Scimitar or Shortsword?

[ImSAMazing]

Hey Playgrounders,

I am playing a Ranger and I am going to buy a Scimitar, but I saw that it costs 25 gp, it is 3lb, is finesse & light and has 1d6 damage die. The shortsword however is only 10 gp, 2 lb, is ALSO finesse & light and also deals 1d6 damage. Why would someone ever buy a Scimitar above a Shortsword?

[Atalas]

only reasons I can think of is they want slashing over piercing. Or aesthetics.

[ImSAMazing]

only reasons I can think of is they want slashing over piercing. Or aesthetics.

So, you pay 15gp for slashing instead of piercing? Who would do that...
Also, this link says that there are 4 more creatures with resistance against Piercing damage, but there are 2 more creatures immune to slashing damage(no creature is immune to piercing), so you pay 15gp for the fact that 4 creatures can't resist your damage better but you also take the risk that if you fight against something with Slashing immunity you should switch weapons...

[Pyon]

I remember in 4e there was a perk that boosted Scimitars. In 5e, I don't really see a point either.

[Ralanr]

So, you pay 15gp for slashing instead of piercing? Who would do that...
Also, this link says that there are 4 more creatures with resistance against Piercing damage, but there are 2 more creatures immune to slashing damage(no creature is immune to piercing), so you pay 15gp for the fact that 4 creatures can't resist your damage better but you also take the risk that if you fight against something with Slashing immunity you should switch weapons...

You're overthinking this.

[ImSAMazing]

You're overthinking this.

What do you mean by that?

[Daishain]

What do you mean by that?

A.) 15 gp is chump change at anything other than L1, and not always even then
B.) the difference between slashing and piercing is miniscule
C.) prices are driven by factors other than game mechanics. Scimitars are a more difficult weapon to produce than a short sword, therefore it costs more.

[ZenBear]

A.) 15 gp is chump change at anything other than L1, and not always even then
B.) the difference between slashing and piercing is miniscule
C.) prices are driven by factors other than game mechanics. Scimitars are a more difficult weapon to produce than a short sword, therefore it costs more.

D.) it's really not important

[HoarsHalberd]

Weapons aren't balanced on their cost or weight. A trident is heavier, more expensive and a martial weapon, but is equivalent to a spear in all other ways. A mace is more expensive than a quarterstaff and can't be used versatile style. A morning star is more expensive, heavier and does a less efficient damage type than the flail.

Because weight and cash are almost irrelevant in 5e at the costs and weights we have here, they try and roughly simulate the costs and weights and only worry about balancing damage and abilities.

[Raphite1]

Druids can use scimitars, but not shortswords.

A.) 15 gp is chump change at anything other than L1, and not always even then

The DMG suggests wealth not too far above starting equipment for levels 1-5. In the interval after that, they can get up to a max of about 500gp leading up to level 10.

[Kryx]

Weapons aren't balanced on their cost or weight. A trident is heavier, more expensive and a martial weapon, but is equivalent to a spear in all other ways.

That's why a Trident is commonly houseruled to d8/d10 versatile.

A mace is more expensive than a quarterstaff and can't be used versatile style. A morning star is more expensive, heavier and does a less efficient damage type than the flail.

Reddit discussion that talked about buffing these as well.

[HoarsHalberd]

That's why a Trident is commonly houseruled to d8/d10 versatile.


Reddit discussion that talked about buffing these as well.

They don't need rebalancing. Weapon choices are balanced already. Some choices are sub par but that's how the world worked. Nobody took a trident to war when they had a spear to hand. The flail and warpick I can get behind. But, frankly, a sickle and a club should be inferior to a shortsword/scimitar.

[Kryx]

They don't need rebalancing.

That's your opinion. Many others disagree as evidenced by the number of these threads and the numbers who suggest the houserule as I have.

[Ralanr]

D.) it's really not important

We have a winner.

[JoeJ]

C.) prices are driven by factors other than game mechanics. Scimitars are a more difficult weapon to produce than a short sword, therefore it costs more.

Ah, but a wooden longbow, is easier and cheaper to produce than any sort of steel sword, and yet at 50 gp it's more expensive than any of them except greatsword. (In the real medieval world bows were significantly cheaper than swords, which is part of why they were considered peasant weapons, unsuitable for noble knights.)

[Thrudd]

In the "real world", the price of weapons depends on the cost of materials and labor/skill that goes into making it. Anything made of metal, especially an alloy like steel that needs to be manufactured, is going to cost a lot more than something made of wood.
A spear is much cheaper than a sword to make, it uses a fraction of the metal, although it is just as good at killing people. Crossbows cost significantly more than a normal bow, because they often have steel in the tines and also require more advanced and detailed manufacturing, although a long bow kills someone just as well as a crossbow in most cases.
You have two choices in the game, one is to balance cost with damage range regardless of realism, which is the standard approach. The other would be to price the weapons more realistically, retaining realistic damage output relative to each other, but give them new properties and requirements which balance them in different ways. A spear is cheaper, but can't be used in confined spaces and might break when facing axes, heavy swords, or maces. A crossbow costs a lot more, but requires almost no training to use it and has a chance to bypass armor at closer ranges.

Scimitars and shortswords should basically be identical in terms of cost, since they are presented as being basically the same size. It isn't really harder to make a scimitar. Only requiring one edge to be sharpened actual makes it a bit easier. As far as I'm concerned, there should be no difference in damage either, the curve or no curve in the blade is something too detailed for D&D to model in combat. They should both be several times the cost of a spear, which itself is significantly above the price of a staff or club.

