D&D 5E The fall from grace of the longsword

[Derren]

The longsword isn't an inferior weapon, though; it's as effective (in the abstract) as a battle axe or warhammer.

No, it isn't. Or rather, it is when you are fighting unarmored peasants. But when fighting more heavily armed foes (anyone with metal armor) it is inferior. Or in D&D terms, other one haded weapons do the same damage but also have special abilities or are lighter. In both cases on the battlefield people would choose other weapons over the longsword when given the choice.

 

[mlund]

Even nobility was sensible enough to use battlefield weapons on the battlefied, which often, if not mostly, included other weapons than swords and of course would strengthen them with magic and not ceremonial swords.

Eh, it's pretty dubious unless said noble was employed in an army as a specialist combatant. The sword is great for killing the bulk of enemy troops. It's your best bet as a side-arm when you encounter violence off the formal battlefield (bandits, cut-throats, uppity peasants). It's steel throughout so it doesn't break like a lance or a spear. You don't typically have to discard it in a melee due to embedding in someone's shield/sternum like you might an ax. It doesn't leave you open/overbalanced when attacking in a melee either like those heavier variants of the ax, mace, or hammer that you'd need to bring down people in heavy armor. Unless you were a carrier specialist (archer, piker, etc.) if you had to pick one weapon to have an enchantment on in your lifetime, you'd want it to be your sword (or maybe your dagger).

- Marty Lund

 

[Derren]

The sword is great for killing the bulk of enemy troops.

That heavily depends who and when you are fighting. Field plate wasn't that uncommon after a certain point in time.
And most other things are not modeled in D&D. There the sword is simply at a disadvantage and it does not make sense that it would be used and enchanted more often than better one handed weapons.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No, it isn't. Or rather, it is when you are fighting unarmored peasants. But when fighting more heavily armed foes (anyone with metal armor) it is inferior. Or in D&D terms, other one haded weapons do the same damage but also have special abilities or are lighter. In both cases on the battlefield people would choose other weapons over the longsword when given the choice.

The longsword does the same damage, and is lighter than, the battle axe. The warhammer deals bludgeoning damage rather than slashing, which is some sort of consideration, and is at least as meaningful as the weight difference.

In this case, we're hampered by the armor system behaving unrealistically, which prevents direct comparison between the behavior of nobility in the real world and the behavior of nobility in a magic world. It's a simple brute fact of D&D world that the longsword is exactly as effective against plate armor as a battle axe or warhammer would be. The D&D noble can't take that real-world difference into consideration when deciding which weapon to have enchanted, because it doesn't apply.

If you introduce a magical warhammer into your game, and explain how it was selected for enchantment because warhammers are more effective than longswords against heavy armor, then your players will give you funny looks.

 

[bganon]

If you introduce a magical warhammer into your game, and explain how it was selected for enchantment because warhammers are more effective than longswords against heavy armor, then your players will give you funny looks.

Really? I wouldn't find this weird as a player, and I don't think I'd think twice about doing this as a DM. I'm quite content if not every bit of fluff necessarily has mechanical representation in the game. Specifically, I'm OK with warhammers being described as "more effective" against plate armor even if they have the same combat stats, because those combat stats really only directly apply to PCs; just because the Fighter/Barbarian/whatever can use both equally effectively doesn't mean everyone else in the game world can.

Anyway, to stay more on topic, I think of the popularity of longswords as partly intimidation factor. I mean, yeah, battleaxes are pretty scary, but every farmer has an axe somewhere for chopping wood, anyone who hunts game has a bow and perhaps a spear, and hammer/maces are also adapted from tools. But swords? Swords are for killing, and specifically killing people (or humanoids in fantasy settings). Someone who carries a sword is making a statement that they may need to kill at a moment's notice.

 

[Joe Liker]

Obviously, the physical shape and cultural resonance of the longsword make it the easiest weapon to enchant. Magic is an art, not a science, and the rules and reasons behind things are not always completely logical.

 

[evilbob]

In 5th edition, the choice to use a longsword is purely aesthetic.

Yay?

Sorry, but I really like the decision to remove any obvious weapon choice for mechanical reasons. I feel like it frees up the character to use whatever you want, as opposed to the obvious "best."

A while back I started letting people sub the "best" quality weapon for whatever else they wanted it to be; so like a great axe that used 2d6 instead of 1d12 (unless they wanted the 1d12, of course). So this feels pretty natural to me.

 

[mlund]

That heavily depends who and when you are fighting.

Yes. If you are only ever going to fight other rich people on a formal battlefield and the other 95% of troops on the army aren't going to come within a stone's throw of you that's fine. However, thought it may sound cynical the primary killing duties of the rich noble on the battlefield involved killing the opposing peasantry.

Field plate wasn't that uncommon after a certain point in time.

"Reduced plate" armor really only became more widely produced in the 16th century. At that point the advanced crossbows, black-powder firearms, and cannons were on the scene and started making the point moot. We're at the beginning of the end of personal armor, first bulking up to stop the arquebus and then falling away as the superior penetration of the musket and improved cannon accuracy. It would segwayd directly into the 17th century model of the smallsword, pistol, musket, bayonet, and petard.

I generally peg my D&D into pre-black-powder periods, but that's just my tastes.

And most other things are not modeled in D&D.

Yes. Discarding / breaking your weapons isn't fun so the game hand-waves stuff like that. Swords cut chain, spears and lances don't break, and axes don't get stuck in anything that isn't a Baaz Draconian. If D&D weapon performance vs. armor is accepted as natural in the game world then the superior penetrating power of the ax and hammer are moot anyway. The sword is basically -never- the wrong weapon for the job like it would be on the real-world battlefield.

Sword, ax, or hammer - whether you want to wield or enchant one or the other would be purely a cultural or aesthetic decision.

- Marty Lund

 

[Derren]

I generally peg my D&D into pre-black-powder periods, but that's just my tastes.

So you do not have full plate at all?
And even before firearms and plate people had mail of various types. Armor was never that rare on the battlefield, at least not in the time frames D&D places itself in.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Personally I think the D&D5 weapon list needs to be rebalanced across the board. D&D4 did a much better job of making every weapon a viable option.

I didn't play 4E from very long, but wasn't Longsword on the short list of weapons that had +3 to hit, and thus better than pretty much everything else?