D&D 5E Longswords

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

You're missing a huge opportunity here. If you're fighting in a large dark space like a dark forest or an underground cavern, you don't want to stick to within Darkvision range. On the contrary, you want to get out of the enemy's Darkvision range and then find a way to see them anyway (Dancing Lights, or an (N)PC holding a torch while staying close to the monsters) so that you can get advantage on your attacks, thus making Sharpshooter twice as devastating.

And of course there are defensive advantages as well to holding the range open. If the only PC the enemies can target is the heavily-armored tank holding a torch and Dodging, while the archers stay out of Darkvision range, the PCs can be projected to take minimal losses. Try to arrange that kind of situation as often as you can, for example by sending the tank on 120' ahead of everyone else with a torch and cheerfully whistling his favorite tune while everyone else quietly shadows him in the darkness. (Even better if the tank is Alert.)

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

If I understand you correctly, you are trying to argue that Dexterity is superior, but not for ranged builds somehow.

This is very strange.

It seems we are fully in agreement otherwise, so before I go into detail I'd really only want to ask you to reconsider all the advantages ranged brings. And leave it at that.

---

A few short details then:

Carrying enough ammunition is not a drawback worth mentioning. Sorry but I have never ever come across an archer running out of ammo in twenty years of D&D gaming.

Hand crossbows is really the only one that really can be maximized properly, so let's skip discussing every other ranged weapon shall we

Hand crossbows can be effectively dual wielded (although technically you still use only one). Crossbow expert even grants you the equivalence of the two-weapon fighting style. This means you effectively get two fighting styles (obviously you pick Archery fighting style)!

This also allows you to shoot as many times as you have attacks (plus one for your bonus attack).

Obviously you can't apply Greatweapon Fighting. What I meant was that you can apply its -5/+10 mechanism. The feat is called Sharpshooter, which you will want anyway to negate the cover and range penalties. Do keep in mind that the Archery fighting style turns the mechanism effectively into a -3/+10 mechanism, or at least -3/+8 if you want to take the d6 damage die into account as well.

I completely disgree when you downplay the advantages of range reach. First off, any competent player will pick a 120 ft race if darkvision is going to play a role. Then, while monks and barbarians can get enough Speed, most heavily armored builds will have 30 ft Speed, and that is quite often not enough to fully utilize all your attacks and/or Cleave.

Remember, even a single unused attack per combat is probably enough to lose any damage advantage a greatweapon gives you over a d6 weapon. Meaning: if you even lose one attack (let alone a full round's worth of attacks) you would probably be better off with ranged.

Phew! Still with me?

Also keep in mind that the power of tradition, nostalgia and groupthink has a strong hold over people's minds. I really can't expect you to see the light until you start to seriously consider an all-ranged party. This opens up so many completely overwhelming tactics that players simply aren't accustomed to using: focus firing the entire party's damage output on one foe at a time. Tactically withdrawing in the face of charging monsters - even a single extra round of unopposed fire is way better than anything a greatweapon can give you. Etc. Etc.

And then comes the clincher: 5E's Monster Manual has seriously dropped the ball when it comes to ensuring its monsters can cope with kiting strategies. Previous editions allowed at least high-CR foes to keep a few tricks up their sleeves. Much less so in 5E. Many many MANY monsters can be trivially shut down (either completely or at least their big damage attacks) by simply keeping your distance. As if the advantages of 5E ranged weren't great already...

I really urge you to think about what a party of four level 10 fighters with hand crossbows can do

I guarantee you most players simply haven't ever considered doing these things. And why not? Because this edition represents a seismic shift! These things weren't nearly as worthwhile in 3E!

Previously ranged fire was squarely a sideshow in the melee arena that is fantasy combat. For many people it still is, but only because they haven't truly thought about 5Es changes...

 

[Zardnaar]

If I understand you correctly, you are trying to argue that Dexterity is superior, but not for ranged builds somehow.

This is very strange.

It seems we are fully in agreement otherwise, so before I go into detail I'd really only want to ask you to reconsider all the advantages ranged brings. And leave it at that.

---

A few short details then:

Carrying enough ammunition is not a drawback worth mentioning. Sorry but I have never ever come across an archer running out of ammo in twenty years of D&D gaming.

