Cutlass vs. Rapier [Archive] - Wizards Community

Cutlass vs. Rapier [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Sqoon
10-13-06, 02:49 PM Does anyone know where the cutlass has been referenced? I'm trying to see if it has any advantages over the rapier, or if it is just that one does piercing damage and the other is slashing. Can you use Weapon Finesse with the cutlass? Which do you think is better for a Swashbuckler?
TheCarrionCrawler
10-13-06, 02:50 PM I think it's in Stormwrack...
Sqoon
10-13-06, 04:58 PM Yep. Page 107. Thanks! Looks like the cutlass gives a +2 circumstance bonus against being disarmed. Not bad.
Arvagor
10-13-06, 08:11 PM ... and a Light weapon, so it can be finessed as well... :duel:
Rulebook
10-13-06, 08:59 PM another shining example of wizards not doing thier research. lol

the cutlass wasnt a light weapon at all. that was the point of the thing. to be a heavy cutting blade for close combat on a ship. heavy enough to cut ropes and heavy enough so that people who didnt know how to swordfight (pirates) could use them well enough.
draconic_swine
10-14-06, 10:59 AM Agreed with Rulebook. Cutlasses were generally short, thick, slightly curved blades that were designed to hack stuff. Not much grace to them. I'd say they're closer to handaxe stats than anything. Although that would make them a light weapon, and thus finessable :rolleyes:

I do like the +2 to prevent being disarmed mechanic, though. Maybe make cutlasses a 1d6 x3 one-handed martial weapon with a +2 bonus to prevent being disarmed?
Neutronium_Dragon
10-14-06, 11:12 AM No, because that would essentially obsolete the handaxe.

As-is, it doesn't obsolete the shortsword because the two do different damage types.
Whisper_Swiftblade
10-14-06, 11:56 AM it's also in the forgotten telms campain setting as a small 1d6 19-20/x2 slashing/piercing
Arvagor
10-14-06, 01:41 PM No, because that would essentially obsolete the handaxe.??? That's an ... interesting ... reason why we shouldn't ever create new weapons...

The designers have always "broken" the rule about duplicating weapon types, it's called 'flavor'; heck, they've even done it in the PHB -- why include the heavy mace (1d8/×2, bludgeoning, 8 lb., 12 gp), when the morningstar does the same damage and has the same crit range, is cheaper (8 gp), weighs less (6 lb.), and does two types of damage (bludgeoning and piercing)?

Besides, how many pirates do you see running around brandishing handaxes?
Whisper_Swiftblade
10-14-06, 02:11 PM ??? That's an ... interesting ... reason why we shouldn't ever create new weapons...

The designers have always "broken" the rule about duplicating weapon types, it's called 'flavor'; heck, they've even done it in the PHB -- why include the heavy mace (1d8/×2, bludgeoning, 8 lb., 12 gp), when the morningstar does the same damage and has the same crit range, is cheaper (8 gp), weighs less (6 lb.), and does two types of damage (bludgeoning and piercing)?

Besides, how many pirates do you see running around brandishing handaxes?

actuly a kind of axe called a boarding axe (used for both fighting and as a took to help board ships) was equaly common as the cuttlass, however has been for some reason portrayed less in film. Iguess it is because fight sceans with swords are more popular.
Arvagor
10-14-06, 02:25 PM actuly a kind of axe called a boarding axe (used for both fighting and as a took to help board ships) was equaly common as the cuttlass, however has been for some reason portrayed less in film. Iguess it is because fight sceans with swords are more popular.Fair enough; looks like an interesting and versatile weapon: http://members.tripod.com/tomahawks-r-tatca/id71.htm

If the designers knew about it, I'm guessing they lumped it in with other hand axes. Although given the images at the above link -- especially the French version -- I might be inclined to make a new weapon entry for it, one that can be used as either a handaxe or as a light pick (for that nasty spike on the back side). Probably martial light melee weapon, 15 gp
VonRichthofen
10-14-06, 05:08 PM ??? The designers have always "broken" the rule about duplicating weapon types, it's called 'flavor'; heck, they've even done it in the PHB -- why include the heavy mace (1d8/×2, bludgeoning, 8 lb., 12 gp), when the morningstar does the same damage and has the same crit range, is cheaper (8 gp), weighs less (6 lb.), and does two types of damage (bludgeoning and piercing)?

Quite simple. It is especially mentioned in the PG that the mace is made of 100% metal - increasing weight & price AND hitpoints.
In D&D rules, it is simply more difficult to sunder a mace than a morning star.

