D&D 5E The best solution for longswords

[Hriston]

You're right, the longsword is a not a bad choice for a strength-based character with a sword and shield, and all versatile weapons are in the same sub-optimal boat of doing less damage when used two-handed than one-handed when used with their corresponding fighting style in addition to losing the ability to use a shield.

A longsword wielded with one hand does 6.5 points of damage on average with the dueling fighting style, while it does 6.3 average damage wielded with two hands with the gwf fighting style, if I'm figuring that out correctly. I don't think that's too significant of a difference, but the loss of 2 points of AC is. I think, however, the choice to forgo a shield is balanced against the other things you could be doing with that hand, such as grappling an opponent or casting a spell.

But I'm mostly referring to rogue proficiency with a longsword. Even for a strength based-rogue the longsword is a poor choice for a weapon because he can't sneak attack with it.

Obviously you can't use sneak attack with a longsword, but there's nothing wrong with the longsword being an option for a strength-based rogue to use in a situation where sneak attack won't work. Class proficiencies are a menu of options. They don't have to all be equally optimal in all situations.

And elves (who are supposed to be smart) handicap themselves by training a weapon (longsword) which requires strength when they are better suited (as a group) to dexterity based weapons.

Again, just because it's available to elves as a weapon proficiency doesn't force your DEX elf to use a sub-optimal weapon. It's there for all the elves that have a STR score that's higher than their DEX score, of which I imagine there would be many, especially in the ranks of any heavily-armored units of an elvish military.

That's what I mean by suboptimal.

There's a difference between a weapon being sub-optimal and a perfectly good weapon being used sub-optimally.

 

[jaelis]

That would merely exacerbate the problem with Versatile rather than solving it.
.

All depends what you think the problem is I suppose

 

[snickersnax]

Before I respond, I have to ask... how would a versatile weapon EVER be worse than a non-versatile weapon of the same type? While a versatile weapon may not be much better than a similar non-versatile weapon, at least it has an option available to it that the other lacks.

Well when I wrote that I was thinking about longsword vs greatsword both used two-handed. Aside from weapon damage, a great sword benefits from GWF more than longsword, and a greatsword wielder can also get more benefit from GWM.

Essentially if you have an option that you never use (versatility) and there is a cost (lower weapon damage than another weapon you could have picked), then versatility is worse.

I agree that longsword is a good weapon when used with a shield, but if you see yourself wanting to switch and fight 2-handed, you would be better off carrying around a 2-handed sword as well. I'm having a hard time finding any value in versatility especially compared to finesse, light, thrown, heavy or reach.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Kill finesse weapons.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Ok. Can the player decide to use piercing or slashing damage? The reason I asked is because the longsword is slashing only and the rapier is piercing only, so if you removed one from the game then damage type availability would change.

My campaigns have found such little difference between B, P & S that what they get assigned comes down to what type of weapon they've flavored themselves as. If they chose 'longsword', then its a slashing weapon, 'rapier' is piercing, 'morningstar' is bludgeoning etc. And what they end up having never really comes into play.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

What! You mean to tell me the longsword is broken, too?! How does the game even function with so many failing pieces?? Does QC mean anything anymore?

 

[Old One Eye]

I've had combats in cramped quarters where the DM said there wasn't enough room to use my greatsword, but I could use my longsword. Versatile was handy.

My current hexblade doesn't get a fighting style, so the math doesn't factor in +2 one handed. If she comes across a magical longsword to bond with, having a versatile option could be useful.

I love Cap'n Kobold's idea of rapiers being a newly developed weapon, hence long lived elves having trained in longswords due to rapiers not existing in their training days. Very flavorful.

 

[Yaarel]

This post offers several thoughts, some of them conflictive, depending on which solution gets implemented.



The longsword itself is excellent. Longsword = bastard sword.
• longsword, 1d8 slashing (versatile 1d10) + Strength

There is a need for a socalled knightly arming sword.
This is an ‘agile’, ‘cut and thrust’, sword.
It is the archetypal sword.
Call it ‘sword’.
• sword, 1d8 slashing or piercing + Strength (finesse Dexterity)

Note, the sword is statistically identical to the rapier, except the sword can alternate slash and pierce.



While we are at it. Also add in katana.
• katana, 1d6 slashing (versatile 1d8) + Strength (finesse Dexterity)

Note, the katana is the only weapon so far that is both versatile and finesse.
Here, the knightly ‘sword’ is slightly better than the katana.
I feel it is ok to give the sword plot protection.
(Like giving lightsaber plot protection in a Star Wars game.)
But if someone wants to make the sword and katana equally good,
maybe give the katana a minor benefit for being razor sharp.



Elf. Three solutions.
1. A Dexterity elf gets an ‘elegant’ swordfighting style that applies finesse to any longsword.
2. The finesse ‘sword’ now exists. This is actually the sword that the elf culture was celebrating.
3. Eliminate the race proficiency with longsword or any sword. Who cares really?



I am happy with dropping finesse entirely. Dexterity needs a sober redesign.

*ALL* weapons should use Strength only, even daggers.
A punch is about as ‘finesse’ as one can get − and it requires Strength.

The *ONLY* exception is shooting weapons, like gun or bow or crossbow.
Shooting weapons aim by holding a steady hand, thus genuinely use Dexterity.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

There is a need for a socalled knightly arming sword.
This is an ‘agile’, ‘cut and thrust’, sword.
It is the archetypal sword.
Call it ‘sword’.
• sword, 1d8 slashing or piercing + Strength (finesse Dexterity)

Agreed, but just make it slashing for balance and simplicity. And call it "arming sword" or "broadsword" so as not to create ambiguity when the game refers to "any sword".

While we are at it. Also add in katana.
• katana, 1d6 slashing (versatile 1d8) + Strength (finesse Dexterity)

At the level of abstraction we're dealing with in D&D, the historical katana is a longsword. For the long, graceful, curved fantasy sword sometimes called "katana", I use 1d10 slashing, two-handed, finesse (and call it a "court sword").

The *ONLY* exception is shooting weapons, like gun or bow or crossbow.
Shooting weapons aim by holding a steady hand, thus genuinely use Dexterity.

You know how bow pull works, right? And firearm recoil? I'd like to see a 90-pound weakling draw a medieval longbow or fire a modern assault rifle "holding a steady hand". The fact is that just about anything that is handheld and exerts enough force to kill someone is going to require both strength and dexterity to control. Humanity might not have invented a pure "finesse" weapon until we first started arming aircraft.

 

[Horwath]

Finesse should come with damage penalty by one die step.

Versatile property is virtually worthless and can be free on any non-light, non-finesse weapons(I.E. longsword)

so,

Rapier, 1d8 damage, finesse.

Longsword, 1d10 damage, versatile 1d12.