Hand crossbows is really the only one that really can be maximized properly, so let's skip discussing every other ranged weapon shall we

Hand crossbows can be effectively dual wielded (although technically you still use only one). Crossbow expert even grants you the equivalence of the two-weapon fighting style. This means you effectively get two fighting styles (obviously you pick Archery fighting style)!

This also allows you to shoot as many times as you have attacks (plus one for your bonus attack).

Obviously you can't apply Greatweapon Fighting. What I meant was that you can apply its -5/+10 mechanism. The feat is called Sharpshooter, which you will want anyway to negate the cover and range penalties. Do keep in mind that the Archery fighting style turns the mechanism effectively into a -3/+10 mechanism, or at least -3/+8 if you want to take the d6 damage die into account as well.

I completely disgree when you downplay the advantages of range reach. First off, any competent player will pick a 120 ft race if darkvision is going to play a role. Then, while monks and barbarians can get enough Speed, most heavily armored builds will have 30 ft Speed, and that is quite often not enough to fully utilize all your attacks and/or Cleave.

Remember, even a single unused attack per combat is probably enough to lose any damage advantage a greatweapon gives you over a d6 weapon. Meaning: if you even lose one attack (let alone a full round's worth of attacks) you would probably be better off with ranged.

Phew! Still with me?

Also keep in mind that the power of tradition, nostalgia and groupthink has a strong hold over people's minds. I really can't expect you to see the light until you start to seriously consider an all-ranged party. This opens up so many completely overwhelming tactics that players simply aren't accustomed to using: focus firing the entire party's damage output on one foe at a time. Tactically withdrawing in the face of charging monsters - even a single extra round of unopposed fire is way better than anything a greatweapon can give you. Etc. Etc.

And then comes the clincher: 5E's Monster Manual has seriously dropped the ball when it comes to ensuring its monsters can cope with kiting strategies. Previous editions allowed at least high-CR foes to keep a few tricks up their sleeves. Much less so in 5E. Many many MANY monsters can be trivially shut down (either completely or at least their big damage attacks) by simply keeping your distance. As if the advantages of 5E ranged weren't great already...

I really urge you to think about what a party of four level 10 fighters with hand crossbows can do

I guarantee you most players simply haven't ever considered doing these things. And why not? Because this edition represents a seismic shift! These things weren't nearly as worthwhile in 3E!

Previously ranged fire was squarely a sideshow in the melee arena that is fantasy combat. For many people it still is, but only because they haven't truly thought about 5Es changes...

I have seen a level 8-10 fighter using CE+SS, dealt about the same amount of damage as the rest of the party put together. He acquired a magic handcrossbow from a converted 3.5 adventures. That was an oops.

Do no hand out +2 or +3 ranged weapons or great weapons.

 

[Prism]

The problem is, there are no such reasons.

There simply isn't any real advantages to the versatility.

If you could switch between sword-and-board and two-handed on the fly, versatile would probably see much more use. This would help the longsword against the rapier.

But you can't:

• Donning and doffing a shield takes time.
• Two-handed longsword use still doesn't count as a heavy weapon which is critical for the best half of Greatweapon Master.
• If there were a "Versatile fighting style"* that got you +1 to AC when fighting one-handed and +2 damage when fighting two-handed, you might have a case (at least in games without feats).

*) If you feel those benefits are familiar, you're right, because I took them from the Defensive and the Dueling fighting styles, respectively. What I mean is, versatile needs support it currently doesn't have. The idea is for a versatile build to be able to switch between defense (one-handed, +1 AC) and offense (two-handed, +2 damage). You don't get both at the same time, obviously

The additional of a buckler (+1 AC) which only takes an interaction to equip might go some way to encourage the use of versatile. That and your heavy weapon idea

 

[CapnZapp]

The additional of a buckler (+1 AC) which only takes an interaction to equip might go some way to encourage the use of versatile.

Well, I am glad bucklers weren't included in 5E.

I thank you for your suggestion, but let me share my experiences in 3E to explain why I didn't do it that way.

Bucklers were far too easy to abuse in 3E. Not because you used them to switch between one and two handed weapon grips, but because it gave you a way to hold items without paying the cost in lost shield AC.

