D&D 5E Longswords

[DEFCON 1]

So overall, the responses have illustrated what I suspected was true... there was no hidden issue with just giving the longsword the Finesse property.

Now, I can understand all the other possible "solutions" are viable as well, but in the end I just wanted the simplest thing-- make longswords more prevalent again (without needing to rename swords, or create new ones, or flood the realm with magical ones etc.) So I think I will just add the Finesse property to the longsword and remove the rapier from the game. And truth be told... while I understand completely the worries about DEX-the-uber-stat, it's never been a real issue at my tables only because many of my players just enjoy the STR-based character concept and don't power to the point where they've realized that STR-based character aren't "worth it" compared to DEX-based ones. So in that regard, even if I allowed the longsword to be Finessed *and* Versatiled at the same time (making a 1d10 Finesse weapon option now available), I don't think it would impact my games at all. Almost all of my DEX-based melee users either dual-wield or sword 'n board. So I'd actually be curious if any of them decided to try the main hand / no off-hand build for a DEX character if they could get the 1d10 damage. I'm not so sure any of them actually would.

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts! Much appreciated!

 

[Ath-kethin]

So overall, the responses have illustrated what I suspected was true... there was no hidden issue with just giving the longsword the Finesse property.

Now, I can understand all the other possible "solutions" are viable as well, but in the end I just wanted the simplest thing-- make longswords more prevalent again (without needing to rename swords, or create new ones, or flood the realm with magical ones etc.) So I think I will just add the Finesse property to the longsword and remove the rapier from the game. And truth be told... while I understand completely the worries about DEX-the-uber-stat, it's never been a real issue at my tables only because many of my players just enjoy the STR-based character concept and don't power to the point where they've realized that STR-based character aren't "worth it" compared to DEX-based ones. So in that regard, even if I allowed the longsword to be Finessed *and* Versatiled at the same time (making a 1d10 Finesse weapon option now available), I don't think it would impact my games at all. Almost all of my DEX-based melee users either dual-wield or sword 'n board. So I'd actually be curious if any of them decided to try the main hand / no off-hand build for a DEX character if they could get the 1d10 damage. I'm not so sure any of them actually would.

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts! Much appreciated!

Let us know how it goes. I was talked out of a similar solution once, and I'm curious.

 

[Yunru]

Eh, the Sun Blade already does it, so why not?

 

[pkt77242]

Uh... no. Dexterity build totally wrecks Strength build in terms of AC at early levels. Completely so.
The only way to possibly change that is if you are literally handing PCs thousands of gold at first level. Given what armor can actually be afforded at 1st level, you cannot possibly have higher AC as a character with Strength 18 than a character with Dexterity 18. You are stuck with Chainmail or Scalemail, and if your Dexterity isn't somehow 14-- if it is 10 (like the Dex build character can have a Strength of 10 without any penalty) then you are going to be way behind in terms of AC.

It will take several levels before one is at all likely to be able to scrap together the funds for the armors you seem to think are available out-of-the-gate. The Dex build player never needs anything sturdier than studded leather.



All of these simply hinder a dedicated archer from being any sort of viable option. Given that battles in D&D virtually never take place in conditions that one can really take advantage of being ranged in the first place, none of these are tweaks I see as being good.

Also, you seem to have it backwards. In real life, if you are thinking of going at someone and they put an arrow through you, you are effectively down. Sure, you probably won't be instantly dead, but you aren't going to be fighting from that point on unless maybe it is with a small firearm. But in D&D, unless you are level 1-3 (depending on how small your class HD is), then a single arrow is never going to take you out-- in fact, you will lose some of your nebulous "hit points" but it will in no way actually hinder you from responding.

Anyway, archers are fine as it is. Maybe move Archery over to Wisdom, but since Rangers (the primary archery class) are supposed to invest heavily in Wisdom anyway, its all good.

The problem is that Dexterity-based melee combatants have better defenses, go first, deal equal damage with equal accuracy and have access to better skills as a result of those skills all being tied to Dexterity. And, yes, they also get to be nearly as good as proper fully dedicated archers at ranged attacks.

The only advantage the Strength build has is that if they drop 2 AC then they can deal an average of 2 more points of damage per a turn.

Huh? How does Dex beat Strength builds significantly at lower levels?

Chainmail gives an AC of 16
St leather gives an AC of 12. Even with a Dex of 18 (unlikely at low levels) that makes them even at 16.

A Dex of 16 is more likely so that would make the AC 15.

So again how does the Dex based character totally wreck a Str based character at AC at low levels?

 

[CapnZapp]

All of these simply hinder a dedicated archer from being any sort of viable option. Given that battles in D&D virtually never take place in conditions that one can really take advantage of being ranged in the first place, none of these are tweaks I see as being good.

