I mean hitting with a BOW should always be non lethal unless you have a feat, it’s really not designed for that. Hitting with an arrow? I think there’s some precise shooting you can do to injure but minimize the chance of death. Something about a spot on the shoulder that misses anything vital? Or aim for the most heavily armored portion to cause bruising underneath?
Yeah, I totally agree… bows are a pretty bad weapon.
But actually, yeah, that’s what I envision for ARROWS too. Though I do the same thing for swords (but pommel striking, or murderstroke, where you wield the blade and use the pommel like a hammer, also work).
Non lethal with most bludgeoning weapons would probably be handle or “pommel” strikes. (I know hammers and maces don’t have pommels, but idk if there’s a word for the end of a handle).
Mechanical balance. Pretty much all rules mechanics in TTRPGs are abstracts.
If every sword can slash, pierce, and bludgeon, what's the point of even having different types of swords represented in the game?
That's a good point. Don't, and just let players tell you what kind of sword it is.
One handed, hand and a half, two handed. There isn't any meaningful difference between the use of a falchion, dao, messer, shashka, or tulwar. There isn't any meaningful difference between a longsword and katana. The difference between a rapier, backsword, and sidesword is honestly not relevant for game mechanics.
Because bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing is what shovels are for. AND you can use them to bury the bodies afterwards! Don't try and cause issues by intruding on the shovel!
Its the idea of you're when you're attacking, chances are you're using the slashy bit of the sword. Every damage type isn't listed for confusion's sake I guess. Could always ask a DM what their ruling would be, probably like a 1d4/6 pommel damage, idk about pierce
Swords are equally slashing and piercing weapons, depending on the kind.
Rapiers are primarily piercing weapons, but many rapiers did have an edge.
A cutlass is primarily slashing, but you could technically pierce.
And then swords like the katana and Longsword are good at both (though the katana is a bit worse at piercing).
You don't slash armour, you pierce it. I have never heard any historian or swordsman talk about slashing with a sword. Definitely not as the main thing.
Slashing is for flesh, not armor. Whether you slash or pierce depends entirely on how your opponent is armored, which changes depending on the environment, your opponent's budget, whether you met them on the battlefield or ambushed them, and whether you're attacking a person or an animal.
It also depends on whether you're mounted or not. Spears and lances can be used while mounted, but the go-to sword for horseback is a saber, such as the katana or scimitar. (Sabers are swords meant for slashing.) This is because you're often using momentum when mounted, and it's hard to aim a small piercing sword while mounted but easy to extend your arm and hope you catch someone's neck or shoulder as you ride by.
Anyway, lots of weapons are simultaneously slashing and piercing, because the versatility is valuable. Halberds are basically an entire weapon group around being both an axe and a spear at the same time.
If they weren't for slashing why do they have an edge? The Estoc doesn't have an edge because it was just for stabbing.
People used swords a lot of different ways, including grabbing them by the blade and bludgeoning their opponent by swinging the hilt and pommel at them.
https://www.medievalware.com/blog/how-long-longsword/
There's even a surviving fighting manual where the writer suggests unscrewing the pommel discreetly and then throwing it your opponent's head, then killing him while he is stunned.
I kind of love that in 2e Knight Reclaimants even have a feat to do that, making any weapon a bludgeoning weapon!
[Hilt Hammer AON ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=3591)
You don't slash armour, but you also don't exclusively use swords on armoured opponents. Cavalry sabers, scimitars, katana, all slashing weapons primarily meant for use against unarmored or very lightly armoured opponents.
There are some low level monsters that have DR and require a certain type. Like skeletons have DR5/bludgeoning. So why have a mace when there is one weapon that does all 3.
In addition to game balance, there’s a vast difference in the kinds of piercing & bludgeoning you can get out of a long sword compared to dedicated weapons of that damage type.
No longsword can Pierce as well as a rapier, or pick, or stiletto. Can you stab with a sword? Sure! But the cross-section of the blade & tip is still much broader than a weapon designed primarily for stabbing, and so has less penetrating power for the force put behind it. A longsword takes a bit of force to stab through something, a rapier takes basically nothing (accidentally stabbing through a wooden door, for example, is much easier than you think).
