D&D 5E The best solution for longswords

[DEFCON 1]

So if I'm using a "baseball bat" two-handed in your world it would be a simple blunt weapon (versatile).... I'm assuming a d8 (like a quarterstaff)?

Pretty much, although the way we'd think about it would be mechanics first and then naming it second. So if someone was proficient in Simple weapons or quarterstaves, they could select a 1d6 Simple bludgeoning weapon (versatile 1d8) and call it a 'baseball bat'. Or a 'greatclub'. Or a 'tree branch'. Or whatever. And we actually don't even distinguish between the three weapon types either (since for instance the weapons chart does currently list any piercing or slashing 1d6 (versatile 1d8) weapons.

Simple melee weapons are normally 1d6. If they are also Light, Thrown, or Finesse they are 1d4. If they are Versatile they can go up to 1d8 but can't have any of the other three properties. I don't bother with the 'greatclub' category of strictly a 1d8 two-handed weapon because it's pointless.

Martial melee weapons are normally 1d8, Finesse *or* Versatile (1d10). If they are Light they are 1d6. If they are two-handed they are 1d12 regularly, 1d10 if they have Reach. (As a special dispensation, if a player wants to do two-weapon fighting, I will allow them to fight with weapons that are 1d8 main / 1d4 off, rather than 1d6/1d6 even though the main hand weapon technically isn't Light. But as I like the fencing sword / main gauche combo aesthetically, I don't worry about it.

Once the player has chosen what category of weapon they are going with... they can fluff it out however they would like and then I'll assign what category (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) it applies to.

 

[jasper]

It still leaves me wondering why elves and rogues are training in longswords, seems like a waste of time, especially for rogues.

...

Elvis the Elf Rogue, "ARE YOU QUESTIONING MY TRAINING METHODS YOU HOBBIT. DROP AND GIVE ME 50. MY FATHER TAUGHT ME LONGSWORD. MY FATHER'S FATHER TAUGHT HIM LONGSWORD. MY FATHER'S FATHER FATHER TAUGHT HIM LONGSWORD. NOW YOU TRYING TO FINESSE YOU WAY OUT OF ARRRRRMMMY TRAINING. RECOVER!"

 

[snickersnax]

Once the player has chosen what category of weapon they are going with... they can fluff it out however they would like and then I'll assign what category (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) it applies to.

So how would a 1-H reach finesse weapon stat out?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I probably wouldn't either. Not that it isn't good, it just isn't Versatile to me.

I would prefer a feat with a good reason to wield a Versatile weapon in one hand and also in two hands.

The only reason I would worry about Versatile weapons would be if I made 'handedness' with regards to spellcasting an important thing for a particular campaign, and I would change/remove the rule that states you can cast spells while holding a Two-Handed weapon. In other words... only non-casters could use the 1d12 two-handers because you can't let go of them and do something else with your off-hand (like cast a spell). Casters would have to use Versatile weapons (1d8 / 1d10 when wielded two-handed) in order to let go of their weapons to also cast spells when they wanted.

Thus far though, I haven't bothered with that rule because it really hasn't come up yet.

 

[77IM]

While we're at it, can we also make some more stuff finesse weapons? Club is only d4 and a finesse version could be a baton, or even a sap. Staff is a classic mage weapon, but most spellcasters get a lot more benefit from Dexterity than Strength, and the image of a dextrous acrobat spinning a staff around is iconic in fantasy. Making spears Dex-based would be pretty cool, too.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So how would a 1-H reach finesse weapon stat out?

Heh... it wouldn't. Reach weapons are two-handed-- 1-H reach weapons don't exist. If you want to attack someone 10' away one-handed... throw a javelin. LOL!

 

[BookBarbarian]

The only reason I would worry about Versatile weapons would be if I made 'handedness' with regards to spellcasting an important thing for a particular campaign, and I would change/remove the rule that states you can cast spells while holding a Two-Handed weapon. In other words... only non-casters could use the 1d12 two-handers because you can't let go of them and do something else with your off-hand (like cast a spell). Casters would have to use Versatile weapons (1d8 / 1d10 when wielded two-handed) in order to let go of their weapons to also cast spells when they wanted.

Thus far though, I haven't bothered with that rule because it really hasn't come up yet.

Yeah I think the Versatile Weapon took a bit of a hit with the Two-Handers and casting ruling, but it did seem to buff gishes so i didn't really mind it.

To me the only concept that really wants to use a Versatile Weapon in one and two-hands right now its the Grappler, in one hand while grappling, and in two when not. And even then it probably can work drawing a Two-Hander when not wanting to grapple.

I'd love to explore the concept further, but the way I'd personal want to do it would step all over the toes of the Tavern Brawler feat.

 

[Shiroiken]

The longsword is fine, or at least as fine as every other versatile weapon is. It's still better than the martial 1d8 weapons that lack the versatile property, like the flail. If you have a problem with versatile weapons, then you need to find a way to make the property more useful. A fighting style would be best IMO, but a feat would work too.

If you feel finesse is the problem, then enforce carrying capacity. If you really want to make strength weapons more viable, use the optional encumbrance rules. Dex based characters won't be able to toilet strength, at least if they want to carry loot and/or avoid penalties.

 

[snickersnax]

Heh... it wouldn't. Reach weapons are two-handed-- 1-H reach weapons don't exist. If you want to attack someone 10' away one-handed... throw a javelin. LOL!

Well, I was thinking about a whip. You removed those?

 

[Pauper]

In past editions, longswords were a strong, iconic weapon choice for many races and classes....

What's the best way to fix this?

Don't try to recreate your favorite Third Edition elf rogue in 5E? Count me in with those who thought the longsword has always been 'too good' of a weapon choice.

Seriously, though, based on the thread, it doesn't sound like your real issue is with the stats for the longsword, but with the definition of Sneak Attack -- the real problem is that there's already not a whole lot of design wiggle-room in that area of the weapon chart:

Shortsword - 1d6 piercing (finesse, light)
Rapier - 1d8 piercing (finesse)
Longsword - 1d8 slashing (versatile)

If you give the longsword finesse so that it can be used with Sneak Attack, then you've basically removed the point (pun not intended) of having the rapier at a d8 damage, since the only difference is damage type, which is irrelevant in many cases (fighting certain oozes is the only thing that comes immediately to mind). But if you try to drop the rapier to a d6 damage, then it's clearly inferior to the shortsword, which both does the same damage and is a light weapon as well.

Let's not even get into the thought that, if you don't remove versatile when you add finesse, you now have a Sneak Attack capable weapon with a base d10 damage, which is pretty clearly pushing the envelope. (Rogues don't get shield proficiency, and you can only use Sneak Attack once per turn, so there's no reason not to go with the biggest damage die you can find if you're not two-weapon fighting to try to guarantee a hit each round.)

As noted earlier in the thread, the longsword in 5e basically fills the role that the bastard sword had in previous editions, so don't think of the longsword in 5e the same way you thought of it in earlier editions. Problem solved.

--
Pauper