Craft Arms & Armour & Cutlass question?

Is it possible to augment any of the Monk Robes, or Mystic clothing to have bonuses?
The mystic gear looks great on my female characters and can allow a really high dex bonus.
Also this next question is probably me forgetting the D&D rules, but is there a reason that the Cutlass is left out of the Weapon Focus/Specialization feats?

This is my first post here...
I appreciate the feedback:dance:

Feel like I can see things no one else can see... do things no one else can do... Hmm must be the Six Demon Bag!!

 

Clothing is not armor. It cannot be given magical bonuses to defense.

The cutlass is not a standard D&D weapon, but was added by Troika. It uses Rapier proficiency.

 

if you want to be fussy (and by the rule books) the cutlass should have the scimitar proficiency and stats but then IMO it should be finessable as well

 

isnt the cutlass the same thing as a shortsword? except it has a yellow handleguard thingy?! *wiggles cutlass around in air*

 

I'm no expert, but cutlasses seem to be pretty unbalanced swords, and so should use scimitar proficency and not to be finesseable. Sabres are much more agile blades (they're used in fencing), altough they are even more anachronistic than cutlasses.
The whole point of using a fencing sword against someone in heavy armor is lost to me, but, heck, cool is cool...

 

Well, as Cazio discovers in the book "The Briar King", a big rock comes in handy for the the guy with the fencing blade. For those who haven't read it, the scene where a fencing master goes up against a heavily armored knight is hilarious.

 

The sabre and other swords like the Cutlass a derivative of the sabre and has a short curved blade, were in effect a peasant weapon at their conception. Due to the rarity of metal and expense larger swords were not really feasible for the common man. The Cutlass found favor with mariners due to its short sturdy blade, ability to cut large ropes and even wood. It required much less training to wield than other blades.

On the uses against armor they were quite effective, and actually help lead to its demise. You could if you were fast enough to get inside the defences of the armor encumbered foe. Find a chink in the armor, a place that was unprotected, or where the armor joined, and kill or disable your armored opponent. Fencing came later and is useful against only someone armed with a similar weapon.

I am not sure how this relates to D&D which has its own rules regarding, weapons, armor and encumbrance. For example the Katana as as longsword, not even close. But I find that in the game it is the proper place to put it. I'm sorry the game puts it in as a bastard sword which is even more of a stretch, but none the less proper for the game.

 

Sabres are weapons for cavalry....and not the kind of horse soldiers one would find in this game if it had horses, either. Cutlasses are weapons for naval combat. They are heavier than sabres, and are more capable & rugged for close quarters combat. Sabres are for slashing whatever one can from the saddle as your horse charges through enemy ranks; cutlasses are for chopping into your foe as you look him in the eye while standing on a rolling deck. Two entirely different forms of combat.

 

And your point?

 

and what purpose does the Rapier serve?

 

You seem to add to my point that they were quite crude in their use: bang them to your opponent and chop him to death. Finesse seems to be something quite of different approach: find any slight opening in your opponent guard and exploit it, if even with less force.
AFAIK cutlasses were mainly used in XVII century, while in XV century the slashing weapons favoerd by military were a wide variety of convex curved blades (kukri like) that would likely be classified as scimitars under D&D rules, so I still think cutlasses should follow same fate.

Mmhh... To my eye their role on the matter do not seem comparable with that of pikes, greatswords and firearms. Not to mention they were used by mariners, that shunned armor for obvious reasons.
However my comment about heavy armor was about things like the rapier (late XVII and eraly XVIII century, IIRC, and a civilian blade too). I agree that a cutlass could be quite effective against an armor (altough not as much as more specialized weapons), I just do not think they should be considered rapiers (that are, btw, P weapons, while a cutlass is definitely an S weapon).

 

whats a kukri?

 

Their role was very similar to that of scimitars, that were very similar weapons (sabres had a better backslash, I think, due to being two edged on the point, and being somewhat less curved). In fact, IIRC, the arms and weapons guide does consider sabres as scimitars.

The difference in form of combat does not automatically need to carry a difference in weapon profile. See Rufredde's example about Katana. Also, european quarterstaves were used with very different styles of combat from japanese Bo staves, but they were actually the same thing (a staff) and so they share the same profile.
And you will agree that "chopping into your foe (...) wile standing on a rolling deck" is no more different from "slashing whatever one can from the saddle as your horse charges through enemy ranks" than keeping your foe at distance with the lenght of your slender and flexible rapier trying to stab into his heart.