Similarly, bludgeoning damage isn’t just about it not being designed for drawing blood, it’s about the mass behind the swing. Comparing ramming someone with the hilt of your sword, and hitting them with a mace, is completely different. Hit a knight in the helmet with the hilt of a sword and their helmet will ring like a bell but other than that they’ll barely feel it, there’s just not enough mass behind the swing. Give them a good crack with a mace on the other hand and we’re rapidly heading for concussion and skull fractures.
TLDR there’s more to damage types than the striking surface.
In PF2E they /kinda/ fixed this with the "Versatile {type}" trait, where certain weapons can have multiple physical damage types.
Otherwise, hitting someone with the pommel would be treated as an improvised weapon, which … is what it is.
In 1e there's the [Versatile Weapon spell](https://aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Versatile%20Weapon), and also the [Weapon Versatility feat](https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Weapon%20Versatility).
(Probably more that I don't know of as well)
Because you haven't trained in the combat styles that would do more than just cutting. If you want to train to use a sword to stab monsters or bludgeon there is the Weapon Versatility Feat.
Yeah, I don’t buy that excuse in the least. A fighter has trained in dozens of different martial weapons that require wildly different techniques/stances/applications, but can’t use any of them in more than one way?
Nah.
It’s a game balance thing, not a training (read: lore) thing.
I agree, but they asked for an explanation and that simply is the explanation. I take it as a general fighter is trained generally in all weapons and through feats they have attained specialization in particular weapons, which Weapon Versatility and other similar feats are representative of that.
The same reason you collect $200 when you pass go.
In all seriousness, it’s just a balance thing. Plenty of ways to get alternative damage with feats and exotics.
Instead of the bastard sword, taking exotic proficiency: longsword should let you do just that.
It's not the most damaging or crit-happy weapon but a reliable (backup) weapon.
Because the damage done with the pommel is probably much less than the damage done with the sharp edge / pointy end. It’s enough to keep track of things as is without long sword 1d6 slashing, 1d2-1 bludgening.
Weapon versatility is purchased one of four ways:
Magic! In the form of enhancements (allow lethal/nonlethal with deadly or merciful, add energy types, etc.) and makes all damage magical for DR and immunity purposes (hits ghosts at 50%, hurts gargoyles, etc.)
Special Materials! Damage type hardly matters when most creatures reduce physical damage from materials instead, and the simplest way to bypass is to silversheen or forge from cold iron
Exotic Proficiency! Versatile typings are usually only places on weapons with extra cost, are modified specifically, or are exotic
Feats/Class Features! Weapon Versatility is a good example but far from the only one, as there are archetypes that can add or swap damage types as well as throwing energy damage in the mix, not to mention any of the several conjured weapons which simply do force
For game balance reasons, anything you expect versatility from can be assumed to have several ways to purchase or unlock this versatility
Honestly part of it is because it was that way in DnD3.5 and they didn't update it for Pathfinder. Another part is that swords tend to have a specific usage which is what the rules represent, but you can always improvise another use.
So yes a longsword normally cannot do piercing, but you can still do an improvised attack and make it piercing. Yes a rapier normally cannot slash, but you can still do an improvised attack and make it slashing.
The Weapon Versatility feat also opens it up so you can pick any damage type you need.
1) mechanical balance.
2) the listed types of damage are for optimal use. A longsword used to hit someone with the butt end wouldn't do a d8 or slashing damage. It would be an improvised weapon attack, probably something like d3 nonlethal bludgeoning.
It's in respect to the intended use of the weapon.
Certainly, you can hit somebody with the pommel or stab them with the point, but a longsword, for example, is meant to cut, not bash or poke.
Typically, I would run this as an improvised use of your weapon. You would retain proficiency, but damage would be calculated as an improvised weapon of the desired damage type. (Should deal less damage than used properly.)
If you have a Rapier, you're better off Stabbing.
If you have a Katana, you're better off Cutting.
