe, aren't they single edged? I cant recall.

Anyways there a lot of scimitars. Sabre, shamshir, cutlass to name a few. Sabres are a bit heavier in my view than plain scimitar, and shamshirs (used in India) were also heavier. Maybe you get into a bit of martial vs simple trouble, but why not say it's a heavier scimitar and call it d8. Maybe drop finesse? Yes, a long sword with a curve.

Tanarii

2020-05-13, 03:55 PM

Phase 1) hire a no talent writer to write your teen novels
Phase 2) ???
Phase 3) profit

Seriously though, if you're talking about a Druid, scimitars are already a good choice. IIRC they're they're the only finesse weapon they can use.

If you're talking about good enough for anyone to use, simple: make them d8 finesse like the rapier. It's really weird they are d6, and even weirder they are light.

Yora

2020-05-14, 03:25 AM

Seems like a solution in need of a problem.

Willie the Duck

2020-05-14, 08:22 AM

Seriously though, if you're talking about a Druid, scimitars are already a good choice. IIRC they're they're the only finesse weapon they can use.

There aren't a lot of Druids who are wading into melee combat (not as a bear, as another issue), and most of them are using Wisdom as their combat stat (with shillelagh). That pushes scimitar into a rarely-used niche. Mind you, I don't have a problem with that, but it does make me question if we need a separate scimitar weapon type.

If you're talking about good enough for anyone to use, simple: make them d8 finesse like the rapier. It's really weird they are d6, and even weirder they are light.

I think pretty much because people who got on the Drizzt bandwagon (or the downstream consequences, given how Drizzt changed the depiction of Rangers) got used to the idea of scimitars as lighter swords you used in pairs. 3e changed their damage to d6s as well (with an increased crit range though).

Seems like a solution in need of a problem.

The existence of scimitar (as a discrete, in-game weapon) in general seems to be. In oD&D, there was no mechanical distinction except that a certain percentage of one handed swords were 'sickle shaped' and thus usable to the Druid class from Elditch Wizardry. AD&D made every different type of sword a different line on the equipment chart (really, Gary? We need a separate khopesh entry? Fine I guess, Mister 'Guisarme-voulge needs its own line too') so of course scimitar did too. However, once it became clear that few people were using the Weapon-vs-Armor charts, the actual purpose to this dried up (and once weapon proficiencies became a thing, the whole big chart became a burden instead of a boon). 3e went that extra mile to make each weapon distinct and theoretically interesting (and scimitars actually were interesting, and useful, for a crit-fishing build, making it one of the rare times when spiked chain wasn't the optimal answer to any question). 5e didn't do this, but kept some of the weapons anyways, making them mostly vestigial. Personally I think there ought to be a general arming sword entry (perhaps rapier, just slashing) and scimitar should be rolled into that.

Joe the Rat

2020-05-14, 08:40 AM

Great clubs don't have the Heavy property. If they did, I'd be there with you, but going from Heavy + Martial (maul) to simple and standard is a 2 die drop. The 1d8 is appropriate and consistent. I'd be fine with making a Grand Club (of the Republic!) that was heavy and simple that did a d10... there's room for that, for sure.

Interesting that there are no Heavy Simple weapons. Anything that leverage-dependent needs training?

I too support the Grand Club (of the Republic!) initiative. I have a bad feeling that it will turn into the Imperial Club before we're through...

(Simple, Heavy, Two-handed, 1d10 bludgeoning)

While we're at it, a Morningdeathstar would also fit a niche (Martial, 1d8, versatile 1d10, piercing).

nickl_2000

2020-05-14, 08:48 AM

AH, good call, yeah, revise Great Club to Heavy and make it 1d10 simple whack 'em weapon.

For Nickl: no, just no.

As to feats: also a "no, feats are too expensive to apply to this" (I agree with Prabe)

That was the response I was going for, my original post should have been in blue.