Ahem... these aren't "tweaks".

They're part of the ruleset for decades. Believe me, archers were still a thing back then, only they couldn't afford the luxury of being "dedicated" (they still needed to prepare for melee) and (much more importantly) melee characters can't just dump Strength in general and longswords in particular.

I posted them for the benefit of people "believ[ing] MMearls & Co threw out the [Strength] baby with the [Dexterity] bathwater".

 

[CapnZapp]

Also, you seem to have it backwards. In real life, if you are thinking of going at someone and they put an arrow through you, you are effectively down. Sure, you probably won't be instantly dead, but you aren't going to be fighting from that point on unless maybe it is with a small firearm. But in D&D, unless you are level 1-3 (depending on how small your class HD is), then a single arrow is never going to take you out-- in fact, you will lose some of your nebulous "hit points" but it will in no way actually hinder you from responding.

Let me assure you this is exactly my point.

So if anyone has gotten something backwards, it must be you thinking I didn't already agree to all of the above

Anyway, archers are fine as it is. Maybe move Archery over to Wisdom, but since Rangers (the primary archery class) are supposed to invest heavily in Wisdom anyway, its all good.

The problem is that Dexterity-based melee combatants have better defenses, go first, deal equal damage with equal accuracy and have access to better skills as a result of those skills all being tied to Dexterity. And, yes, they also get to be nearly as good as proper fully dedicated archers at ranged attacks.

The only advantage the Strength build has is that if they drop 2 AC then they can deal an average of 2 more points of damage per a turn.

So... archers aren't "fine as it is" after all, since you just had to add a bunch of tweaks to ensure Strength builds are competitive?

I get the feeling you think of something very special when you talk about "dedicated archers"...

You are aware that with Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert you can literally be Legolas, fighting with your bow with no drawbacks whatsoever.

Shooting into melee? No problem.
Shooting in melee? No problem.
Shooting at long distance? No problem.
Shooting against covered foes? No problem.

Getting to combine two weapon fighting styles (dual wield + archery)? No problem.
Getting to combine the best part of Greatweapon Fighting with a ranged weapon? No problem.
Getting an automatic reduction of the -5/+10 part to -3/+10? No problem.
Getting to combine best in class initiative with ranged weapon? No problem.
Getting to lose many fewer attacks due to much more easily reaching a new foe once you've downed your current one? No problem.
Getting to attack foes you can't reach with a melee weapon? No problem.

So I guess I can agree "archers are fine"...

 

[GreenTengu]

You are aware that with Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert you can literally be Legolas, fighting with your bow with no drawbacks whatsoever.

Shooting into melee? No problem.
Shooting in melee? No problem.
Shooting at long distance? No problem.
Shooting against covered foes? No problem.

Getting to combine two weapon fighting styles (dual wield + archery)? No problem.
Getting to combine the best part of Greatweapon Fighting with a ranged weapon? No problem.
Getting an automatic reduction of the -5/+10 part to -3/+10? No problem.
Getting to combine best in class initiative with ranged weapon? No problem.
Getting to lose many fewer attacks due to much more easily reaching a new foe once you've downed your current one? No problem.
Getting to attack foes you can't reach with a melee weapon? No problem.

So I guess I can agree "archers are fine"...

But these weapons already come with their own drawbacks.

Longbows are 2-handed weapons that deal d8 damage-- any other two handed martial weapon deals at least d10 damage on a hit, if not d12/2d6.

Shortbows are two-handed weapons that deal D6 and fi you are a small race or a Rogue/Bard that doesn't get full martial weapon proficiency, it is what you get stuck with.

Furthermore, they are shackled by a rule that melee weapons are not-- you have limited uses of the weapon and you must carry a number of arrows equal to the number of times you are going to use the bow. Granted, one may be able to retrieve one's arrows most of the time if the DM feels generous which could minimize this drawback, but it is still a drawback.

Crossbows deal a bit more damage, almost keeping on par with regular two-handed weapons.. EXCEPT... they have that whole slow reload which means that you can only ever shoot the thing once a turn.

So there are considerably drawbacks to focusing on archery that it seems you have not considered.

You cannot dual-wield bows and though you can technically shoot two hand/light crossbows in the same turn, you would have to spend your entire next turn reloading them.
You cannot apply the Great Weapon Fighting feat to any of the ranged weapons to my understanding, if there has been some sort of indication that doing this is remotely possible, I'll need more elaboration on what you mean.

And, yes, the advantage of ranged attacks-- the reason they do less damage than melee weapons and have limited use-- is because you generally have a freer choice of targets than a melee character is. Though most battles I find take place with all combatants within 60' of each other. After all, Dark Vision only extends to 60'. This means that generally any targets you are in combat with are going to be within charge distance. Sure, if you have a speed penalty or there is difficult terrain slowing you, that might not be the case-- but those are relatively rare circumstances.

