Close group slashing weapons

[Geoffrey DeWan]

As far as I can tell, there are no close group slashing weapons. Is there a particular reason for this?

[CyderGnome]

Geoffrey DeWan wrote:

As far as I can tell, there are no close group slashing weapons. Is there a particular reason for this?

If I had to guess, it would be because they don't want to overlap with the axes or light blades group. If you really want a close group slashing weapon, there's always the Rope Gauntlet.

[lemeres]

Well, first of all, most close weapons are simple weapons.

What does that have to do with anything? Well, it results in a somewhat small balance thing that most likely was grandfathered in from older D&D versions.

Basically, notice this: There are no simple slashing weapons that can be 2 handed (the standard for melee damage). You only see a few light slashing weapons. Why? Well, this lack makes simple weapons ever so vaguely worse.

First, lets compare damage types. Bludgeoning, honestly, is the most powerful type, since it is the one most often used for DR (cause skeletons). But it is too powerful to remove without completely gimping simple weapon users (cause skeletons). Slashing and piercing also come up occasionally, but slashing is more common (and when piercing does show up, it is comboed with slashing). So if you were going to get rid of a damage type as a nerf, slashing is the easiest to do without completely crippling the class.

Lets look at piercing weapons. They include bows (which are one of the most powerful weapons), longspears (and deritiatives- only simple reach weapon- one of the most powerful melee styles), and rapiers (the only 18-20 weapon rogues get). If you haven't noticed- all of those need could do with a nerf if you want to make classes with full marital weapons just 'better'. Basically, piercing is a 'punishment'.

The other major thing with slashing weapons is that they are also the ones that tend to get high crit ranges. Besides the rapier, all the other common 18-20 weapons are slashing. And overall, a lot of slashing weapons are also 19-20 (including the greatsword). This goes back to the idea that martial weapons are supposed to be 'better'.

So over all, slashing is removed from close weapons because of grandfathered balance principles. Are they particularly relevant today? Probably not. But it still stands. Paizo largely let the practice with simple weapons stand because it wasn't a major issue, and rocking the boat would be a problem with the whole 'backwards compatibility' thing they had as a selling point. I could argue aesthetic reasons against adding a close slashing weapon now...but it largely boils down to the "what is this junk" reaction when they release new weapon types nowadays (looking at you 'kumade' and 'elven branched spear').

[cnetarian]

The fighting fan is, but mostly it seems to be because they are close weapons. slashing weapons rely on a swing to do damage, and the close weapon group weapons are mostly designed for jabbing motions instead of swings. As is commonly known by those who have studied the physics of stick-and-ball sports, the longer the distance from the pivot point (usually shoulder) and the point of contact, the more powerful the swing.

Quick experiment, stand with your face 4" from a wall and try to make a horizontal slashing attack at the wall, and now a vertical one. Now try to punch the wall. You should notice it is much easier to make a back-to-front piston type motion suitable for piercing or bludgeoning than a slashing one, and far more force can be applied with that motion.