So they are two different weapons from a mechanical point of view, both with advantages and disadvantages of their own.

Concerning the cutlass:
Those blades weren't exactly that heavy when compared to medieval swords (D&D working base).
I agree, however, that it makes not much sense to class them as light, for, as it has been mentioned correctly, they were designed for rather simple & heavy blows - say power attack in D&D.
But that problem applies to many weapons. A gladius/shortsword is basically a brutal stabbing weapon and is surely not suited overly for "fencing" (what I associate with light/finessable weapons, weight comes in only secondary here).
A one-handed slashing weapon, 1d6/19-20, +2 to sunder attempts - that's my five cents.
Orion_Danthyer
10-14-06, 05:55 PM I think it's in Stormwrack...

its also in the Forgotten realms handbook, but thats 3.0, i play 3.5
Thane26425
10-14-06, 09:54 PM I've always though it interesting that most swords were only slashing or piercing. Most were designed to do both, though often they were better at one or the other. A rapier is pretty much pure piercing and the scimitar with is very curved tip was almost pure slashing. The typical long, short and even most 2 handers could do both kinds of damage. I used to house rule that with most blades the other type of damage could be used at -1 to damage. Granted this didn't come up very often because D&D is so generalized, but there were times when it did.

Many fighting axes did have either a spike or hammer on the reverse side of the head. The hammer was kind of redundant I though because you can bach just fine with an axe as is. So an axe could technically be slashing/bludgeon or slash/pierce with a spike.
Donatien_Alphonse_of_Sade
10-15-06, 04:07 PM I allow swords to be used the other way round with a -2 penalty (-4 seems a bit high). For example, you could use a greatsword as a piercing weapon with a -2 penalty, or a rapier as a slashing weapon with the same penalty. -1 to damage seems good too.

-Donatien Alphonse François, marquis of Sade
Johannixx
10-19-06, 02:39 AM Since I own and fight with both a rapier and a cutlass, I think I can speak on this subject. The rapier has better reach, is definitely more 'finesseable', and is primarily a thrusting weapon (though some draw-cutting and slashing is possible, especially against unarmored targets). The cutlass is short (to prevent hanging up on rigging), heavy, and is primarily a chopping weapon, though it can thrust in a pinch. Both generally have protective handguards (i.e. a +2 to resist disarms). I'd stat the cutlass out as a standard scimitar with the protective hilt. That makes it pretty much identical to a rapier, save for the damage type.
Subedei
10-19-06, 04:26 AM How is a cutlass less "elegant" than other weapons?

It needs to be short as it's intended for close quarter fighting aboard a cramped ship. Most enlightenment era ships were actualy really small.

It's a cut and thrust weapon with an emphasis on cutting. In order to cut it needs to be heavy. Simple.

And what makes you say pirates don't know how to swordfight? Before multi-shot weapons close quarters fighting ability was essential on a ship that intends to fight. Pirates don't just intend to fight, they intend to board the (often much larger) enemy ship, overpower the crew and rob it. All while taking few enough casaulties to make the whole thing worth it. I'd say close quarters fighting is extremely important to them, thus they're going to train extensively for it. As the cutlass is a common CQ weapon aboard ships of the time, that would make it swordfighting.

A rapier doesn't cut, it scratches. A long, straight, relatively thin sword capable of cutting and thrusting is generally classified as a Cut & Thrust sword rather than a rapier which is by definition incapable of effective cuts.

This is by modern definition, of course, as they didn't really USE
kintire
10-19-06, 05:36 AM I'd say close quarters fighting is extremely important to them, thus they're going to train extensively for it.

Your standard pirate crew were far too disorganised to have any thignapproaching regular training; the few that did were famously formidable. Usually pirates tried not to fight if at all possible, using intimidation techniques and overwhelming numbers to extract the booty without resistance.
Subedei
10-19-06, 07:37 AM Whatever your opinion of pirates in general may be doesn't really matter though. The cutlass was a very common, perhaps the most common naval CQ weapon.

Many here seem to insist on painting it as a more crude weapon which just isn't true. The cutlass was used because longer, more "elegant" weapons don't work very well on ships, simple.
kintire
10-19-06, 08:04 AM Many here seem to insist on painting it as a more crude weapon which just isn't true. The cutlass was used because longer, more "elegant" weapons don't work very well on ships, simple.

