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

[Eric V]

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?

It had +3 prof bonus, yes. Other weapons had the brutal quality, high crit quality, or something else to differentiate them.

Both 3e and 4e did a better job than 5e for differentiating weapons and still making them (reasonably) close to each other in efficiency. I really don't understand why 5e took a step back. :/

 

[Johris]

Coming from a 2E/3E perspective, I think that the "Longsword" was the most common one handed 1d8 weapon. Most fighters were strength based and thus used the default longsword as their one handed weapon. If they wanted more damage, they would use the "Bastard Sword" and have the flexibility of one or two handed use.

In 5E, both STR & DEX are equally viable, which i think leads to a re-imagining of what the "Most Common" swords are intended to be.

I come to the conclusion that the "Scimitar" and "Short Sword" are now the "Most Common" swords available for use. I loosely use the term "scimitar" as meaning any one handed slashing sword and I use Short sword any any one handed piercing sword. Though at my table if a player wanted to use a scimitar as a piercing or a short sword as a slashing, i would let them.

the long sword then, has taken the place of the older editions "Bastard Sword", still the go to strength based sword, but not the most prevalent.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Both 3e and 4e did a better job than 5e for differentiating weapons and still making them (reasonably) close to each other in efficiency. I really don't understand why 5e took a step back. :/

In my experience, the +3 bonus was just flat-out better than brutal or high crit or any other quality. Whenever you differentiate two things, you make one better than the other. By making these three weapons (nearly) identical, it allows you to use whichever one you prefer without suffering the mechanical penalties of being stuck with brutal (or high crit or x3) instead of +1 to hit (or crit 19-20).

If they were different, you wouldn't be free to choose your preference, unless you were doing it purely for RP value and didn't care whether you lived or died.

 

[Eric V]

In my experience, the +3 bonus was just flat-out better than brutal or high crit or any other quality. Whenever you differentiate two things, you make one better than the other. By making these three weapons (nearly) identical, it allows you to use whichever one you prefer without suffering the mechanical penalties of being stuck with brutal (or high crit or x3) instead of +1 to hit (or crit 19-20).

If they were different, you wouldn't be free to choose your preference, unless you were doing it purely for RP value and didn't care whether you lived or died.

Eh, maybe at your table everyone chose longsword.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Eh, maybe at your table everyone chose longsword.

I chose the triple-headed flail, because I've always wanted to use a flail, but this was the first edition where doing so wouldn't have increased my chance of dying.

 

[Sacrosanct]

. I really don't understand why 5e took a step back. :/

My guess is because 5e is going back to a more simpler system. Judging by the feedback, that's what most people wanted, so I wouldn't consider it a step back any more than I'd consider Coke taking a step back when they went back to Coke Classic.

 

[mlund]

So you do not have full plate at all?

Not since I stopped playing AD&D and Unearthed Arcana, anyway.

And even before firearms and plate people had mail of various types.

They "had mail." They did not have lion's share of their manpower in mail hauberk's to the knee with mail coifs. Those were awfully expensive to create and maintain and thus were reserved to the nobility / officers / elites. Chain or scale vests or shirts? Sure, give them to as many vanguard and heavy infantry as you can. Leather for everyone else who didn't make the cut - if they got any formal armor at all. Those had been around since the Classical Era in one form or another. Heck the Romans even had the Lorica Segmentum which is basically proto-plate technology. The thing is they still had exposed arms, legs, and necks and that's how they suffered most of their fatal slashing and piercing injuries.

Armor was never that rare on the battlefield, at least not in the time frames D&D places itself in.

Of course it wasn't rare. The issue is that armies in the medieval period were comprised almost entirely of levies who couldn't be supplied with the high-grade equipment that was effectively immune to slashing and piercing damage from hand-weapons (like head-to-toe chain mail). They were the ones that died in droves to arrows too while the armor and horses of nobles contributed to a much lower rate of pincushion deaths.

On top of that, did you (the medieval warrior / leader caste) really -want- the peasantry to be hard to kill on an individual basis? The nobles practically went apoplectic when the advance crossbows allowed any half-wit dairy farmer to ruin a suit of armor worth more than his entire village AND kill someone of actual social standing.

The movement toward cheap armor, cannons, and point-and-shoot weaponry that could trump armor comes in parallel to the decline of the feudal military system and the rise of permanent national armies that served the crown directly.

- Marty Lund

 

[Grainger]

To me that brings longswords in line with how it was used in medieval times. Maces and battleaxes were often preferred in battle.

That depends on the defensive technology, though, and the situation. A mace or hammer would be better if you're expecting to fight enemies in plate armour. A sword if you're more likely to come up against unarmoured enemies (e.g. carrying it for personal protection, rather than into battle).

Edit: oops, I see this has already been answered upthread. What I'd add, though, is that D&D has never handled this realistically - maces don't do more damage against heavily armoured foes (or swords less damage). This means that "how it was used in medieval times" goes out the window really - D&D doesn't mesh with the reality of how weapons were used (another example would be widespread use of chain and plate armour at the same time).

 

[Eric V]

I chose the triple-headed flail, because I've always wanted to use a flail, but this was the first edition where doing so wouldn't have increased my chance of dying.

Really? To an appreciable degree?

Wow.

 

[Derren]

Not since I stopped playing AD&D and Unearthed Arcana, anyway.

More power to you, but in default D&D plate exists and indicates a late middle age level of development. And during those times armies were not a noble with hordes of hastily conscripted villagers but professional mercenaries and full time men at arms.