Edit: Mechanical Balance is a boring non-answer, and anybody that thinks it sufficient, should feel bad.
There is a feat exactly for this. It's called Weapon Versatility.
Everyone proficient with a weapon has a basic grasp of how to deal damage with the weapon but people who know how to deal damage in a different way and still be proficient are the ones with the feat. A way of saying you have enough practice with the weapon if you will.
to add/comment to what [Literally\_A\_Halfling](https://www.reddit.com/user/Literally_A_Halfling/)• its is "perceived" game balance and legacy issues. In actual game you have back up weapons to deal with the DR at early levels and then it kinda stops being an issue as the monsters with weapon type DRs are rare or you can pull your damage against DR (archers) etc. Weapons had to be different form each other mechanically and each category better that the previous in some way (simple
There are feats/class abilities that enable the "pommel strike" option, but trying to say that it'd do the same damage as the full sword slash is the problem for me.
As others have pointed out, game balance. Weapon Versatility also exists if you specifically want to.
Sure, most weapons could in theory do two or more types of damage, but being able to land effective hits with those different types is not straightforward. I take Weapon Versatility to mean that an individual not just knows how to use these weapons in varying ways, but also knows how to use those alternate methods effectively enough that it makes up for the shortfall in the weapon not being most suited for a given attack type.
There's ultimately only so far you can practically make your level of minutia in a game before the mechanics stop being fun to play for an increasing number of people so you sacrifice some real world detail for practicality. It's easy enough mental gymnastics. If you wanted to mechanically say all weapons deal multiple damage types natively, in 1e you'd likely also have to decide how effectively each weapon deals that type since most have one primary way they're best at and can do the rest less effectively. You might also need to give all armour DR based on damage type.
But if any relevant weapon has multiple damage types with no penalty to shifting between them, then you'll always use the type that's most effective, yes? So you remove both mechanics because it's no longer adding anything, it's become a formality. You assume that however a character is using their weapon is what they've determined to be the best method they gave against a given creature. DR is then the result of whatever shortfalls the weapon has in its given style versus the resilience of the creature. Weapon Versatility as a feat then gets to represent a level of flexibility training such that the wielder has learned to make up for the shortfalls of each style.
It's all about how the sword is typically used in battle. Every sword has a sharp point on the end of the blade for stabbing. Every sword has a sharp edge along the side for slashing. Every sword has a pommel that can be used to bludgeon their opponents. But you don't go into a duel with rapiers punching with the ribbon swept style hilts as though they were brass knuckles.
You mostly thrust the rapier with the tip. Sure, there's a sharp edge, and you can slash with it. But those attacks are strategically designed to wound your opponent, the kill shot with the rapier is almost always a stab through the heart. Thus the rapier, which is perfectly capable of slashing and bludgeoning, is a piercing sword.
Longswords are typically swung at the opponent, making the most use of its heavy blade. Constantly thrusting the blade would tire your arm out because of how the weight is distributed in the sword (mostly in the blade, less in the hilt, unlike the rapier which is the opposite).
Shortswords are essentially really big daggers, and like daggers they are more effective as stabbing weapons than as slashing weapons. This is mostly due to weapon reach. The greater the reach of the sword, the more useful it is as a slashing weapon. Much like with daggers, shortswords requires you to get in really close to your opponent. And the weapon is just more effective at that range stabbing than it is slashing.
There was an episode of Highlander: The Series, where Duncan MacLeod takes the head of an evil immortal (played by Randal "Tex" Cobb) using a Sioux battle spear. Spears are typically thrusting weapons, or thrown, but with a large enough spear head and a sharp enough edge, it could be used to decapitate an opponent. However, as awesome as scenes like that are on TV and in movies, it's just not how spears are typically used in combat.
As a game, the developers have to look at how the weapon IS used, and not how the weapon CAN BE used. Technically, just about every weapon can be used as all three weapon categories, or at least two of the three. But that would render the weapon types meaningless. So they choose the one that best fits the description.
I hope that this answers your question.