Well, its true that there is nothing innately in the design that makes it crude. However, it did tend to be used by people who weren't primarily fighters, and many people who used it had fairly basic skills (in the navy sailors did get trained in cutlass drill, but the specialist fighters were the marines who used musket and bayonet as a rule). Also, it was issued in large numbers, and tended to be mass produced by the lowest bidder, unlike the officer's swords.
Toptomcat
10-19-06, 08:17 AM It's true- if you're being realistic, the cutlass is too much a short, heavy chopping weapon to be finessable.
However, the popular image of cutlasses and pirates is such that, in many games, it remains appropriate for it to be a finessable or even a light weapon despite that.
It's why the katana is always, invariably, masterwork. While not neccesarily historically or realistically accurate, some concessions must be made to the collective unconcious in a fantasy game.
striderII
10-19-06, 08:31 PM For a really good overview of how pirates were, I *highly* suggest the book Under the Black Flag, by David Cordingly. It is exceptionally good, and although I can't find the particular passages at the moment, I'm sure that within the book is the following point:

Quite a few pirates were conscripted (forcibly or not, depending on individual circumstances) from naval forces. So they were clearly highly trained with weapons.

Anyway...take that as you will.

strider
Rulebook
10-19-06, 09:10 PM omg, who on earth is saying that the cutlass was the most common weapon on a ship?

Belaying pins (basically clubs that hold ropes) were by and far the most common, then things like pistols and small hatchets (as they're useful as ship tools)

Swords were expensive, hard to maintain, and harder to use. when i can just hit a dude with the sharp side of an axe, with no real training, why on earth would i risk cutting my leg off with a sword?
Grod_The_Giant
10-19-06, 09:21 PM actually, with them being so simple and everything (short, chopping) I'D rule them as 1d6/x3 simple melee <waits for outrage>. Or, looking at pictures, possibly a scaled-up kurki.

And Rulebook? Beleying hooks would be improvised weapons- not designed for combat, :P
Necropolitan
10-19-06, 09:27 PM omg, who on earth is saying that the cutlass was the most common weapon on a ship?

Belaying pins (basically clubs that hold ropes) were by and far the most common, then things like pistols and small hatchets (as they're useful as ship tools)

Swords were expensive, hard to maintain, and harder to use. when i can just hit a dude with the sharp side of an axe, with no real training, why on earth would i risk cutting my leg off with a sword?

...Wha?

Ok, let me tell you something; it's FAR easier to wound yourself with a large, weighty axehead then it is a lighter, more evenly balenced sword.

Go to any ER near a wooded area, and see how many wood-splitting related injuries they get yearly if you doubt me.

There's a reason that both swords and axes are Martial weapons; An Axe requires training to learn not to chop off your own toes with it, and a sword in untrained hands is just plain ineffective; due to limp-wristing and poor guarding abilites.

