D&D 5E Longswords

[Arial Black]

The new 5E Middle-Earth book has a different solution, predicated on the design philosophy of trying to maintain the feel of Tolkien's world by only allowing those weapons (and armour types) that were described in his works.

So there is no plate armour, there are no greatswords, and there are no rapiers (among other absences).

In their places are armour types like chainmail corslets and scale hauberks, greatspears (two-handed, 1d12) and-more relevantly-broadswords.

Their broadsword is mechanically identical to the 5E rapier, but slashing instead of piercing.

Although I wouldn't like 5E weapons imported into Middle-Earth, I'd be happy to accept ME armour and weapons into the 5E PHB. Maybe half those PCs who now use rapiers would have chosen this broadsword instead, had they had the choice.

Another reason for the lack of elvish longsworders is the prevalence of point-buy; it's really not a wise decision for a PC of any race to emphasise Str if that race doesn't give a bonus to Str when it does give a bonus to Dex, and vice-versa with Dex and Str based races like orcs and dragonborn. If you randomly roll stats, you may well roll a Str that is at least two points higher than the Dex roll. If I rolled 16 Str and 13 Dex, even if my elf makes my Dex 15, Str is still the way to go. Longswords would be more common then than with point-buy, where we would have to choose to attack with a stat of 15 over choosing to attack with a stat of 16-17.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So I'm considering making a change in my game that I think won't cause any real problems... but I wanted to throw it out there for opinion just in case I'm missing something that might screw things up that I don't realize. I'm considering removing the rapier from the game and instead adding the Finesse property to the longsword-- with possibly the extra rule that states you cannot use Finesse and Versatile properties together (so no 1d10 DEX weapon). But even that extra rule might not be necessary?

Are there any mechanical stumbling blocks or issues you can see by letting the longsword be a Finesse weapon (especially if I don't allow Finesse and Versatile to work together?) Thanks!

I don't foresee any issues with that. As you say, the rapier is like that already.

Now that you've got me thinking about it, I kind of want to fix the issue too, but I'd do it differently. I'd just bring back weapon damage that varies with the size of your target, pulled straight out of the 2nd edition PHB. So daggers will do only 1d3 against Large targets, but longswords will do d12, and greatswords will do 3d6. Rapiers can keep their d8 against Large targets, but they don't get the longsword bonus damage. Using size-variable damage nicely fixes a number of issues with the 5E weapon system, including justifying the use of melee weapons despite the mobility of 5E combat (because 3d6 greatsword damage is significantly more than 1d8 with a longbow, which especially matters if you don't have a high modifiers like a PC does) and reducing the relative appeal of GWM and Sharpshooter against large targets (because baseline damage will be higher, and a miss from -5 will cost you more of that damage).

Thanks for mentioning the topic.

 

[CapnZapp]

I've discovered in my several 5E campaigns thus far that the longsword has fallen quite a ways away in terms of popularity and use. Now the reasons to me are obvious: almost half of the melee weapon users in my games go DEX, which means rapiers become the defacto d8 weapon... and of the STR users, half of those go two-handed. Which means probably only 1/4th of my melee combatants use one-handed non-finesse weapons, and there are like a half dozen of those to choose from. So longswords are few and far between.

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.


19 November addendum:

Since I keep getting readers (and XP, thanks! ) for this post, let me make sure everybody understand I don't want to deny your character dex-based damage.

I just want the baseline to be strength-based damage.

I am perfectly okay with specific builds to say things like "you can add your Dexterity bonus to damage rolls instead of Strength for finesse weapons". This might be appropriate for rogues, swashbucklers, or sharpshooters, what do I know.

It's just not appropriate for the basic fighter, since it is the core cause of outclassed longswords.

 

[Horwath]

Figuring I train with them ona regular basis I would disagree the Katana is a precision weapon and the strikes and techniques for Iadio and other Japanese art is all about precision of the strike and not power. That is just my personal training

All strikes in sword fighting are about precision and control of the swing. "power attack" more or less exist only in D&D

I trained for a few years in HEMA with 2handed swords of various size 125-150cm. When I wielded katana it just felt blade heavy. It doesn't have a good counterweight in pommel so it is very hard to use it one handed.