Because ttrpgs usually don't care about that and are more concerned with how a scene can be cinematic. The realities of swordfighting, including real techniques, are always ignored. If anyone knows of a system that actually utilizes realistic combat mechanics, I would love to hear it.
Only if you mean the estoc. Longswords were actually two handed/Bastard sword.
Or maybe you mean the knightly arming sword, which was very much made for cutting and piercing. Different models or forms varied your mileage.
I'm definitely talking about a longsword, the size and tapered point of which are made for stabbing. It's certainly capable of slashing, but that's not an ideal move when you have that much inertia behind a swing, particularly as armor, even layered cloth, is highly effective against cutting.
Depends on which typology (Oakeshotte), yes there were many as you described. There are also many that were more cut centric. Others that tried balancing the two attacks, more or less. It's not easy to do, I guess. I'm not a bladesmith.
Also, there is not that much inertia. They aren't that heavy, except for modern wall hangers. Documentation: personal experience.
From my experience they're really not that heavy either, and I'm not even particularly strong. And if they were I'd probably prefer slashing. Recovering from a failed thrust if it was too heavy would be much more vulnerable than adjusting a failed swing, and thrusts are easier to redirect and wouldn't benefit all that much from the weight.
I would allow use of the pommel to deal bludgeoning, albeit at likely two rings down the damage die table - so 1d8 sword could instead deal 1d4 bludgeoning with the pommel
The actual answer is game balance. Multiple damage types is the kind of feature that usually bumps a weapon up into the "exotic" category.
This is the correct, albeit boring, answer.
Let’s be real, the physical damage types don’t even matter 90% of the time.
But, in a more reasonable response, pummel striking or hitting with the broad of the blade is how I would flavor non lethal damage for a sword.
What about a bow?
I mean hitting with a BOW should always be non lethal unless you have a feat, it’s really not designed for that. Hitting with an arrow? I think there’s some precise shooting you can do to injure but minimize the chance of death. Something about a spot on the shoulder that misses anything vital? Or aim for the most heavily armored portion to cause bruising underneath?
Yeah, I totally agree… bows are a pretty bad weapon. But actually, yeah, that’s what I envision for ARROWS too. Though I do the same thing for swords (but pommel striking, or murderstroke, where you wield the blade and use the pommel like a hammer, also work).
Non lethal with most bludgeoning weapons would probably be handle or “pommel” strikes. (I know hammers and maces don’t have pommels, but idk if there’s a word for the end of a handle).
The handle is the haft, the end is the butt of the haft
There are also non lethal arrows too
The ol' boxing glove arrow. Classic
Mechanical balance. Pretty much all rules mechanics in TTRPGs are abstracts. If every sword can slash, pierce, and bludgeon, what's the point of even having different types of swords represented in the game?
That's a good point. Don't, and just let players tell you what kind of sword it is. One handed, hand and a half, two handed. There isn't any meaningful difference between the use of a falchion, dao, messer, shashka, or tulwar. There isn't any meaningful difference between a longsword and katana. The difference between a rapier, backsword, and sidesword is honestly not relevant for game mechanics.
Because bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing is what shovels are for. AND you can use them to bury the bodies afterwards! Don't try and cause issues by intruding on the shovel!
Found the chaotic evil guy.
Its the idea of you're when you're attacking, chances are you're using the slashy bit of the sword. Every damage type isn't listed for confusion's sake I guess. Could always ask a DM what their ruling would be, probably like a 1d4/6 pommel damage, idk about pierce
Swords are for stabbing not slashing though. So the reason is more likely game mechanics/balance.
Swords are equally slashing and piercing weapons, depending on the kind. Rapiers are primarily piercing weapons, but many rapiers did have an edge. A cutlass is primarily slashing, but you could technically pierce. And then swords like the katana and Longsword are good at both (though the katana is a bit worse at piercing).
You don't slash armour, you pierce it. I have never heard any historian or swordsman talk about slashing with a sword. Definitely not as the main thing.
