D&D 5E The best solution for longswords

[BookBarbarian]

Not in my world. A broadsword is slashing, a rapier is piercing, a longsword is both. But then, I may be too old school sometimes for 5E.



I do not allow two-handed fighting with a longsword unless it is specifically made with enough room on the grip to fit two hands. And at that point, to me, it is now a bastard sword, even if the blade length does not meet the traditional minimum.

The 5e definition of a Longsword is literally able to be wielded in one or two hands. The Bastard Sword (as a game mechanic by that name) does not exist in 5e.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The 5e definition of a Longsword is literally able to be wielded in one or two hands. The Bastard Sword does not exist in 5e.

And they probably pissed a lot of people off by saying the Katana is a Longsword in 5e. A very vocal minority gets angry about something like that...

 

[BookBarbarian]

And they probably pissed a lot of people off by saying the Katana is a Longsword in 5e. A very vocal minority gets angry about something like that...

Indeed. People do seem to get very attached to their labels for concepts translated into game mechanics.

Not me of course...

 

[Bradley Hindman]

I would have thought the broken thing about longswords is that they suck when used two-handed compared to one-handed when using the appropriate fighting style. And there is no use for a rogue to be proficient in them (rogues don't have proficiency in rapiers, so a rapier/longsword comparison doesn't really apply).

I've seen versatile usage come up frequently in my games. Usually this occurs, when a fight breaks out that the PCs weren't expecting. The action required to hoist a shield is sometimes seen as too onerous in the middle of a fight. Thus, the characters who usually use a longsword and shield will sometimes opt to use their sword two-handed.

 

[Shiroiken]

Through this thread I am discovering that I do have a problem with versatile that I didn't even know I had.

Versatile once combined with a fighting style seems the same as a non-versatile 1-H weapon of the same damage and worse than a non-versatile 2-H weapon. So I'd disagree and say that a longsword is not better than a flail.

Now there maybe some interesting edge cases around spell casting and grappling, as others are beginning to point out, and if those are somehow emphasized, versatile may have more value than a non-versatile weapon, but otherwise versatile is the same or worse.

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. Thus a quarterstaff is better than a mace, and a warhammer is better than a flail (to keep our damage types equal), even if the benefit is marginal.

Ignoring that for the moment, the problem you have with the longsword is either one of two things: versatile isn't that good, or "longsword isn't teh awesome it should be" (i.e. the same nonsense you hear from katana fanboys). While I can agree with the former (a fighting style designed for it would be best, IMO), I just can't get behind the idea of "fixing" the longsword to make it the best weapon.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Just because someone is dextrous, it doesn't mean that every weapon they pick up is finesse. Most acrobats would have a pretty good Str in 5e D&D terms as well as Dex.

I've offered this to my players, but no one has taken it yet...

Strongarm Fighter
Prerequisite: Strength 13 or higher
You can make powerful blows with a large one-handed weapon.
- Increase your Strength score by 1 to a maximum of 20
- When attacking with a versatile weapon held in one hand, roll damage as if you were wielding the weapon with two hands.

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

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.

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.

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.

That's what I mean by suboptimal.

Firstly, flavour is a thing. Not everything in the race or classes is that way for pure optimisation through games-mechanics.

Personally, I flat-out removed the Finesse requirement for Sneak Attack.

Regarding Elves getting Longsword proficiency, I can think of several reasons:
1) It is traditional. Rapiers are a rather recent innovation, and most elven adults were training with their racial weapons well before the rapier even existed as a common weapon. Thus they train their children in the longsword as part of their upbringing and so on.
2) Unlike the rapier, it is a military weapon, and elves are trained in traditional weapons so that they can form militia to fight should they need to. Elven professional soldiers do tend to be more graceful than those of other races, but they probably still emphasise Str over Dex since requirements such as carrying their kit, overcoming obstacles, and holding a battle-line against a push are Str-based.
and of course 3) as a meta-example: Elves are proficient in Longsword because they have been able to use longswords since well before 5e-power finesse was a thing.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Just because someone is dextrous, it doesn't mean that every weapon they pick up is finesse. Most acrobats would have a pretty good Str in 5e D&D terms as well as Dex.

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


Firstly, flavour is a thing. Not everything in the race or classes is that way for pure optimisation through games-mechanics.

Personally, I flat-out removed the Finesse requirement for Sneak Attack.

Regarding Elves getting Longsword proficiency, I can think of several reasons:
1) It is traditional. Rapiers are a rather recent innovation, and most elven adults were training with their racial weapons well before the rapier even existed as a common weapon. Thus they train their children in the longsword as part of their upbringing and so on.
2) Unlike the rapier, it is a military weapon, and elves are trained in traditional weapons so that they can form militia to fight should they need to. Elven professional soldiers do tend to be more graceful than those of other races, but they probably still emphasise Str over Dex since requirements such as carrying their kit, overcoming obstacles, and holding a battle-line against a push are Str-based.
and of course 3) as a meta-example: Elves are proficient in Longsword because they have been able to use longswords since well before 5e-power finesse was a thing.

I have always thought it interesting that just because elves get a plus 2 to Dex that, seemingly, a lot of people assume every one of them would have a Dex score higher that their Strength score.

It just a starting bonus, and +2 Dex bonus is nice to have on quite a few Strength builds.

 

[Mistwell]

In past editions, longswords were a strong, iconic weapon choice for many races and classes. In 5e longswords have sub-optimal weapon stats but maintain some strange vestigial niches. Elves and rogues are automatically proficient in longswords despite longswords being an especially poor weapon choice for dext-based characters and can't be used for sneak attacks. Longswords remain popular magic items (sword of answering, sunsword, moonsword, pictures of swords in DMG, popularity of longswords in published modules).

What's the best way to fix this?

Not sure where you are getting this. 1) Still one handed, so allow use of shield, which is more important in this edition than almost any other because AC doesn't easily increase; 2) Still the most prominent magic weapon in the game, which is more important in this edition because of the number of monsters resistant to non-magic damage.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

The 5e definition of a Longsword is literally able to be wielded in one or two hands. The Bastard Sword (as a game mechanic by that name) does not exist in 5e.

And this is part of the overall issue I have had with the 5E simplification (dumbing down) of D&D rules. Sure, there was a lot of crap from 3rd and 4th that had to go, but some changes/omissions make me have to houserule back in some things to make more sense.

 

[BookBarbarian]

And this is part of the overall issue I have had with the 5E simplification (dumbing down) of D&D rules. Sure, there was a lot of crap from 3rd and 4th that had to go, but some changes/omissions make me have to houserule back in some things to make more sense.

To me it's a non issue. Bastard Sword is a dubious term in real life, and Longsword as a real life term is very separated from how it was defined in older editions.

If anything I think they didn't go far enough in changing the terms in this edition.