Tanarii

2020-05-14, 09:13 AM

There aren't a lot of Druids who are wading into melee combat (not as a bear, as another issue), and most of them are using Wisdom as their combat stat (with shillelagh). That pushes scimitar into a rarely-used niche. Mind you, I don't have a problem with that, but it does make me question if we need a separate scimitar weapon type.I saw lots of Land Druids use scimitar & shield in Tier 1. Because:
- Dex 14 was pretty normal for starting druids, and Str 14 is not.
- not everyone wants to spend a cantrip slot on shillelagh, especially when you're intending to avoid melee
- you can't always avoid being in melee range despite good intentions, and that's when you pull out your scimitar.

I think pretty much because people who got on the Drizzt bandwagon (or the downstream consequences, given how Drizzt changed the depiction of Rangers) got used to the idea of scimitars as lighter swords you used in pairs. 3e changed their damage to d6s as well (with an increased crit range though). Sure. But that's a really stupid reason.

As is the stats are better used for a cutlass. Or wakizashi.

Willie the Duck

2020-05-14, 09:55 AM

I saw lots of Land Druids use scimitar & shield in Tier 1. Because:
- Dex 14 was pretty normal for starting druids, and Str 14 is not.
- not everyone wants to spend a cantrip slot on shillelagh, especially when you're intending to avoid melee
- you can't always avoid being in melee range despite good intentions, and that's when you pull out your scimitar.

Sure, and it is one more point, on average, than a dagger. If you are a tier I land druid (or level 1 going-to-be-moon druid, we should not ignore initial state), they are the right choice. I can understand why someone who is looking to boost a given entry on the weapon table might be looking for more than this.

Sure. But that's a really stupid reason.

Maybe? In a world where WotC decided to keep studded leather (so far as I can tell simply because a lot of gamers have gotten used to it filling said role), and where WotC released a version of the game that 'fixed' huge parts of the game and it failed to capture the market, while this 'D&D leaning into its D&D-ness' edition has succeeded? I'm not prepared to say that.

Warlush

2020-05-14, 10:55 AM

Get one "of speed".

Segev

2020-05-14, 11:33 AM

Maybe I missed it somewhere in here (or even the OP), but I still don't know what the actual problem that's intended to be solved is.

What is the problem that is perceived?

What is the intended behavior this fix is designed to encourage?

Deathtongue

2020-05-14, 11:54 AM

What is the problem that is perceived?Likely the OP felt there wasn't enough differentiation between the scimitar and shortsword. If this was 2E - 4E with a gigantic equipment list, lots of weapon-specific game effect, and loads of magical items, we could just say it's part of the fun. But 5E D&D has an intentionally small list and shies away from individual weapon specialization. To put it in perspective, if I as a DM was forced to pick one weapon to cut from the table for D&D 5.5E and I wanted to disrupt the game-as-she-is-played minimally, scimitar would be easily be the top pick.

If that kind of thing bothers you, looking for ways to differentiate this frankly narratively and gameplay-extraneous weapon seems obvious enough to me. I don't really care, but I can see it bothering other people.

Segev

2020-05-14, 12:15 PM

Likely the OP felt there wasn't enough differentiation between the scimitar and shortsword. If this was 2E - 4E with a gigantic equipment list, lots of weapon-specific game effect, and loads of magical items, we could just say it's part of the fun. But 5E D&D has an intentionally small list and shies away from individual weapon specialization. To put it in perspective, if I as a DM was forced to pick one weapon to cut from the table for D&D 5.5E and I wanted to disrupt the game-as-she-is-played minimally, scimitar would be easily be the top pick.

If that kind of thing bothers you, looking for ways to differentiate this frankly narratively and gameplay-extraneous weapon seems obvious enough to me. I don't really care, but I can see it bothering other people.

I mean, it's slashing rather than piercing, as-is. And that's often the biggest difference between a few of the various weapon choices.

Willie the Duck

2020-05-14, 12:22 PM

I mean, it's slashing rather than piercing, as-is. And that's often the biggest difference between a few of the various weapon choices.

