Has this been addressed yet? A dagger is both slashing and piercing but a short sword is only piercing?
Yup.
What do you mean has this been addressed?
Yes a short sword is only piercing.
Yes a dagger can do piercing or slashing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just like the long sword is only slashing damage. Short sword has been piercing only since 3.0 (IIRC). Does it make sense? No. A short sword can be used to slash; however, is the short sword primarily a stabbing weapon? Yes.
Just something to think about.
Take a look at the Gladius. Pretty much what you are looking for.
|
But, yes- there is the Gladius now, so nobody ever has to use a short sword again... Hooray for power creep?
I think that there are a few classes (rogue for sure - I think a couple others) who are proficient with short-swords, but not gladiuses. So those classes are still stuck with piercing.
Though as a GM - I'd probably allow short-swords to slash at -2 to hit/damage (derived from what broken does).
Historically, the idea of two people smashing face against one another with large swords is pretty much non-existent. If you wanted to duel someone, you used special, lighter blades for that. If you were expecting to have to defend yourself against attack as a civilian, you used a dagger, a staff or a lighter blade like a rapier. Other circumstances end up with several people against one or more opponents, and big weapons are a problem in that situation so shorter blades were the order of the day. The romans had little use for the spatha for precisely this reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, yes- there is the Gladius now, so nobody ever has to use a short sword again... Hooray for power creep?I think that there are a few classes (rogue for sure - I think a couple others) who are proficient with short-swords, but not gladiuses. So those classes are still stuck with piercing.
Though as a GM - I'd probably allow short-swords to slash at -2 to hit/damage (derived from what broken does).
Look, I know this is unnecessary and I don't really need to point this out but it's bugging the s$%% out of me. That word is latin, and that is not how you pluralize it.
The plural of gladius is gladii.
But, yes- there is the Gladius now, so nobody ever has to use a short sword again... Hooray for power creep?I think that there are a few classes (rogue for sure - I think a couple others) who are proficient with short-swords, but not gladiuses. So those classes are still stuck with piercing.
Though as a GM - I'd probably allow short-swords to slash at -2 to hit/damage (derived from what broken does).
The gladius is the favorite sword of gladiators, with a heavier blade than the standard shortsword. Feats and abilities that affect shortswords apply to the gladius.
I think that generally means one with proficiency (shortsword) either via a specific martial weapon proficiency feat or class proficiency would allow one to count as proficient in gladius.
I could have sworn the dagger was piercing only. Learn something new every day.
I could have sworn the dagger was piercing only. Learn something new every day.
That was the case in AD&D, as well as 3.0; it got changed in 3.5.
It's Pathfinder. I'd say don't get too hung up on realism. If we wanted to, daggers would be piercing weapons, not piercing and slashing, and so would the gladius. You can slash with either, but it is pretty suboptimal compared to stabbing. This is fantasy, though. Let it do what damage type you wish. Realistic combat is overrated.
Can shortbows be used as slashing weapons at a penalty too?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough - my bad. I was thinking it was like cactuses / cacti, where either is acceptable.
The plural of gladius is gladii.
Technically, Gladiuses is perfectly fine. It's an adopted word. Words assimilated into a language can either be pluralized using the rules of the parent language or the adopting language. Gladii and Gladiuses both work fine.
That's also why curriculums, syllabuses, octopuses (though that one isn't actually Latin), mediums, formulas, etc. are all acceptable pluralizations of the root words.
Nobody balks when you say "formulas" rather than "formulae" (unless you're in a hyper-academic setting and/or an actual Latin class), so don't sweat "gladiuses".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough - my bad. I was thinking it was like cactuses / cacti, where either is acceptable.
The plural of gladius is gladii.Technically, Gladiuses is perfectly fine. It's an adopted word. Words assimilated into a language can either be pluralized using the rules of the parent language or the adopting language. Gladii and Gladiuses both work fine.
That's also why curriculums, syllabuses, octopuses (though that one isn't actually Latin), mediums, formulas, etc. are all acceptable pluralizations of the root words.
Nobody balks when you say "formulas" rather than "formulae" (unless you're in a hyper-academic setting and/or an actual Latin class), so don't sweat "gladiuses".
Actually, all of these bother me greatly.
Actually, all of these bother me greatly.Fair enough - my bad. I was thinking it was like cactuses / cacti, where either is acceptable.
The plural of gladius is gladii.Technically, Gladiuses is perfectly fine. It's an adopted word. Words assimilated into a language can either be pluralized using the rules of the parent language or the adopting language. Gladii and Gladiuses both work fine.
That's also why curriculums, syllabuses, octopuses (though that one isn't actually Latin), mediums, formulas, etc. are all acceptable pluralizations of the root words.
Nobody balks when you say "formulas" rather than "formulae" (unless you're in a hyper-academic setting and/or an actual Latin class), so don't sweat "gladiuses".
*shrug*
They're all correct, though.
As an aside, and just for my own curiosity, how do you pluralize "octopus" or "forum" or "stadium" or "aquarium"? Do you insist upon parent language pluralization for all of them, or just ones you're accustomed to? I'm not being critical, I think it's interesting.