[ImSAMazing]

Ah, but a wooden longbow, is easier and cheaper to produce than any sort of steel sword, and yet at 50 gp it's more expensive than any of them except greatsword. (In the real medieval world bows were significantly cheaper than swords, which is part of why they were considered peasant weapons, unsuitable for noble knights.)

True. But most villagers fighted with a Sling/CROSSbow not a Longbow. Ranger's Apprentice says that normal Bows aren't produced easily.

[Raphite1]

They don't need rebalancing. Weapon choices are balanced already. Some choices are sub par but that's how the world worked. ...

This point has more merit than it may seem.

Playing a character you like really makes a big different in an RPG, and that includes flavor choices like weapons. One damage die higher or lower just isn't a big deal, even in terms of raw combat numbers, but a character that seizes your imagination makes all the difference in the world.

[Ralanr]

This point has more merit than it may seem.

Playing a character you like really makes a big different in an RPG, and that includes flavor choices like weapons. One damage die higher or lower just isn't a big deal, even in terms of raw combat numbers, but a character that seizes your imagination makes all the difference in the world.

Exactly. Not everything is about optimization. Sometimes I just want to play a dwarf rogue/paladin with a greataxe.

[Ouranos]

Proficiency. Scimitar is a special weapon in that druids can use it. Gotta pay more for a good blade when you can TURN INTO A DAMN BEAR.

[Ralanr]

Proficiency. Scimitar is a special weapon in that druids can use it. Gotta pay more for a good blade when you can TURN INTO A DAMN BEAR.

It's practically criminal!

[JoeJ]

There's also the coolness factor. Scimitars have the whole Arabian Knights thing going, and they're essentially the same as cutlasses, which pirates use. If you're gonna hang with the cool crowd, you've gotta pay for the privilege.

[Coidzor]

If your party is so consistently broke that you can't buy or otherwise acquire both to use as necessary for the damage types, then you're running into some serious issues.

Also, if you get your choice free at 1st level instead of having starting gold to allocate to supplies yourself, then going with a scimitar over a short sword means that if you eventually sell it upon getting a magic weapon or something, then you earn half of 25 gp instead of half of 10 gp, so that's a marginal advantage.

[UXLZ]

There's a similar issue with the Glaive and Halberd. Honestly, it feels like they should have given templates rather than actual weapons and let the DM decide on the variable stats. For instance, a Khukuri is going to be heaver than a stiletto, and do slashing damage instead of piercing.

"Knife/Dagger Template - Piercing/Slashing - 1d4 - 5 foot (20/60)- Finesse, Light, may include 'Thrown' property - 1-6GP - 1-3 lb. Examples: Bowie Knife, Khukuri, Switchblade, Stiletto."

[Knaight]

Ah, but a wooden longbow, is easier and cheaper to produce than any sort of steel sword, and yet at 50 gp it's more expensive than any of them except greatsword. (In the real medieval world bows were significantly cheaper than swords, which is part of why they were considered peasant weapons, unsuitable for noble knights.)

That's not even remotely true in general. High quality bows were generally very nice, very expensive weapons that were either some expensive combination of laminate or very particular parts of very particular trees which were then heavily treated. Meanwhile the price of swords pretty much plummeted throughout the middle ages, and by the time the weapon typically thought of as a longbow was in heavy use (e.g. the Hundred Years War) swords were widely available and not particularly expensive. Closer to 500 CE, swords were vastly more expensive and a lot of the bows around were comparatively cheaper.

[PoeticDwarf]

Hey Playgrounders,

I am playing a Ranger and I am going to buy a Scimitar, but I saw that it costs 25 gp, it is 3lb, is finesse & light and has 1d6 damage die. The shortsword however is only 10 gp, 2 lb, is ALSO finesse & light and also deals 1d6 damage. Why would someone ever buy a Scimitar above a Shortsword?

A druid only got a scimitar. There are more weapons like this. Why would you prefer a trident every above a spear, and nobody gots the trident but not the spear.

[djreynolds]

Hey Playgrounders,

I am playing a Ranger and I am going to buy a Scimitar, but I saw that it costs 25 gp, it is 3lb, is finesse & light and has 1d6 damage die. The shortsword however is only 10 gp, 2 lb, is ALSO finesse & light and also deals 1d6 damage. Why would someone ever buy a Scimitar above a Shortsword?

Concept trumps all. Scimitars are cooler and thus justify my charging you 15gp extra. It's like a tattoo, do you need really need it? No, but its cool. You win. I can't argue cool. And since you're going two-weapon grab one of each and don't name one Twinkle, because its not cool like Icingdeath.

[Ralanr]

Concept trumps all. Scimitars are cooler and thus justify my charging you 15gp extra. It's like a tattoo, do you need really need it? No, but its cool. You win. I can't argue cool. And since you're going two-weapon grab one of each and don't name one Twinkle, because its not cool like Icingdeath.

Or sparkle.

I get your reference, I just thought this would be funny.

[djreynolds]

Or sparkle.

I get your reference, I just thought this would be funny.

Some guy on this forum or another went to town and bashed twinkle. And it was funny.

[Ralanr]

Some guy on this forum or another went to town and bashed twinkle. And it was funny.

I wish I could see this.