I think (again, we're having to guess at the OP's motivation) the issue is that it sits on the weapon table, unused. The piercing equivalent sees ample use by 2wf rogues (who are naturally proficient in one and not the other).

Theodoxus

2020-05-14, 01:40 PM

I saw lots of Land Druids use scimitar & shield in Tier 1. Because:
- Dex 14 was pretty normal for starting druids, and Str 14 is not.
- not everyone wants to spend a cantrip slot on shillelagh, especially when you're intending to avoid melee
- you can't always avoid being in melee range despite good intentions, and that's when you pull out your scimitar.

.

I think this is really the crux of WotC's decision. A scimitar is basically a finesse club. They didn't want to make a finesse 1d6 weapon that everyone could use (the d4 throwing axe fits that spot). But didn't want to screw over dex based druids - so, you make the weapon martial, and grant druids the specific proficiency to use it.

Given that longswords aren't finesse, I'd be happy with swapping rogue prof in longswords for prof in scimitars (though I really love the idea of longswords being finesse when used two-handed - to give rogues a bit of love).

Yuroch Kern

2020-05-14, 01:44 PM

Segev

2020-05-14, 03:21 PM

Scimitars are thin, curved...but they are not actually very small like a short sword. I fixed them in my game by giving them Versatile (1d8). As far as making them better than short swords, the proficiencies available to classes already make that kinda moot. It gives it a little boost to Druids mostly.

Unless I'm forgetting the Falchion existing in 5e, I would suggest making a Versatile scimitar go to 2d4, just so that it is the answer to "but what about the falchion?" if brought up. 2d4 is only a very slightly bit better than 1d8.

Yuroch Kern

2020-05-14, 05:00 PM

Unless I'm forgetting the Falchion existing in 5e, I would suggest making a Versatile scimitar go to 2d4, just so that it is the answer to "but what about the falchion?" if brought up. 2d4 is only a very slightly bit better than 1d8.

I dont think the falchion exists per se in 5e, just a refluff. 2d4 would be also slightly edging the rapier, although the rapier has more support as a one handed finesse weapon. I refluffed Falchions as longswords, since the size makes them less Finesse, but the technique allows the Versatile and better damage. My opinion.

Yuroch Kern

2020-05-14, 06:32 PM

Also, the way criticals work, it does more damage this way with the extra d8, as opposed to d4. I appears the designers wanted to keep Finesse weapons to d8 or less to keep Strength builds having the big damage dice of d10 or more. Also, and this comes up a lot, damage types can make a difference when interacting with your environment. A short sword technically can't slice a rope or cut a net. Scimitar can...

JNAProductions

2020-05-14, 06:57 PM

Tanarii

2020-05-14, 07:13 PM

A DM that rules you cannot slice a rope with a shortsword is not a DM I'd want to play with.
Are we talking sawing through a rope, or trying to cut it with a single blow? I mean, there's a reason cutlasses were a thing.

Willie the Duck

2020-05-14, 07:59 PM

Are we talking sawing through a rope, or trying to cut it with a single blow? I mean, there's a reason cutlasses were a thing.

I think the point is that a short sword (/hanger/machete/gladius/messer/fascine knife perhaps) is side-edged, was not a 'stabbing exclusive' blade like a stiletto or spike, etc. It shouldn't specifically have much more difficulty cutting through a rope than any other sword. Cut through with a single blow? Honest lots of swords shouldn't be guaranteed that unless the rope is taut. Cutlasses (I assume you mean the naval version) have all sorts of reasons for the why and how (in particular the not needing to be worn on the belt allowing for the symmetrical basket hilt).

Tanarii

2020-05-14, 10:06 PM

But most of those are better stated 5e scimitars, not 5e shortswords. That's the point.

greenstone

2020-05-14, 11:23 PM

I think part of the issue is that the weapon is badly named. That image posted earlier in this thread is not a 5E scimitar. The scimitar in the 5E rulebook is more what we would call a machete, parang, bolo, golok or maybe kukri. It's a one-handed light weapon weighing 3 pounds. The real world "scimitar" is a curved sword (shamshir, tulwar, kilij, cavalry sabre, etc) much larger and heavier than this (Raven Armoury's kilij is just over 11lb!).

