Cutlass stats?

[Eamon Voss]

Should this be the same as a sabre/scimitar?  Or should it be a bit more usefull on the thrust, something the weapon is often hinted at?  Ideas?  Thoughts?

[Brian Leybourne]

I think there's a danger of going overboard and individually statting up every possible weapon or weapon variation under the sun, which is a waste of time really.

In other words, IMC the Scimitar stats do fine for a Cutlass, as they're pretty similar. YMMV of course.

Brian.

[Mayhem1979]

Actually, it'd put a cutlass closer to a saber, but a bit more tuned towards the cut.  

Default I'd say cut and thrust.

[arxhon]

I agree with cut and thrust. This is a fairly wide category of weapons, and serves well as a catch all.

[Brian Leybourne]

Actually, it'd put a cutlass closer to a saber, but a bit more tuned towards the cut.

Yes, Scimitars and Sabre's are the same weapon in TROS (same stats), which was partly my point.

And given that they already have ATN's of 6 for cutting and thrusting, I suggest you wouldn't want to improve on that at all.

Brian.

[Eamon Voss]

I think there's a danger of going overboard and individually statting up every possible weapon or weapon variation under the sun, which is a waste of time really.

Brian, you are no fun!  ;)

Anyway, in my readings of cutlasses I think you are right in that they share common features with the sabre/scimitar.  They were said to be very good on the slash, and decent on the thrust.  Injuries delivered were said to be more reliable that what you got from a rapier, and pirates considered it a better weapon.  But the arguement is that the people pirates fought were probably either really scared, not used to fighting on ships, just not that good, and likely all three.  Even in the 'golden age' of piracy real military ships  were almost never attacked.  And the militias guarding the towns were not the professional soldiers of Europe.

I vote for the sabre.

[Valamir]

A cutlass is quite simply a poor mans sabre.  
They were effective on a ship because they were short enough to not get in the way and get tangled in rigging.  They were heavy enough to inflict some nasty cutting wounds without needing to be a sophisticated swordsman...which by and large sailors and pirates were not.  They didn't need to be too heavy because most opponents didn't have armor.  They were utilitarian enough to make an effective machete, light hatchet, cask opener, and be put to other tool like uses.


They're also pretty easy to forge, being essentially just a piece of metal banged flat and given a single edge.  There is nothing particularly sophisticated to a cutlass.  There is no advantage that a cutlass has over any other sword except that it fulfills its purpose of being a cheap, easy to obtain weapon capable of making nasty cuts without requiring alot of skill to use.  In the age before stainless steel most would have been in various stages of rust from the salt sea air.

I'd suggest a sabre with penalties for all but the most well made and maintained examples.

[Mike Holmes]

Cutlasses are also just short enough that you can carry them in your teeth while swimming without breaking them.

Yeah, they tend to be inferior to other weapons for pure combat applications. But then that just points out how weapons are made with other considerations in mind. The thing has to be something you can get around with. And if it has other uses, so much the better.

Officers on ships, and even on some pirate vessels will usually prefer to use the smallsword instead.

Anyhow, cutlasses, downgraded from sabres a little, would make a great mook weapon.

Mike