But, I don't want to turn this into HEMA vs Kendo, just saying in my personal experience katana is 2handed weapon that can be used one handed, barely.

 

[hejtmane]

I am not a big middle earth fan I will pass on that layout.


Now onto what I was going to say that is my biggest gripe about 5e was the weapon setup felt it was the most lacking part of the game from personal point of view and I love 5E but this is one area I was underwhelmed on was the weapons and armor. Do not get me wrong a big 5e fan but yea weapon layout not so great but hey i jus make house ruling ad move on. I do not participate in Adventure League and never will so I am not affected by these issue I just make a house ruling and call it a day (within reason)

 

[CapnZapp]

Their broadsword is mechanically identical to the 5E rapier, but slashing instead of piercing.

Maybe half those PCs who now use rapiers would have chosen this broadsword instead, had they had the choice.

Can I ask why only half?

If it is as you say, and the only difference is that the "ME Rapier" deals slashing and not piercing, why wouldn't close to all PCs use it?

(The difference between slashing, piercing and blunt isn't nothing in 5E, but it certainly isn't anything close to significant enough to make people change weapons...)

 

[Ganymede81]

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

This is one of the options I considered, but I worried that it was too much of a change.

Would this change shift finesse weapons from "very good" to "not worth it?"

 

[CapnZapp]

Most of these suggestions are good, but there's another possible approach. Rapiers gained popularity in an environment where your opponent wasn't wearing much armor. They're sub-optimal against heavily armored foes. You could rule that heavy armor (or natural armor above +5), gains resistance to rapiers (or all finesse weapons if you want to encourage people to carry multiple weapons).

It's not as simple as some of the other suggestions, but it does reflect some of the historical reasons for choosing a weapon.

Well, while resistance is certainly simple, it is also way too harsh.

Instead of reducing damage, you should make it harder to hit. Say a -2 penalty on everything with AC 16 or above.

(Phrasing intentional to offload the DM and make the player keep track of the penalty. Some DMs might prefer a rule that says monsters in heavy armor gain +2 AC vs finesse weapons.)

Personally, I'd just take away the 5E idea that Dex weapons deal Dex damage. This will automatically (albeit indirectly) lower either or both of the character's to hit and/or damage, and by much more appropriate (small) numbers than something huge like resistance (or disadvantage).

 

[Horwath]

Well, while resistance is certainly simple, it is also way too harsh.

Instead of reducing damage, you should make it harder to hit. Say a -2 penalty on everything with AC 16 or above.

(Phrasing intentional to offload the DM and make the player keep track of the penalty. Some DMs might prefer a rule that says monsters in heavy armor gain +2 AC vs finesse weapons.)

Personally, I'd just take away the 5E idea that Dex weapons deal Dex damage. This will automatically (albeit indirectly) lower either or both of the character's to hit and/or damage, and by much more appropriate (small) numbers than something huge like resistance (or disadvantage).

except that reality is completely opposite.

Full plate is near impenetrable unless aimed in gaps between plates.

And with what is easier? Thick heavy slashing 2hander or quick and nimble piercing blade.

But, if we put in mechanics of slash/pierce/blunt weapons to every armor category we would have 9 calculations of armor and that is drag and not in spirit of the game.

It's easier to bump up longsword by one die category and it will again skyrocket in usage.

 

[Zardnaar]

I more or less run adventures RAW and not very many magical rapiers if any and lots of magical longswords.

ANother reason is you can't sneak attack with longswords and a Rapier should have been a d6 weapon.

AFAIK there is only 1 way I know how to finesse a longsword in 5E as well.

Don't automatically gine the PCs the best magical equipment either. Hand out +2 chainmail for example or a +2 spear or magical short sword or dagger over a rapier or +2 or +3 leather over magical studded leather. I have defaulted to using a magical shortword over a non magical rapier and our rogue uses a +1 dagger over a non magical rapier.

Try and get the PCs away from using the "best" equipment all of the time.