It's apples and oranges here.
Subedei
10-19-06, 10:16 PM You know, it's rather important what time period and location we're talking about here.
Constantin_Guderian
10-25-06, 06:05 AM I have often observed, as have most game-designers and game-testers, that if you try to define things too narrowly or try to draw out too much detail from a game, the game simply does not work... That said, the Wizards of the latest editions of D&D have done a diservice to the players and DMs by mis-identifying either by purpose or form several weapons described within the Players Handbook. Case in point is the Falchion... the Falchion was a Western-European weapon designed specifically for HACKING through rigid metal armors. While it could cause damage to those in less rigid armors such as leathers and chain mails, more often these armors would tend to give and bend rather than succumb to the cutting edge of such a weapon. Rather rigid armors would be hacked to pieces by such weapons. Now.. the picture in the PH of the aforementioned Falchion is erroneous in the least and patently false in the extreme. The Falchion in form was more akin to an oversized machete. The picture shown is more like the stereo-typical Saracen sword or Moorish Scimitar as any of us have seen in any movie showing Arabs... I mention all this about the Falchion to show that even though the game-designers attempt to show or describe the weapons that they provide for use by the characters in the game, they sometimes don't get their information entirely correct...
Sunrider
10-25-06, 07:01 AM IMO they should just dump most of the weapon names and descriptions, instead giving us a table of stats (e.g. 1d6 19-20/x2 Light Martial Slashing) we can apply to different weapons, along with a list of suggestions on what stats to use with what weapon. That way you could represent different styles of fighting with the same weapon (e.g. are you using a quarterstaff as a Simple weapon and just hitting with it, or are you using it as an Exotic weapon and pulling off all kinds of moves?) and there would be fewer arguments about what stats a weapon actually should have, since they could simply have different abilities in different hands. It's not the sword which matters, but the hand which wields it...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sqoon 10-13-06, 02:49 PM	Does anyone know where the cutlass has been referenced? I'm trying to see if it has any advantages over the rapier, or if it is just that one does piercing damage and the other is slashing. Can you use Weapon Finesse with the cutlass? Which do you think is better for a Swashbuckler?
TheCarrionCrawler 10-13-06, 02:50 PM	I think it's in Stormwrack...
Sqoon 10-13-06, 04:58 PM	Yep. Page 107. Thanks! Looks like the cutlass gives a +2 circumstance bonus against being disarmed. Not bad.
Arvagor 10-13-06, 08:11 PM	... and a Light weapon, so it can be finessed as well... :duel:
Rulebook 10-13-06, 08:59 PM	another shining example of wizards not doing thier research. lol the cutlass wasnt a light weapon at all. that was the point of the thing. to be a heavy cutting blade for close combat on a ship. heavy enough to cut ropes and heavy enough so that people who didnt know how to swordfight (pirates) could use them well enough.
draconic_swine 10-14-06, 10:59 AM	Agreed with Rulebook. Cutlasses were generally short, thick, slightly curved blades that were designed to hack stuff. Not much grace to them. I'd say they're closer to handaxe stats than anything. Although that would make them a light weapon, and thus finessable :rolleyes: I do like the +2 to prevent being disarmed mechanic, though. Maybe make cutlasses a 1d6 x3 one-handed martial weapon with a +2 bonus to prevent being disarmed?
Neutronium_Dragon 10-14-06, 11:12 AM	No, because that would essentially obsolete the handaxe. As-is, it doesn't obsolete the shortsword because the two do different damage types.
Whisper_Swiftblade 10-14-06, 11:56 AM	it's also in the forgotten telms campain setting as a small 1d6 19-20/x2 slashing/piercing
Arvagor 10-14-06, 01:41 PM	No, because that would essentially obsolete the handaxe.??? That's an ... interesting ... reason why we shouldn't ever create new weapons... The designers have always "broken" the rule about duplicating weapon types, it's called 'flavor'; heck, they've even done it in the PHB -- why include the heavy mace (1d8/×2, bludgeoning, 8 lb., 12 gp), when the morningstar does the same damage and has the same crit range, is cheaper (8 gp), weighs less (6 lb.), and does two types of damage (bludgeoning and piercing)? Besides, how many pirates do you see running around brandishing handaxes?
Whisper_Swiftblade 10-14-06, 02:11 PM	??? That's an ... interesting ... reason why we shouldn't ever create new weapons... The designers have always "broken" the rule about duplicating weapon types, it's called 'flavor'; heck, they've even done it in the PHB -- why include the heavy mace (1d8/×2, bludgeoning, 8 lb., 12 gp), when the morningstar does the same damage and has the same crit range, is cheaper (8 gp), weighs less (6 lb.), and does two types of damage (bludgeoning and piercing)? Besides, how many pirates do you see running around brandishing handaxes? actuly a kind of axe called a boarding axe (used for both fighting and as a took to help board ships) was equaly common as the cuttlass, however has been for some reason portrayed less in film. Iguess it is because fight sceans with swords are more popular.
