|
|
Post by Athkethin on Jan 31, 2016 16:34:44 GMT -7
I was making up a character for a campaign, and decided on a Rogue (thief). I picked variant human for the feat at first level, and ran with Ritual Caster (Cleric) - this allows the character to fill a role/archetype I've been after for years, and 5e is the first edition that really lets me capture it.
But when I went to select equipment, I ran into an interesting dilemma. My rogue is Dex-based, predictably enough, but the best melee weapon for a dex-based character is a rapier (since it is has the Finesse property). However, RAW the rapier doesn't exist in Primeval Thule.
Now, a sort sword does an average of one point of damage less than a rapier, is a finesse weapon, and is on the Rogue weapon list. But the scimitar, which is statistically identical to the shortsword in all ways except for being a slashing weapon (as opposed to the shortsword being piercing), is not on the Rogue list.
So my question is this: if you were the DM in this situation, would you allow me to either a) have a rapier - call it an "elven blade" or something to keep it as a rare exception to the rule or b) allow a rogue to use a scimitar? The scimitar question is purely academic; it's not something I really care about, it just seems odd that a character can use only one of two statistically identical weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by maceo13 on Jan 31, 2016 18:12:07 GMT -7
I would. You're losing two weapons between the rapier and hand crossbow and I can't see why replacing the rapier with something with the same features would break anything. I would keep the same weapon qualities as the rapier and just re-name it. Some kind of long dagger-look up "pesh kabz". I would make it a dwarven weapon though-they are the master crafters after all. Maybe they made some long knives for their own assassins and you found one. In the PTCS they mention that characters may have a tattoo giving them permission to wield a dwarven weapon which I think is very cool.
I'm also interested in your character concept-what does the ritual caster feat add for you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Athkethin on Jan 31, 2016 20:01:17 GMT -7
I'm also interested in your character concept-what does the ritual caster feat add for you? I have always been a fan of characters like John Constantine and Harry D'Amour - characters who know about magic and can use it a very little bit (mostly for defensive purposes), but aren't in any way magicians. I have been playing since 1994, and through 2nd and 3rd Editions, there was just no satisfactory way to build this character is idea. The only way 3.x had for a number non-caster to cast a spell was multiclassing, and 2nd Edition didn't even work easily that way. And I didn't want the character to be a caster per se. 2nd edition was even more limited, though an Al-Qadim supplement had an option to learn a spell as a nonweapon proficiency (a skill check, basically), it still didn't really work conceptually. I guess 4th could have done it, but I didn't really play 4e. Now with 5e it's a possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by finieous on Jan 31, 2016 21:34:25 GMT -7
I went one step further and gave rogues proficiency in scimitars and heavy crossbows. The damage die doesn't matter much for them after a few levels anyway.