For example: you doff the buckler, make all your attacks with a greataxe, and then end the round by donning the buckler again. Rinse and repeat.

And voila: you get the shield AC on everything (except the odd Opportunity Attack) and can still use greatweapons.

And when you add the ease with which 3E characters could enchant items, you quickly ended up with +5 bucklers. For the loss of a mere AC point, you got all the advantages of a shield with none of the disadvantages.

So thanks but no thanks.... There was a reason for the way I made this fighting style

It specifically ties the advantages to the switching between one and two handed use: You specifically get the AC bonus only when you fight one-handed, completely shutting down any possibility of getting it while using a greataxe.

It is functionally equivalent to the non-abusive scenario you suggest, but without the possibility to game it for unwarranted and unintented bonuses.

Best regards,
Zapp

 

[Prism]

Bucklers were far too easy to abuse in 3E. Not because you used them to switch between one and two handed weapon grips, but because it gave you a way to hold items without paying the cost in lost shield AC.

Ah those ridiculous 3e bucklers. I didn't mean those made up things but more of a real world buckler which in 3e terms is a light shield. Non of that silly strap on arm stuff that allows the benefit of both. So a shield, that is held in the hand but easy to equip (an interaction). You couldn't swap it on and off in the same round and if in hand you couldn't use a two handed weapon lets say as an opportunity attack. I suppose an archer might be able to get some convoluted benefit every other round. Then again, none of our group abused bucklers in 3e so I guess I am biased

 

[Dkamanus]

How much do people manage inventory? This is fundamental to actually having players NOT focusing on power gaming dex builds and only finesse weapons.

People have to remember that D&D 5e is a high chance for monsters to hit game. If someone going full dex + Dueling is dealing high damage up close, believe me, as a DM, I would target him, simply because thats what the monster would do.

Enforce encumberance on players. If you do the math right, those high dex players will be actually slogging to their enemies. I myself don

 

[Vulf]

If you're running the game, you decide how things go.

You could make a feat that brings strength weapons in line with other styles.

Warrior's Resolve -
Increase your Strength or Constitution score by 1, to a maximum of 20
Increase all saving throws by 1.
When making an attack using strength, add damage equal to half your proficiency modifier, rounded up.

So, levels:

1-4 +1 damage
5-12 +2 damage
13-20 +3 damage

 

[Yunru]

It's the rules people don't use that are supposed to counter-balance Dexterity.

Encumberance is directly tied to your Strength score, and 8 Strength can't carry much. Arrows, armor, gold, everything weighs something and it all adds up.

And then there's the fact players are only supposed to be able to recover have their lost ammo, and that's only if they take the time to do so.

 

[Arial Black]

I've played every edition of D&D from 1E in the late '70s (including Pathfinder) to 5E now. In every single edition I tried to make my favourite type of character: an unarmoured, rapier-wielding, Dex-based warrior who could compete with Str-based concepts. I failed.

Until 5E.

In 1E and 2E, your Str needed to be 16 or higher in order for it to matter for attack and damage. An average Str high Dex fighter would make little impact on the enemy, and such a PC would have to wait for Bracers of Defence before it would be safe to leave the house unarmoured.

In 3E, you could have an 18 Str and you would be +4 to hit and +4 or +6 to damage (1H or 2H), no feat expenditure required.

You could have 18 Dex instead, and if you took the Weapon Finesse feat you would be +4 to hit but +0 to damage. You had one less feat and were still 6 damage behind!

Pathfinder recently tried to address this with an actual Swashbucker base class. Opinions vary, but in my opinion it failed! It failed because even though the design aim was a high Dex high Cha warrior wielding a rapier, the way the class abilities were worded then the optimal Swashbuckler was a high Dex low Cha dwarf wielding a light pick!

But 5E! When I first played 5E I could finally, straight out of the box at 1st level and without spending a feat, finally have a Dex based swashbuckler-type, lightly armoured (actually unarmoured; my 1st level vuman feat was Magic Initiate taking mage armour) that wasn't automatically inferior to a Str based build.

That, and the fact that all my attacks except one didn't automatically disappear if I moved 10 feet instead of 5 feet, meant that I never looked back.

So no, I would never contemplate changing 5E so that finesse weapons wouldn't use Dex for damage. I've been wanting it for nearly forty years!