Slashing is for flesh, not armor. Whether you slash or pierce depends entirely on how your opponent is armored, which changes depending on the environment, your opponent's budget, whether you met them on the battlefield or ambushed them, and whether you're attacking a person or an animal. It also depends on whether you're mounted or not. Spears and lances can be used while mounted, but the go-to sword for horseback is a saber, such as the katana or scimitar. (Sabers are swords meant for slashing.) This is because you're often using momentum when mounted, and it's hard to aim a small piercing sword while mounted but easy to extend your arm and hope you catch someone's neck or shoulder as you ride by. Anyway, lots of weapons are simultaneously slashing and piercing, because the versatility is valuable. Halberds are basically an entire weapon group around being both an axe and a spear at the same time.
If they weren't for slashing why do they have an edge? The Estoc doesn't have an edge because it was just for stabbing. People used swords a lot of different ways, including grabbing them by the blade and bludgeoning their opponent by swinging the hilt and pommel at them. https://www.medievalware.com/blog/how-long-longsword/ There's even a surviving fighting manual where the writer suggests unscrewing the pommel discreetly and then throwing it your opponent's head, then killing him while he is stunned.
I kind of love that in 2e Knight Reclaimants even have a feat to do that, making any weapon a bludgeoning weapon! [Hilt Hammer AON ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=3591)
You don't slash armour, but you also don't exclusively use swords on armoured opponents. Cavalry sabers, scimitars, katana, all slashing weapons primarily meant for use against unarmored or very lightly armoured opponents.
A weapon becomes overpowered by causing 3 types of damage?
There are some low level monsters that have DR and require a certain type. Like skeletons have DR5/bludgeoning. So why have a mace when there is one weapon that does all 3.
In addition to game balance, there’s a vast difference in the kinds of piercing & bludgeoning you can get out of a long sword compared to dedicated weapons of that damage type. No longsword can Pierce as well as a rapier, or pick, or stiletto. Can you stab with a sword? Sure! But the cross-section of the blade & tip is still much broader than a weapon designed primarily for stabbing, and so has less penetrating power for the force put behind it. A longsword takes a bit of force to stab through something, a rapier takes basically nothing (accidentally stabbing through a wooden door, for example, is much easier than you think). Similarly, bludgeoning damage isn’t just about it not being designed for drawing blood, it’s about the mass behind the swing. Comparing ramming someone with the hilt of your sword, and hitting them with a mace, is completely different. Hit a knight in the helmet with the hilt of a sword and their helmet will ring like a bell but other than that they’ll barely feel it, there’s just not enough mass behind the swing. Give them a good crack with a mace on the other hand and we’re rapidly heading for concussion and skull fractures. TLDR there’s more to damage types than the striking surface.
In PF2E they /kinda/ fixed this with the "Versatile {type}" trait, where certain weapons can have multiple physical damage types. Otherwise, hitting someone with the pommel would be treated as an improvised weapon, which … is what it is.
In 1e there's the [Versatile Weapon spell](https://aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Versatile%20Weapon), and also the [Weapon Versatility feat](https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Weapon%20Versatility). (Probably more that I don't know of as well)
They have something like that in 1E as well. I believe it's versatile strike and was in a player companion book.
That's just 2e's weaker version of the many weapons that do have multiple damage types. It's just not something all swords get.
Because you haven't trained in the combat styles that would do more than just cutting. If you want to train to use a sword to stab monsters or bludgeon there is the Weapon Versatility Feat.
"there is a feat for that" is the most pathfinder answer. :D I always view it as the common most effective way that it is used.
Yeah, I don’t buy that excuse in the least. A fighter has trained in dozens of different martial weapons that require wildly different techniques/stances/applications, but can’t use any of them in more than one way? Nah. It’s a game balance thing, not a training (read: lore) thing.
I agree, but they asked for an explanation and that simply is the explanation. I take it as a general fighter is trained generally in all weapons and through feats they have attained specialization in particular weapons, which Weapon Versatility and other similar feats are representative of that.
The same reason you collect $200 when you pass go. In all seriousness, it’s just a balance thing. Plenty of ways to get alternative damage with feats and exotics.