Personally, I'd take all the versatile weapons away from the rogue class and give them all the one-handed martial piercing and slashing weapons. Not the bludgeoning ones (blunt object != finesse :-).

The image of a dual-kukri wielding miscreant is well-established in fiction. I'd like it to be in this game.

Then again, the weapons table is wierd. What's the difference between a scimitar and a hand axe? Why does the former need special skill? Why does a 10lb greatclub do the same damage as a 4lb quarterstaff? Why does a morningstar cost and weigh twice as much as an idential weapon, the warpick?

Yuroch Kern

2020-05-14, 11:54 PM

A DM that rules you cannot slice a rope with a shortsword is not a DM I'd want to play with.

I think the point is that a short sword (/hanger/machete/gladius/messer/fascine knife perhaps) is side-edged, was not a 'stabbing exclusive' blade like a stiletto or spike, etc. It shouldn't specifically have much more difficulty cutting through a rope than any other sword. Cut through with a single blow, honest lots of swords should be guaranteed that unless the rope is taut. Cutlasses (I assume you mean the naval version) have all sorts of reasons for the why and how (in particular the not needing to be worn on the belt allowing for the symmetrical basket hilt).

The technicality is just that. The rules, RAW, things and systems. I'm not saying you can't justify it. I'm saying you need permission to do it. Saying that you can easily cut with a "Piercing" weapon, is saying the Scimitar is redundant because just carry a Short Sword, because a Short Sword is actually a P and S weapon...

MaxWilson

2020-05-14, 11:56 PM

The glaive-guisarme could also use some love to distinguish it from the ranseur and the voulge.

Tanarii

2020-05-15, 12:09 AM

The glaive-guisarme could also use some love to distinguish it from the ranseur and the voulge.
I'd settle for the Glaive and the Halberd :smallamused:

Zhorn

2020-05-15, 12:13 AM

The glaive-guisarme could also use some love to distinguish it from the ranseur and the voulge.
I'd settle for the Glaive and the Halberd :smallamused:

Sorry, but it would seem we're fresh out of stock on those

CapnWildefyr

2020-05-16, 07:45 AM

Sorry, but it would seem we're fresh out of stock on those

We're not out of stock, they're just in the back between the bill-hooks and the bohemian ear spoons.

The problem with the weapons table is that they are using one table to do two different things. We need one table that lists classes/groupings of simple vs martial weapons, and another table for prices where you list everything line by line.

da newt

2020-05-16, 08:31 AM

Tanarii

2020-05-16, 08:48 AM

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure a Khukuri is forward curved (and pretty darn heavy for it's length), where a cutlass or scimitar is backwards curved, right?

Certainly the Gurkha are bad @ss, but I'm not sure the Khukuri is a finesse weapon - it's more of a beheading knife/axe multi tool ...My understanding of the Kurki, Cutlass, Falchion, and Machete is their defining characteristic isn't curve, it's being relatively weighted towards the end of the blade. As opposed to being relatively weighted towards the hilt.

But in 5e terms, they are all slashing bladed weapons of varying size, and as such for stats should probably either be a Longsword or a Scimitar. Personally I'd put Kurki and Cutlass and Machete as Scimitars, and Falchion as a Longsword.

Segev

2020-05-16, 10:29 AM

My understanding of the Kurki, Cutlass, Falchion, and Machete is their defining characteristic isn't curve, it's being relatively weighted towards the end of the blade. As opposed to being relatively weighted towards the hilt.

But in 5e terms, they are all slashing bladed weapons of varying size, and as such for stats should probably either be a Longsword or a Scimitar. Personally I'd put Kurki and Cutlass and Machete as Scimitars, and Falchion as a Longsword.

I always thought Kukri were closer to daggers, but my only exposure to them was 3.PF.

