Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Sep 2015
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
I was always under the assumption that the pacts could be a little loose and that a Fiend could actually lead you to have a hexblade "patron" with enough justification?

emphasis on " with enough justification".
We should assume that many players are not familiar with DnD.
It is easy to confince players that your patron is a fiend if you have made a pact with a fiend.
It may be harder (but definitely not impossible) to convince players that you become a hexblade from a pact with a fiend, when they can select fiend as patron.

I hope they add hexblade, but I would not bet on it.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Jan 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Rapiers deal 1d8 damage and they are finesse but NOT light (no dual wielding with it)
Scimitars and shortswords deal 1d6 damage and are finesse and light (dual wielding possible)
Once again, those rules have been made for balance, not for realism.
Most players and maybe also the creators of these rules are not experts for the classification of old weapons.

Yeah, scimitars seem pointless since they are literally the same as shortswords. Same damage time, same roll, same everything. The scimitar weighs 1 lb. more and costs 15 gp more than a shortsword. The blades are supposed to be longer, though. Maybe if they did something like greatswords do and roll multiple die, so it's a 2d3 weapon instead for more consistent damage, being more designed for slashing than normal swords. Game versions of scimitars usually have thicker blades than the real ones, and they look like the center part is weighted based on its thickness, which would let it swing even harder.

In real life, scimitars were THE weapon for horseback combat and were used for a long time. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/scimitar-how-one-sword-dominated-warfare-centuries-25033

I know that many things overlap in D&D as for weapon types, and it's mainly for appearance's sake, but there's not even a reach difference.

Joined: Feb 2021
Location: Alaska
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2021
Location: Alaska
Originally Posted by rdb100
Originally Posted by Madscientist
Rapiers deal 1d8 damage and they are finesse but NOT light (no dual wielding with it)
Scimitars and shortswords deal 1d6 damage and are finesse and light (dual wielding possible)
Once again, those rules have been made for balance, not for realism.
Most players and maybe also the creators of these rules are not experts for the classification of old weapons.

Yeah, scimitars seem pointless since they are literally the same as shortswords. Same damage time, same roll, same everything. The scimitar weighs 1 lb. more and costs 15 gp more than a shortsword. The blades are supposed to be longer, though. Maybe if they did something like greatswords do and roll multiple die, so it's a 2d3 weapon instead for more consistent damage, being more designed for slashing than normal swords. Game versions of scimitars usually have thicker blades than the real ones, and they look like the center part is weighted based on its thickness, which would let it swing even harder.

In real life, scimitars were THE weapon for horseback combat and were used for a long time. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/scimitar-how-one-sword-dominated-warfare-centuries-25033

I know that many things overlap in D&D as for weapon types, and it's mainly for appearance's sake, but there's not even a reach difference.

The difference is this: Short swords are piercing type damage, Scimitars are slashing type damage. So for damage resistance tables they do make a difference, along with what stat gives bonuses for attacking with that style (piercing uses Dex, slashing uses strength). Damage type comes into play as some armors and monsters are resistant to slashing or piercing or blunt, etc.. So for game mechanics this can provide very different results depending on what you are attacking.

Joined: Jan 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jan 2021
Oh, right. I guess I overlooked that. I was thinking of longswords because they're slashing.
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Weapons#content

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Aazo
The difference is this: Short swords are piercing type damage, Scimitars are slashing type damage. So for damage resistance tables they do make a difference, along with what stat gives bonuses for attacking with that style (piercing uses Dex, slashing uses strength). Damage type comes into play as some armors and monsters are resistant to slashing or piercing or blunt, etc.. So for game mechanics this can provide very different results depending on what you are attacking.
Piercing does not always use Dex and slashing does not always use strength. The "finesse" property of weapons is what allows you to use Dex, and both shortswords and scimitars have this property.

They are different damage types, but I'm not sure that there's actually any common monsters that are resistant or vulnerable to one of these damage types and not the other? The only thing I can think of is skeletons which are vulnerable to bludgeoning...
Edit: and I guess the minotaur. But that is because of a magic item...although who knows, maybe we'll see more of that magic item type on future monsters

Last edited by mrfuji3; 17/04/21 05:30 AM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5