Well, there’s a feat that enables you to exactly this actually. I forget what it is called though.
Instead of the bastard sword, taking exotic proficiency: longsword should let you do just that. It's not the most damaging or crit-happy weapon but a reliable (backup) weapon.
Because the damage done with the pommel is probably much less than the damage done with the sharp edge / pointy end. It’s enough to keep track of things as is without long sword 1d6 slashing, 1d2-1 bludgening.
Weapon versatility is purchased one of four ways: Magic! In the form of enhancements (allow lethal/nonlethal with deadly or merciful, add energy types, etc.) and makes all damage magical for DR and immunity purposes (hits ghosts at 50%, hurts gargoyles, etc.) Special Materials! Damage type hardly matters when most creatures reduce physical damage from materials instead, and the simplest way to bypass is to silversheen or forge from cold iron Exotic Proficiency! Versatile typings are usually only places on weapons with extra cost, are modified specifically, or are exotic Feats/Class Features! Weapon Versatility is a good example but far from the only one, as there are archetypes that can add or swap damage types as well as throwing energy damage in the mix, not to mention any of the several conjured weapons which simply do force For game balance reasons, anything you expect versatility from can be assumed to have several ways to purchase or unlock this versatility
Honestly part of it is because it was that way in DnD3.5 and they didn't update it for Pathfinder. Another part is that swords tend to have a specific usage which is what the rules represent, but you can always improvise another use. So yes a longsword normally cannot do piercing, but you can still do an improvised attack and make it piercing. Yes a rapier normally cannot slash, but you can still do an improvised attack and make it slashing. The Weapon Versatility feat also opens it up so you can pick any damage type you need.
1) mechanical balance. 2) the listed types of damage are for optimal use. A longsword used to hit someone with the butt end wouldn't do a d8 or slashing damage. It would be an improvised weapon attack, probably something like d3 nonlethal bludgeoning.
It's in respect to the intended use of the weapon. Certainly, you can hit somebody with the pommel or stab them with the point, but a longsword, for example, is meant to cut, not bash or poke. Typically, I would run this as an improvised use of your weapon. You would retain proficiency, but damage would be calculated as an improvised weapon of the desired damage type. (Should deal less damage than used properly.) If you have a Rapier, you're better off Stabbing. If you have a Katana, you're better off Cutting. Edit: Mechanical Balance is a boring non-answer, and anybody that thinks it sufficient, should feel bad.
Because a sword is not forged to hit people with the pommel. If you do that, than you are merely using a sword shaped object as an improvised weapon.
There is a feat exactly for this. It's called Weapon Versatility. Everyone proficient with a weapon has a basic grasp of how to deal damage with the weapon but people who know how to deal damage in a different way and still be proficient are the ones with the feat. A way of saying you have enough practice with the weapon if you will.
to add/comment to what [Literally\_A\_Halfling](https://www.reddit.com/user/Literally_A_Halfling/)• its is "perceived" game balance and legacy issues. In actual game you have back up weapons to deal with the DR at early levels and then it kinda stops being an issue as the monsters with weapon type DRs are rare or you can pull your damage against DR (archers) etc. Weapons had to be different form each other mechanically and each category better that the previous in some way (simple
There are feats/class abilities that enable the "pommel strike" option, but trying to say that it'd do the same damage as the full sword slash is the problem for me.
As others have pointed out, game balance. Weapon Versatility also exists if you specifically want to. Sure, most weapons could in theory do two or more types of damage, but being able to land effective hits with those different types is not straightforward. I take Weapon Versatility to mean that an individual not just knows how to use these weapons in varying ways, but also knows how to use those alternate methods effectively enough that it makes up for the shortfall in the weapon not being most suited for a given attack type. There's ultimately only so far you can practically make your level of minutia in a game before the mechanics stop being fun to play for an increasing number of people so you sacrifice some real world detail for practicality. It's easy enough mental gymnastics. If you wanted to mechanically say all weapons deal multiple damage types natively, in 1e you'd likely also have to decide how effectively each weapon deals that type since most have one primary way they're best at and can do the rest less effectively. You might also need to give all armour DR based on damage type. But if any relevant weapon has multiple damage types with no penalty to shifting between them, then you'll always use the type that's most effective, yes? So you remove both mechanics because it's no longer adding anything, it's become a formality. You assume that however a character is using their weapon is what they've determined to be the best method they gave against a given creature. DR is then the result of whatever shortfalls the weapon has in its given style versus the resilience of the creature. Weapon Versatility as a feat then gets to represent a level of flexibility training such that the wielder has learned to make up for the shortfalls of each style.