I have a friend who has a short sword, when you look at the thing you really can see why it's piercing. The thing was heavy and really meant to punch through armor. If you tried to slash with like a dagger it would be very cumbersome and little slow. I could see you slashing using the point but it would dangerous to do so as you'd open yourself up to attack. I'm taking that from knife fighting where you do slash, small control slashes and I can't see how you'd be able to control the short sword like that. I'm not expert though.
Actually, all of these bother me greatly.Fair enough - my bad. I was thinking it was like cactuses / cacti, where either is acceptable.
The plural of gladius is gladii.Technically, Gladiuses is perfectly fine. It's an adopted word. Words assimilated into a language can either be pluralized using the rules of the parent language or the adopting language. Gladii and Gladiuses both work fine.
That's also why curriculums, syllabuses, octopuses (though that one isn't actually Latin), mediums, formulas, etc. are all acceptable pluralizations of the root words.
Nobody balks when you say "formulas" rather than "formulae" (unless you're in a hyper-academic setting and/or an actual Latin class), so don't sweat "gladiuses".
*shrug*
They're all correct, though.
As an aside, and just for my own curiosity, how do you pluralize "octopus" or "forum" or "stadium" or "aquarium"? Do you insist upon parent language pluralization for all of them, or just ones you're accustomed to? I'm not being critical, I think it's interesting.
Forii? Stadii? Aquarii?
And is the plural of Phoenix 'phoenices'?
As an aside, and just for my own curiosity, how do you pluralize "octopus" or "forum" or "stadium" or "aquarium"?
"Octopodes", "fora", "stadia" and "aquaria" - assuming I'm trying to make other people feel linguistically inferior, that is.
Actually, all of these bother me greatly.Fair enough - my bad. I was thinking it was like cactuses / cacti, where either is acceptable.
The plural of gladius is gladii.Technically, Gladiuses is perfectly fine. It's an adopted word. Words assimilated into a language can either be pluralized using the rules of the parent language or the adopting language. Gladii and Gladiuses both work fine.
That's also why curriculums, syllabuses, octopuses (though that one isn't actually Latin), mediums, formulas, etc. are all acceptable pluralizations of the root words.
Nobody balks when you say "formulas" rather than "formulae" (unless you're in a hyper-academic setting and/or an actual Latin class), so don't sweat "gladiuses".
*shrug*
They're all correct, though.
As an aside, and just for my own curiosity, how do you pluralize "octopus" or "forum" or "stadium" or "aquarium"? Do you insist upon parent language pluralization for all of them, or just ones you're accustomed to? I'm not being critical, I think it's interesting.
I go with octopodes. On the others, I don't know the proper pluralization and have never looked it up as I've never tried to use those words plurally.
I do not consider myself a grammar nazi, but certain things just bug the s*@+ out of me. I often make mistakes, especially while typing.
I dunno, sometimes I just see/hear something and my brain latches on to it and wont let go.
Around my fourth year of learning Latin, I would accidentally decline nouns of Latin origin in English.
Like 'give me your gladio.' I'm glad that stopped.
Though now I forget when it is gladii vs gladi. Which makes me a little sad. Plural of phoenix is phoenices, iirc. One of those Latinized Greek buggers. Third declendion i-stem
Totally relevant to discussion.
Forii? Stadii? Aquarii?
And is the plural of Phoenix 'phoenices'?
-um endings typically use "a" (like medium to media).
So:
"Octopodes", "fora", "stadia" and "aquaria" - assuming I'm trying to make other people feel linguistically inferior, that is.
Phoenix could be phoenix, phoenixes, or phoenices (or some other Greek pluralization).
But ultimately, that's basically my point. Insisting on parent language rules for pluralization, etc., doesn't make much sense because we don't do it across the boards.
I go with octopodes. On the others, I don't know the proper pluralization and have never looked it up as I've never tried to use those words plurally.
I do not consider myself a grammar nazi, but certain things just bug the s$*~ out of me. I often make mistakes, especially while typing.
I dunno, sometimes I just see/hear something and my brain latches on to it and wont let go.
And like I said, don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to pick or be critical. It's interesting to me. I have done (and still do) the same thing for different things (it drives me absolutely crazy when people who speak American English say "an historic" - we aspirate the "h" on this side of the pond, it's "a historic").
Like I said, just curious. Nothing more to see here, folks! Carry on with talk of stabbing things with pointy sticks and whatnot.
/derail
[derail]
Also, I should say that I, too, use "octopodes". But usually only when someone else has insisted that the correct way to do it is "octopi". Otherwise, I go with "octopuses".
Because I'm an ass like that.
[/derail]
I have done (and still do) the same thing for different things (it drives me absolutely crazy when people who speak American English say "an historic" - we aspirate the "h" on this side of the pond, it's "a historic").
Jumping in to agree with this statement.
Also, while I'm here, why do people bother houseruling with the shortsword? -2 to make it slashing? Just give me a dagger, I'd rather have the lower damage.