Now, it is true that D&D 5E doesn't have a rule preventing you firing directly through allies to hit enemies and that doesn't quite sit right with me. But instituting penalties at all times also seems counter-productive. Generally I don't see an issue firing into melee so long as you can draw a clear line-of-sight to the target without going through an ally.

And while it might make sense that an arrow (or a spell) let off doesn't hit until the end of the turn, the fact that people get to move and act on a turn suggest we aren't really simulating real time anyway. Maybe if instead of each person moving and acting in turn, there was a movement phase and then an action phase. But without adding such complications, it seems right to me that someone firing at a charging enemy will have a much higher chance of getting off their shot (i.e. higher initiative) than the person reaching them. Even when talking about melee combat, I think a single round's damage isn't necessarily a single "swing" even though we have been all guilty of describing it as so-- but could be 6 seconds of bashing away at the enemy's shields or armor while deflecting attacks to try to get that lethal blow through. In such a scenario, the arrow set speeding off across the battlefield without any hesitation or resistance may very well land its damage first.


Similarly, if the advantage of Dexterity-based melee combat was simply the initiative alone, it probably wouldn't be an issue. But it is a matter of the free AC, the initiative, the useful save, the equivalent damage and accuracy and the superior skill selection that leads to the conclusion.... why should anyone choose to play a Strength-based fighter at all and, more importantly to this discussion, why should they bother using a long sword when the long sword is solely fitting for the 1-handed fighting style in which Dexterity fully dominates.

 

[Ancalagon]

The real cause of this phenomenon is how 5E has removed most of the reasons to base your fighter on strength. About the only reason remaining is that only strength supports two-handed builds, leaving the longsword with few or no users.

To my simple mind, the best way of fixing this is to target the core issue.

Revoke the decision to allow dex weapons to have dex damage.

That is, once rapiers and longbows use 1d8+Str bonus for damage (even while they continue to use Dex bonus for attacks), you should find that longswords no longer fall from popularity and use.

I completely agree.

As well detailed in the rest of this thread, a high-dex PC has a host of advantages both in and outside of combat. Ranged fighting also has a lot of tactical of advantage, and in 5e is easier than ever.

I currently have started a 5e game and I've decided to play it pretty vanilla (no feats, no multi classing, and few house rules) but this change is in my top 3 of things I would alter if I wanted to modify the ruleset more seriously. I'll see how it plays out but...

 

[Ancalagon]

Already back in the 80's Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play understood this.

Their notion of the "Hand Weapon" was brilliant.

It allows your character to choose freely whether you wield a hammer, a sword, an axe or something outlandish such as a bone club; without having to worry about nerfing yourself.

Nod, I rather liked that myself.

To be complete though, in warhammer 2nd ed you had the "generic hand weapon" but you also had a number of "modified" weapons with altered characteristics... such as the rapier

 

[Ancalagon]

D&D longsword is an arming sword. Or just a sword. A one handed weapon that could be used with two hands for extra leverage if you don't have anything smarter to do with your off hand: shield, torch, lantern, another weapon, climbing etc...

Historical greatswords or zweihanders were 170-180cm and more and were reach weapons by D&D standards and were used to break spear/pike formations.

As D&D greatsword has no reach then it fall to bastardsword/claymore category, about 120-140 cm and 1,1-2,0kg

This is a "nomenclature" debate, but for clarity's sake...

The 2nd ed longsword is an arming sword (or a knightly sword, a spatha, a viking sword, and perhaps the jian), a medium lenght blade with a short hilt, suitable for one hand use only. You could put a second hand on it for more power but you wouldn't have *leverage* - the hilt is simply too short. Having a short hilt like this makes the sword less of a bother in non combat activities as the total length is less, but also harder to disarm (a long hilt is a potential target for disarming maneuvers)

The greatsword in dnd covers a range of large, heavy swords such as the zweihanders and the claymore. I disagree with you that because the greatsword doesn't have reach that this exclude the zweihander. Normal spears and quarterstaves don't have reach either.

The 2nd ed bastard sword and the 5e longsword appear to be the same weapon. They are weapons that can be used equally well with one or two hand, and would correspond to the hand and a half sword, or bastard sword (it should be noted that the term bastard sword is used differently by different authors).

The medieval longsword is a weapon that doesn't seem to be in the game. It's a long but light blade that can be used one handed but really shines when two hands are applied.

For illustration - and everyone's enjoyment, you really should watch this! - a duel showing a number of techniques, moves, guards etc *and* highly dramatic at the same time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn36Pb8z3yI