Arvagor 10-14-06, 02:25 PM	actuly a kind of axe called a boarding axe (used for both fighting and as a took to help board ships) was equaly common as the cuttlass, however has been for some reason portrayed less in film. Iguess it is because fight sceans with swords are more popular.Fair enough; looks like an interesting and versatile weapon: http://members.tripod.com/tomahawks-r-tatca/id71.htm If the designers knew about it, I'm guessing they lumped it in with other hand axes. Although given the images at the above link -- especially the French version -- I might be inclined to make a new weapon entry for it, one that can be used as either a handaxe or as a light pick (for that nasty spike on the back side). Probably martial light melee weapon, 15 gp
VonRichthofen 10-14-06, 05:08 PM	??? The designers have always "broken" the rule about duplicating weapon types, it's called 'flavor'; heck, they've even done it in the PHB -- why include the heavy mace (1d8/×2, bludgeoning, 8 lb., 12 gp), when the morningstar does the same damage and has the same crit range, is cheaper (8 gp), weighs less (6 lb.), and does two types of damage (bludgeoning and piercing)? Quite simple. It is especially mentioned in the PG that the mace is made of 100% metal - increasing weight & price AND hitpoints. In D&D rules, it is simply more difficult to sunder a mace than a morning star. So they are two different weapons from a mechanical point of view, both with advantages and disadvantages of their own. Concerning the cutlass: Those blades weren't exactly that heavy when compared to medieval swords (D&D working base). I agree, however, that it makes not much sense to class them as light, for, as it has been mentioned correctly, they were designed for rather simple & heavy blows - say power attack in D&D. But that problem applies to many weapons. A gladius/shortsword is basically a brutal stabbing weapon and is surely not suited overly for "fencing" (what I associate with light/finessable weapons, weight comes in only secondary here). A one-handed slashing weapon, 1d6/19-20, +2 to sunder attempts - that's my five cents.
Orion_Danthyer 10-14-06, 05:55 PM	I think it's in Stormwrack... its also in the Forgotten realms handbook, but thats 3.0, i play 3.5
Thane26425 10-14-06, 09:54 PM	I've always though it interesting that most swords were only slashing or piercing. Most were designed to do both, though often they were better at one or the other. A rapier is pretty much pure piercing and the scimitar with is very curved tip was almost pure slashing. The typical long, short and even most 2 handers could do both kinds of damage. I used to house rule that with most blades the other type of damage could be used at -1 to damage. Granted this didn't come up very often because D&D is so generalized, but there were times when it did. Many fighting axes did have either a spike or hammer on the reverse side of the head. The hammer was kind of redundant I though because you can bach just fine with an axe as is. So an axe could technically be slashing/bludgeon or slash/pierce with a spike.
Donatien_Alphonse_of_Sade 10-15-06, 04:07 PM	I allow swords to be used the other way round with a -2 penalty (-4 seems a bit high). For example, you could use a greatsword as a piercing weapon with a -2 penalty, or a rapier as a slashing weapon with the same penalty. -1 to damage seems good too. -Donatien Alphonse François, marquis of Sade
Johannixx 10-19-06, 02:39 AM	Since I own and fight with both a rapier and a cutlass, I think I can speak on this subject. The rapier has better reach, is definitely more 'finesseable', and is primarily a thrusting weapon (though some draw-cutting and slashing is possible, especially against unarmored targets). The cutlass is short (to prevent hanging up on rigging), heavy, and is primarily a chopping weapon, though it can thrust in a pinch. Both generally have protective handguards (i.e. a +2 to resist disarms). I'd stat the cutlass out as a standard scimitar with the protective hilt. That makes it pretty much identical to a rapier, save for the damage type.
Subedei 10-19-06, 04:26 AM	How is a cutlass less "elegant" than other weapons? It needs to be short as it's intended for close quarter fighting aboard a cramped ship. Most enlightenment era ships were actualy really small. It's a cut and thrust weapon with an emphasis on cutting. In order to cut it needs to be heavy. Simple. And what makes you say pirates don't know how to swordfight? Before multi-shot weapons close quarters fighting ability was essential on a ship that intends to fight. Pirates don't just intend to fight, they intend to board the (often much larger) enemy ship, overpower the crew and rob it. All while taking few enough casaulties to make the whole thing worth it. I'd say close quarters fighting is extremely important to them, thus they're going to train extensively for it. As the cutlass is a common CQ weapon aboard ships of the time, that would make it swordfighting. A rapier doesn't cut, it scratches. A long, straight, relatively thin sword capable of cutting and thrusting is generally classified as a Cut & Thrust sword rather than a rapier which is by definition incapable of effective cuts. This is by modern definition, of course, as they didn't really USE
kintire 10-19-06, 05:36 AM	I'd say close quarters fighting is extremely important to them, thus they're going to train extensively for it. Your standard pirate crew were far too disorganised to have any thignapproaching regular training; the few that did were famously formidable. Usually pirates tried not to fight if at all possible, using intimidation techniques and overwhelming numbers to extract the booty without resistance.
Subedei 10-19-06, 07:37 AM	Whatever your opinion of pirates in general may be doesn't really matter though. The cutlass was a very common, perhaps the most common naval CQ weapon. Many here seem to insist on painting it as a more crude weapon which just isn't true. The cutlass was used because longer, more "elegant" weapons don't work very well on ships, simple.