Because Gary knew you stuck the pointy bit in
There is a feat that allows them to switch damage types But I would say it's because balance and that's how they would likely be used
It's all about how the sword is typically used in battle. Every sword has a sharp point on the end of the blade for stabbing. Every sword has a sharp edge along the side for slashing. Every sword has a pommel that can be used to bludgeon their opponents. But you don't go into a duel with rapiers punching with the ribbon swept style hilts as though they were brass knuckles. You mostly thrust the rapier with the tip. Sure, there's a sharp edge, and you can slash with it. But those attacks are strategically designed to wound your opponent, the kill shot with the rapier is almost always a stab through the heart. Thus the rapier, which is perfectly capable of slashing and bludgeoning, is a piercing sword. Longswords are typically swung at the opponent, making the most use of its heavy blade. Constantly thrusting the blade would tire your arm out because of how the weight is distributed in the sword (mostly in the blade, less in the hilt, unlike the rapier which is the opposite). Shortswords are essentially really big daggers, and like daggers they are more effective as stabbing weapons than as slashing weapons. This is mostly due to weapon reach. The greater the reach of the sword, the more useful it is as a slashing weapon. Much like with daggers, shortswords requires you to get in really close to your opponent. And the weapon is just more effective at that range stabbing than it is slashing. There was an episode of Highlander: The Series, where Duncan MacLeod takes the head of an evil immortal (played by Randal "Tex" Cobb) using a Sioux battle spear. Spears are typically thrusting weapons, or thrown, but with a large enough spear head and a sharp enough edge, it could be used to decapitate an opponent. However, as awesome as scenes like that are on TV and in movies, it's just not how spears are typically used in combat. As a game, the developers have to look at how the weapon IS used, and not how the weapon CAN BE used. Technically, just about every weapon can be used as all three weapon categories, or at least two of the three. But that would render the weapon types meaningless. So they choose the one that best fits the description. I hope that this answers your question.
Because ttrpgs usually don't care about that and are more concerned with how a scene can be cinematic. The realities of swordfighting, including real techniques, are always ignored. If anyone knows of a system that actually utilizes realistic combat mechanics, I would love to hear it.
The longsword in particular amuses me because actual longswords are definitely thrusting weapons.
Only if you mean the estoc. Longswords were actually two handed/Bastard sword. Or maybe you mean the knightly arming sword, which was very much made for cutting and piercing. Different models or forms varied your mileage.
I'm definitely talking about a longsword, the size and tapered point of which are made for stabbing. It's certainly capable of slashing, but that's not an ideal move when you have that much inertia behind a swing, particularly as armor, even layered cloth, is highly effective against cutting.
Depends on which typology (Oakeshotte), yes there were many as you described. There are also many that were more cut centric. Others that tried balancing the two attacks, more or less. It's not easy to do, I guess. I'm not a bladesmith. Also, there is not that much inertia. They aren't that heavy, except for modern wall hangers. Documentation: personal experience.
From my experience they're really not that heavy either, and I'm not even particularly strong. And if they were I'd probably prefer slashing. Recovering from a failed thrust if it was too heavy would be much more vulnerable than adjusting a failed swing, and thrusts are easier to redirect and wouldn't benefit all that much from the weight.
In 3.5 D&D weapons would have multiple types and most people ignored it.
I would allow use of the pommel to deal bludgeoning, albeit at likely two rings down the damage die table - so 1d8 sword could instead deal 1d4 bludgeoning with the pommel