D&D 5E Longswords

[Tony Vargas]

It also speaks to a larger problem with Finesse... what exactly is the trade-off?

There really isn't one, and I think that's something 5e has gotten 'right.' Remember the convolutions past editions did trying to make light/DEX fighter concepts work, at all? How many Duelists and Swashbucklers (and demands for same) have we seen over the decades? Now, in 5e, you want to play D'Artagnan, you just put a high score in DEX and pick up a rapier.

Sure, DEX is das uberstat, again, as a result. But the margin isn't huge, and the DM can always tweak and tune balance w/in his party if there's a STR guy that's languishing. Or, of course, remove or tweak stats of finesse weapons.

Going back to the 3.5 finesse feat style rule that DEX can add to hit, but not melee damage, would be a more extreme mechanical 'fix' if you really wanted to disfavor the option (rather than remove it entirely) to get back a more medieval feel.

Oh, you could also restore the medieval feel by replacing the Rapier with the more period-appropriate, if obscure to modern readers, Estoc or Tuck.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Since this is (as far as I can see) identical with Cubicle 7's solution (they named the Sabre "broadsword), I'll ask you too:

What does this accomplish?

I understand it removes rapiers from the picture, but can that be all? The mechanics of a finesse slashing weapon are to me indistinguishable from a finesse piercing weapon.

Can it really be only to remove the mental "musketeer" picture?

Well, in a bronze-age game, where the rapier or anything like it is unknown, it gives rogues and dex-based characters a better weapon than a shortsword. The slashing/piercing mechanics being indistinguishable is why I feel comfortable doing it; there are no monsters (to my knowledge) that have resistance to slashing but not piercing or vice versa.

And in some cases, again such as mine, removing the mental "musketeer" picture is largely the goal. I just don't like making unilateral decisions that penalize some classes but not others. It's only a single point of damage difference on average, and I'm frankly still miffed that the scimitar was downgraded damagewise from its pre-WotC days anyway. I suppose I could have bumped up the damage of the scimitar, but since a lot of my NPCs and monsters use scimitars as weapons it seemed like more brainspace than I wanted to allocate.

 

[Yunru]

Clone the Raiper, make it slashing, call it a Katana. You'll never see another Rapier

 

[DJCupboard]

How about changing Elven Weapon Proficiency racial ability to give elves finesse when wielding a long sword. That puts it back as a viable Elf weapon, synergizing with their strengths better. Humans are going to split between LS and rapier pretty evenly, based on the builds anyway, as they don't inherently favor one stat over the other. This is probably the least intrusive way of handling the issue.

Edited for spelling :-(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jayoungr]

This thread from last year may also be relevant:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?406679-The-fall-from-grace-of-the-longsword

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There really isn't one, and I think that's something 5e has gotten 'right.' Remember the convolutions past editions did trying to make light/DEX fighter concepts work, at all? How many Duelists and Swashbucklers (and demands for same) have we seen over the decades? Now, in 5e, you want to play D'Artagnan, you just put a high score in DEX and pick up a rapier.

Sure, DEX is das uberstat, again, as a result. But the margin isn't huge, and the DM can always tweak and tune balance w/in his party if there's a STR guy that's languishing. Or, of course, remove or tweak stats of finesse weapons.

I like the insight here, but want to point out that there actually is a tradeoff between Dex fightering and Str fighting. A relatively minor issue is that Str fighters tend to have higher AC, absent magical support. E.g. AC 18 for plate armor, but only AC 17 for studded leather + maxed Dex.

More significant though is that Str-based fighters have more options for physical control of enemies, which makes them better tanks. A dexterous guy can slash you in the face with his rapier, and threaten to stab you in the back if you ignore him... but a Str-based brute can grab you by the throat, grind your face into the ground, and commence beating you to death at advantage with his battleaxe while you weakly try to stab him back at disadvantage. The latter if obviously vastly more effective at keeping someone from attacking the squishies.

 

[hejtmane]

Well, in a bronze-age game, where the rapier or anything like it is unknown, it gives rogues and dex-based characters a better weapon than a shortsword. The slashing/piercing mechanics being indistinguishable is why I feel comfortable doing it; there are no monsters (to my knowledge) that have resistance to slashing but not piercing or vice versa.

And in some cases, again such as mine, removing the mental "musketeer" picture is largely the goal. I just don't like making unilateral decisions that penalize some classes but not others. It's only a single point of damage difference on average, and I'm frankly still miffed that the scimitar was downgraded damagewise from its pre-WotC days anyway. I suppose I could have bumped up the damage of the scimitar, but since a lot of my NPCs and monsters use scimitars as weapons it seemed like more brainspace than I wanted to allocate.

Watch this video part of the 1565 discussion of sword fighting (medieval) the Rapier being used is a beast not your musketeer stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81vorq4E5CE

 

[Zardnaar]

Hence why I create my own magical weapons why do all the swords have to be long swords or two handed etc why can there not be maces of frost brand or acid etc that is the real issue D&D magic table is garbage has been since the 1e days (yes I said it)and is favor towards swords period. I liek it when people play concepts espciaily ones that are not necessarily the best way to go like mace so as a DM let's have some fun and embrace this concept all the way.

Its because D&D drew heavily on European myth and legends.

Think King Arthur and co and it crew out of medieval wargaming and a sword is an arch typical Knights weapon.

3E you had acidic maces etc and you had things like Maces of Smiting. The sword has a mystique around it as well that other weapons lack often for cultural and religious reasons- scimitar, longsword (cross with hilt), and Katanas come to mind. Swords are often associated with nobility as they could afford them while the peasants used things like spears and axes.

Popular culture you do not see immortals using maces as there can be only one.

 

[hejtmane]

Its because D&D drew heavily on European myth and legends.

Think King Arthur and co and it crew out of medieval wargaming and a sword is an arch typical Knights weapon.

3E you had acidic maces etc and you had things like Maces of Smiting. The sword has a mystique around it as well that other weapons lack often for cultural and religious reasons- scimitar, longsword (cross with hilt), and Katanas come to mind. Swords are often associated with nobility as they could afford them while the peasants used things like spears and axes.

Popular culture you do not see immortals using maces as there can be only one.

I totally get why it occurs and I did not play 3.0 but from my 1E and D&D days there are more non sword weapons than before but it is still lacking why I create my own magic items sometimes. I do use some of the standard ones and I use the DM guide for my basis when I build.

I can not talk I am a sword guy so trust me I am a bad example when I play sometimes

 

[BookBarbarian]

I like the insight here, but want to point out that there actually is a tradeoff between Dex fightering and Str fighting. A relatively minor issue is that Str fighters tend to have higher AC, absent magical support. E.g. AC 18 for plate armor, but only AC 17 for studded leather + maxed Dex.

More significant though is that Str-based fighters have more options for physical control of enemies, which makes them better tanks. A dexterous guy can slash you in the face with his rapier, and threaten to stab you in the back if you ignore him... but a Str-based brute can grab you by the throat, grind your face into the ground, and commence beating you to death at advantage with his battleaxe while you weakly try to stab him back at disadvantage. The latter if obviously vastly more effective at keeping someone from attacking the squishies.

I like that Strength helps with grappling and shoving. It's also one of the best ways to deal more melee damage. Either with reactions and bonus actions via Polearm Master or with per hit and the occasional bonus action with GWM. I would use a Longsword all day if Versatile weapons had feats equivalent to heavy weapons.