kintire 10-19-06, 08:04 AM	Many here seem to insist on painting it as a more crude weapon which just isn't true. The cutlass was used because longer, more "elegant" weapons don't work very well on ships, simple. Well, its true that there is nothing innately in the design that makes it crude. However, it did tend to be used by people who weren't primarily fighters, and many people who used it had fairly basic skills (in the navy sailors did get trained in cutlass drill, but the specialist fighters were the marines who used musket and bayonet as a rule). Also, it was issued in large numbers, and tended to be mass produced by the lowest bidder, unlike the officer's swords.
Toptomcat 10-19-06, 08:17 AM	It's true- if you're being realistic, the cutlass is too much a short, heavy chopping weapon to be finessable. However, the popular image of cutlasses and pirates is such that, in many games, it remains appropriate for it to be a finessable or even a light weapon despite that. It's why the katana is always, invariably, masterwork. While not neccesarily historically or realistically accurate, some concessions must be made to the collective unconcious in a fantasy game.
striderII 10-19-06, 08:31 PM	For a really good overview of how pirates were, I highly suggest the book Under the Black Flag, by David Cordingly. It is exceptionally good, and although I can't find the particular passages at the moment, I'm sure that within the book is the following point: Quite a few pirates were conscripted (forcibly or not, depending on individual circumstances) from naval forces. So they were clearly highly trained with weapons. Anyway...take that as you will. strider
Rulebook 10-19-06, 09:10 PM	omg, who on earth is saying that the cutlass was the most common weapon on a ship? Belaying pins (basically clubs that hold ropes) were by and far the most common, then things like pistols and small hatchets (as they're useful as ship tools) Swords were expensive, hard to maintain, and harder to use. when i can just hit a dude with the sharp side of an axe, with no real training, why on earth would i risk cutting my leg off with a sword?
Grod_The_Giant 10-19-06, 09:21 PM	actually, with them being so simple and everything (short, chopping) I'D rule them as 1d6/x3 simple melee <waits for outrage>. Or, looking at pictures, possibly a scaled-up kurki. And Rulebook? Beleying hooks would be improvised weapons- not designed for combat, :P
Necropolitan 10-19-06, 09:27 PM	omg, who on earth is saying that the cutlass was the most common weapon on a ship? Belaying pins (basically clubs that hold ropes) were by and far the most common, then things like pistols and small hatchets (as they're useful as ship tools) Swords were expensive, hard to maintain, and harder to use. when i can just hit a dude with the sharp side of an axe, with no real training, why on earth would i risk cutting my leg off with a sword? ...Wha? Ok, let me tell you something; it's FAR easier to wound yourself with a large, weighty axehead then it is a lighter, more evenly balenced sword. Go to any ER near a wooded area, and see how many wood-splitting related injuries they get yearly if you doubt me. There's a reason that both swords and axes are Martial weapons; An Axe requires training to learn not to chop off your own toes with it, and a sword in untrained hands is just plain ineffective; due to limp-wristing and poor guarding abilites. It's apples and oranges here.
Subedei 10-19-06, 10:16 PM	You know, it's rather important what time period and location we're talking about here.
Constantin_Guderian 10-25-06, 06:05 AM	I have often observed, as have most game-designers and game-testers, that if you try to define things too narrowly or try to draw out too much detail from a game, the game simply does not work... That said, the Wizards of the latest editions of D&D have done a diservice to the players and DMs by mis-identifying either by purpose or form several weapons described within the Players Handbook. Case in point is the Falchion... the Falchion was a Western-European weapon designed specifically for HACKING through rigid metal armors. While it could cause damage to those in less rigid armors such as leathers and chain mails, more often these armors would tend to give and bend rather than succumb to the cutting edge of such a weapon. Rather rigid armors would be hacked to pieces by such weapons. Now.. the picture in the PH of the aforementioned Falchion is erroneous in the least and patently false in the extreme. The Falchion in form was more akin to an oversized machete. The picture shown is more like the stereo-typical Saracen sword or Moorish Scimitar as any of us have seen in any movie showing Arabs... I mention all this about the Falchion to show that even though the game-designers attempt to show or describe the weapons that they provide for use by the characters in the game, they sometimes don't get their information entirely correct...
Sunrider 10-25-06, 07:01 AM	IMO they should just dump most of the weapon names and descriptions, instead giving us a table of stats (e.g. 1d6 19-20/x2 Light Martial Slashing) we can apply to different weapons, along with a list of suggestions on what stats to use with what weapon. That way you could represent different styles of fighting with the same weapon (e.g. are you using a quarterstaff as a Simple weapon and just hitting with it, or are you using it as an Exotic weapon and pulling off all kinds of moves?) and there would be fewer arguments about what stats a weapon actually should have, since they could simply have different abilities in different hands. It's not the sword which matters, but the hand which wields it...