5
\$\begingroup\$

Can a short sword be used to deal slashing damage?

The Weapons Table seems to list short swords as having only the damage type of piercing, and lacking the slashing damage type. However, this strikes me as either a mistake or a misguided decision. Short swords are typically described as and visually depicted as having a double-edged blade, which should mean that it is able to cut.

From The Forgotten Realms wiki (emphasis mine):

In essence, this weapon is a smaller version of the longsword but longer than a dagger or dirk, having many of the same parts including a generally double-edged blade, cross-guard, grip, and pommel. The blade is typically from 12 to 20 in (30 to 50 cm) long with a sharp point. An average short sword costs 10 gp and weighs 2 lb (0.9 kg).1 First edition D&D defined the short sword as "all pointed cutting & thrusting weapons with blade length between 15 in (38 cm) and 24 in (61 cm)."2

Other 3rd Edition material also described as being effectively between the length of a longsword and a dagger - both of which are capable of slashing - suggesting that, all other properties the same, it should be able to as well.

I've heard some arguments that the short sword is intended to model certain historical weapons, such as the gladius, which were primarily used for stabbing by Roman soldiers after the reach of their spears had been breached. Even so, the gladius also sported a double-edged blade and seemed capable of slashing if necessary.

Of course, this problem only comes into play when fighting a monster with damage resistances or vulnerabilities to one damage type over the other. Even if the weapon was not primarily designed for slashing (which still seems in question), I would think that under such circumstances of life and death, at the very least, this would be possible.

Is there any reason, historical or otherwise, as to why a character could not slash with a short sword?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If I may make a suggestion: The answer to your boldfaced question is — unsarcastically — The rules. A more productive question might be either Is there an official way to have a shortsword deal slashing or slashing and piercing damage? or Would game balance be adversely affected if a shortsword could deal slashing or piercing damage? Both of those might work better and get you helpful answers. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jul 29 '15 at 0:12
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ So this is a designer intent question? You literally want to know Why did the designers choose to have shortswords deal only piercing damage instead of, logically, piercing or slashing damage? That's cool, but those kinds of questions can lend themselves to a lot of unproductive speculation as design decisions are often lost to history, committee, and ego. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jul 29 '15 at 0:20
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan Sort of, but more important is whether or not I would be justified if changing the rule for my own gaming purposes. Surely someone here has some insight into this, and can present data and evidence to back up their response. \$\endgroup\$ – Southpaw Hare Jul 29 '15 at 0:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ So the question becomes something like From experience, how does changing the damage a shortsword deals from piercing damage to piercing or slashing damage impact the game? (If you're okay with impact as a verb.) \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jul 29 '15 at 0:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ (I'm not trying to give you a hard time. The way the question's phrased right now means that anyone who disagrees with you and says Yes risks downvotes unless he backs it up by being a history professor, swordsmith, rhetorical mastermind, or a fool. You've made your case, if anything, too strong for disagreement to be a reasonable option, forcing him to refute all of the information you've provided and make his own case.) \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jul 29 '15 at 0:35
8
\$\begingroup\$

D&D 3.5e isn't historically representative.

If you look at the picture of the swords in the Player's Handbook, you will find that the longsword is actually a picture of a bastard sword, the bastard sword is actually a picture of a longsword and the greatsword is actually a zweihander. There were no "greatswords" per se, it was just a generalization for D&D to classify big long heavy sword that requires two hands.

The bastard sword, or hand and a half sword, had a standard grip for one hand, but also tapered at the bottom with a hefty pommel that could be gripped by the second hand. If you look, once again at the Player's Handbook, that is the photo used by the longsword.

The longsword, historically, was not a one handed blade. The handle grip was designed for two hands. It was a lot lighter and more mobile than the two-handed sword.

When it comes to one handed swords, once again it is a generalization. The Anglo-Saxon Seax wasn't primarily a stabbing (piercing weapon). It was an edged weapon (slashing) and it has been noted as such due to the lack of handguard. Handguards, not only helped protect the fingers from another attack, but also prevented your hand from sliding up the blade when stabbing.

Look at this "short sword" (seax) from Owen Bush. There is very little to stop your hand from sliding off the grip if a stab is made. That would make stabbing with it less likely. Could you stab? Sure, why not. Is it optimal? No.

Look at this "short sword" (gladius) from Cult of Athena. There is a very pronounced handguard to prevent your hand from sliding forward. Also look at the very prominent piercing tip. That would make slicing with it less likely. Could you slice? Sure, why not. Is it optimal? No.

Reading the short swords description in the Player's Handbook will reveal that it is often used as an off-hand weapon. Due to the piercing nature and the european influence of D&D, the short sword in the player's handbook is most likely modeled after a main gauche.

Look at this main gauche from True Swords. It is a little longer than the typical dagger, with a very very deliberate pointed tip. Main gauches, in historical fencing, were designed to parry and stab in conjunction with a rapier, foil, epee, etc.

The wakizashi, in Oriental Adventures, is listed as having the same characteristics as a masterwork short sword. However, wakizashis were made along with and with similar techniques as the katana. One doesn't need to go far to see the cutting tests with the katana.

Look at this wakizashi from Casiberia. The wakizashi has the slight bend to the blade, emphasizing a cutting edge, rather than a piercing tip. Can you pierce with a wakizashi? Of course. Will it slice better? Absolutely.

Use Houserules for alternatives.

Wanting a thrusting short sword? Style it as a gladius. Want a slashing shortsword? Style it as a seax. Your culture and region of play in-game will determine what weapons are available, in use, and how they are used.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I thought I'd read somewhere (yeah, somewhere) that the thing about the longsword was that, historically, it didn't exist; such a weapon is, more properly, a broadsword, the D&D longsword's blade being, I dunno, too ridiculously skinny or something for any kind of effective slashing. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jul 29 '15 at 3:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan Texts I have read from HEMA always refer to the two handed sword as a longsword. Broadswords are typically a disambiguation of any sword that is designed for cutting rather than piercing. For example, a cutlass, saber, or falchion would all fit the description of a historical broadsword. \$\endgroup\$ – Ruut Jul 29 '15 at 3:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.