As for the character concept, the Gray Mouser -- one of the sword-and-sorcery icons! He's a thief and a swordsman, but was once a wizard's apprentice and uses a black magic ritual to take revenge on his master's killer. Not a whole lot of magic after that, but he knows a little about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Athkethin on Feb 1, 2016 18:49:49 GMT -7
I went one step further and gave rogues proficiency in scimitars and heavy crossbows. The damage die doesn't matter much for them after a few levels anyway. As for the character concept, the Gray Mouser -- one of the sword-and-sorcery icons! He's a thief and a swordsman, but was once a wizard's apprentice and uses a black magic ritual to take revenge on his master's killer. Not a whole lot of magic after that, but he knows a little about it. Honestly, I can't really think of a compelling reason to prevent any character from using any weapon based on damage; if a player can provide me with a compelling enough reason, their wizard can pack a greatsword in my campaigns. The rapier/scimitar question only came up when I was making a character for someone else's game. And the Gray Mouser isn't a direct influence on this character (even though by an amazing coincidence I am in the process of finally reading the 4-volume collection of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories that White Wolf published back when I was in high school). I do, however, think that my love of the "spellcasting thief" archetype does date back to the 2nd Edition Complete Thief's Handbook, which in the section on making a lone wolf class used the Mouser as a clear precedent for its example. |
|
|
|
Post by maceo13 on Feb 2, 2016 6:03:06 GMT -7
Athkethin-what was the choice not to go with Arcane Trickster? Too much magic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Athkethin on Feb 2, 2016 6:17:05 GMT -7
Athkethin -what was the choice not to go with Arcane Trickster? Too much magic? Too much magic. Plus, I like the Thief progression of capabilities - I just wanted the character to be able to use something like augury, divination, and forbiddance eventually. Flavorful stuff, just not flashy. |
|
|
|
Post by maceo13 on Feb 8, 2016 18:01:25 GMT -7
I bought a supplement from the new dmsguild.com website called "AL-QADIM ARCHETYPES:Scimitars against the Dark" that has some nice new class options, spells and even a cutlass which meets what the OP was asking about (finesse weapon/slashing/1d8). It also has a spellcaster that potentially injures themselves with psychic damage after casting spells (but also with additional benefits.) The themes overall fit Thule nicely and 29 pages for a $1.40 was too good to pass up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Feb 29, 2016 18:15:45 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by Athkethin on Mar 1, 2016 6:34:57 GMT -7
From Stone to Steel is an awesome book - it manages to be both a game supplement and an accessible update to the old Glossary of Arms and Armor Throughout the Ages, in All Cultures and in All Times that I used to own. Unsurprisingly, very that book is listed in FStS's bibliography. There are some other discussions about it on these forums, IIRC. Ultimately, my preference both as a DM and as a designer (I am part of a team working on a full-scale revitalization of the old Al-Qadim campaign setting, and we have been in contact with the author of Scimitars Against the Dark, mentioned above) is to keep things to the core rulebooks. I agree completely with the bit in the Wuxia and Crossing the Streams sections of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide that using a different name for an item can substantially change perceptions of it. And just as a longsword can become a katana, a rapier can become an "elven blade" or something similar. And ultimately, I don't want to require anybody to have any optional or non-core materials to use or enjoy stuff I come up with. If I had a new player come to my table insisting on using some weapon out of a non-core (especially a third-party book, never mind for a different game system), I'd want to smack them. I wouldn't put the DM of a game in which I was a player in that position.
|
|
|
|
Post by beastman on May 4, 2016 22:23:12 GMT -7
I've never been a fan of the rogue duel-wielding scimitars that D&D pushes on players. It almost seems as though the weapon was built with that in mind, when historically, there are no records of duel-wielding scimitars I know of. In a Forgotten Realms game I played, my DM allowed me to bump the damage die up for my Calishite fighter who used the dueling fighting style. I don't think it's game breaking, so my table has been using scimitars as d8 weapons ever since.
|
|
|
|
Post by Athkethin on May 5, 2016 5:45:29 GMT -7
Scimitars were a d8 damage weapon in D&D up until 3rd edition anyway. I guess they had their reasons for reducing it to a d6, but I doubt that the extra point of damage on a successful hit is going to tank anybody's campaign.
|
|
|
|
Post by beastman on May 5, 2016 8:42:00 GMT -7
If you bump up the damage die to a d8 and get rid of the light property so that it's identical to a rapier with slashing damage, then any imbalances are remedied. The one complaint I could see people coming up with is that you can't duel-wield scimitars if you get rid of the light property, but the Duel Wielder feat would still make that an option.
I've always thought that rogues not having proficiency with scimitars was an overlook in the system, especially when the druid is proficient with them despite being unable to wear metal armor. Druids being able to wield metal weapons but not wear metal armor has always been a source of confusion for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by egamma on May 5, 2016 9:40:38 GMT -7
Beastman, the "gm word of the week" podcast has an episode on scimitar (August 14 205) that explains the Druid connection.
|
|