MrCharlie

2020-05-17, 03:31 PM

You could very easily say this is a problem with swords in general.

The DnD weapon table manages to be both too specific and too general. If you are going to go into detail about every type of sword, then you've got a huge nerd fight. You either need to make some attempt to do them all justice-Pathfinder-or avoid the fight.

I'd go with making three swords. Short-sword, one-handed sword, two-handed sword. 1d6/light, 1d8, 2d6/heavy. Give them the ability to do both slashing and piercing (invent a new weapon tag), and make the non-heavy ones finesse. No rapier, no scimitar, no specific rules needed, just swords.

At the end of the day, a sword is still a sword, no matter what shape it has. They were optimized for different uses, but a fighters preference would influence the forging to a significant degree as well as culture and "make", so modeling every sword type is absurd. Their defining characteristics were portability, their relative lightness, and their surprising grace when wielded correctly.

To put it another way, the variety between all swords is smaller than the variation between a sword and any other weapon, so just make three swords and be done with it.

If you really must keep the scimitar, give it a special property that favors use from horseback. That's one of the main advantages to having a curved blade-for several reasons, it's easier to deliver cuts from horseback effectively if the weapon is curved, hence why horse-riding cultures tend to gravitate towards them. If you want simple make it a 1d10 weapon when used from horseback, if you want complicated have the first attack each turn from horseback have advantage as long as the mount moved at least 10 feet towards the target. Even makes sense why druids might use them over rogues-druids get along with animals, rogues are often stereotyped to be the exact opposite ("damn city boy!").

KorvinStarmast

2020-05-18, 10:55 AM

OK, I think I see the point being made in re low level druids needing something that isn't a club.

greenstone

2020-05-18, 10:37 PM

OK, I think I see the point being made in re low level druids needing something that isn't a club.

I vaguely remember that druids were given scimitar and sickle proficiency because of their association with the crescent moon.

Misterwhisper

2020-05-18, 11:33 PM

I vaguely remember that druids were given scimitar and sickle proficiency because of their association with the crescent moon.

Sickle makes perfect sense, it is a farming tool and a tool of the harvest.

Scimitar never made any sense to me, it is a weapon built for war, not the hunt.

Segev

2020-05-19, 10:43 AM

Sickle makes perfect sense, it is a farming tool and a tool of the harvest.

Scimitar never made any sense to me, it is a weapon built for war, not the hunt.

If I had to justify it, I'd say it's the closest thing 3e had to a machete. Which is as much a jungle-exploration tool as it is a weapon.

prabe

2020-05-19, 10:55 AM

If I had to justify it, I'd say it's the closest thing 3e had to a machete. Which is as much a jungle-exploration tool as it is a weapon.

Except that druids' proficiency with scimitar goes back to 1e, and similarly archaic/exotic weapons are called out for druids in Unearthed Arcana (khopesh, IIRC). Which doesn't mean that "similarity to machete" isn't part of the thinking, just that it goes back further.

KorvinStarmast

2020-05-19, 01:39 PM

Except that druids' proficiency with scimitar goes back to 1e, Actually, it goes back to OD&D Eldritch Wizardry, 1976, a few years before 1e hit the presses. :smallcool:

I vaguely remember that druids were given scimitar and sickle proficiency because of their association with the crescent moon.
Gygax said it's the closest thing to a sword/sickle that he could give to a cleric sub class for the Eldritch Wizardry druid. (1976). A bit more detail is here (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/70528/22566). (Wait, aren't you on RPGSE as greenstonewalker?)

The relationship between the historical sickle used to harvest misteltoe and a curved sword was a stylistic point. From the man himself:(note:Gary was posting as Col_Pladoh) {dragonsfoot forum post}

Q: Hello, Colonel! Hope you're feeling better!!! Just a question that stretches back down the eons to 1e.: why do druids use scimitars? It just seems curious with the Celtic connection.

A: Heh, It is because the scimitar is as close a sword weapon I could come up with to match the druids' mistletoe-harvesting sickle. Cheers, Gary